Hugh Mughnus Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Mr Joseph, what is your reasoning, if I may ask? (Sorry I can't quote your posts... my quote function has been broken for months. I need to change browsers or something.. ) I think the very evident conflict of interest lends credibility to my stream of logic that 9/11 was "allowed" by insiders, vs the alternate possibility that the 747s could have been shot down before impacting the twin towers. By all means, elaborate because I've never done any actual research on the matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Rejecting rational ways of thinking is a very practical way of defining "mentally retarded" so I conclude that you're a retard (and also a morally corrupt scum). Umm what? How am I morally corrupt scum? Also you should google 'science' and see how it actually works. You are morally corrupt scum because you are ignoring atrocities committed by the US government, thereby enabling them to commit future atrocities. I have a perfect understanding of how science works, and I sure as hell know it doesn't work by ignoring evidence, which is apparently what you do since we've had this conversation 2 times before, where I presented everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 StephenG, I'll spam/quote a post I made earlier, it's just a sketch but it's the basic picture. I don't argue with links, so you'll have to check for yourself that I'm not bullshitting you about e.g. those air force drills. and I left out building 7, which is another independent smoking gun. The way the buildings fall is itself enough to give 99% certainty that the 9/11 commission report is false. They fall at essentially free-fall, it's impossible for that to happen without a precise demolition. This is enough to trash the official story, but it gets much more interesting. Another independent reason for 99% certainty is the fact that the phone calls from the airplanes (across multiple airlines) were made from special microcells installed in advance (and which were nonfunctional on all other planes). So at least one conspirator presumably needed a moderate-to-high level of executive power to accomplish this. Another independent reason for 99% certainty is the coincidental air-force drills which were occurring simultaneously all over the country, allowing the real airliners to be shot down and replaced with drones. This last fact, by the way, crucially explains how the whole thing may be executed by a small amount of people. Someone with high security clearance organizes the drills in the way they want, using the explanation that a highjacking-style attack is imminent (this was widely rumored, apparently without evidence, in the intelligence community as early as summer '01), and they contact WTC officials explaining that pre-installing thermite is necessary so that if the attack actually happens, the building can be safely taken down to prevent it toppling on other buildings, or some similar reason). In fact you can check that the WTC had an "elevator modernization" during summer of 2001. When exercise day comes, have pilots shoot down the airliners (under the impression that they are just drones, which is possible because the drills involved partially or disabling radar), then replace the airliners with large drones, and crash them into the WTC. The only people who know the entire story are the organizer (likely Cheney or someone similarly powerful) and the drone pilots. You can count them on one hand, and everyone else who plays a part -- the air force, the demolitions experts, the president, law enforcement, -- does so without knowing that they are enabling a false flag attack. They think they're doing a drill, or taking precautions in case of a real terrorist attack, etc. So they only see part of the story. This means that essentially no cover-up is required per se, in the sense of silencing people, just obscuring the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 Rejecting rational ways of thinking is a very practical way of defining "mentally retarded" so I conclude that you're a retard (and also a morally corrupt scum). Umm what? How am I morally corrupt scum? Also you should google 'science' and see how it actually works. You are morally corrupt scum because you are ignoring atrocities committed by the US government, thereby enabling them to commit future atrocities. I have a perfect understanding of how science works, and I sure as hell know it doesn't work by ignoring evidence, which is apparently what you do since we've had this conversation 2 times before, where I presented everything. 1) I am very actively and vocally opposed to the many actual, well-evidenced atrocities committed by the US government. 2) I'm sorry, I don't think you have a perfect understanding of how science works. How about this, provide something that you consider evidence and we'll see who thinks it's actual evidence. But remember the cliche "The plural of anecdote is not data." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Likely true. I wonder if relative documents are ever declassified..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 P.S. the fact that you thought that Sandy Hook was "50%" is pretty lol and does not bode well for you case as a rigorous scientist. Joseph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 P.S. the fact that you thought that Sandy Hook was "50%" is pretty lol and does not bode well for you case as a rigorous scientist. Joseph. "pretty lol"? "does not bode well"? What the hell do these words mean? All your posts consist of vacuous nonsense. You're not even passing the Turing Test, you're a government bot that only offers generic cliched responses. Do you have any other tips on how to become a rigorous scientist, LimpyLoo? I mean other than ignoring all evidence presented, not using Baye's Rule, etc. Likely true. I wonder if relative documents are ever declassified..? The documents detailing the dozens of air force drills on 9/11 morning were declassified in I think 2004. In fact Bush called them "eerie" (or some similar term) when he saw them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 this infighting is exactly what 'they' want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 30, 2013 Author Share Posted December 30, 2013 P.S. the fact that you thought that Sandy Hook was "50%" is pretty lol and does not bode well for you case as a rigorous scientist. Joseph. "pretty lol"? "does not bode well"? What the hell do these words mean? All your posts consist of vacuous nonsense. You're not even passing the Turing Test, you're a government bot that only offers generic cliched responses. Do you have any other tips on how to become a rigorous scientist, LimpyLoo? I mean other than ignoring all evidence presented, not using Baye's Rule, etc. Yes, I ignore the sort of evidence that leads one to think that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Guilty as fucking charged, bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 P.S. the fact that you thought that Sandy Hook was "50%" is pretty lol and does not bode well for you case as a rigorous scientist. Joseph. "pretty lol"? "does not bode well"? What the hell do these words mean? All your posts consist of vacuous nonsense. You're not even passing the Turing Test, you're a government bot that only offers generic cliched responses. Do you have any other tips on how to become a rigorous scientist, LimpyLoo? I mean other than ignoring all evidence presented, not using Baye's Rule, etc. Yes, I ignore the sort of evidence that leads one to think that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Guilty as fucking charged, bro. "Guilty as fucking charged bro" How long before your pre-programmed responses start recycling, bot? Why on earth would you purposefully ignore any evidence? I mean shit if you're allowed to just ignore whatever you want... I don't think Sandy Hook was a hoax, I am neutral. The reason I am neutral is because there were similar drills going on simultaneously, and these drills have happened over and over in correlation with various other bombings and "terrorist attacks" (like OKC, 9/11, London '04, Madrid, etc.) and in fact a portion of the scant media footage from Sandy Hook includes segments from these other drills (e.g. at st rose of lima school) which is highly bizarre. But I agree, these alone are not convincing, and not comparable to the case for MIHOP 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 the greys are really us, but from the future we ran out of dnas so we had to come back to the past to get some pure molecules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 This is what I think of you idiots and your srupid opinions: ALLAHU AKBAR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deferlow Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 autechre is tedious, boring music for people with autism. conan o'brien is a self important, whiny twat. arrested development isn't funny. doctor who is wish fulfillment for annoying anglophile girls. no american man actually enjoys it. philip k dick is a terrible writer. kurt vonnegut is a terrible writer. The gloves are off. I know it's all fun and games, but did you have to bring my main man, Philly D Steeze, up in thur? I'll toss in my chip: In the new millenium, there's nothing more vulgar and tasteless than a pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 You guys have terrible taste in root beer. we were talking about store-bought common brands...at least thats my impression. otherwise, im all about the sarsaparilla friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deferlow Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 alex jones is a conspiracy Funny you should mention that. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T8LgYADfTc8/Ufy9BW0zDTI/AAAAAAAAIJ8/oBvh1ZIY4gU/s1600/alex-jones-bill-hicks-teeth-proof.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 You guys have terrible taste in root beer. we were talking about store-bought common brands...at least thats my impression. otherwise, im all about the sarsaparilla friend Oh nm Barqs. Still Allahu Akbar tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 alex jones is a conspiracy Funny you should mention that. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T8LgYADfTc8/Ufy9BW0zDTI/AAAAAAAAIJ8/oBvh1ZIY4gU/s1600/alex-jones-bill-hicks-teeth-proof.jpg holy shit, that explains everything! including why i hate both of those guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvatorin Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 alex jones is a conspiracy Funny you should mention that. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T8LgYADfTc8/Ufy9BW0zDTI/AAAAAAAAIJ8/oBvh1ZIY4gU/s1600/alex-jones-bill-hicks-teeth-proof.jpg holy shit, that explains everything! including why i hate both of those guys. wow that's some new shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvatorin Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 Human Form God Is Impossible.Adult God is a Scam upon Children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 alex jones is a conspiracy Funny you should mention that. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T8LgYADfTc8/Ufy9BW0zDTI/AAAAAAAAIJ8/oBvh1ZIY4gU/s1600/alex-jones-bill-hicks-teeth-proof.jpg holyfuckin' LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 i can believe it's not butter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 @salv- ur the new shit now dog controversial: a) we don't only use 10% of our brains. (you don't have any untapped potential, this is as smart as you're ever gonna be unless you put chips on ya brain) b) there isn't a fine line between 'genius' and insanity. people trying to eat their bedsheets in an asylum aren't one step away from einstein. c) you are likely neither genius nor insane. tough tits but thems the breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 the ewoks were the best things in the original Star Wars trilogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 conan obrien had it coming leno deserved that spot i agree. leno is more organised at being funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadameChaos Posted December 30, 2013 Share Posted December 30, 2013 i don't love or hate marmite, i just like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.