Jason Bermas Back-Pedelling.

[Pardalis]

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? That's a government agency?

Dang! I thought it was a one stop convenience store!

Think again, even convenience stores are in on it...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886455383d229736.jpg

[Mashuna]

Quoting Godfather III?! WTF! To quote another Coppola flick, "The horror, the horror!"

Was Godfather III the one with Jar Jar Binks in it?

[chipmunk stew]

That image comes directly from the ASCE report.

I reccomend you read it in preparation for what we will present.

www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf)

If the damage to the pentagon was caused by a plane it could ONLY have been caused by a plane approaching from the south west.

We will definitively show this is not what happened.
False dichotomy. If your evidence is sufficiently supported *snicker* then you've only demonstrated that a plane flew past the Citgo station to the north. You have not demonstrated that a plane did not fly past the Citgo station to the south. The far likelier explanation would be that there were two planes, flight 77 to the south and some other plane to the north.

[Pardalis]

Or maybe they just saw the shadow of the plane.

[uk_dave]

Was Godfather III the one with Jar Jar Binks in it?

Yes....it played the directors daughter playing the godfathers daughter

(I'm going straight to hell for that one!)

[jhunter1163]

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? That's a government agency?

Dang! I thought it was a one stop convenience store!

I'm thinking about starting a chain of stores called Lawyers, Guns and Money. It'd go over big in the South. Legal advice, firearms and short-term loans. I should be rich in, oh, a month tops.

[chipmunk stew]

What part of my post don't you get?

Nothing I said requires the fire department to be in on it.

I will not retract my "belief" because of your transparant attempt at using bullying rhetoric.

We see right through your verbal manipulations.
"Your mind powers will not work on me, boy."
--LT the Hutt

[chipmunk stew]

Wrong again.

You so aren't getting this yet!

There will be nothing for you to debunk in what we present.
That may very well be true. I fully expect it to be presented in an unfalsifiable way.

[Qubit]

Gravy: Check your chemtrail filter. It may need changing.

This is probably the funniest thing I have heard in days :lol:

[Crungy]

Yes....it played the directors daughter playing the godfathers daughter

(I'm going straight to hell for that one!)

Speaking which, Sofie just had a kid the other day. True, she's awful in this never should've been made flick. I love the movies she's directed. Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation. She and her brother (Roman - CQ) are great stylists that share an aesthetic which I crave.

[Horatius]

You're going to have to because there is NO WAY you or anybody can debunk our north of the citgo evidence.

Do you know what the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is?


Smart people can conceive of things that stupid people can't.

You can't conceive of any way to debunk your evidence. But you're stupid. Therefore, you being unable to conceive of a means of debunking your evidence is meaningless.

However, it is entirely possible that one of the smart people here at JREF will be able to conceive of such a thing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there will be several means of debunking it within minutes of it being released.




If it ever is realeased, that is.

[hellaeon]

Wrong.

None of you have been able to demonstrate the physical damage as having been caused from the plane if it flew on the North side.

If you can not.....our evidence will prove that the physical damage was staged which in turn proves 9/11 an inside job.

It is not our responsibility to prove any details beyond which we have evidence for.

You know, im looking forward to seeing a comprehensive timeline of how the evidence was planted and how they can prove that specific witnesses are actually lying etc. Should make for a good matrix followup.

[Calcas]

Do you know what the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is?


Smart people can conceive of things that stupid people can't.

You can't conceive of any way to debunk your evidence. But you're stupid. Therefore, you being unable to conceive of a means of debunking your evidence is meaningless.

However, it is entirely possible that one of the smart people here at JREF will be able to conceive of such a thing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there will be several means of debunking it within minutes of it being released.




If it ever is realeased, that is.

LOL. Perfect.

Nominated.

[Thunder]

Jason Bermas is also a flat out liar. Watch in this video at segment 3:10 as he tells a firefighter at ground zero that "i dont know one person here..not one person"..meanwhile dylan avery was standing right next to him 30 seconds earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZnHpkyCp4&mode=related&search=

[pomeroo]

For those innocents who still wonder what, if anything, the conspiracy liars actually have, Fetzer's debate with military historian J.R. Dunn is a great place to look. I will post links in a separate thread.

[MarkyX]

Wrong again.

You so aren't getting this yet!

There will be nothing for you to debunk in what we present.

ZOMG Lyte.

I remember this guy on MySpace. He was talking about the same crap several weeks ago about how he found some great evidence that no one else saw and was going to reveal it to the world.

When I asked him what his conclusions were, he said "Neither a missile, global hawk, or Flight 77 hit the Pentagon", or somewhere along those lines.

I can't wait till his present this daming "evidence" to a court system, instead of YouTube or Google Video.

[Kiwiwriter]

...They should sue. Get themselves a lawyer, and sue the government for "wrongful death," like how Nicole Simpson's in-laws sued OJ for killing Nicole.

They could probably also sue Larry Silverstein.

The only problems are...they'd have to present credible evidence to a judge, and testify under oath.

That's why you rarely see Holocaust deniers come to the defense of their buddies in court.

[The Almond]

...They should sue. Get themselves a lawyer, and sue the government for "wrongful death," like how Nicole Simpson's in-laws sued OJ for killing Nicole.

They could probably also sue Larry Silverstein.

The only problems are...they'd have to present credible evidence to a judge, and testify under oath.

That's why you rarely see Holocaust deniers come to the defense of their buddies in court.

Or, if they're not interested in the courts (or the legality of the lawsuit were challenged), they should do what responsible researchers do when they discover something that is scientifically, philosophically or politically important: publish it. If the data are irrefutable and the logic is sound, then it should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.

And no, I don't consider the Journal of 9/11 Review to be a valid journal.

[JonnyFive]

It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.

Actually, I think they'd prefer to continue talking ominously about the amazing evidence they're about to release that will break this whole thing wide open.

But hey, what do I know?

[Alt+F4]

they should do what responsible researchers do when they discover something that is scientifically, philosophically or politically important: publish it. If the data are irrefutable and the logic is sound, then it should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.

Well we all know that's never going to happen. The majority of CTer like to pretend they are reasonable, logical people with legtimate scientific evidence. But when you ask them why their ideas aren't accepted by the mainstream scientific and academic community their answer is always the same: all those people are either too afraid to speak out, are part of the conspiracy or are being threatend by the conspirators.

Same goes for their opinion of mainstream media (domesitic and foreign) and local law enforcement. They show themselves for the tin-foil hatters they really are when they believe EVERYONE in authority is "in on it".

[Kiwiwriter]

Or, if they're not interested in the courts (or the legality of the lawsuit were challenged), they should do what responsible researchers do when they discover something that is scientifically, philosophically or politically important: publish it. If the data are irrefutable and the logic is sound, then it should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.

And no, I don't consider the Journal of 9/11 Review to be a valid journal.

Right, that would be log-rolling.

Yes, they can send it to Scientific American or if the don't like that, send it to a Canadian or French journal.

But they won't. They'll send it to journalists instead, knowing that reporters don't have the foggiest clue about science and mechanics.

[T.A.M.]

well they better prove something hit the pentagon, as we know from the doubletree video...there WAS NO FLYOVER.

TAM