My theory on the world trade centre

  • Thread starter Dudebusta
  • 168 comments
  • 4,247 views
Originally posted by slip2rock


Wow man, obtuse, excellent!

OBTUSE- a. of an angle, exceeding 90 deg. but less than 180 deg.
b. lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect: INSENSITIVE, STUPID.
c. difficult to comprehend: not clear or precise in thought or expression.

Hey Slip, just trying to figure out that "colonial" slang! :D
 
Hey Boom, nice to see ya! :D

Big silly grin time!

No all it was is i read the rasor thing and wow fantastic, a total curve ball can't fathom it at all.

No doubt it makes absolute sense but the grey matter can't handle it at all today.
 
Feh, I don't think it's stupid. It was a response to all the wacky theories. Ockham's Razor in a nutshell: don't make anything more complicated than you have to. All other things being equal, the simplest answer is most likely the truth.

It was kind of a joke. But we've all seen how poorly my sense of humor translates into print. Or in person for that matter...
 
Originally posted by risingson77
Feh, I don't think it's stupid. It was a response to all the wacky theories. Ockham's Razor in a nutshell: don't make anything more complicated than you have to. All other things being equal, the simplest answer is most likely the truth.

It was kind of a joke. But we've all seen how poorly my sense of humor translates into print. Or in person for that matter...


Ohhhhhh, right, got it!

Yep i'll definitly go with that.

Wacky does not even come close to being a description to this theory from my favourite "toad licker".....
 
News Flash from unconfirmed source: "George Bush was having a meeting with Suddam Hussein in a hotel last night. They were reportedly talking about a compromise for Iraq to stop attacking the US. But cameramen saw the two having sexual relations."


Now this is one sick president;)
 
Originally posted by RVDNuT374
News Flash from unconfirmed source: "George Bush was having a meeting with Suddam Hussein in a hotel last night. They were reportedly talking about a compromise for Iraq to stop attacking the US. But cameramen saw the two having sexual relations."


Now this is one sick president;)

:ill:

Where's censorship when you need it...
 
Dudebusta you are an aussie. So why do you think you have the right to sit back and make conspiracies about something neither you or your country is involved in?
 
Originally posted by infallible
Dudebusta you are an aussie. So why do you think you have the right to sit back and make conspiracies about something neither you or your country is involved in?

We lost 20-30 people in that attack, and an Australian owned company owned the 99 year lease on the retail area of the WTC.

I would also point out that your president also decided to get everyone involved in this issue - 'you're either with us or against us' was the quote.

I notice no retaliatory attacks were made on Switzerland.
 
:lol:

The Aussie logic of vat_man strikes again!

Hey by the way vat, I think that quote was 'You're either with us or with the terrorists,' right?
 
Originally posted by M5Power
:lol:

The Aussie logic of vat_man strikes again!

Hey by the way vat, I think that quote was 'You're either with us or with the terrorists,' right?

You might be right - I usually look my quotes up to make sure of them, but Dubya's grammatical errors give me migraines.

I guess what gets me with international politics is the hypocrisy and double standards - it's amazing the lies people get away with. The US tends to get mentioned the most because it's the most prominent international player, but some of the stuff that goes on - Japan and whaling, I mean how do they get away with using foreign aid to influence voting on the International Whaling Commission - Australia and the mandatory detention of refugees, yeah, let's put them in jail and then wonder why they act like violent prisoners - the US and greenhouse emissions, the US consumes 30% of the world's oil and is the largest producer of greenhouse emissions, so if they don't do Kyoto, what's the friggin' point - just as a couple of examples. We think we've come so far since the 1600's, but the truth is there's just more at stake, the same crap continues to go on at an international level.

And the scary thing is, I'm not politically active. This is basic level analysis - imagine if I really did some research!
 
Yep, vat_man, the same crap goes on at an international level - only nowadays, it's more diplomatic and proper than in the 1600s when things actually got done in the world without someone somewhere getting on your back!

People think leading a country's easy, apparently. They don't understand that it's hard to even run a city! That's the biggest problem I have with politics, especially here. I don't know how it is in Australia, but in Washington, George makes all his staff members wear suits and ties to work. My problem with this is, don't we have bigger issues to worry about?? Same with saying 'African-American' instead of 'black.' Big deal! Who cares about that kind of crap? There's bigger problems in this world!

Okay I've gone off on some tangent...:D

Hey by the way infallible, doesn't the US (your country, I see) come up with conspiracies about other countries? We've got no evidence Osama can be linked to terrorist attacks, we've got no evidence Saddam is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and we've got no evidence North Korea is doing many of the bad things we 'assume' it's doing.
 
Originally posted by M5Power
Yep, vat_man, the same crap goes on at an international level - only nowadays, it's more diplomatic and proper than in the 1600s...

Well, that's probably open to debate!

It's all about spin these days. Yes we killed 30 people at a wedding, but we thought it was anti-aircraft fire, we're sorry we blew up those Canadian soldiers, and so on. we're sorry one of our military aircraft blew up that 747...
 
You're right - spin plays the most major factor in the international relations. I do not like how the Bush administration continually spins the war in Afghanistan - he doesn't understand that the people will not quit supporting this war just because we blow up a wedding...or two...:)
 
Originally posted by infallible
Dudebusta you are an aussie. So why do you think you have the right to sit back and make conspiracies about something neither you or your country is involved in?

because its my right as an arsehole. now sit back down and shut the **** up kid.

oh and vat_man is right.
 
refresh my memory vat_man, who was it that was calling little johnny an arselicker for jumping on bushes bandwagon?

it was someone from the ALP i just cant remember who.
 
Dudebusta your telling me the US government conspired with the taliban to fly airliners into its goverment buildings?
 
Originally posted by Earth
Dudebusta your telling me the US government conspired with the taliban to fly airliners into its goverment buildings?


Er no, i think he's saying that the government flew the planes and the Taliban are the fall guys....

That about right 'Busta?
 
pfft

thats worst

The US destroyed their own CIA headquarters?

pfft nevermind, its not worth talking about a theory that is so outrageous...the attacks would help the government? you think the us would make money off of 9/11? :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Dudebusta
refresh my memory vat_man, who was it that was calling little johnny an arselicker for jumping on bushes bandwagon?

it was someone from the ALP i just cant remember who.

Mark Latham.

Risingson77, the Switzerland crack stemmed from Switzerland's neutrality.
 
It was a pretty good one - Switzerland (like CANADA) is always neutral (though Canada never actually proclaimed it).

Can this thread drop now?? I think Dudebusta's the only one who agrees with Dudebusta.
 
Back