The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > 9/11 Truth

9/11 Truth

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 72
  7. 73
  8. 74
  9. Page 75
  10. 76
  11. 77
  12. 78
  13. ...
  14. 81
  15. 82
  16. 83
  17. All
Dagget,

You say >> “The only possible motivation I see for his lingering for so long on this forum is in order to confuse others.”

What others? You truly are insane. You have dogged this question for long enough. Besides your ring-in, Amoeba, no-one has made a comment in this thread in weeks, months even. Despite your repeated efforts to engage fellow loony-lefters, you could not get one single person to come over to this thread. By the way, what is your motivation for lingering so long on this thread?

Anyway, for you and these, yet to be identified, others I will point out,

that you have refused to

1) Tell me what you think happened on the day in any detail.

2) Tell me how you think it is possible that the momentous "explosions" Cachiolli heard were bombs, when we see no evidence of any explosions in the hundreds of video recordings of the minutes before either tower collapsed.

3) show me where in your video "evidence" you see evidence of explosions.

4) acknowledge you were LYING when you said I have no interest in what Cachiolli said to the 9/11 Commission

5) to tell me what Cachiolli did say to the 9/11 commission

6) answer the question, “Why would Bush do all of this, and then tell the truth about WMD in Iraq, thus completely destroying his own credibility and the cause which was supposedly behind this conspiracy?”

7) acknowledge the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were in the US well before Bush was elected. Was Governor Bush in charge of this operation then, as well, or did Clinton hand the job over during the transition of administrations?

8) acknowledge the fact that dozens of fire-fighters used the word explosion to describe the sound and impact of people hitting the pavement at terminal velocity. Presumably you don’t think they were strapped with explosives?

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 2 January 2009 4:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ont,

9) acknowledge that none of the hundreds of fire-fighters have stood up and said “ I saw demolition charges go off during 9/11.

You keep quoting people saying they heard what sounded like … ,which is CLEARLY not the same thing, no matter how much you want it to be so. Most of the people who did say they heard something like an explosion, did so on or around 9/11 before it had been established that explosives didn’t bring down the building.

Finally, you have again misrepresented me in order to create a false impression in your latest post. You are a persistent liar and a pathetic human being. I wonder who you think I am trying to confuse, since no-one besides you is listening? Moron. I’m doing this partly to annoy you (after you decided you couldn’t establish a soliloquy on this subject without insulting me) , and partly in the hope that you will see sense. Mostly though, I love making you look stupid, which is actually a public service, since you do a reasonable job at hiding it from people.

I’ll be happy to answer your silly question the moment you answer mine. For too long I’ve let you decide what we discuss because in general your points are equally stupid. Well, its quid pro quo time buddy. Ante up. I won’t be letting you get away with ignoring my valid questions anymore
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 2 January 2009 5:03:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul says I'm insane and then demands I practically write a whole book before he substantiates his justification for the 9/11 Commission not exploring the possibility that the collapses of the WTC towers were controlled demolitions.

What I will do is try to respond to what does not seem completely unreasonable.

1. I simply don't have the time or space to explain in detail what I believe happened on the day

2. It may be that the videos were deliberately tampered with to remove the sounds of explosions. How can you be sure they weren't tampered with?

3. If you insist that you can't see explosions in: http://www.ae911truth.org/images/explo2.jpg
on http://www.ae911truth.org http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/docs/tower2_exp1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/docs/site1103.jpg
on http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY

... then my pointing them out to you won't change anything.

4. You clearly demonstrated no concern at Cacchioli's treatment at the hands of the 9/11 Commission so I consider what I wrote to have been reasonable.

5. As far as I can tell, the 9/11 Commission kept no record of Cacchioli's testimony and neither did he.

6. I have already responded to this ridiculous question.

7. Of course I acknowledge that the hijackers, or some of them, were in the US whilst Clinton was President. How could I know what Governor Bush's involvement was at that time? As I pointed out in another forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8306#130548) , Clinton did not exert enough control over the intelligence agencies to prevent them from tipping off Osama bin Laden on the three occasions that he ordered him killed, so. obviously, quite a lot else could have been going on at that time.

8. I've already acknowledged that. As I wrote, it proves nothing one way or the other.

9. I can't say one way or another if those precise words were used by any of the firefighters. So what?
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 3 January 2009 1:23:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not sure what to make of Paul's silence for the last three days on this forum.

Has it finally dawned on him that he can't go on indefinitely pulling the wool over peoples' eyes, or is he, by his silence, trying to say that he won't respond to my question until I answer all ten questions he put to me to his complete satisfaction?

I trust any critical-minded person would appreciate that the rules Paul has attempted to impose on this debate are very unfair.

He is effectively demanding that I prove may case conclusively to him, before he responds to my request that he substantiate his justification for the 9/11 Commission not exploring the possibility that the collapses were controlled demolitions.

Surely no policeman investigating a crime should require absolute proof that a crime has been committed before he/she investigates that crime?

Why should it have been any different for the 9/11 Commission or NIST?

---

BTW, this debate has flowed over, as I think it should, onto other forums to discuss the wars in Afghanistan and Irag and the whole so-called "ware on terror". See:

"War: not in my name" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8306#130548
"Iraq: 'dramatically freer, dramatically safer and dramatically better'?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8331#131187
"Australia has no business in Afghanistan" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8338#131439
"Bush's democracy of hypocrisy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#131375
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 1:45:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Chandler's promised second and third presentations in response to the NIST's admission that 'collapse' of World Trade Center Building 7 included over 2 seconds of free-fall have been posted.

They are total confirmation that NIST lied when it initially insisted that no free-fall had occurred, that the NIST investigation was a cover-up, and that the 'collapse' was a controlled demolition.

The presentations are:

"WTC7 in Freefall" at http://911blogger.com/node/17685
"'WTC7: NIST Admits Freefall' ...The Movie" at http://911blogger.com/node/18771
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18951
"WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)" at http://911blogger.com/node/18969

---

In note Paul's continuing silence, not just here, but on all forums in which the 9/11 'false flag' attacks and related matters are currently being discussed.

Has Paul decided, after all, that rather than making me "look stupid" it is himself that will be made to look stupid (if not something even worse) by his continued denial of the evidence?

In case you do decide to rejoin, Paul (and as I have repeatedly said, I hope you don't), I am still awaiting your response to my questions:

"If Lou Cacchioli personally did not have 'definitive proof bombs were actually detonated' would Paul at least concede that the 9/11 Commission should have at least have seriously investigated that possibility given that he and 112 (I should have said 118) members of the FDNY many other had clearly heard 'what sounded like bombs' or had seen explosions? ..."

"... where (does) the 9/11 Commission report (state) that (in your words) it 'found no physical evidence of explosives, no left over RDX, no det cord, no scorched or blast damaged steel, ...'"

"What concerted effort was ever made to look for this evidence, before it was all removed?"
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 10 January 2009 7:18:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Moron,

I am aware, as everyone should be, that you would be much happier not having to defend your outlandish claims.

Well if you stop raising my name in your posts you might just get what you want. But while you insist on baiting me. it won't happen.

I have realised that I'm not going to be able to educate you, and since NOBODY else is reading, my interest in this thread is over.

I will however continue to reply to any post in which you use my name.

So, here it goes.

you say >> "In note Paul's continuing silence, not just here, but on all forums in which the 9/11 'false flag' attacks and related matters are currently being discussed."

This is a flat out lie. Merely another in your now long history in such mendacity. It is so sad that you feel the need to lie to make your case.

As for your questions,

The answers are

1) No. And the NIST report reinforced their very good reasons for doing so.

2) Considering how many people were involved in the clean up, the fact that no one found any of the things I mentioned speaks VOLUMES. There would have been huge amounts of evidence left over a 3 demolitions of this size. The fact that no-one reported finding any, let alone the fact that none has been produced, makes it irrelevant whether there was a thorough examination of all the rubble or not.
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 10 January 2009 9:48:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 72
  7. 73
  8. 74
  9. Page 75
  10. 76
  11. 77
  12. 78
  13. ...
  14. 81
  15. 82
  16. 83
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy