One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: "We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11"
This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
This discussion is continued in a new topic. You can find it here.
Page <<first <prev 66 of 99 next> last>>
 
This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
 
Aug 4, 2017 17:45:18   #
Steve700
 
whole2th wrote:
With your strategic sense, you may as well be one of them.

I have absolutely no idea what you are speaking of. If your response is in reference to my statement "I respond harshly with the willfully blind, and those who insult and mock or ignore, rather than answering a question", then it doesn't relate because I never respond harshly unless it's damn well deserved and if you feel unduly persecuted, feeling so would be a result of your own lack of self-awareness and I always answer all questions honestly and completely. I evade nothing.

This is the 2nd time I've asked you this question and gotten a mystery answer that I can't decipher. How about you try being plainspoken as I am, so I know exactly what you're trying to say, rather than apparently trying to frustrate me with your indirect games to see if I'm smart enough to be able to figure out what you are implying.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 17:51:31   #
whole2th
 
Steve700 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you are speaking of. If your response is in reference to my statement "I respond harshly with the willfully blind, and those who insult and mock or ignore, rather than answering a question", then it doesn't relate because I never respond harshly unless it's damn well deserved and if you feel unduly persecuted, feeling so would be a result of your own lack of self-awareness and I always answer all questions honestly and completely. I evade nothing.

This is the 2nd time I've asked you this question and gotten a mystery answer that I can't decipher. How about you try being plainspoken as I am, so I know exactly what you're trying to say, rather than apparently trying to frustrate me with your indirect games to see if I'm smart enough to be able to figure out what you are implying.
I have absolutely no idea what you are speaking of... (show quote)


Have you considered a PM rather than a public thrashing and whining? We are on the same side of the issues--or are we?

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 18:50:48   #
Steve700
 
whole2th wrote:
Have you considered a PM rather than a public thrashing and whining? We are on the same side of the issues--or are we?

No I have not considered a PM and yes, we seem to be on the same side of the issues which baffles me even more as to why you would put me on your ignore list. I have even gone to bat for you against that slimy Blade Runner and not so Super Dave, both of whom claim to be conservatives but have the dishonest, t***h evading, self delusional characteristics of the Degenerate liberals (and as far as I am concerned are therefore an embarrassment to honorable t***h seeking conservatives.

For your information, other than extending an olive branch, we are not able to communicate through PM. With your block, and your evasive nonsense in your mean-spirited attempts to avoid directly answering what I should have a right to know, I feel more like extending a sword, then an olive branch when I feel unjustly blocked and you act like these damn liberals who get a joy out of being obstinate ass holes with their attempts to deliberately frustrate us. . So how about you quit with the mean liberal tactics, become plainspoken,and tell me what's going on with the block.

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2017 19:05:00   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
PM has long been a supporter of the U.S. military.
Americans worthy of the name support our military.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 19:18:05   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Steve700 wrote:
No I have not considered a PM and yes, we seem to be on the same side of the issues which baffles me even more as to why you would put me on your ignore list. I have even gone to bat for you against that slimy Blade Runner and not so Super Dave, both of whom claim to be conservatives but have the dishonest, t***h evading, self delusional characteristics of the Degenerate liberals (and as far as I am concerned are therefore an embarrassment to honorable t***h seeking conservatives.

For your information, other than extending an olive branch, we are not able to communicate through PM. With your block, and your evasive nonsense in your mean-spirited attempts to avoid directly answering what I should have a right to know, I feel more like extending a sword, then an olive branch when I feel unjustly blocked and you act like these damn liberals who get a joy out of being obstinate ass holes with their attempts to deliberately frustrate us. . So how about you quit with the mean liberal tactics, become plainspoken,and tell me what's going on with the block.
No I have not considered a PM and yes, we seem to ... (show quote)


As the h**e mail poured in and articles claiming to have debunked the magazine's analysis proliferated online, we soon learned to identify the key techniques that give conspiracy theorists their illusion of coherence.

Marginalization of Opposing Views

The 9/11 T***h Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control t***smissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . ."

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspir****ts are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.

Argument by Anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspir****t method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the `evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don't yet understand should not be surprising.

A good example is the conspir****t fascination with the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Since the 47-story tower was not hit by an airplane, only by the debris of the North Tower, investigators weren't sure at first just how or why it collapsed hours after the attacks. A scientist (or for that matter, a journalist or historian) might see that gap in our knowledge as an opportunity for further research (see "WTC 7: Fire and Debris Damage," page 53). In the conspiracy world, however, even a hint of uncertainty is a chance to set a trap. If researchers can't "prove" exactly how the building fell, they say, then there is only one other possible conclusion: Someone blew it up.

Slipshod Handling of Facts

There are hundreds of books--and hundreds of thousands of Web pages--dev**ed to 9/11 conspiracy theories, many bristling with footnotes, citations, and technical jargon. But despite the appearance of scholarly rigor, few of these documents handle factual material with enough care to pass muster at a high-school newspaper, much less at a scholarly journal. Some mistakes are mere sloppiness; others show deliberate disregard for the t***h.

Journalism is never perfect. Early accounts of any major event are studded with minor errors and omissions. As Washington Post publisher Philip Graham famously noted, "Journalism is the first draft of history." In future drafts, errors are corrected, so anyone honestly attempting to understand an event relies more heavily on later investigations. Conspiracy theorists tend to do just the opposite. For example, the conspiracy Web site www.total911.info includes the headline "Video: CNN reported no plane hit pentagon." The item includes a clip from the morning of the attack, in which reporter Jamie McIntyre says, "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

Today, we know why very little wreckage was visible from McIntyre's vantage point: Flight 77 didn't crash near the Pentagon. It crashed into the Pentagon. Traveling at 780 feet per second, it struck with such force that virtually the entire aircraft and its contents continued into the building. Investigators recovered the shredded remnants of the plane, including the black box, and established exactly how Flight 77 struck the building. Through forensics they have identified all but five of the 64 passengers and crew and Pentagon fatalities. (All five hijackers were positively identified.) Though a few conspiracy theorists attempt to reckon with that vast accretion of evidence, many more prefer to turn back the clock to the earliest possible moment, when hard facts were at a minimum.

Some errors are so simple they are almost laughable. After the Popular Mechanics report was published, numerous critics wrote to object to our explanation of why NORAD was poorly prepared to intercept off-course commercial aircraft (see "Military Intercepts," page 22). Many pointed to the 1999 case of golfer Payne Stewart's private jet, which was intercepted and followed after losing pressurization and failing to respond to radio calls. "Within less than 20 minutes fighter planes were alongside Stewart's plane," one letter claimed. In fact, the widespread idea that a fighter was able to reach Stewart's aircraft within minutes is based on a convenient misreading of the flight records. According to the National T***sportation Safety Board report on the incident, controllers lost contact with Stewart's jet at 9:30 a.m. eastern daylight time; the flight was intercepted at 9:52 a.m. central daylight time--that is, the intercept took an hour and 22 minutes, not 22 minutes. (Not surprisingly, such errors always seem to break in favor of the conspir****ts' views and never the other way around.)

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 19:24:29   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Repetition

The Web site www.rense.com, which is edited by conspiracy oriented radio talk-show host Jeff Rense, includes an article by Bollyn discussing the seismic data recorded by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at the time the two towers fell. "These unexplained `spikes' in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses," Bollyn concludes. This claim, which originally appeared in the American Free Press, was decisively debunked in the Popular Mechanics magazine article (and is addressed here in "Seismic Spikes" in Chapter 2, "The World Trade Center"). The t***h on this issue isn't hard to find: Lamont-Doherty's research is available to the public. Nonetheless, this claim from Bollyn's piece is repeated verbatim on more than 50 conspiracy sites today.

In the early days of the Internet, some commentators worried that material posted online would be ephemeral. In fact, the opposite is true. On the Internet, errors can last forever--repeated, cross-referenced, and passed from site to site in an endless daisy chain. The essentially nonchronological nature of the Internet contributes to this phenomenon. Many postings don't have dates, so it is difficult for readers to see what information has been disproven or superseded. Mainstream journalism makes at least an attempt to correct mistakes and prevent them from being repeated in later stories. The conspiracy movement prefers a see-what-sticks approach: Throw everything against the wall, and keep throwing.

Circular Reasoning

In archaeology, researchers are often reminded that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the world of 9/11 denial, even the tiniest gaps in the evidence record are seen as proof that the mainstream view is incorrect. Case in point: the widespread claim that the government was hiding incriminating evidence because it refused to release video footage from security cameras outside the Pentagon. The footage had been entered into evidence at the trial of Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty in May 2006. Later that month the government released the material in response to a Freedom of Information request by the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch. The footage from two of those cameras, however, didn't show the cruise missile or small aircraft predicted by author Thierry Meyssan and others. Nor did it show a Boeing 757 streaking toward impact. In fact, the security cameras in question recorded data at the glacial rate of one frame per second. The odds of picking up a clear image of a jet moving at 780 feet per second were slim indeed. But that didn't stop an online commentator from concluding: "There's no plane at the Pentagon at 9/11, plain and simple."

But among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy. One forum posting that has multiplied across the Internet includes a long list of the physical evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the crime: the rental car left behind at Boston's Logan airport, Mohamed Atta's suitcase, passports recovered at the crash sites, and so on. "HOW CONVENIENT!" the author notes after each citation. In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspir****m, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one's pet theory. Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspir****ts enjoy a worldview that is immune to refutation.

Jim Hoffman sums up this worldview nicely in one of his pieces attacking the original Popular Mechanics investigation of conspiracy theories. "[The article] purports to debunk conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence-based claims without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story," he writes. "Indeed many 9/11 researchers don't even address the physical evidence, preferring instead to focus on who had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack." This is a stunning burst of honesty: Since we've already decided who's to blame, Hoffman is saying, evidence is optional.

Demonization

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists have an eternal problem: In every field where they make claims, the leading experts disagree with them. The only solution is to attack these authorities early and often.

Van Romero, an explosives expert from New Mexico who was quoted in the Albuquerque Journal on September 11, 2001, as saying that it looked like explosives brought down the World Trade Center towers, saw this firsthand. Eleven days later, the Journal ran a follow-up story stating his opinion that "fire is what caused the buildings to fail." Predictably, conspir****ts view that clarification as proof that somebody "got to" Romero. "Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement," claimed www.emperors-clothes.com.

It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that they must constantly expand as they try to absorb and neutralize conflicting information. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a conspiracy theorist might have imagined a compact plot involving a corrupt White House and a few renegade military officers. But as the months went by, committees were organized by Congress, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and others. News organizations conducted detailed investigations. Reports and studies piled up, none of them helpful to the conspir****t viewpoint. For conspiracy theorists there was only one answer: All of these people must be in on the plot, too.

One of the chilling things about 9/11 denial is how blithely its adherents are able to accuse their fellow citizens of complicity in evil. They think nothing of suggesting that Romero would keep silent about an enormous crime, that hundreds of researchers involved in 9/11 investigations were participants in a cover-up, or that journalists from Popular Mechanics, The Nation, the New York Times and hundreds of other publications would willingly hide such a plot. Many critics of Popular Mechanics complained that some of the sources we quoted work for the U.S. government. The assumption--explicitly stated by many--was that anyone connected with the government should be seen as implicated. Point of reference: Not including the U.S. Post Office, the federal government has more than 1.9 million employees.


Guilt by Association

Soon after the Popular Mechanics report appeared, conspiracy buffs began parsing the names of the various researchers who contributed to the article, noting the odd coincidence that Benjamin Chertoff, then the head of the magazine's research Department, has the same last name as the then newly appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. In a rare instance of reportorial initiative [b](most 9/11 "Internet researchers" rarely venture beyond Google or youtube.), Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben's mother, who volunteered that, yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff might be a distant cousin. "Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece," read the headline on Bollyn's next American Free Press story. "This is exactly the kind of `journalism' one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq," he concluded. Later, a headline was added to his article: "Ben Chertoff: Propagandist & Illuminati Disinformation

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 19:35:35   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
The Pentagon

At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

Big Plane, Small Holes

Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line t***h to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."The t***h is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military c**p. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact Windows

Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris

Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"


FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2017 19:47:39   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Americans worthy of the name support our military.


👍

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 23:39:57   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
Again you refuse to source your lies.
Username emarine represents two layers of unsourced lies.




all I see are a few neo N**is posting bulls**t propaganda than accusing everyone of lies & deception... you prove nothing but the ability to post repetitive propaganda from terrorists & known h**ers...

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 23:55:13   #
emarine
 
whole2th wrote:
Defenders of the Jews ... emarine, Blade_Runner and not-so-super dave use tactics which are unbecoming of upright, forthright people of integrity. Lying, deceiving, misleading and ridiculing aren't nearly as effective as cogent debate.

In this way, it casts a shadow on all Jews.




Give me a break A-whole... you post the most ridicules bulls**t available for viewing... your "are the Jews alien lizards" post proves that Hatred and intolerance are bred in ignorance & you're one ignorant little N**i... Many a good American patriot sacrificed everything to put down the stupidity & hatred you hard sell here Adolf... go back to your N**i blogs troll...
 

The A-Whole2th'r hard selling hate
The A-Whole2th'r hard selling hate...

Reply
Aug 5, 2017 00:11:30   #
Steve700
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The Pentagon

At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

Big Plane, Small Holes

Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line t***h to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."The t***h is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military c**p. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact Windows

Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris

Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"


FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
b The Pentagon /b br br At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 ... (show quote)

If all 3 of your posts were written for my benefit, you should know that I didn't read past the 2nd sentence of the 1st one where you spoke about mainstream believe that the public being the government's version. I don't think it's mainstream anymore and in fact at this point that the majority of people who know that there were 3 buildings, brought down in Manhattan, not just two, are strongly and correctly of the view that it was an inside job. Two of the bats in your belfry and one of the bugs in your computer found their way over here so I am sending them back.





Reply
 
 
Aug 5, 2017 00:19:32   #
Steve700
 
whole2th wrote:

Defenders of the Jews ... emarine, Blade_Runner and not-so-super dave use tactics which are unbecoming of upright, forthright people of integrity. Lying, deceiving, misleading and ridiculing aren't nearly as effective as cogent debate.

No I have not considered a PM and yes, we seem to be on the same side of the issues which baffles me even more as to why you would put me on your ignore list. I have even gone to bat for you against that slimy Blade Runner and not so Super Dave, both of whom claim to be conservatives but have the dishonest, t***h evading, self delusional characteristics of the Degenerate liberals (and as far as I am concerned are therefore an embarrassment to honorable t***h seeking conservatives.

For your information, other than extending an olive branch, we are not able to communicate through PM. With your block, and your evasive nonsense in your mean-spirited attempts to avoid directly answering what I should have a right to know, I feel more like extending a sword, then an olive branch when I feel unjustly blocked and you act like these damn liberals who get a joy out of being obstinate ass holes with their attempts to deliberately frustrate us. . So how about you being honest and forthright your self like you are advising others to be and quit with the mean liberal tactics, become plainspoken, and tell me what's going on with the block.

Reply
Aug 5, 2017 01:22:34   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Steve700 wrote:
If all 3 of your posts were written for my benefit, you should know that I didn't read past the 2nd sentence of the 1st one where you spoke about mainstream believe that the public being the government's version. I don't think it's mainstream anymore and in fact at this point that the majority of people who know that there were 3 buildings, brought down in Manhattan, not just two, are strongly and correctly of the view that it was an inside job. Two of the bats in your belfry and one of the bugs in your computer found their way over here so I am sending them back.
If all 3 of your posts were written for my benefit... (show quote)
I don't post anything for your benefit. You are a hopeless case. Stay stuck on stupid, no skin off my ass.

Reply
Aug 5, 2017 01:56:08   #
Steve700
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
I don't post anything for your benefit. You are a hopeless case. Stay stuck on stupid, no skin off my ass.



Ya Filthy Degenerate
Ya Filthy Degenerate...

Reply
Aug 5, 2017 03:15:01   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Go ahead, Steve, keep living on the lies you've been spoon fed. Keep on posting your infantile comic book pictures. Shows what sort of man you are.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 66 of 99 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.