heres some shit....

[multi]

yeh..yeh..whatever you say
ofcourse you are the fucking expert on evrything...

[albed]

Some people are just too lazy or burned out to bother learning new stuff. Give him a website that tells him what to think without the effort of learning anything new or thinking too hard.

[multi]

can you look anymore the pretentious twat that you are...is it possible?

[miss_silver]

Jcat

Just finished reading your link. That person make a very good point using material/factual evidences but in the end, he totally blows it by his conclusion on the subject. Thought the webpage had way too many ads flashing... This person must be desperate to keep this page up at minimal cost

Anyway, this is it's conclusion

Conclusion

I highly doubt that

local firefighters would be involved in any sort of a coverup. I highly doubt that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life for their families (I have many friends in both professions - of course the firemen are usually more stable marriage-wise because of their job but that doesn't make the cops any less human than you or I). The men and women who pulled over a hundred people (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than not have noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of the fire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagon was not filled with every single person who died in this terrorist attack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is one thing and one thing only - ignorant...You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.

Local firefighters? Makes me wonder who he thaught those guys were?




Got me curious, so I googled up ""montgomery collapse rescue team. The search result is what surprised me the most. The first to hits are worth the look.

[jcat]

Thought the webpage had way too many ads flashing.

wierd i have'nt noticed any, i was told that by someone else but haven't ahd any pops or anything, it must be adblock on firefox doing something usefull. ah i see i blocked right media on another site , that must be whee all the popups and shit come from..

haha jsut clicked on ya google link and fema is on the top line of the first hit, says enough

[albed]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

Local firefighters? Makes me wonder who he thaught those guys were?

Are you really too stupid to notice that the fire has been put out? Do you know what MD means (Maryland), and do you know where it is?

This is what people mean when they tell you you have your head up your ass.

[schmooky007]

i'm bemused reading all the crap of those who question the fact that a 757 did crash into the pentagon and that all these websites who are claiming otherwise are merely stating a different "opinion". there is no opinion! it's quite obvious that not much will be left when a plane the size of a 757 fully fueled hits a solid structure at over 500 mph.

you can clearly see the hole it left, the huge fires afterwards prove that a large amount of aviation fuel was on board, you can clearly see the charred parts of the landing gear, the APU, and fan blades, and, for all those who believe that a missile crashed into the pentagon and not a plane, clearly marked pieces of fuselage with the rivet markings and greenish primer and the logo of american airlines.

did i forget to mention that barbara olsen, the conservative journalist who made regular appearances on CNN and fox news and is probably best known for her unrelenting criticism of the clinton administration, was on this flight? she called her husband, solicitor general ted olsen, just before the plane crashed and told him that the flight has been hijacked and they're over washington DC.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

I'm laughing even harder that someone who can make such pointless little circles (as albed did in his last 'response' to me) wants anyone to believe they have 'the big picture'--that someone can "evaluate large amounts of information and come to rational conclusions" when they apparently can't even get the gist of a couple of simple paragraphs.

As to inconclusiveness being a crucial aspect of certain questions, It's downright scary that you couldn't figure this out on your own and you have to ask for examples. Did you really think you had me there? Well that's even scarier, I can think of about 1000 examples without even really trying, but you really must believe you have all the answers.

Did OJ do it? When will you die? Is there life after death? What will you be doing at 6:15 PM on July 14th, 2018? What will happen if you gamble your paycheck on the lottery? What happened to the dinosaurs? Is there life on other planets? What will be the total cost of the war in Iraq? How many innocent people are in prison? When will it rain next? When will the sun burn out? Oscillating Big Bang or steady state? Particle or Wave? Choice or Genetic? Global warming or no problem? Does Michael Jackson have sex with little boys? Did Janet Jackson mean to flash her tit? If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the human body actually lose 21 grams at the moment of death, and why? What was the hump under the president's jacket? Who is right about Jesus, the Christians or the Jews? Why do we dream? What happened to the Anasazi? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Will Iraq be a successful democracy? Is it possible to build a perpetual motion machine? What did William Shakespeare eat for breakfast on his 11th birthday? Will artificial intelligence ever exceed human intelligence? How would gay people getting married affect straight people getting married? Is the speed of light an inflexible constant? How many more Americans will die in Iraq? Who will be the first human to step foot on Mars? When and where will the next earthquake be? Are all crop circles hoaxes? Will a democratic Iraq prevent future 911s? Is telepathy possible? How would the last election have turned out if everyone who didn't vote voted? Who was Jack the Ripper? Where is Bid Laden? If you flip a coin 100 times, how many times will it land on heads and how many on tails? How many fingers am I holding up right now?

To anyone who claims to be as smart as you it should be plain as day that in most of the above examples if you believe you have conclusive answers it is precisely that, a belief. You don't know the answers and you may never know the answers, but you may prefer to believe one thing over another. It also seems ridiculous to have to point out that affirming the inconclusiveness of most of these problems is the most important aspect. The concept of manmade global warming has been around for about 30 years, but it's still inconclusive. Those who affirm its inconclusiveness are still doing the work of trying to determine if it's a viable concept, while those who believe one or another conclusion simply pointlessly argue with each other about their beliefs.

How much would you bet with someone that you could flip a coin and have it land on heads 100 times in a row? Hopefully not much--but I can't be sure. I haven't drawn any conclusions about exactly how stupid you may be.

There is no "official view" that you people keep referring to. There is sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events they're testifying to. If you want to ignore them and believe whatever nutcase some lowlife tabloid reporter dredged up then that's your perogative.

Obviously since you're too lazy and burnt out to actually analyze the situation for yourself you believe you can avoid defending this official view by claiming it doesn't exist, but no one believes you. So what value is this sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events if not to serve as an "official view?" Seems if there's no official view as you claim, that would be a lot of bother for nothing. As I recall, the "official view" of what happened played an enormous role in many policy making decisions of the last few years, did you miss all that? And by the way, where is this sworn testimony? Can you produce it? And if it's all so obvious why would anyone bother to collect such testimonies? Also, do sworn testimonies represent absolute truth in every case?

In a previous post you claimed "in keeping with your self-image as nonconformist rebels you start parroting whatever is contrary to mainstream convention thereby proclaiming: 'look how special and different I am'." What is this "mainstream convention" of which you speak? It's nothing like an "official view" is it?

And by the way, since you're attacking people's spelling, you might want to run a spell check on your own posts, you seem to have no idea how to spell inconsistencies or prerogative.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by albed

Are you really too stupid to notice that the fire has been put out? Do you know what MD means (Maryland), and do you know where it is?

This is what people mean when they tell you you have your head up your ass.

What your point? Felt like typing a few words before insulting yet another member, again? BTW, who are these so called "people", got some names? or are you hiding behind those fictionnal 'people' to cover the fact that it is only you who thinks this way? I can come up with a few names but unfortunately, they fall under the same breed as you.

Multi, remember that PM i sent you about the rommie, apply it to albed. Same type of behaviour.

schmooky007, personnally, i'm also bemused that people don't realise how some precision flying it was. What I mean is that these planes flew at 500 mph ffs. Even the instructor told the press that those 'terrorists' couldn't even fly a cesna, imagine them now, flying jumbo airplanes at the speed of 500 mph and hitting their target, all 3 of them. It just doesn't sound right.

BTW, i'd also like one of those indestructible passport, the type that can resists high temp fire and can survive after a building crashes on it.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

I'm laughing even harder that someone who can make such pointless little circles (as albed did in his last 'response' to me) wants anyone to believe they have 'the big picture'--that someone can "evaluate large amounts of information and come to rational conclusions" when they apparently can't even get the gist of a couple of simple paragraphs.

As to inconclusiveness being a crucial aspect of certain questions, It's downright scary that you couldn't figure this out on your own and you have to ask for examples. Did you really think you had me there? Well that's even scarier, I can think of about 1000 examples without even really trying, but you really must believe you have all the answers.

Did OJ do it? When will you die? Is there life after death? What will you be doing at 6:15 PM on July 14th, 2018? What will happen if you gamble your paycheck on the lottery? What happened to the dinosaurs? Is there life on other planets? What will be the total cost of the war in Iraq? How many innocent people are in prison? When will it rain next? When will the sun burn out? Oscillating Big Bang or steady state? Particle or Wave? Choice or Genetic? Global warming or no problem? Does Michael Jackson have sex with little boys? Did Janet Jackson mean to flash her tit? If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the human body actually lose 21 grams at the moment of death, and why? What was the hump under the president's jacket? Who is right about Jesus, the Christians or the Jews? Why do we dream? What happened to the Anasazi? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Will Iraq be a successful democracy? Is it possible to build a perpetual motion machine? What did William Shakespeare eat for breakfast on his 11th birthday? Will artificial intelligence ever exceed human intelligence? How would gay people getting married affect straight people getting married? Is the speed of light an inflexible constant? How many more Americans will die in Iraq? Who will be the first human to step foot on Mars? When and where will the next earthquake be? Are all crop circles hoaxes? Will a democratic Iraq prevent future 911s? Is telepathy possible? How would the last election have turned out if everyone who didn't vote voted? Who was Jack the Ripper? Where is Bid Laden? If you flip a coin 100 times, how many times will it land on heads and how many on tails? How many fingers am I holding up right now?

To anyone who claims to be as smart as you it should be plain as day that in most of the above examples if you believe you have conclusive answers it is precisely that, a belief. You don't know the answers and you may never know the answers, but you may prefer to believe one thing over another. It also seems ridiculous to have to point out that affirming the inconclusiveness of most of these problems is the most important aspect. The concept of manmade global warming has been around for about 30 years, but it's still inconclusive. Those who affirm its inconclusiveness are still doing the work of trying to determine if it's a viable concept, while those who believe one or another conclusion simply pointlessly argue with each other about their beliefs.

How much would you bet with someone that you could flip a coin and have it land on heads 100 times in a row? Hopefully not much--but I can't be sure. I haven't drawn any conclusions about exactly how stupid you may be.



Obviously since you're too lazy and burnt out to actually analyze the situation for yourself you believe you can avoid defending this official view by claiming it doesn't exist, but no one believes you. So what value is this sworn testimony by people who have been established as being in a position to have direct knowledge of the events if not to serve as an "official view?" Seems if there's no official view as you claim, that would be a lot of bother for nothing. As I recall, the "official view" of what happened played an enormous role in many policy making decisions of the last few years, did you miss all that? And by the way, where is this sworn testimony? Can you produce it? And if it's all so obvious why would anyone bother to collect such testimonies? Also, do sworn testimonies represent absolute truth in every case?

In a previous post you claimed "in keeping with your self-image as nonconformist rebels you start parroting whatever is contrary to mainstream convention thereby proclaiming: 'look how special and different I am'." What is this "mainstream convention" of which you speak? It's nothing like an "official view" is it?

And by the way, since you're attacking people's spelling, you might want to run a spell check on your own posts, you seem to have no idea how to spell inconsistencies or prerogative.

You need to talk to multi about the spelling. You obviously missed the whole "cleaver" theme there, but then you miss a lot of things.

I'd teach you how to learn new words but it'd be difficult with your monkey see-monkey do technique of learning. It involves googling and clicking the definition link on the upper right.

Mainstream: The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity

Convention: General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes

Sworn testimony http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...1/pdf/appc.pdf
160 witnesses testified under oath before the 9/11 commission.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

inconclusiveness can often be the most crucial aspect of the information.

Questions aren't information. All I asked for was examples of information with an inconclusive aspect and all you give are questions. See if you can do that google-definition thing I explained for information so you understand how it's different from question. And then come up with the appropriate examples if you can.

[albed]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

What your point? Felt like typing a few words before insulting yet another member, again? BTW, who are these so called "people", got some names? or are you hiding behind those fictionnal 'people' to cover the fact that it is only you who thinks this way? I can come up with a few names but unfortunately, they fall under the same breed as you.

Them's the people. My point was you have the pic right in front of you and still fail to see or understand what's in it and what it is.

Originally Posted by miss_silver

Multi, remember that PM i sent you about the rommie, apply it to albed. Same type of behaviour.

Sounds like a great guy.

Originally Posted by miss_silver

schmooky007, personnally, i'm also bemused that people don't realise how some precision flying it was. What I mean is that these planes flew at 500 mph ffs. Even the instructor told the press that those 'terrorists' couldn't even fly a cesna, imagine them now, flying jumbo airplanes at the speed of 500 mph and hitting their target, all 3 of them. It just doesn't sound right.

Get yourself one of the realistic flying games, Microsoft Flight Simulator or WW2 Air Combat. I have them and it's not that hard.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by albed

Them's the people.

Thought as much, you don't have any names to give beside your own.

Sounds like a great guy.

He is but he's also neurotic. Always need to have the last word, always right and never wrong, knows everything when other ppl don't know squat, becomes verbally agressive when being cornered in a discussion and have no arguements to defend himself, ie, resorts to insults when he can't make a valid statement.

Get yourself one of the realistic flying games, Microsoft Flight Simulator or WW2 Air Combat. I have them and it's not that hard.

Still can't argue like a normal person, eh? Guess you just had that need to compare the real world to a virtual one.

And now, to analyse your behaviour in depth, there is only one word I can come up with. Troll .

This page will define the activity, and help with early recognition; once acknowledged, trolls can take up residence, and, like athlete's foot, can be difficult to shift.

What Is A Troll?

The term derives from "trolling", a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.
Why do trolls do it?

I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.

Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.

For trolls, any response is 'recognition'; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.

Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it's a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?

Remember that trolls are cowards; they'll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that's what they do!).

How can troll posts be recognised?

* No Imagination - Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses' groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.

* Pedantic in the Extreme - Many trolls' preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail - the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.

* False Identity - Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!

* Crossposting - Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?

* Off-topic posting - Often genuine errors, but, if from an 'outsider' they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it's a troll post, you have denied it its reward.

* Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll - or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.

* Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line in missing the point.

* Thick or Sad - Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web

Who is at risk?

Any newsgroup, bulletin board, forum or chatroom can attract trolls, but they don't have the brains to attack nuclear physicists, and they are drawn to the quick response where sex, religion and race are found; so politics is easy prey.

One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls and one regular, it didn't have a chance - but it was stupid enough to persist until removed.

When Should You Be Concerned?

Usually, no, though fractured funny bones and occasional waves of nausea have been reported.

When a troll become persistent and personal, you may need to consider the possibility that it has fermented into an Internet Stalker - equally pathetic, if not more so - but sometimes requiring weedkiller.

Trolls - if they had brains, they might be dangerous!

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Questions aren't information.

Yes, they are. You read them in print and understood them to be questions, how did you do that if they aren't information? Are you telepathic or something? I'd go on to explain that the questions actually point to broader fields of information, and that they actually imply something inconclusive in each case, but I should never expect you'd actually be able to work this out without someone drawing you a picture and posting it on one of your preferred little websites where you get all your information. It actually requires more mental effort than decoding strings of letters, maybe someday you'll graduate to this level.

I'd teach you how to learn new words but it'd be difficult with your monkey see-monkey do technique of learning. It involves googling and clicking the definition link on the upper right.

The monkey-see-monkey-do thing really hurts coming from someone who thinks their ability to look up isolated word definitions on google is a substitute for comprehension.

I'm sure you consider yourself a master debater because you're slick enough to use a dictionary, but most of us can see you're merely jerking off again.

Believe what you want to believe, the only influence whatever crap you believe has on me is that engenders a suspicion that most people who choose not to question 'mainstream conventions' are just as terminally ignorant as you are, but that's inconclusive.

[albed]

Your panties are in a bunch you American, canadian countrymen hating imp because you keep shoving your head up your ass without removing your panties first.

Wasn't that long ago miss_silver. I assumed you could remember the names when you posted: "I can come up with a few names..." . Guess you were bluffing.

[albed]

Here monkey monkey.

Question: An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.

Information: A collection of facts or data

No new tricks for the old dog eh?

[Ramona_A_Stone]

If you're trying to prove that you're retarded you can rest easy. You proved that a long time ago. If I ever doubt it I can just look at the picture you posted but were too chickenshit to leave up. I saved it to remind myself that sometimes people can actually look as stupid as they sound.

[legion]

Originally Posted by albed

Get yourself one of the realistic flying games, Microsoft Flight Simulator or WW2 Air Combat. I have them and it's not that hard.

Playing microsoft flight sim. for years.

1) Sure it is easy when one knows he isn't going to die
2) sure it is easy without the crosswinds
3) sure it is easy when both engines are Mathematically identical
4) sure it is easy when the ground effect an 757 generates is cancelled out.

dragging a computer game in to real life is not going to fly (sneaky pun there)

the twin towers sure auto pilot will do it for you..... that close to the ground (pentagon) i don't think so.

For my two cents, too many unanswered questions to make the states view believable. But to believe that it is a huge conspiracy is also ....uhm .... a bit out of this world. i just fail to see what "they" had to gain from it

[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

If you're trying to prove that you're retarded you can rest easy. You proved that a long time ago. If I ever doubt it I can just look at the picture you posted but were too chickenshit to leave up. I saved it to remind myself that sometimes people can actually look as stupid as they sound.

I know why you saved it. Go ahead and do your thing, but why did you go back looking again after the thread sunk off the page? I never posted my voice, but that's just in reality, you can pretend whatever you want.

And thanks for not posting yours.

Calling me retarded or the old "baffle 'em with bullshit" routine won't change the meaning of "information" or "question". You should have learned long ago that your thinking doesn't mesh with reality and given up on trying to convince rational people that you're in the right.

[albed]

Originally Posted by toy boy

Playing microsoft flight sim. for years.

1) Sure it is easy when one knows he isn't going to die
2) sure it is easy without the crosswinds
3) sure it is easy when both engines are Mathematically identical
4) sure it is easy when the ground effect an 757 generates is cancelled out.

dragging a computer game in to real life is not going to fly (sneaky pun there)

the twin towers sure auto pilot will do it for you..... that close to the ground (pentagon) i don't think so.

For my two cents, too many unanswered questions to make the states view believable. But to believe that it is a huge conspiracy is also ....uhm .... a bit out of this world. i just fail to see what "they" had to gain from it

Don't know what your trying to say but with no crosswind, engine-out, or ground effect, you're just saying "it sure is easy".

[legion]

Originally Posted by albed

Don't know what your trying to say but with no crosswind, engine-out, or ground effect, you're just saying "it sure is easy".

Unfortunatly ground effect and crosswind can't be switched off in R.L.
i never said a word about engine-out.

the altitude the hijacker(s) flew is next to impossible considering the airspeed.

the conspiracy theorists have one point, at that altitude and with that airspeed the cars on the freeway should have experienced jet wash