Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > Are you accusing him of being responsable ? I thought you had all the answers.... (?) "The bigger the lie and the more often it's repeated, the more who believe it." -- Josef Goebbels - Nazi German 'Minister of Propaganda' 1897-1945 "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." -- Sandra Day O'Connor, March 9, 2006 Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > So lets see an unedited copy ? Whatsamatta' fixerman.... you selectively going bling while reading this thread? Read it quoted : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.html Hear it said : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mp3 Watch him say it : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/pullit.mpg Hear the key word again : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt2.mp3 See the whole documentary on PBS. "America Rebuilds" Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > Are you claiming those are unedited copies ? It's non-stop footage, if that's what you mean.... Read it quoted : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.html Hear it said : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mp3 Watch him say it : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/pullit.mpg Hear the key word again : http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt2.mp3 Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 > "Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:%axRh.6344$ya1.2846@news02.roc.ny... > > He never said "pull the building" He never said "pull the firefighters" either, shill-face. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message. > A guided bomb needs to on site preperation to work. Your ARE an idiot after all.... it requires your silly-assed little red dot, doesn't it? "A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get." -- Ian Williams Goddard Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... .. > We store them with the "hush a bomb" "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenal Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message... > Making up scarier scenarios for tragedies that are already scary. That's an > attitude. Obviously, something is wrong in your life. I hope you recover and/or make peace with it soon. FWIW, I wasn't serious about your committing suicide... that was a bad joke. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > Funny but we watched some ofthe coverage that day live. > I distinctly remeber seeing the building bulging. You should refrain from taking LSD while on active duty. "The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." -- Theodore Roosevelt - (1858-1919) 26th US President - Source: letter 01/10/1917 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <4615da0d$0$5743$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled >> >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:ev4jii$7hj$1@panix5.panix.com... >> >> <snip> >> >> > Did you ever try to tell a tenured professor what to think? >> > >> > Your parania is showing, and you are insulting the intellectual >> > honesty and patriotism of hundreds if not a few thousand people that >> > contributed to the NIST reports in some way. >> > >> > And many thousands to a few million people, worldwide with expertise >> > look at these NIST reports from their own professional perspectives >> > and speak out if they see something. >> > >> > They frequently do, but don't conflate professioanl disagreements with >> > the idea that any of them think that explosives/thermate/thermite is >> > needed to explain the events of 9/11. >> > >> > There are millions of people, worldwide, with relevent expertise that >> > take an interest in the collapse of WTC1/2/7 for professional reasons. >> > They work for other governments, academia, and private industry. None >> > of them have said that explosives were needed to explian WTC1/2/7. >> >> And yet the firemen who were eye witnesses saw and >> heard explosions. And the guy/company who supplied the >> structural steel for the WTC got fired when he claimed that >> there was no way that fires caused the collapse. > >They heard loud booms. >And the guy who got fired ? >Who was he ? Any time the "Truth Movement" quotes a NY fireman or EMS person, you can look in the offical transcripts of the debreifing of about 500 of them, here. Make sure the Truthie uses the entire entire relevent quote. They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html Tankie; Please tell us who the "steel guy" is. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <46170109$0$27883$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >news:KgDRh.392$3P3.279@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ><snip> > >> So lets see an unedited copy ? > >Read the thread, and follow the links > > We are asking for what Silverstein says before and after the bit that the Truthies wanted us to see. We can ask for truth, too. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <aMDRh.20255$tD2.12296@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <46170109$0$27883$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled >> >> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >> news:KgDRh.392$3P3.279@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> <snip> >> >> > So lets see an unedited copy ? >> >> Read the thread, and follow the links >> > >Are you claiming those are unedited copies ? > No. But a serious investigator can contact them and ask them if that's what they realy said. The idea that 500 very patriotic emergancy workers all get the memo, and got it the same day before they went home, talked to their famalirs and the press and follow their bit of the script to the letter is absurd. It is an insult to those fine people, all of whom lost friends on that day and want the true story to be told at least as much as any agitator in the "truth movement". If 9/11 is a conspiracy, the memo had to go out prior to 9/11, and to countless thousands of peole prior to 9/11. Each would have to be customized for his part. No ad-libbing allowed. You are insulting lots of fine people, some of whom I know. If you, "tankfixer", are really a vet, you should know what I am talking about. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <MPG.2080cb9fa511e6a7989a3e@news.datemas.de>, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon <nahasapeemapetilon@gmail.com> wrote: >Tankfixer paul.carrier@us.army.m said: >> Why cant we see an unedited copy ? >> >Why are you saying that you can't? > > > >Why are insipid questions somehow "guilt by association" affirmatives by >conspiracy kooks? > >Most people believe that Bush took advantage of the events of 9/11. > >Those who say it's a grand conspiracy, have lame dip-shit claims like "Pull >It" means blow up the building and so-on. > >Some assholes actually try to connect the fact that Bush's brother Mel worked >security for WTC7, when he left the job almost 2 years before! > >You cats are nuts. > >I'm a Liberal, not some neo-con spy for PNAC. > >You're just nuts. UFOs, bigfoot, or "truth". Everybody needs an obsession. http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/12/science-vs-bull.html Thursday, December 21, 2006 Science Vs. Bull Joseph Cannon As mentioned in a comment below, my sympathies for conspiracy theories evaporate when the subject switches from investigative reporting to science. I'm all for tracking Lee Harvey Oswald's spooky pals in Guy Banister's office; I'm all for telling the story of what really went down in Allende's Chile; I'm all for sorting out the ins and outs of the Litvinenko case; I'm all for tracking the shadowy world inhabited by guys like Michael Ledeen and groups like the Pinay Circle. But when the subject turns to science, I advise extreme caution. And that's when the conspiracy buffs become pluperfectly pissed off with me, because many of them just love, love, love that pseudoscience. From radionics to Roswell, they dig it. A discursive example: I can't tell you how many times I've argued with film-illiterate conspiracy buffs who knew -- just bloody knew -- that subliminal images appear in The Exorcist. Every time I encounter this claim, I explain that, while quick cuts do exist in that movie, subliminals are impossible. Film runs at 24 frames a second, and 1/24th of a second is not subliminal; that's why you can see scratches and splices in a bad print. 1/3000th of a second is subliminal, but to flash an image so briefly requires a specialized piece of equipment called a tachistiscope. (For the same reason, no subliminals can ever appear on television, which has a 30 fps refresh rate.) The usual response: "There must have been a tachisti-whatzit in the theater!" Actually, I've spoken with the projectionist who ran The Exorcist during its first run at the National in Los Angeles back in '73. (In those days, big films did not open wide.) There was no such device. Point won? Nope. The ne'er-say-die conspiracy buff would invariably accuse me of not knowing anything about movie technology (!) or of being part of the conspiracy. (Before you say it: Yes, I know all about Vicary's stunt in the 1950s. He used a tachistiscope, and his results had no scientific value due to the lack of controls. And yes, I know about the Silverman/Weinberger experiments of the 1980s, which have been questioned due to some unsuccessful attempts at replication.) All of which is my way of coming back to Dylan Avery, director of Loose Change, the film which many controlled demolition believers consider the Matrix-style "red pill" that awoke them to the horrible, horrible truth of what really happened on 9/11. In a recent comment, Dylan revealed that his film is a religious enterprise, not an attempt at scientific inquiry. The giveaway quotation comes from a debate between Dylan Avery, partner Jason Bermas, and debunker Ronald Wieck. You can see the debate here; a partial transcript is here. The revelatory words: Wieck: I want to ask both of you quickly, what would falsify your beliefs? What would it take? What would we need to change your mind about this? Avery: There is nothing. Nothing could falsify this belief? Then -- by definition -- we have left the edifice of science and entered the realm of religion. The existence of God is the most commonly-heard non-falsifiable assertion. If you're as ancient as I am, you may recall this exchange from an old Bill Cosby routine, which demonstrates the principle: Dad: Don't step out the bed. I've placed a dozen poisonous snakes on the floor. Young Bill: I don't see no snakes... Dad: They're invisible! What would falsify my assertion that controlled demolitions did not take down those buildings? A commenter on the Screw Loose Change blog offered some sensible suggestions: - a consensus among structural engineers and demolition experts that there was a demolition - peer-reviewed research supporting twoofer claims - whistleblowers from within the massive conspiracy - a logical narrative would be nice too Actually, I find it odd that we haven't yet had any putative whistleblowers. The hard-core JFK buffs can name about a dozen guys who, over the years, have made dubious "confessions" that they were either one of the shooters or one of the mystery tramps. Back to the main point. My standards for falsification are less demanding. I'm not asking for a consensus of physicists -- a mere twenty would be nice. When the CD-ers can count among their number a certain number of demolition experts -- twenty? Fifteen? -- I will listen respectfully. Right now, the number of demolition experts who believe in the CD theory of 911 is an embarrassing zero. The CD-ers claim that their writings have passed muster in a "peer reviewed" journal, But that publication, The Journal of 911 Studies, does not count among its peers a single person with professional expertise in the area of controlled demolition. And yet it is devoted to "proving" the controlled demolition hypothesis! Why have the editors not recruited any experts in the very field under discussion? Perhaps because those experts would say things that the CD believers may not wish to hear. The fact is, no pro-CD theories have appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific periodical founded before the events in question occurred. As far as I know, all articles published in actual science journals have led readers in a very different direction. Some conspiracists will counter: The editors of those journals must have been paid to print lies! Welcome to the wonderful world of non-falsifiability. If dozens, hundreds of eyewitnesses see a commercial jet smashing into the Pentagon, those witnesses stand damned as liars. Welcome to the wonderful world of non-falsifiability. "The buildings came down at free-fall speeds!" bleat the CD-ers. That argument has been refuted more than once. See here and here and here. Also see the Screw Loose Change video itself -- or any video of the collapse, which shows rubble free-falling at a rate faster than the building collapse. Doesn't matter: Those rebuttals were written in bad faith, and any video evidence that challenges the theory must have been Photoshopped. Welcome to the world of non-falsifiability. Should we extend Avery and Bermas the excuse of youth? Could it be that they did not know how the concept of falsifiability works in science? My High School Science teacher explained the basic principle to me, just as yours probably told you. One can only hope that Avery and Bermas had a similar instructor. Beyond that, everyone must admit that Avery and Bermas are playing with the big boys now. They made a film which spoke to millions about scientific questions, and (unlike most actual scientists) they feel quite comfortable speaking in terms of definitely instead of perhaps. If they did not make it their business to learn the scientific method, they deserve contempt. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <4616fe3a$0$5744$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >news:%XCRh.379$3P3.296@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ><snip> > >> The delta in distance from a known point to the building would tell the >> firefighters that the building was sagging and begining to come down. >> >> I supose a compassionate person would "pull" the firefighters at that >> point. > >But that's not what Silverstien & co. were talking about. >They were talking about "pulling" the building, not the firefighters. We what to wee the entire video to understand the context. The Truthies never cite sources that can be verified unless it works to support their claim. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <MPHRh.176$Z66.120@trnddc06>, David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > >> The delta in distance from a known point to the building would tell the >> firefighters that the building was sagging and begining to come down. > >WRONG !!!! > > >NO STEEL CORED, STEEL FRAMED BUILDING EVER .... IN ALL OF >HISTORY BEFORE 911, AND EVER SINCE, HAS FALLEN FROM FIRES. > The WTC towers didn't collapse only due to "fires". You know that. There isn't anybody with any expertise in construction or demolition that claims that explosives explain what happened to the WTC towers. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <461701e7$0$9774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >news:miDRh.393$3P3.179@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > ><snip> > >> So you don't know and don't care. You just make crap up > >My dear friend, learn to join the dots, and develop >some free thinking for yourself. It will serve you well >for the rest of your life. >Clue ==> Always suspect what your government tells you. > > That's a fine sentiment, but start from the fact, true so far, that there is nobody in the world with appropriate expertise that says that explosives/thermite/thermate explain who WTC1/2/7 collapsed and that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Feel free to indict and impeach the Bush administration for their lies and war, but base the case on what they did, and the public record, not bullshit. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <57ojp2F2a8k8uU1@mid.individual.net>, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Tankfixer wrote: >> In article <461701e7$0$9774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled >>> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >>> news:miDRh.393$3P3.179@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> So you don't know and don't care. You just make crap up >>> My dear friend, learn to join the dots, and develop >>> some free thinking for yourself. It will serve you well >>> for the rest of your life. >>> Clue ==> Always suspect what your government tells you. >> >> Actually it is, always suspect what ANYONE tells you. >> > >Especially if they're from the government, tinkerbell. Or anyone that insists they are telling you the "truth" but hides everything that contradicts their claim. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <EZHRh.179$Z66.17@trnddc06>, David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > >> always suspect what ANYONE tells you. >> >> Some seem to have missed that truth. > >You being the first and foremost amongst the losers who missed the thruth >boat and bought the propaganda story, hook, line, and sinker. > >That's OK... because unlike Kennedy, King, etc... John Q. Public now has >the ability to network and communicate around the world, so this gig will >be up soon enough and you will still be the loser. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <p3IRh.180$Z66.176@trnddc06>, David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> coughed up in message... > >> findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm wrote... > >> > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... >> > > >> > > Because they had laser rangefinders painting it and could tell it was >> > > moving ? That it was unstable and might come down ? > >> > Did your Uncle Sam teach you the "paint" word, little FIXER man? > >> No, my dad did. > > >Your attacks on the patriotic aspirations of the people you insult here >are indicative that you are a poor excuse for an American, and an even >poorer excuse for a possible soldier of this once great nation. > People that edit facts and present them as reality, and hide the complete truth about any specific quote are rarely the Good Guys in any disagreement. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <a9DRh.386$3P3.164@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <oakRh.7665$i93.525@trnddc05>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm >mumbled >> >> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message.... >> >> > So far the proponents of the "implosion" theory can't explain why no one >> > saw any evidence of the building being prepared. >> >> >> No one on the ground saw any evidence before the first smart bomb >> hit Bagdad, either.... but it damned sure hit now didn't it? >> > >Weak strawman argument. > >A guided bomb needs to on site preperation to work. >Controled demo does. > With many tons of explosives which nobody happened to notice. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 On 7 Apr 2007 08:54:08 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >In article <86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >>In article <4615da0d$0$5743$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >>iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled >>> >>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >>> news:ev4jii$7hj$1@panix5.panix.com... >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> > Did you ever try to tell a tenured professor what to think? >>> > >>> > Your parania is showing, and you are insulting the intellectual >>> > honesty and patriotism of hundreds if not a few thousand people that >>> > contributed to the NIST reports in some way. >>> > >>> > And many thousands to a few million people, worldwide with expertise >>> > look at these NIST reports from their own professional perspectives >>> > and speak out if they see something. >>> > >>> > They frequently do, but don't conflate professioanl disagreements with >>> > the idea that any of them think that explosives/thermate/thermite is >>> > needed to explain the events of 9/11. >>> > >>> > There are millions of people, worldwide, with relevent expertise that >>> > take an interest in the collapse of WTC1/2/7 for professional reasons. >>> > They work for other governments, academia, and private industry. None >>> > of them have said that explosives were needed to explian WTC1/2/7. >>> >>> And yet the firemen who were eye witnesses saw and >>> heard explosions. And the guy/company who supplied the >>> structural steel for the WTC got fired when he claimed that >>> there was no way that fires caused the collapse. >> >>They heard loud booms. >>And the guy who got fired ? >>Who was he ? > > >Any time the "Truth Movement" quotes a NY fireman or EMS person, you >can look in the offical transcripts of the debreifing of about 500 of >them, here. Make sure the Truthie uses the entire entire relevent >quote. They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the >guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it >clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. IOW, most of them know that the conspiracy stuff is all garbage and the people, like Zepp, that believe it are just useful idiots. >http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html > > >Tankie; Please tell us who the "steel guy" is. Quote
Guest orionca@earthlink.net Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:54:11 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >A rouge alien starship You sure it wasn't a blue one? We had a fleet of blue saucers pass fairly close to Earth in early September 2001. NORAD tracked them pretty closely to make sure they didn't try anything but 1-2 could have slipped through the tachyon sensor net. -- I'm on a journey in search of myself. If I get back first, let me know that I'm looking for myself and don't let me leave. Quote
Guest orionca@earthlink.net Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:27:33 -0400, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon <nahasapeemapetilon@gmail.com> wrote: >Tankfixer paul.carrier@us.army.m said: >> Why cant we see an unedited copy ? >> >Why are you saying that you can't? Fine. Give us a URL. -- I'm on a journey in search of myself. If I get back first, let me know that I'm looking for myself and don't let me leave. Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <fUHRh.178$Z66.40@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > I don't know, are you ? > > > You have faaar too much time on your hands to be serving. > And you jave far too much time on your hands to have a job. -- -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <p3IRh.180$Z66.176@trnddc06>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> coughed up in message... > > > findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm wrote... > > > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message... > > > > > > > > Because they had laser rangefinders painting it and could tell it was > > > > moving ? That it was unstable and might come down ? > > > > Did your Uncle Sam teach you the "paint" word, little FIXER man? > > > No, my dad did. > > > Your attacks on the patriotic aspirations of the people you insult here > are indicative that you are a poor excuse for an American, and an even > poorer excuse for a possible soldier of this once great nation. PKB ? For you accuse hundreds, perhaps thousand of soldiers, sailors and airmen in complicity is beyond any standard of honor. With edited video and statements taken out of context you try to weave some giant conspiracy. In the process you slander good men and women. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 In article <ev849g$s7g$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled > In article <86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: > >In article <4615da0d$0$5743$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, > >iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > >> > >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message > >> news:ev4jii$7hj$1@panix5.panix.com... > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> > Did you ever try to tell a tenured professor what to think? > >> > > >> > Your parania is showing, and you are insulting the intellectual > >> > honesty and patriotism of hundreds if not a few thousand people that > >> > contributed to the NIST reports in some way. > >> > > >> > And many thousands to a few million people, worldwide with expertise > >> > look at these NIST reports from their own professional perspectives > >> > and speak out if they see something. > >> > > >> > They frequently do, but don't conflate professioanl disagreements with > >> > the idea that any of them think that explosives/thermate/thermite is > >> > needed to explain the events of 9/11. > >> > > >> > There are millions of people, worldwide, with relevent expertise that > >> > take an interest in the collapse of WTC1/2/7 for professional reasons. > >> > They work for other governments, academia, and private industry. None > >> > of them have said that explosives were needed to explian WTC1/2/7. > >> > >> And yet the firemen who were eye witnesses saw and > >> heard explosions. And the guy/company who supplied the > >> structural steel for the WTC got fired when he claimed that > >> there was no way that fires caused the collapse. > > > >They heard loud booms. > >And the guy who got fired ? > >Who was he ? > > > Any time the "Truth Movement" quotes a NY fireman or EMS person, you > can look in the offical transcripts of the debreifing of about 500 of > them, here. Make sure the Truthie uses the entire entire relevent > quote. They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the > guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it > clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. > > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html > > > Tankie; Please tell us who the "steel guy" is. Dude, I'm the guy asking the same thing ! -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.