|
Post by shred on May 25, 2013 3:05:26 GMT -5
Why did the conspiracy theorists invent a fake science journal to give false 'credibility' to their conspiracy theories ? If their thermite 'evidence' is so compelling and 'irrefutable' why are they so utterly afraid of sending their theses to a genuine science journal such as ASCE TMS or The New Scientist ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 25, 2013 11:14:21 GMT -5
What conspiracy theorists invented what fake journal?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 27, 2013 4:09:26 GMT -5
9/11 conspiracy theorists invented the journal of 9/11 studies to pitch their crappy conspiracy theses because they fear what a real scientific peer review would say of their pseudo scientific tosh.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 27, 2013 8:30:35 GMT -5
9/11 conspiracy theorists invented the journal of 9/11 studies to pitch their crappy conspiracy theses because they fear what a real scientific peer review would say of their pseudo scientific tosh. Actually no as usual you're making things up. Dr. Graeme MacQueen and Kevin Ryan created a website so experts can publish their work, most of it peer reviewed, regarding 9/11 issues. There currently are over 60 articles and as many letters posted at the site. If they fear anything it would be retaliation by government because much of their work contradicts the official government conspiracy theory. Luckily for those of us who want to know the truth about the 9/11 government LIES, these experts are fearless and relentless. Without them, we would be left with many misconceptions and deceptions stemming from government propaganda and supported by its puppet media. If you don't like what's on the site, don't read it. There's no point in fabricating silly nonsense to try to promote your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 29, 2013 2:29:51 GMT -5
Dr Grame MacQueen and Kevin (water tester) Ryan created a site so conspiracy theorists could wrap their conspiracy theories in a false blanket of credibility which gullible people will be fooled by.
They won't send their conspiracy theories to a real journal as they'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community.
Face it, if their 'evidence' was as good as they pretend, they wouldn't have needed to create a pretend journal, they'd have sent their 'evidence' to the real McCoy i.e. TMS ASCE or The New Scientist. And if their 'evidence' was as good as they pretend, what's stopping them from taking private legal proceedings?
They're fully of bs. They're cowards. They hate debunkers because we show these frauds up for what they are. They fear a real journal because a real journal would destroy their lies.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 29, 2013 7:24:59 GMT -5
Dr Grame MacQueen and Kevin (water tester) Ryan created a site so conspiracy theorists could wrap their conspiracy theories in a false blanket of credibility which gullible people will be fooled by. They won't send their conspiracy theories to a real journal as they'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community. Face it, if their 'evidence' was as good as they pretend, they wouldn't have needed to create a pretend journal, they'd have sent their 'evidence' to the real McCoy i.e. TMS ASCE or The New Scientist. And if their 'evidence' was as good as they pretend, what's stopping them from taking private legal proceedings? They're fully of bs. They're cowards. They hate debunkers because we show these frauds up for what they are. They fear a real journal because a real journal would destroy their lies. Actually it's you who's full of bs. If not for all the efforts of many experts, the world would know very little about WTC7 and the FACT that it was in free fall. In fact, there are still many who don't have a clue because that FACT has never been publicized by the lamestream media. That alone is all the EVIDENCE anyone needs to understand that its collapse was not a natural collapse. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more EVIDENCE that has been discovered since 9/11 by these experts. There is a campaign to make sure as many people around the planet become fully aware of the collapse of WTC7 in FREE FALL.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 29, 2013 9:51:18 GMT -5
Stop lying bob and face facts. If what you were saying here were true this would be dynamite and a real science journal would have no objections to publishing scientific truths.
What you are saying is not true, the fake 'experts' you refer to are liars and frauds and dare not face scrutiny from a real journal because their get rich quick scam would be ruined.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 29, 2013 10:16:28 GMT -5
"Stop lying bob and face facts."
If I were lying then why are you not challenging the FACT I last posted in the "No steel framed building ever collapsed in fire" thread?
"If what you were saying here were true ..."
There's no IF about it, the free fall of WTC7 for 2.25 seconds is NOT a "conspiracy theory", it's an EVIDENCE BASED PROVEN FACT that's IRREFUTABLE and AGREED to by all sides. As well, it's been DOCUMENTED by NIST in their final report that you claim you agree with 100%. You can pretend all you want that it doesn't exist and contradict yourself but your opinions, pretenses, beliefs and agenda are insignificant other than to you. The only fake is you and you foolishly make that perfectly clear with your posts.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 29, 2013 14:57:00 GMT -5
Still waiting for you to post any FACT on 9/11 instead of your usual parroting of the troofer lies. 2.25 seconds at the end of a 16 second collapse is not freefall. The building lost integrity due to structural damage and fire.
The collapse took far longer than 2.25 bloody seconds mate and anyone saying otherwise is either a fool or a fraud. Which are you ?
That's why your heroes won't post their conspiracy theories in a real journal because they'd be exposed for the frauds they are.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 29, 2013 15:28:49 GMT -5
Shred, your last 3 posts sound like deliberate nonsense. I'm no longer interested in responding to your posts unless I feel I can take them seriously (not that many of your prior posts are to be taken seriously either). Anyway, I should have done what I said I would do a few weeks ago, just post anything new I find that I feel is significant, you don't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 30, 2013 6:02:34 GMT -5
Your last posts sound like evasion.
Why are you defending lying cowards who dare not submit their theses to a real scientific journal ?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 15, 2013 6:21:48 GMT -5
Another thing the fraudulent 'truth' movement will not do is bring civil legal proceedings against those they blame for it. The reason for that is that their 'best evidence' is a load of bollox and they'd be laughed out of court.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 15, 2013 8:08:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 15, 2013 8:26:12 GMT -5
LOL more bollox from you.
Try facts.
19 Muslims did it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 15, 2013 8:32:47 GMT -5
LOL more bollox from you. Try facts. 19 Muslims did it. What I posted are FACTS. What do 19 Muslims have to do with what I posted? Is there something I posted that you can show is not FACT? Why is TRUTH the same as FRAUD to you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 15, 2013 9:05:39 GMT -5
Er 19 Muslims hijacked the planes which were crashed into (and brought about the destruction of) the Twin Towers through structural damage & fire......
Think for once. Everything you post is about trying to deny / distract attention from the above.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 15, 2013 9:57:50 GMT -5
Er 19 Muslims hijacked the planes which were crashed into (and brought about the destruction of) the Twin Towers through structural damage & fire...... Think for once. Everything you post is about trying to deny / distract attention from the above. The usual fake response, change the subject. You said very clearly: "Another thing the fraudulent 'truth' movement will not do is bring civil legal proceedings against those they blame for it."And I responded by listing several lawsuits (or legal proceedings if you'd rather). Your response was: "LOL more bollox from you.
Try facts.
19 Muslims did it."Which other than you "more bollox" nonsense, has nothing to do with the subject YOU brought up. So I asked you what 19 Muslims have to do with the lawsuits and if you can show what I posted is NOT FACT. So your response had nothing to do with those questions (as usual), then you want to claim I'm "deny[ing] / distract[ing]" when you're the one who keeps changing the subject. You are some piece of work Shred. An incredibly audacious fake with some kind of OBVIOUS agenda. This is why I quit responding to your fakery unless you bring up something new to the table that's worth responding to. In this case, the 9/11 lawsuits which I believe have not yet been addressed in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 15, 2013 10:29:01 GMT -5
You're the one with the fake responses and lies not me.
Those lawsuits do not directly accuse your government of having done it. Those lawsuits seem to be about your government (and the airlines) of not having done enough to stop it, and about ground zero toxins. There's nothing claiming controlled demolitions, that'd be laughed out of court not to mention the legal costs that would have to be paid by the conspiracy theorists alleging controlled demolitions. It's all too easy for them to claim inside job but they dare not put their money where their mouths are, because deep down they know their controlled demolition lies are lies.
As for your lies about Larry Silverstein, his company took out a 99 year lease from the New York Port Authority for WTC's 1-6 (his company commissioned the construction of WTC7 in the 1980s), following the attacks he was losing $10m a month on the site. He didn't profit at all. He needed the insurance money to break even. Besides another thing about the "pull it" comment, he said "They decided to pull" not I decided to pull, They (the firefighters) decided to pull... Indeed the firefighters pulled OUT and they let it burn. It was the right decision as there'd been so much loss of life, it made no sense to risk lives fighting fire in an empty building without adequate water supplies.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 15, 2013 12:14:30 GMT -5
Yet another garbage claim. Your original claim was: "the fraudulent 'truth' movement will not do is bring civil legal proceedings against those they blame for it."Then you claim: "Those lawsuits do not directly accuse your government of having done it."But in the very first link is a lawsuit by Ellen Mariana where Counts 2 through 7 names Bush and others: www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/MarianiAC.html"There's nothing claiming controlled demolitions"If you read your own bulls**t claim above, you never said anything controlled demolitions or any lawsuit accusing government of having "done" 9/11. You said "BLAME". Read your own LIES. Regardless, there may not be a lawsuit that brings up controlled demolitions but there sure is a standing petition to Congress to investigate 9/11 because the signatories at AE911TRUTH have claimed controlled demolitions. To file a lawsuit in the US, one first has to have proper standing. Since you're not an American and know nothing about lawsuits in the US, you have no clue as to how these actions work. Then there's this lawsuit alleging explosions at the Pentagon and charging Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Myers with broad complicity: www.dailypaul.com/81859/9-11-pentagon-attack-survivor-files-lawsuit-cheney-rumsfeld-myers "As for your lies about Larry Silverstein"
What lies fake one? Can you show that Larry Silverstein is not suing the airlines as I provided the link? Can you show that Silverstein did not make over $7 billion from his first lawsuit?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 15, 2013 12:30:53 GMT -5
(EDIT) You're always name calling me Bob. Don't dish it if you can't take it. (EDIT)
Anyway you're wrong, as usual. Exhibit A:
She doesn't say HE attacked America. She doesn't say it was an inside job. She accuses him of incompetence and covering up incompetence.
Next: The only explosion at the Pentagon: was Flight 77. It's transponder had been turned off meaning it's altitude was unknown. The F16's sent up to defend America's skies didn't have enough information to go on and were too far away from Flight 77 to shoot it down. And once over Washington DC a shootdown would have caused ground casualties anyway.
You claimed Silverstein profited from it. He did not. He lost $10m a month and required insurance to recoup his losses.
Anyway, you tell me what the outcomes of these lawsuits were ? What were the rulings of the Judges ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 15, 2013 12:52:06 GMT -5
"She doesn't say HE attacked America. She doesn't say it was an inside job."
Neither did you when you falsely claimed no lawsuits.
"She accuses him of incompetence and covering up incompetence."
Do you understand your own sentence? You said BLAME. Do you need a link to a dictionary so you can look up the word?
"The only explosion at the Pentagon: was Flight 77. It's transponder had been turned off meaning it's altitude was unknown. The F16's sent up to defend America's skies didn't have enough information to go on and were too far away from Flight 77 to shoot it down. And once over Washington DC a shootdown would have caused ground casualties anyway."
The topic is LAWSUITS, try to stay on point if you can. It's YOUR topic.
"You claimed Silverstein profited from it. He did not. He lost $10m a month and required insurance to recoup his losses."
He made $7 billion from the lawsuit and he's trying for more. If that's not enough profit for you, nothing is.
"you tell me what the outcomes of these lawsuits were ? What were the rulings of the Judges ?"
Why? Do you have difficulty doing the research yourself? I know you have difficulty interpreting what you find (or more likely pretend to). Use your PC and Google (or your favorite search engine). I gave you a head start, I'm sure you know by now that I don't owe you anything and it's not my job to educate you. Anything you find you'll change to suit your opinion anyway so what's the point faker?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 16, 2013 3:01:00 GMT -5
Quite the pedantic one aren't you ? Ok she BLAMES Bush of incompetence and covering up incompetence.
Before this thread I had heard of no lawsuits against the US government accusing them of having done it. I still have heard of no lawsuits against the US government accusing them of having done it. I've still heard of no lawsuits about the ridiculous nanothermite claims.
And before the lawsuit Silverstein had lost a fortune on 9/11. After the lawsuit he recouped his investment but as part of the conditions of the lease his business has had to fund the building of a NEW World Trade Centre, so he STILL hasn't made a profit.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 16, 2013 8:55:23 GMT -5
"Quite the pedantic one aren't you ?"With you I have to be. It's also my nature. As I said, my background is programming and analysis. As well, I have taught myself and been taught what I call the art of legalese. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the latter but I can say that over 40 years of my career should put me at a fair level of expertise with the former. You won't get away with too much of your bulls**t with me. "Ok she BLAMES Bush of incompetence and covering up incompetence."Yeah right, it's a hell of a lot more than just that (see count VI the word INTENTIONAL). And in the other lawsuit, others in government are also blamed. You made a specific incorrect claim and I contradicted your claim. When you didn't accept the FACTS I had to assume your original claim was just a plain lie (as opposed to just an ignorant claim) because that's your history. "Before this thread I had heard of no lawsuits against the US government accusing them of having done it."It would be very difficult to initiate such a lawsuit, if not impossible, because to this day, no one really knows who was involved even if anyone in government did actually dip their criminal fingers into 9/11 (although there is an incredible amount of evidence that some did). There are many possibilities but in order to bring suit, one has to be specific. We just won't ever really know without a REAL investigation, will we? In fact, now that you brought that up, there's a new book out by Kevin Ryan: Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
About the author:
Kevin Ryan is the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and a whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories. He has contributed to many books and scientific articles on the subject of 9/11, and has made presentations around the U.S. and Canada. He has appeared on National Public Radio, Air America Radio, Pacifica Radio, C-SPAN Book TV, Free Speech TV, and Colorado Public Television.
Authored by Kevin Robert Ryan Edition: 1
Were the crimes of September 11, 2001 solely the work of Osama bin Laden and nineteen troubled young Arabs, or were more powerful people involved? After a decade of investigation, the long-time co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Kevin Ryan, offers an evidence-based analysis of nineteen other suspects.
Although a number of books have demonstrated that the official accounts are false, Another Nineteen takes the next, crucial step toward a new investigation into the crimes of 9/11. With the support of victim's families and leading 9/11 researchers, Ryan examines nineteen suspects who were in position to accomplish major elements of the crimes that still need to be explained. Detailed evidence is presented that reveals how each of the alternative suspects had the means, motive and opportunity to accomplish one or more aspect of the 9/11 events. In light of a forty-year history of deep events and crimes against democracy, Ryan shows how 9/11 fits into the pattern of a deep state operation, how the alternate suspects worked together throughout that history, how each was connected to two men who were in perfect position to coordinate the attacks, and how these suspects can either be charged with 9/11 crimes today or further investigated in focused ways.
www.createspace.com/4289114"I've still heard of no lawsuits about the ridiculous nanothermite claims."Who would one sue about that? You can't sue an inanimate object (the nano-thermite). Perhaps you can sue those who might have planted it but who are they? Again, you need specifics in order to sue. As to Silverstein, you can call it what you want but anyone in his right mind might would say a $7 billion windfall is an incredible amount of money to PROFIT from.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 17, 2013 5:47:36 GMT -5
LOL firstly the ridiculous Kevin 'waterboy' Ryan is a proven liar who got sacked from Underwriters Laboratories for publicly lying and misrepresenting the company in his lies.
Secondly there was no nanothermite planted in any WTC building, independent scientific analysis of WTC dust disproves all thermite claims.
Thirdly, regarding Silverstein, think how much it costs to BUILD fit and furnish skyscrapers. It costs billions mate. He didn't profit from 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 17, 2013 7:21:09 GMT -5
Ah of course, let's go back to something you're good at, smearing everyone who doesn't agree with you, including shooting the messenger. It doesn't matter if it's individuals or hundreds of million people. "LOL firstly the ridiculous Kevin 'waterboy' Ryan is a proven liar who got sacked from Underwriters Laboratories for publicly lying and misrepresenting the company in his lies."Well of course you want to distort reality, that's your typical M.O. Reality is that he was fired for questioning the official 9/11 story, he wrote a letter questioning NIST. He worked for Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., a company with government contracts. www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfiredDid you buy and read his book? No of course not, you just want to shoot him down before you even bother if you ever do that is. The rest is just more of your repetitive bulls**t that has been addressed ad nauseum and not worth responding to yet again.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 17, 2013 9:24:43 GMT -5
I'm not smearing the ex water tester Kevin Ryan, he ruined his own reputation himself when he lied about his work at Underwriters Laboratories and they sacked him for involving the company in his lies.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 17, 2013 9:28:33 GMT -5
I'm not smearing the ex water tester Kevin Ryan, he ruined his own reputation himself when he lied about his work at Underwriters Laboratories and they sacked him for involving the company in his lies. Wrong, you smear everyone and everything that you don't agree with when it comes to 9/11, down to the most minute and irrelevant, it's been your M.O. since you started posting here.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 17, 2013 9:41:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 17, 2013 11:01:28 GMT -5
I didn't lie about anything nor, unlike you, do I need to lie about 9/11. I also don't need to support Kevin Ryan or anyone else. Citing yet another ANONYMOUS "debunking site" that cites a company with numerous government contracts is absolutely meaningless. It also doesn't change your M.O., that you need to smear everyone and anything you don't agree with, and use shoot the messenger tactics, including resorting to name calling.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 17, 2013 17:47:49 GMT -5
You do lie about 9/11, all the time as it happens. For some reason you feel a need to, you even feel a need to censor my posts at times when the truth cuts too deep. You're always trying to excuse the 19 bastards who did it. All the time you cite conspiracy theory sites whose aim is the same, it's always about denying what the 19 hijackers did and trying to claim controlled demolition without any hard evidence. You're like a broken record.
On other issues like whistleblowers I agree. Where war crimes have been committed, they need prosecuting. But there's no need for your 9/11 lies at all mate. There's enough stuff about rendition and torture, why not talk about that instead, you'd get no argument from me at all, in fact, you'd have my support.
|
|