[Consider]

Originally Posted by COLT

ARE YOU ON DRUGS ?

I only posted AFTER Consider Was attacked by many posters...

Thanks, Colt, that's how I remember it, too.

[Consider]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

I couldn't disagree more, especially since those who are asking the questions are those with an axe to grind.

At this point, it appears as if Colt is attempting to get the thread closed with the constant attacks, and I for one, applaud your effort.

Ah, the twisting to quiet the questions that threaten the status quo...

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Double R

Well, I disagree with Consider and she disagrees with me. Not a problem on this end. I have my beliefs and she has hers.

As for the personal attacks, that started to come in later when a certain poster told me to pull my head of my ass for not agreeing with them. :roll:

Double R";

I understand your sense of chagrin, but the question is this:

Personal attack or not, do you want to react to it and feed the fire, or do you want to demonstrate some leadership by setting the example?? I you want to debate, whatever your position is, that's all well and fine; but obviously, if you are going to debate, then the more persuasive you can be, the greater chance you have of getting others to look at your opinion objectively!! If you want to be persuasive, then reinforce your arguements with facts, and use those facts to cultivate pathroads of logic and reason, rather than reacting with unchecked emotions!!

[Consider]

Originally Posted by Double R

Here we go again with the personal attacks. I for one did not attack her but you go and attack me. Go back to page one and read from the first thread on(if you know how to read). Like I said if all you can contribute to this debate is personal attacks, then don't post. Because, that is mainly what this thread is, a debate.

Hi Double,

I want to mention that when you make the statement that I'm seeing black helicopters, that presumably don't exist, you are attacking me. You seem to think it's too subtle... :shock: ... to notice or for me to object, but that's not really true.

The fact is that you were attacking me rather than dealing with the material.

I still question how building 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane. I question the diagonal cuts on the 46 columns 7 stories beneath ground, and the thermite melting that was on the steel...

Those are things that don't match with the planes that hit the two towers.

Those are things that make me think the fireman on floor 78 was killed, and not by the fire he talked about as being able to be knocked down.

[Consider]

Originally Posted by Double R

You post speaks of much trurth.

I'm glad to read you saying that, Double.

It is really an excellent post, this by Useless.

And, it's what sets this forum apart from the stock broker forum where I was banned for posting this topic... The topic had over a thousand hits in less than a day, and I was banned...

So, my respect for this forum remains high. Very high.

thank you.

.

[Consider]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

It's hardly that. Other than the "information" that has been already posted (which solely consists of "internet experts"), there is nothing more here than personal attacks.

What surprises me, Rev., is that you questioned whether there really were three towers that fell when only two were hit by planes.

Colt provided a link showing building 7, the third tower, the one that BBC reported to have fallen before it fell, and the one which was NOT HIT by a plane, and which was further from the other two towers than the Deutsche Bank building across the street which stood for years...

Yet you ignored these facts, and concentrated only on the personal attacks asking for the thread to be closed, rather than addressing the fact that three buildings fell when only two were hit by planes. And, they all fell with exactly the same characteristics within the fall itself.

[COLT]

In my opinion, the root cause is that, deep down, you all know your getting screwed.... You all lost trust, the government is screwing you, DUH,

Everyone in the rest of the world is making money and keeping "their" government working for "them" but you are Subjects to your politicians...

If, the united states ever woke up, you could do something.... Well till the "sleeping Giant" decides to take the world.

Your all pupets, tax paying pupets... There was no W.O.M. destruction....
The more you deplete your power, well hmm..... :?

[Consider]

Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago

There's three towers now? Is one of them invisible?

See what I mean?

[Double R]

Originally Posted by Consider

Hi Double,

I want to mention that when you make the statement that I'm seeing black helicopters, that presumably don't exist, you are attacking me. You seem to think it's too subtle... :shock: ... to notice or for me to object, but that's not really true.

The fact is that you were attacking me rather than dealing with the material.

I still question how building 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane. I question the diagonal cuts on the 46 columns 7 stories beneath ground, and the thermite melting that was on the steel...

Those are things that don't match with the planes that hit the two towers.

Those are things that make me think the fireman on floor 78 was killed, and not by the fire he talked about as being able to be knocked down.

UMMMMMMMM, The black Helicopter thing was to see where you were going with this. Since you keep the thread on track and did not start to bring other "conspircy theroies", I see that you stand behind what you believe. If you take that as a personal attack, then fine.

[Double R]

Originally Posted by Consider

See what I mean?

That's a good question. There are only two towers:
World Trade Center 1
and
World Trade Center 2
Number 7 is not considered a tower. Just a building. That is why it was asked that way.