[bgates]

I got distracted at jztz’s link. Do you want us to comment on 9-11, still? Or were you directing us to the CIA Mind Control articles? Or the UFO stuff? Because that site has it all.

Hey, I got it: maybe the CIA hypnotized the space aliens to make them zap the Pentagon from orbit.

[bgates]

An ARM isn’t an ARM

-is it a duck?

[bgates]

I recall people were ganging up on PS because she stated as incontrovertible fact that x would happen, and anyone estimated the probability of x as less than 100% was either afraid to face the truth or not smart enough to follow ps’ arguments. She’s “open-minded” enough to entertain the most bizarre conspiracy theories, but won’t stand for the possibility of alternate scenarios for something that hasn’t even happened yet.

[bgates]

I worry about the banks dragging it out too, but I think all we need is a few banks like the ones Steve is talking about to keep having short sales or foreclosures and steadily setting new, lower comps. It’s a prisoners’ dilemma – all banks are better off if they cooperate and extend the life of loans, but each bank individually would better off getting out from under bad loans as fast as possible.

And I should mention, whether the banks are able to stretch it out or not, whatever happens will be due to an enormous secret conspiracy run out of the White House for the benefit of the pentaveret.

[bgates]

Was the Pentagon’s outer wall reinforced like the concrete in the video?
No, I’m pretty sure the exterior of America’s military headquarters is mostly made of screen doors and French windows, in order to project an open and inviting image to the world. Why would a huge military installation want reinforced walls?

[bgates]

PS, we’re talking about conspiracy theories, right? The two biggest ones going are that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Holocaust never happened. Many people (many insane people) think the Jews are behind both. You’re trying to raise a discussion of the former, claiming anyone who says the official story is settled fact isn’t open minded. Iran’s president, who you’ve repeatedly complimented for his rationality, is doing the exact same thing with the latter. Is it slanderous to see the analogy there? Why is it if you wonder if the government supports murdering thousands of people that’s open-minded, but if I wonder if you support suppressing the murder of millions of people that’s slander?

salo_t, shouldn’t you be off gathering evidence that the moon landing was staged?

[bgates]

Another ‘conspiracy’:

Powayseller, I’m curious about your stance on Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial conference. Much like your position on 9/11, he says he wants to keep an open mind and examine whether the official story is true. Do you agree with him? I know you have expressed admiration of him before. Do you think it’s open minded to question the historical fact of the Holocaust?

[bgates]

Poway, your truncated quote of Bill Manning in an attempt to pull him into your crackpot theorizing is nothing short of libelous. Here’s what you quoted:

The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.

And here’s what he said next:

Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Clearly this man was concerned about fire safety, and making sure that a fire-induced catastrophe was understood well enough to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. He’s suspicious of the degree of fire protection that was present in the WTC, but that’s it. In the context of the thread, you imply that he’s a lunatic like you who thinks the buildings were demolished. If you had any sense of decency, you’d delete that post and apologize for it.

[bgates]

In keeping with the farcical ‘Point/Counterpoint’ theme of this thread, let me be the first to say:
‘Powayseller, you ignorant slut.’

Underwriters Labs comment on Kevin Ryan, as you would know if you got someone to show you how Google works.

Underwriters Laboratories denied that it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization."

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, a spokesman for the Northbrook, Ill.-based company.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Do you know what Ryan did at the UL subsidiary? Tested drinking water. Do you know what that has to do with thermal testing steel? I don’t.

Since once again the first point you make is total garbage, I’m going to assume the rest is as well. Tell you what, why don’t you and brianzero and salo_t hook up with OJ and find the Real Conspirators for us. After that, you can go help your idol Ahmadinejad figure out who staged the Holocaust.

[bgates]

Perry, I’m not faulting you for criticizing Bush. If you get an adult to help you read my last post, he’ll tell you that I said that Bush has made mistakes. I criticized you because you don’t make criticisms from any set of principles, you just type whatever comes into your pretty little head. You don’t want Bush to keep doing what he’s been doing, but you ridicule him for announcing he’s working on changing his strategy. That’s not good faith, constructive criticism, it’s useless bitching.

Powell and Gingrich both criticized Bush, but from different directions – Gingrich would support sending more troops under certain circumstances, Powell doesn’t think that will help. You can’t cite both of them as though they supported your point of view unless your point of view is no more sophisticated than ‘whatever Bush does is wrong, no matter what it is’ – which I think you’ve demonstrated is a fair summary.

Since we’re citing Republican luminaries, I can’t help but point out that I’ve criticized you and others for describing Iraq as hopeless and unwinnable; my position is that that description is wrong. Gingrich and Powell both support my position – Gingrich says the only exit strategy is victory, and while Powell says, “we’re not winning, we are losing,” he also says “We haven’t lost.” So Gingrich, Powell, Bush, and I all think Iraq is winnable, and you think what, exactly?

[bgates]

Perry, thanks for giving me the chance to argue against a completely different asinine viewpoint than the conspiracy nuts. You’re claiming that now that the US is in charge, corruption is a big problem in Iraq? I know you had no interest in the country besides what fraction of its problems can be blamed on Republicans, but Saddam was actually not terribly ethical. You blame ethnic strife in the country on Bush? What do you call the slaughter of 100000 Shia by the Sunni government in 1991, or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Shia soldiers in their war with Iran? Whose fault are the assassinations in Lebanon, or the civil war there? Whose fault is the violence between Fatah and Hamas? Are you aware there were terrorists even before Bush took office? That the 9/11 plot started before Bush took office?
Whose fault was the 1979 Islamic Revolution?

Bush has made mistakes, like every government ever, like everyone besides geniuses like salo_t, to whom I must now sacrifice a goat since the football game is over.

You fault Bush for what you think is a bad strategy, now you fault him for reconsidering the strategy. So much for coherence. Your posts are an embarrassment.

[bgates]

Sloppy, guys. Three posts on jewels, and no one has thought to blame the Jews for anything yet? OK, I’ll clean up the mess on this thread, and remind everyone that the Jews (sorry, ‘neo-cons’) are as responsible for the diamond conflicts in Africa as they are for the WTC attack, and for the live-action Rocky and Bullwinkle movie not staying closer to the spirit of the cartoons.

[bgates]

salo_t, the insurance ‘argument’ would be made to work either way. If the developer got coverage, he’s the rich guy who suspiciously saves money in the attack – but if he’s denied coverage, then the insurer is the rich guy who suspiciously saves money in the attack. It’s not a falsifiable argument. It’s not science. It’s hysteria.

Show me the peer-reviewed publication that has experts questioning the collapse. Explain why there’s been no accusation against Bush from any academic journal, any mainstream media outlet, any military general, or even the Democratic party. These are all groups that have opposed Bush strongly, at times even dishonestly, but the champions of this crackpot conspiracy garbage are anonymous internet posters.

It’s no use arguing with people over their religious beliefs. For whatever reason, you think it’s important that you have access to special knowledge that lesser beings cannot accept. I’ll be sure to sacrifice a goat in your honor after the game. In the meantime, why don’t you call up this guy, I’m sure you’ll get along famously.

[bgates]

I blame the Jews, both for the conspiracy ps is telling us about and for hijacking ps’ account to tell us about the conspiracy.

Also for cancelling that show that was on after ‘Lost’ last year, about the detective agency. That was a good show. Stupid Jews.

Also for trading Drew Brees. (Oh, come on – Drew? Named for St Andrew, the first disciple of Jesus? Traded to the ‘Saints’ to get more playing time for a guy named ‘Rivers’, like the River Jordan, the traditional border of Israel, homeland of the Jews? Do I have to spell everything out for you people?)

[bgates]

So wait – you’re saying Jews didn’t cause the plague?

You’re in on this conspiracy, aren’t you 😉 ?

Heavyduty, why’d you imaginary conspiracy government half-ass things? Let’s recap: in the world you see when you’re off your meds, the government wanted to curtail civil liberties and start wars, for no apparent reason. To generate support, it launched this huge secret plan involving at least hundreds of people to secretly wire several buildings to explode when they were hit by airplanes that had been hijacked as part of the conspiracy. Then the government spread stories about WMD that they knew were false in a largely unsuccessful attempt to get support for an Iraq invasion.

Why not just nuke an American city in the first place? If the government you think about when you’re sniffing glue could break the chain of command at NORAD, they could get their hands on one nuclear weapon. They could detonate it in some second-tier city like San Bernardino or Newark to let LA and NY think they were targeted, but avoid the economic disaster of actually hitting the biggest cities.

Your plan involved thousands; mine involved tens. Your plan leaves the imaginary government vulnerable to imaginary geniuses like yourself who can pick apart the differences between airliner collision damage and demolition damage; in my plan, the government doesn’t have to cover up what type of weapon exploded. In your plan, the government has to work to tie lunatic hijackers to WMD efforts. In my plan, they have proof of a nuclear explosion on US soil – France would lead the charge into Iraq under those circumstances. My plan would lead to more military spending and more civil liberties restrictions than yours. Everything about my plan is better than yours. The only failing of both of them, once again, is they are both batshit crazy. But a crazy person like yourself who likes to pretend he’s smart isn’t bothered by that objection, so since you like fake ‘intellectual’ puzzles about why the government does secret evil things, I’ll leave this as an exercise for you and anyone else who has internet access in their desert survivalist compound or padded cell: why did the government use your weak over-complicated unconvincing plan and not my simple bulletproof one?

[Author]

Posts