• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NUKES at the WTC[W:20]

roguenuke said:
He could be but all the other information we have says that what he has put out is wrong, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong, but I do appreciate your honest statement that he could be right.

I say again RN, if he had been telling the official story, if he had been marching to the government drum, he would have said what the official story was.

But because he was telling a story that contradicted the official story, in a very big way, his testimony was taken behind closed doors. And more telling still, his testimony WAS NOT INCLUDED in the final report.

Do you see no significance to the fact that his testimony was excluded? However long you spent in the Navy and you did not learn how the Borg responds to various stimuli and events?

The government's reputation for mendacity is very well established, but you want me to believe that the government is a source of truth somehow. :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's where you're wrong, but I do appreciate your honest statement that he could be right.

I say again RN, if he had been telling the official story, if he had been marching to the government drum, he would have said what the official story was.

But because he was telling a story that contradicted the official story, in a very big way, his testimony was taken behind closed doors. And more telling still, his testimony WAS NOT INCLUDED in the final report.

Do you see no significance to the fact that his testimony was excluded? However long you spent in the Navy and you did not learn how the Borg responds to various stimuli and events?

The government's reputation for mendacity is very well established, but you want me to believe that the government is a source of truth somehow. :lamo
Click to expand...

He has been recorded as putting out a different story in the beginning.

I don't need the government to tell me there were no nukes in the wtc. I have enough knowledge to know that. I also know that a person is not reliable if their story changes.
 
roguenuke said:
He has been recorded as putting out a different story in the beginning.

I don't need the government to tell me there were no nukes in the wtc. I have enough knowledge to know that. I also know that a person is not reliable if their story changes.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure RN, you recognize unreliable story tellers. That's how and why you believe the official fairy tale. You believe Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Dubya, the real truth tellers. :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yeah sure RN, you recognize unreliable story tellers. That's how and why you believe the official fairy tale. You believe Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Dubya, the real truth tellers. :lamo
Click to expand...

I believe the evidence we actually have, including my own father in law who was at the pentagon.
 
roguenuke said:
I believe the evidence we actually have, including my own father in law who was at the pentagon.
Click to expand...

Got it! You believe your father-in-law, but you quickly won't believe Rodriguez, and you're reluctant to believe the man who told me HIS story of being in the tower when it collapsed. Yes ma'am, I see where you're at--right where I had previously thought--comfortably in denial. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
Got it! You believe your father-in-law, but you quickly won't believe Rodriguez, and you're reluctant to believe the man who told me HIS story of being in the tower when it collapsed. Yes ma'am, I see where you're at--right where I had previously thought--comfortably in denial. :peace
Click to expand...

His story changed with time and doesn't match the evidence we have.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Got it! You believe your father-in-law, but you quickly won't believe Rodriguez, and you're reluctant to believe the man who told me HIS story of being in the tower when it collapsed. Yes ma'am, I see where you're at--right where I had previously thought--comfortably in denial. :peace
Click to expand...

No we got it, you beleive anyone who you think you can use to blame the ebil govt.
Heck you still occasionally bring up Wally Miller.
Like all truthers you loathe and sepise the truth.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Got it! You believe your father-in-law, but you quickly won't believe Rodriguez, and you're reluctant to believe the man who told me HIS story of being in the tower when it collapsed. Yes ma'am, I see where you're at--right where I had previously thought--comfortably in denial. :peace
Click to expand...

It's probably because his story has changed several times, not a good indicator of truthfulness. As to this other mysterious man it's probably not him so much as you she shouldn't be trusting. Because let's be honest here there is probably like a 95% chance that he doesn't even exist.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's where you're wrong, but I do appreciate your honest statement that he could be right.

I say again RN, if he had been telling the official story, if he had been marching to the government drum, he would have said what the official story was.

But because he was telling a story that contradicted the official story, in a very big way, his testimony was taken behind closed doors. And more telling still, his testimony WAS NOT INCLUDED in the final report.

Do you see no significance to the fact that his testimony was excluded? However long you spent in the Navy and you did not learn how the Borg responds to various stimuli and events.
Click to expand...

Why exactly would they include the testimony of someone who can't keep his story straight. Only in CT fairytale land would including it make sense.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That's where you're wrong, but I do appreciate your honest statement that he could be right.

I say again RN, if he had been telling the official story, if he had been marching to the government drum, he would have said what the official story was.

But because he was telling a story that contradicted the official story, in a very big way, his testimony was taken behind closed doors. And more telling still, his testimony WAS NOT INCLUDED in the final report.

Do you see no significance to the fact that his testimony was excluded? However long you spent in the Navy and you did not learn how the Borg responds to various stimuli and events?

The government's reputation for mendacity is very well established, but you want me to believe that the government is a source of truth somehow. :lamo
Click to expand...

Was he lying 2001-2002?

His testimony AT THAT TIME was consistent with everyone else and the so-called "OCT".
 
Thoreau72 said:
Got it! You believe your father-in-law, but you quickly won't believe Rodriguez, and you're reluctant to believe the man who told me HIS story of being in the tower when it collapsed. Yes ma'am, I see where you're at--right where I had previously thought--comfortably in denial. :peace
Click to expand...

Rodriguez either lied in 2001-2002 when he was stating what everyone else said...

Or he lied afterwards when he departed from everyone else...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Which one is more likely a lie?
 
Fledermaus said:
Was he lying 2001-2002?

His testimony AT THAT TIME was consistent with everyone else and the so-called "OCT".
Click to expand...

Show me that Maus.

As I've mentioned several times, I have viewed 3 or 4 different videos of him telling his story in several different places including Europe. His story has been consistent.

You guys want to call him a liar because that is your MO. Anybody who contradicts the official story is a liar in your view, but yours is a desperate view as the facts don't support the official story. That's why Pentagon witnesses were so inconsistent in their story telling. That's why Senator Mark Dayton pointed out the many lies in the NORAD time line. Any curious person with an open mind knows who the liars are dude--the same men who lied to Mary Tillman, the same men who crafted the Pentagon Papers. You know what I mean Maus. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Show me that Maus.

As I've mentioned several times, I have viewed 3 or 4 different videos of him telling his story in several different places including Europe. His story has been consistent.

You guys want to call him a liar because that is your MO. Anybody who contradicts the official story is a liar in your view, but yours is a desperate view as the facts don't support the official story. That's why Pentagon witnesses were so inconsistent in their story telling. That's why Senator Mark Dayton pointed out the many lies in the NORAD time line. Any curious person with an open mind knows who the liars are dude--the same men who lied to Mary Tillman, the same men who crafted the Pentagon Papers. You know what I mean Maus. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Were those video's all recorded at around the same period of time? When do those video's date from?

Why have you only looked at a few video's and not from the full range of interviews and statements starting from the afternoon of 9/11/2001 when he was interviewed live on CNN?

PS

Yes, officers from NEADS presented a timeline to the 9/11 Commission that was a work of fiction in order to CYA. Everyone acknowledges that. Doesn't make 9/11 an inside job because an Air Force officer adds or subtracts a couple of minutes here or there. That isn't the issue here and certainly isn't a denial of the accusation that Rodriguez has presented an ever-changing and sometimes contradictory story.
 
Quag said:
there were no nukes and anyone who claims there were are just showing the world that they are incapable of logical thought
Click to expand...

But this is the conspiracy thread - the home of those incapable of logical thought.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Show me that Maus.
Click to expand...

Post 813, Post 822 and every thread where you put the ever-changing Willie nonsense.

Thoreau72 said:
As I've mentioned several times, I have viewed 3 or 4 different videos of him telling his story in several different places including Europe. His story has been consistent.
Click to expand...

Ah, that is your problem. TRY READING.

...and at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.

September 2002 CNN interview

Clear enough this time

Thoreau72 said:
You guys want to call him a liar because that is your MO.
Click to expand...

No. he is a liar because he lies.

Thoreau72 said:
Anybody who contradicts the official story is a liar in your view, but yours is a desperate view as the facts don't support the official story.
Click to expand...

And that too is a blatant lie.

Very blatant.

Thoreau72 said:
That's why Pentagon witnesses were so inconsistent in their story telling. That's why Senator Mark Dayton pointed out the many lies in the NORAD time line. Any curious person with an open mind knows who the liars are dude--the same men who lied to Mary Tillman, the same men who crafted the Pentagon Papers. You know what I mean Maus. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Sidestepping will not save Willies reputation.

Did he lie in 2001-2002 when his testimony jibed with the other witnesses? Or was the lie later?
 
Found a new spot for you Maus to bump this thread.

Try The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC

He analyzes the USGS samples taken at WTC. As we've discussed before here, they found numerous elements from the Periodic Table present, and they are all products of nuclear fission. Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and others were found together in mathematically related quantities that can be explained only by nuclear fission.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Found a new spot for you Maus to bump this thread.

Try The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC

He analyzes the USGS samples taken at WTC. As we've discussed before here, they found numerous elements from the Periodic Table present, and they are all products of nuclear fission. Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and others were found together in mathematically related quantities that can be explained only by nuclear fission.
Click to expand...


You do realize that the elements you listed can be found and they occur without being a byproduct of nuclear fission. Much like your claim that the illness of the first responders occurred only because of a nuclear event. Within a couple of minutes doing a simple search shows your linked information is nothing more than more CT hype.

Does the website prove the elements could not have come from other sources? Let me help you out. No it does not.
I am not going to do research for you, but here is an example on Strontium.

Strontium “Strontium is a natural and commonly occurring element
.”https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp159-c1-b.pdf
Strontium - Element information, properties and uses | Periodic Table

Strontium is used in CRT screens. Guess there was none in the WTC1,2 or 7 building, right?

So nice try HD. Science is not on your side on this one regarding nukes. In your case, a person has a right to dream, right?:lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
Found a new spot for you Maus to bump this thread.

Try The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC

He analyzes the USGS samples taken at WTC. As we've discussed before here, they found numerous elements from the Periodic Table present, and they are all products of nuclear fission. Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and others were found together in mathematically related quantities that can be explained only by nuclear fission.
Click to expand...

Another site of lies that you accept because it agrees with your illogical world view
 
mike2810 said:
You do realize that the elements you listed can be found and they occur without being a byproduct of nuclear fission. Much like your claim that the illness of the first responders occurred only because of a nuclear event. Within a couple of minutes doing a simple search shows your linked information is nothing more than more CT hype.

Does the website prove the elements could not have come from other sources? Let me help you out. No it does not.
I am not going to do research for you, but here is an example on Strontium.

Strontium “Strontium is a natural and commonly occurring element
.”https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp159-c1-b.pdf
Strontium - Element information, properties and uses | Periodic Table

Strontium is used in CRT screens. Guess there was none in the WTC1,2 or 7 building, right?

So nice try HD. Science is not on your side on this one regarding nukes. In your case, a person has a right to dream, right?:lamo
Click to expand...

The part you missed Mike is "the presence of these elements together IN MATHEMATICALLY RELATED QUANTITIES" is the important part.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Found a new spot for you Maus to bump this thread.

Try The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC

He analyzes the USGS samples taken at WTC. As we've discussed before here, they found numerous elements from the Periodic Table present, and they are all products of nuclear fission. Strontium, Barium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum and others were found together in mathematically related quantities that can be explained only by nuclear fission.
Click to expand...

A crank site.
 
mike2810 said:
Nope. Didn't miss a thing.

Interesting how you really didn't say I was wrong in my reply to your post with the link to the source you believe is correct.. We know why.
Click to expand...

The things I don't say are far greater in number than the things I do say...
 
mike2810 said:
Nope. Didn't miss a thing.

Interesting how you really didn't say I was wrong in my reply to your post with the link to the source you believe is correct.. We know why.
Click to expand...

The things I don't say are far greater in number than the things I do say...
 
Thoreau72 said:
The part you missed Mike is "the presence of these elements together IN MATHEMATICALLY RELATED QUANTITIES" is the important part.
Click to expand...

Nope. Didn't miss a thing.

Interesting how you really didn't say I was wrong in my reply to your post with the link to the source you believe is correct.. We know why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom