Whos banned from Fisheaters?

[Petertherock]

They just Banned Peter the Rock.....it was for calling 911 truthers nutjobs all the time. I agreed with this one...but why now..... Anyway I have yet to be banned....I have not changed anything about my topics or style....(and I reported IMPY for the faghag comment in the thread Mike mac was mentioning)...and I havent given a nickle....Im not sure what the big deal is if I still post there....its not a part of the holy office..its just an odd duck forum that has Trad forum topics (even if those topics get twisted to the left). SD is the real deal and interesting ...FE is....hmmm....just interesting..to me.

I didn't see this post before I posted mine! So everyone knows why I got banned which is cool. I also got warned and threatened with a ban every time I posted anything against gays. I would get threatened if I used terms like Sods, fags, homos, or anything Vox thought was the least bit derogatory against homosexuals. 

[Gottmitunsalex]

They just Banned Peter the Rock.....it was for calling 911 truthers nutjobs all the time. I agreed with this one...but why now..... Anyway I have yet to be banned....I have not changed anything about my topics or style....(and I reported IMPY for the faghag comment in the thread Mike mac was mentioning)...and I havent given a nickle....Im not sure what the big deal is if I still post there....its not a part of the holy office..its just an odd duck forum that has Trad forum topics (even if those topics get twisted to the left). SD is the real deal and interesting ...FE is....hmmm....just interesting..to me.

I didn't see this post before I posted mine! So everyone knows why I got banned which is cool. I also got warned and threatened with a ban every time I posted anything against gays. I would get threatened if I used terms like Sods, fags, homos, or anything Vox thought was the least bit derogatory against homosexuals.

Those are not derogatory terms. They are quite normal and very apt terms to describe publicly active sodomites.

Oh, as per the 9/11 truther bashing, nobody's perfect.

Welcome to SD.

[FaithByProxy]

I also got warned and threatened with a ban every time I posted anything against gays.

Ugh. The most baffling part of all this is that she CREATED FishEaters! That site helped me so much when I was first coming to Tradition - I have no clue how Vox went from the woman who wrote the extremely helpful and faithful pages of the main FishEaters site to the person who thinks that we should all just cuddle. It's totally bizarre.

[Mithrandylan]

This thread has mysteriously gone back in the direction that it was just steered away from

[KumbayaDominumMeum]

Howdyy PTR. Why don't you explain to us how 19 guys with box cutters got the entire US Air Force to stand down for hours while New York and Washington were under attack, not to mention making Building 7 drop into its own footprint exactly like a controlled demolition when it wasn't even hit?

[Kaesekopf]

Howdyy PTR. Why don't you explain to us how 19 guys with box cutters got the entire US Air Force to stand down for hours while New York and Washington were under attack, not to mention making Building 7 drop into its own footprint exactly like a controlled demolition when it wasn't even hit?

This is off-topic.    lol.

[KumbayaDominumMeum]

Sorry everybody, couldn't resist. Please ignore me and carry on with discussing getting banned from Fisheaters.

[Kaesekopf]

Sorry everybody, couldn't resist. Please ignore me and carry on with discussing getting banned from Fisheaters.

lol.  We still love you.

[FaithByProxy]

This thread has mysteriously gone back in the direction that it was just steered away from

Err...sorry? I was a legitimate question. I'll just leave it, then.

Edit: *sincere* question, I should say. I didn't read the whole thread, so I didn't know that this was a taboo thing.

[Mithrandylan]

No problem!

[tmw89]

This thread has mysteriously gone back in the direction that it was just steered away from

Err...sorry? I was a legitimate question. I'll just leave it, then.

Edit: *sincere* question, I should say. I didn't read the whole thread, so I didn't know that this was a taboo thing.

Eh, this thread has more or less attempted to nullify Forum Rule #17... but given how new the place is and the current events, it appears all's well...

...for now.

[Kaesekopf]

This thread has mysteriously gone back in the direction that it was just steered away from

Err...sorry? I was a legitimate question. I'll just leave it, then.

Edit: *sincere* question, I should say. I didn't read the whole thread, so I didn't know that this was a taboo thing.

You were a legitimate question?  o.O

[Spooky]

This thread has mysteriously gone back in the direction that it was just steered away from

Err...sorry? I was a legitimate question. I'll just leave it, then.

Edit: *sincere* question, I should say. I didn't read the whole thread, so I didn't know that this was a taboo thing.

You were a legitimate question?  o.O

Better than illegitimate! 

[Petertherock]

Howdyy PTR. Why don't you explain to us how 19 guys with box cutters got the entire US Air Force to stand down for hours while New York and Washington were under attack, not to mention making Building 7 drop into its own footprint exactly like a controlled demolition when it wasn't even hit?

While I don't want to derail this thread, I will point you over here and that will explain everything... http://www.debunking911.com/

Here is a little bit on building 7...



Update:

Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.

As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.

Update:

The second paragraph above has been challenged by conspiracy theorists. For more information on this and a rebuttal read the update around the middle of the page.



Below is a photo of the Bankers Trust building.



As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.

Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.

So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1uxlrcQL5Dk[/yt]

Excerpts from Mark Roberts excellent piece "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement"

Yes, that worker certainly does say they're getting ready to "pull" building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:

"We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a "controlled" way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that's shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where's the money shot? Why'd they cut it there?

Here's why:

Because the following scene shows how building 6 was "pulled": with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.



"We've got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they're pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables."

Narrator Kevin Spacey: "The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges."



Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand.

However, was the fire more severe than conspiracy theorists let on and was Silverstein's quote taken out of context? The two are related and are explored below.



The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.

More at the link above...I will be happy to go in depth if there is another topic for this but this is enough here.

[Mithrandylan]

A 'Who's banned from FE' thread has officially become a 'who did 911?' thread.

#onlyonSD