9/11 truth now!

Man, dredging up stuff from 7 years ago is sad.

 

I don't believe that there's a statute of limitation for 9-11, or for any other crime of like or similar magnitude. Old information is often-times the VERY BEST type of information, especially as it pertains to crimes and to criminal conduct, since the information was still relatively "fresh" when it first came out. It also came out at a time when the story was still "hot" off the presses, and before "amnesia" was allowed to set in. It is still relevant.

 

My point is, what you have posted has been gone over ad naseum.
There really isn't any need to go over it again and again and again.
But, it does feel like it doesn't really matter to you either way.
I've seen you post information that has turned out to be out-dated, and wrong.
Atleast have the decency to see what new has come to pass in relation to what you are saying, rather than endlessly posting any random thing you find in your "My Files".

 

my father once told me that he had an uncle that despised FDR so much that for a long time when a cashier handed him Roosevelt dimes with his change, he would throw it to the ground and curse FDR's name. He was also convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Roosevelt knew of the attack ahead of time and let it happen. This was a college graduate and very successful structural engineer I'm talking about, not some toothless hillbilly living in some hillbilly shack.

It's amazing what that level of hatred and paranoia can do to an otherwise intelligent person.

 

I never understood how people fall for stuff like this. Like I watched this show for shits and giggles on the Titanic conspiracy, how the Titanic was sunk on purpose for an insurance scam, and that it wasn't really the Titanic but its sister ship the Olympic. Near every single thing in the show I was like "wtf, that's so wrong" and sure enough, the show ended with the host explaining a lot of the so called "evidence" and stating that historically what happened is probably what happened. But like the people who were interviewed on the show, my mind explodes to actually know that they really think this happened.

it's amazing how people's minds can reach for something that isn't there with the smallest and least connected bits of information

 

said Titanic's captain, yo! :hat:

 

Damn straight

 

It was. :hat: Something to do with the rivets.:smash:
Nagh, I think as soon as it is christened it is what it is...dunno, don't really care, tbh.
:leaving:

 

I posted a very important internet link from the New York Times, the link contained information that was never previously discussed in this thread, and the only criticism of that link, thus far, is that the link is seven years old !

I have never had the occasion of witnessing you or anyone else being able to demonstrate that my information is "wrong." I have posted some "old" information that was derived from religious texts, but the material is still considered to be relevant to a discussion that centers on religion.

That's basically how it goes with religious material - the stuff is old !

Since the entire crux of your "argument" centers on ME rather than on the logical content of my messages, it should be fairly obvious to all concerned that you are simply grandstanding and that you have nothing of value to add to this thread.

 

http://www.historycommons.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-933 << "11/4/2009: Destruction of Flight Controllers' Tape, Day of 9/11 - Additions as of November 4, 2009" >>

 

You are not discussing it, though.
You are just posting the exact same snippets that a myriad of people like you do on forums.
It isn't anything you particularly want to discuss, or have done any research in yourself, it seems.

I agree, as far as I am aware that particular snippet hasn't been used within this thread; I really meant the snippet has been discussed ad nauseum, in general...
I guess most things relating to 9/11 have.

The firefighters had no idea the building was going to collapse...
...wow major revelation, there.
...It doesn't ad anything new to the conversation.
...It's pretty much irrelevant at this point in time.

Ok, lets discuss it if you think it "very important."
What exactly is your snippet supposed to highlight, apart from the bleedin' obvious, and is now irrelevant?

You posted:
Not Jewish enough to marry a Cohen
< "When the couple registered at the rabbinate, the marriage registrar referred Plotnikov to a rabbinic court for a process for ascertaining Jewishness. This is a procedure which all immigrants from the FSU are required to undergo if they want to marry." >

I posted:
Rabbinical Court allows cohen to marry daughter of non-Jew.
In an unusual decision which came on the heels of intervention by the Prime Minister's Office, the High Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem recently ruled that a member of the priestly cohen caste may marry the daughter of a non-Jew.

The case began in the summer of 2004, when Rabbinate officials told Shmuel Cohen and Irena Plotnikov that they could not marry, even though Plotnikov, an immigrant from the former Soviet Union whose mother is Jewish, had already had her Jewish status approved upon entering the country. The court rejected Cohen and Plotnikov on the basis that a member of the priestly cohen caste, of which Cohen is said to be descended, cannot marry a woman whose father is not Jewish.

So you were wrong.
They did marry eventually.
Your information was out-dated.

You're response was:

But you didn't provide any evidence that any "genetic testing" took place.
...It was the practice of the caveats of a Cohen marrying...
...not the genetic make-up.
Genetic testing is prevalent for health reason, and paternity disputes, not some form of racism.
If Judaism was racist, where marriage was concerned, then there wouldn't be mixed racial marriages...
There are black and white Jews, for heaven sake...
...are you suggesting unions between a black Jew and a white Jew are not allowed?
There are also Interfaith marriages too.

Like I keep saying, your e.g's generally refer to strict Orthodox Jews...
...and I accepted they are pretty strict where these issues are concerned...
...but they do not reflect all Jewish interpretations of the Torah...or how Jews act as a whole.
...You'll acknowledge that one of these days...heck, maybe on your death bed.

So again, as far as I am aware, you were/are wrong.
If I am wrong, prove it...
I don't mind being proven wrong.

After a while it becomes pretty pointless pointing these discrepancies out to you...because you don't acknowledge when you are wrong, just try and twist things to assert you are right.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6072890

I don't usually bother to check every post you post here, because I've noticed you post the exact same snippets that are posted all over the place, it isn't sufficiently unique or original to bother going over it with people like you...because, lets be honest, you are a troll for all intense and purposes, aren't you?

I'm not talking about religious texts; I'd be pretty daft to exclude such texts from any discussion.
I would, however, repeat: "all religious texts are open to interpretation."
Which you never acknowledge.
Deeming YOUR interpretation to be the correct one...which is pretty arrogant.

I'm not grand-standing.
I just don't always have the time for long winded explanations.
My apologies.

 

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

<< "The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.

<< Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk." >>

 

Did you just say that a 707 with a maximum takeoff weight of 222,000 lbs is approximately the same size as a 767 with a max takeoff weight of 315,00 lbs?

 

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

<< "A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707. The 767 is more massive, so the building was stressed near its design limits. But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen." >>

 

<< "Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

<< This proves controlled demolition." >> http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

 

The Trade Towers were designed to survive a hit from a Boeing 707 airliner. But the worst case scenario that they could think of was a plane flying blind in a thick fog bank, low on fuel with malfunctioning instruments. Not a fully fueled jumbo jet, 1/3 larger than a 707, flying at full speed.

 

And now you're back to the "That's not the way buildings fall that have not been 'controlled demolished'" argument. Let me ask you.

1.

​

How many skyscrapers that have been hit with jumbo jets and have subsequently collapsed have been filmed so we can compare that film with the World Trade Center tapes and see the differences?

2.

​

If everything happened exactly like the official story, what should the collapse have looked like?

 

Don't post some obscure link from some other conspiracy enthusiast, just answer me in your own words.

 

A B-25 is much freakin smaller then a fully loaded and fueled jumbo jet when there's no bombs on board, learn your planes. In both cases both buildings survived the plane crash, hence why the towers did not fall over the minute they got smashed, or is this too hard to comprehend?

How many buildings have been hit by jumbo jets period?

 

But they didn't "fall over" ... those towers literally "exploded" into millions or perhaps even billions of microscopic pieces. The jumbo jets were "fueled," but so what ? It's already been amply proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fires on 9-11 were totally irrelevant in terms of the destruction that was engendered on that day. Now that the "fire theory" has been relegated to the trash bin, only the "impact theory" remains as a viable crutch for conspiracy theorists who support the idea of using 9-11 as a tool for facilitating the mass murder of Arabs and the conquest of their land. Believers in the "impact theory" will be forced to assert their nonsensical idea, which holds that fast-moving aluminum is so incredibly strong that it has the ability to destroy some of the world's most enormous buildings. But if the "impact theory" turns out to be totally irrelevant, the shysters will be left with no other alternative but to accept the ONLY EXPLANATION OF 9-11 which makes any degree of logical sense, and that is the controlled demolition theory.