[Merged] 9/11 and operation Gladio

[RaptorBites]

RB

It certainly appears that you have an agenda, and it appears that the agenda is the continuation of a story that has been proved untrue in so many ways.

If nothing else, your agenda appears to be denial of facts and character assault against any and all who present those facts that contradict your story.

I have an agenda too. It is the chase for the truth, however it might be found. It is the stating of the obvious, as the situation presents. Obvious, as in no Boeings at certain locations, and the destruction of buildings that could not have been caused by burning office furniture. Obvious, as in the incestuous relationships between politicians and their minions who pretend to offer rational and scientific analyses.

Here we go again.

All that text and nothing of substance. Maybe if you started posting evidence, people might start taking you seriously. So far, the 2 years I've spent here, you continue to fail miserably.

I have no need to assault your character BR. Your pown posts do enough of that on its own.

Edited February 7, 2014 by RaptorBites

[Babe Ruth]

You deny evidence RB, every single time it is presented to you. You deny facts, and it is impossible to have a rational discussion with one who denies facts.

Peace, bro.

[RaptorBites]

You deny evidence RB, every single time it is presented to you. You deny facts, and it is impossible to have a rational discussion with one who denies facts.

Peace, bro.

You haven't provided evidence. That's the problem.

[Insaniac]

Of course I do. The difference between mine and yours, is that I am able to provide evidence to support it.

What is your belief? [ie: something you thought up and held onto by your own efforts and not the Government telling you]

So, explain why it is hard for you to provide evidence then. Was it because it was covered up? If that is your answer, then thank you in advance for providing your hilarious cop out.

See, there you are again lying. You claimed you acknowledged the definition of "Cover-up" yet you never acknowledge it during running conversation. Nothing is a cop-out here when the truth is this is an inside-job.

You find truth hilarious? How many victim's are you laughing at, exactly?

You misrepresented Sky's position.

No. He misrepresents the truth whereas I stand for the truth. You've lied once more.

Cover ups are real, but in the context of 9/11, you failed to provide proof of a cover up to begin with other than your personal belief there was without providing supporting evidence. Understand the difference now?

Do you understand the cover-up is still in motion? Or do you believe all the propaganda put out by MSM?

Why the sudden shift in goal posts all of a sudden?

What was that about reading comprehension. [a few of the buttons on my keyboard just stopped working. It's not letting me use question marks]

By responding to a topic that YOU brought up?

You didn't acknowledge the definition for cover-up. How did either of you respond again. Blabbering about malice isn't acknowledgement of a cover-up.

I asked you to provide evidence of a cover up, you continuously dodge my request. In the context of 9/11, you failed to provide the evidence. How does one responding to your sub-topic an attempt to derail?

How does one respond with evidence if it's been destroyed. Truth serves as evidence against the lie.

By refusing to acknowledge the literal definition of cover-up you dodge the question and sometimes it comes across as an attempt to manipulate the issue.

I don't have an agenda, unlike you I have used sound reasoning and scientific validation of the evidence presented to come up with a conclusion.

Sorry but claiming furniture fires can bring down a steel building is a form of logic even the mentally retarded don't resort to. It's far from sound reasoning and science would laugh at your understanding of physics.

That fact that you have yet to provide evidence to begin with is why you have failed so far.

One cannot respond with evidence if it's been destroyed. You know this, but you fail to acknowledge 9/11 is a cover-up to begin with.

[H. Drake]

Building 7 will always be the smoking gun of 9/11. You're telling me a 47 story, steel-frame skyscraper collapses into its own footprint from an office fire? Remember, Blg 7 wasn't struck by any aircraft, but hit by debris when the North Tower fell. Shills like to argue that the fires raged out of control and took out the building. I'm sorry but no. Fires don't work like that. They're a gradual, chaotic process and wouldn't induce a smooth as butter collapse like that. Buildings 5 and 6, which were closer to the towers, were also damaged by debris but burned for hours without collapsing. None of the dust from Building 7 was ever tested for explosive residue by NIST, and the remains were duly disposed of.

Watch Blg 7's collapse on Youtube. If you didn't know what day that was, you'd assume it was a demo job. Which raises the argument, that if Blg 7 was rigged to collapse, then they must've known the Twin Towers were going to fall, otherwise they'd have no pretense for pulling it.

Didn't Mr. Silverstein also take out a tasty insurance job on the building not long before 9/11 which covered a terrorist attack? Hmmmm.

[DecoNoir]

RB

It certainly appears that you have an agenda, and it appears that the agenda is the continuation of a story that has been proved untrue in so many ways.

If nothing else, your agenda appears to be denial of facts and character assault against any and all who present those facts that contradict your story.

Cute coming from a guy who denies that Boeings were present at Washington, Shanksville, and New York with photographic and video evidence. Yet can't present a single shred of evidence or even a scientific report that provides a mechanism for a nuke that can detonate without achieving critical mass.

I have an agenda too. It is the chase for the truth, however it might be found.

Never was, otherwise you might have done some research into nuclear physics and weapons before touting Prager in every thread.

It is the stating of the obvious, as the situation presents. Obvious, as in no Boeings at certain locations, and the destruction of buildings that could not have been caused by burning office furniture. Obvious, as in the incestuous relationships between politicians and their minions who pretend to offer rational and scientific analyses.

Again ignore the fact that the towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 traveling at 130mph (assuming it'd be trying to land at a local airport) and NOT a (heavier) Boeing 767 traveling approximately 500 mph. Hows that for truth BR?

[+Liquid Gardens]

How does one respond with evidence if it's been destroyed. Truth serves as evidence against the lie.

By refusing to acknowledge the literal definition of cover-up you dodge the question and sometimes it comes across as an attempt to manipulate the issue.

I don't think anyone is confused on what 'cover-up' means, and I don't know why you keep harping on the definition of it, it's not in dispute. You are claiming it is a cover-up, how do you know that? It's really unreasonable to ask for evidence of why you think that? If there is no evidence because it's been destroyed, then how do you know it's a cover-up? How have you differentiated between the evidence being destroyed and there is no cover-up and evidence being destroyed and there is a cover-up?

Sorry but claiming furniture fires can bring down a steel building is a form of logic even the mentally retarded don't resort to. It's far from sound reasoning and science would laugh at your understanding of physics.

He declares, without any evidence. Nice opinion; so? You seem adamant about not wanting to move your theory from an opinion to an evidenced conclusion by, well, providing evidence. "Only the gullible, paranoid, and scientifically ignorant claim that the WTC could not have collapsed due to the damage and fires. The consensus of actual physicists laugh at your misunderstanding of physics". Convinced yet? That statement provides just as much evidence as you are, i.e. none.

One cannot respond with evidence if it's been destroyed. You know this, but you fail to acknowledge 9/11 is a cover-up to begin with.

Jesus. There's no way to rationally acknowledge that 9/11 was a cover-up if there is no evidence of a cover-up!

[+Liquid Gardens]

Building 7 will always be the smoking gun of 9/11. You're telling me a 47 story, steel-frame skyscraper collapses into its own footprint from an office fire? Remember, Blg 7 wasn't struck by any aircraft, but hit by debris when the North Tower fell. Shills like to argue that the fires raged out of control and took out the building. I'm sorry but no. Fires don't work like that. They're a gradual, chaotic process and wouldn't induce a smooth as butter collapse like that. Buildings 5 and 6, which were closer to the towers, were also damaged by debris but burned for hours without collapsing. None of the dust from Building 7 was ever tested for explosive residue by NIST, and the remains were duly disposed of.

Welcome to UM H Drake! How do you know how fires 'work', are you an expert? In architecture, physics, demolition, fire-fighting and/or -behavior?

Watch Blg 7's collapse on Youtube. If you didn't know what day that was, you'd assume it was a demo job.

Sure, as long as we ignore that the building is on fire and that large volumes of smoke are pouring out of one side and that there is a multi-story gash in the side of the building and that people reported the building leaning and creaking prior to collapse. Except for those little details, yea, just like a demo job... well except there were no deafening explosions with large volumes of air/smoke being blown out from where the demolitions were placed. Why would one assume it's a demo job again?

Didn't Mr. Silverstein also take out a tasty insurance job on the building not long before 9/11 which covered a terrorist attack? Hmmmm.

My understanding is that Silverstein took out the insurance policy with specific coverage for a terrorist attack because his insurance company split out damage by terrorist attacks as a separate rider or add-on coverage from his existing policy. Before that date, Silverstein was already covered for terrorist attacks under his general policy at that time, so it's not like he just decided to be insured for terrorist attacks right before the building coincidentally suffered a terrorist attack; he'd always been covered (and why on earth someone would question insuring a building for this that had already suffered a terrorist attack less than a decade earlier is beyond me).

[frenat]

Didn't Mr. Silverstein also take out a tasty insurance job on the building not long before 9/11 which covered a terrorist attack? Hmmmm.

Silverstein renewed his insurance policy (it was due) shortly before 9/11. There was a terrorism clause but that is hardly a surprise since the towers were attacked in the 90s. There is no reason to think they wouldn't be covered without the clause.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

Of note though is that he tried to buy far less insurance at first and had to be talked UP and still bought less than recommended.

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

[skyeagle409]

Building 7 will always be the smoking gun of 9/11. You're telling me a 47 story, steel-frame skyscraper collapses into its own footprint from an office fire? Remember, Blg 7 wasn't struck by any aircraft, but hit by debris when the North Tower fell.

Due to impact of debris, WTC7 suffered significant structural damage. In fact, a huge hole that spanned several stories on the south facade of WTC7 was evident, which explains why WTC7 leaned toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse because there was no structural support. You can find videos which will depict the southern leaning of WTC7.

Shills like to argue that the fires raged out of control and took out the building. I'm sorry but no. Fires don't work like that.

Actually, fires can do such things. Have you seen the internal collapse of WTC4, which was due to fire only? Fire was responsible for the collapse of steel frame buildings in Thailand as well.

Didn't Mr. Silverstein also take out a tasty insurance job on the building not long before 9/11 which covered a terrorist attack? Hmmmm.

I don't think there is a law that forbids such a thing. How much cash did he receive?

Edited February 7, 2014 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Obvious, as in no Boeings at certain locations, and the destruction of buildings that could not have been caused by burning office furniture.

Let's take a look because the internal collapse of WTC4 was caused by fire.

You made the claim that fire could not do what you see in the photo, which shows once again, that you like to advertise to everyone how much you don't know about anything.

[Agent0range]

Building 7 will always be the smoking gun of 9/11. You're telling me a 47 story, steel-frame skyscraper collapses into its own footprint from an office fire? Remember, Blg 7 wasn't struck by any aircraft, but hit by debris when the North Tower fell. Shills like to argue that the fires raged out of control and took out the building. I'm sorry but no. Fires don't work like that. They're a gradual, chaotic process and wouldn't induce a smooth as butter collapse like that. Buildings 5 and 6, which were closer to the towers, were also damaged by debris but burned for hours without collapsing. None of the dust from Building 7 was ever tested for explosive residue by NIST, and the remains were duly disposed of.

Watch Blg 7's collapse on Youtube. If you didn't know what day that was, you'd assume it was a demo job. Which raises the argument, that if Blg 7 was rigged to collapse, then they must've known the Twin Towers were going to fall, otherwise they'd have no pretense for pulling it.

Didn't Mr. Silverstein also take out a tasty insurance job on the building not long before 9/11 which covered a terrorist attack? Hmmmm.

So what is your theory Drake? All CTers seem to have a different one. Nuclear weapons? If so, do you have any proof? None of these other good for nothing CTers can provide any...hoping you come through. Were there planes involved? If so, 2? 3? 4? That's also highly debated amongst your type. Let us know what you think and then you can focus on the proof.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Agent0range

[skyeagle409]

Watch Blg 7's collapse on Youtube. If you didn't know what day that was, you'd assume it was a demo job.

False!

An implosion demolition of a building makes lots of noise. Please point out the time line in the video where the sound of demo explosions can be heard as WTC7 collapses.

[skyeagle409]

Here we go again.

Indeed! Fact of the matter is, BR is well aware that fires can cause structural steel to weaken.

[skyeagle409]

Obvious, as in no Boeings at certain locations,

Now, you are changing your story again.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Just for the record, BR is well aware of the fact that you sometimes provide false and misleading posts here, that's what he's aware of, in addition to being aware of that the official story is a bright and shining lie.

[DecoNoir]

Sky

Just for the record, BR is well aware of the fact that you sometimes provide false and misleading posts here, that's what he's aware of, in addition to being aware of that the official story is a bright and shining lie.

Two words (though one is really long): EMPless-radiationless-criticalmassless-explosive-force-of-a-couple-blocks-of-C4 nukes.

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Just for the record, BR is well aware of the fact that you sometimes provide false and misleading posts here,...

Just for the record, I have presented evidence can be backed up while on the other hand people have brought to your attention your attempts of deception.

that's what he's aware of, in addition to being aware of that the official story is a bright and shining lie.

12 years and still no evidence of a government 911 conspiracy.

Edited February 8, 2014 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

Two words (though one is really long): EMPless-radiationless-criticalmassless-explosive-force-of-a-couple-blocks-of-C4 nukes.

Is that Like Supercalafragalisticexpeadaliedoucouse ?

[Babe Ruth]

Such meaningful discourse!

[skyeagle409]

Such meaningful discourse!

Where is your evidence of a government 911 conspiracy?

[Babe Ruth]

It's everywhere Sky, but you are unable to perceive it. If it were a snake, it would have already done bit you.

[skyeagle409]

It's everywhere Sky, but you are unable to perceive it. If it were a snake, it would have already done bit you.

I heard it all before and after 12 years, still no evidence. Nothing on CNN, Foxnews, or even on NBC news. Since the major news organizations failed to uncover a government 911 conspiracy, your snake is nothing but a paper snake, unable to bite anything.

[DONTEATUS]

Shhh !!! Sky dont let the secret out BR needs something to hang onto ! ITs All`s HE`s got man !

9/11 REMEMBER so IT wont Happen again !

[skyeagle409]

Shhh !!! Sky dont let the secret out BR needs something to hang onto ! ITs All`s HE`s got man !

9/11 REMEMBER so IT wont Happen again !

BR is out of touch with reality and I have caught him on many occasions making things up.