Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Conspiracy Theories Debunked

  1. #31
    JohnnyIrishXM is offline
    Mentor
    JohnnyIrishXM's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2009 Location: Valley Forge ,PA Posts: 1,583
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    JohnnyIrishXM, it is like "mrmertz" said nothing going on with SIRIXM have to have something to fill the void. I mean for god sake, I was agreeing with Charles there for a minute about the Iphone release.
    No .I agree it's funny,laughing my ars off when i saw that with Charles..
    Hey do you Tweet?




  2. #32
    JohnnyIrishXM is offline
    Mentor
    JohnnyIrishXM's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2009 Location: Valley Forge ,PA Posts: 1,583
    alot of boredom here with SP,saw Cos sold 60% of his position and waiting on the sideline...I'm in until at least next March and then will re evaluate my position Depending what transpires...

  3. #33
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db2te1u8Dgs

    Just one of MANY engineers who disputes the claim. Very little damage at all. As you can see in this video, the building appears to be on fire.
    911 commission didnt even mention building 7. Footage of this building was never shown by the MSM after that day.
    I got links too. Tons of em. I also have the 911 commission on my side too. Admittance by ommission. Why didnt they mention this building? Because it was the one fact they couldnt even begin to cover up.

    The wigam quote about the Chief giving the call to pull it, supports my facts, not disputes them. Thanks for that. Damage to building 7 was minor compared to other buildings that didnt fall.
    This is pointless. You dont want to know the truth fine. Go live in a hole.
    I hate conspiracy theorist. Especially dumb ones. Consipracy theory that planes took down the towers that is. What a dumb conspircacy theory.
    Keep mention the moon landing John, if it makes you feel better. Only mentioned 8 times I dont believe that.
    Near the end of this video, FOx steers him away from talking about building 7. Its hilarious. And they wont show his footage.
    Last edited by relmor2003; 06-11-2009 at 11:47 AM.

  4. #34
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    JohnnyIrishXM,l I dont mess around to much with other sites like tweeter, besides here and watching the market I stay busy enough.



    I am not selling for a loss compared to when I bought the shares. I ride it into a black hole before I do that. While I may decide to sell some of the rest I have at .15 but I doubt it, there is just something not right about the PPS and I will follow that hunch for a while more. I dont know if you are correct about the CAPEX being totally done for this year but if you are then this stock should see a sizable increase. There is no other way to report positive FCF for the 2nd quarter then to just say it and if they have that then it is asured to be FCF positive for the whole year when taken on the basis of the total years FCF amounts.

  5. #35
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    Name calling doesnt change the facts. Sorry. You can classify anyone who believes anything different from the common thinking as crazy, a nut job, whatever. Thats immature debating, and wins you no points with neutral readers. Your just burying yourself.
    In the entire history of steel buildings,3 have fallen due to fire damage.

    You can guess the three. Another undisputeable fact. The Oklahoma City Bombing couldnt even bring that building down destroying its entire face from floor to roof. LOL LOL LOL LOL
    Last edited by relmor2003; 06-11-2009 at 11:52 AM.

  6. #36
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    Since you want me to look at links.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_n...eature=related
    Hilarious. So sad to believe anything different. It so obvious. Like trying to convince you China really exists if you never been their. A skeptic can always dispute ANYTHING. You cant even PROVE your not dreaming all this up.

  7. #37
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    Name calling doesnt change the facts. Sorry. You can classify anyone who believes anything different from the common thinking as crazy, a nut job, whatever. Thats immature debating, and wins you no points with neutral readers. Your just burying yourself.
    In the entire history of steel buildings,3 have fallen due to fire damage.

    You can guess the three. Another undisputeable fact. The Oklahoma City Bombing couldnt even bring that building down destroying its entire face from floor to roof. LOL LOL LOL LOL


    Hey I call a spade a spade a nut a nut, or in this case a nut a relmor.



    As I told you before all the conspiracy theories in that video were debunked. Just like the few fires at the top of the building and that it was not damaged to much. I guess if you think a 20 story hole at the base of it is not to damaged then your right. Why dont you try looking at pictures of building 7 from the other side. Did any of those buildings have fires going for six hours before they even got to them, no they didn't did they. Finally once again you dont have a glue about structural design try that with the Chrysler building in Chicago. It is one of only a few buildings with the main structural members that are on the very outside of the building, it was a design flaw that worked out (function follows form) in that case.

  8. #38
    relmor2003 is offline
    Mentor
    relmor2003's Avatar
    Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Hey I call a spade a spade a nut a nut, or in this case a nut a relmor.



    As I told you before all the conspiracy theories in that video were debunked. Just like the few fires at the top of the building and that it was not damaged to much. I guess if you think a 20 story hole at the base of it is not to damaged then your right. Why dont you try looking at pictures of building 7 from the other side. Did any of those buildings have fires going for six hours before they even got to them, no they didn't did they. Finally once again you dont have a glue about structural design try that with the Chrysler building in Chicago. It is one of only a few buildings with the main structural members that are on the very outside of the building, it was a design flaw that worked out (function follows form) in that case.
    Yes, there was damage. Not denying that. But look at that one video, it gives a great overhead shot of the buildings damage, and what the surrounding area substained. Once again John. 3 steel buildings in history that have collapsed due to fire. WTC Towers 1, 2, and 7. Thats it. All appear to experts to have collapsed demolition style. Im not a moron, I can see what I see. I see controlled demolition. Sorry. I had sight you as many engineers who agree with me, than agree with you. I have an engineer who works in Boston as a civil engineer. He agrees. He said call a spade a spade. If this was any other collapse, he said it wouldnt have been even debated what caused building 7 to collapse. I can give you his email if you want it. Hes not a consiracy theoriest either. For instance, he wont get into the who or why either. He just looked at the footage, saw the structural design of the building, noticed the damage, and made his own conclusions. My last post on the subject. Moving on. WAYY off topic anyway. LOL

  9. #39
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    Yes, there was damage. Not denying that. But look at that one video, it gives a great overhead shot of the buildings damage, and what the surrounding area substained. Once again John. 3 steel buildings in history that have collapsed due to fire. WTC Towers 1, 2, and 7. Thats it. All appear to experts to have collapsed demolition style. Im not a moron, I can see what I see. I see controlled demolition. Sorry. I had sight you as many engineers who agree with me, than agree with you. I have an engineer who works in Boston as a civil engineer. He agrees. He said call a spade a spade. If this was any other collapse, he said it wouldnt have been even debated what caused building 7 to collapse. I can give you his email if you want it. Hes not a consiracy theoriest either. For instance, he wont get into the who or why either. He just looked at the footage, saw the structural design of the building, noticed the damage, and made his own conclusions. My last post on the subject. Moving on. WAYY off topic anyway. LOL


    once again you never did go to that web site that shows your conspiracy theory to be full of crap did you

    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


    goto the seventh picture down. Way different picture then the one you were showing isn't. Then again that is what you and these people do give you part of the picture and let simpletons like you lap it up.



    The fact is I would like his email I would like to make sure the people of Boston know his thoughts on this. relmor there is one fact and that is first of all, most engineers and the two largest demolition companies that use explosives to bring down buildings agree with me. your thought on this are not the main stream they are far out theories that have been debunked time and time again. That is why you have seen them fade away, the way they have. It is also why the more you talk about this issue, you look like a crack pot.



    Also you said this before:


    "Because a building that wasnt hit by a plane, WTC Tower 7, fell at 4 pm the same day, having only a small fire, and no apparent evidence(outside damage)"


    Now you say this: "Yes, there was damage. Not denying that."
    Last edited by john; 06-11-2009 at 01:56 PM.

  10. #40
    underway is offline
    Addict
    underway's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 521
    Quote Originally Posted by relmor2003 View Post
    Name calling doesnt change the facts. Sorry. You can classify anyone who believes anything different from the common thinking as crazy, a nut job, whatever. Thats immature debating, and wins you no points with neutral readers. Your just burying yourself.
    In the entire history of steel buildings,3 have fallen due to fire damage.

    You can guess the three. Another undisputeable fact. The Oklahoma City Bombing couldnt even bring that building down destroying its entire face from floor to roof. LOL LOL LOL LOL
    You can't compare Oklahoma City with 9/11 in any way other than terrorism was the motive. The construction of the buildings is totally different and the explosive was as well, not to mention the way in which the explosive force was applied. Again, those who buy into these theories cherry pick information to suit their theory. It's absurd. And, especially upsetting with respect to 9/11 when it appears you are saying terrorists did not attack and bring down those towers. You seem to infer that Americans on the ground were conspiring with the hijackers and had pre-wired WTC for demolition. Total rubbish. And, the NYPD, FDNY, and federal agencies were part of the plot too? Stop the madness! and....BTW....for those who feel the depth and breadth of conspiracy like this should immediately leave the country, for it is indeed a dangerous place, on the brink of collapse, if you believe this nonsense. Right. Notice none of the conspiracy theorists ever leave. Why is that?
    Last edited by underway; 06-11-2009 at 04:30 PM.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •