patrick.net

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

They aren't Roman soldiers and weren't born in Italy by tradition, so...

It is the symbolism. They are statues. What is wrong with you. They stand for Roman Soldiers. The Square Mile fancies itself as the continuing manifestation of the Roman Empire.

Good grief. This is just so perfect as a representation of how blind, stubborn and stupid you are as represented in all your conspiracy guff. You posted links that pointedly state they aren't Roman soldiers. And yet here you are... Enough already.

bgamall4 says

Here is the Roman uniform:

http://gleeb-livinginengland.blogspot.com/2012/01/gog-magog-sculptures-and-walk.html

and here:

http://gleeb-livinginengland.blogspot.com/2012/01/gog-magog-sculptures-and-walk.html

Duh! What exactly do you think would be a potential reference point for someone who wanted to sculpt mythical giants back then? If you dress up as Albert Einstein, does that make you intelligent? It doesn't matter what you think they look like because they aren't bloody Roman soldiers as is clearly stated in every article about them (except, surprise, surprise, yours). You are just making a fool out of yourself now.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

It doesn't matter what you think they look like because they aren't bloody Roman soldiers

But it does matter what the Square Mile thinks of them. And that is where you are missing the point. The City of London, the Square Mile, boasts of the Roman Ruins within the City as well. They truly believe they are the heirs of the Roman Empire.

So it doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what the Lord Mayor and the 14 guys who are in charge of the Crown think.

Oh right, so your argument was:

a. They are Roman soldiers.
then
b. They look like Roman soldiers.
and finally
c. It doesn't matter what they are; it's what the square mile thinks of them.

Ha, bloody, ha.

And now because there are Roman ruins in that area that somehow means... (add your blather). There are Roman ruins all round the UK and Europe you plum.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

a. They are Roman soldiers.

then

b. They look like Roman soldiers.

and finally

c. It doesn't matter what they are; it's what the square mile thinks of them.

Jesus used the physical to teach of the spiritual. I was merely using the physical to teach about the symbolic. I don't see a sin in that.

And I have always maintained it is what the Square Mile thinks of itself that matters. Now, a literalist like you would say the Square Mile can't think. But then I would have to say I was talking about the leaders of the Square Mile.

Your literalism is a sickness. Surely you can find some medicine for it. :)

There is no cure for your conspiracist nonsense.

You make assertion after assertion to back up your leaps of fancy. Then when someone points out that your facts are wrong, you initially deny, deny, deny. Then you start changing your story. And now we have this post. You were wrong, but then when someone argues that the City of London is trying to recreate the Roman empire because, amongst other things, it has two statues that are supposedly Roman soldiers (wrong) and that there are Roman ruins there (incredible!), then they are clearly not firing on all brain cells.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

There is no cure for your conspiracist nonsense.

The Lord Mayor admits to the conspiracy and here is his account:

The Lord Mayor's account of Gog and Magog says that the Roman Emperor Diocletian had thirty-three wicked daughters. He found thirty-three husbands for them to curb their wicked ways; they chafed at this, and under the leadership of the eldest sister, Alba, they murdered their husbands. For this crime they were set adrift at sea; they washed ashore on a windswept island, which they named "Albion"—after Alba. Here they coupled with demons and gave birth to a race of giants, whose descendants included Gog and Magog.[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog

Is that supposed to be a joke? Exactly what conspiracy did he admit to? The common explanation of the story of the two statues? A conspiracy indeed!

Bgamall goes to the fridge. There is no milk. It's a conspiracy!
Bgamall has a shave. The blade is blunt. It's a conspiracy!
Etc. etc.

You are bat shit crazy.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Exactly what conspiracy did he admit to?

He believes in a fairy tale whereby Gog and Magog are descended from demons and Roman women who are descended from the Roman Emperor!

He truly believes it and does not say it is myth. He truly believes that the Square Mile is being protected by the power of the Romans, by the giants wearing Roman soldier garb. The square mile can claim it is a continuance of the Roman Empire which, as Eusebius said, early Christians testified that God hated.

So God hated the Roman Empire above all others but the Square Mile and the British Empire is supposed to be the heir to that. It is, I maintain, the Heir to God's wrath as well.

He truly believes in it? He was recounting the story not bloody saying he believed in it you complete and utter dimwit. And now you're adding a bit of religious nonsense to the mix. How completely messed up are you?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

He truly believes in it? He was recounting the story not bloody saying he believed in it you complete and utter dimwit. And now you're adding a bit of religious nonsense to the mix. How completely messed up are you?

Make sure God doesn't strike you down for not listening to the truth about the Empire God hates.

Of course he believes the story. It gives legitimacy to the Square Mile. You come up with proof that the Lord Mayor doesn't believe the story and you will make your case.

But understand this, Bigsby, the purpose of the Square Mile is to drive up prices and oppress the poor. And God hates that oppression as the Bible says not many mighty or with means are called. So most Christians who are really called in election are not wealthy and are directly impacted by the Square Mile.

You are completely insane. So God will now strike me down because I don't fall for the completely moronic gibberish you spout on here? Let's just say I'm not going to lose any sleep.

And of course the Lord Mayor doesn't believe in its literalism. You are stating as a fact that he believes there was a race of giants that descended from the 33 daughters of Diocletian. I don't have to disprove your bloody assertion. You have to prove it. I'll be waiting.

And it's very good of you to tell us all what God thinks. Have a direct line, do you?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

. So God will now strike me down because I don't fall for the completely moronic gibberish you spout on here? Let's just say I'm not going to lose any sleep.

I never said he would. I just said He could.Bigsby says

Have a direct line, do you?

http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/p/new-covenant-theology-doctrine.html

I don't make a point of sharing these things on Patrick.net. But the alternative is militant Zionism and I view it as a false quasi religious political movement.

I'm an atheist. I'm not overly worried about what you think your God could do to me.

And the only alternative to your religious beliefs is militant Zionism, is it? How very strange you are.

Your conspiracy gibberish is bad enough. I really don't want to be confronted by your even more non-sensical religious guff.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Your conspiracy gibberish is bad enough. I really don't want to be confronted by your even more non-sensical religious guff.

You can't understand the dynamics of what is happening in the middle east any other way.

I'm afraid there's rather a lot more going on in the ME than just your take on zionism (though what this particular tangent has to do with what was being discussed I really don't know - you aren't trying to distract from your Roman soldiers nonsense, are you?). And really, for someone who doesn't even know what Qatar is, you are not exactly best placed to be discussing the highly complex political reality on the ground.

bgamall4 says

You are incorrect, Bigsby. This is what the middle east is all about.

Here is the Yinon Plan in PDF. Just scroll down with your mouse:

http://syria360.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east.pdf

Yes, yes, the ME is all about the Yinon plan because errr, ummm... and the City of London is the new Roman Empire because of a couple of statues and some ruins.

You are entirely divorced from reality.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Yes, yes, the ME is all about the Yinon plan because errr, ummm... and the City of London is the new Roman Empire because of a couple of statues and some ruins.

And there is a strong connection between the Square Mile and the Yinon Plan. Rothschild, Cheney and Murdoch are that tie through a company that stands to make millions in the Golan Heights if Syria is broken up.

Sigh.

The Professor says

What would you consider evidence that the official story is flawed?

Factual errors in the report, scientific errors in the report, something that you can point to as a mistake.

Heck, if you can even show me a poor inference or poorly though out deduction, I'd be surprised.

Anything besides--"it doesn't look right", or "it's never happened before". Those are not compelling arguments.

The Professor says

If you have not read the book-loads of evidence contrary to the official report have you even read the official report?

It's not up to me to support the findings, it's up to you to present evidence as to why you think it's faulty.

So, all you've got so far is that some witnesses reported hearing explosions while NIST says no blast sounds were recorded or reported by witnesses.

"It does not look right" is horseshit. You (or bga) don't know how it "should" look.

Please post the UL data.

Not releasing computer models is not evidence of anything.

the only way to know for sure is to build them back up and knock em down again, this time with lots of sensors....

The Professor says

It is obvious that there was no "pancake" or "pile driver" effect. The building was blown to pulverized concrete and human bone shards as it was detonated from the top down.

it's not saturday morning??

bgamall4 says

ThreeBays says

Not that I'm any kind of expert, but it just doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

WTC7, the one not hit by the plane, dropped from the bottom like a classic implosion. However, the towers dropped in a timed sequence to make it look like it was a pancake. But of course, a pancake is impossible because...

Perhaps the answer to 9/11 and to the current crisis has something to do with Gold backwardation.

http://www.fgmr.com/gold-backwardation-explained.html

www.kahudes.net

Karen Hudes used to work for World Bank (which she claims is corrupt).

If I understand things correctly - Gold Backwardation is when people become reluctant to exchange paper money for gold and she says it's happening now.

So if our friends (ie China and Russia etc)refuse to accept our paper and refuse to finance our debt - then who is left? The American People. And how does one get us to part with all of our money to finance all this crap ----- well it seems to me that a phony war will work - because then we have to be protected so therefore we must part with our money so that can happen.

I would guess that a war to protect us would be Washington's preference to telling us they're going to confiscate our funds. If Obama told us the latter - I'm guessing he would be history and so would Congress. So whose butts are they saving - theirs or ours?

The Professor says

We are now in our 12th year of "State of Emergency". Orwell would be
proud.

Well him and the f-ers that found a way to bypass the constitution and everything it prohibits and protects.

The Professor says

A denier does not have time to "sort through all your videos". When you
detail the evidence, they claim that the evidence is "not evidence". They treat
the official story as gospel.

Since the rest of your post talks about what "deniers" do, I'll take that as a no. You cannot simply lay out the mistakes in the commission's report.

That's the common theme in all the conspiracy nonsense. It's all innuendo, motive, etc. Never a compilation of evidence that backs a theory. Hell, I can't even get two of you to agree on what you think actually DID happen.

The Professor says

You won't look at the evidence.

I will. But I don't want to waste my time wading through 16 minute videos. What is so hard? Just write down 4-5 things that the commission has wrong and then provide evidence supporting your points.

If you can't do this, then you really need to re-evaluate why you think the commission is wrong.

Notice the bit where he says 'wall'? He's quite obviously talking about something else and/or is confused about what the questioner is referring to. But hey, we all know how desperately you grasp on to even the most tenuous of examples.

bgamall4 says

I think you are confused because of the lack of electrical connections in that little brain of yours, Bigs. Take the obvious interpretation of Kerry, and it is about WTC7 and is undeniable. He made a reference to a wall being in danger. That does not change the basis for his contention that the WTC7 was a controlled demolition. And we know, although Kerry tries to get around it by the wall reference, that you cannot arm a building for detonation that quickly. Therefore the detonation that he admits, had to be armed days and weeks before 9/11. Watch it again and weep for your stupidity

You are a conspiracy nut. You see nothing except what you want to see to confirm your own overwhelming bias. You are so wrong-headed and unthinking it defies belief. You spend your time pontificating on things you know little to nothing about and try to pass that off as fact. People just need to look at all that crap you spouted about the City of London to see what utter nonsense you are capable of peddling.
The only stupidity anyone needs to weep for is your blatant disregard for anything that actually equates to real evidence.
And just to be clear (as you seem to be confused as usual), it's your contention that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition not John Kerry's.

I have already. It's quite obvious that you are peddling your usual nonsense.

Because you can do that all by yourself.

Incredibly predictable.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Incredibly predictable.

Please post links to evidence pro and con. Argue facts and evidence with me. Convince the professor that the official story was correct. Or help me spread the call for truth.

Or put me on ignore. It really works.

Why should I put you on ignore? Your posts invariably give me a good laugh. And why don't you just stop recycling the same old cobblers so we don't have to keep seeing your same old nonsense repeated ad nausea?

bgamall4 says

The Professor says

Argue facts and evidence with me.

He can't. It isn't part of his pay grade.

Ah yes, bgamall, the man who literally does think that a couple of puffs of smoke is conclusive evidence of an enormous controlled demolition. Facts and evidence are clearly utterly irrelevant to you and your whackadoo conspiracy theories.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

the man who literally does think that a couple of puffs of smoke is conclusive evidence of an enormous controlled demolition.

What about the evidence of thermite in the dust? Even though there was numerous witnesses to explosions the official investigators never even tested for explosives.

What is your agenda bigsby?

My agenda? Er, perhaps not being so stupid as to believe that the sound of some randomly spaced explosions in massive buildings on fire is the same as a controlled demolition. How about that for starters?

Spot the differences between this and 9-11:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hdqWRHe4AKs

Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in. And take your tin foil hat off whilst you're at it.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in. And take your tin foil hat off whilst you're at it.

Attack the person when you can't rebut the evidence.

I would like someone to show me that I am wrong about the 3 Towers being blown up on 9/11 because I hate to think there is such evil in our government.

I posted a video of the demolition of a much smaller building than those of the WTC. What you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears were utterly different to 9-11 and yet you say what you say. There is no evidence that will convince you because you deny the obvious and replace it with the completely implausible. You clearly don't want anyone to show you you are wrong because you wouldn't post the nonsense that you do if you did.

The Professor says

And you consider that evidence that WTC7 was not blown up?

Obviously it is evidence. You are claiming those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I showed you a video of what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like on a MUCH SMALLER building. Show me the videos of the WTC collapse that are similar to that. You can't because there aren't any because it wasn't a controlled demolition.

It weakened the framework. Do you understand how that isn't the same as melted?
And unbelievable is someone claiming a controlled demolition occurred without having the controlled demolition that goes along with that.

hello,

I am a reasonable reputable and important white male.

I hereby proclaim you all nutbags of the highest order.

This ensures that no one ever calls me a nutbag, even if these theories turn out to be true. It's very safe, it's easy, no one persecutes you for it, and you have nothing to lose! don't be a nutbag, it's the way to go!

Sincerely,

White Man.

The Professor says

@Bigsby

I don't know if you are sincere in your beliefs, suffering from cognitive dissidence, or are just some kind of shill.

You still have not answered if you really believe that an almost 50 story steel framed building would collapse into a smoldering pile of twisted steel and pulverized concrete because rugs, desks, paneling, and other office combustibles burned?

I believe that two planes crashed into the buildings and as a consequence of that they collapsed. You, on the other hand, believe that they were brought down by a silent and unseen controlled demolition. And you are the one accusing me of cognitive DISSONANCE and being a shill. Utterly laughable.

Just post up the video that you believe is conclusive proof of a controlled demolition taking place and then we can compare and contrast that to an actual controlled demolition. Simple wouldn't you say?

The Professor says

Do you believe that an almost 50 story steel framed building would collapse into a smoldering pile of twisted steel and pulverized concrete because rugs, desks, paneling, and other office combustibles burned?

I don't really expect a straight or honest answer from you, but you do help me illustrate the absurdity of the official story.

Err, you believe that all the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, so what about that?

WTC7 was brought down by an uncontrolled fire and the consequential effects that had on the structural integrity of the building. That is what happened and not a controlled demolition as you claim.

And if you actually have some real video proof of a CD rather than made up whackadoo bullshit devoid of any actual supporting evidence then post it up. You know, a video that at least has a passing similarity to every controlled demolition of a large structure that has taken place before. Come on now, it shouldn't be too difficult for you seeing as that is what you constantly claim took place.

The Professor says

No. It melted. Read the report from FEMA.

"professor" you are either a lying sack of shit or you didn't read the report. It says that the steel was corroded by a "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel". Then it goes on to say "The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that
the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel".

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel". The chemical mix melted the steel flanges, not the temperature of the fire. Read your own postings dumbass. Approaching 1000 C is barely 2/3's of the way to the melting point of steel.

House and office fires have been recorded at over 1100 C many times, it's common. Structural steel loses 90% of it's strength by 800 C. That's why structural steel is fireproofed in the first place. To bad the fireproofing at the WTC wasn't designed to withstand the all too common event of driving a jet through the building.

The Professor says

You do know that no plane hit WTC7 don't you?

You do know that debris from the twin towers did, don't you?

The Professor says

bob2356 says

event of driving a jet through the building.

You do know that no plane hit WTC7 don't you?

You think the other two buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, so what about those two?

And I'm still waiting for that video.

The Professor says

What we "truthers" want is a real investigation, not a cover-up that matches the preconceived story that "fires heated the steal causing it to lose structural integrity initiating a progressive collapse", which has only happened 3 times in history, all on 9/11/2001.

No, you don't. You've already stated what you believe, and what you believe is utterly devoid of any evidence and completely moronic to anyone who isn't knee deep in conspiracy nonsense. A controlled demolition FFS. Post the bloody video that you think proves it, and then we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy.