4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11106
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1200.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct

LOL
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Rotara posted on 2009-03-22 1:10:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one,not the one that makes you feel good or vindicated.
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:42:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 1:49:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#265. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

BullBarack! Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to gain from it. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to either Israel OR the US,but he was very much a threat to the House of Saud.
Just like every other tribal leader/king in Arabia,the King there dreamed of being the King of a United Arabia. Saddam Hussein had this same dream,and he had the means and the willpower to do it. We invaded Iraq to protect the House of Saud.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
Sneak...I spent a whole 'nother thread being logical with them and it didn't work...
You're arguing with people who do not believe that a planes impact, exposion and ensuing fires caused more than even MINIMAL damage. IN some cases, some believe the planes were remote controlled. Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.
You're also arguing with people who believe that a well financed international terrorist group doesn't exist.
Good luck, mon frer..

war posted on 2009-03-22 8:28:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#520. To: war, sneakypete (#281) (Edited)
Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.

If you believe that a 110 story building (make that TWO 110 story buildings) can collapse in slightly more than free fall speed, then you must also believe that the tooth fairy is really the Easter bunny in drag.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 17:44:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
Helloo...McFly...anyone home McFly??
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

war posted on 2009-03-22 19:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

Excuse me? The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.
Did you miss the one that I posted to YOU, indicating it should have taken about 97 seconds?
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 21:17:54 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#835. To: FormerLurker (#591)
The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.

Wha...chuckle...huh? Go back and rrada it again moron...a point further OUT the the right on an X-axis is a GREATER number, doof.

war posted on 2009-03-23 8:34:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#990. To: war (#835)
Wha...chuckle...huh? Go back and rrada it again moron...a point further OUT the the right on an X-axis is a GREATER number, doof.

The report you link stated that it would have been possible for the WTC to collapse by "pancaking" in 8 seconds, yet it would have taken an object 9.2 seconds to hit the ground if it had fallen through thin air when dropped from the top of the WTC. That is impossible, yet folks like you not only believe that it is possible, but you view it as scientific fact.
Then you have the gall to think you know more about physics than those who know better, and have the audacity to call them morons or worse...

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-23 16:09:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1135. To: FormerLurker (#990)
The report you link stated that it would have been possible for the WTC to collapse by "pancaking" in 8 seconds

WRONG MORON he wrote that he had read that the free fall speeds VARIED from 8- 18 seconds. He said that the MINIMUM TIME would have been 9.1 seconds.
2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapseinitiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as followsf82;:tc = h54;(2h/g) = h54;{2(416 f85;10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds f82; The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
~snip~
You've displayed a stupidity that is rapidly becoming BOUNDLESS.

war posted on 2009-03-24 8:16:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1144. To: war (#1135)
WRONG MORON he wrote that he had read that the free fall speeds VARIED from 8- 18 seconds. He said that the MINIMUM TIME would have been 9.1 seconds.

Well asswipe, I didn't have time to do anything other than quickly glance at the report, saw what I thought it said, and gave my opinion.
At least I'll admit I was wrong. I've yet to fully read it, I'll get back to you when I do.
So when will you ever admit YOU ARE wrong, eh war?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 9:30:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1146. To: FormerLurker (#1144)
So when will you ever admit YOU ARE wrong, eh war?

I do whan I am. There are two instances on this board so far.
Well asswipe, I didn't have time to do anything other than quickly glance at the report, saw what I thought it said, and gave my opinion.
So, by your own admission, you "quickly glanced" but decided to rant away anyway.
That speakes volumes, dude.

war posted on 2009-03-24 9:44:56 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1149. To: war (#1146)
So, by your own admission, you "quickly glanced" but decided to rant away anyway.

I admitted that I was wrong on that ONE point concerning the statement I thought had been made in the report you linked.
That's infinitely more than anything you do, you simply ignore any facts posted and toss out ad hominem comments since you can't refute those facts.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 10:04:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1162. To: FormerLurker (#1149)
I admitted that I was wrong on that ONE point concerning the statement I thought had been made in the report you linked.

You used that "point" to impeach the ENTIRE report that by your own further admission YOU HAD FAILED TO READ.
So, let's deal with your tacit admission that you were wrong. Does that mena that you ACCEPT the report?
That's infinitely more than anything you do, you simply ignore any facts posted and toss out ad hominem comments since you can't refute those facts.
You've yet to present any facts.

war posted on 2009-03-24 10:49:43 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1164. To: war (#1162)
You used that "point" to impeach the ENTIRE report that by your own further admission YOU HAD FAILED TO READ
You have failed to answer any question I've asked you, yet you try to posture yourself as morally just and that I somehow have committed some morally unjust deed. I WORK FOR A LIVING ASSHOLE, and I don't have time to spend on an idiot who refuses to get past the most basic facts.
I've posted a multitude of items that you CAN NOT refute, and you've largely ignored those yet dance all around the fact I misread ONE FUCKING sentence.
Eat shit war, go harrass people over at FR or something. Oh that's right, you AGREE with most of them there, so you'd fit right in...

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 10:56:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1200. To: FormerLurker (#1164)
I've posted a multitude of items that you CAN NOT refute

Christine deleted those posts because the remaining record here PROVES that you have been rebutted on each and everyone of your "items".

war posted on 2009-03-24 13:33:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 1200.
#1226. To: war (#1200)
Christine deleted those posts because the remaining record here PROVES that you have been rebutted on each and everyone of your "items".

You're a liar war, and I think most rational people can see that.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:19:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1200.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um