Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Recommended Posts

On 6/15/2017 at 5:06 PM, random said:

... Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The records are there for all to see.  Seems that some here are not aware of the facts.

 

 

Quote

 

FAQ #2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?

Some of the demolition devices were undoubtedly disturbed by the plane impacts, but not enough to prevent the rest of the devices from performing adequately. Even the NIST report states that the collapse of the North Tower started on a floor with fairly minor structural damage. A more detailed answer is available here.

 

This FAQ was deemed inappropriate in that other thread, so...

Let's have some fun discussing how the pilots knew where to hit the buildings and how they knew they would do only mild damage to the explosive charges placed in towers 1 and 2.

Mocking random in the thread about the English fire was in poor taste anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect Tom, mocking Randumb is never in bad taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, OK, but I think we can agree it deserves its own thread.

That's some fancy flying and some almost magical demolition planning described in the FAQ above, wouldn't you say?

I wonder how they calculated how many of the explosives would be damaged and planned to have enough remain to do the jobs on both buildings?

And the whole calculation would depend on the pilots hitting the buildings in a pretty precise spot. If they hit too high or too low, the explosive charges would detonate undamaged parts of the building, blowing the whole operation.

It's just amazing what they pulled off. Whoever "they" are. Can't be our government, which has never demonstrated anything remotely approaching this level of competence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt what happened in the top third of the buildings would matter. Surely that third would just follow on after the lower 2 thirds?

 

Ps, controlled explosions are fucking cool!


Pps, anyone who thinks any of the above is any form of support for randoms 9/11 conspiracy theories is a fucking whack job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

...

 

Ps, controlled explosions are fucking cool!


...

And using airliners as a distraction for them is fucking genius!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite as clever as nanothermite, though.

Newly developed stuff, never before used to bring down buildings (though thermite has been).

And they somehow knew enough of it would be undamaged by the airliners.

I wonder if "they" might be extraterrestrials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And using airliners as a distraction for them is fucking genius!

The fact that someone is using the words 'fucking genius' suggests to me that a lot of really fine details needed to fall into place for any of the conspiracy theories to actually be true. Murphy is well known to most of us and that fucker never had a day off.

 

Maybe the simplest explanation is the most accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

The fact that someone is using the words 'fucking genius' suggests to me that a lot of really fine details needed to fall into place for any of the conspiracy theories to actually be true. Murphy is well known to most of us and that fucker never had a day off.

 

Maybe the simplest explanation is the most accurate?

You mean that the jets were pre-programmed to home in on nanothermite?

It is ingeniously simple. Why didn't I think of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Well, OK, but I think we can agree it deserves its own thread.

That's some fancy flying and some almost magical demolition planning described in the FAQ above, wouldn't you say?

I wonder how they calculated how many of the explosives would be damaged and planned to have enough remain to do the jobs on both buildings?

And the whole calculation would depend on the pilots hitting the buildings in a pretty precise spot. If they hit too high or too low, the explosive charges would detonate undamaged parts of the building, blowing the whole operation.

It's just amazing what they pulled off. Whoever "they" are. Can't be our government, which has never demonstrated anything remotely approaching this level of competence.

 Humbug.

Horseshoes, hand grenades, and 767's. A bulls eye as big as a barn, and....

    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone refresh my memory please?

WHY did the CIA/FBI/Other Government Agencies do a controlled demo of the WTC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Can someone refresh my memory please?

WHY did the CIA/FBI/Other Government Agencies do a controlled demo of the WTC?

Couldn't be a govt op. Too competent. A special team of Freemasons and/or extraterrestrials must have been in on it. No one else could control all the variables, program the planes to hit the right spots, set the "hijackers" up for a secret life elsewhere, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DFGers could have gotten the planes to disappear, no doubt about it. Happy to do so too. It's a cook-book. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Can someone refresh my memory please?

WHY did the CIA/FBI/Other Government Agencies do a controlled demo of the WTC?

Oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Oil?

Didn't I hear something about secret financial files in some firm's office at the point of impact, detailing the missing $32 Billion dollars the Defense Department lost somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of dark humor more than most. But joking about that day just ain't working for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I'm a fan of dark humor more than most. But joking about that day just ain't working for me. 

Stay on topic then. This thread is mocking Random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

I'm a fan of dark humor more than most. But joking about that day just ain't working for me. 

I figured Random's rants in favor of these nutjobs in the English fire thread deserved some response and didn't merit a serious one. When he asked me to start this thread, it seemed like a good idea. I guess he doesn't want to discuss the group he was promoting now. That was the intended result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

The DFGers could have gotten the planes to disappear, no doubt about it. Happy to do so too. It's a cook-book. 

 

Wait, the planes disappeared? So those videos of planes going into the towers were faked, like the "voice morphed" tapes?

Is there anything "they" can't fake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read -

 

The Normalization of Conspiracy Culture

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/?utm_source=atlfb

 

“Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories,” Uscinski says. “You can win the presidency on conspiracy theories, but it’s very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are for losers, and now he’s a winner.”

What he means is, conspiracy theories are often a way of expressing an imbalance of power by those who perceive themselves to be the underdog. “But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, and the White House, you can’t pull that,” Uscinski says. “Just like how Hillary Clinton can’t, in 1998, say her husband’s troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

“With real conspiracy theorists, there’s a kind of—how to put it—almost a dialectic operative,” Thompson says. “Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to hold your audience.”

So I'm going to have to come up with something nuttier than airliners programmed to seek nanothermite, huh? Not sure I can. And I haven't known where to find LSD since the 1980's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I figured Random's rants in favor of these nutjobs in the English fire thread deserved some response and didn't merit a serious one. When he asked me to start this thread, it seemed like a good idea. I guess he doesn't want to discuss the group he was promoting now. That was the intended result.

 He posted he didn't want to talk about structural engineering anymore in that thread, IIRC, after being the one to bring it up. Strong evidence he doesn't actually believe the shit it spews. 

 Lucky for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark K said:

 He posted he didn't want to talk about structural engineering anymore in that thread, IIRC, after being the one to bring it up. Strong evidence he doesn't actually believe the shit it spews. 

 Lucky for him. 

No, he didn't want to talk about what his heroes said about buildings one and two. He still wanted to talk about building 7 in that thread and the others in a new thread. So I obliged. For some reason, he hasn't dropped by yet.

On 6/17/2017 at 5:53 AM, random said:

If you want to talk about the other buildings, start a new thread.  Got anything to say about Building 7 as compared to the London fire?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No, he didn't want to talk about what his heroes said about buildings one and two. He still wanted to talk about building 7 in that thread and the others in a new thread. So I obliged. For some reason, he hasn't dropped by yet.

 

Ah, clearly completely un-related events! Keeping a sharp focus on individual things...nectar of the Gods of conspiracy theory.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of unrelated events, try searching random's heroes' site for the word Pentagon. It occurs rarely.

I'm thinking the ET's or the Freemasons must have gotten to them. That's why A&E 4 911 BS won't go into how the cruise missile hit the Pentagon or where they hid the airplane that everyone knows didn't hit the building.

(How does ben not see the fun in this?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money is on death rays from Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is blasphemy!

Someone needs to throw some urine in the face of this thread and anyone else who questions the official narrative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. Why don't all you guys go stand on the highway and giggle?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, random said:

I sorry, I think I must have missed the part about why American Forces are in Syria. 

Is this because Syrians did 9/11?

"They" are Syrian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 4:24 PM, random said:

Someone who comments without understanding that no plane hit WTC 7 but it fell down on the same day ... doesn't know enough about much at all.

No wonder false flag ops work with people like you out there.


Anyone who reads your source understands that it doesn't matter whether an airliner was used as a distraction or not. Explosives were planted to take down all three buildings.

And a couple of nanothermite-seeking autopilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, random said:

Maybe I missed it in this thread, but there are a number of really knowledgable people posting here so ... why is the US in Syria shooting down their aircraft?

Thanks in advance.


So they can't use them as a distraction when blowing up buildings would be my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, random said:

There are people in PA who were 100% behind the invasion of Iraq at the time.  I know this because they have told me.  They watched with revengeful pleasure as the bombs a rockets fell on Baghdad.  Only to gradually realise that "hey ... WTF did they have to do with 9/11?  Mmmmm".

However these same people still refuse to accept that the same people who fooled them for the Iraq invasion, are still fooling them about 9/11.  Go figure.


Lucky for you that you can't fool a fool!

Are we really sure that Saddam wasn't in league with the extraterrestrials who built the nanothermite-seeking autopilots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 2:14 PM, Mark K said:

 He posted he didn't want to talk about structural engineering anymore in that thread, IIRC, after being the one to bring it up. Strong evidence he doesn't actually believe the shit it spews. 

 Lucky for him. 

When you hear these theories in their specially-constructed vacuums, they do start to develop an odd kind of mass. One of the key strengths of that process is to keep the conversation as one-sided as possible. 

So regardless this silly conspiracy, I do give Random some credit for at least being willing to engage in a public place like this. Most of the conspiracy theorists hide their beliefs like a secret religion until they know they are around people who won't disagree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

When you hear these theories in their specially-constructed vacuums, they do start to develop an odd kind of mass. One of the key strengths of that process is to keep the conversation as one-sided as possible. 

So regardless this silly conspiracy, I do give Random some credit for at least being willing to engage in a public place like this. Most of the conspiracy theorists hide their beliefs like a secret religion until they know they are around people who won't disagree with them.

I give him zero credit for talking about his heroes and their theories of Towers 1 and 2 because he has not talked about those subjects.

He boldly asked this question in another thread:

"So you disagree with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?"

But won't say whether he disagrees with them. Possibly because their theories are soooo mockworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chum said:

Gee, this is him engaging in meaningful debate Mike?

Our village idiot is awol.

Apologies, I hadn't read this whole thread, I was referring to past conspiracy attempts in old threads.

I look at conspiracies as either misinformation or disinformation. Most conspiracy nutters are misinformed and I think there is a lot of value in setting them straight, or at least trying, rather than ignoring them. 

But disinformationists don't deserve the time of day. There are very few of them, but they use informed knowledge as a weapon against truth. I believe there are only two effective foils against disinformation; ignoring them, or punching them in the eye, if necessary, Buzz Aldrin style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Apologies, I hadn't read this whole thread, I was referring to past conspiracy attempts in old threads.

I look at conspiracies as either misinformation or disinformation. Most conspiracy nutters are misinformed and I think there is a lot of value in setting them straight, or at least trying, rather than ignoring them. 

But disinformationists don't deserve the time of day. There are very few of them, but they use informed knowledge as a weapon against truth. I believe there are only two effective foils against disinformation; ignoring them, or punching them in the eye, if necessary, Buzz Aldrin style.

Which pile would you put the topic organization into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Which pile would you put the topic organization into?

Misinformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
15 hours ago, mikewof said:

Apologies, I hadn't read this whole thread, I was referring to past conspiracy attempts in old threads.

I look at conspiracies as either misinformation or disinformation. Most conspiracy nutters are misinformed and I think there is a lot of value in setting them straight, or at least trying, rather than ignoring them. 

But disinformationists don't deserve the time of day. There are very few of them, but they use informed knowledge as a weapon against truth. I believe there are only two effective foils against disinformation; ignoring them, or punching them in the eye, if necessary, Buzz Aldrin style.

Which pile would you put the topic organization into?

We are mocking random. Which pile would you put him in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

Misinformed.

But didn't you see the name of the organization? They're architects and engineers!

 

2 hours ago, My name is Legion said:

We are mocking random. Which pile would you put him in? 

Well, according to Mike's definitions, one pile has people who "use informed knowledge." So the other pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, My name is Legion said:

We are mocking random. Which pile would you put him in? 

Misinformed.

Disonformers are real duyvils, Random is a humanist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But didn't you see the name of the organization? They're architects and engineers!

 

Well, according to Mike's definitions, one pile has people who "use informed knowledge." So the other pile.

Apologies, you were writing about the other thread, which I didn't read. I assume it's a bunch of "architects and engineers" who support the conspiracy?

Most of them are probably misinformed, often with less-than-ideal actual training in engineering, rarely classically trained, often useless with Newtonian physics, more often than not, dropouts from engineering programs who then have a vague hatred of the field.

But sometimes in with that mess, is someone who knows better, but digs the adoration of the people he misinforms. It isn't common, there isn't that much profit motive in conspiracy theories.

These are easy, Newtonian physics brings up the answer with a lot of redundancy in things like buildings collapsing and guys walking on the Moon. The difficult ones are things like Global Warming. In those areas, the answer is more nuanced. Global Warming conspiracists often know just a shade different information than actual scientists, and you can't use simple physics to ever really know beyond a shadow of a doubt. In Global Warming, I think that there are few, if any disinformists.

On the other hand, in air pollution, soil pollution and water pollution, where a buck can be made out of outright lying, disinformists hold the highest positions, they're the most skilled at their craft, they lie with the skill of a self-aware sociopath. They lie with bank accounts and finesse. Some of the women disinformists in these areas are beautiful, the men are charming. They all need a good punch in the nose, or maybe just a slap across the face with a PCB encrusted rotting fish. Then soothe their wounds with a glass of water contaminated with the mercury and lead from the industrial waste that made them wealthy. Wait for them to move to the same agonizing death as their victims, then at their last moment before their deaths, nurse them back to awareness so they can be punched in the face again a moment before their pollutant-laced body gives its last miserable moan.

Of course, like Orwell wrote, my revenge fantasy is just a fantasy, not real. The reality is that those folks will live long and comfortably, they will die at an old age surrounded by the people who love them. The victims of their pollution die in the way I described above ... miserable, agonising deaths from cancers brought on by contaminants that were cheaper to be dumped into the air and ground, than treated with care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

Apologies, you were writing about the other thread, which I didn't read. I assume it's a bunch of "architects and engineers" who support the conspiracy?

Most of them are probably misinformed, often with less-than-ideal actual training in engineering, rarely classically trained, often useless with Newtonian physics, more often than not, dropouts from engineering programs who then have a vague hatred of the field.

...

Of course, like Orwell wrote, my revenge fantasy is just a fantasy, not real. The reality is that those folks will live long and comfortably, they will die at an old age surrounded by the people who love them. The victims of their pollution die in the way I described above ... miserable, agonising deaths from cancers brought on by contaminants that were cheaper to be dumped into the air and ground, than treated with care.

I was asking about the views promoted by the organization not speculation about most of the members.

Random brought them up in another thread so I followed his link to learn their views. Their second FAQ seems pretty implausible to me so I quoted it and asked about it. Links are in the topic post. They have other FAQ's that are filled with facts yet implausible in various ways.

Do you have any particular scientist(s) in mind for your revenge fantasy? Just wondering who is so monstrously evil and slick. Name names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, random said:

Just as I thought.  The denier posters have nothing, nothing but attacks on science.

Still waiting for some evidence that the information I posted from scientists is wrong.

filing-nails-at-work-300x250.jpg

I thought Popular Mechanics did a pretty good job of showing that the BS you posted from "Architects and Engineers" was BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO. The endless search for truth continues. Just not here.

22 minutes ago, random said:

...

Can you send some credible info for me please?

Thx in advance.

200.gif#1-grid1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
18 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I was asking about the views promoted by the organization not speculation about most of the members.

Random brought them up in another thread so I followed his link to learn their views. Their second FAQ seems pretty implausible to me so I quoted it and asked about it. Links are in the topic post. They have other FAQ's that are filled with facts yet implausible in various ways.

Do you have any particular scientist(s) in mind for your revenge fantasy? Just wondering who is so monstrously evil and slick. Name names.

LMAO. The endless search for truth continues. Just not here.

 

You are a serial liar Tom, which makes this thread interesting. And you DEFY science. "Name names" indeed, you total charlatan. You have zip for science on your SDU claims, and Levy's ALEC's law review writers have no credentials.  What is this crap below, and when will you correct it?

Quote

Tom Ray Post Content:  four years of lies; eight "No such ban" whoppers

Example 1

Tom Ray, on 24 August 2013 - 2:51 AM, said:

“ The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on research.” (they are able to get away with this

because that (research) "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine)

 

Example 2. Tom Ray, on 06 Sept 2014 - 13:04, said:

You can knock off the nonsense about how Congress cut research funding. They didn't.

 

Example 3 Tom Ray, Post 244, 9-year old kills Uzi instructor thread

It's (meaning the mandate for research prevention) just backlash from using tax money to fund political propaganda. "Researchers" who object to that are most likely advocates.

 

Example 4 Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

There is no such ban, which is why the CDC did the study Obama requested. The one the author claims that gun nutz don't understand.   

 

 Example 5 Tom Ray, on 22 Jan 2015 - 12:10, said:

Presidential orders can't reverse funding bans imposed by Congress. There was no need to, since no research funding ban was imposed by Congress. The only thing banned was using taxpayer money for political advocacy.

 

Example 6 Tom Ray Posted 26 October 2013 - 12:53 PM

The NRA dictated nothing to "the research arm" of the federal government. The FBI does a lot of gun-related research, so the CDC cannot be called "the" research arm, and Congress, not the NRA, told them to stop funding political propaganda.

 

Example 7 Tom Ray Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:45 PM

Taxpayer funded anti-gun propaganda has been banned but research on statistics for self-murders and less common forms of gun violence has not. Banning taxpayer funded propaganda or taxpayer funded research are small-govt solutions. 

Example 8.  (Tom Ray) I edited that last bit for accuracy, as there is no ban on taxpayer funded research, only a ban on taxpayer funded political advocacy.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=46558&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=79986a730dafb03f0b1aac3c97fdccba&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=125>

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

it would seem that JokeAwf has some issues separating from his anti-gun stance. 

One might think there are other issues on the table.

I've had issues with the lack of federal funding to sort out the gun mess in the USA. I've had issues with a serial liar who denies the situation. You should study this a bit and get back to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fun to chase scammers, posters without actual content. Where may I find your solid GVP presentation on our forums, Walker Dud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

You won't find it. 

So were you propositioning me a few weeks ago? 

Are you actually interested in a Ghey little dude Anarchy site?

So you support the GVP cause, but can't demonstrate that. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your claim. You need a cite for it. I offer you nothing, it will fit well within the vacuum of your existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Walking Dude said:

You won't find it. 

So were you propositioning me a few weeks ago? 

Are you actually interested in a Ghey little dude Anarchy site?

Watch you mouth, son. You apparently don't know that Joe gets more trim than the floor of a beauty salon.

The only way he would need anything from any of us is if he needed to directions to a fresh truckload of whoop-ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You apparently don't know that Joe gets more trim than a barbershop floor.

The only way he would proposition any of us is if he needed to procure a fresh truckload of whoop-ass.

Wipe your chin Wofsey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Walking Dude said:

That really was a bit much. 

 

 

Nah, it was good advice, I wiped my chin of the slug of whiskey that I enjoyed while laughing at you and Chesapeake with the Grim Reaper's prick in your gobs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Dude said:

LOL - Was it at least good whiskey? 

Single malt I hope. 

Single malt? No sir. I'm a free born man of the USA ...

platte-valley-corn-whiskey-7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walking Dude said:

Oh Christ.

Well at least you're a 'Merican. 

Bless you. 

Hope you didn't gag too much on the sperm. 

You give yourself too much credit. None of the gays in the fleet will take you on because you shoot blood and desperation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually a fan of operations to recover ruined grits that sometimes yield a byproduct that might come in a bottle like the one Mike posted. But I'm not a free man or I could say what that sentence really means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm actually a fan of operations to recover ruined grits that sometimes yield a byproduct that might come in a bottle like the one Mike posted. But I'm not a free man or I could say what that sentence really means.

Sure you are Normy. You just need your taste of whiskey ...

And I've never seen the show, but any television that uses the Pogues deserves my attention ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 11:12 PM, Chum said:

Can we get back to mocking Randumb now? Hey dumbass! Have you figured out what happened to the the planeload of my coworkers that I and hundreds of other coworkers watched fly into the building that morning? Or the one in Shanksville? Wait, DFG right? 

Fuck you .

 

https://911familiesforamerica.org/911-flight-crew-memorial/flight-crew-united-airlines-flight-93/

https://911familiesforamerica.org/911-flight-crew-memorial/flight-crew-united-airlines-flight-175/

it's pretty clear that he doesn't wish to explore the questions he raised:

 

On 6/15/2017 at 6:49 PM, random said:

So you disagree with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

What qualifications do you have in this area?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

it's pretty clear that he doesn't wish to explore the questions he raised:

In the absense of discusion, let's review your claims in Post 63. that no policy ban exists on federal funds for gun violence research.

Using the standards you expect of random, you should back these claims up, explain them, or retract them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

In the absense of discusion, let's review your claims in Post 63. that no policy ban exists on federal funds for gun violence research.

Using the standards you expect of random, you should back these claims up, explain them, or retract them.

 

Can you take this gun crap some place else please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2017 at 8:45 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

“With real conspiracy theorists, there’s a kind of—how to put it—almost a dialectic operative,” Thompson says. “Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to hold your audience.”

So I'm going to have to come up with something nuttier than airliners programmed to seek nanothermite, huh? Not sure I can. And I haven't known where to find LSD since the 1980's.

Tom, you have declared "the government" fried David Koresh. Hmmm,  signature showed three big, separate fires became visible in 90 seconds at 12:18 in your Terms of Engagement.

A stream of other evidence flowed from Wiki. Koresh had preached glory and transformation by death by fire.  Recordings mentioned, and trace evidence found on the sleeve of a survivor...Coleman fuel. You whimpered out silently.

Then Libertarian constitutional "scholar" David Hardy, a PLCA author, represented  the coat sleeve guy and other survivors. He floated the idea that the FBI shot survivors, and claimed he saw high tech evidence of 200 shots fired as the flames took off.

Too kooky for me. 

On 6/22/2017 at 4:02 AM, My name is Legion said:

We are mocking random. Which pile would you put him in? 

You fall in the disinformation category Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

You fall in the disinformation category Tom.

So if you don't believe that the aliens and Saddam created nanothermite-seeking autopilots to make the planes hit the right spots on the twin towers, how do you think "they" arranged it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You started another thread that had nothing to do with gunz Tom. Now it's a thread about guns. Is it by your design? Or are there other influences?:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3 hours ago, My name is Legion said:

You started another thread that had nothing to do with gunz Tom. Now it's a thread about guns. Is it by your design? Or are there other influences?:rolleyes:

We are discussing truthfulness here. And WACO conspiracy theory. And a wide, prolonged pattern of disinformation from Tom Ray.

Quote

Jocal: You fall in the disinformation category Tom.

3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

(paraphrased) Nanothermite is my new credibility, thanks random

This is about a pattern of past distortions, half-truths, and misrepresentations. Disinformation.

Tom, if you were up-and-up, you would have sorted this sustained disinformation when you were caught and cited three years ago. You didn't retract it, so... I just can't ignore this stuff, I want to bonk someone, figuratively, in the forehead.

Quote

Tom is not uninformed. And hisconstant distortions are not contained to the subject of GVP research. 

Quote

On 6/21/2017 at 0:41 PM, mikewof said:

...But disinformationists don't deserve the time of day…they use informed knowledge as a weapon against truth. I believe there are only two effective foils against disinformation; ignoring them, or punching them in the eye…

…But sometimes in with that mess, is someone who knows better, but digs the adoration of the people he misinforms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay attention.

I follow court cases, I quote current ones and have followed the progression of ancient ones..  I have published the broad social service and public health conclusions about gun mayhem. Collectively and independently, they discourage guns in U.S. homes. I have prganized and presented the latest gun research findings. I have shared sources so we can review the contrasting constitutional scholars, on both sides.

Tom Ray is a smarmy footnote within this issue. I invite you to do better than Tom, for  our benefit..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

 

We are discussing truthfulness here. And WACO conspiracy theory. ...

I think you misspelled wacko but yes, the thread is about the wacky the conspiracy group that our friend random cites and their theory that those jets that hit the twin towers were just giant distractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think you misspelled wacko but yes, the thread is about the wacky the conspiracy group that our friend random cites and their theory that those jets that hit the twin towers were just giant distractions.

Do you think your constitutional scholar, David Hardy, is wacko for claiming FBI executions of WACO survivors? Do you stand by your former statements that the FBI barbecued an over-armed religious cult? How do you feel about the 47 fully automatic weapons which were entered into evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So, Jocal, you agree with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

 I look forward to answering, but you first. I have drawn silence about Waco, which was what I intended.

You've been called you out for your own strange conspiracy theory, on a thread dedicated to conspiracy theory. Answer the questions in Post 87.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number two. You are caught in a lie.

Quote

There was no reason to launch that raid Reality check: Koresh had four dozen machine guns. and no reason to burn those people up. Koresh's boys lit the fires in three places, according to testimony and audio tapes.Your FLIR confirmed it. There were reasons to lie and cover up, so that's what the government did. Wooh wooh.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell is this bit, Tom?

Quote

Jocal Posted May 16, 2015 ·: Koresh's boys lit the fires in three places, according to testimony and audio tapes.Your FLIR confirmed it. T

 

Tom Ray: No it did not. I've seen the video. You can only fool people who have not. I'm not one of them.

 

Without bandying around, state whom you think started the Waco fire six hours after the gassing befan.. Again, I want to answer your question, if your Waco position is made clear.

Hell bells, about Q #1, why are you now openly supporting David Hardy's tale of FBI mass murder? Here it is, from him.

Quote

Waco Siege Investigator Found Dead In His Home

Report from David Hardy regarding Carlos Ghigliotti's Death

Carlos did offer me a few previews. He ran a portion of the FLIR video, which depicted events after an FBI tank had demolished the large room, commonly known as "the gym,' at the back of the Davidian's home.

By this point, the gym was a field of construction rubble loosely attached to the main building. In the midst of the image a strange flash occurred, perhaps ten feet long.

I asked what it was--clearly it was too long for a gun flash.

"That's a bullet in flight," Carlos said. I knew that a bullet after firing is far too hot to pick up, but...

...

"That's not a sunlight flash. I've imaged the same flash from videos taken at two... no, three... different angles," Carlos said. "I think it's the fuse on a pyrotechnic grenade."

The "pyros" are teargas shells, well known for starting fires.

I noticed that the angle of the flash was decidedly downward. Carlos explained that the FBI was shooting down into the Davidian's underground storm shelter, sometimes called "the pit."

I said wait a second.... the pit was the exit of the underground tunnel leading out of the Davidian house.

The tunnel was where the FBI (incorrectly) thought the women and children had been placed.... so now FBI is gassing what it thought was their only escape route out of the fire. Carlos nodded affirmatively.

http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/flirdeath.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You don't want to answer my question or you would do it.

Do you agree with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

I look forward to answering your question. First things first. Let's watch Tom Ray avoid standing by his own half-baked conspiracy theory. My intention was to make Tom go silent.

Tom Ray thinks that David Hardy was correct. Tom is vague and silent, but the FBI shot and intentionally burned the Davidian survivors. Why is Tom short on details? Where is a link to his all-convincing video? 

Tom says he "made no such statements" about barbecuing a two bit religious cult...but his "statements" are intentionally incomplete and unclear.  Tom likes questions which are unanswerable, but this is an easy question. Tom swung from vague non-statements, to silence about his Waco theory. Interesting.

Why did three fires start within 90 seconds, after six hours of tank activity? Why did sniffer dogs find accellerant traces? Why was lighter fluid found on a survivor's coat sleeve? Why did David Hardy  (a Libertarian lawyer, a faux-constitutional scholar for the NRA, a known writer for the PLCAA, and the nemesis of Michael Moore) represent the survivors for several years? Why did he float the idea of the FBI shooting survivors? Why did Tom kind of sort of agree with him...then go silent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the "I'm gonna prove Tom wrong" thing is interfering with the substantive points you were trying to make.

Good luck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I look forward to answering your question. First things first. Let's watch Tom Ray avoid standing by his own half-baked conspiracy theory. My intention was to make Tom go silent.

Tom Ray thinks that David Hardy was correct. Tom is vague and silent, but the FBI shot and intentionally burned the Davidian survivors. Why is Tom short on details? Where is a link to his all-convincing video? 

Tom says he "made no such statements" about barbecuing a two bit religious cult...but his "statements" are intentionally incomplete and unclear.  Tom likes questions which are unanswerable, but this is an easy question. Tom swung from vague non-statements, to silence about his Waco theory. Interesting.

Why did three fires start within 90 seconds, after six hours of tank activity? Why did sniffer dogs find accellerant traces? Why was lighter fluid found on a survivor's coat sleeve? Why did David Hardy  (a Libertarian lawyer, a faux-constitutional scholar for the NRA, a known writer for the PLCAA, and the nemesis of Michael Moore) represent the survivors for several years? Why did he float the idea of the FBI shooting survivors? Why did Tom