| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
I don't know if anyone has heard of this new documentary circulating the internet right now but it is mind blowing. It talks about a possible conspiracy on 9/11 and has some excelent "evidence" to "prove" it. I would highly suggest giving it a chance. Once you watch the first 10 minutes you will be hooked. I recently showed the video to an ultra conservative friend of mine who was in shock. Right or wrong this is very interesting stuff.
![]() Quote: -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Monticello Registered: 05/13/04 Posts: 7,751 Last seen: 12 years, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
It's been out for a long while, and there's at least 20 threads about it already.
I think there might even be a part two out now. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Daisy Chain Eate Registered: 12/04/03 Posts: 2,400 Loc: New York |
| ||||||
|
thanks dude!
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
| |||||||
|
Monticello Registered: 05/13/04 Posts: 7,751 Last seen: 12 years, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
No part two I guess, just a second edition.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Drunk Registered: 10/19/05 Posts: 958 Loc: (714) Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
yep, i posted one about this video too, its good, mostly bullshit but great work
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 11/28/05 Posts: 160 Last seen: 17 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
what i dont understand or at leats havent picked up on yet is why would the government blow up the trade centers? i mean they could have gotten away with just as much if the planes would just have hit the trade centers and they had not fallen, dont you think? I just dont see a motive. I do believe that they knew it was commin though.
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 2 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
> why would the government blow up the trade centers?
To build up support for action in the middle east, leading towards instablilty in the region, thus causing a volatile oil market resulting in huge profits for anybody in the US energy market. Oh wait, I dodged your question just like every other conspiracy theory answer... sorry. (He asked why blow them up, which I didn't answer.)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Why blow them up? Maybe you should ask Larry Silverstein, the man who owned all of the World Trade buildings as of July 24th 2001.
If you follow the link, you will see that it is claimed that Silverstein only invested $14 million of his own money. When the buildings were destroyed, he received approx. $5 billion in insurance money. Supposedly, he took out the insurance policy not too soon before 9/11. Just search google for "Larry Silverstein" and "insurance policy". A $4 billion plus profit is not too bad, don't you think? All it took was.., well, I think we know that part. Edited by Darcho (04/05/06 12:51 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 11/28/05 Posts: 160 Last seen: 17 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
so your saying the government went through all of these efforts so Larry Silvestein could get rich? Doesnt make sense to me.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
No, I am sure there would be more to it than that. However, this could be a reason as to why the buildings were demolished, and not just hit and not fallen.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/15/02 Posts: 14,463 Loc: International wa Last seen: 11 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
There are other videos that make good points as well.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/ I will watch the whole video later , I am in a cafe right now and I have to leave, but so far it looks good, and operations northwoods is th perfect example of sick state the US government is in, simply disgusting.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If you follow the link? IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINK? Are you fucking kidding me? You wrote "the man who owned all of the World Trade buildings as of July 24th 2001." He doesn't own one ounce of trade center debris, much less the buildings that used to be there or the land they were built on. He rented them from the Port Authority of NY/NJ. He leased the buildings for less than 2 months before they were destroyed. He's still on the hook for the lease plus the cost of reconstruction (he was responsible for maintaining insurance). Could you be more clueless? Profit? He's fucked. The insurance companies screwed him by claiming both plane crashes were one incident and essentially halved their liability. 4 billion isn't enough to rebuild. "Supposedly, he took out the insurance policy not too soon before 9/11." Well yeah, seeing as how he didn't become the leaseholder NOT TOO SOON before 9/11. Sometimes some people's ignorance just makes me amazed.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
The New American Century
you might want to check out this website, i suggest clickin on the Statement of Principles. check out the date it was written 1997. Scroll to the bottom and look at the men who are associated. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Also check out this listing the people involved and their jobs and connections http://www.thefourreasons.org/pnac.htm Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz Quotes from statement "We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership" "We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world." "We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." AND THE KILLER "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor." This quote has been recently removed from the mission statement... Check out wikepedia's article on the organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I did check Wiki. This is what it said about the "KILLER"
"A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts? (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor." Some opponents of the Bush administration have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq." What it says, to paraphrase slightly, is that some whack jobs have glommed on to this to support their lunatic theories. More moronity. Please try to bring a better game next time.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
your post just had no point to it, you reiterated everything I said and at the end you added that it is "moronity". Thank you for your information
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
The Innovator Registered: 05/25/05 Posts: 1,074 Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
They had very good reason to blow up the buildings. You see, terrorists are not just people that hate freedom, no they plenty like freedom just like any other human being, 9/11 was really not about that, no one would kill themselves over that, though you've heard out of the bush administration, repeated over and over again. "They just hate freedom." Haha get one of them to say that! I'm sure they'd fight comfort, happiness, and religious freedom too.
They're killing themselves for freedom from us, from things we've done to them, like keep our bases in places they've wanted us out like in Saudi Arabia, things that the Bush Administration could have easily triggered or if anything stopped. Then Bush has the warnings about 9/11 on his desk weeks before it happens and doesn't even alert the public about it, doens't even make a move? Then the day after 9/11 he's looking for connections to Al Qaeda and Iraq, the CIA and FBI cannot find any, they send the message to him and he bounces it back saying "Wrong answer." Those two things alone should be enough to make anyone flip their lid and make a big light bulb in there head go "Click!" How much more obvious is it that the administration had some part in the execution of this, even if it was just not preventing it? Look at how they've benefited. The vice presidents company has booming profits while the entire country goes farther into deficits. This is because we're in Iraq, its extremely costly but not on those of the Bush administration, just to the family's of the kids sent there to die trying to "defend freedom." What, is it impossible to have a crooked leader? Has it never happened in the past that a leader that was charismatic, idolisable, and was able to bring out nationalism in his people but was actually in it for crooked reasons, personal gain, and was inhumane about it?(Stalin, Hitler) How else could someone get away with all this? Is it not the first time that a government has so much control over corporations and money that they can keep the public convinced they haven't done a thing wrong (try and tell me radio stations and television shows like Fox News aren't reporting what the white house wants exactly for the people to hear) They claim to be fair and balanced, but what station wouldn't claim that if they were on a payroll with the government? Liberals, if you were offered 40 million a year to have your own political show on fox news but part of the deal was that you present your reporting to coincide with that the word of the network, ultimately controlled by the republicans like the Bush Administration, wouldn't you take that job? It's easy to see that with the amount of money they have they control people, have there way, and they can do it by reaching out to millions and millions of people each and every day through boxes planted all around there house, called television screens. It can be described as a mafia, the way they work their business, and you can't deny that modern mafias do exist and are very underground. So what makes the Bush Administration immune to possibility of running their business like that? Do you want to deny that possibility because Bush seems like a nice guy? They are simply a runner of organised crime, their business being: They are for the corporations, they make corporations richer with things that hurt the every day man, there environmental policies that are polluting our world but in turn letting big business do whatever to the earth they need in order to grow their business, from logging once protected forests to dumping chemicals without proper procedure and care. Their tax cuts for the wealthy are an example of how they've gained the wealthy's support, and in turn the regular Americans support. So many Americans (33% approve of Bush) even after all this knowledge has been put out there deny that Bush is the least bit corrupt! They think that when everyone makes these obvious connections are simply because they are crazy. Yes, the 33% here are the normal ones. I always here it. "Those crazy leftists!" "They're just conspiracy theorists who want to ruin freedom, that's all!" Yet little do they know the man they voted for is screwing them up the ass, everyday, every single day. We're all crazy, is that their best defense? Is it because they either don't get it, don't want to get it, or are so stubborn they get it but don't want to seem like a dumbass? Well let me tell you no one seems like a bigger dumbass. So to answer in a few paragraphs, why would they blow up the buildings, read above, over and over again until you leftover stubbon people get over the fact that the government is not some church-going rich folk who got elected, but are like the people that run gangs and mafias, with a smily gentle attitude and attractive personalities to make that idea seem out of this world ridiculous. But if you think about it, it makes complete sense, and if a mafia ever did run the government, they'd run it exactly like that. -------------------- I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening. Edited by beatnicknick (04/05/06 10:27 PM)
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Is he so fucked? Where are your sources? I at least posted one and offered a search string that would lead to many more. As of March 2006 Silverstein has been said to have received over $5 billion. Clueless? Me? Perhaps, but I do not claim to know. I am simply passing along what is out there. If the information is wrong, then so be it. Take issue with the source and don't shoot the messenger. You have Alex Jones out there claiming exactly what I said (well maybe not exactly, but along the same lines). So like I said the post you were responding to: IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINK. Notice how I did not claim that this knowledge was mine, but what was being claimed on a website, and a frequently used one at that (Wikipedia). Lets look at this a bit further: "The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack." The last sentence in this quote from THE LINK implies that Silverstein owned all the world trade center buildings. He already owned building seven, implying that he now owns the other buildings. Next: "Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5]." ^ Taken from the link I posted (but you should know this if you FOLLOWED THE LINK). The LINK THAT YOU WERE TO FOLLOW also provides sources for this material. Not sure how this Silverstein guy is totally fucked and stands to make null profit. So maybe next time instead of making such an ass of yourself, you could FOLLOW THE LINK, and check out the sources, and then deconstruct them, not the person who is passing along the information. I also suggested a search string for google. If you search with that exact string ("Larry Silverstein" and "insurance policy"), you will see that there is a lot more to it than is mentioned in the wikipedia article. Most of the pages that come up will be on either side of the issue. "Sometimes some people's ignorance just makes me amazed." Perhaps it is time to give your ego a rest, and stop looking in the mirror, if you catch my drift. Sometimes some people's inability to remain civil and not get over-excited just makes me amazed. http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=57821: "Among the items being negotiated are agreements over who will build what at the site, how much rent Silverstein will pay, and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion in insurance money Silverstein was awarded after the Twin Towers collapsed." Totally fucked there ^. "Silverstein says he will stand by his commitment to start building the Freedom Tower in April, and he says he has enough money to move forward on all the projects on the site. However, even he acknowledges it's unclear what happens next." He definitely does not have enough money to rebuild ^. Now Silverstein did not make as much money as he wanted to, that is, he did not receive double the insurance payment, as he was attempting to receive. However, he still received a fairly large sum.
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 2 months, 20 days |
| ||||||
|
At least now we are talking about a motive I can relate with... greed/money. I still fail to see why the US government would do something like this so that a sole civilian would have a chance to get some insurance money. Sorry, just doesn't make sense without more to support the theory.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
The Innovator Registered: 05/25/05 Posts: 1,074 Last seen: 12 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Dude with 9/11 they got the war they wanted, 30% of Americans still believe there was a tie between Saddam and 9/11 when we have yet to find a single one. They got the war, Haliburton got the no-bid oil, profits boomed, and the rich men got richer. There are many reasons why 9/11 helped the Bush Administration, without it things like the Patriot Act, the illegal spying, and many other things they've gotten away with would have never even been considered. 9/11 we live in a post 9/11 world 9/11 this 9/11 that 9/11 my ass it's being abused for power!
-------------------- I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening.
| |||||||
|
fuckingsuperhero Registered: 06/29/04 Posts: 3,531 Last seen: 4 years, 24 days |
| ||||||
|
second edition is by far the best produced, and most fact driven documentary on the topic to date.
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
| |||||||
|
I Tell You What! Registered: 06/24/05 Posts: 5,998 Last seen: 8 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: yar, this video + operation northwoods should pretty much convince anyone to be dubious of 9/11. they drafted plans to kill americans to wage a war on false pretenses. its admitted in fact. why should 9/11, given the dodgy evidence, censorship, onesidedness....... etc.....be different? umm anyway the funny thing is i don't think anyone cares about 9/11 anymore except for people related to the victims. it's so absurd really..... vietnam war, cold war, terrorism war.... drug war..... when have the people ever seen peace? the funny thing is the people are never actually truely threatened by any of these things. sars. bird flu. the more afraid you are, the more on edge you are.... that's when they irk things like the patriot act through really really quickly... that's when they say "oooh let's just take this freedom out and modify this law so that we can do illegal shady things but get away with it" and meanwhile you aren't paying attention because you might die if a bird shits on your head. -------------------- ....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human...... Edited by leery11 (04/06/06 12:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ You're afraid of an educational organization? -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I responded to your lies, not the link. I didn't even look at the link because it is either incorrect (maybe, maybe not) or you can't read.
You yourself said, "If you follow the link, you will see that it is claimed that Silverstein only invested $14 million of his own money. When the buildings were destroyed, he received approx. $5 billion in insurance money. Supposedly, he took out the insurance policy not too soon before 9/11. Just search google for "Larry Silverstein" and "insurance policy". A $4 billion plus profit is not too bad, don't you think? All it took was.., well, I think we know that part." Silverstein has not received $5B. The insurance co.s have to pay that to rebuild the site. He has not "received" the money, he cannot pocket the money, and he is obligated to rebuild. You know what else? He's still obligated to fulfill the lease agreement because he was responsible for insuring the buildings, which he did, as soon as he signed the LEASE. See that word. LEASE. You do know what that means, don't you? Let's help you a little more with your own statements. ""The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack." The last sentence in this quote from THE LINK implies that Silverstein owned all the world trade center buildings. He already owned building seven, implying that he now owns the other buildings." How can it possibly imply that he now owns the other buildings when the first fucking word you quoted was, tada, LEASE. LEASE. This is the comprehension issue I speak of. Then you quote this: ""Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5]." The ridiculous opinion expressed that there was an "obscure clause" which may have entitled him to another 3.5B is absurd. There was nothing "obscure" about it. Nor was it the least bit clear that the insurance companies would prevail. Two planes, two attacks. It was a strong case. But not strong enough. Too bad. 5B probably isn't enough. Which is probably why Bloomberg is trying to wrest control from Silverstein by saying he doesn't have enough money to rebuild. If Bloomberg succeeds, which I don't think likely, the insurance money will go to the city (more correctly the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the OWNERS of the buildings) for reconstruction, not Silverstein. Further, it is utterly irrelevant to emphasize that the insurance policy was 7 weeks old when that was the age of, tada, THE LEASE. What, he was supposed to insure the buildings before he leased them? This is part and parcel of the moronity of which I speak. And finally, we come to this ""Among the items being negotiated are agreements over who will build what at the site, how much rent Silverstein will pay, and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion in insurance money Silverstein was awarded after the Twin Towers collapsed."" And "He definitely does not have enough money to rebuild." He didn't get enough to rebuild, you (and Bloomberg) contend, he has to rebuild (if he doesn't he will never see one nickel of the insurance money, see "and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion"), but somehow he has realized a several billion dollar profit? Lets do some rudimentary math shall we. 99yr lease worth 3.2B (For the foolish, that means Silverstein agreed to pay over the life of the lease 3.2B). Thats an average of 32M per year or approx. 2.7M per month. If you ask me that's an incredibly good deal that he signed. Even if he was paying the average in the first year of a 99 year lease that's still a great deal. The link says he only laid out 14M. Yeah, so what, that's 5 months rent. He only had use of it for 2. This whole argument smacks of anti-semitic whack jobs fabricating connections and inventing implications that don't exist. "The Jew made money, he must have done it." A. He didn't make money. B. Anti-semitic and anti-everything assholes did do it.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That is your problem, for I have not lied. I have not said anything that I claimed to be true, emphasis on "I". This is what other people are saying. Now if it is so evidently false, and you know this, then you should easily be able to link your sources or at least cite them. So far you have failed to do so. All you produce are unsupported statements and ad hominems. This is a sign of poor form. Quote: Yes, I said that, but I did not make the claim myself, I simply passed along information from a cited source. Note the use of 'supposedly', signifying that it is not absolutely true, but supposed by some (i.e. those who I cited). Quote: Source? Yes I see the word 'lease', and I never denied that it was there. However, when it is says, "[...] he already owned [...]," it seems to be implying that he now owns the others. I will admit that this is a weak implication. Quote: Yes, and I also mentioned that there are people out there (i.e. Alex Jones) claiming that Silverstein bought and owned the other buildings. So there really is no comprehension issue, when I am passing along information being said by others. Quote: This may be true, however it would be helpful for you to cite your source, as I have did. You see, when sources are cited and directly quoted, information is simply being passed along. There is never a need to shoot the messenger, a point which you seem to be unable to grasp whilst you sit upon your high-horse. Quote: This is a good point, but again the fault is not mine, as you like to imply. Quote: You make some good points, unfortunately in combating the loaded language used in the, let us call it, "The Greedy Jew Conspiracy Argument," you use just as much loaded language, which does not accomplish anything. If anything, what you have to say, and have said, will turn others off, and your information (which may be useful and/or important) will go unnoticed. Wouldn't this be unfortunate? Quote: You must be Jewish (excuse me if I am being too assumptive). The unfortunate thing about internet discussion is that sarcasm does not go over too easily unless it is so blatant that it defeats the initial purpose of using that sarcasm.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm not Jewish. I'm an atheist of non-religious protestant descent. My wife, step-children and many friends are Jewish, some of whom are atheists. I take issue with a lot of Jewish policy but will not let pass unremarked upon what I consider to be some of the more subtle anti-semitic nonsense. The obviously anti-semitic I usually just let speak for itself.
I also live just outside NYC and have been paying a good deal of attention to this stuff. Silversetin has lost a great deal of money from this. Some of it out of his pocket and some of it from lost future revenue. Bloomberg knows this. He also knows that Silverstein signed one hell of an advantageous lease in the first place and that he would be in an incredibly good financial position if the buildings had not fallen. Any implication that Silverstein benefited from the destruction of the WTC is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Alex Jones is a complete cunt and if that's where you want to get your "reality" from, then good luck to you, because he is playing you for a sucker.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I hope you are joking. This is an organization created in favor of United States globalization. They stated in their statement of principles that "we need a catastrophy- like another PEARL HARBOR" to rally the country for their cause.( this was actualy recently removed from the site). Does it frighten you that the majority if not all of the men who started this organization in 1997 for the purpose of globalization now are at the top of our government and other major organization. Jeb bush, Dick cheney, steve forbes, Gary Bauer, William Bennett, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Aaron Friedberg. Those are just the everyday names that people know. There are many more on that list who are also involved at the top. "Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail. The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr. Hussein wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the Administration is reportedly planning military action -- a three- or four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets. But the bad news is that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in worse shape than we are today. Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power -- if five weeks of heavy bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won't either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials admit this. " -William Kristol, chairman of the organization. January 30, 1998 -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh no, don't get me wrong, I take everything people like Alex Jones say with a grain of salt, as they say, but this does not I mean I should ignore everything he says and it does not call for ad hominem attacks. Regardless, this does not detract from the fact that there are many people "out there" taking his word for the truth. Now, if the truth was given to the people in the first place, then there would not be so much contradiction and such rampant conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there seem to be many holes and many people feel as if they have been lied to. Whilst conspiracy theorists all seem to have their own motives, there are similar patterns emerging or being realized from all of their theories, and each theory, although not 100% true or accurate, does have some value and something to offer. The problem, as always in the search for truth, are the ulterior motives that use the guise of truth to spread their cause.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
nicely said
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/03/06 Posts: 99 |
| ||||||
|
Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy
Full explications of each of these points can be found in Islam Unveiled. From Jewish World Review: I was shocked after September 11th when I heard government officials say Islam is a "religion of peace". Nothing could be farther from the truth! Our President was even considering not conducting any military activities out of respect for Ramadan! I spoke with my congressman, Nick Lampson of Texas, and strenuously objected, sharing my experience and what I had learned about Islam. I explained how Islam is the greatest threat the Democracies of our world face in the 21st Century, and demonstrated how the international polity of Islam is the equivalent of the German Nazis in the 20th century. I further pointed out that Osama Ben laden is the equal to Adolph Hitler in our generation. As result, Congressman Lampson asked me to submit to him a factual report that he could present to the Foreign Relations Committee, Congress, and the President. Some of this article is based on that report. It must be understood that we define Moslem, as one who follows the Quran, the life of Mohammed, and the traditions of the community. There are sects called Moslems that do not necessarily abide by these rules. They can be called "cultural Moslems," some of these are Ismailis, Druze, and Sufis. Secular Moslems like many Turks have a Moslem culture but because of Turkey's history and geography have been secularized. Fundamentalists, those that accept the Quran literally, and pattern their lives after Mohammed, as well as follow the traditions of those who have historically lived this way, are a growing threat to all mankind and all democracies of the world. Now here are some very critical misconceptions regarding Islam: 1. Islam is a religion of peace, and is not anti-Jewish. Islam has been a violent and military movement from its beginning. The current attitude of Arab and Islamic countries towards Jews dates back to the life of Mohammed, who conducted 74 military campaigns, 24 of them personally. He unified the Arab tribes with war and assassinated or exiled Jews, therefore setting precedent for the militant and anti-Jewish practices of Islam. The reason Mohammed was so violently anti-Jewish was because he originally saw himself as a prophet to the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. In his early reign he instructed his followers to bow down and pray to Jerusalem! The Jews of Arabia rejected him as a Hebrew prophet and he was almost killed in battle with them. He then changed the direction of prayer to Mecca. I journeyed across Syria from Damascus to Aleppo to the Euphrates River and back to Damascus in 1999. I learned that it was a practice in Syria for Moslem fathers to make their son's swear, "I will kill a Jew before I die." In 1947 Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Many Jews were killed and thousands of Jews illegally fled Syria to go to Israel. Today there are less than 150 Jews in the entire nation. 2. Islam is just a religion. Islam has never been just a religion in the traditional sense, in as much as the members of Democracies understand; it has always been a polity; a political organization. Mohammed's intention was the unification of the Arab tribes and their international expansion. The state and religion are not seen as separate nor can an individual dissent from the Quran. The very word Islam means submission. Islam is seen as a political organization, which has no boundaries. This was the intent of Mohammed in the establishment of the Umma, the community or brotherhood. Western culture perceives this to be their statement of equality for mankind, but it must be remembered; if you are not Moslem you are not equal. In Islamic societies where Jews and Christians are allowed to exist they do not have the same rights as a Moslem, and they are required to pay a special tax. Read it all. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005133.php
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/03/06 Posts: 99 |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
illegal alien Registered: 04/16/04 Posts: 2,146 Last seen: 5 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Besides the very obvious reasons why the government would blow up the WTC mentioned by beatnicknick and the insurance money mentioned by Darcho, there's also another potential reason: gold, lots of gold.
Quote: The only published articles about recovered gold mention only around $200 million worth of gold.
-------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
I blew it up to get the gold. Oh, well, I guess you caught me.
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: Wow! Read that link. Quote: -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
I agree with everything you said except for this:
Quote:It's the other way around. Corporations have control over governments, pretty much everywhere in the Western world. It's what shapes Western values and what destroys the world. As for the main question: why would the government, if they did it, specifically blow up the Trade Center? Well, several reasons, money being only one. I won't elaborate here, just give some clues. Assuming they did it, they would have wanted to make sure it worked. So there must be something wrong with the planes, possibly they were remote controlled by beacons, maybe there even weren't any terrorists on board. Anyway, something material must have been fishy, so that destruction of evidence (more thorough than from a kerosene fire) would have been desirable. The destruction of evidence also applies for WTC7. Speculation has it that the whole operation was controlled from that building, so eventual destruction of that one was required as well. Another argument for destroying 7 would have been yet another instance of destruction of evidence. Many people have pointed out that evidence from several financial scandals (e.g. Enron) was conveniently destroyed in the attacks. Google "WTC7 tenants" for more info. Besides, the government would have wanted maximal psychological impact, which the quick collapse seems to have provided. Also, a quick collapse meant a higher death toll than a slow collapse or no collapse at all (although I do agree the toll can be viewed as lower than expected, I won't get into this question). Finally, it is arguable that although the administration (provided they did it) wanted a psychological impact, they were not aiming for maximal destruction. They would have decided to sacrifice 3 buildings completely, accept damage to surrounding constructions, but they would never have run the risk of an uncontrolled collapse of the towers. Imagine the Twins falling over sideways in opposite directions. The economical damage might have proven too high. Controlled demolition allowed for damage control, even if this sounds paradoxical given the circumstances. All this is: assuming the government did do it. Assuming that, these explanations seem rational enough to me to explain why they would have demolished the buildings instead of just letting them burn.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Still adding layers to your tinfoil beanie, I see.
Maybe you can answer for us some questions no other conspiracy theorist I've come across has been able to answer. This has to do with the claim that the towers fell not from the impact of the airliners and the ensuing fires, but instead from controlled detonations of explosives secreted in the buildings: -- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed? -- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted? -- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above? -- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges? -- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions? Phred
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Watch the video man, it explains everything you just asked.
-- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed? -- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted? =workers in the building admitted in interviews that sections of the buildings were closed for maintnance during the week before 9/11... -- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above? ---It was controlled. For a building to fall you take out the botom suports, not the top. Collision had little impact other than the spectacle it proided. -- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges? = They were lower in the building, there was not intense heat throughout the lower 80 floors. If there was everyone would have burned to death or had their skin melted off. -- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions? =Your arguement has no backup, the "official" reason for the collape was the fire melting the steel supports. It takes a while to melt.... Just watch the video -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
I'm not going to spend hours downloading yet another conspiracy video through my steam powered dialup modem.
You've seen the video, so I'm presuming the answers you gave are the ones presented in the video. Let's look at them, shall we? Quote: Which sections? The sections -- in both buildings -- immediately below the floors impacted by the planes? Different floors in each tower, remember. Got a source for that other than the video itself? A written source somewhere? Quote: Gee, too bad the buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, then. It's clear as day from the tapes of the collapses that they started at the impact points and proceeded downwards from there. Both films and still shots show that extremely clearly. Quote: See above. Quote: So let's get this straight. Although YOU don't believe the towers could collapse from steel being softened due to intense heat, the saboteurs did. This is why they waited for a while before setting off the charges... so that it would look as if the collapse came from heat-weakened girders. Phred
| |||||||
|
illegal alien Registered: 04/16/04 Posts: 2,146 Last seen: 5 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Heightened security alert had been lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed on 09/06: Quote: PLUS, security system had been knocked down due to a power down to "upgrade WTC's computer bandwith" on 09/08 and 09/09: Quote: So, on Friday through Tuesday morn., explosives could have easily been brought into towers. -------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:Nope, just giving answers to the question asked. Quote:Here's one possible explanation. From People Magazine: Quote: From New York Newsday: Quote:These are only clues, but they indicate it would not have been impossible to prepare. Edit: Oops, exclusive58, we posted almost simultaneously. Thanks for the additional information. Quote:Maybe that was of no concern. The planes could have been guided by beacons, so maybe they knew exactly where they would impact. Or maybe there were no beacons, and they didn't know exactly where the planes would impact. But anyhow, no-one can deny that a plane impact represents a substantial burden on the structural integrity of a building. If they blew up the central core at ground level, the whole building rested on the outside steel structure. So where, do you think, would it have snapped first? Right, at the impact points. Quote:I don't know. But then, I don't know everything, certainly not about explosives. But maybe some did explode on impact, but not enough of them for the buildings to collapse right away. Or, better even, if you follow what I said above: maybe the planes were remote controlled, so they knew where to place no explosives. Maybe there were explosives more or less everywhere except around the impact points. Quote:Again, I can't be sure, I didn't plan it. But I guess that would have looked very unrealistic, knowing even the Empire State building easily resisted a plane crash. But it's a good question. There are very good questions on both sides of the argument. I just think there are more troubling and unanswered questions coming from the 'inside job' side. My turn to ask you just one question now, Phred. You and others have urged people, and rightly so, to take into account the eyewitness reports about the Pentagon attack. As you reported, many people saw the plane hit, many people saw debris, etc. My personal opinion about the Pentagon attack is undecided, partly because of those accounts, and I acknowledge it is certainly possible that flight 77 hit it, although a few questions remain. But then, why do you remain completely deaf to the mass of eyewitness accounts, recorded on tape and included in several movies (I know, you've got a steam-driven modem, but that's no excuse), that consistently mention numerous heavy secondary explosions? Those accounts are from anonymous eyewitnesses, from TV reporters sent in live, from firefighters (I think they know what they're talking about), etc. Lots and lots of people who were there give very specific and consistent details of explosions that seem to match controlled demolition (bright flashes, crackling detonations, all just before collapses). Those are interesting accounts, because they were made on the spot, when no official version was available to influence, warp or censor said accounts. It's not because they haven't been rebroadcast as often as the Twin Towers' collapses (did you notice the near absence of WTC7 rebroadcasts?) that they no more exist or aren't worth looking at. So, when will you acknowledge those eyewitness accounts? Edited by Aldous (04/10/06 03:38 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/30/04 Posts: 127 Last seen: 7 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
This is stupid crap. If i was a conspirator (yeah right, that means a lot of people) i would nuke iran, then persuade the UN it was iraq who did it. You know? I certainly wouldnt shoot myself in the foot. That<s plain stupid. There is so many alternatives.
-------------------- -English is not my native language. So im not retarded, i'm just not very engligh articulate. Please forgive me for my bad writing! Thank you!
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
Yes, that would be very credible, especially since everyone, even the Bush administration, agreed Iraq had no operational nukes.
Shooting oneself in the foot had the advantage of conveniently destroying a few rotten spots (google "WTC7" and "tenants"). Besides, even before the attacks, in the opinion of the Bush mob, "'a new Pearl Harbor" was the best way to speed up the evolution they desired. How would they have passed the Patriot Act following a (very) foreign event? It's not all about foreign policy, there are domestic aspects as well. And finally, do you really think those people give a damn as long as they stand to profit? My question goes out to you as well: what allows you to discard those dozens of consistent witness accounts?
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/22/02 Posts: 2,511 |
| ||||||
|
http://www.silversteinproperties.com/worldtrade.htm
Silverstein has to rebuild the trade center towers. -------------------- .
| |||||||
|
illegal alien Registered: 04/16/04 Posts: 2,146 Last seen: 5 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I'd like this to be answered as well... -------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
|
geo's henchman ![]() Registered: 11/20/00 Posts: 3,776 Loc: nowhereland |
| ||||||
|
It is hard for some people to think for themselves. They need to let the box in their living room do it for them.
-------------------- The DJ's took pills to stay awake and play for seven days.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
Well, Phred, where are you when we need you?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Aldous asks:
Quote: In a fire the size of the WTC fires it would be absolutely astonishing if no one reported any explosions. What were those explosions? Who knows? Could have been anything from buckets of cleaning solvent to water coolers blowing up. News flash for you -- a LOT of things will explode if set in the middle of a lake of burning jet fuel. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Aldous replies:
Quote: The planes were guided by "beacons"? Umm... just who do you think was piloting the airplanes anyway? Quote: Well, the tinfoil beanie crowd does. At least they deny it is significant enough to cause (in conjunction with a massive and widespread high intensity fire) the towers to collapse without the assistance of planted explosives. Quote: But they didn't blow up the central core at ground level. Mother of god, man, did you not watch the coverage on television the first few days? Or look at the still photos later available all over the web? Phred
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:1. We're talking big time explosions here, not just little buckets of solvent. Explosions that shake the ground, that are heard outside the buildings above the general noise of panic and evacuation. Listen to those reports again and try to be honest about it. 2. Where was the lake of burning jet fuel underneath the impact points? Yes, there are reports of an initial cascade down the elevator shafts, but where was the sea of fire after that? ALL of the footage shows heavy smoke from the impact points UPwards. MOST of those reports of heavy explosions are from between ground level and impact points, where there was NO fire worth mentioning. So were those explosions spontaneous? You can't just discard those witness accounts because they don't match your beliefs. Really, try again.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:I don't know. Do you? Have you seen the man in the cockpit? Why would you be allowed to speculate while I wouldn't be? Quote:We agree on that. The skeptics don't think it was significant enough to allow for that kind of collapse, i.e. that early, that straight, that thorough and complete. Quote:What do you mean? It's perfectly possible to blow up the central core at ground level or even below with a hardly visible explosion. Have you ever watched videos of controlled demolitions?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
I say again, in a fire of that magnitude there are going to be explosions going off all over the place. Are you trying to say these explosions were pre-planted bombs going off before they were supposed to?
I also say again, the buildings did NOT collapse from the bottom up. They collapsed from the impact points downwards. Therefore if you are going to argue the collapse was assisted by preplanted explosives, you have to give a plausible explanation as to how these preplanted explosives were placed precisely at or within one or two floors of the impact points. Impact points that were different for each tower, remember -- the plane hit higher up on one tower than the other. How could ANY pilot -- let alone a "pilot" who had never FLOWN an actual airliner before, but had only taken lessons at a flight school -- target the crash precisely within a floor of the preplanted explosives? Even IF he knew his target was say the 82nd floor on one tower and the 94th floor on the other, just how the hell is he supposed to COUNT unmarked floors from the outside of the building while approaching at over two hundred miles an hour, then make the exceedingly fine corrections required to hit that floor? Your entire premise is absurd on the face of it. The idea is that somehow the government arranged this whole thing for some reason. And that the government decided that it wouldn't be sufficient to just crash the planes into the buildings, killing hundreds and hundreds of people in the impact. No.... in order to make it serious enough for them to pass the Patriot Act and get the UN to authorize invading Afghanistan, the towers had to actually collapse. This is utter nonsense. Even if the towers had NOT collapsed, the Patriot Act would have been passed and Afghanistan would have been invaded. Then let's look at what would have been required to pull this off -- 1 -- Recruit twenty or so Jihadis willing to co-operate with the Great Satan. 2 -- Indetectably plant sufficient explosives in EACH tower to ensure their collapse. Some of the busiest office buildings in the world. 3 -- Find a foolproof method of getting the jihadis to impact the planes within a floor or two of the planted explosives -- on differing floors for each tower. Check the voice recordings from flight 93. The hijackers spoke in Arabic. Therefore it is logical to presume the hijackers of the two WTC planes also spoke Arabic. Seeing as how there are few people in the world who both speak Arabic and are willing to commit suicide in groups other than Jihadis, then yes, I do know who was in the cockpits -- freaking muslim Jihadis. So here's yet another question for you to answer -- just how the hell was the US government able to procure the co-operation of people who aren't famous for following the directions of minions of the Great Satan? Look, every couple of weeks for almost five years now, someone opens yet another thread referencing yet another moonbat website or moonbat video. Often we have up to a dozen different threads all referring to the SAME video. None of the "evidence" presented ever holds up to scrutiny. It's all the same recycled, unsupported, unscientific and illogical speculations. For some reason that escapes me (apart from attributing this delusion to a near-pathological hatred of Bush) these moonbats are unable to accept the mountains of evidence that what happened that day wasn't some insanely complex and convoluted plot carefully timed so that all the many actors and subplots meshed perfectly to present some believable illusion that four hijacked planes crashed into buildings (and one field), but exactly what it appeared to be -- four planes hijacked by religious nutbars did an awesome amount of damage. It's just that simple. The damage would still have been immense and the loss of life almost as high if the two towers hadn't collapsed but had remained standing. And the "excuse" for the US government to retaliate against the perpetrators would have been every bit as strong had the towers remained standing. You are of course free to continue to believe whatever loony theory comes down the road. That is your right. Hell, there are still a BUNCH of people who insist fourteen US citizens never walked on the moon, either. But the reason I (and all rational people) reject this moonbat gibberish isn't because we are close-minded or brainwashed by Bush, it's because we are able to reason and understand logic. Did some weird things happen on that day? Of course. Will every weird report from ear witnesses and eye witnesses ever be explained? Nope. That doesn't change the fact that a bunch of religious nutbars crashed planes into buildings. That's it, that's all. Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
If there were explosive that were powerful enough to bring down the towers, this would show up in some sort of seismograph machine. There has to some sort of this kind of data somewhere.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
To my friend Phred
"say again, in a fire of that magnitude there are going to be explosions going off all over the place. Are you trying to say these explosions were pre-planted bombs going off before they were supposed to? " =I'm not sure but to say a small explosion such as a water cooler can create a huge "EXPLOSION" as said by many eye-witness acounts. But how do you explain the readings on the sesmographs that recorded the explosion. When the truck bombs went off in the basement floor of the world trade center back in 1991?(I think), nothing was recorded. Now, how do you explain a plane hitting the building 80 stories in the air causeing a seismograph to record ground vibrations from miles away. An no, this was not because of the towers hitting the floor, it was when the planes hit. I also say again, the buildings did NOT collapse from the bottom up. They collapsed from the impact points downwards. Therefore if you are going to argue the collapse was assisted by preplanted explosives, you have to give a plausible explanation as to how these preplanted explosives were placed precisely at or within one or two floors of the impact points. Impact points that were different for each tower, remember -- the plane hit higher up on one tower than the other." -as what was said before, have you ever seen a controled explosion? Check one out, eeeerily similar. And by the way phred, have you watched the documentary yet? If not please stop posting on this thread which is about it. -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Exactly Redstorm.
And by the way Phred, how do you explain the puddles of still molten steel at the bottom on the rubble found days after the collapeses. It has been said many times by professors and others with credentials, such as a spokesman for the company which tested the steel used in the world trade centers, that the steel used would withstand at least 3000 degrees of heat (AT LEAST, it was tested at this temperature for hours and it passed). So how do you explain jet fuel which burns at around 2000 degrees causing the steel to melt after only burning for about 1 hour? -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Define "huge", please. Then show that every person in the world uses the same word to describe exactly the same magnitude -- especially people who had just been through the most emotionally searing experiences in their entire lives. I have no doubt there were explosions of many different sizes. Do you have any idea how big an explosion is made when a five gallon drum of paint or cleaning fluid explodes? In a confined space? Quote: So you're saying the seismographs show activity at the precise moments the planes hit? Think it through, my friend David. If the seismographs didn't record the impact of the planes, then what were they recording? If you're going to say, "Why, the preset demolition charges, of course," then what is your answer to the following questions -- 1) If the charges went off at the moment of impact, why didn't the towers fall right then? 2) If the charges went off at the moment of impact, what were all the rest of these "huge explosions" reported by ear witnesses AFTER the planes hit? Quote: In person? Nope. Have you? In films and on TV? Sure. Quite a few. And I've NEVER seen one in which the building collapsed from the top down. They're not "eerily similar" in the slightest. Quote: There is nothing argued in that video that hasn't been argued countless times vefore in other articles and videos. Nothing new at all. If there was, someone would have pointed it out. From every description given of this video so far it is just another re-mix of the same half-assed speculation, just edited in a slightly different manner. No new evidence, no new arguments. This may all be shiny new to you. It isn't new to the rest of us. Same old bollocks we've been hearing for over four years. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: That has been asked and answered many times in this forum. Most scientists say it was the energy released by the collapse that heated the already hot steel past the melting point. Your basic grasp of science is weak indeed. An EXPLOSION doesn't turn girders into puddles of steel... the explosion blasts them apart. The explosion lasts a fraction of a second, with the heat of the explosion radiating outward in a sphere at incredible velocity. The time the girder (at the center of the explosion) is exposed to heat is a small fraction of a second indeed. Phred
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
so you obviously haven't seen the video, please watch it and critique it for me, or get off the thread.
"Define "huge", please. Then show that every person in the world uses the same word to describe exactly the same magnitude -- especially people who had just been through the most emotionally searing experiences in their entire lives." - huge = a maintnace worker in the basement thinking the generator blew up a few floors BELOW HIM. then subsequently heard the explosion above him. So what exactly is your explanation for the trade towers falling? How do all the towers fall perfectly straight down into piles? No skyscraper has ever colapsed before those two, followed by tower 7 which makes the first three building collapses from fire in history. A B52 Bomber crashes into the empire state building in 1942. Why doesn't it fall? and if you are going to argue that a B52 is smaller than a comercial plane here is a picture.http://images.military.com/Data/EQG/b52-6.jpg "Your basic grasp of science is weak indeed. An EXPLOSION doesn't turn girders into puddles of steel... the explosion blasts them apart. The explosion lasts a fraction of a second, with the heat of the explosion radiating outward in a sphere at incredible velocity. The time the girder (at the center of the explosion) is exposed to heat is a small fraction of a second indeed. " -if you are going to argue this then why didn't the buildings colapse immediatly? -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
by the way, there is a reason why everyone on the board is saying this is the best documentary out there on the subject. If you are going to argue everything so much, can you please atleast watch it so you can see both sides of the arguement.
And also, in the video they show planned building colapses and the colapses of 9/11 and saying that they are not similar in the slightest is a complete joke, they look almost identicle. -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Not everyone on the board is saying that. Even if they were, the best moonbattery in the world is nonetheless still nothing more than moonbattery. I don't know how to make it any plainer to you -- I am not going to waste hours and hours of my time watching something in ten second spurts followed by eighty second pauses for buffering followed by another ten seconds of content nas infinitum. Especially when the stupid thing starts off with YET ANOTHER rehash of Operation Northwoods -- a scenario put together over four decades ago at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis Cold War hysteria and was never acted upon. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what caused the towers to collapse after the airliners hit them. As for your attempt to brush off my questions because I haven't seen the video, why are you having such a hard time grasping the fact that it doesn't make a speck of difference if the same loony and uninformed speculations are presented as a video or a Michael Moore movie or an essay or a book or in an online journal? As you have heard already from earlier contributors to this thread, this video has been out for a long, LONG time and there are already well over a dozen threads in this forum discussing it. There is nothing -- I repeat NOTHING -- substantive in this video that has not already been hammered out dozens of times in this forum and elsewhere. It covers the same old ground -- -- governments can sometimes plan to do bad things, therefore the Bush government must have done a bad thing on September 11. -- The Empire State building didn't fall when a much smaller and lighter airplane travelling at a much lower speed carrying much less fuel crashed into it, therefore the twin towers couldn't have fallen either absent planted demolition charges. And yes, David, it was a B-25 that hit the Empire State building, not a B-52. There is a WORLD of difference between the two. -- some controlled demolitions appear to bear some visual similarities to the way the towers collapsed, therefore the towers must have collapsed through the same means. etc, etc, etc. Yawn. I don't need to have seen the video to ask the questions I have asked in this thread. I can't help but note some of them remain unanswered. I find it more than a little amusing to be accused repeatedly of being "close-minded" and "brainwashed" for raising these questions, while the ones making the accusations are too ignorant or close-minded or brainwashed to answer them adequately. Maybe that has to do with the fact that I needn't rely on a video to provide all my talking points for me, and if it isn't covered by the video I am then stumped. As I said before, I couldn't care less if you want to believe the tinfoil beanie brigade's tripe. Doesn't affect my life in the slightest. If it makes you happy to believe real life is a combination of The Matrix and a Robert Ludlum novel, be my guest. Knock yourself out. Just don't expect anyone with the capacity for rational thought who has spent as much time looking into this as I have to buy it. Phred
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but it has been said that the architect who designed the World Trade Center Twin Towers specifically designed them to withstand multiple jetliner impacts.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
alright I respect your standpoint and if you feel that it is the truth that is fine, but don't call me closeminded when you have no idea what I have researched and learned about the subject. At least I am willing to look at everyone available. You are the one posting about a video you have not even seen. Now don't tell me its all the same shit because you havent seen it.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
Phred cannot watch that video. Both his computer and his internet connection are so archaic that it is not possible.
If he had better technology at his disposal I'm sure he would love to watch it and rip it to shreds.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
phred can go to a library, doesn't he work? just set your computer to download the video overnight and it will be loaded by morning.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: He lives in a third world country. He does not have access to the modern conveniences that you and I do.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
It's not as if it matter anyways. He has seen so many of these goddamn threads that I'm sure he knows every part of the movie by now.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
See Phred, the problem with the way you argue is that you constantly lower the standard of debate. In your latest reply to what I said, you completely and conveniently ignored everything I stated in earlier posts in this same thread. This makes for a very annoying and tiresome discussion, but I won't let this technique obscure my arguments. So I'm gonna spell it out again for you, referring to where I said it before, and asking you where you see a problem. Please reply to what I say, not what you claim I said or didn't say.
The easiest and quickest way will be this: I'll spell out a possible scenario of the events of 9/11 that addresses all your questions. It's not the only possible scenario, it has possible variations, but it is possible. If you don't think so, please point out the impossible. As everyone knows (I don't think there's any debate about that), Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have long been intelligence assets of the CIA. There have been proven ties, and the CIA knows or knew Al-Qaeda pretty well. It is therefore not unimaginable at all, even very plausible, that the CIA infiltrated Al-Qaeda, or at least had informants there. So imagine Al-Qaeda planned attacks with hijacked planes on 9/11. Of course, the CIA would have known. And not only the CIA: numerous Western intelligence agencies warned the US that attacks were on their way. If they knew, the CIA must have known even more. So the attacks are on their way. The administration, among which some people had openly wished before for "a new Pearl Harbor", ponders that it might be interesting to let the attacks happen for reasons that have been pointed out (read the PNAC). Better than to let them happen even would be to make them succeed. While they're at it, they could wipe out some evidence in embarrassing cases, make some cash for themselves and their buddies, and also make sure that if towers get hit by planes, they don't fall all over Manhattan. We want damage, but we don't want downtown NY completely wiped out. (Look at this post for more detailed reasons for the demolition option.) So, to make sure the planes hit the towers (you never know with these messy and undertrained suicide hijackers), they place beacons inside the buildings and install remote control in the planes that will be used (a remote-controlling beacon could also explain the successful stunt approach of the Pentagon by an undertrained pilot). So the Arabs can mess up all they want, the planes will hit where they should. I realize you're going to pick on this, but before you do, think of the fact all planes are equipped with beacon-related automatic pilot. It wouldn't take a huge amount of equipment to make it function from a distance. When I say "remote control", it's not exactly accurate. All it takes is remote control of the automatic pilot and remote disabling of a few automatic safety devices. No need for remote control of all manual commands. Technically, this is perfectly possible. The collapses have to look "natural", so they have to start at the impact points. Weakened by the impact, the outer structure will snap exactly there, if only you place the whole load of the buildings on it by taking out the central cores with explosives. The explosions have been heard and recorded by seismographs. If you look at controlled demos, you'll notice that buildings only snap after a certain number of detonations. The WTC towers could have been detonated very gradually, and then they could have let all the remaining charges go off during the collapse, from the moment the towers snapped 'naturally' at the impact points. There's been a fuckup with WTC7. Was flight 93 aiming for it? No-one knows. Was it supposed to have sustained heavier damage in order to make the collapse look more 'natural'? No idea. Anyway, it was a major fuckup, way too obvious. A few specific answers: Quote:See above about gradual demolition. Quote:Exactly. See above, and note those points had already been made earlier. Quote:See above, points made earlier. Quote:Why do you choose to blatantly ignore all the points I made here? Im' not claiming it was 'to make sure' the Patriot act could be passed. I gave specific reasons. Thanks for acknowledging that. Quote:See above, Al-Qaeda took care of that. It was a joint Al-Qaeda/US services operation. Only Al-Qaeda probably wasn't aware of that. This kind of thing has been done countless times in the past, it's a classic intelligence operation. It was done all the time in 70's and 80' Italy. Quote:Why do you AGAIN completely ignore this post? It proves beyond a doubt that there was a window of opportunity to do it. are you going to dismiss it again? If so, please substantiate. Quote:We agree. Only they didn't know they were being used by others still than Bin Laden. Quote:Answered above. Co-operation wasn't needed, they weren't in on the totality of the plot. Quote:Did I EVER label you closed-minded or brainwashed? I don't think so. As for you, repeating "moonbat" as often as you can won't make the questions go away. Check out what this moonbat has to say, and tell me he knows nothing about science and has no arguments. And please also tell me how and why the scenario laid out above is technically impossible.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:I'd love a source on this. One that also entitles you to the specific "Most scientists..." claim. I've seen this claim mostly in the posts of this forum's "scientists". Quote:Read the last link in the above post. Thermite is way more plausible than "the energy of the collapse", which is really laughable. I'll use the word "moonbat" only once, and it will be for this one. "The energy of the collapse" accounting for the puddles of molten metal is desperate wishful thinking on the part of the supporters of the official view. It just shows their hopelessness. I wonder how you can believe such a *moonbat* explanation.
| |||||||
|
Hey Its Free! Registered: 12/14/04 Posts: 367 Loc: The fabled catbi Last seen: 13 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Wow that must be really fuckin annoying. But as long as your answering conspiracy questions, why hasn't the FBI realeased any of the black boxes from the flights? Why hasn't the FBI realeased any of the videos of the Pentagon being hit? And do you think the center of our nations military has any defense mechanisms for shooting down a plane? I hope so. Edited by Turn (04/13/06 10:36 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: As far as I know all of the black boxes were unrecoverable except for Flight 93's. Flight 93's recording actually was played in court yesterday at the Moussaoui trial. Quote: As far as I know there was no video. There were only several images. Quote: Do you think that there should have been missile batteries around the Pentagon? It's a building. ....Buildings don't usually have anti-aircraft defenses around them.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Listen kiddies, if you can't produce a transcript leave it at home. I have a good connection and I'm not going to watch any fucking download more than 2 minutes or so. You can't quote anything from it and there is always so much fluff before the point that it's ridiculous. Show some restraint.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
David --
I realize you are new to this forum. You've been here what... a whole week now? So I can understand your enthusiasm for a newly discovered video. But here's the thing. None of this is new to those of us who have been rehashing this and re-rehashing this for over four years. I do realize it's not your fault you're late to the party. But neither is it MY fault. And I just don't know how I can possibly make this any plainer to you other than to repeat -- yet again -- that it doesn't MATTER whether I watch the second edition of the video or not. Or even if I have watched the FIRST edition of the video. The simple fact is that a video is nothing more than a vehicle for someone to present their arguments. It doesn't differ from an essay or a Power Point presentation in its SUBSTANCE. What matters is not how the assumptions are presented, what matters is do the assumptions stand up to scrutiny. What if I were blind? Would that mean I couldn't understand the basic premises being argued to me since I could only hear them or read them in braille? Am I forever doomed to misunderstanding the "truth" about 9/11 because I can never watch the stupid video? Not at all. Now, there are several longtime contributors to this thread who HAVE seen the video. Rest assured if they thought there was anything -- and I do mean ANYTHING -- that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked in here, they wouldn't hesitate to lay it on me. That's just the way this forum works. And yes, I realize you may not want to invest the time to churn through four years of posts here to verify that what I'm telling you is the case (that this has all been chewed over more than an old hound dog's favorite rawhide bone) really IS the case. But again, veteran contributors to the thread can back me up on that as well. I'm not trying to dodge anything here. It's just that it gets almighty old to have to retype all this every two weeks when the next new guy shows up and starts hyping the same video. Stick around... I guarantee you that by the time you've been here a year you too will have seen at the very least another dozen threads just like this one. Maybe two dozen. And no, I can't go to the library. I live in a dinky little village in a third world country where the closest library is an hour's drive away and I don't have a car and all the books are in Spanish anyway and they don't stock videos. But even if I could go to a decent library, I wouldn't bother -- because there isn't a single wild-assed premise in that video that I haven't encountered before. The whole vastly complicated scenario laid out by the producers of these videos is so wildly improbable that a half hour of rational thought and a bit of basic research on the web shows it up for the harebrained slop it really is. Think it through. The scenario these guys are trying to push would have to involve -- at the very least -- dozens of highly-placed, highly-dedicated, and seriously EVIL people all working together with split second timing to conceal stuff in one of the busiest places in the world. It would also necessarily mean that not a single one of them would ever let anything out of the bag. Remember that this is the US GOVERNMENT we're talking about here -- these guys can't keep anything secret for longer than a week or two. Washington leaks like a sieve. Pick up any newspaper if you don't believe me. Leaks every week. Sometimes several in a single week. And somehow these few dozen guys clammed up for four and a half YEARS? Uh huh. Add to this the undeniable fact -- and yes, it is an undeniable fact -- that the guys who hijacked the planes were foreign religious nutbars who hate America. Hate America so much they blow themselves up at a moment's notice if they think it will hurt the US. They would have had to have been in on the scam as well. Yet not a single one of their buddies has used this knowledge (of supposed US government complicity) to embarass the Great Satan. How likely do you think THAT is? To pass up the greatest propaganda coup of all time. Yeah, right. Add to that the baseless assumptions, bad science, dismissal of actual science, misrepresentation and in some cases outright bullshit that the conspiracy theorists are peddling and you can realize why these guys are considered by rational people to be at best grievously mistaken and at worst outright loons. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Aldous writes:
Quote: If by "lower the standard of debate" you mean "applying rationality to the evidence", I won't deny the charge. Quote: That's bullshit, but if it makes you feel better to claim so, knock yourself out. Quote: And this is why no one takes the tinfoil hat brigade seriously. Your very first opening statement is a load of crap. Not "everyone knows", and you better believe there would be lots of debate about that. Quote: Intelligence "assets"? Nonsense. Quote: Define "ties". If you mean the US (through the CIA) provided assistance to the Afghanis who fought the Soviets, I won't dispute that. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan predates the formation of Al Qaeda. It is undoubtedly true that some of the surviving Afghani mujahadin who had received weapons, money, and even training from the CIA in Afghanistan ended up joining Al Qaeda at some point down the road -- I would be astonished if none of them did. But that's a pretty flimsy basis for claiming "proven ties". If you're referring to some other "proven ties", let's have specifics and sources. Quote: One would hope so... that's their job, after all. Unfortunately you seem to have a lot more confidence in the CIA than is warranted by their well-documented history of failure. Their intelligence fumbles and lengthy list of screwups, missed signals, and outright fiascos over the years are legendary. But let's for the sake of this argument pretend they aren't completely incompetent and that they know Al Qaeda exists and its members are prone to attack American interests. Quote: I suppose it is not impossible that the CIA had some informants in Al Qaeda. That doesn't mean their informants knew anything about the operation. It is obvious from the evidence presented over the last four years that this was a VERY closely-held operation within Al Qaeda -- as it rightly should have been. "Very plausible" they had infiltrated Al Qaeda? Nonsense. Quote: There's no "of course" about it. It's sheer speculation, and implausible speculation at that. Quote: What kind of attacks? When? Where? Involving whom? Absent that kind of specificity, this has no more value than a Moscow meteorologist warning it will be cold in January. Quote: "Must have"? Bullshit. See... here we have the unvarying starting assumption of all the moonbat conspiracy theories. "The government must have known!" That is far from proven. More than that, it is far from even making logical sense. Governments miss things all the time. They fuck up all the time. They're freaking famous for fucking up! It's what they do. Quote: As a quick aside before I continue, no people in the administration have openly wished for a new Pearl Harbor. But by all means, don't let that stand in your way. Moving on... Here we see the next enormous leap of faith a rational person wouldn't make, but moonbats don't even notice -- the casual assumption that of course the administration has no problem with thousands of innocent Americans being murdered and the economy, the military, and their own ability to govern taking a gigantic hit. To extend the ancient joke, "A friend is someone who will help you move. A best friend is someone who will help you move a dead body". And a really, really REALLY double-plus-good friend is someone who will arrange the slaughter of thousands of innocents so the stocks you received when you left Halliburton will give you another hundred thousand bucks they might otherwise not have. If you really believe dozens (at an absolute minimum) of American civil servants have such an abiding hatred for their fellow Americans and are truly that EVIL (and there is no other word which is appropriate for that kind of behavior) as to bind themselves into an unholy pact to carry out such an act, it is no wonder you buy this crap. ... continued in the next post.... Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
...continued from previous post...
Aldous writes: Quote: Embarassing to whom? The administration? Source, please. Besides, there are a hell of a lot easier and less risky ways of removing evidence than flying a bunch of planes into buildings. Computer failures, office fires, lost files, accidently shredded records, etc. Hillary had no difficulty disappearing that kind of stuff and never even got called on it. Sandy Berger just stuffed embarassing classified documents into his socks and down his pants. Of course, he's not as sharp as Hillary -- someone saw him doing the stuffing so he got caught. But those two are Democrats. A Republican would be better at that kind of thing. Quote: Like a really, REALLY double-plus-good friend would do for you. Quote: Look, you can't have it both ways. Either the towers could have been destroyed by planes diving into them or they couldn't. I thought your position was that they couldn't, absent controlled charges. So (according to you) there would never have been any danger of the towers falling all over Manhattan if the administration had just sat by and watched. Quote: And American Airlines goes along with the installation of remote control units on four of their airliners? Dude, just listen to yourself! Quote: What does that mean? That in a standard airliner, you can set the automatic pilot to home in on a radio beacon and it will fly a direct line (with an altitude variance of around ten feet or so) into that beacon? I didn't know that. You of course have a credible source for that, I'm sure. Maybe you could provide us with that source. Quote: By which I presume you mean that from a distance the remote guy can enable the system -- say when the plane is within a few miles of the towers? Quote: Gee. "All it takes" is to find someone to completely rewire all the multiple redundant safety overrides in a modern Boeing (four Boeings, actually) so that the preprogrammed autopilot (set to home in on a beacon) will engage itself and not allow itself to be disengaged. So now to the team of administration officials and lesser government (presumably CIA) underlings, we add a couple of American Airlines technicians intimately familiar with a Boeing's avionics and willing to accept a bribe to fuck with the machines they bear responsibility for. Hey... no biggie. Quote: "No-one knows"? Do you ever read the news? It's been known for a long time now that flight 93 was destined for the Capitol in Washington. Its flight path (before the passengers intervened) was for DC, not NYC. This information comes from both captured Al Qaeda members and from Moussaoui in open court. Quote: Damage from what? Not from the two airliners... they're in tiny pieces in the two towers. Not from the towers falling on them -- your whole scenario is geared around the towers not "falling all over Manhattan". I'll address the rest of your post (the answers part) later. Or maybe not. I've already spent far too long on this as it is. But let me first point out the 800 pound gorilla you have overlooked: What you seem not to grasp is the glaringly obvious fact that this operation was conceived and executed as a totality. It was far and away the most spectacular piece of guerrilla theater in the history of mankind. It was designed by Al Qaeda for maximum impact -- both psychological and strategic. Look at the choice of targets -- the center of the Great Satan's economy, the center of the Great Satan's defense establishment, and the center of the Great Satan's government. It's true they missed the center of government, but that was a VERY near thing. If they had been quicker heading Flight 93 towards Washington, the passengers wouldn't have had time to hear what had happened in NYC and the Pentagon, and wouldn't have been able to stop the Jihadis from flying their plane into the Capitol. You are focusing exclusively on the WTC flights, just as others focus exclusively on the Pentagon "missile". But the truth of the matter is you can't use one set of assumptions to "explain" how what happened at the Pentagon didn't really happen, and a different set of assumptions to "explain" how what happened in NYC didn't really happen. Any theory put forward has to make sense within the framework of three simultaneous attacks on the very heart, muscle, and brains of America. So let's revisit your speculation (and that's all it is -- speculation) that the administration knew about the attacks in advance, and decided to help them along. This means the administration knew the Pentagon would be severely fucked up -- possibly to the point where its function would be severely impaired for years, depending how many key military commanders and war plans and records and equipment manuals and computers and who knows what all else was blown up in the attack. This also means the administration knew their ability to govern would be severely compromised, if not completely destroyed. Pretty hard to run a country when the majority of its Congressmen, staffers, records, etc. have been incinerated. I guess it is just barely conceivable for someone (who has taken enough powerful mind altering drugs) to buy into the theory the Bush administration contains enough influential, competent, and evil folks to pull off something like assisting the collapse of the towers. But to believe they're also not just influential, competent, and evil, but also abysmally stupid (as they would have to be in order to co-operate in crippling themselves through allowing the destruction of the Capitol and the Pentagon) is something only a certified barking moonbat can try to sell with a straight face. I understand the urge to question authority. I do it all the time, myself. But there's a point past where what one does no longer qualifies as questioning authority and instead devolves into self parody. The trick is to recognize where that point lies. Phred
| |||||||
|
the cool fool Registered: 11/17/02 Posts: 27,397 Loc: USA |
| ||||||
|
if bush and the govt actually planned 9/11 why didnt they do something easier than crash planes into buildings. i mean they could have just as easily bombed something... that loose change shit talking about how the passengers are still alive and voice morphing is really bullshit. why go through all that trouble hiding people and shit if ur the govt. u could have just planted charges and destroyed the buildings....i think if anythign bush let the attacks happen, i think they knew something was going down. there were enough warning signs, bush was purposely negligent.
| |||||||
|
just a tester Registered: 06/16/04 Posts: 11,252 Loc: Cypress Creek |
| ||||||
|
*sigh*
I don't come into this forum much, but goddammit I have decided my new hero is Phred. I'm so sick of hearing shit like this from the liberal conspiracy theorists at college (and Immortal Technique). I love seeing a video as shitty as Loose Change get ripped apart. I watched it a while ago..it was the biggest waste of time I've sat through in a while (and yes, I just saw Benchwarmers). My input on this -- I was really close to this..my friends and I were at the beach when this happened, and eventually got to a TV, and saw them unexpectedly collapse in real time. It was like a pancake effect ..one floor eventually gave way, slamming 100s of tons (maybe more) of molten steel onto the floor below. Have skyscrapers really been designed to withstand that? I highly doubt it. These "explosions", as far as I'm concerned, are the sound of a few hundred tons of steel slamming into the floor below.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:If you read this timeline, you will read about the intelligence warnings the CIA received, and you will also see that it is confirmed and verified that a large number of people in the Arab community of NY had precise foreknowledge about the exact day and type of attack, and that many people who knew tried to warn the US authorities. In vain. If the failure to avert the attack in the face of all the warnings available was truly considered a fatal mistake, some people would have been sanctioned, which didn't really happen. Quote:That's a joke, right? All of a sudden they could do everything they always dreamed of. Quote: Quote: Two more blatant examples of lowering the standard of debate. I never said, and you know it, that money was the sole or even the most important motive. Neither did I ever state that wiping out evidence was the sole or even the most important motive. That's why I wrote "While they're at it...", but yet you pretend I gave those as sufficient motives. Quote:1. the hatred: of course not, why do you make it personal business? There's no hatred involved. 2. the evil: call it "forwarding American interests worldwide" if you wish. I mean, in the name of American interests, US governments have invaded countries, dropped two nuclear bombs and killed countless civilians. This specific administration has invaded Iraq on false pretexts and killed more civilians than died on 9/11 (they didn't hate them either). They don't do it out of pure evil, it's just that they couldn't care less about the consequences of the actions they undertake to pursue their goals. And if Americans had to die to achieve a quick invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, so be it. After all, the 2000+ soldiers who died because of their plans were Americans too, right? Who says they care about American lives? It's all *collateral*. The evil is there, yes, but it's collateral, it's not what matters. And some who believe in American interests worldwide are willing to forgive that evil for the sake of those interests, so they turn a blind eye on elements that might reveal the evil. Others consider evil cannot be excused by whatever. See, when I read that statement I quoted, I'd like to call you naive for believing governments kill out of hatred and evil, but I'm afraid you're just pretending. Which makes me doubt the usefulness of this discussion. I might come back on some of the other points raised, but I'll be away for a few days.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: There are many people saying that the fire inside of the buildings were not even close to being hot enough to melt steel. The common case that is used to support this claim is a building in Spain that burned for several days. This building did not collapse and the frame remained intact, even though a tremendously hot fire burned inside. Why did it not collapse, why did its frame not melt?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Aldous writes:
Quote: I'm sure I'm not the only reader of this thread noting the irony of your claiming I lower the standard of debate. You can't even remember what you wrote in your own posts. Let's do a thorough review of every post you have made in this thread, to see what you believe the Bush administration's motives are for engineering this disaster, shall we? From post 5496881 -- Quote: So the very first reason you give is "money". You say it's not the only one, but coyly decline to elaborate on other reasons, instead leaving us to puzzle out what you think they may be. Then in the next paragraph you add another -- destruction of evidence of financial scandals. Now... am I supposed to know you are finished listing your reasons? Or am I supposed to take you at your word that you WON'T elaborate, but instead just provide clues? Great debating technique we see here -- if I address the reasons you gave, you protest there were other (unnamed) reasons. If I don't address the reasons you gave -- preferring to wait until you eventually get around to "elaborating" on your others, you chastise me for not addressing the few you've specifically named. See your whine in post # 5511034 -- Quote:Later in the same post we see this from you -- Quote: You're not claiming one motive for engineering all this was to get the Patriot Act passed? Then why did you say in post 5498841 -- Quote: You can't even remember what you wrote and you're accusing ME of lowering the level of debate? Tell you what, Aldous. To avoid further misunderstandings, why don't you give us a list of all the reasons you believe the Bush administration had for allowing the attack to take place. So far, we have -- money (by which I presume you mean the key players had plans to steer money to themselves or their friends -- money they could not otherwise have steered their way) -- destruction of evidence of financial scandals (by which I presume you mean the key players had plans to destroy evidence embarassing to themselves or their friends. Please be specific as to which scandals and which players or friends of players were embarassed by the scandals you cite) -- ensure passage of the Patriot Act. I must admit I am confused here. In one post you imply passage of the Act was a motive, in another you claim you're not citing passage of the Act as a motive. So let's get your real opinion on this. Passage of Act? Yes or no. -- furtherance of PNAC agenda. By this I presume you mean the parts of the PNAC agenda which involve taking action in the Middle East to transform the ME countries into democracies. If you have some other part of the PNAC agenda in mind, let us know. Be SPECIFIC, please. -- any additional reasons you care to name. Be SPECIFIC, please -- no vague allusions to secret agendas or hints or "clues". Speak plainly. See, this is what's so annoying about debating with the moonbat brigade. They never take a stand -- never come right out and say things in a straightforward manner. No, it's always hints and "clues" and allusions and vague references to PNAC and insinuations and metaphors and possibilities and blah blah blah. Then when I address what I believe these mushmouths are trying to say, I get chastised for "ignoring what was said" or for "making assumptions" or "putting words in my mouth" or whatever. I don't know whether this is a sneaky (and transparently lame) debating tactic or whether they are actually incapable of communicating effectively. In your case, Aldous, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume it was not a duplicitous tactic but merely a failure to express yourself plainly. So here's your chance. List for us in plain language, the specific reasons you believe the Bush administration had for allowing the attack to proceed. I hope you enjoy your time away. Phred
| |||||||
|
just a tester Registered: 06/16/04 Posts: 11,252 Loc: Cypress Creek |
| ||||||
|
I don't think that Spanish building had a Boeing flying into it at 500 miles an hour, spilling thousands of gallons of jet fuel. While the buildings withstood the initial impact and explosion, the jet fuel continued to burn.
Steel doesn't have to reach a melting point to be significantly weakened
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
This is getting a tad tiresome, but I won't quit because of that, it would give false impressions. I hope most people have understood there's a division between motives for planning the attacks and motives for specifically blowing up the Trade Center, and between main motives and "collateral" motives. I'll try to spell it out as clearly as I can.
My view is that the Bush administration wanted/needed "a new Pearl Harbor" from the beginning, to dramatically speed up the implementation of their policies. They either selected an interesting terrorist plot among all plots the intelligence services regularly discover, or they elicited it themselves through infiltrants. Anyway, this doesn't matter here, I'm merely trying to get my point understood, whether people agree or not. So what were their motives? They had several political main motives, foreign as well as domestic. As for foreign policy, they wanted to dispatch American forces to the Middle East ("furtherance of PNAC agenda"). You'll notice that invading first Afghanistan, then Iraq, is a great way to get at Iran. This is for strategic and economic reasons, but both are very much intertwined. In today's (and even more tomorrow's) world, oil equals money equals power. (You'll notice that the often-quoted PNAC report, "Rebuilding America's defenses", never associates the terms "Middle East" and "democracy" (only 2 occurrences!), but does associate "Middle East" with "energy", "stability", and "American interests"). On a domestic level, they seriously restricted personal freedom by enacting laws that allow for a large degree of control of the state over the individual ("ensure passage of the Patriot Act"). The US is certainly closer to a police state than it used to be (whatever you feel the current degree of police state is today in the US; I mean whether one feels the country is still very free or it's almost become a police state, one can't deny there's been a serious movement toward restriction of general freedoms), and this is certainly due to the way the Bush administration 'reacted' to 9/11. In my view, the political motives prevail over all other general motives. They were sufficient motives for the attacks to be organized, as opposed to the other motives, which are "collateral", but nevertheless interesting. Among the general collateral motives, there's money (the billions made from insider trading on put options; the insurance money, although this one is debated; plus all the extra military spendings going to Halliburton, the Carlyle group, etc.) and destruction of evidence. As a general motive (i.e. a motive to organize the attacks as such), I am willing to admit this last one is rather speculative: WTC7 had "interesting" tenants, but that's not enough. A lot of SEC files were destroyed, some of them related to the WorldCom case: Quote:... and WorldCom is indirectly linked to the Bush family via Marvin Bush, but I really think this is rather shady. I haven't researched this thouroughly enough, so I'm willing to withdraw this one, although it's potentially interesting. "Who knows what" was destroyed in the WTC7 Secret Services, CIA, SEC offices, but that's hardly enough, I confess. Then there are what I will call specific motives for the destruction, motives that could explain the option for controlled demolition by explosives: these are related to material circumstances of the attacks, which are of course speculative, since they rely on the assumption that it was an inside job, but which are consistent with that assumption. These motives are, again, destruction of (material) evidence. There's been a lot of speculation about this, and I'm not going to endorse any of it. All I'm saying is: if the attacks were an inside job, there were certainly material elements that didn't fit the official story. Destruction would have been an option to wipe out some of the embarrassing evidence. And limitation of damage, as I said before. Contrary to what you contend, Phred, I didn't say the plane impacts couldn't make the towers collapse, I said the plane impacts couldn't account for collapses this early on and this thorough and this "clean" (meaning quick and straight). So if they had let the towers burn, maybe the official story could have come true, i.e. collapses from long-lasting fires and heavy damage to the central cores. I don't know, but it could be. Only, such a collapse would not have been as clean-cut, and could have made for even worse damage to the surrounding neighborhood. So they may have opted for controlled demolition to *somewhat* limit the damage. [Just to make myself clear: as for WTC7, it could never have collapsed from just fire; and here, the limitation of damage is very clear, as it hardly damaged any neighboring building, since it fell so neatly inside its footprint.] SO, I don't think any of the above motives are in contradiction with the motives I listed before. In some instances, you were trying to make me say that the attacks had been pulled off "just" or "only" in order to have some friends make money, or to pass the Patriot act, etc. I hope I have cleared out those misunderstandings by pointing out what I consider primary and secondary motives, the primary one being the double (foreign and domestic) political motive. Another clarification: I never "coyly declined to elaborate on other reasons" when I wrote: Quote:Just after that, I listed all other reasons I could think of. I just meant I wouldn't write up a whole piece about each of them, just explain them briefly (those were the "clues"). So no motive was left unnamed, I just wanted to spare myself some writing work by just naming the motives with a few explanatory words. Quote:I could write exactly the same about you. Sometimes I suspect you're deliberately misunderstanding me, but this is only suspicion. I'll leave you some benefit of doubt as well, but I also suspect you'd be great as a lawyer, saving your clients' asses on purely formal grounds. I hope I have been clear enough in everything I said. If I haven't, keep in mind that English is my third language, and try to understand what I meant in good faith. Thanks.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
my friend Phred, just becaues I'm new to the forum means nothing at all. I have been interested in this stuff since the beggining. A friend just recently told me about this site and after seing some posts I figured I would suggest a video and see what people had to say in response... Big F-ing Deal. I bet some of the video is bullshit, I agree there and it isn't even all about the video. When a national catastrophe happens in MY country and all of the information the government has about this catastrophe is classified and not available, I get a little worried and currious. Is it wrong that I am questioning what is being told to me every day for the past four years since 9/11. Mabey if you actualy lived in America you would realize how bad the propaganda is. Every single day there is something on the news, on another tv channel or in the paper about it. They will not let you forget, just so they can push their new bills through congress without anyone being worried about anything other than "National Security". Our country is changing and it has become pretty obvious in the last year and a half. Mabey I want to learn the reason why
David -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: However, steel does have to reach a melting point if it is to be molten. If you look back at your last post, you specifically used the word 'molten', as if it was a fact that the steel in the WTC Twin Towers was in a molten state as the buildings collapsed. Supposedly the maximum burning temperature of standard jet fuel, Jet A, is no more than 1500 degree Fahrenheit. I am not going to post a source for this, because most sites that I found which have this information are directly referring to the WTC incident. So it is debatable whether or not this is a valid temperature. However, I did find a site that does not make reference to the WTC incident, which states that the melting point for steel is 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html This makes it seem very unlikely that the steel in the WTC Twin Towers was molten when the buildings collapsed. It could still be possible that the steel was weakened, but it seems unlikely, seeing as how Jet A (the standard jet fuel), can only burn at a temperature that is approximately 54% of steel's melting point. Now, if something that burned at a higher temperature than jet fuel was also burning within the WTC Twin Towers prior to their collapse, then it seems highly probable that the steel would be heated to its melting point such that it would be significantly weakened, leading to collapse. The only thing I could think of was thermite, which has a maximum burning temperature of 4500 degrees Fahrenheit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite So if you do not want to retract your statement that "one floor eventually gave way, slamming 100s of tons (maybe more) of molten steel onto the floor below," then you must admit that something other than jet fuel caused the steel to melt, else you are making claim to what seems like a logical impossibility (and hence a physical impossibility). My questions for your are: 1) If the steel was in a molten state, then what caused it to to arrive at such a state, since jet fuel is inadequate to cause that state? 2) If the steel was not in a molten state, then is it even possible for a fire that is burning at 54% of the melting point of steel to significantly weaken a buildings structure, causing it to collapse? How can an answer to this question be justified?
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
![]() Note that all temperatures are in celcius. According to BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm), the steel core of the buildings reached 800 celcius, which according that that graph would reduce te stability of the structure to under 20% of it's cooled strength. I don't claim to know what happened that day, but to say that a commcercial jet being flown into even a well-built tower wouldn't knock it down is absurd.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
That's a useful graph, perhaps you could source it? I have tried to find similar graphs, but to no avail.
However, I did find an informative article that may be a bit dated and well known to some posters here (you never know): Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation It was written by Thomas W. Eagar, and a graduate student. Here are his homepages, in case you are not sure whether to trust him: http://www-dmse.mit.edu/faculty/faculty/tweagar/index.html and http://eagar.mit.edu/. Even this MIT engineering professor doubts that the steel in the WTC Twin Towers reached a molten state. But why has there been molten steel found in the ruins? Some claim it was the energy of the collapse, others claim it may be thermite. Both seem plausible, and yet both seem suspicious. One thing seems to be for sure: it was not the jet fuel fire. On another note: it seems to me as if one of the only reasons the nature of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers (either demolition or honest-to-goodness structural flaws caused by jetliner crashes), comes into question is because of the destruction of the infamous WTC Building 7. This building was not hit by a plane, its structure was not weakened, and it did not have intense fires raging inside of it (albeit there were fires in the building, but not to the extent to cause collapse). Yet, the building collapsed. The mystery behind this, and the fact that it seems as if it was a controlled demolition, seems to lead people to conclude that it is quite possible that the Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled demolition. Perhaps if the truth behind Building 7 were to come forth, then the truth about the collapse of the Twin Towers could be finalized.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
I guess the steel question simply boils down to this: plane crashes or not, steel bending when heated or not, why were there puddles of molten steel underneath the rubble up until weeks after the fact? How could those temperatures be reached? We're talking way higher than the melting point of steel, since the puddles remained so hot for so long.
BTW, I'm still looking for a serious link stating positively that the energy of the collapsing buildings could have made the steel melt into puddles. I've seen this assertion only on this board, or negatively stated by skeptics who said this wasn't possible. If someone has a link to scientists claiming this, I'd be interested.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/03/06 Posts: 99 |
| ||||||
|
When I took metal shop is junior high school, we used to heat pieces of steel red hot using natural gas. When it was red hot, it was soft enough to bend, twist, etc. Its easy for me to see that burning jet fuel can soften steel.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/03/06 Posts: 99 |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
Quote: No problem-o. http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm It's a page detailing steelwork fire resistance and is published by a steel construction company, so I would definitely say it is legitimate.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: In this metal shop the flame that was most probably being used to heat the steel was a pre-mixed flame, which has (what could be called), a medium heat intensity. However, in the flame in the Twin Towers would be no such flame, and it would more likely have been a diffusion flame, a flame which has a low heat intensity. Although, the natural gas flame used in a metal shop may be a diffusion flame, and that being so, it can be said that such a flame is more direct and concentrated than the diffusion flames in the Twin Towers. The flame from jet fuel may be able to weaken steel, but the type of flame that it is should be factored into consideration.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:Hey man, you misread me, we actually agree. There's one of the movies explaining the official theory that has very good footage of an office fire bending large steel beams during a test, I think it was in England or so. So yes, the temps from the jet fuel could have softened the steel (even if it has rightly been pointed out that a blue concentrated gas flame is not at all the same as a jet fuel fire). That is simply not what I was talking about. What I was talking about, is those large puddles of molten metal that were found weeks after the facts under the rubble. Those were not made up, and definitely needed temps way beyond anything jet fuel or an office fire could accomplish in days, let alone in hardly more than an hour. Read up some, then come back and try again. Quote: ![]() Quote:I just love how that guy debunks entire books with a short article and a few sentences like the one above, entirely made out of solid common sense. His medieval logic made me think of Monty Python. Thanks for the laugh!
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
I may have missed it in this thread, but could you link me to an official source with eye-witness accounts of melted steel at the bottom of the wreakage? I mean a site other than places like Infowar. The only place I've heard that detail from is people on here.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
This one has some pictures of the molten hot steel and has quite a bit written on it. I am sure you have seen this paper by now.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
From http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm :
Quote:There are some credible sources in the quote above. I know I've seen a few good pics of bulldozers digging up red hot and orange hot pieces of metal from the rubble weeks after, but I can't find them in the few minutes I have now (maybe in the next few days). I also saw a thermic satellite pic showing the three spots (WTC1, 2 & 7) where the metal was still red hot, they also gave estimated temps. Hope I can find it again soon. . . . . Well, here are some, actually: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091601hotspots
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
Thanks, you guys. I got some reading to do.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 11/15/05 Posts: 359 Last seen: 14 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Phred, you're in denial man. You don't want to watch the video because you have already deemed it false.
Watch it before judging it or the ideas it proposes. There is more scientific evidence and eye-witness accounts (including firemen) than footage being played at slow speeds -------------------- ![]() Everything that is posted, including pictures and text, are a result of fictional storytelling using images found online and/or created using the latest graphics software. I am a fictional writer who likes to explore the internet world. ------------------------------------ http://www.adobe.com/
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
Can you not read plain English? He is on a 56k dial-up connection. I'm not sure if you've ever been subject to such torture, but I can guarantee it would be damn near impossible to watch a 1-hr long streaming video.
If there's anything you want to argue about it, you should be able to do so without him having to see the movie.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: Let's recap what has been said in this thread several times.... 1. Phred lives in a third world country with spotty electricity and telephone service. 2. Phred has an old computer. 3. Phred has a dial-up connection. That's why Phred is unable to watch video off of the internet. Edited by RandalFlagg (04/23/06 10:05 AM)
| |||||||
|
twigburst Registered: 10/10/01 Posts: 2,387 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
It doesn't really matter who did it, only a few people know for sure and even if it was the government, unless the news reported it noone would believe it. People thought Saddam had something to do with it, at least the people that think the government did it have some theories to back up their ideas. Almost just as many troops in Iraq died as in the WTC, and many more arabs, its obvious our administration has little care for human lives, so why would it be hard to believe that they would blow up the WTC for profit.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: It's not hard to believe. I just have yet to see any proof whatsoever.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
What kind of proof did you see for the official story?
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: A thorough congressional investigation. Absolutely no experts with any credibility refuting the official story. Every 9/11 conspiracy theory I have seen so far has not stood up to scrutiny.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Every conspiracy theory I have read about or watched a movie on has had many expert opinions in each. Do you think the company that inspected the steel for the world trade centers was not an "EXPERT" when they talked in the video. Or the multitude of college professors who have banned together to investigate on their own. I don't know what you are talking about when you say there are no experts with credibility.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: Provide me with links to respectable and informed experts with credentials who have NO biases or axes to grind. Note that I don't want to see links to www.stopthewar.com and crap like that. I want respected news organizations or work by respected researchers with REAL credentials. I will be glad to check out anything of substance that you put up.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Scholars for truth...http://st911.org/
-Professors/scholars/students Physics 911...http://physics911.net/spine.htm -professors/professionals/pilots/former gov. "Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: "The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999) According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a "miracle" that any of the calls got through from altitude The Undeniable piece of evidence http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121003mysteryenginepart.html Not a 9/11 site but a CNN News story about public college professors who can't voice their political opinion after 9/11. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200209\NAT20020919a.html -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: What the hell is that all about? So a bunch of people -- none of whom ever touched the fan in question, you will note -- cannot identify positively which engine it came from by looking at a photograph? And this is "undeniable evidence" of... what, exactly? As for your other link -- "Not a 9/11 site but a CNN News story about public college professors who can't voice their political opinion after 9/11" -- First of all, it's not CNN, but CNS. Not the same organization. Secondly, nowhere in the article does it say professors cannot voice their political opinions. Thirdly, what does any of that have to do with whether or not the government was involved in pulling off the 9/11 attacks? See, this is exactly what I have been trying to point out about all this moonbat crap. The people who buy into it don't read, don't understand what they do try to read, and know so little about the subject they are attempting to address they can't even recognize that the people who DO claim to know something about it don't either. But they DO know that Chimpy Mcbushitlerburton lied, man. And that's all that matters. Phred
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:Wow, you want NO bias, but you're willing to take the congressional investigation at face value...!? ![]() Does the term 'conflict of interest' ring a bell for you? If not, google "9/11 commission" and "conflict of interest", and you will learn at least 2 members of the commission had important conflicts of interest (Zelikow and Gorelick). Talk about unbiased... Strangely, in its report, that same 'unbiased' congressional commission *omitted* to even mention WTC7 and the fact it collapsed, let alone examine the exact reasons why. Of course, this had nothing to do with the object of their scrutiny, the 9/11 attacks. Really, try again...
| |||||||
|
refutation bias Registered: 10/21/02 Posts: 4,061 Last seen: 7 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
The cell phone issue has been debunked several times over now, even by people who believe in a conspiracy.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theory#Claims_cell_phone_calls_were_impossible If you want to engage in debate with credibility and intellectual integrity, you have to abandon your attachment to seeing your hypothesis proven right. You have to spend at least as much time examining this impartially from the perspective of someone who accepts the "official story", ie: debunking the conspiracy theory, as you do entertaining the possibility that it was an inside job. Any piece of supposed evidence you have that you feel is strong enough to make you believe an alternate scenario, you need to examine it under the most intense scrutiny you can muster. When I first saw the "Pentagon Strike" video, I thought "Shit. What aren't we being told?", and the sinister beats of the Dust Brothers got my adrenaline surging too. But after watching it again, then examining not only the evidence but the tactics used, I determined that the evidence was extremely weak, the logic was based an incredibly blunt assumptions, and the tactics were intellectually dishonest. But hey, at least it had some kick as music, right? I went through the same process when I watched "Loose Change" and any other piece of media asserting that 9/11 was somehow directly perpetrated by the U.S. government. Sure, the video did cause me to think, and research, and I realized the "official story" is more plausible then I ever thought before. Ironically, if anything, this video ultimately makes a stronger case for the "official story" because it is such a rediculously flawed piece of work. Here's two links to chew on, by the way, that speak more to the crowd who prefer the pentagon flavor of 9/11 conspiracy theory: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html If you want to implicate the villainy of the U.S. government in 9/11, one needs look no further than the foreign policy of said government since the cold war. You may feel conspiracy theory is important to "get people thinking" but are you thinking critically about the issues and events or are you indulging in delusion?
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 11 days |
| ||||||
|
Wow, that was a great post. I'm honestly impressed.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
Quote: There is some interesting stuff on these sites...mainly the examination on how the twin towers could have collapsed. But, I am bothered by the fact that nearly all of the so-called experts listed as being members of these groups have degrees in things completely unrelated to the topics at hand. As I go through the list of esteemed members I see "P.hd in English", "P.hd in Linguistics", "P.hd in Computer Science", "P.hd in Philosophy", and strangely enough "P.hd in Islamic studies". There are only a few people who have credentials in applicable fields (like physics, engineering, and architecture). Why are there so many people involved in this project who don't have any expertise in the fields that are being examined? Quote: From Wikipedia: Carnegie Mellon researchers published results of a study in which they monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone use during commercial passenger flights. They concluded that one to four cell phone calls are made during each average passenger flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations. [105] The study makes no mention of the length of the calls or whether a successful air-ground connection was actually made during the monitored transmissions. It is unclear what the various altitudes of the aircraft were during the short journey from hijacking to crashing, increasing or decreasing connection odds. In addition, each seat in the plane had a built in phone which could have been used at any point during the flight. Determining whether the calls received were from the GTE Airfones or cell phones has been a difficult task to document. It is known that in the final moments of the flight Edward Felt dialed 911 from his cell phone from the lavatory of the aircraft which was answered by dispatcher John Shaw. Felt was able to tell the dispatcher about the hijacking before the call was out of range and subsequently disconnected. Many 9/11 reseachers believe that the cell phone calls were real and that calls were indeed made, but question other parts of the official account. Quote: I don't trust stuff from that site. Quote: ...After reading that I am seriously questioning your reading comprehension. Nowhere in that article does it detail that professors are being censored. It's just a news story about some political think-tank bitching about "anti-American" professors. Then it talks about how some state legislators bitched about it too. This is hardly evidence of some effort to censor professors and academia. And as Phred mentioned, how does this tie into the idea that the U.S. government carried out or was complicit in the attacks? This story has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Edited by RandalFlagg (04/27/06 03:20 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
9/11 Questions ( |
11,141 | 90 | 03/11/06 03:27 PM by Aldous | ||
![]() |
Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA 9/11 Involvement | 900 | 1 | 09/19/04 01:23 AM by afoaf | ||
![]() |
9-11 please wake up america. this is going to happen again. ( |
5,371 | 43 | 09/12/05 04:23 AM by Los_Pepes | ||
![]() |
9-11 moms want answers | 869 | 8 | 08/23/03 08:02 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission | 1,229 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot | ||
![]() |
Obama places second next to Chinese President Hu Jintao Forbes most powerful people | 1,072 | 9 | 11/08/10 11:08 AM by AmericanPsycho | ||
![]() |
Guerrilla News: Propaganda Since 9/11 Video | 1,222 | 6 | 07/02/02 04:44 PM by Thor | ||
![]() |
So now that the Justice Dept is going to release the Pentagon video ( |
2,348 | 33 | 05/20/06 09:30 AM by Andy21 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 8,367 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


(He asked why blow them up, which I didn't answer.)


Thank you!







