Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 80

Thread: Constitutional Convention Calling (Clear sign of Warning)

  1. #1
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Exclamation Constitutional Convention Calling (Clear sign of Warning)

    Let me break it down real quick cause I just don't have the time to go deep through this. This is extremely important though and of course the media doesn't report it.

    Various states in the United States have been calling for a "Constitutional Convention"...ok so why do I care and why am I bothering to post this.

    If a Constitutional Convention were to be held, laws, and amendments can be implemented or current existing laws and or amendments can be altered and even abolished without question.

    When 34 States (2/3) call for a "Con-Con" one will take place.

    Thankfully there are intelligent people out there that know how dangerous and out of control this would be and have taken action to stop it.

    Do any of you understand that they can permanently ABOLISH amendments and laws, and do as they wish. ....Psh

    Another attack on your rights and you probably didn't even know about this.

    Go on learn:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]



  2. #2
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Jesus H. Christ, here comes Akamu with yet another outlandish theory. I suppose you think the US Government orchestrated 9-11 in some elaborate plot too? Look, just because something bad COULD happen, doesn't mean something bad WILL happen.

    Did you ever stop to think that the Con-Con would be called to prevent the government from producing illegal wire taps, or to increase a defendants rights in a court of law, or perhaps to update the language to keep up with modern times? Fact is our Constitution is remarkably short compared to that of other countries that WE have written more recently because they enumerate MORE rights in todays more modern times by producing more updated language.

    You COULD walk outside in a rain storm and get hit by lightning, but that doesn't necessarily mean if you walk outside in a rain storm you WILL get hit by lightning. Likewise, just because the government could limit your rights (which by the way they can still do via legislative action) does not mean they will.

  3. #3
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    917
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Plus the mere fact that about 54% of the popular vote led to ca. 66% of the electoral college vote for Obama also suggest that some changes to the constitution might actually make the USA a more (rather than less) democratic country.

  4. #4
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    I'm a history teacher, and I have a couple of degrees in history and political science, so I think I can comment on this.

    First of all, the Congress, through a 2/3 majority vote of both houses, holds the power to overturn, or ratify, amendments to the constitution; and it has, regarding alcohol, womens suffrage, African American rights, etc. None of these changes have led to, or have come as a result of, a convention of state representatives or delegates.

    A constitutional convention, if it were to take place, would be a much longer, drawn out process, than simply having the US Congress vote, if every state legislative body had to ratify changes. I don't even think there are any precedents for carrying this sort of thing out, since 1787's Philadelphia Convention, where the current constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

    If this did happen, however, and the purpose was to create an entirely new constitution, you'd probably have a civil war, as was the case between the North and South, in 1862. The problem today, however, is that states probably would not have the logistical resources to execute, under present day circumstances, war with the federal government. You would also need someone to lead a group of rebel states and an issue divisive enough to make a split an appealing option. I don't see any issue that's divisive enough.

    In short, it's very, very unlikely that any sort of convention would occur that would threaten the integrity of the constitution. In fact, it would be more feasible, though still unlikely, that a smaller body, like the US Congress, would be willing to infringe on the rights of Americans, than thousands of different state legislators, from different states.

  5. #5
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Jesus H. Christ, here comes Akamu with yet another outlandish theory. I suppose you think the US Government orchestrated 9-11 in some elaborate plot too? Look, just because something bad COULD happen, doesn't mean something bad WILL happen.

    Since when is the truth outlandish? Your just flamming with ignorance now, and since you don’t know jack shyt, a ridiculous amount of “bad” has already took place under the surface, but of course you wouldn't have any knowledge of that.

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Did you ever stop to think that the Con-Con would be called to prevent the government from producing illegal wire taps, or to increase a defendants rights in a court of law, or perhaps to update the language to keep up with modern times? Fact is our Constitution is remarkably short compared to that of other countries that WE have written more recently because they enumerate MORE rights in todays more modern times by producing more updated language.

    Did you ever stop to think that maybe there are other people who know more about things then you do?

    Explain to me genius :

    why are platoons being deployed in America right now to be used under Northcom and counting?

    Guns and ammunition are at their highest sales EVER right now, hmmm can you tell me why? I'll give you a hint on this one, it's not in favor of our rights to bare arms-

    ===

    Prevent illegal wire taps?? The brick-head Obama said he was against it and NOW he is for wire tapping.

    Do you see any revision being made to the FISA BILL? Yeah I don’t think so, they sure as hell wouldn’t do anything about that in a convention, that’s probably make it so that they can set up a camera in each home to keep an eye on you. (Not that there isn’t ways of already doing that, there's actually a few ways)

    Update the language? Lol, Our Constitution isn’t overly restrictive of our rights, they are in place to protect your Civil liberties.

    The senate and president are jointly allowed to pass laws to better this country and I agree with this, BUT with the corruption that has been swaying around for a long time now that ability has been abused and misused. If they were to be given the chance to have a convention there would be major changes that people will not agree with I would bet everything on that.

    The Government officials have done more then enough damage and is doing more, the only reason they are not doing more to us is because they get pressure from the people, hence protests, law suits, legal actions that are taken.

    There’s a bunch of idiots in America but we aren’t all a bunch of pusssy-fit cowards who are gonna let people in power to do as they please.

    If you knew and understood a quarter of what I know you’d come out of that tin foil wall your hiding behind.

    These people want and are implementing NEW taxes on your life, the Carbon tax is going to hit everyone in the near future (check bail-out bill it‘s in there in fancy lettering), and they are trying to condition you for it. Talking about “what’s my carbon foot print in commercials, carbon ads soliciting kids to grow up thinking paying taxes to crooks is going to help a made up problem.

    Try reading a book wee man, lay off the mainstream juices that fill you-

    Originally Posted by pat
    Plus the mere fact that about 54% of the popular vote led to ca. 66% of the electoral college vote for Obama also suggest that some changes to the constitution might actually make the USA a more (rather than less) democratic country.
    So with what has been occurring with a mindless offshore bank take over bill along with the FISA bill, John warner act, and patriot act 1 and 2 you really believe the government is looking out for your best interest?

    Lol, ok so the calling for this bullshyt you seriously think this country would be more democratic?? LOL the answer is FUCC NO it wouldn’t!

    This is one of THE most DANGEROUS of attacks against your liberties and to this country as a whole, get serious these people don't give a fucc about you!

  6. #6
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    Since when is the truth outlandish? Your just flamming with ignorance now, and since you don’t know jack shyt, a ridiculous amount of “bad” has already took place under the surface, but of course you wouldn't have any knowledge of that.




    Did you ever stop to think that maybe there are other people who know more about things then you do?

    Explain to me genius :

    why are platoons being deployed in America right now to be used under Northcom and counting?

    Guns and ammunition are at their highest sales EVER right now, hmmm can you tell me why? I'll give you a hint on this one, it's not in favor of our rights to bare arms-

    ===

    Prevent illegal wire taps?? The brick-head Obama said he was against it and NOW he is for wire tapping.

    Do you see any revision being made to the FISA BILL? Yeah I don’t think so, they sure as hell wouldn’t do anything about that in a convention, that’s probably make it so that they can set up a camera in each home to keep an eye on you. (Not that there isn’t ways of already doing that, there's actually a few ways)

    Update the language? Lol, Our Constitution isn’t overly restrictive of our rights, they are in place to protect your Civil liberties.

    The senate and president are jointly allowed to pass laws to better this country and I agree with this, BUT with the corruption that has been swaying around for a long time now that ability has been abused and misused. If they were to be given the chance to have a convention there would be major changes that people will not agree with I would bet everything on that.

    The Government officials have done more then enough damage and is doing more, the only reason they are not doing more to us is because they get pressure from the people, hence protests, law suits, legal actions that are taken.

    There’s a bunch of idiots in America but we aren’t all a bunch of pusssy-fit cowards who are gonna let people in power to do as they please.

    If you knew and understood a quarter of what I know you’d come out of that tin foil wall your hiding behind.

    These people want and are implementing NEW taxes on your life, the Carbon tax is going to hit everyone in the near future (check bail-out bill it‘s in there in fancy lettering), and they are trying to condition you for it. Talking about “what’s my carbon foot print in commercials, carbon ads soliciting kids to grow up thinking paying taxes to crooks is going to help a made up problem.

    Try reading a book wee man, lay off the mainstream juices that fill you-
    Did YOU ever stop and think that perhaps a Con-Con would be called in order to, oh I don't know, limit the amount or restrict torture on American prisoners and prisoners of war? By update language I mean enumerate certain things that are not specifaclly enumerated in the constitution as torture, or to specifically state what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". As of today, there is no specific definition, waterboarding is not defined as cruel as unusual punishment, for instance. Why couldn't that be provided for specifically in the constitution, or even if not specifically denied, to enumerate what DOES constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Why couldn't a constitutional convention be called to eliminate the government's roundabout ways of producing wire taps? What I'm asking is what proof do you have that were a con-con to be called, that only bad things would come out of it? I don't have proof any good will come out of it, but the burden of proof is on you, as the accuser.

    Global warming is a made up problem? Please, please, please read a book or do some sort of research. Global warning exists, and denying its existence is not some revolutionary idea that makes you anti-mainstream, it's feeding right into what Fox News and the GOP are trying to promote.

    You seem to just want to hate on mainstream media because of the simple fact that it is mainstream. Well, just because something is the mainstream and is out there doesn't make it wrong. Again, you probably see the "documentary" loose change as Gospel, fact is every single point can be debunked scientifically and plausibly. But conspiracy nuts like you ignore any and all arguments against your "evidence" by circular logic. "You can't believe anything the government says because they are liars and they are liars because you can't believe anything they say." To claim things like 9-11 was a government conspiracy and faked is an insult to all the people that died in that horrific occurrence, and to suggest that the US Government killed their own people in some elaborate plot is quite frankly insulting. Pissed off Muslims who are angry at US occupation of their land flew planes into the towers. Cite whatever you want, cite the thought that it had to be a demolition? My uncle, an architecht for 40 years, said as soon as the towers were hit to get everyone out, the towers were not built to sustain that sort of impact. You want to claim Bush is some kind of moron, yet he was able to head a government that masterminded the most elaborate plot in human history?

    Doubt if you want to, I won't stop you. Doubt everything you hear, it's healthy. But the fact is you can't push these sorts of things as fact and call everyone who does not abide by your wacked-out way of thinking an idiot or ignorant...

  7. #7
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Damn, Black f&cked you up, akuma. I've said this before, on KO and elsewhere, when confronted with this conspiracy garbage, and I'll say it again. The most dangerous things are not hidden, they're right in front of your face, they're looking back at you, in the mirror.

    Global warming, animal abuse, destruction of animal habitats, pollution, are all problems. They're all equally important. They're real, not like the 9/11 conspiracy garbage that you spew on this site. And yes, 9/11 did happen, and it was executed by Al-Qaida, a group which comes from a long line of Islamist movements that have killed thousands. There is evidence to prove this; but you would have to READ... ready for this... books!!!!!!!!!

  8. #8
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,497
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    Let me break it down real quick cause I just don't have the time to go deep through this. This is extremely important though and of course the media doesn't report it.

    Various states in the United States have been calling for a "Constitutional Convention"...ok so why do I care and why am I bothering to post this.

    If a Constitutional Convention were to be held, laws, and amendments can be implemented or current existing laws and or amendments can be altered and even abolished without question.

    When 34 States (2/3) call for a "Con-Con" one will take place.

    Thankfully there are intelligent people out there that know how dangerous and out of control this would be and have taken action to stop it.

    Do any of you understand that they can permanently ABOLISH amendments and laws, and do as they wish. ....Psh

    Another attack on your rights and you probably didn't even know about this.

    Go on learn:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    the government always makes crazy attempts but it gets shot down. This country will take a huge downfall when those crazy attempts are actually put into affect, for example the one u presented.

    All it takes is one president that will try to impress everyone and go to far and push too many buttons. Hope its not Obama that does this.

  9. #9
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Did YOU ever stop and think that perhaps a Con-Con would be called in order to, oh I don't know, limit the amount or restrict torture on American prisoners and prisoners of war? By update language I mean enumerate certain things that are not specifaclly enumerated in the constitution as torture, or to specifically state what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment". As of today, there is no specific definition, waterboarding is not defined as cruel as unusual punishment, for instance. Why couldn't that be provided for specifically in the constitution, or even if not specifically denied, to enumerate what DOES constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Why couldn't a constitutional convention be called to eliminate the government's roundabout ways of producing wire taps? What I'm asking is what proof do you have that were a con-con to be called, that only bad things would come out of it? I don't have proof any good will come out of it, but the burden of proof is on you, as the accuser.

    Global warming is a made up problem? Please, please, please read a book or do some sort of research. Global warning exists, and denying its existence is not some revolutionary idea that makes you anti-mainstream, it's feeding right into what Fox News and the GOP are trying to promote.

    You seem to just want to hate on mainstream media because of the simple fact that it is mainstream. Well, just because something is the mainstream and is out there doesn't make it wrong. Again, you probably see the "documentary" loose change as Gospel, fact is every single point can be debunked scientifically and plausibly. But conspiracy nuts like you ignore any and all arguments against your "evidence" by circular logic. "You can't believe anything the government says because they are liars and they are liars because you can't believe anything they say." To claim things like 9-11 was a government conspiracy and faked is an insult to all the people that died in that horrific occurrence, and to suggest that the US Government killed their own people in some elaborate plot is quite frankly insulting. Pissed off Muslims who are angry at US occupation of their land flew planes into the towers. Cite whatever you want, cite the thought that it had to be a demolition? My uncle, an architecht for 40 years, said as soon as the towers were hit to get everyone out, the towers were not built to sustain that sort of impact. You want to claim Bush is some kind of moron, yet he was able to head a government that masterminded the most elaborate plot in human history?

    Doubt if you want to, I won't stop you. Doubt everything you hear, it's healthy. But the fact is you can't push these sorts of things as fact and call everyone who does not abide by your wacked-out way of thinking an idiot or ignorant...
    I'm not impressed by anything you said, not even a little.

    You don't even sound to sure of yourself. I would just stop since you can't even come to grips with what it is that I'm talking about. You have the mainstream d!ck in your ass right now, try taking it out. As I stated, no one in government cares about your best interest.


    According to you over 30,000 scientist (and people using their brain) that were suing Al Gore's big idea that he would profit from directly are wrong, yea you really sure do know your stuff bob.



    Al Gore is a liar, don't even bother



    Just want to hate? I filter out bullshyt and agree the credible and logical. I'm not limited to anything.

    I hope your joking about your uncle, he either was told to say, just believed that at the time out of ignorance/fear or he is extremely stupid.

    I was there that day and there is plenty of evidence of foul play.

    I have photos I personally took of the site from all angles, you explain to me how those 2 buildings dropped down so neatly into their own footprint without collapsing backwards or anywhere to the sides without any sort of demolition involved. Not to mention the federal building that collapsed the same exact way when it wasn't even that close to the towers, suffered no damage only had 2 small tiny fires in the building.

    Advice: stop while you are ahead I didn't even call you out, you came to me, and based on what you have presented you need to seriously do some extensive research.
    Last edited by Akamu; Dec 16, 2008 at 22:20.

  10. #10
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    I'm not impressed by anything you said, not even a little.

    You don't even sound to sure of yourself. I would just stop since you can't even come to grips with what it is that I'm talking about. You have the mainstream d!ck in your ass right now, try taking it out. As I stated, no one in government cares about your best interest.


    According to you over 30,000 scientist (and people using their brain) that were suing Al Gore's big idea that he would profit from directly are wrong, yea you really sure do know your stuff bob.



    Just want to hate? I filter out bullshyt and agree the credible and logical. I'm not limited to anything.

    I hope your joking about your uncle, he either was told to say, just believed that at the time out of ignorance/fear or he is extremely stupid.

    I was there that day and there is plenty of evidence of foul play.

    I have photos I personally took of the site from all angles, you explain to me how those 2 buildings dropped down so neatly into their own footprint without collapsing backwards or anywhere to the sides without any sort of demolition involved. Not to mention the federal building that collapsed the same exact way when it wasn't even that close to the towers, suffered no damage only had 2 small tiny fires in the building.

    Advice: stop while you are ahead I didn't even call you out, you came to me, and based on what you have presented you need to seriously do some extensive research.
    Yeah, I'm joking about my uncle, who when my aunt phoned him on 9-11, on his way to work to tell him the towers were hit by planes, he said "Well those buildings are going to collapse, they weren't meant to withstand that impact." I've known him my whole life as a sort of introverted, quiet guy who didn't talk much and is one of the most honest and caring people I've ever met, God rest his soul. To even suggest that he was "told" to say that the buildings would collapse is an insult on his character, and on our family. I think I'll favor my Uncle, an expert in buildings and building design, over some two-bit with a tin foil hat, a camera and a keyboard.

    From Popular Mechanics:
    Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

    "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

    Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

    Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

    Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

    Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
    Even the scientists who BACKED YOUR STUPID OUTLANDISH THEORY have gone back on their word. Even more:

    The fact is that the towers didn't come down as if in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], not from the top. Both towers clearly collapsed from above the points of impact and pancaked the floors below. And, because of the angle of impact, the south tower didn't collapse straight down like the north tower did, which was impacted through the center of the building.


    And to answer how they collapsed straight down, it's mere physics...

    Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down.
    Essentially the steel was warped on all sides by the enormous impact causing each floor to fall one on top of another. The fact that most of the buildings were empty space meant that there was little to no resistance for the floors to do what any object does when you drop it, fall straight down.


    Any other brain busters?

  11. #11
    Member SpursFan4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    240
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Here ya go Akamu. Some reading for you from another forum.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Have fun.

  12. #12
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by SpursFan4Life
    Here ya go Akamu. Some reading for you from another forum.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Have fun.
    Good stuff SpursFan...

    Look Akamu, believe whatever the hell you want. Believe the government is solely operating to disadvantage its people, that Obama will change the White House into a pyramid and they are secretly plotting to kill all of us...but do NOT present it as fact. Your "facts" are tenuous at best, and the true fact of the matter is you only think that the unbiased and "real" information is information that either a) disagrees with the mainstream, b) agrees with you or c) both. So, think what you want, but you and I and everyone reading this knows that you are only cherry-picking information that feeds into your own opinions or goes against the mainstream and ignoring anything that goes against it, and that my friend, is being an uneducated fool.

  13. #13
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by SpursFan4Life
    Here ya go Akamu. Some reading for you from another forum.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Have fun.
    Your not showing me anything new.

    I already went through this 2 years ago analyzing both sides, 9/11 was orchestrated, I witnessed it myself.

    You don't understand people are "PAID" to "debunk" & put out "hit-pieces" on anything that discredits the government or an organization.

    Take that link and shove it back in your ass Spursfag GTFO!

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Good stuff SpursFan...

    Look Akamu, believe whatever the hell you want. Believe the government is solely operating to disadvantage its people, that Obama will change the White House into a pyramid and they are secretly plotting to kill all of us...but do NOT present it as fact. Your "facts" are tenuous at best, and the true fact of the matter is you only think that the unbiased and "real" information is information that either a) disagrees with the mainstream, b) agrees with you or c) both. So, think what you want, but you and I and everyone reading this knows that you are only cherry-picking information that feeds into your own opinions or goes against the mainstream and ignoring anything that goes against it, and that my friend, is being an uneducated fool.
    I never said the government worked "solely" that's just a piece of the bigger picture. Try again.

    Keep flamming, I will slam you into the ground everytime.

    Your trying way too hard to paint me as a simple minded fool, I'm not you stop getting it twisted.

    If a source says something that is true then it's true, I'm not going to automatically disagree with "them" because I don't like them, don't be stupid.

    I have done the research and present credible things to back me up.

    You can service your uncle all you want, 2 planes didn't knock down 3 buildings, let alone the 2 that were actually hit causing them to just fall at free fall speed, your arguments are flawd, you listen to these idiots that are paid to lie to you, just continue to stuff your face with garbage, you probably look better with that shyt in your face anyhow.

    I went through this already and I don't give a shyt about what your incompetent mind believes.

    I'm not saying anymore about 9/11:








    Barry Jennings (This man was killed mysteriously September 2008 for talking to much, he tried to change the story to save his life but it was too late for him)


    P1)


    P2)


    P3)


    ========================

    9/11 Blueprint For Truth:
    [Part 1 of 12] (Find the other 11 videos)



    Debunking 9/11 Debunking: (If you don't like the video buy the book)
    Part 1 of 9 (Find the other 8)



    FORENSIC EVIDENCE: (By: Jeff King MIT Engineer)
    (Part 1)



    (Part 2)


    Multiple Explosions:
    Last edited by Akamu; Dec 18, 2008 at 10:15.

  14. #14
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Fact is I debunked your argument with hard scientific facts. You still haven't responded as such.

    The argument you are presenting is impossible to win, any evidence that goes against you you claim is tainted and doesn't count, any evidence that goes for you is gospel. THAT is the epitome of being simple and closed minded. You refuse to even listen to independent scientists who are "paid to lie" to the American public (again, you claim this with absolutely zero proof), but believe your "independent scientists".

    Look, it's just the fact that some huge historical event happened that knocked down two of the most significant buildings in the world. People naturally do not want to believe that something so aesthetically valuable could be taken down by 19 crazy people, so they establish conspiracy theories, and in todays Internet-crazed world, everyone has the ability to get their word out there. It's like when JFK got assassinated. People just didn't want to believe that one of the most important people in American history could just be killed by some crazy person. I have a very well respected professor from Harvard (you can look him up, his name is Lloyd Weinreb) who was ON the Warren Commission and was hired as an independent actor. He says, when looking at the facts, there is no doubt in his mind that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone, and there was no conspiracy. He even wrote part of LHO's biography, but he says that when some catastrophic event occurs, people will always find a way to believe that something of such great importance died or was demolished in something more elaborate, in essence that it "deserved" a better death so it must have had one. 9-11 is just one of those things. It's scary to believe that 19 pissed off people can sneak box cutters through security to take out some of the most important landmarks in the entire world. So people want to believe something more sinister, something more important, was occuring. Fact is, a bunch of pissed off Muslims did this, not the American government.

    Go on, keep believing that 9-11 was some huge conspiracy that would have taken months upon months to plan, involving thousands of people, hundreds of demolition experts (who by the way, when they level a building spend weeks to months in the building sawing steel so that the building will fall easier, and also spend weeks to months walking through the building), the cooperation of 4 different airplanes, the cooperation of Osama Bin Laden and his right hand man to claim responsibility for the attacks, and for thousands of people to keep their lips sealed over the course of now almost a full decade, oh and by the way this was all orchestrated by one of the most idiotic presidents in American history in George W. Bush.

    I'll continue to believe that 19 pissed off Muslims snuck box-cutters through extremely lax airport security, took over planes filled with scared people and flew them into buildings in a suicide attack as had been the MO for Al-Qaeda in years past.

    Edit: You cite one guy saying he knows what he heard, but just because one guy says something does NOT NECESSARILY make it true. That day had a lot of confusion, people could have heard anything. Is he some expert, has he sat around construction sites and knows what an explosion even sounds like? He's probably just basing it off of what he's heard/seen in movies and television, but the fact is when you are THERE for an explosion it is much different than what you hear generically on Television. Plus, what makes this guy any more credible than any of the independent scientists that have shown otherwise? My uncle died on a golf course, and he said the buildings would come down upon impact, I guess the government just tried to get to him because he was lying to the American people.

  15. #15
    Member SpursFan4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    240
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    Your not showing me anything new.

    I already went through this 2 years ago analyzing both sides, 9/11 was orchestrated, I witnessed it myself.

    You don't understand people are "PAID" to "debunk" & put out "hit-pieces" on anything that discredits the government or an organization.

    Take that link and shove it back in your ass Spursfag GTFO!
    You witnessed people placing explosives in the buildings? Why haven't you gone to the FBI with this information?

Posting Permissions

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