[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
George Bush put rockets on the roofs of the buildings to drive the collapse faster than gravity?
When I read crap like you just posted JTF it just confirms that no one with half a brain is on the side of the conspiracy nuts.
Go back under your rock.[/quote]
Apparently nothing can ever be simple enough for you. I know, now you have to go look up the word simple.
Picture NO resistance – like the wind rushing through your head.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
George Bush put rockets on the roofs of the buildings to drive the collapse faster than gravity?
When I read crap like you just posted JTF it just confirms that no one with half a brain is on the side of the conspiracy nuts.
Go back under your rock.
Apparently nothing can ever be simple enough for you. I know, now you have to go look up the word simple.
Picture NO resistance – like the wind rushing through your head.
[/quote]
I read the crap and I reject it completely as a flawed engineering analysis.
[quote]cesliwakan wrote:
I AM UNDECIDED DIPSHIT !!![/quote]
I agree, you are an undecided dipshit.
That totally depends on the question you ask.
For example if you ask “which tin foil hat should I wear today.”
You see, the types of questions you ask are important.
I think that it’s impossible for anyone to make it easier to insult you.
Now why would you accept a theory that is “irrefutably proven wrong?”
See…now that’s a problem…
[quote]dont assume that im some pothead wacked out kid
who believes in aliens and thinks the government is after me.[/quote]
Why not?
Yes, I am. I also demonstrate a closed minded attitude when the conspiracy nuts were claiming that the US never really landed on the moon, it was all a hoax.
I dunno…I guess there’s plenty of things I’m very proud to be closed minded about. Things like Space aliens who abduct people, you know nutty stuff…like the US blowing up the twin towers AND the Pentagon…
ha ha…yea that’s nutty stuff alright. LOL
Yep, it sure is. Please continue to post. I want this thread to go as long as possible. There are very few subjects that are posted in this part of the forum which provide these sorts of laughs.
I’ve shown this thread to my wife and people whom I work with…you have no idea the fun you are providing. Well, you and your conspiracy chohorts. Honestly, when my wife first read the thread she said “they are just putting you guys on…they don’t really believe that stuff.”
She doesn’t get it huh? LOL
[quote]and before you tell me to relax. i AM
[/quote]
Yes…yes I know…just stay calm and everything will be alright.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
zarathus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I would like everyone to think about where these nutty conspiracy theories are coming from.
ZEB, if I don’t blame you for Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, David Duke, David Koresh, and any of the rest of your ideology’s fringe element, you don’t blame me for mine, or what you imagine to be mine? Deal?
First of all you are a bit confused (yea just a bit).
I do not share the same “ideology” as David Duke or David Koresh. That you could somehow determine that I do from my many posts on this site is a pretty nutty claim in and of itself!
The remaining two:
Ann Coulter has some very good points, she just says them in an inflammatory manner in order to attract attention…which sells books etc.
Stop being so predictable. You don’t like her so therefore she NEVER made a good point in her life? Ha ha come on CD…
“Good Christian man”? A “good Christian man” calls for the assassination of opposing heads of state? The same guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that America brought 9/11 on itself because of homosexuality, feminism, and the ACLU, that’s a “good Christian man” who just “says some inflammatory things at times”? Maybe I need to really reexamine the Gospels. Or maybe you and Pat Robertson do.[/quote]
What do good Christian men walk around doing all day? You might be watching too many reruns of “Touched By An Angle.”
Have you read the Bible? Do you know for a fact what it states?
In addition,
because you don’t like the guy you ignore the good that he has done. How many millions of dollars have YOU given to rescue thrid world children from poverty?
How many hours have you worked to help build villages that have been destroyed by natural disasters?
But you do swallow what the liberal media has quoted him as saying. Is it all true? While he can be inlfammatory at times, I doubt that every quote was right on. It’s a game of “gotchya” with the media…especially if you are conservative.
Honestly, I consider you a bright individual (judging by your other posts). And you should know these things.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
George Bush put rockets on the roofs of the buildings to drive the collapse faster than gravity?
When I read crap like you just posted JTF it just confirms that no one with half a brain is on the side of the conspiracy nuts.
Go back under your rock.[/quote]
Wahhaha can you see Bush ordering his underlings to put rockets on the roof?
Here’s a parody for you JTF (I have to spell that out to him as he might think that I am in possesion of a secret tape…
President Bush: “Okay boys we are going to blow up the twin towers! But we have to make it look like a couple of Jets did it alone.”
Underling: “Um…Mr. President forgive me but what the hell are you talking about?”
President Bush: “Huh? Um…I need a good reason to attack Iraq and Afghanistan and this is the best thing that Dick and I could come up with.”
WAHAHAHAH…I am falling off my chair laughig at JTF and his partners in nuttery…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
zarathus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I would like everyone to think about where these nutty conspiracy theories are coming from.
ZEB, if I don’t blame you for Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, David Duke, David Koresh, and any of the rest of your ideology’s fringe element, you don’t blame me for mine, or what you imagine to be mine? Deal?
First of all you are a bit confused (yea just a bit).
I do not share the same “ideology” as David Duke or David Koresh. That you could somehow determine that I do from my many posts on this site is a pretty nutty claim in and of itself!
The remaining two:
Ann Coulter has some very good points, she just says them in an inflammatory manner in order to attract attention…which sells books etc.
She does? I have yet to hear a “good point” Ann Coulter has made.
Stop being so predictable. You don’t like her so therefore she NEVER made a good point in her life? Ha ha come on CD…
“Good Christian man”? A “good Christian man” calls for the assassination of opposing heads of state? The same guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that America brought 9/11 on itself because of homosexuality, feminism, and the ACLU, that’s a “good Christian man” who just “says some inflammatory things at times”? Maybe I need to really reexamine the Gospels. Or maybe you and Pat Robertson do.
What do good Christian men walk around doing all day? You might be watching too many reruns of “Touched By An Angle.”
Have you read the Bible? Do you know for a fact what it states?
Yes, I’m a Christian and I read the Bible. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t state that priests should be calling for the murder of foreign leaders. Maybe I missed something in Mark or Luke…
In addition,
because you don’t like the guy you ignore the good that he has done. How many millions of dollars have YOU given to rescue thrid world children from poverty?
[/quote]
I don’t have millions of dollars to give. And Louis Farrakhan has helped thousands of black men be more responsible and temperate - does that make up for his anti-Semitic message? It’s the exact same thing.
Much of the media has a coastal, secular bias, sure. But they didn’t just invent the quotes from the 700 Club on September 13, 2001. Here’s the heart of it:
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU’s got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way–all of them who have tried to secularize America–I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
You like to count someone that hateful as a coreligionist in a faith that preaches that God so loved humanity that he sent his only begotten son to die for us?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
zarathus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I would like everyone to think about where these nutty conspiracy theories are coming from.
ZEB, if I don’t blame you for Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, David Duke, David Koresh, and any of the rest of your ideology’s fringe element, you don’t blame me for mine, or what you imagine to be mine? Deal?
First of all you are a bit confused (yea just a bit).
I do not share the same “ideology” as David Duke or David Koresh. That you could somehow determine that I do from my many posts on this site is a pretty nutty claim in and of itself!
The remaining two:
Ann Coulter has some very good points, she just says them in an inflammatory manner in order to attract attention…which sells books etc.
She does? I have yet to hear a “good point” Ann Coulter has made.
Stop being so predictable. You don’t like her so therefore she NEVER made a good point in her life? Ha ha come on CD…
“Good Christian man”? A “good Christian man” calls for the assassination of opposing heads of state? The same guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that America brought 9/11 on itself because of homosexuality, feminism, and the ACLU, that’s a “good Christian man” who just “says some inflammatory things at times”? Maybe I need to really reexamine the Gospels. Or maybe you and Pat Robertson do.
What do good Christian men walk around doing all day? You might be watching too many reruns of “Touched By An Angle.”
Have you read the Bible? Do you know for a fact what it states?
[/quote]
Yes, I’m a Christian and I read the Bible. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t state that priests should be calling for the murder of foreign leaders. Maybe I missed something in Mark or Luke…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
George Bush put rockets on the roofs of the buildings to drive the collapse faster than gravity?
When I read crap like you just posted JTF it just confirms that no one with half a brain is on the side of the conspiracy nuts.
Go back under your rock.
Apparently nothing can ever be simple enough for you. I know, now you have to go look up the word simple.
Picture NO resistance – like the wind rushing through your head.
I read the crap and I reject it completely as a flawed engineering analysis.
[/quote]
“Even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.”
That’s the only part you really need to be concerned about. It’s a proven formula – you can’t just reject the law of physics.
Show me a video of you running and crashing through a series of CLOSED doors at the exact speed you go through them while they’re wide OPEN and I’ll gladly revise my position.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
George Bush put rockets on the roofs of the buildings to drive the collapse faster than gravity?
When I read crap like you just posted JTF it just confirms that no one with half a brain is on the side of the conspiracy nuts.
Go back under your rock.
Apparently nothing can ever be simple enough for you. I know, now you have to go look up the word simple.
Picture NO resistance – like the wind rushing through your head.
I read the crap and I reject it completely as a flawed engineering analysis.
“Even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.”
That’s the only part you really need to be concerned about. It’s a proven formula – you can’t just reject the law of physics.
Show me a video of you running and crashing through a series of CLOSED doors at the exact speed you go through them while they’re wide OPEN and I’ll gladly revise my position.
[/quote]
A better analogy would be dropping a rock through sheets glass.
The slowing of the rock would be negligible and indiscernible.
Of course the collapse of the towers was even more forceful than the rock example because it gained the mass of each floor on the way down.
You will never revise your position because you are a nut. I am merely pointing out your lack of logic to others that may read this.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I don’t have millions of dollars to give. [/quote]
I bet you have not even given proportionally the same as Robertson! And quite honestly neither have I!
That’s very funny stuff!
Farrakhan has taught thousands of black men to hate white people. He has done nothing that could be considered helpful. He’s a militant racist.
That was a really, really bad comparison. And might I add somewhat disappointing.
And you can add liberal bias as well.
Therefore, much of what they report is bull!
Do you think destroying 40 million babies in the name of abortion makes God happy? Or do you join orion and the other atheists on the forum and claim there is no God?
Let me know.
Because if you think there is a God then you can bet he’s not impressed with abortion.
I don’t really see the connection. Hence, I can’t agree with that…But so what?
I would much rather be associated with Falwell and Robertson than the nut cakes who think that Bush is the culprit who blew up the twin towers.
…Or the racist Farrakhan.
You don’t think the court system is working against us in many ways? You don’t think that we need tort reform?
That’s probably the one point (on the 9-11 topic) that I do agree with them on.
[quote]You like to count someone that hateful as a coreligionist in a faith that preaches that God so loved humanity that he sent his only begotten son to die for us?
[/quote]
Hateful…that’s interesting how you can sit behind your computer and throw stones.
Robertson donates millions helping children and building villages in third world countries. You don’t do anything like that (proportionally). Yet, it’s okay for you to throw a stone at him.
You then offer up an incredibly ridiculous comparison to Louis Farrakhan…
You’re losing ground.
I think we need to start with the basics.
Before you begin to criticize others for relying on a certain interpratation of scriptures (which may or may not be correct)I suggest that you actually study the Bible yourself first!
I know that people want to feel all warm and fuzzy about God. Again, Hollywierd sends us that message every chance they get. But the reality is that God has in fact destroyed entire cities because of sin, (see Sodom and Gomorha).
For religious leaders to equate destruction with immoral behavior is not out of line. While I don’t agree with them, I think there is a very long history of religious leaders coming out agaisnt sin and associating sin with destruction.
If you would like some Biblical references PM me and I’ll be glad to give them to you. This is not the thread for it.
You have already taken this off course with your silly comparisons.
Now let me concentrate on the serious nut balls on this thread. This thread was created for fun, not serious political/religious debate.
It was…wasn’t it?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I don’t have millions of dollars to give.
I bet you have not even given proportionally the same as Robertson! And quite honestly neither have I!
And Louis Farrakhan has helped thousands of black men be more responsible and temperate - does that make up for his anti-Semitic message? It’s the exact same thing.
That’s very funny stuff!
Farrakhan has taught thousands of black men to hate white people. He has done nothing that could be considered helpful. He’s a militant racist.
That was a really, really bad comparison. And might I add somewhat disappointing.
[/quote]
I’d say making black men responsible fathers and fighting drugs and alcohol in the inner city is pretty helpful, given that single-mother households and drug addiction are the major scourges of the black community.
Does this mean I’m apologizing for the man? No, he’s a vile character, same as Pat Robertson.
And, by the way, it’s a direct comparison John McCain made a few years back, before realizing he has to pander to the base to get elected in the increasingly fundamentalist GOP.
OK, but I’m giving you a direct transcript. The whole liberal media argument has nothing to do with Robertson’s lunacy.
I’m a Christian. Did you miss that part? I’m also pro-life. But I don’t believe in killing abortionists, or in blaming them for a Muslim terrorist attack on America. Do you?
Two sides of the same coin.
What on earth do the ACLU and the court system have to do with us having moral responsibility for a terrorist attack against us? Does that make ANY sense?!
Yeah, I’ve heard of Sodom and Gomorrah, thanks. But you have no problem with some nutjob fundamentalist comparing the most Christian country on earth, whatever its problems (America) to the wickedest cities of the Old Testament and saying that we somehow got what was coming to us on September 11th? You don’t find that absolutely repulsive speech, uttered two days after the massacre, as bodies were being pulled out of the rubble? That’s just “inflammatory”?
Pat Robertson is a nut ball too, maybe not quite at JTF’s level, but not that far off.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I’d say making black men responsible fathers and fighting drugs and alcohol in the inner city is pretty helpful, given that single-mother households and drug addiction are the major scourges of the black community.[/quote]
Well…quite honestly I have to agree with you there. That is a great thing to help out with. It’s a shame Farrakhan never did that.
Ha ha…Robertsons not my favorite…not even close. But we are just going to have to disagree on this one.
Farakhan is just about as low as you can get and still be walking around free.
Better check you definition of the word “lunacy.” I don’t think it fits either Farakhan or Robertson.
Let me think…“eccentric” might fit Robertson. Farakhan…well I won’t get into what fits that racist, but it’s not lunacy.
Actually, I happened to see that on a post that you did after the one that I wrote above…so I did miss it.
But, glad you’re a Christian. In the end that’s all that’s really going to matter my friend.
Hey…we agree again!
Um…nope. Robertson is not a racist. Farakhan is a racist and a trouble maker as well.
Two completely different coins.
I was responding to the snippet that was given. I think the court system needs an overhaul…don’t you?
I never said that. I was simply pointing out that that is what religious leaders do, and have been doing for probably hundreds of years.
As a side note, as a Christian do you think that America is on the right track?
You know, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. He’s a bit eccentric, but not a nutball. No where near JTF (who I hope will be posting more on how President Bush allegedly planned the twin towers bombing…I hope we can agree that that is funny stuff).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
cesliwakan wrote:
I AM UNDECIDED DIPSHIT !!!
I agree, you are an undecided dipshit.
goddamn cant a person ask a question without being crazy?
That totally depends on the question you ask.
For example if you ask “which tin foil hat should I wear today.”
You see, the types of questions you ask are important.
you saw my honest question and immediatly put me into a category in order to make it easier to insult me.
I think that it’s impossible for anyone to make it easier to insult you.
if ANY theory is proven irrefutably wrong i accept it
Now why would you accept a theory that is “irrefutably proven wrong?”
See…now that’s a problem…
dont assume that im some pothead wacked out kid
who believes in aliens and thinks the government is after me.
Why not?
YOU seem to be the one demonstating a closeminded attitude
Yes, I am. I also demonstrate a closed minded attitude when the conspiracy nuts were claiming that the US never really landed on the moon, it was all a hoax.
I dunno…I guess there’s plenty of things I’m very proud to be closed minded about. Things like Space aliens who abduct people, you know nutty stuff…like the US blowing up the twin towers AND the Pentagon…
ha ha…yea that’s nutty stuff alright. LOL
i know this is amusing to you.
Yep, it sure is. Please continue to post. I want this thread to go as long as possible. There are very few subjects that are posted in this part of the forum which provide these sorts of laughs.
I’ve shown this thread to my wife and people whom I work with…you have no idea the fun you are providing. Well, you and your conspiracy chohorts. Honestly, when my wife first read the thread she said “they are just putting you guys on…they don’t really believe that stuff.”
She doesn’t get it huh? LOL
and before you tell me to relax. i AM
Yes…yes I know…just stay calm and everything will be alright.
[/quote]
alright dude
i guess making fun of someone makes you cool
[quote]cesliwakan wrote:
alright dude
i guess making fun of someone makes you cool[/quote]
It’s not YOU that I’m making fun of. It’s your nutty attitude toward the events that happened on 9-11. Okay…maybe it is you…but only in regards to your being “undecided” on what happened on that horrible day.
If YOU want to be taken seriously then grab a hold of reality with both hands and never let go…
ATTENTION CONSIPARCY NUTS:
Conspiracies of this nature are begun and believed for many reasons. Here are just a few:
For political purposes, in order to make the opposition look bad. This can be done by legitimate rivals. It can also be perpetrated by the actual enemy. Don’t you think Osama Bin Laden is enoying the fact that a minority of nut bags in the US actually believe this crap?
For monetary purposes, in order to make money selling books, giving lectures etc.
To enhance ones self image. While the majority are laughing at them some feel that if they take a stand and “create” enough evidence they will raise their own stature.
Someone is actually insane and believes that the US blew up the twin towers and the Pentagon. These types (as I have posted before) also think that there is not enough evidence to prove that we landed on the moon. They think the moon landing was a hoax. They think that the CIA killed President Kennedy. They think that behind every reasonable explanation lies a conspiracy.
Finally, I found found that immature (lack of education as well) individuals will believe almost anything. That means that kids (teens, or close) are real suckers for conspiracy theories. Young gullible and ripe for the picking! They watch movies where things like this happen all the time, therefore it must be true. They know that they have no power, and therefore those in power are very different from them. Hence, they must be hiding information, volumes of information.
There are other reasons, but please cesliwakan stay off the Internet a while and chew on these. I don’t really enjoy making fun of you or anyone who buys into this crap…okay I guess I do enjoy it…Only because I feel duty bound to slap my knee and roar in laughter at you and your nutty cohorts.
I know it’s the Internet, but reality should still mean something…no? Otherwise, it’s all good fun for the rest of us.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“BaAaAaAah”
[/quote]
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
ZEB wrote:
“JustTheFacts” is my favorite nut ball on this site. But there are others who are moving up fast.
…even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
~1984[/quote]
You are claiming that a solid structure, that was VIDEOTAPED as pancaking from the TOP FLOORS DOWN, was demoed in a such a manner so as to fall faster than a pancaking stack of free-floating floors.
How can any human being capable of typing, not see the error in that?
Jesus H. Christ I hope you are infertile.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
$20 million for a study that stops right after the point of initial failure…
NIST and the WTC:
“Science” at the Service of an Empire
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how – and if! – the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. … blah, blah, blah, blah…
[/quote]
After the initial point of failure, there was nothing that could withstand the force. The point of failure IS the defining moment. It was not ONE floor crashing into the next. It was MANY floors, with their combined kinetic energy, rapidly crashing through one floor at a time. Do you honestly think each floor of the buildings was designed to absorb the force of several floors FALLING onto it?
Is physics really that hard to understand?
Stand outside in the road (the more traffic the better). Set a dinner plate on top of your bare foot. Gently set a 16 lb. sledge hammer on the dinner plate. You should feel slight pressure.
Hold the same sledge hammer over your head and then drop it onto the dinner plate which is balanced on your foot.
While waiting 6 hours in the emergency room for service, contemplate why the hammer was able to progress through the structurally intact dinner plate, your structurally intact skin, multiple structurally intact muscles and several structurally intact bones in step #2. (**Hint: GW did not plant a super magnet under your foot)
I will now have to stop using the phrase, “any idiot can understand” in general conversation. I now believe that for any given situation, there IS and idiot (or several) who CANNOT understand.
[quote]4est wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
ZEB wrote:
“JustTheFacts” is my favorite nut ball on this site. But there are others who are moving up fast.
…even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
~1984
You are claiming that a solid structure, that was VIDEOTAPED as pancaking from the TOP FLOORS DOWN, was demoed in a such a manner so as to fall faster than a pancaking stack of free-floating floors.
How can any human being capable of typing, not see the error in that?
Jesus H. Christ I hope you are infertile.[/quote]
I already explained, George Bush had rockets on the roof forcing the towers to collapse faster.
If one doesn’t think our government would kill Americans to serve its own agenda, then type “Operation Northwoods” in your google search engine.
Dustin
[quote]Dustin wrote:
If one doesn’t think our government would kill Americans to serve its own agenda, then type “Operation Northwoods” in your google search engine.
Dustin[/quote]
A 40 year old plan that was never even close to being implemented.
Our government has crazy plans for everything and they are all garbage.