Rick Reuben wrote:Just like you can't comment on the petition signed by over 190 architects and engineers

I love this one, what is this about 0.01% of the total number of Architects and Engineers in the US... add the world to that and maybe 0.0001 at a stretch...

And of course these 190 are right the rest are... I believe you decided American Institute of Architects was a bunch of pipe-smoking fraternity brother, elitists.

9-11 was performed by Islamic terrorists, flying planes into buildings.

Bob, yes there is more to 9-11 than meets the eye; yes, the US government are at times a bunch of evil fuckers that frequently perform crimes against humanity in the name of the American citizen. However 9-11 was the result of provocation and gross incompetence. Not your bizarre story of planting explosives inside the building.

On a side note, I happen to think you are right about quite a few things. Although why you think a lot of this is news to any free-thinking person is a little beyond me.

This is not a lie and I am not lying.

This might be useful to you Occam's Razor

Rick Reuben wrote:
Sept. 11, 2001 – Al-Qaeda terrorists attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with suicide bombers.

I just noticed this from you Bob.

I'm glad you've come to your senses.

I love it, you fraud.

Lets review, shall we?

1) I (along with others here) ask why the 9/11 conspiracy crowd doesn't submit their findings for peer review to a qualified scientific journal.

2) Clocker Tom says "They do....really, they do"

3) I ask for the names and qualifications of whoever alegedly peer reviewed these papers.

4) Bob says, "Look it up yourself. Use Google."

5) I correctly point out that Google has a hard time searching for information that doesn't actually exist and ask, again, that Clocker Tom provide this information.

6) Clocker Tom says that Webster Tarpley is the greatest political theorist of out time.

Am i missing anything? Could it be any more obvious to anyone here what a fraud Tom is?

Just keep ducking the questions as what little credibility you may have had slips away.

Don't you have any pride?

Rick Reuben wrote:

ue wrote:Does it not even occur to you why the conspiracy crowd refuses to submit their findings to credible scientific journals for peer review?

That's a common lie/ error, often made by dopes like you.

All the papers published here are available for peer review, and many have been peer reviewed:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Ok, Cock Knocker Bob. Now we are getting somewhere. I mean, the Journal of 911 studies. Sounds so official. Hey, look who the editor is! It's none other than Steven Jones.

Who peer reviewed these articles Tom? Don't be afraid to name names. What were their qualifications? Feel free to include their degrees and areas of specialty.

Flaneur wrote:I really mean, in fields like engineering and science, the peer review process, as I assume Unblinking Eye did in his last post.

Nowhere to hide Tom.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:I love

Dork, you can extend these posts into the next century.

Oh believe me, Tom, I will. Anytime you attempt to spread your bullshit lies, I will call you out on it. You are a fraud and a coward. If you think you can wait me out by ducking my questions, you are sorely mistaken. I've got all the time in the world.

And don't worry, when we are done with this point, when you finally get the courage to admit that no credible body has EVER peer reviewed those bullshit papers, I'll be back to call you out on any number of horseshit accusations you've made on this message board over the last couple years. You've left a digital river of bullshit and I'm going to call you out on it whenever I feel like it. Your time is done, pussy.

Happy to do it, pussy. We're still waiting for answers. Keep running.

Rick Reuben wrote:

ue wrote:Does it not even occur to you why the conspiracy crowd refuses to submit their findings to credible scientific journals for peer review?

That's a common lie/ error, often made by dopes like you.

All the papers published here are available for peer review, and many have been peer reviewed:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Ok, Cock Knocker Bob. Now we are getting somewhere. I mean, the Journal of 911 studies. Sounds so official. Hey, look who the editor is! It's none other than Steven Jones.

Who peer reviewed these articles Tom? Don't be afraid to name names. What were their qualifications? Feel free to include their degrees and areas of specialty.

Flaneur wrote:I really mean, in fields like engineering and science, the peer review process, as I assume Unblinking Eye did in his last post.

Nowhere to hide Tom.

Unblinking Eye wrote:I've got all the time in the world.

What is your purpose? To flame someone? To defend the CIA? I know why Clocker Reuben is here and why he posts. State your purpose.

Rick Reuben wrote:The Silverstein quote:
"I remember getting a call from the ER, Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it.’ And they made the decision to ‘pull’ and we watched the building collapse.”

How do you shills and apologist live with yourselves?? 'pulling' firemen?? Who the hell talks like that?

It is possible that there are explosives in a network of buildings throughout NYC. The decision to "pull" building 7 meant to detonate what has been there for who-knows how long. They could pull any building at any time.

Not to derail the thread, but this would be a good place to make jokes about "pulling the fireman."

Boombats wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:I've got all the time in the world.

What is your purpose? To flame someone? To defend the CIA? I know why Clocker Reuben is here and why he posts. State your purpose.

I haven't defended the CIA or the government. Look through my posts.

I'm here to call bullshit on frauds like Tom. Frauds who post shit that doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. Frauds who think that by just posting a ton of information, they can avoid the same standards toward proving their assertions as anyone else would. If anyone else wants to spread some tinfoil hat or racist crap around, I'll call them out on it too. If there is another poster who starts flooding the board with bullshit on another topic, I'll be all over it. Count on it.

Besides, I don't call him out on shit I make up. I use his own words. If he could back it up or admit defeat, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. If he could prove his points, there wouldn't be anything to argue about. But he is a pussy and a coward, and I want to make sure everyone knows it.

I'll admit I engage in too much name calling here. From now on, I'll try to reserve it for people who deserve it. I think you know who I'm talking about.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Boombats wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:I've got all the time in the world.

What is your purpose? To defend the CIA?

I think you figured it out, Boombats. The 'unblinking eye' must be a reference to the masonic logo for CBS broadcasting.

Or maybe it's bigger than that- he was ranting about my anti-semitism for his first 30 posts to the forum:

Compass and the square, international symbol of masonry.

On the U.S. dollar bill is displayed the Great Seal of the United States, which contains important symbols of Freemasonry: the All-Seeing Eye of Horus, the Pyramid, the Six-Pointed Star, the Phoenix/Eagle, and the motto, Novus Ordo Seclorum.

District of Columbia.

oh no u di'nt

Rick Reuben wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote: But he is a pussy and a coward, and I want to make sure everyone knows it.

The more you write, the more I recognize the style. Hi, AlBStern.

More of those wretched shared character defects, eh, Bob? Why not hand out leper bells?