[Samirol]

95% (I was off before) of Israeli Jews supported THE invasion, the poll was taken one week after the invasion began. They approved of it and how it was carried out.

This is different to the Iraq war, because people disapproved of how it was carried out. The Iraq invasion was probably more likely related to the anthrax scares rather than 9/11 though.

There is clearly a side that is more wrong though. It is possible to support a less wrong side when the other side is more wrong. I hate to use a Hitler example, but in World War II, the British were still an oppressive colonial force but most people supported the British over the Nazis. I support Hamas and the Palestinian resistance because they are a far lesser evil than Israel.

Which parts are am I rationalizing? I don't like the Qassam rocket attacks, but they rarely kill.

 

[rockwool]

No it's fair to say AN invasion is representative of the Jewish population's wishes. It is not fair to the Israeli governments actions (the manner in which they have chosen to carry out an invasion) are reprentative of the populations wishes any more than to say that the American people supported the invasion in Iraq because 99% of Americans supported military action in reponse to 9-11.

edit: and again, my point here is not to defend Israel's military actions (or the settlers, or any number of specifics). It is to try to convince all of you to stop rationalizing the actions of "your" side, based on the actions of the other. A belief that one side is in the right is what allows this disaster to perpetuate.

I agree with you, there's no way that the Israelis, or non of us outside Gaza for that matter, have understood what has realy been going on there from the IDF side. For two reasons; no Israeli media presence, and mankinds shortcommings in getting under other peoples skin.

I don't agree with you. Every little action has a reaction. This is the law of physics, and alot of negative energy has been passed on from one side and an infinite amount from the other side. Now that the killing is over, maybe we can sit down more calmly and count up the claims and counterclaims. To me there are no doubts of what's happening and what's said as a vail, and a lot of interesting facts have come up during these three weeks.

95% (I was off before) of Israeli Jews supported THE invasion, the poll was taken one week after the invasion began. They approved of it and how it was carried out.

There is clearly a side that is more wrong though. It is possible to support a less wrong side when the other side is more wrong. I hate to use a Hitler example, but in World War II, the British were still an oppressive colonial force but most people supported the British over the Nazis. I support Hamas and the Palestinian resistance because they are a far lesser evil than Israel.

I've hearded different percentages during different stages of the agression.

WWII is a great example, it's close in time and the details of it are the most well known.

 

[Samirol]

Here's the result of the bombing and invasion:

89% of Gazans haven't received any aid whatsoever.
50,000 people have been left homeless.
400,000 have been left without water.
84% of the population have no secure source of food.
Power shortages are normal - 40% of the population gets no electricity, while the remaining 60% only have intermittent access.
Eight of Gaza's hospitals were partially destroyed by bombing and shelling during the war and 26 clinics were hit, and the whole medical system is suffering from severe shortages, including those resulting from having inadequate or non-existent power supplies.

 

[Defenestrated]

Here's the result of the bombing and invasion:

89% of Gazans haven't received any aid whatsoever.
50,000 people have been left homeless.
400,000 have been left without water.
84% of the population have no secure source of food.
Power shortages are normal - 40% of the population gets no electricity, while the remaining 60% only have intermittent access.
Eight of Gaza's hospitals were partially destroyed by bombing and shelling during the war and 26 clinics were hit, and the whole medical system is suffering from severe shortages, including those resulting from having inadequate or non-existent power supplies.

and for what

 

[Silver]

and for what

Dead sub-humans.

Each dead kid is a whole line of terrorists that you don't have to deal with. If only Israel could come up with some final solution to the problem...

 

[$tinkle]

chomsky owns: obama's stance on gaza is very similar to bush's

 

[rockwool]

dead Sub-humans.

Each Dead Kid Is A Whole Line Of Terrorists That You Don't Have To Deal With. If Only Israel Could Come Up With Some Final Solution To The Problem...

ציקלון ב הגירסה הערבית

 

[dante]

and for what

the right of Palestinians to launch "bottle rockets" at Israel?

 

[3D.]

I?m surprised at how many monkeys despise an Isreali conflict like the Gaza assault but thought nothing of giving their full support to AIPAC and everything it?s future is based on.

Is this not a quick way to contradict oneself?

 

[$tinkle]

ציקלון ב הגירסה הערבית​

fixed

 

[rockwool]

the right of Palestinians to launch "bottle rockets" at Israel?

Occupy the USA and you'll see other pink painted flowery freedom Pershings. Same goes if it would have been the other way round.

 

[Samirol]

I’m surprised at how many monkeys despise an Isreali conflict like the Gaza assault but thought nothing of giving their full support to AIPAC and everything it’s future is based on.

Is this not a quick way to contradict oneself?

You can support a candidate without supporting every position they have, what a novel idea!

 

[Silver]

I?m surprised at how many monkeys despise an Isreali conflict like the Gaza assault but thought nothing of giving their full support to AIPAC and everything it?s future is based on.

Is this not a quick way to contradict oneself?

Only if you're a single issue voter.

And, please explain to me how McCain would have acted toward the Israeli lobby as President. How Ron Paul would have acted makes no more difference than how I'd act as President, by the way. We both had the same chance at winning.

 

[3D.]

You can support a candidate without supporting every position they have, what a novel idea!

I’m sorry but as POTUS, sticking your head into age old battles between the muslim and hebrew world by showing such strong support for AIPAC/ “hey look where all hardcore Zionists” is a little bit more than just a “position”.

A vote for him was a vote for global government and nwo, plain and simple. Voting for someone who is saturated in Zionist influence during a time of such unrest in the middle east, is only begging for many more conflicts with the arab world… comprehende?

You asked for it with your vote and now you’re gonna get it. Complaining about political outcomes from organizational influences that you just voted into power is ridiculous. If you voted for obama you have know business condoning Israel for it’s current and future atrocities to the arab world.

 

[3D.]

Only if you're a single issue voter.

And, please explain to me how McCain would have acted toward the Israeli lobby as President. How Ron Paul would have acted makes no more difference than how I'd act as President, by the way. We both had the same chance at winning.

hey Silver…

1. Explaining a McCain pro-Israel stance in an anti-muslim environment needs no explaining.

2. You’re not a presidential candidate and Ron was, big difference.

3. Guys like Ron didn’t have a chance because everyone was to busy singing freaky obama songs and high fiving about leaving Iraq.

 

[Silver]

hey Silver…

1. Explaining a McCain pro-Israel stance in an anti-muslim environment needs no explaining.

2. You’re not a presidential candidate and Ron was, big difference.

3. Guys like Ron didn’t have a chance because everyone was to busy singing freaky obama songs and high fiving about leaving Iraq.

1. So there was no difference, basically on this point. Therefore, it's not a reason to vote against Obama.

2. We had the same chance of winning.

3. Blaming Obama supporters for the fact that Paul didn't win the Republican nomination is so stupid that even $tinkle wouldn't construct one of his troll posts on that premise.

 

[3D.]

1. So there was no difference, basically on this point. Therefore, it's not a reason to vote against Obama.

2. We had the same chance of winning.

3. Blaming Obama supporters for the fact that Paul didn't win the Republican nomination is so stupid that even $tinkle wouldn't construct one of his troll posts on that premise.

:biggrin: but come on... if you voted for this guy, you better be able to stomach a little IDF AIPAC let's roll

it's just obnoxious to bitch about these types of atrocities after you've just voted them in for another four years, everyday I hear obamamaniacs complaining about gaza geniocide without having a clue as to the relations and cash support with their precious little obama.

if you don't like these types of wars, than you should vote accordingly (ron, ralph, micky mouse, etc) definetely not any of the front running asshats


he did have about as much chance as you, maybe less...

 

[Samirol]

Even if Ron Paul was a serious candidate, I still wouldn't vote for him because of his domestic policies. He is a complete wackjob, and apparently so are you when you go ranting about the NWO and global government.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have a problem with a global government, it would keep rogue countries like the US in line.

I'm completely aware of Obama's stances on Palestine, I don't think he is a saint, but he is a hell of a lot better than Paul or McCain.

 

[3D.]

Even if Ron Paul was a serious candidate, I still wouldn't vote for him because of his domestic policies. He is a complete wackjob, and apparently so are you when you go ranting about the NWO and global government.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have a problem with a global government, it would keep rogue countries like the US in line.

I'm completely aware of Obama's stances on Palestine, I don't think he is a saint, but he is a hell of a lot better than Paul or McCain.

ron paul speaks more truth about global affairs in one interview than Barack will in his life...

nader speaks twice that...

you voted for neither...

who's the wackjob?

not believing in nwo (something that most modern presidents have spoke publicly about) is typical for ex-military person, believe otherwise and; what the hell where you doing almost getting your balls blown off for a single nation?

 

[Samirol]

Usually when they talk about a new world order, it was talking about the post-Soviet era, not some illuminati bull****.

Enough people are to the right of me that the Dems don't care about the very small minority I'm part of. Libertarians are slightly different, as Ron Paul did pretty well in the primaries, so he represents a significant voting constituency.

The Dems don't give a **** about the Green Party or Nader left, they are the centrist party.

 

[rockwool]

chomsky owns: obama's stance on gaza is very similar to bush's

Man, I new you was beating it to Amy Goodman. :biggrin:
But yeah, I bet you especially love the part where he counters the Zionist claim that Hamas won't recognize Israel (wich they've admitted they will).

The first Israeli government to talk about a Palestinian state, or even mention the words, was the right wing Benyamin Natanyahu government that came in in 1996.

They were asked "could Palestinians have a state", in fact, (Shimon) Perez who had preceded them said "no never", and Netanyahoo spoksman said "of all the fragments of territory that we leave to them they can call it a state, or they can call it fried chicken".

Only if you're a single issue voter.

And, please explain to me how McCain would have acted toward the Israeli lobby as President. How Ron Paul would have acted makes no more difference than how I'd act as President, by the way. We both had the same chance at winning.

Nonono, if you want to eat, you have to plant a seed before something can grow. Raiding the barn and saying "we're not belly full but at least we got something" won't do anything good for the future.

I’m sorry but as POTUS, sticking your head into age old battles between the muslim and hebrew world by showing such strong support for AIPAC/ “hey look where all hardcore Zionists” is a little bit more than just a “position”.

A vote for him was a vote for global government and nwo, plain and simple. Voting for someone who is saturated in Zionist influence during a time of such unrest in the middle east, is only begging for many more conflicts with the arab world… comprehende?

You asked for it with your vote and now you’re gonna get it. Complaining about political outcomes from organizational influences that you just voted into power is ridiculous. If you voted for obama you have know business condoning Israel for it’s current and future atrocities to the arab world.

That's the truth laddie!!

 

[rockwool]

Even if Ron Paul was a serious candidate, I still wouldn't vote for him because of his domestic policies. He is a complete wackjob, and apparently so are you when you go ranting about the NWO and global government.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have a problem with a global government, it would keep rogue countries like the US in line.

I'm completely aware of Obama's stances on Palestine, I don't think he is a saint, but he is a hell of a lot better than Paul or McCain.

That is ignorance speaking. Seriously!

ron paul speaks more truth about global affairs in one interview than Barack will in his life...

nader speaks twice that...

you voted for neither...

who's the wackjob?

not believing in nwo (something that most modern presidents have spoke publicly about) is typical for ex-military person, believe otherwise and; what the hell where you doing almost getting your balls blown off for a single nation?

Are you, just like me, of the impression that Samirol is an ex submarine officer?

Usually when they talk about a new world order, it was talking about the post-Soviet era, not some illuminati bull****.

Enough people are to the right of me that the Dems don't care about the very small minority I'm part of. Libertarians are slightly different, as Ron Paul did pretty well in the primaries, so he represents a significant voting constituency.

The Dems don't give a **** about the Green Party or Nader left, they are the centrist party.

Nononono, get to know the facts, there are families that have been working for one world government for many years now. Same families that cospired so that the printing of the $ would be controlled by a private company, the Federal Reserve, instead of the the people of the USA.

Same families, including Prescott Bush, that were founding WWI , WWII, and the Vietnam war from both sides, and who later staged 911 the same, and out of the same reason, they did with the Tonkin Incident, the killing of a Serbian Prince (WWI), and how the got NSDAP in power.

Everything was faked so that they could make some more dough on the worlds most profitable thing. That's why GWB were repeating that the war on terror is a war to be fought for indefinite time. :$$$$:
Their aims are outspoken, you just have to look for them just like you do with quotes and facts of the Neo Cons or the Israelis.

Naturally, you will need alot of information before you're convinced (just like anything) and the above will sertainly not convince you. Neither will the below, but it's a good place to start. Out of coincidence I happened to rewatch it yesterday (it had been two years) and I was again blown away.


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zeitgeist&emb=0#

 

[Samirol]

Rockwool, he is basically "fuck you I got mine" personified when it comes to domestic policy, he wants corporations to basically run everything and have no limits. He hates any sort of regulation on any sort of private enterprise, and that would be disastrous. edit: Just to emphasize how insane he is: he wants to go back to the gold standard, he wants to get rid of the income tax, and he agrees with Friedman on monetary policy. He is absolutely bat**** insane when it comes to domestic policy.

He voted against getting his own constituents hurricane relief

I agree with him on his foreign policy for the most part, but his domestic policy would be one of the most damaging since Reagan.

Obama isn't going to do a whole global government thing, because no government would give up sovereignty. That's just idiotic.

I think he is mixing me up with manimal

Do you honestly have any hard proof of this? I would love to see it, but all of the "proof" that I have seen is basically Zeitgeist or Loose Change level logic.

I've seen Zeitgeist, it had so many holes in its logic and reasoning that it was more of a comedy film than anything else. Whenever a president has talked about a new world order, they are talking about the massive changes that have occurred in power distribution since the USSR fell. Typically, after a bipolar power structure (USSR and US), it either goes into a multipolar or hegemonic structure. It went into a hegemonic structure, it typically turns into a multipolar structure. Multipolar structures are dangerous and often lead to catastrophic war, like World War I.

 

[Defenestrated]

Ron Paul is the candidate for people who are unhappy that multinational corporations are not powerful enough to dominate the U.S. Government outright (and consequently, the people) and would like to see that change.

 

[ohio]

Nonono, if you want to eat, you have to plant a seed before something can grow. Raiding the barn and saying "we're not belly full but at least we got something" won't do anything good for the future.

If I vote for Ron Paul, how does he know that the seed I'm planting is for isolationism and not for bat****-crazyism. You're basically saying you'd vote for Hitler if he was going to legalize pot.

 

[rockwool]

Rockwool, he is basically "fuck you I got mine" personified when it comes to domestic policy, he wants corporations to basically run everything and have no limits. He hates any sort of regulation on any sort of private enterprise, and that would be disastrous. edit: Just to emphasize how insane he is: he wants to go back to the gold standard, he wants to get rid of the income tax, and he agrees with Friedman on monetary policy. He is absolutely bat**** insane when it comes to domestic policy.

He voted against getting his own constituents hurricane relief

I agree with him on his foreign policy for the most part, but his domestic policy would be one of the most damaging since Reagan.

Fiedman is the stink. So he's of a different political conviction from you and I, that odn't mean hasn't got a clue about how the world is run. He seems to be well aware of what's going on and how.

His stances on the gold standard and the income tax may very well have to do with his knowledge of how those came to be abolished/implemented.

Obama isn't going to do a whole global government thing, because no government would give up sovereignty. That's just idiotic.

He won't because the foundations of one world government are far from finished yet. Actually we're only in the very initial stages.

I think he is mixing me up with manimal

Nonono, manimal was a field artist, he's the Bob Hope of RM. Sir, you can't fool us, sir.

Do you honestly have any hard proof of this? I would love to see it, but all of the "proof" that I have seen is basically Zeitgeist or Loose Change level logic.

I've seen Zeitgeist, it had so many holes in its logic and reasoning that it was more of a comedy film than anything else. Whenever a president has talked about a new world order, they are talking about the massive changes that have occurred in power distribution since the USSR fell. Typically, after a bipolar power structure (USSR and US), it either goes into a multipolar or hegemonic structure. It went into a hegemonic structure, it typically turns into a multipolar structure. Multipolar structures are dangerous and often lead to catastrophic war, like World War I.

Rewatch Zeitgeist and tell me about those holes because I couldn't find them. Loose Change doesn't play in the same division. As for hard proof, anything your congress and presidents have done is documented, that's what Zeitgeist showed.

A new world order could be seen as that if one didn't have any information about the NWO. Keep looking, and as an example, one place you should look at is the airport of Denver. I posted a pic in this thread.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168152&highlight=denver

 

[rockwool]

If I vote for Ron Paul, how does he know that the seed I'm planting is for isolationism and not for bat****-crazyism. You're basically saying you'd vote for Hitler if he was going to legalize pot.

Same goes with any candidate. Guess you have to email, lobby, or similar, the candidate you like best. We vote on those who we think represents our wishes best, not the party/candidate that represents every single of our wishes. That could only be the Rockwool/Ohio Party.

 

[ohio]

We vote on those who we think represents our wishes best

Dude, that is what all of us did. And in this case he represented the majority of them fairly well. You and 3D are claiming that we've forfeited our right to be discontent about the remainder where he doesn't represent our wishes.

That is asinine.

 

[rockwool]

Dude, that is what all of us did. And in this case he represented the majority of them fairly well. You and 3D are claiming that we've forfeited our right to be discontent about the remainder where he doesn't represent our wishes.

That is asinine.

Show me, cus I have no memory of such.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

^^^

I’m sorry but as POTUS, sticking your head into age old battles between the muslim and hebrew world by showing such strong support for AIPAC/ “hey look where all hardcore Zionists” is a little bit more than just a “position”.

A vote for him was a vote for global government and nwo, plain and simple. Voting for someone who is saturated in Zionist influence during a time of such unrest in the middle east, is only begging for many more conflicts with the arab world… comprehende?

You asked for it with your vote and now you’re gonna get it. Complaining about political outcomes from organizational influences that you just voted into power is ridiculous. If you voted for obama you have know business condoning Israel for it’s current and future atrocities to the arab world.

That's the truth laddie!!

Uh... *cough* *snarf* *wheeze* *cough*

 

[Samirol]

Fiedman is the stink. So he's of a different political conviction from you and I, that odn't mean hasn't got a clue about how the world is run. He seems to be well aware of what's going on and how.

I know you don't have a personal investment in Ron Paul selling out the American worker to large companies, but I do. Ron Paul isn't just a different political conviction, he is the antithesis of everything I believe.

Rewatch Zeitgeist and tell me about those holes because I couldn't find them. Loose Change doesn't play in the same division. As for hard proof, anything your congress and presidents have done is documented, that's what Zeitgeist showed.

A new world order could be seen as that if one didn't have any information about the NWO. Keep looking, and as an example, one place you should look at is the airport of Denver. I posted a pic in this thread.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168152&highlight=denver

I've always found this to be a fantastic bit by bit debunking of Zeitgeist: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

In response to the phrase "new world order" it has been used to describe power shifts after major wars like WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. It has always been that way, and that is the context used when leaders talk about it.

 

[ohio]

I've always found this to be a fantastic bit by bit debunking of Zeitgeist: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

Damn. Dude loves himself some debunking.

 

[rockwool]

I know you don't have a personal investment in Ron Paul selling out the American worker to large companies, but I do. Ron Paul isn't just a different political conviction, he is the antithesis of everything I believe.



I've always found this to be a fantastic bit by bit debunking of Zeitgeist: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

In response to the phrase "new world order" it has been used to describe power shifts after major wars like WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. It has always been that way, and that is the context used when leaders talk about it.

Right, read his first page and then I went directly to his part II to get just one good example of his debunking, and so see if it would be worth the effort to spend the time and read it all.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/

Building Seven

For more information related and more in depth studies into building seven, please see our building seven page in our 9/11 myths area.

* Molten metal was seen in the basement
* The building shows precision controlled demolition taking place
* Building seven is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report

As explained in the "Twin Towers" section of this page, fuel was not the only thing burning in building 7 that day. There were several large diesel storage tanks for back up generators in the building, which fueled the fires, along with everything flammable within the building. These fires surely weakened any metal that was in the building, especially the primary truss for its open lobby design. The NIST has not released their findings on building seven just yet, but when they do, be sure it will be posted here as quickly as possible. Just like the Twin Towers, there are not many ways tall, large buildings can fall, except directly down [37].

The film goes on to claim that in the 9/11 Commission report, building seven is "not mention[ed] at all". I guess they assume (probably correctly) that the viewer did not actually read it. I, however, have read it and I remember reading various things about building seven. Unfortunately for them, it is mentioned on pages 301, 310, 319, and 322 (twice) [38].

So I dl'd the "Complete 9/11 Commission Report" from his link and this is what I found on page 301 (BTW the pages he's refered to are correct on the pdf-O-meter in the bottom, and not the page numbers in the actual pages):

The OEM's headquarters was located at 7WTC. Some questioned locating it both so close to a previous terrorist target and on the 23rd floor of a building /...../ .

and on page 310:

By 8:48, officials in OEM headquarters on the 23rd floor of 7WTC--just to the north of the tower--began to activate the Emergency Operating Center by calling such agencies as /...../ .

and on page 319:

At about 9:57 an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7WTC had just remarked on that the twin towers infact wore in imminent danger of total collaps.

and TWICE on page 322:

After the South Tower was hit, the OEM senior leadership desided to remain in its "bunker" and continue conducting operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7WTC. At approximately 9:30 a senior OEM official ordered the evacuation of the facility, after a Secret Service agent in 7WTC adviced him that additional comercial planes were not accounted for.

Well, obviously here above is the total and full official 9/11 Commission Report explanaton to how building 7 collapsed. Zeitgeist has been proven wrong, 7WTC was mentioned a whole FIVE times, and I admit I've been foolish to belive in conspiracy therories. Please forgive me.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf




Sam, could you be so kind and tell me how I cut/paste from that 9/11 Commission Report, cus I couldn't manage it and had to copy-write it and this took me quite some bloody long time...

Damn. Rockwool loves himself some debunking.

Cheers mate.

 

[Samirol]

The 9/11 Commission doesn't go into WTC 7, but that is another example of misleading by Zeitgeist. If Zeitgeist was concerned about being accurate, they would say "The 9/11 Commission didn't go into WTC 7 in detail."

A lot of the conspiracy of WTC 7 originates from the FEMA report, and when it was looked at NIST researchers, it was found that the FEMA report underestimated the damage done by a large margin.

There was actual, physical damage, Shyam Sunder of the NIST says:

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Also, because the building was unusually built, each column was carrying a larger than normal load.

There was also a massive fire, and the combination of the physical stresses caused it to fall. There wasn't any firefighting, as you know.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I too jumped in and read part II's debunking. It is pretty poor. It is like the guy just looked at the evidence and then drew his own conclusion. ****, this guy looks at these 4 photos and says yeah, they are all the same guy...

It seems just like that episode of Family Guy I just saw where they ran off to asiantown and everyone walking by Peter says, "Hey, it's Jackie Chan!"

Then they say they can clearly see the plane that hit the pentagon in the video, but I don't see more than just a frame of something metallic in either video. I couldn't say what it is for sure. Maybe it was Optimus Prime.

They mention articles, and it's funny because they find a source for the article, but it was only in an Indian paper, and well, they can't be trusted. Proof enough for me. Another one was about a report that they were only able to find in the WaPo and I say case ****ing closed man.

But then they bring up the molten steel in the basements of all three buildings, and admit that the fuel sources present could not have melted the steel and only weakened it, but then fail to provide an explanation for said molten steel. So I clicked on the link for their 9/11 page on thermite and this is what I got:

Warning: require(/home/.rowf/conspiracyscience/conspiracyscience.com/includes/../storage/911/911-thermite.html) [function.require]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/.rowf/conspiracyscience/conspiracyscience.com/modules/articles/911.php on line 26

Fatal error: require() [function.require]: Failed opening required '/home/.rowf/conspiracyscience/conspiracyscience.com/includes/../storage/911/911-thermite.html' (include_path='.:/usr/local/php5/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/.rowf/conspiracyscience/conspiracyscience.com/modules/articles/911.php on line 26

Nice. Sums it up real good.

Oh and they misspelled steal too. Twice. Excellent evidence of a thorough and well-considered conclusion if you ask me. Nice debunking Sammy.

 

[Transcend]

Tinfoil hats have officially been donned in this thread. This thread has now reached it's logical conclusion. Way to go, nutters.

 

[Samirol]

On a long enough timeline, every thread devolves into a 9/11 discussion

 

[ohio]

On a long enough timeline, every thread devolves into a 9/11 discussion

When does is mutate to a holocaust (conspiracy) thread? I'd like to stay out of it until then...

 

[DaveW]

When does is mutate to a holocaust (conspiracy) thread? I'd like to stay out of it until then...

Apparently Hittlers missing testicle was in a safe in the WTC nad it was really some neo nazi's that hired Binny and his merry band to do the job.

 

[RenegadeRick]

On a long enough timeline, every thread devolves into a 9/11 discussion

At least it makes sense for this thread. I mean, ****, lookit the title. irate2: