40 'Smoking Guns' Collectively Proving That 9/11 Was An Inside Job, page 7

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:48 AM

link

What a train wreck.

You've got 2 troofers argueing each other over points that they both agree on.

Typical troofer stubborness....

re22666

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 05:47 PM

link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
lol, you got me on one thing, kind of. could not, had not, i dont care. pick either.

Just like a believer. When you show them evindece they show how immature they are and try to change the subject.

I have shown evidence that proves that point i was making about NORAD was correct. Why can't you be adult enough to admit it?

lol, dude, can you read. i admit it. fine you proved whatever you wanted to prove. you showed me complete irrefutable proof of whatever your point was. hurrah for you. feel good.
ok, i never argued with your point. not once. i never said it was wrong or even addressed it
i will try again since i have to repeat it about every page worth of posts

ALL 40 CANNOT BE DEBUNKED
ALL 40
ALL 40
DEBUNKING 1 DOES NOT DO A THING TO DISPROVE MY POINT THAT

ALL 40 CAN NOT BE DEBUNKED.

have i made my point clear yet?
it is not a solid story. it does not ALL add up. you can have point #1 about norad and sop. i hope that makes you happy. when you can disprove all 40, come back to me. until then, you have nothing i want.

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:21 PM

link

Originally posted by re22666
ALL 40 CAN NOT BE DEBUNKED.

What 40, who came up with this 40 ?

I do not know what you are looking for but i am looking for the truth of what happened that day.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

re22666

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:58 PM

link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
ALL 40 CAN NOT BE DEBUNKED.

What 40, who came up with this 40 ?

I do not know what you are looking for but i am looking for the truth of what happened that day.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

this is some of the funniest stuff i have ever seen.
i have asked several times what good a debunker's word is when he cannot even read what he is replying to. i have yet to get a response to that one.
now i have this gem as if it were christmas morning.
so let me get this straight. after arguing over and over with me about whether or not i can debunk your supposed debunking of number 1, you ask this???????
well where did you get that number 1 from? think hard, this might be tough
you brought it up over and over, as if i were arguing against it's validity even though i had yet to even begin that. you even referred to it as #1 over and over again. #1 NORAD not following SOP. sound familiar?????
ok so now let's just assume that you have now followed me so far and get that there was a #1 that you spoke of. then that must have come from a list right? a list we all saw somewhere. i do not usually like to try to assume what other people did or did not see but since i know you had to click it to get here the first time, i know you saw it, along with anyone else here.
a list, a number....hmmmmmmmmmmm. where did i get the number 40 from? anyone? anyone? bueller?
oh wait, there it is...look up at the top of the screen.
not that far, come down a bit now, under the line of buttons, "home stats FEEDS HOT TOP, etc." just under that there is the title of this thread.
read it out loud with me
9/11 conspiracies 40 'smoking guns' collectively proving that 9/11 was an inside job

re22666

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
ALL 40 CAN NOT BE DEBUNKED.

What 40, who came up with this 40 ?

I do not know what you are looking for but i am looking for the truth of what happened that day.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

i am looking for the same thing. so if you really want the truth, why would you spend time arguing with me about why parts of the official story actually do add up and stick up for the falacy? if you want the truth like i do, then you would better spend your time finding answers and if you must argue, convince someone else who is blind to open up and see. but dont argue with me about a number or norad unless you can explain where that will get us. heck, even if i just let you be right, where does that get us?

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link

quote]Originally posted by re22666
a list, a number....hmmmmmmmmmmm. where did i get the number 40 from? anyone? anyone?

Let me make this simple, since you seem to have a hard time following.

WHERE DID YOU GET THE 40 ITEMS FROM, WHAT SOURCE?

Originally posted by re22666
if you want the truth like i do, then you would better spend your time finding answers and if you must argue, convince someone else who is blind to open up and see.

Well then you shouldn't have started anything with me.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

re22666

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
quote]Originally posted by re22666
a list, a number....hmmmmmmmmmmm. where did i get the number 40 from? anyone? anyone?

Let me make this simple, since you seem to have a hard time following.

WHERE DID YOU GET THE 40 ITEMS FROM, WHAT SOURCE?

Well then you shouldn't have started anything with me.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

oh so if you cannot correct me or put me in my place or prove me wrong or make me look stupid like you so dearly desire...you reframe the question. bravo. nice move. you should run for politics. ok 40 is rather arbitrary isnt it. i agree it is a strange number but, it works just fine for the questinon i posed and...you would have to take it up with the OP wouldnt you? pick another number if you like, i saw other lists, one was 121 or something but they were old. this was active. this was about 40. this is what i was refering to. this is where we are.

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link

Originally posted by re22666
bravo. nice move. you should run for politics.

Why are you avioding the question (nice move) , why can't you just answer a simple question?

WHAT SOURCE DID YOU USE TO GET THE 40 ITEMS?

_Del_

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link

The only thing more entertaining than watching a narcissistic conspiracy theorist troll members with the backing of moderation, is watching a particular narcissistic conspiracy theorist troll other conspiracy theorists.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by _Del_]

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link

Originally posted by _Del_
The only thing more entertaining than watching a narcissistic conspiracy theorist troll members with the backing of moderation,

Sounds like Del is upset that the mods know i post facts and evindece and do not troll.

Unlike people who still believe the official story with no actual reports or physical evidence to support it.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

_Del_

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link

Why would I be upset?

It's not my site.

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link

Originally posted by _Del_
Why would I be upset? .

Well why even bring it up then?

_Del_

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link

Because it was entertaining? I thought my post said as much. I bet you're a hoot at cocktail parties.

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link

Originally posted by _Del_
Because it was entertaining? I thought my post said as much. I bet you're a hoot at cocktail parties.

I bet you are a hoot at recess at school.

_Del_

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link

Yeah -- I better get back to school and let you resume your feeding frenzy.

Resume your peaceful interaction with others. Forget I was ever here.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by _Del_]

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link

Originally posted by _Del_
Resume your peaceful interaction with others.

Yes as the mods agreed i am having a nice adult discussion on here.

re22666

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
bravo. nice move. you should run for politics.

Why are you avioding the question (nice move) , why can't you just answer a simple question?

WHAT SOURCE DID YOU USE TO GET THE 40 ITEMS?

are you special???????????
i have said this three times now. i got 40 from the thread title.

re22666

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Resume your peaceful interaction with others.

Yes as the mods agreed i am having a nice adult discussion on here.

or they feel bad for you since you are obviously of very very low IQ. so we are both on the same side and you want to argue with me?
i explained where i got the number 40 from very clearly
i asked you questions
i answered all of yours
you still avoid some of mine
and you accuse me of avoiding the one about the number 40?
you are a hoot indeed.

ULTIMA1

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link

Originally posted by re22666
are you special???????????
i have said this three times now. i got 40 from the thread title.

WHAT SOURCE DID YOU USE TO GET THE 40 ITEMS?

PplVSNWO

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link

To keep this thread going on topic, I would like to point out again that all 40 were not debunked by swampfox and many that were can be countered with facts. Here's some examples:

Complete and total ignorance shown here. Appearantly, Mr Griffen is completely unaware that it was the damage AND the fire that caused the buildings to collapse. The south tower, suffered from far greater stresses due to the angle of impact, and the position of the impact. There was a hell of a lot more weight being supported by the damaged area on the south tower as opposed to the north tower.

Apparently you are not aware that NIST failed to prove that planes and/or fire brought down any building that day. When NIST's physical model didn't fail and then they had to use unrealistic parameters to initiate collapse(even there, they fell far short of explaining and modelling global collapse), they should have gone back to formulate a new hypothesis. Instead, they went ahead and ignored their own testing. Very scientific

Quick? Eight months is quick? Not to mention that dozens of engineers spent months examining the steel at the landfills it was taken to.

I will again point to this thread were the government admits to not examining and testing the steel. Despite what your opinion is, they state they not look at it. Furthermore, NIST admits not testing any steel from WTC7.
I didn't see you in that thread debunking, though, so it's understandable if you didn't know about it.

Seventeen minutes to launch, travel and then set up an effective air intercept over NYC? Give me a break. Better yet, actually LEARN something about the subject before you shoot off your mouth.

Why would they have only had 17 minutes? They should have been scrambled when the first plane was off course and the pilots couldn't be reached as happens on a routine basis.

No, they collapsed because of structural damage and widespread fires....including WTC 7

Sounds like another opinion, please show evidence of structural damage of WTC7. Only photos ever shown show facade damage. WTC 6 had real structural damage from the towers falling on top of it but didn't collapse.