BBC Documentary Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
ziggy @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:20 am
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
Toro Toro:
See above.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE
Simply because engineers design something to react a certain way does not mean it will.
Simply because engineers designed the WTC to withstand a plane crash does not mean it will.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE
Simply because engineers design something to react a certain way does not mean it will.
Simply because engineers designed the WTC to withstand a plane crash does not mean it will.
Sure.. but it did. Except for a relatively smal hole in the building side, nothing happened. It stood like it allways had.
I can't see any sign that it was about to collapse.. then, all of a sudden, it just went straigth down in a matter of seconds. It just does not add up. Weakened steel or not, it doesn't happen like that! It just can't come down like it did. I'm not saying that it couldn't possibly have come down. Maybe after a few days of intense fire it could have started to crumble and eventually fall.. but this? Come on!
The building was the first of its kind, exoskeletal. The inner structure was little more then a web of cross beams around a near independant structure that housed the elevator shafts. This was done to maximize the amount of office space.
Seeing as it was the first of its kind, there is no model to base it on. Every demolission company in the world and the isn't many, has stated that that was not an intentional demo. There was nothing about it that even remotely looked like it. They have also stated the same as me. The buildings design and internal structure, was its down fall(pardon the pun).
This all sounds verry fancy, elaborate and complex...
but assuming this is all true and this is indeed what made the TT's collapse... Did building 7 allsoe have this structural core? Was building 7 weakened by.. say debri from the TT's and this debri somehow caused a fire in the building which spread so rapidly that it caused the building to collapse in.. what was it? How long did it take?Nothing like 40 stories of weight putting pressure on floors 5 and 6, that sustained huge amounts of damage from the collaps of 1 and 2. Then compound that with the lack of a fire supression system, due to a water main break.
Fire kills all, concrete, steel, people, it eats varaciously and is not a disserning consumer.
FUCKING *SIGH**SIGH**SIGH*!!!
... It is so improbable and far fetched that I can't believe that you don't see through this bullshit??? When have this ever happened before?
Ummmm, never. That's the point. There is no impurical data that can accurately depict what will happen when Jets full of fuel fly into two buildings, then those building subsequently crash into another.
Good grief the proof is out there, it is as easy to follow as a Looney Toon cartoon. Only the simplest of people, that can not grasp the reality of what happend, seem to find it difficult to accept.
Yes, of course! This is all written in the big book of reality! Why didn't I think of that??? It's sooo obvious what happened! Wait.. wait.. what did you just write? They fell into eachother?
.. and of all the other buildings surounding the TT's, where building 7 was far from the nearest of them, Building 7 came down but the others didn't? Building 7 cought fire? Building 7 was enshured with a wast amount of money just before it collapsed and which "also housed Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center, a bunker on the 23rd floor with blast-resistant windows and its own air and water supply".
Yes.. I'm the looney toon.
Building 7 was not insured with a vast amount of money,this to was proven to you a half dozen times but you just either are playing around here or your incredibly stupid.
ziggy @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:27 am
opp regurgitates
$1:
Building 7 was enshured with a wast amount of money just before it collapsed
You decide for yourself.$1:
The Silverstein group purchased the lease on the World Trade Center for $3.2 billion. With two claims for the maximum amount of the policy, the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, leaving a hefty windfall profit for Silverstein.
Our take...
As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:
Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.
On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.
“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.
The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.
The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.js ... &aid=60290
There have been other costs, too:
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Sil ... 6dec04.htm
$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).
That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:
The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."
Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/arti ... -3,00.html
There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):
Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...
The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...
It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?
Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.
Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.
Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.
But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.
With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /61352.htm [broken, try...]
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html ... wntown.htm
So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.
And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_ ... stein.html
If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:
After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.
The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.
Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.
The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.
Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restri ... 94D9404482
Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?
Our take...
As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.
And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).
$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money. As we write (June 2006) there are other problems:
Only a month after developer Larry Silverstein predicted it might happen, six World Trade Center insurance companies are making noises about whether they're going to fork over roughly $770 million in insurance proceeds meant to help rebuild the site.
On Friday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the insurers a clear message – pay up.
“Nobody's going to walk away from billions of dollars, and they're not going to get away with not paying,” said the mayor.
The companies are pointing to a tentative agreement reached between Silverstein and the Port Authority in April divvying up ownership of the site's planned buildings, including the Freedom Tower, which would go to the Port Authority.
The insurers say since Silverstein would no longer own all the buildings at the site, they might no longer be responsible for paying the claims he was due as owner.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.js ... &aid=60290
There have been other costs, too:
Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Sil ... 6dec04.htm
$120 million dollars a year? So in the three years between the attacks and that article being written, Silverstein has paid out over $360 million on rent alone (and a three-year court battle implies substantial legal fees, too).
That was a 2004 article, but problems continued. Here’s part of a Time article from May 2006:
The original World Trade Center, completed in 1973, suffered under a similar real estate climate. "The argument back then was that downtown was losing to midtown," says Susan Fainstein, professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "They thought by building this impressive complex, it would make downtown a competitor. But so much space came up at once, and there just wasn't the demand to fill it." New York State even moved some offices there to help keep the rent rolls filled. The latest plans for ground zero call for the same 10 million sq. ft. of office space as the original World Trade Center, but the site's potential as a repeat target may repel business. "People don't want to work in a building with a bull's-eye on it," says Fainstein. "It doesn't matter if it's built like Fort Knox."
Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/arti ... -3,00.html
There may be issues getting tenants, then, but at least he has 60% of the liberty bonds, taking him up to around $6.6 billion. Is that the profit? This article doesn’t seem to think it’s a windfall, and others agree. Here’s a March 2006 analysis from the New York Post, for instance (this is a lengthy excerpt but we’ve snipped more, so it’s best if you follow the link and read the whole thing):
Nearly $3.4 billion in these bonds remains, with the mayor and the governor each controlling half...
The mayor has put Silverstein in an impossible position. Legally, the developer has the right to rebuild. But financially, he needs the Liberty Bonds to do so...
It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted. Like any developer, Silverstein (and his potential lenders) must determine if the project is worth more than its cost: Over the remainder of the lease, will the WTC bring in enough in rents to repay this $4.3 billion investment and earn a profit?
Part of the answer depends on future commercial rents Downtown. Bloomberg says he believes rents won't rise above pre-9/11 levels (after inflation), while Silverstein thinks they'll rise to today's Midtown levels.
Either way, Silverstein's looking at earning $300 million to $400 million (in today's dollars) a year, after operating costs and taxes (but before interest costs), for about 80 years - that is, from the time he gets all five towers built to the time the lease ends.
Here is where Bloomberg's intransigence matters. If New York actually uses its 9/11 rebuilding money at Ground Zero, and Silverstein gets all the Liberty Bonds (with their low interest rate of about 6.5 percent), his future income from the towers would be worth $5.7 billion to $7.5 billion in today's dollars. At those values, the project is economical even if rents never rise to Midtown levels. Lenders would invest in the project, so it wouldn't run out of money, as Bloomberg claims it will.
But if Silverstein wins only half of the Liberty Bonds, the finances become murky. The deal wouldn't be economical unless rents rose quickly, so it might fall short of lenders.
With no Liberty Bonds, the WTC project is not economical unless rents rise stratospherically, because interest costs would consume too much of the project's future rents.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /61352.htm [broken, try...]
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html ... wntown.htm
So this author says that Silverstein requires $4.3 billion more than the insurance money will provide, and so recommended he gets all the $3.4 billion Liberty Bonds. Actually he only got 60%, which pushes the deal closer to the “murky” side, as described here. Is this true? We don’t know: there’s a shortage of clear figures showing exactly who has to spend what. However, it does show that, even with the extra Government cash, not everyone believes Silverstein’s made big money here.
And those who want to believe Silverstein still had foreknowledge of the attacks, might want to consider this:
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_ ... stein.html
If this is true, then it appears that Silverstein tried to purchase as little insurance as possible, presumably to save money. He was talked up by his insurers, but still chose a figure well short of what he could have obtained. And that’s not the only problem. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph we’re quoting here:
After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.
The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.
Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.
The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.
Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restri ... 94D9404482
Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?
OPP @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:31 am
ziggy ziggy:
opp says
Maybe some day you'll clue in but If the facts and evidence presented to you so far are being dismissed because they dont follow your beliefs,then YOU have an incredible bias or your just very dense.
$1:
PROVE IT THEN!!! Fucking prove to me that Bill Manning has an agenda which would make him unreliable and disqualify him as a source!!! PROVE IT!
No, that's right.. you can't.. and neather can the DB sites you have shown me over and over again..
Actually I did and more then once(more signs of a comprehension problem)including his VERY OWN letter to the editor explaining what he really meant.Thats right from Bill!!!! Plus absolutely no where does he say it was a controlled demo....NO WHERE! Plus his quotes were taken from before any investigations were completed even. Short of a signed affidavit from Bill himself I dont know how much more proof you want.I posted his articles,his letters,even where he admitted he had an agenda(its called covering your ass) yet you still bleat on mis-quoting him and useing it as what? Sure isnt facts your useing,its not evidence either,just because he's an Editor of a magazine sure didnt put him at the scene or make him an expert all of a sudden. No, that's right.. you can't.. and neather can the DB sites you have shown me over and over again..
Maybe some day you'll clue in but If the facts and evidence presented to you so far are being dismissed because they dont follow your beliefs,then YOU have an incredible bias or your just very dense.Blue_Nose admitted to fallacies in the investigation. Even Tricks of all people admitted that there was a possibility that crucial evidence could have been destroyed....
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I told you what I thought about that - I think it's a legitimate concern for those interested in making additional or alternate investigations, but in terms of the primary investigation, it didn't seem to be of hinderance.
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
Tricks Tricks:
Relax OPP, your going to hurt yourself. Calm the fuck down.
... just admit to the possibilety so that we can move on...
But you just can't... You just keep posting the same old shit with no sources and continue to lie and to dissregard facts. I'm through debating this issue with you.
Have a nice day.
CDNBear @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:32 am
Facts rarely enlighten those that wilfully/blissfully live in alternate realities Ziggy.
ziggy @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:46 am
Toro Toro:
See above.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE
Simply because engineers design something to react a certain way does not mean it will.
Simply because engineers designed the WTC to withstand a plane crash does not mean it will.
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE
Simply because engineers design something to react a certain way does not mean it will.
Simply because engineers designed the WTC to withstand a plane crash does not mean it will.
Excellent video Toro,you would allmost think that guy was talking about OPP at the beginning.
ziggy @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:49 am
Probably posted this video a half dozen times. Worth the watch.
WTC collapse rare video footage
OPP @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:49 am
CDNBear CDNBear:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+and+teller
That's just sad.
Why did they only choose weak pathetic people, some with ridiculous claims which does not reflect the vast majority of the CT'ers opinions and beliefes, to ridicule and piss on? HA?
So fucking biased its shameful. How can you even post something like that? Let them try to take Alex Jones on or maybe even Aaron Ruso or physicions like Steven Jones.
Let them try to pull that one off without cutting the interviews up into little pieces and adding FUCK YOU every once in a while.
You have never even watched a CT movie have you? Not without "debunker" commentary atleast.
You should start off with Alex Jones. Maybe he can set your mind straight.
ziggy @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:58 am
Opp says
$1:
Blue_Nose admitted to fallacies in the investigation. Even Tricks of all people admitted that there was a possibility that crucial evidence could have been destroyed....
Maybe your not familiar to Capitalism and what allways flows downhill. Think that parts called covering your ass here in the free world. Spose I'll have to explain that to you also?
CDNBear @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:04 am
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+and+teller
That's just sad.
Why did they only choose weak pathetic people, some with ridiculous claims which does not reflect the vast majority of the CT'ers opinions and beliefes, to ridicule and piss on? HA?
So fucking biased its shameful. How can you even post something like that? Let them try to take Alex Jones on or maybe even Aaron Ruso or physicions like Steven Jones.
Let them try to pull that one off without cutting the interviews up into little pieces and adding FUCK YOU every once in a while.
You have never even watched a CT movie have you? Not without "debunker" commentary atleast.
You should start off with Alex Jones. Maybe he can set your mind straight.
That video sums up my contemp for the miriad of people that are so small minded in nature, that they can not for the life of them, accept reality, as it is served in sound bites and vid clips.
Toro and YiN, can atest to the amount of time I have spent explaining and debunking all the pictures and ridiculous claims and hyper edited sound bits and clips. As have they.
I'm not about to relive the whole mess with the likes of you, you have no need of facts and truth. You can not imagine a world with events, variables and actions beyond belief or so incredibly terrifying. So like the masses of sheeple you formulate an alternate reality to live in, in order to maintain normalacy and nothing more. That's ok, if that is what you want. There are those that see through the minutia and accept the fates and constant struggles between good, evil and the ever changing winds of reality. You just aren't one of them.
It doesn't lessen your contribution to life, in fact it adds mounds of entertaining humour. There will always be a need for the sheeple on the other side of the fence. Bring lawn chairs, you'll be there a while.
OPP @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:04 am
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+and+teller
That's just sad.
Why did they only choose weak pathetic people, some with ridiculous claims which does not reflect the vast majority of the CT'ers opinions and beliefes, to ridicule and piss on? HA?
So fucking biased its shameful. How can you even post something like that? Let them try to take Alex Jones on or maybe even Aaron Ruso or physicions like Steven Jones.
Let them try to pull that one off without cutting the interviews up into little pieces and adding FUCK YOU every once in a while.
You have never even watched a CT movie have you? Not without "debunker" commentary atleast.
You should start off with Alex Jones. Maybe he can set your mind straight.
That video sums up my contemp for the miriad of people that are so small minded in nature, that they can not for the life of them, accept reality, as it is served in sound bites and vid clips.
Toro and YiN, can atest to the amount of time I have spent explaining and debunking all the pictures and ridiculous claims and hyper edited sound bits and clips. As have they.
I'm not about to relive the whole mess with the likes of you, you have no need of facts and truth. You can not imagine a world with events, variables and actions beyond belief or so incredibly terrifying. So like the masses of sheeple you formulate an alternate reality to live in, in order to maintain normalacy and nothing more. That's ok, if that is what you want. There are those that see through the minutia and accept the fates and constant struggles between good, evil and the ever changing winds of reality. You just aren't one of them.
It doesn't lessen your contribution to life, in fact it adds mounds of entertaining humour. There will always be a need for the sheeple on the other side of the fence. Bring lawn chairs, you'll be there a while.
Yes... This sure sounds familiar. This mud throwing have come from both sides of the fence.. But I can assure you that my intentions are not sinister and If we are going to continue this debate.. then maybe we should make some sort of agreement:
Whenever I present information that requires some sort of evidence, I will do so. I will provide a source that is non-biased and not a CT site and I will refrain from insults, ridicule and sarcastic responses.
In return I expect you to do the same.
How does that sound?
CDNBear @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:10 am
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+and+teller
That's just sad.
Why did they only choose weak pathetic people, some with ridiculous claims which does not reflect the vast majority of the CT'ers opinions and beliefes, to ridicule and piss on? HA?
So fucking biased its shameful. How can you even post something like that? Let them try to take Alex Jones on or maybe even Aaron Ruso or physicions like Steven Jones.
Let them try to pull that one off without cutting the interviews up into little pieces and adding FUCK YOU every once in a while.
You have never even watched a CT movie have you? Not without "debunker" commentary atleast.
You should start off with Alex Jones. Maybe he can set your mind straight.
That video sums up my contemp for the miriad of people that are so small minded in nature, that they can not for the life of them, accept reality, as it is served in sound bites and vid clips.
Toro and YiN, can atest to the amount of time I have spent explaining and debunking all the pictures and ridiculous claims and hyper edited sound bits and clips. As have they.
I'm not about to relive the whole mess with the likes of you, you have no need of facts and truth. You can not imagine a world with events, variables and actions beyond belief or so incredibly terrifying. So like the masses of sheeple you formulate an alternate reality to live in, in order to maintain normalacy and nothing more. That's ok, if that is what you want. There are those that see through the minutia and accept the fates and constant struggles between good, evil and the ever changing winds of reality. You just aren't one of them.
It doesn't lessen your contribution to life, in fact it adds mounds of entertaining humour. There will always be a need for the sheeple on the other side of the fence. Bring lawn chairs, you'll be there a while.
Yes... This sure sounds familiar. This mud throwing have come from both sides of the fence.. But I can assure you that my intentions are not sinister and If we are going to continue this debate.. then maybe we should make some sort of agreement:
Whenever I present information that requires some sort of evidence, I will do so. I will provide a source that is non-biased and not a CT site and I will refrain from insults, ridicule and sarcastic responses.
In return I expect you to do the same.
How does that sound?
I won't debate it, I have then energy, nor the need to debate it again. I work with steel for a living, in fact I love it so much I made a company(sorry cheesy hair club for men rip off).
I have no doubt about the validity of the research that was conducted, I have no doubt in the ensuing findings, I have no need to debate it all over again with someone that is interested. Your mind is made up, my mind is made up, so what's the point?
SprCForr @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:11 am
Can someone define how much a "gazillion" is, exactly? How many zero's is that?
OPP considers it a number.
OPP @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:27 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
CDNBear CDNBear:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+and+teller
That's just sad.
Why did they only choose weak pathetic people, some with ridiculous claims which does not reflect the vast majority of the CT'ers opinions and beliefes, to ridicule and piss on? HA?
So fucking biased its shameful. How can you even post something like that? Let them try to take Alex Jones on or maybe even Aaron Ruso or physicions like Steven Jones.
Let them try to pull that one off without cutting the interviews up into little pieces and adding FUCK YOU every once in a while.
You have never even watched a CT movie have you? Not without "debunker" commentary atleast.
You should start off with Alex Jones. Maybe he can set your mind straight.
That video sums up my contemp for the miriad of people that are so small minded in nature, that they can not for the life of them, accept reality, as it is served in sound bites and vid clips.
Toro and YiN, can atest to the amount of time I have spent explaining and debunking all the pictures and ridiculous claims and hyper edited sound bits and clips. As have they.
I'm not about to relive the whole mess with the likes of you, you have no need of facts and truth. You can not imagine a world with events, variables and actions beyond belief or so incredibly terrifying. So like the masses of sheeple you formulate an alternate reality to live in, in order to maintain normalacy and nothing more. That's ok, if that is what you want. There are those that see through the minutia and accept the fates and constant struggles between good, evil and the ever changing winds of reality. You just aren't one of them.
It doesn't lessen your contribution to life, in fact it adds mounds of entertaining humour. There will always be a need for the sheeple on the other side of the fence. Bring lawn chairs, you'll be there a while.
Yes... This sure sounds familiar. This mud throwing have come from both sides of the fence.. But I can assure you that my intentions are not sinister and If we are going to continue this debate.. then maybe we should make some sort of agreement:
Whenever I present information that requires some sort of evidence, I will do so. I will provide a source that is non-biased and not a CT site and I will refrain from insults, ridicule and sarcastic responses.
In return I expect you to do the same.
How does that sound?
I won't debate it, I have then energy, nor the need to debate it again. I work with steel for a living, in fact I love it so much I made a company(sorry cheesy hair club for men rip off).
I have no doubt about the validity of the research that was conducted, I have no doubt in the ensuing findings, I have no need to debate it all over again with someone that is interested. Your mind is made up, my mind is made up, so what's the point?
I guess I'm more confident that this would work in my favour than you are...
Fair enough. You will not have to debate me any longer.
CDNBear @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:37 pm
OPP OPP:
I guess I'm more confident that this would work in my favour than you are...
Fair enough. You will not have to debate me any longer.
rotflmffao!!!
Fair enough. You will not have to debate me any longer.
Whatever helps you sleep at night hunny.
OPP @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:42 pm
CDNBear CDNBear:
OPP OPP:
I guess I'm more confident that this would work in my favour than you are...
Fair enough. You will not have to debate me any longer.
rotflmffao!!!Fair enough. You will not have to debate me any longer.
Whatever helps you sleep at night hunny.
I'll give you the last word. No problem.
Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next