|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7534423 - 10/19/07 07:49 AM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
> i think im right in saying no-one died in the building because it was evacuated.
> building 7, it wasnt hit by a plane it only had light fires and that building collapsed 5hours after the world trade centre attacks
What damaged the building? The twin towers falling. How long did people have to evacuate 7 after the towers were hit, but before they fell?
> and pull it means bring the building down.
No, in context "pull it" means pull the fire fighters out of harms way. Watch the entire interview, not the highly edited clip, to understand the context of what he was saying.
> larry silverstein got about 4-9 billion dollars from the "attack"
An out right lie by the conspiracy yoyo's trying to sell books. He lost money, not made money. This has been debated to death and there is really no question. Do a search for a post by Economist that explains exactly how much money he lost, and why, in undeniable factual detail.
> fires cant melt steel
Of course they can, and they do. The claim you are trying to make, is that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. However, this is a misleading claim. 1) You do not have to melt steel in order to weaken steel under load to the point of collapse. 2) The statement that jet fuel cannot melt steel is based upon the assumption that burning is done in open atmosphere. If you provide burning jet fuel with plenty of oxygen, from updrafts (from elevator shafts, for example), then the fuel burns at a much hotter temperature.
> world trade centre building 7, it wasnt hit by a plane it only had light fires
If you look at pictures of the backside, there was massive damage from the collapse of the towers to building 7. It looks fine from the front, which are the pictures you see in the conspiracy books. Since you like to ask about motives, why do none of the conspiracy sites/books show the pictures of damage to the back side of the building?
> so wouldnt that indicate that it was planned?.
If they had weeks to plan, why didn't they plan so that it looked like an accident (without question)?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Seuss]
#7535117 - 10/19/07 12:00 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
A small, lesser known fact is that WT7 also contained large fuel tanks dispersed through the building for the purpose of running generators.
These feed the fires and led to the internal damage necessary to weaken the structure to the point of collapse.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
peter19
peter19
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 88
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Seuss]
#7535559 - 10/19/07 01:41 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: What damaged the building? The twin towers falling. How long did people have to evacuate 7 after the towers were hit, but before they fell?
look at the other buildings in that area wtc 5 and 6 are closer than 7 and also 3 and 4 i think im right in saying. those buildings never fell. and how can the twin towers falling bring down a 47 story building?, its not possible. did the fires jump over?
Quote:
No, in context "pull it" means pull the fire fighters out of harms way. Watch the entire interview, not the highly edited clip, to understand the context of what he was saying.
harms way???. what from?. that makes no sense because fires are not strong enough to brind down buildings. the firemen could quite easyilly have put out a few office fires. have you got any pictures of this massive fire?. check this picture out (the madrid skyscraper burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed. look at the fires on that and look at the ones on world trade centre 7 - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
Quote:
An out right lie by the conspiracy yoyo's trying to sell books. He lost money, not made money. This has been debated to death and there is really no question. Do a search for a post by Economist that explains exactly how much money he lost, and why, in undeniable factual detail
"Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.
Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million. " - http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/neocons%10neolibs/"lucky_larry"_silverstein/
Quote:
Of course they can, and they do. The claim you are trying to make, is that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. However, this is a misleading claim. 1) You do not have to melt steel in order to weaken steel under load to the point of collapse. 2) The statement that jet fuel cannot melt steel is based upon the assumption that burning is done in open atmosphere. If you provide burning jet fuel with plenty of oxygen, from updrafts (from elevator shafts, for example), then the fuel burns at a much hotter temperature.
it still doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, but not only that if what you say was correct the building wouldnt collapse how it did. only certain floors would be weakened and the buildings wouldnt fall at the speed of gravity. they would pancake and if you look at any videos of the collapse you see with your own eyes that they fall pritty much near on the speed of gravity, that means there was no resistance from the lower floors which they would be if your theory was right. look at the madrid building also.
Quote:
If you look at pictures of the backside, there was massive damage from the collapse of the towers to building 7. It looks fine from the front, which are the pictures you see in the conspiracy books. Since you like to ask about motives, why do none of the conspiracy sites/books show the pictures of damage to the back side of the building?
why do non of the news even barely mention it too(wtc7)?. show me some pictures of these infernos and then look at the madrid building, was the steel diffrent?lol
Quote:
If they had weeks to plan, why didn't they plan so that it looked like an accident (without question)?
if your going to bring a building down with just fires its pritty hard to make it look like an accident. i dont know why they never, maybe because they too sometimes make mistakes?. just look at wtc7 the way it fell is very typical of a controled demolition.
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535636 - 10/19/07 01:54 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Almost everything you said is either in error, or completely irrelevant.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535658 - 10/19/07 01:58 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
look at the other buildings in that area wtc 5 and 6 are closer than 7 and also 3 and 4 i think im right in saying. those buildings never fell. and how can the twin towers falling bring down a 47 story building?, its not possible. did the fires jump over?
Don't change the subject. Did building 7 get hit by the collapse of the towers? Yes. Was the damage significant? Yes. Do the conspiracy sites show pictures of this damage? No. Why not? Because it shows that building 7 was damaged and they want to sell books, not tell the truth.
Quote:
"Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.
And yet he is still has to pay the remainder of what he owes although he gets no return on his investment. He looses money. I'm not an economist and have a difficult time understanding money matters. However, if you would have read Economists post, you would know this.
Quote:
harms way???. what from?. that makes no sense because fires are not strong enough to brind down buildings. the firemen could quite easyilly have put out a few office fires. have you got any pictures of this massive fire?. check this picture out (the madrid skyscraper burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed. look at the fires on that and look at the ones on world trade centre 7 - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
Harm from the collapse of building 7, which was imminent. Rather than risk more lives trying to save the building by putting out the fires, they decided to pull the fire fighting crews out. Again, watch the entire interview, not the highly edited segment. Again, ask why the conspiracy sites only show the one little bit out of context rather than the full interview.
Quote:
it still doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, but not only that if what you say was correct the building wouldnt collapse how it did. only certain floors would be weakened and the buildings wouldnt fall at the speed of gravity. they would pancake and if you look at any videos of the collapse you see with your own eyes that they fall pritty much near on the speed of gravity, that means there was no resistance from the lower floors which they would be if your theory was right. look at the madrid building also.
Are you an engineer? I am, half way (EIT, not PE). The building would fall exactly as it did. The areas the melted would buckle, the top would come down as a single bit, and from there it would pancake. "Speed of gravity" in this context is meaningless and outside of this context is a theory. I assume you mean acceleration due to gravity. If you want to argue this point, you need to take some physics classes rather than regurgitating what you have read elsewhere.
Quote:
why do non of the news even barely mention it too(wtc7)?. show me some pictures of these infernos and then look at the madrid building, was the steel diffrent?lol
I have no idea about the motives of the media. Regarding the Madrid building vs the WTC, they are two different types of buildings. Steel building versus steel reinforced concrete building. It is an invalid comparison.
Quote:
if your going to bring a building down with just fires its pritty hard to make it look like an accident. i dont know why they never, maybe because they too sometimes make mistakes?. just look at wtc7 the way it fell is very typical of a controled demolition.
No, it was not typical of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions seldom damage nearby structures. (The area of engineering that I studied was mechanics of explosives.)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
peter19
peter19
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 88
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7535662 - 10/19/07 01:58 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
do you believe the buildings fell in consistancy with a weakened structure fire collapse?. i think im right in saying that the wtc1 and 2 were the first buildings in our history to have been brought down by fires. the planes hit the buildings at diffrent points so if the elevator theory was right then it would be a massive coincidense for the jet fuel to go down both of the elavator shafts.
Quote:
A small, lesser known fact is that WT7 also contained large fuel tanks dispersed through the building for the purpose of running generators.
These feed the fires and led to the internal damage necessary to weaken the structure to the point of collapse.
still if that was right then the fuel tanks would have needed to of been placed at the right points to bring the building down. the building fell STRAIGHT down, in controled demolition what they aim to do is bring the building into its basement and with wtc7 you can clearly see that happens. just another coincidense?. you would also here loud explosions and see burs
-------------------- “All Truth Goes Through Three Stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Madtowntripper]
#7535685 - 10/19/07 02:05 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Wait.. so you guys are saying that:
1. A single plane crash into each building caused them to collapse minutes apart at free-fall controlled demolition speed due to "fire" (even though both buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 747 and no steel building in human history has ever collapsed from fire)
2. The pentagon was NOT hit with a missile? Where's the evidence there was ever a plane? Planes leave wreckage. And black boxes. And they also apparently bring down skyscrapers designed to withstand the impact of planes. So why did the pentagon just get a hole punched into it? Planes do not just vaporize, sorry.
3. The Project for a New American Century did NOT plan this exact incident years in advance, and FEMA never published this book in 1997:
?
Sorry if I don't just blindly believe the "official story" since it's a load of BS.
--------------------
|
wps
Well-PaidScientist
Registered: 09/22/07
Posts: 579
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Shroomism]
#7535695 - 10/19/07 02:07 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
blah blah blah ...moonbat... blah blah blah ...fabricated evidence... blah blah blah... how could you dare be so insolent... blah blah blah... shutup hippy
/sarcasm
-------------------- "America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve." - Tom Morello
|
peter19
peter19
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 88
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Seuss]
#7535749 - 10/19/07 02:24 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Don't change the subject. Did building 7 get hit by the collapse of the towers? Yes. Was the damage significant? Yes. Do the conspiracy sites show pictures of this damage? No. Why not? Because it shows that building 7 was damaged and they want to sell books, not tell the truth.
of course its going to be damaged but not to the point of bringing it down. show me some pictures of the damage then or cant you?. i would like to see.
Quote:
And yet he is still has to pay the remainder of what he owes although he gets no return on his investment. He looses money. I'm not an economist and have a difficult time understanding money matters. However, if you would have read Economists post, you would know this.
he paid 100+ million for the buildings, insures them against terrorist attacks then makes 4 billion from that.
Quote:
Harm from the collapse of building 7, which was imminent. Rather than risk more lives trying to save the building by putting out the fires, they decided to pull the fire fighting crews out. Again, watch the entire interview, not the highly edited segment. Again, ask why the conspiracy sites only show the one little bit out of context rather than the full interview.
because it shows what point they want to make, its not edited also because what larry silverstein says is what he says. yes you can interperate that how ever you want but is it not true that "pull it" is used in demolition terms?. yes it is.
Quote:
Are you an engineer? I am, half way (EIT, not PE). The building would fall exactly as it did. The areas the melted would buckle, the top would come down as a single bit, and from there it would pancake. "Speed of gravity" in this context is meaningless and outside of this context is a theory. I assume you mean acceleration due to gravity. If you want to argue this point, you need to take some physics classes rather than regurgitating what you have read elsewhere.
i think you need to take some physics classes because the simple fact is for a building to collapse at the speed of gravity what is needed is no resistance. if the pancake theory was right then only apart of the building would be weighing down on the lower half createing either a pancake (which would go much slower than the building collapsed) or it would topple, which it never did.
Quote:
I have no idea about the motives of the media. Regarding the Madrid building vs the WTC, they are two different types of buildings. Steel building versus steel reinforced concrete building. It is an invalid comparison.
the building for the cia is not going to be as strong as the madrid building?. no jet fuel was in wtc7 also and fires simpley dont burn hot enough to burn steel. go to any bit of steel and use all the fire and jet fuel you want and i bet you cant burn it, not to mention the quality of the wtc will be much greater too.
Quote:
No, it was not typical of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions seldom damage nearby structures. (The area of engineering that I studied was mechanics of explosives.)
this was a massive structure and from what iv heard i think someone says he thinks it was an explosion rather than a implosion ( i could of got those mix round). check out 9-11 mysteries the man who made it is a controled demolition hobbiest, and in the film he just concentrates on the way the buildings fell ect.
-------------------- “All Truth Goes Through Three Stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535765 - 10/19/07 02:29 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if what you say was correct the building wouldnt collapse how it did. only certain floors would be weakened and the buildings wouldnt fall at the speed of gravity. they would pancake
Are you a structural engineer?
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
peter19
peter19
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 88
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Shroomism]
#7535771 - 10/19/07 02:31 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shroomism said: 2. The pentagon was NOT hit with a missile? Where's the evidence there was ever a plane? Planes leave wreckage. And black boxes. And they also apparently bring down skyscrapers designed to withstand the impact of planes. So why did the pentagon just get a hole punched into it? Planes do not just vaporize, sorry.
Sorry if I don't just blindly believe the "official story" since it's a load of BS.
im not sure what hit the pentagon but if it was a plane you would think after hitting lamp posts and knocking them over you would see debris. not only that but a simple easy way to disprove "conspiracy theorists" with the pentagon would be to show the plane crashing into the pentagon but they never at first. it took 5 years and the quality of the picture/vid is total rubbish, you can barely make a plane out, never mind a jumbo.
-------------------- “All Truth Goes Through Three Stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
peter19
peter19
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 88
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535775 - 10/19/07 02:33 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- “All Truth Goes Through Three Stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Shroomism]
#7535781 - 10/19/07 02:34 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: zorbman]
#7535784 - 10/19/07 02:35 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
> Are you a structural engineer?
Nope, but I have had several of classes in mechanics and dynamics. This mode of failure isn't difficult to understand.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535785 - 10/19/07 02:35 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Evidence it was muslim Al Qaeda members.
http://www.masada2000.org/
http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html
http://www.jihadchat.com/index.php?showforum=6
http://www.apostatesofislam.com
http://www.faithfreedom.org
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php
http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/
http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/index.php
http://www.activistchat.com
http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/default.aspx
http://islam-watch.org
http://www.justifythis.blogspot.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2829059.stm
http://www.islam-watch.org/
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/
http://tinyurl.com/23porv
http://www.shoaheducation.com/muslimnazi.html
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/pages/6-Mein%20Kampf_jpg_jpg_jpg.htm
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/moslem.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://atheism.about.com/cs/islamandviolence/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/17/martyr.culture/index.html
http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html
http://www.domini.org/openbook/home.htm
http://www.persecution.org
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9583
http://www.danielpipes.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/kafirdomunity/action.htm
http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/BTaliban/Bangla_Taliban_Photos.html
http://www.bwoi.cjb.net
http://www.chechentruth.cjb.net/
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
http://www.arabsforisrael.com
http://www.rotter.net/israel/
http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/Islam.html
http://www.geocities.com/milkmandan2003/TalibanOnline1.html
http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/posts/755.html
http://www.isralert.com/archives/2005/03/deceit_thy_name.php
http://www.factsandlogic.org
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/zakirnaik/zakicaptured.gif
http://www.islamicthinkers.com/index/images/SHIAS_NO_MUSLIM.jpg
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/toc.html
http://www.venusproject.com/prophet_of_doom/quotes1.html#terrorism
http://www.pmw.org.il/
http://tinyurl.com/ydc9qj
According to these links the Quran has been changed over time.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter8/3.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/
http://www.jodkowski.pl/re/MBright.html
http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm
---------
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5197
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5237
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5258
"Modern Liberals, With Some Exceptions, Are Fascists. They Preach Peace At The Expense Of Liberty, Diversity At The Expense Of Common Sense, Equality At The Expense Of Fairness And Choice At The Expense Of Life. They Are The First To Speak About Rights, Yet They Seek To Deny You Yours If You Disagree With Them. They Vociferate The Importance Of Free Speech, Yet Do Everything In Their Power To Stifle Yours. They Demonize The Very System Which Allows Them The Freedom To Criticize In The First Place, And They Are The Last People In Line When It Comes To Defending The One Country On Earth That Would Ever Tolerate Their Hypocrisy. They Are Divisive, Immoral And Utterly Incapable Of Understanding Why Everything I Just Wrote Is The Truth." - Edward L. Daley
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
“Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism.” – Thomas Sowell
“A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.” – G. Gordon Liddy
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535794 - 10/19/07 02:38 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Never mind the fact that they immediately went to all the nearby places that had video of the Pentagon being hit, confiscated the video and never released it to the public. That's not at all suspicious, no.
Also you would notice the grass outside of where the pentagon was hit was perfectly green immediately afterwards, there is no wreckage and no charred grass from a plane being vaporized (which doesn't happen). And wings don't just break off and vaporize either. Every plane crash ever recorded has left wreckage of some sort no matter how volatile. Engines, black boxes, dead bodies, random pieces of metal strewn across miles. There was none of this at the Pentagon.
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Shroomism]
#7535809 - 10/19/07 02:43 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I must confess. It was me. I caused the war on terrorism and the war in Afganistan and Iraq. Also, I created Al Qaeda from a group of friends I met in Sunday school at the church I used to go to. We were bored so we decided to take over the world, because we thought it would be fun. I was the one flying all of the planes on September 11th. I jumped out of one plane before it crashed and quick jumped into another plane. I found a tunnel leading to a secret underground CIA control center and hacked the computers myself. I altered files and put things in like the Iraqis using Nazi flying saucers, nuclear weapons, hallucinogenic war gases, etc. What a laugh! They fell for it. Now there's war going on everywhere. Its fun. BTW, I'm the one who had all those puts on the stock market before September 11th. I made out like a bandit. I drive around in my Mercedes Benz waving an American flag, have two beautiful blondes with me and just try to impress people with my arrogance and money. I wear a suit and tie and piss out the window of my high rise office building onto construction workers and other non-professionals because I require them to bow down and worship me. I've been a member of Rush Limbaugh's fan club for a long time and recently was able to meet him and be friends with him since I am now allowed to be in the exclusive rich man's club that he's a member of. I've been meeting and advising George Bush and other presidents for a long time. I'm a key member of the Illuminati and the Bergsher group or however you spell it. I planted a lot of the Democratic candidates that you see on TV. They are really actors and are trained to make Democrats look stupid so that the Republicans will win. Also, I have trained people like Tony Blair, John Howard (Prime Minister of Australia) and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia so they follow my every command. Soon I will own the earth and all of you will build temples for my worship everywhere.
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: zorbman]
#7535811 - 10/19/07 02:43 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Where's the rest of the plane?
--------------------
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: peter19]
#7535815 - 10/19/07 02:44 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a simple easy way to disprove "conspiracy theorists" with the pentagon would be to show the plane crashing into the pentagon
That video was taken from a surveillance camera and those types of cameras produce notoriously low quality footage. Also keep in mind how fast that plane was going and what a relatively small area the camera was covering. The best you can hope for is a few frames of blurry footage.
Most people do not base their notion of a plane hitting based upon that footage. It is crystal clear to any reasonable person from the debris, the hijacked plane, and the dead passengers including at least one famous person, Barbara Olsen. Helllooo?
Facts are stubborn things.
Just because you want something to be so does not make it so.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
zorbman
blarrr
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
|
Re: 9/11 was a inside job, video with convincing arguments. [Re: Shroomism]
#7535822 - 10/19/07 02:46 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Where's the rest of the plane?
You are probably breathing some of it right now.
-------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
|
|