but how could they have planted the explosives??

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

As inept as you all believe our government is, to pull off what would probably be the biggest conspiracy theory of all time would be pretty darn....uh.....um....not inept.

b/c you're dramatically oversimplifying it by saying 'the government' it is not 'the government' it is elements within it.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

Nothing. I come on here every once in a while (moreso in the last week because the debates have been funny) and I see the same folks posting multiple articles a day from these obscure websites. I think it is a little pathetic, that's all. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. All this cut and paste and still no solid proof that there was a conspiracy.

Once again, why do you wish to supress opinions? If you have differing ones then fine, please share them. But please drop this contempt of those who only wish to share info they've come across with other people on here. Nothing is ever going to be solid proof of anything unless you have a video showing people doing this. What is solid proof about the official story? NOT A DAMN THING. Is everything you post solid proof of anything? NOPE. What point are you trying to make about it being 'obscure'? Maybe it wouldn't be so obscure if it wasn't being supressed in the first damn place! Many times people have time to read articles but how many of us have time to write articles unless it's our job? All we are doing is sharing written pieces about the issues we discuss here from other people who have more time to research these things and in many cases, be able to express themselves a little better than we can in written form. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SHARING OPINIONS AND INFO. Don't be so closeminded to the another way of looking at things apart from you're already set way thinking (challenge your own thoughts/stances or they aren't worth having in the first place). You don't have to change your mind but at least read and let it be read without all this negativeness and contempt.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Once again, why do you wish to supress opinions? If you have differing ones then fine, please share them. But please drop this contempt of those who only wish to share info they've come across with other people on here. Nothing is ever going to be solid proof of anything unless you have a video showing people doing this. What is solid proof about the official story? NOT A DAMN THING. Is everything you post solid proof of anything? NOPE. What point are you trying to make about it being 'obscure'? Maybe it wouldn't be so obscure if it wasn't being supressed in the first damn place! Many times people have time to read articles but how many of us have time to write articles unless it's our job? All we are doing is sharing written pieces about the issues we discuss here from other people who have more time to research these things and in many cases, be able to express themselves a little better than we can in written form. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SHARING OPINIONS AND INFO. Don't be so closeminded to the another way of looking at things apart from you're already set way thinking (challenge your own thoughts/stances or they aren't worth having in the first place). You don't have to change your mind but at least read and let it be read without all this negativeness and contempt.

How was I suppressing information? Give me a break. There was not one part of what I've said in either posts you are referring to that I want to suppress information. I just think it is pathetic that a couple folks on here feel the need to cut and paste articles every chance they get. What in that means I want to suppress information.

Since you posted the same thing about me in the thread about the Anti-Israel protests at the White House, again, I never mentioned that information should be suppressed. There is information everyday that is not newsworthy enough to be shown on the news, and that is what I feel about that protest. I never said anything about suppressing information. You've obviously heard about it, so nothing has been suppressed anyway.

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

Nothing. I come on here every once in a while (moreso in the last week because the debates have been funny) and I see the same folks posting multiple articles a day from these obscure websites. I think it is a little pathetic, that's all. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste. All this cut and paste and still no solid proof that there was a conspiracy.

you guys really need to work on articulting your points better...just saying you disagree doesn't do anything. imagine the presidential debates:

<long discourse on why globalization is bad>
the reply
nuh-uh!

<long discourse on the positives of socialized health care
the reply
nope, he's wrong!

see how that does nothing to explain WHY they disagree??

so, what exactly are you saying here? i post lots of things from sources like the AP, Washington Post...are those obsucre, too? are you saying if it doesn't come from a corporate/military-industrial complex owned news source it shouldn't be heard? ppl had been writing articles for decades linking cigarettes w/ cancer but it would never get published b/c the corporate owners were too worried about the advertising revenue...are you saying marvin bush DIDN'T work for the security company that handled security at the wtc, dulles and for delta? are you saying the power wasn't cut in the wtc buildings 9/8-9?

bootlegger10

No, I just think it is pathetic that you spend so much time on Pearl Jam message board posting articles, wherever they may come from. It is also pathetic that they all seem to have a liberal twinge to them. If you really wanted to get at truth, you'd post ideas from both sides.

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

How was I suppressing information? Give me a break. There was not one part of what I've said in either posts you are referring to that I want to suppress information. I just think it is pathetic that a couple folks on here feel the need to cut and paste articles every chance they get. What in that means I want to suppress information.

Since you posted the same thing about me in the thread about the Anti-Israel protests at the White House, again, I never mentioned that information should be suppressed. There is information everyday that is not newsworthy enough to be shown on the news, and that is what I feel about that protest. I never said anything about suppressing information. You've obviously heard about it, so nothing has been suppressed anyway.

You don't want people to copy and paste info..it's 'pathethic', as I recall you saying. Maybe you need to look the definition of 'supression'. You can't supress the information shared here but you wish it to be supressed and you discourage it. What do you want to hide? If you don't like reading the other side to things then scroll on down or don't click on it in the first place (a novel idea, eh) That way you'll never have to be confronted with these obscure, differing ways of thinking. Who is forcing you to read them anyway? Just because I've heard it doesn't mean everyone knows where to find it....thus the thank you's for posting this. Nothing wrong with making it more simple for them to find. You, yourself said it was obscure...we are here to make it less obscure for those interested. Why do you care who is passing along info that they have came across? Sometimes I post stuff that another friend has shared with me....see how that works? It's like me having a newspaper that I've already read and you wanting one....why not give it to you instead of throwing it away? You could easily go get your own paper but wouldn't it be more simple for me to hand you mine?

Abookamongstthemany

bootlegger10 wrote:

No, I just think it is pathetic that you spend so much time on Pearl Jam message board posting articles, wherever they may come from. It is also pathetic that they all seem to have a liberal twinge to them. If you really wanted to get at truth, you'd post ideas from both sides.

It's a political/current events forum, as well. You forgot to mention that part. You post your side of things and things that clarify your own viewpoints. Don't expect me to do it for you. It's silly to think someone is going to find and post articles from both sides of every issue...and I think you know that.

enharmonic

Ahnimus wrote:

All signs point to yes.

Unfortunately the evidence does appear to show explosives were used in the WTC sites. The NIST report stated that sulfur attacked the steel in a solid-state difusion. While the steel in non-failure points was about 0.02 mg/something meeting specifications and of course Underwriter Laboratories confirmed the steel met specifications for sulfur content.

I think that's the biggest smoking gun. We can find a lot of different ways bombs were planted and so on. But this metallurgic analysis of the WTC steel, reported on by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) says it all. The facts are there, but if you only read the first few pages of the lengthy report, they imply that planes alone brought the buildings down, when that's not what their analysis implies at all.

For anyone who cares what happened on 9-11 read the official reports they speak 100,000 words, literally, maybe more.

THAT is interesting...and again, and important piece of info. See, most people don't know the chemical composition of a Hostess Twinkie, much less the details of sulfur content in a metallurgical evaluation. Sulfur is indeed a smoking gun, and would not be a bi-product of burning jet fuel, as the sulfur content in aviation fuels is limited to 0.3%, max. Sulfur is removed from jet fuel via hydro-processing at refineries.

It is a known bi-product of C4, however.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's a political/current events forum, as well. You forgot to mention that part. You post your side of things and things that clarify your own viewpoints. Don't expect me to do it for you. It's silly to think someone is going to find and post articles from both sides of every issue...and I think you know that.

Of course not on every issue. But if your end goal was to get at truth, you would think that at least once in a while you would post an article that goes against what you were hoping would be truth. My point is that the articles posted are only the ones that support the 'truth' the poster wants be 'truth.'

And tell me this, how does Ed turn "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" into a political song about 'truth?' Get a grip.

bootlegger10

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You don't want people to copy and paste info..it's 'pathethic', as I recall you saying.

My point was always that I thought it was pathetic that a few folks on here (on both sides) spend so much time posting these articles. I would say get a life. Never said cutting and pasting was wrong.

Vedderlution_Baby

bootlegger10 wrote:

My point was always that I thought it was pathetic that a few folks on here (on both sides) spend so much time posting these articles. I would say get a life. Never said cutting and pasting was wrong.

So a life would mean calling others pathetic and saying that they have no life? No thanks.

boxwine_in_hell

If you think the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, that's just point blank moronic.

Vedderlution_Baby

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

If you think the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, that's just point blank moronic.

And not to think is just point blank moronic. See how saying things that don't contribute any information don't really get anything done?

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

No, I just think it is pathetic that you spend so much time on Pearl Jam message board posting articles, wherever they may come from. It is also pathetic that they all seem to have a liberal twinge to them. If you really wanted to get at truth, you'd post ideas from both sides.

i haven't even been here for like 3 days...and i thought this was a political/current events forum, that's why i post articles here

i think it's pathetic that you can't say WHY you disagree, just call ppl names

El_Kabong

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

If you think the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, that's just point blank moronic.

and thinking a passport belonging to one of the hijackers miraculously escaped the fires and flew from the burning airplane, out of the building and onto the ground to be found is....what?

btw, great job of convincing me of your point. add that to the presidential debate

<long discourse on the war>
and mr president, what do you think?
i think he's a moron but i won't bother explaining why!

:rolleyes:

bootlegger10

El_Kabong wrote:

i haven't even been here for like 3 days...and i thought this was a political/current events forum, that's why i post articles here

i think it's pathetic that you can't say WHY you disagree, just call ppl names

Prove that the building was wired with explosives. Don't give me circumstantial evidence that wouldn't pass in court. Prove it!

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

bootlegger10

El_Kabong wrote:

and thinking a passport belonging to one of the hijackers miraculously escaped the fires and flew from the burning airplane, out of the building and onto the ground to be found is....what?

btw, great job of convincing me of your point. add that to the presidential debate

<long discourse on the war>
and mr president, what do you think?
i think he's a moron but i won't bother explaining why!

:rolleyes:

In the end people believe what they want to believe. You want to believe we did this to ourselves. He wants to believe we didn't.

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

Prove that the building was wired with explosives. Don't give me circumstantial evidence that wouldn't pass in court. Prove it!

the way it fell straight down, even wtc7 which wasn't hit by any planes...prove to me it wasn't. you can't and neither can i, that's why we have to rely on information and make up our own minds.

when i factor in stripping NORAD and other commanders of engagement orders dealing w/ hijacked aircraft 2 months before 9/11 (and given to rummy alone), the fact that these are the only 3 steel framed buildings to collapse from fires (again, even wtc7 which wasn't hit by a plane), pnac saying the only way they can get enough support for their agendas is thru a "new pearl harbor" in september 2000 (again, rummy, cheney, wolfowitz, perle's...names pop up), i could go on and on...this would be where YOU would tell me why you don't believe it and we can DISCUSS. but all you can do is resort to petty name calling, oh well

it didn't hurt my feelings at all, i just would rather some SUBSTANCE in the replies or actual counterpoints instead of a waste of space

El_Kabong

bootlegger10 wrote:

In the end people believe what they want to believe. You want to believe we did this to ourselves. He wants to believe we didn't.

a discussion requires more than saying 'nuh-uh, you're pathetic!' or 'i disagree, you're a moron'. instead try something like "i disagree because...-name calling" when you sink to that pettyness it only takes away from your supposed point. they can disagree all they want, but i'm not gonna call them names b/c i disagree

Vedderlution_Baby

Proof? Can you prove it wasn't? Anyway, why do people need proof. We rode to war on hypotheticals and untruths. No proof of WMD's and people still believe they're there. It's not a matter of proof. It's a matter of what people are comfortable with. People are comfortable thinking that we're trying to deweaponize someone with WMDs. People ARE not comfortable thinking that the WTC could've been rigged.