On May 7, 5:26 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 6, 7:55 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Iarnrod wrote:
> > > One less kooker to deal with!
>
> > I note, following the threads on 911, that when ad hominum is used, it
> > is far more often employed by the sup****ters of the official 911
re****t.=
>
> I expected as much and the hilarious thing is that I accept that
> re****t, flawed though it may be.
You say you accept the re****t but it doesn=92t appear you=92re even
familiar with it
You completely mischaracterized it as =93changing=94 the =93official
story.=
=94
As you=92ve been corrected, the =93official story=94 did not change. This
shows you to be under the influence of the kooks, because you are
asserting one of their debunked claims. What are we to think when you
assert things known to be false?
You can question the re****t all you like, but don=92t say false things.
> My criticisms stand - Dr. Jones and the other conspiracy theorists
> were contemptuously dismissed at first=85
Rightly so=85
> regarding the melting girders =85
=85 As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there were no melting
girders and no one sane ever said there were.
=93Melting girders=94 was a kooker straw man; you were told this, and yet
you repeat the lie. Again, what are we to think except that you=92re
under the influence of the kooks?
> until, thanks to their protestations,=85
Uh, the kookers=92 adjustment to actual reality means THEY came around
to accept there were no melting girders, not that the =93official story=94
came around. The =93official story=94 as you call it NEVER asserted that
any steel had melted. In fact, the =93official story=94 has ALWAYS
maintained steel NEVER melted.
Remember, it=92s the kooker who think there were =93rivers of molten
steel=94 for *months* afterward!! The =93official story=94 denies that
without reservation.
Kooker =93protestations=94 had no effect on the truth.
> =85 it
> gradually became more widely known that the steel girders of that type
> DO NOT MELT until the temperature goes well above 2,000 degrees.
It=92s the kookers=92 story that=92s changed. No =93official=94 ever
stated =
that
steel had melted.
> The
> 1,000 degree temperature of the burning jet fuel WILL NOT melt them.
> Later, the "official" line changed to, oh but it will WEAKEN them.
Again, you=92ve been informed that this is a false claim by kookers yet
you repeat it.
What are we to conclude about you if you knowingly repeat claims that
are false?
> The behaviour of "President" Bush when he was told of the attacks
> remains an HISTORICAL MYSTERY.
No it doesn=92t. It remains a HISTORICAL EMBARRASSMENT.
> Imagine ANY OTHER President of the
> United States being told of such an attack. Imagine Eisenhower or
> Kennedy, or even Bill Clinton. They would have stopped immediately
> what they were doing, excused themselves and headed to their plane or
> command center. Bush CONTINUED his reading exercise.
> The explanations offered are contrived and UNCONVINCING.
Not at all. They=92re completely convincing. This president is a moron.
He probably couldn=92t wait to see how My Pet Goat ended.
> With regards to the missing cameras, people respond that the attacks
> were photographed and videoed from many angles outside the buildings
> and that therefore it is irrelevant if there are or are not internal
> camera records but I wished that some internal footage was found so
> it could be proven once and for all that there were no internal
> demolition devices.
We already know with ironclad certainty that there were no internal
explosives because there were no explosives going off.
> I don't believe that the buildings were imploded
> with internal devices - though once again I sup****t, and even
> encourage, the conspiracy theorists to question this.
There can no longer be any sane questioning of this. There were no CD
explosions. There cannot be CD without them. There was no CD. To
encourage continued questioning of something that is already
thoroughly debunked is stupid. That=92s why kookers do it I suppose.
> 9-11 happened because of a confluence of official blunders, ill
> defined policies, inept security and lack of coordination between
> various agencies such as air traffic control and the air force.
None of those had anything to do with it.
What blunders? What policies, what coordination was supposed to happen
that didn=92t?
9/11 happened because we are a free society. It was possible within
all official rules and policies for thugs to commandeer four airliners
and hijack them and crash them into buildings. I suspect it is still
possible.
> Even
> the communications of the firemen and police, those heroic men who
> walked into the face of death with such courage, were later shown to
> be totally inadequate.
Your arguments are ill-focused. Police and fire radio coordination has
nothing to do with why 9/11 happened. They got involved AFTER the
planes hit the buildings. Emergency radios that talk inter-agency
would not have prevented any of the planes from being hijacked.
>> The questionings of the conspiracy theorists, if nothing else, can
> help to identify the numerous systemic weaknesses of the organizations
> involved, whose directors, as we all know, are loathe to admit
> incompetency, lack of planning or other errors
> should they be reviewing their organizations mentally while playing
> golf on friday afternoons.
That=92s false too. That=92s an American pastime, criticizing government
planning and agencies. We do it all the time. That=92s healthy, and
kookers can have moments of clarity int hat regard as well.
|
