911 Truth Movement | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

911 Truth Movement

Do you think the US government should hold an independent investigation into the events surrounding

  • Total voters
    63
evo said:
I'm thinking it's more a situation of Christian vs the Lions. :hihi
Click to expand...

Harry was spot on. The wounded buffalo and a pride of hungry lions. :hihi

evo said:
so what? If it is known to contain asbestos then the theoreticasl market price is already discounted by $200m anyway. It is a moot point.

Meh!!!!
Click to expand...

I think the point was 220 floors full of asbestos could be a hell of a liability down the track. Probably why the PA had tried to demolish them more than once. It's one thing to get asbestos out of your house. It's a little trickier getting it all out of the twin towers.

antman said:
No, that's poetic licence Disco ;-)

After all, colourful and incredible flights of fancy are what this thread is mostly composed of.
Click to expand...

No worries Colonel. :)
 
Disco08 said:
I think the point was 220 floors full of asbestos could be a hell of a liability down the track. Probably why the PA had tried to demolish them more than once. It's one thing to get asbestos out of your house. It's a little trickier getting it all out of the twin towers.
Click to expand...
It's a banal point though. All properties have some sort of 'liability'. It could be position, age, colour or any number of a myriad of pros and cons. These are all reflected in the price. I still fail to see how it is a smoking gun.

Any property developer will tell you, often the most profitable investments are the ones that have obvious liabilites.

Meh!!!!
 
Fair enough. If it wasn't the asbestos that prompted to PA to apply for permission to demolish the towers I wonder what it was.
 
evo said:
Who doesn't love the sight of a well made trebuchet!?!
Click to expand...

Well,you wont love the sight of this - foreign leggo terrorists and their blue print for sept 11 on film. After the attack the trebuchet was probably reassembled into a get away helicopter, dump truck and battleship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YncBV4as548
 
Disco08 said:
Seems to me I can handle it a lot better than some of you guys.
Click to expand...

Nope, you gave me the Colonel Jessup hat, and I'm wearing it. You really didn't think it through, did you Disco.
 
Disco08 said:
Pffft. Says you. :)

When you stop avoiding questions I'll let your niggling effect me.
Click to expand...

Which questions? Your last several posts have been about pomposity, barbarism and A Few Good Men.
 
And yours have all been bang on topic. :hihi

Disco08 said:
How'd you go finding evidence for the twin towers' profitability you asserted just before?

How about my constant assertion that both co-chairs assert that their inquiry was set up to fail? That's factual and non circumstantial. It's also a compelling reason to support a proper inquiry.
Click to expand...

Disco08 said:
I'll take it you don't want to discuss the co-chiefs and you had no luck finding anything to support the assertion that the towers were profitable.
Click to expand...
 
Disco08 said:
A proper investigation wouldn't "throw more light" on the US government incompetence that contributed to the deaths of 3000 people than the 9/11 commission? That's the 9/11 commission that both co-chairs describe as "set up to fail"? The same one that Bush and Cheney refused to cooperate with? The same one whose executive director was Philip Zelikow.

http://911proof.com/6.html

http://911proof.com/7.html

Fair enough.

I'll presume you've seen the AE doco. You see no compelling evidence in that at all? The fact WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed and looks identical to every other controlled demolition isn't compelling to you?

Interesting in this context is Bush's faux pas. How would any al Qaeda operative get inside any US building to plant explosives without help? How could al Qaeda possibly get enough operatives inside a US building to plant enough explosives to ensure people above the explosives couldn't escape? Why would Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tell anyone any of this?
Click to expand...
 
Disco08 said:
Some have you have argued against a proper inquiry. When was the last time I asserted anyone was dead against one?
Click to expand...
It was implied, or at least I thought it was when you started using the victims families to strengthen your demand.

What about trusters Baloo? Happy with that?
Click to expand...
Well, like most of the troofers arguments, its a distortion of facts to fit a preconceived ideal, but whatever rocks your boat.

Would you ever consider supporting a proper inquiry based on the failings of the 9/11 commission?
Click to expand...
What failings in particular ?
 
All of them.

Baloo said:
Well, like most of the troofers arguments, its a distortion of facts to fit a preconceived ideal, but whatever rocks your boat.
Click to expand...

What would you prefer then? You're not getting realists. ;D

Baloo said:
It was implied, or at least I thought it was when you started using the victims families to strengthen your demand.
Click to expand...

I said I support the victims who are calling for a proper inquiry and that all victims deserve a proper inquiry. How would that imply others are "dead set against" one?
 
Disco08 said:
All of them.

What would you prefer then? You're not getting realists. ;D

I said I support the victims who are calling for a proper inquiry and that all victims deserve a proper inquiry. How would that imply others are "dead set against" one?
Click to expand...

By using the emotive argument you were either floundering and needed help, or you felt everyone you were debating were completely against the thought of another inquiry.

I was giving you, like I have throughout this entire debate, the benefit of the doubt.
 
Disco08 said:
What would you prefer then? You're not getting realists. ;D
Click to expand...
you may address us the 'Sages'.

"the Venerable" or "the Astute" would also be acceptable.
 
Baloo said:
By using the emotive argument you were either floundering and needed help, or you felt everyone you were debating were completely against the thought of another inquiry.

I was giving you, like I have throughout this entire debate, the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

It's a logical argument, not an emotional one.

Dodged the question well though Baloo.
 
There is a difference between dodging and couldn't be *smile* anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Sports diplomacy - a tool of U.S. foreign policy | Vic State Election 22 >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom