What?

[+Typhoid 231]

Semantics.

 

Although anyone still mentioning bin laden is yanking your chain. He's dead, you can't live for 6 years with Acute Renal failure without a kidney dialysis machine. And if we can't keep tabs on the relatively few kidney dialysis machines in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then I guess I shouldn't worry too much about the NSA watching me take a crap.

 

 

Bin Laden is not dead. He is hiding out in the badlands of the tribal areas in Pakistan.

[+Viggen 516]

Tell you what, as long as you do not state a question that has as its premise that NORAD (me) was not part of the "conspiracy", I can and will debunk any such nonsense that you can name.

 

 

Speaking of NORAD, How much can you tell about the 102nd Fighter Wing regarding to 9/11 and thier intercept? (that naver came) Having heard the screams of the 102nd's Eagles for years I've wanted to know more about what they did on 9/11 than what the 9/11 Commision Report (Yes, I read it despite being 14 years of age) and what the History Channel says.

[eraser_tr 29]

For 6 years without functioning kidneys?

[+Viggen 516]

For 6 years without functioning kidneys?

 

 

Can you confirm that?

[column5 62]

Semantics. I still consider that a fault.

 

There is a difference between a mistake or miscalculation and doing something stupid in the full knowledge of its consequences. Sorry thats not "semantics." By using the term "construction fault" you are giving cover to some people who bear a degree of responsibility for what happened. Just like the 9/11 Comission gave cover to a lot of people who bear the responsibility for not apprehending ObL in the 1990s.

Edited November 6, 2007 by column5

[eraser_tr 29]

A mistake is a mistake, intentional or not.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21/gupta.otsc/

[column5 62]

A mistake is a mistake, intentional or not.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/21/gupta.otsc/

 

Bullsh*t. An intentional mistake is not a mistake by definition. Now I see why you are on Colbert's list.

Edited November 6, 2007 by column5

[eraser_tr 29]

A mistake is neutral, a poor choice regardless of knowledge or intent. Because you know something can lead to a hazard and choose it knowingly doesn't mean its not a mistake.

[+Typhoid 231]

A mistake is neutral, a poor choice regardless of knowledge or intent. Because you know something can lead to a hazard and choose it knowingly doesn't mean its not a mistake.

 

referencing speculation as fact, mistake, etc. is utter stupidity.

[+Typhoid 231]

Speaking of NORAD, How much can you tell about the 102nd Fighter Wing regarding to 9/11 and thier intercept? (that naver came) Having heard the screams of the 102nd's Eagles for years I've wanted to know more about what they did on 9/11 than what the 9/11 Commision Report (Yes, I read it despite being 14 years of age) and what the History Channel says.

 

 

kind of a tall order. What about it don't you understand?

[eraser_tr 29]

Ok, this isn't getting anywhere. To clarify things, what do you think I believe and have been trying to say?

[+Typhoid 231]

Ok, this isn't getting anywhere. To clarify things, what do you think I believe and have been trying to say?

 

what I heard you say is that you believe there was a bomb in the WTC which therefore supports all the demented conspiracy whackos who think Bush and NORAD (me and my associates) were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Typhoid

[+Viggen 516]

kind of a tall order. What about it don't you understand?

 

 

Well all I ever hear is they went up, got called off so Langley could get up and that was the end. I know that there is more to it that that.

[Atreides 144]

Bin Laden is not dead. He is hiding out in the badlands of the tribal areas in Pakistan.

 

No he's not in Pakistan. He's chillin with the dope fiend formerly known as Elvis...Elvis live's I tell you.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Atreides

[column5 62]

Because you know something can lead to a hazard and choose it knowingly doesn't mean its not a mistake.

 

Yes, it does. You can't admit to murdering a person with premeditation and call it an accident at the same time. Just as you can't make a decision with full knowledge of the facts to not fireproof a building and then claim you made a mistake after the building burns. It wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated and intentional act. But then, I don't expect conspiracy theorists to have any more precision in their use of words than in their research.

[eraser_tr 29]

In correction:

 

I believe there was a bomb in the WTC, just as in '93, having nothing to do with bush or NORAD.

 

When you look at things without assuming its all demented, problems do arise and warrants a closer look. That doesn't mean its a conspiracy and they orchestrated the entire thing etc.. Just that they're not being entirely truthful. It's Naieve to think that the government is going to be entirely truthful and forthcoming and believe what they say. With all the Clinton bashing from everyone right of center, you've got to at least admit that much. They said the air was safe after 9/11 in downtown manhattan, we now know otherwise.

 

Well then you subscribe to a much narrower and unusual definition of mistake. It was a calculated and intentional act, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad decision and therefore as most would say, a mistake. Anyway this was all on a theoretical point that if there was a conspiracy of any sort, it doesn't necessarily have to be grandiose.

Edited November 7, 2007 by eraser_tr

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Although anyone still mentioning bin laden is yanking your chain. He's dead, you can't live for 6 years with Acute Renal failure without a kidney dialysis machine.

 

K, just for the record, the following is not directed at you Eraser. You're fighting an uphill battle here as it is! :yes:

 

...But. My family has a history of Kidney disease thanks, in large to my Grandma's poor judgement (think of the racist old lady from Wedding Crashers, except catholic and VERY morally judgemental.). I have an uncle who's on dialysis (approx 9 hours per day) for roughly 8 years. My dad's kidneys failed roughly 6 weeks ago and he was quite close to death. Sometime in the next 3 months he'll need it for 4 hours a day, however he's able to take various medications that can limit his dependence (hopefully!) on dialysis. He's got a pill box divied up into his daily doseages with something like 16 pills per day! I'm not kidding. I could eat a large pack of M&Ms that has less pilly sized thingos!

 

What's my point? I'm getting to that. If Bin Laden's still kicking (and it's debatable) depending on the severity of his condition, he doesn't necessarily need a dialysis machine and even if he did/does, tranporting and powering one in the field wouldn't be hard for an organisation that is able to run weapons, ammunition, explosives, food etc to it's various AOs. It's proven he has considerable personal resources, wealth, etc. He'd have considerable support from like minded organisations in the region and around the world, particulaly in Pakistan. And it's not like he's particularly fundamental to the running of Al-Qaeda, there are already too many stooges willing to volunteer.

 

What I don't understand is how this information came to be known? How do we know this isn't disinformation from Al-Q to make him seem feeble and therefore underestimate him? Then again, maybe he is dead and the lack of info about him could mean the US is creating a 1984 style "Emmanuel Goldstein, The brotherhood" perpetual enemy situation without realisnig it (or maybe intentionally). Maybe Lindsay Lohan really is trying to rehabilitate. I mean there's just not enough info it seems to make a decision either way.

 

 

Except about Lindsay... that's about as nutjob as "9/11 In Plane Sight" or "Loose Change".

[tank03 1]

Yes, it does. You can't admit to murdering a person with premeditation and call it an accident at the same time. Just as you can't make a decision with full knowledge of the facts to not fireproof a building and then claim you made a mistake after the building burns. It wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated and intentional act. But then, I don't expect conspiracy theorists to have any more precision in their use of words than in their research.

 

I'm hesitant to get involved in this one, but..., if looked at from the rules of Logic (I mean with a capital "L", the study of argument, not just common sense) one has to make certain assumptions valid before a fault can be proved. A equals B equals C stuff.

 

Thus, one can claim it as a mistake (the not fire-proofing) if they miscalculated the need. If they invested in a fire suppression system with the belief that such a system would negate the need for fire-proofing the structual supports, then they did in fact make a mistake. The mistake being the miscalculation.

 

However, if they did forego the fire-proofing and didn't include an additional fire mitigation system to make up for the lack of fire proofing, then it's pretty difficult to simply call that an accident. In that case they clearly had knowledge and didn't act on it. No one expects to design a structure to survive everything thrown at it, but to forego one system and not replace it with another is just negligent.

 

As much as I find conspiracy theorists entertaining, most of their arguments never really make much sense to me. They seem to connect the dots with the most unreasonable and illogical arguments.

 

Except for Elvis. It's obvious that he's still alive and living on a chicken farm in Indiana. The feds did that to hide him from the aliens.

[tank03 1]

I too believe there was a bomb in the WTC. It's called a commercial airliner filled with fuel. Makes a big bang.

 

Lindsey may be nuts, but she's a lot saner than Britney. I love celebrities like that, they always make me fell better about myself.

Edited November 7, 2007 by tank03

[+Dave 2,318]

Except for Elvis. It's obvious that he's still alive and living on a chicken farm in Indiana. The feds did that to hide him from the aliens.

 

Someone is going to a visit tonight by the guys in black suits. Bigmouth......

[eraser_tr 29]

If anyone actually read or paid attention to any of it, you don't have to connect the dots in a wierd way to notice there's something unusual about the BBC reporting WTC 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did.

 

You want to hear really wacky? Apparently alot of arabs believe the mirror image of of the coca cola script says "no mecca no mohammed" in arabic and thats some kind of evidence of our crusade against them. Right, a hundred years ago when most people in this country had no idea such a religion existed, someone designing an emblem for a soft drink brand to be a cryptic message mocking a religion.

[+Viggen 516]

I too believe there was a bomb in the WTC. It's called a commercial airliner filled with fuel. Makes a big bang.

 

 

Then the Flight 93 'jackers did have a bomb on board the plane.

 

But back on topic, If a Penski (or was it Ryder) truck filled with explosives couldn't take out the WTC then what makes you think that a bomb could have then? Sure, it may have had a weaker structcher from the first bomb and fires but the WTC fell becuase the temperatures inside were hotter than what could be contained by the metal, thus the above floors loose there support and X amount of steel, iron, PCs, desks and ,dare I say it, Human bodies rain down on the floors below, crushing each floor (thus the continous explosion noises as the fell) below.

[tank03 1]

If anyone actually read or paid attention to any of it, you don't have to connect the dots in a wierd way to notice there's something unusual about the BBC reporting WTC 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did.

 

You want to hear really wacky? Apparently alot of arabs believe the mirror image of of the coca cola script says "no mecca no mohammed" in arabic and thats some kind of evidence of our crusade against them. Right, a hundred years ago when most people in this country had no idea such a religion existed, someone designing an emblem for a soft drink brand to be a cryptic message mocking a religion.

 

It could say "no mecca, no mohammed" in arabic, but if it does that that is one HUGE coincidence, for the reasons you stated. Though, if it really did say that, you'd think that Coca Cola Corp would have made some changes in the script. No business wants to lose potential customers if a simple fix could prevent it.

[tank03 1]

Someone is going to a visit tonight by the guys in black suits. Bigmouth......

 

Oops, thought it was common knowledge.

[eraser_tr 29]

A Ryder truck full didn't work in '93, the structure was designed to widthstand an impact from an aircraft. Nor should have the temperatures reached be high enough to weaken the steel and take down the building (skyscrapers have had serious fires before and none of them fell), but combined hits from the bottom and top would.

 

A Turk I met claims it actually does, but I don't think coca cola would be thrilled about changing it. Everyone knows the image. It'd be like Ferrari changing their emblem of the black horse and yellow background.