What ever happened to the 10-12 Israeli men caught videotaping and cheering when the buildings fell down from atop of van...and before anyone labels me I heard this time and time again on THE DAY of 9/11 and their taking into custody that day....however heard nothing about it later...wondering what happened to them...just curious.....
you mean the ones who worked for a moving company owned by another israeli man and after 9/11 the owner fled the country suddenly leaving several of his clients going to court to get their belongings out of his locked building??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
you are aware the nist report says it is a theory and based on models and hypothesizing, right?
Yes. And the validity of a theory or hypothesis is the measure of supporting causal evidence relative to the conclusion. Just because the NIST/FEMA/911commission documents propose theories does not put them on equal ground as someone who proposes a theory that 9/11 was an "inside job" or someone else who proposes a theory that 9/11 was done by space beings from Mars.
The question mark at the end of this sentence is a lie. If you actually cared about the question, you'd listen to the 5,000 answers to it you've already received. You'd ask the obvious question that extends from the question above: "why shouldn't it fall so uniformly?" Furthermore, in the context of the North and South towers you'd also pay attention to the fact that those two buildings did not collapse equally.
But you don't have any interest in that. You want the question mark above to be read as a period because you believe the question can equate to an answer which can then be used to support a conclusion. Causation doesn't work like that friend, but you can keep trying to put that square peg in a round hole and then hide behind that question mark whenever your half-spoken conclusions are challenged.
If you want to know what happened to building 7, I can't tell you. I can tell you about a low-probability series of events that could cause that building to fall and is supported by the available evidence. Not having access to any additional information, I'm left with two choices: seek out additional information or begin to wildly speculate. If you're interested in the former, I'm more than happy to share any information I find in the future. If you're only interested in the latter, I can share this: I think you blew that building up.
b/c the theory is points or a side of the building were damaged and b/c of that weak spot(s) it collapsed. if you take a block out of the bottom of a jenga tower does it fall straight down or fall towards the side w/ the block missing? even if it leaned to a side then came straight down would be more believable instead of the middle buckling then coming straight down.
how long did the windsor building burn for? why didn't that fall like wtc7? so that can negate the fire theory.
so now you are left w/ the 'debris' theory. again, would it not collapse towards the side that was hit?
the ? means a question.
so can you plz explain why it fell straight down instead of a long post about periods and question marks?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
why would it mean that? did they use that crash as a pretext for their agendas? that is a plane crashed by a teenage pilot on accident most likely, not some attack
that i don't know...i have no opinions on that at this time, altho MI5 did have a mole planted in the group
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Point to it how? As evidence of a causal link? No you can't since there is no identified causal link between operation northwood(s) and 9/11 since a nearly infinite number of inferrences can be made from that operation.
as a basis that ppl in our government have planned these actions out before. as in ppl gasp and say 'how could you think they'd do something like that!?!?' b/c they wanted to before. it's not like it was just a suggestion someone made...it was approved all the way to president kennedy before it got rejected
Point to it how? As evidence of a causal link? No you can't since there is no identified causal link between a pnac document and 9/11 because a nearly infinite number of inferrences can be made from that document.
as motive. they say they want to do a, b, c and d...but they know the public won't support these unless a new pearl harbor happens
pearl harbor was hit by a military while a war was going on. that made sense to try and cripple an enemies military.
this was supposedly done as an attack on americans, not just the military. so you are saying pnac was saying 'we can only get support for this if someone attacks peral harbor, hawaii.'???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yes. And the validity of a theory or hypothesis is the measure of supporting causal evidence relative to the conclusion. Just because the NIST/FEMA/911commission documents propose theories does not put them on equal ground as someone who proposes a theory that 9/11 was an "inside job" or someone else who proposes a theory that 9/11 was done by space beings from Mars.
then why do you act as your theory trumps mine? b/c it has the governmental stamp of approval on it?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
b/c the theory is points or a side of the building were damaged and b/c of that weak spot(s) it collapsed. if you take a block out of the bottom of a jenga tower does it fall straight down or fall towards the side w/ the block missing?
It falls to the side w/ the block missing. Do you have evidence of a giant hand pulling a corner piece out of one or more of the WTC towers?
even if it leaned to a side then came straight down would be more believable instead of the middle buckling then coming straight down.
That would make sense if the supports of the WTC were in the building's corners.
how long did the windsor building burn for? why didn't that fall like wtc7? so that can negate the fire theory.
What??? How does the windsor building "negate the fire theory"? Does the windor building architecturally match WTC 7? Were the fires the same? Was the Windsor Building struck by debris? Did the fire suppression systems in the Windsor Building fail? Were gas lines to the Windsor building severed? Do none of those things matter?
so now you are left w/ the 'debris' theory. again, would it not collapse towards the side that was hit?
I don't understand this question. Are you asking me how a building would collapse after being struck by debris without providing any information about the mass, speed or direction of the debris and where the building was struck?
the ? means a question.
so can you plz explain why it fell straight down instead of a long post about periods and question marks?
Perhaps you might read one of those "long posts". I'll say it again. I cannot tell you why WTC 7 fell "straight down" because I cannot tell you why it fell down. A building that falls "straight down" is a building whose supports are removed or weakened such that the energy of the collapse cannot be supported by any of the sub-structure of the building. For a building to fall any other way than "straight down", some force must hold part of the building aloft. Tell me, what part of WTC 7 should still be remaining to hold part of its form in place?
then why do you act as your theory trumps mine? b/c it has the governmental stamp of approval on it?
No. I think you're aware of my opinions on government and why their involvement means nothing to me.
The official theory trumps yours because it is supported by more causal evidence, less conflicting evidence, less wild speculation, and less circumstantial evidence or out-and-out innuendo.
I'm sure you have plenty of circumstance and innuendo to point to.
why would it mean that? did they use that crash as a pretext for their agendas? that is a plane crashed by a teenage pilot on accident most likely, not some attack
again, why would it have to mean they were behind EVERYTHING? this is also an accident, not an attack
that i don't know...i have no opinions on that at this time, altho MI5 did have a mole planted in the group
But wait. I though Donald Rumsfeld was involved because he made it so that NORAD couldn't intercept a plane? If that evidence links him to the events of 9/11 it certainly links him to any plane that NORAD could have theoretically intercepted.
as a basis that ppl in our government have planned these actions out before.
But it has also attempted to foil and prevent such actions -- this is conflicting evidence you're pointing to. If I point to previous attempts by the government to stop such an attack, would you accept that as evidence that they weren't involved? I hope not.
as in ppl gasp and say 'how could you think they'd do something like that!?!?' b/c they wanted to before. it's not like it was just a suggestion someone made...it was approved all the way to president kennedy before it got rejected
Then I guess JFK directed 9/11 from the grave.
as motive. they say they want to do a, b, c and d...but they know the public won't support these unless a new pearl harbor happens
Again -- conflicting evidence and weak to boot. The PNAC document does not use the "Pearl Harbor" quote in the context of attacking Iraq. They use it in the context of expirimenting with new technologies.
Furthermore, the entire point of the PNAC document is to maintain the situation wherein the United States "faces no global rival". The events of 9/11 and the actions following have served for just the opposite of that.
why didn't al qaeda hit the white house?
Good question. Thankfully the official version doesn't hinge on an Al Qaeda document alluding to the War of 1812.
pearl harbor was hit by a military while a war was going on. that made sense to try and cripple an enemies military.
this was supposedly done as an attack on americans, not just the military. so you are saying pnac was saying 'we can only get support for this if someone attacks peral harbor, hawaii.'???
No -- you're saying that. You're cherry picking a single statement from a single document and somehow holding that up as a literal proof of government involvement.
It falls to the side w/ the block missing. Do you have evidence of a giant hand pulling a corner piece out of one or more of the WTC towers?
That would make sense if the supports of the WTC were in the building's corners.
What??? How does the windsor building "negate the fire theory"? Does the windor building architecturally match WTC 7? Were the fires the same? Was the Windsor Building struck by debris? Did the fire suppression systems in the Windsor Building fail? Were gas lines to the Windsor building severed? Do none of those things matter?
I don't understand this question. Are you asking me how a building would collapse after being struck by debris without providing any information about the mass, speed or direction of the debris and where the building was struck?
Perhaps you might read one of those "long posts". I'll say it again. I cannot tell you why WTC 7 fell "straight down" because I cannot tell you why it fell down. A building that falls "straight down" is a building whose supports are removed or weakened such that the energy of the collapse cannot be supported by any of the sub-structure of the building. For a building to fall any other way than "straight down", some force must hold part of the building aloft. Tell me, what part of WTC 7 should still be remaining to hold part of its form in place?
it would still not fall at free fall speed straight down buckling in the middle. you are claiming it fell b/c it was weakened...that would mean it would give way then go...not just -poof- come straight down.
again, have you seen a burning house? does it just go straight down all of a sudden or does it weaken then buckle and go down?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
No. I think you're aware of my opinions on government and why their involvement means nothing to me.
The official theory trumps yours because it is supported by more causal evidence, less conflicting evidence, less wild speculation, and less circumstantial evidence or out-and-out innuendo.
take these examples:
the earth is flat vs the earth is round. we can discount the flat theory b/c we have physical evidence that it is indeed round.
aliens are green vs aliens are grey. ppl may even have examples to come to these conclusions but none are provable, it comes down to what the individual believes after taking in and processing the information they have.
you take governmental computer models and theories like passports miraculously flew out of the incinerated planes and landed perfectly on the ground...these ppl are proven liars. they are proven murderers. cheney was even asked before while a civilian how he deals w/ the actions of the governments halliburton supported (iran, iraq, syria...) and their abuses...his reply? "i don't think about it" the bottom line is more important to him, fuck the consequences of it.
in the end neithe rme nor you can use our theories as iron clad proof, we can only speak from what we believe. so, in the end, your theory is still just that; a theory and so is mine
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it would still not fall at free fall speed straight down buckling in the middle.
Why?
you are claiming it fell b/c it was weakened...that would mean it would give way then go...not just -poof- come straight down.
Again, for a building to "not just -poof- come straight down" something must impede its fall and hold part of the building aloft. Since you seem to be of the opinion that something was there to impede its fall can you please tell me what that something was? Perhaps it was God's right hand as his left pulled out a corner piece?
again, have you seen a burning house? does it just go straight down all of a sudden or does it weaken then buckle and go down?
But wait. I though Donald Rumsfeld was involved because he made it so that NORAD couldn't intercept a plane? If that evidence links him to the events of 9/11 it certainly links him to any plane that NORAD could have theoretically intercepted.
in order for this to be valid the reverse would mean you believe al qaeda crashed those planes?
you can not compare an accidental crashing of a cessna to 4 known hijacked planes deviating from their flight plans (the point NORAD or military wou'd've stepped in) and 2 of them hitting buildings. did 2 other cesna's hit buildings before that one in florida? were they know to be hijacked? did NORAD or the FAA even have any reason to suspect anything foul from these cesnas? were their phone calls from them stating they were hijacked?
are you honestly telling me 4 planes were hijacked, some for over an hour, and that is not enough time for NORAD or the military to respond???
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the earth is flat vs the earth is round. we can discount the flat theory b/c we have physical evidence that it is indeed round.
Cool.
aliens are green vs aliens are grey. ppl may even have examples to come to these conclusions but none are provable, it comes down to what the individual believes after taking in and processing the information they have.
So you're suggesting that this situation best compares to the evidential record of 9/11? Are you saying that we have no more available evidence regarding 9/11 than we do regarding the color of space aliens?
you take governmental computer models and theories like passports miraculously flew out of the incinerated planes and landed perfectly on the ground...these ppl are proven liars. they are proven murderers. cheney was even asked before while a civilian how he deals w/ the actions of the governments halliburton supported (iran, iraq, syria...) and their abuses...his reply? "i don't think about it" the bottom line is more important to him, fuck the consequences of it.
You've amply proven that Dick Cheney is a jerk. I share your conclusions there. There are many unsolved murder cases in Washington DC. I'm not of the opinion that Dick Cheney is responsible for those murders.
in the end neithe rme nor you can use our theories as iron clad proof, we can only speak from what we believe. so, in the end, your theory is still just that; a theory and so is mine
Sleep well at night with that one. Again, just because two things are theories does not make them equal. In case you missed it:
The validity of a theory or hypothesis is the measure of supporting causal evidence relative to the conclusion. Just because the NIST/FEMA/911commission documents propose theories does not put them on equal ground as someone who proposes a theory that 9/11 was an "inside job" or someone else who proposes a theory that 9/11 was done by space beings from Mars.
But it has also attempted to foil and prevent such actions -- this is conflicting evidence you're pointing to. If I point to previous attempts by the government to stop such an attack, would you accept that as evidence that they weren't involved? I hope not.
it depends on the person. ppl like kennedy saw hte plan and thought it was horrible...others obviously did not, they thought it was a good plan. i think ppl like rummy and cheney don't care about ppl dying, just look at their careers for proof.
Again -- conflicting evidence and weak to boot. The PNAC document does not use the "Pearl Harbor" quote in the context of attacking Iraq. They use it in the context of expirimenting with new technologies.
part of the same paper also speaks of the need for an american presence in the gulf region and even mentions saddam and regime change
Furthermore, the entire point of the PNAC document is to maintain the situation wherein the United States "faces no global rival". The events of 9/11 and the actions following have served for just the opposite of that.
it speaks of many other things...militarizing space, control of regions like the gulf regions, spending more on the military...
No -- you're saying that. You're cherry picking a single statement from a single document and somehow holding that up as a literal proof of government involvement.
no, i used several statements from that paper. they say they want tos pend the surplus on bombs, they say they want to control the gulf region and while removal of saddam is a good reason control of the region is more important, they say no one will support this unless a new pearl harbor happens...so, again, are you saying they meant 'unless pearl harbor, hawaii is attacked we will not get enough support'??
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It is circumstantial to suggest that Donald Rumsfeld was involved in 9/11 because he changed the NORAD command structure before 9/11. It is circumstantial to suggest that Dick Cheney was involved in 9/11 because he is a fool and a jerk. It is circumstantial to suggest that the government was involved in 9/11 because they were involved in operation northwood. It is circumstantial to suggest that explosives were planted in a building because there was a scheduled "power down" 3 days beforehand. It is circumstantial to suggest that PNAC was involved in 9/11 because they stated that a significant event would be required to move US military operations in a new direction.
It is not cirumstantial to suggest that steel structures are weakened by intense heat from two exploded jets. It is not cirumstantial to suggest that Al Qaeda played a role in 9/11 when multiple members of their leadership have admitted that fact. It is not circumstantial to suggest that a building, to list during collapse, must have an opposing physical force relative to gravity.
Do you understand how that works?
in order for this to be valid the reverse would mean you believe al qaeda crashed those planes?
Only if the Al Qaeda theory was based on the circumstances preceding the event. Again, do you understand the difference between causation and circumstance?
you can not compare an accidental crashing of a cessna to 4 known hijacked planes deviating from their flight plans (the point NORAD or military wou'd've stepped in) and 2 of them hitting buildings. did 2 other cesna's hit buildings before that one in florida? were they know to be hijacked? did NORAD or the FAA even have any reason to suspect anything foul from these cesnas? were their phone calls from them stating they were hijacked?
I'm not telling you that. You're telling me that.
are you honestly telling me 4 planes were hijacked, some for over an hour, and that is not enough time for NORAD or the military to respond???
In theory, NORAD certainly could have responded. I don't have a shred of evidence to suggest they did respond in time. Plausibility and fact are not the same, understand?
it depends on the person. ppl like kennedy saw hte plan and thought it was horrible...others obviously did not, they thought it was a good plan. i think ppl like rummy and cheney don't care about ppl dying, just look at their careers for proof.
Just because someone "doesn't care about ppl dying" doesn't mean they're orchestrating death on 9/11. Do you understand this?
how? jfk was the one who said no to the plan....
It's obvious to me that he's had second thoughts. I mean, he did orchestrate the Bay of Pigs so he doesn't care about ppl dying. Therefore, he orchestrated 9/11.
part of the same paper also speaks of the need for an american presence in the gulf region and even mentions saddam and regime change
it speaks of many other things...militarizing space, control of regions like the gulf regions, spending more on the military...
Hold on a minute....are you telling me that a conservative neo-con group actually wants to spend more on the military, militarize space, and control regions????? I'm shocked.
Anyway, Ronald Reagan called. He wants his ideas back.
so you don't think the term 'a new pearl harbor' was an analogy?
No, you've convinced me otherwise. It was a literal call to arms for the administration.
no, i used several statements from that paper. they say they want tos pend the surplus on bombs, they say they want to control the gulf region and while removal of saddam is a good reason control of the region is more important, they say no one will support this unless a new pearl harbor happens...so, again, are you saying they meant 'unless pearl harbor, hawaii is attacked we will not get enough support'??
b/c the theory is points or a side of the building were damaged and b/c of that weak spot(s) it collapsed. if you take a block out of the bottom of a jenga tower does it fall straight down or fall towards the side w/ the block missing? even if it leaned to a side then came straight down would be more believable instead of the middle buckling then coming straight down.
how long did the windsor building burn for? why didn't that fall like wtc7? so that can negate the fire theory.
so now you are left w/ the 'debris' theory. again, would it not collapse towards the side that was hit?
the ? means a question.
so can you plz explain why it fell straight down instead of a long post about periods and question marks?
i can tell you why it fell straight down and prove it with an experiment you can perform yourself. but it's really not worth my time. people have their minds made up. nothing will change that. building are built differently so your comparison doesn't make sense. it's like saying building x in CA didn't fall because of the earthquake because the building next to it didn't fall. it must have been explosives.
and so what if it was explosives? the result is the same. if you don't believe the confessions of those responsible than what will you believe? some people have such boring lives that they come up with these wild theories and try to promote them.
i can tell you why it fell straight down and prove it with an experiment you can perform yourself. but it's really not worth my time. people have their minds made up. nothing will change that. building are built differently so your comparison doesn't make sense. it's like saying building x in CA didn't fall because of the earthquake because the building next to it didn't fall. it must have been explosives.
and so what if it was explosives? the result is the same. if you don't believe the confessions of those responsible than what will you believe? some people have such boring lives that they come up with these wild theories and try to promote them.
I am undecided...but in defence...he has had many reference to academics just as schooled as anyone involved...some very very intelligent people support his views...as does the other side....
I am undecided...but in defence...he has had many reference to academics just as schooled as anyone involved...some very very intelligent people support his views...as does the other side....
Yes, there are some very well educated dentists, theologists, solar energy experts, journalists, lecturers, pilots, peace activists, economists, and environmental health experts he can point to.
Yes, there are some very well educated dentists, theologists, solar energy experts, journalists, lecturers, pilots, peace activists, economists, and environmental health experts he can point to.
You forgot to add structural engineers....I have spoken to regarded professional Ph.D structural engineer (and I will not say his name for his sakes) that says without a doubt he believes explosives were used....both are theories....both have intelligence backing both sides....it comes down to what answers you want to hear really....like i said I am stuck in the middle of the two extremes...I dont believe the official story cause when in my recent memory has the government EVER been forthright with any sort of information (blacked out info. proves that too me)...but the detail of the other extreme would require a high amount of secrecy that something should have been leaked out already to prove it...right now I believe the US knew what was coming and either ignored it as not good enough info. or let it happen for political gain...which one I am unsure....but it is my opinon and I can at least have that...
You forgot to add structural engineers....I have spoken to regarded professional Ph.D structural engineer (and I will not say his name for his sakes) that says without a doubt he believes explosives were used....
And what does this "regarded professional Ph.D" use as evidence? Is he also a Jenga fan?
both are theories....both have intelligence backing both sides....it comes down to what answers you want to hear really....like i said I am stuck in the middle of the two extremes...I dont believe the official story cause when in my recent memory has the government EVER been forthright with any sort of information (blacked out info. proves that too me)...but the detail of the other extreme would require a high amount of secrecy that something should have been leaked out already to prove it...right now I believe the US knew what was coming and either ignored it as not good enough info. or let it happen for political gain...which one I am unsure....but it is my opinon and I can at least have that...
What many here continue to ignore is that I want to hear that the government did it. No one on this board has more disdain for the government than I do.
It isn't about what you want to hear. It's about what conclusions are supported by the entire body of available evidence.
And what does this "regarded professional Ph.D" use as evidence? Is he also a Jenga fan?
What many hear continue to ignore is that I want to hear that the government did it. No one on this board has more disdain for the government than I do.
It isn't about what you want to hear. It's about what conclusions are supported by the entire body of available evidence.
Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.
Side-Note:
The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....
The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....
I'm sure the video evidence is on youtube already.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.
Strange that in his evidence for explosives being used that he does not mention explosives.
The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....
I did enjoy it. Holographs typically don't have families and friends though.
Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.
Side-Note:
The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW Enjoy that one.....
you hit the nail on the head and i bet no one catches it.
we have a group of people here who couldn't build a dog house; arguing material science; metalurgy; building stress; sulfur content of jet fuel; flow rates of liquid; etc; and trying to legitimize their conclusions.
you hit the nail on the head and i bet no one catches it.
we have a group of people here who couldn't build a dog house; arguing material science; metalurgy; building stress; sulfur content of jet fuel; flow rates of liquid; etc; and trying to legitimize their conclusions.
Funny cause that is what the official version uses to though...you have to use science to find the true answer.....and couldn't build a dog house...the man has designed buildings he hardly is just a guy behind a paper...
Just because someone "doesn't care about ppl dying" doesn't mean they're orchestrating death on 9/11. Do you understand this?
if someone a serial killer says something like i may have a chance w/ john's wife if only he was dead, then he ends up dead...some ppl would see that as motive
bvious to me that he's had second thoughts. I mean, he did orchestrate the Bay of Pigs so he doesn't care about ppl dying. Therefore, he orchestrated 9/11.
difference being 9/11 has been exploited to further an agenda. certain ppl stated they needed 'a catalyzing event like a new pearl harbor' to happen in order for them to fulfill htese agendas...then they take steps that help the event take place.
so, you have a group saying they want a, b and c to happen but only if d happens first can they do it. then yuo have these same ppl doing things that help d happen...then they exploit d so they can carry out a, b and c.
again, both are theories, yours just has a governmental stamp on it. you are so tied up in being right you can not concede this. you can point to physics professors who say the official story makes sense, i can point to those who say the opposite. you can point to engineers who say it's possible, i can point to those who say the opposite. you dont believe it, fine, don't. but when yours is just as provable as mine don't act as if yours is the holy truth
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
you mean the ones who worked for a moving company owned by another israeli man and after 9/11 the owner fled the country suddenly leaving several of his clients going to court to get their belongings out of his locked building??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yes. And the validity of a theory or hypothesis is the measure of supporting causal evidence relative to the conclusion. Just because the NIST/FEMA/911commission documents propose theories does not put them on equal ground as someone who proposes a theory that 9/11 was an "inside job" or someone else who proposes a theory that 9/11 was done by space beings from Mars.
b/c the theory is points or a side of the building were damaged and b/c of that weak spot(s) it collapsed. if you take a block out of the bottom of a jenga tower does it fall straight down or fall towards the side w/ the block missing? even if it leaned to a side then came straight down would be more believable instead of the middle buckling then coming straight down.
how long did the windsor building burn for? why didn't that fall like wtc7? so that can negate the fire theory.
so now you are left w/ the 'debris' theory. again, would it not collapse towards the side that was hit?
the ? means a question.
so can you plz explain why it fell straight down instead of a long post about periods and question marks?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that is not all i base my opinions on.
why would it mean that? did they use that crash as a pretext for their agendas? that is a plane crashed by a teenage pilot on accident most likely, not some attack
again, why would it have to mean they were behind EVERYTHING? this is also an accident, not an attack
that i don't know...i have no opinions on that at this time, altho MI5 did have a mole planted in the group
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
as a basis that ppl in our government have planned these actions out before. as in ppl gasp and say 'how could you think they'd do something like that!?!?' b/c they wanted to before. it's not like it was just a suggestion someone made...it was approved all the way to president kennedy before it got rejected
as motive. they say they want to do a, b, c and d...but they know the public won't support these unless a new pearl harbor happens
why didn't al qaeda hit the white house?
pearl harbor was hit by a military while a war was going on. that made sense to try and cripple an enemies military.
this was supposedly done as an attack on americans, not just the military. so you are saying pnac was saying 'we can only get support for this if someone attacks peral harbor, hawaii.'???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
then why do you act as your theory trumps mine? b/c it has the governmental stamp of approval on it?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It falls to the side w/ the block missing. Do you have evidence of a giant hand pulling a corner piece out of one or more of the WTC towers?
That would make sense if the supports of the WTC were in the building's corners.
What??? How does the windsor building "negate the fire theory"? Does the windor building architecturally match WTC 7? Were the fires the same? Was the Windsor Building struck by debris? Did the fire suppression systems in the Windsor Building fail? Were gas lines to the Windsor building severed? Do none of those things matter?
I don't understand this question. Are you asking me how a building would collapse after being struck by debris without providing any information about the mass, speed or direction of the debris and where the building was struck?
Perhaps you might read one of those "long posts". I'll say it again. I cannot tell you why WTC 7 fell "straight down" because I cannot tell you why it fell down. A building that falls "straight down" is a building whose supports are removed or weakened such that the energy of the collapse cannot be supported by any of the sub-structure of the building. For a building to fall any other way than "straight down", some force must hold part of the building aloft. Tell me, what part of WTC 7 should still be remaining to hold part of its form in place?
No. I think you're aware of my opinions on government and why their involvement means nothing to me.
The official theory trumps yours because it is supported by more causal evidence, less conflicting evidence, less wild speculation, and less circumstantial evidence or out-and-out innuendo.
I'm sure you have plenty of circumstance and innuendo to point to.
But wait. I though Donald Rumsfeld was involved because he made it so that NORAD couldn't intercept a plane? If that evidence links him to the events of 9/11 it certainly links him to any plane that NORAD could have theoretically intercepted.
But it has also attempted to foil and prevent such actions -- this is conflicting evidence you're pointing to. If I point to previous attempts by the government to stop such an attack, would you accept that as evidence that they weren't involved? I hope not.
Then I guess JFK directed 9/11 from the grave.
Again -- conflicting evidence and weak to boot. The PNAC document does not use the "Pearl Harbor" quote in the context of attacking Iraq. They use it in the context of expirimenting with new technologies.
Furthermore, the entire point of the PNAC document is to maintain the situation wherein the United States "faces no global rival". The events of 9/11 and the actions following have served for just the opposite of that.
Good question. Thankfully the official version doesn't hinge on an Al Qaeda document alluding to the War of 1812.
No -- you're saying that. You're cherry picking a single statement from a single document and somehow holding that up as a literal proof of government involvement.
it would still not fall at free fall speed straight down buckling in the middle. you are claiming it fell b/c it was weakened...that would mean it would give way then go...not just -poof- come straight down.
again, have you seen a burning house? does it just go straight down all of a sudden or does it weaken then buckle and go down?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
take these examples:
the earth is flat vs the earth is round. we can discount the flat theory b/c we have physical evidence that it is indeed round.
aliens are green vs aliens are grey. ppl may even have examples to come to these conclusions but none are provable, it comes down to what the individual believes after taking in and processing the information they have.
you take governmental computer models and theories like passports miraculously flew out of the incinerated planes and landed perfectly on the ground...these ppl are proven liars. they are proven murderers. cheney was even asked before while a civilian how he deals w/ the actions of the governments halliburton supported (iran, iraq, syria...) and their abuses...his reply? "i don't think about it" the bottom line is more important to him, fuck the consequences of it.
in the end neithe rme nor you can use our theories as iron clad proof, we can only speak from what we believe. so, in the end, your theory is still just that; a theory and so is mine
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Why?
Again, for a building to "not just -poof- come straight down" something must impede its fall and hold part of the building aloft. Since you seem to be of the opinion that something was there to impede its fall can you please tell me what that something was? Perhaps it was God's right hand as his left pulled out a corner piece?
Both certainly happen.
same w/ you, my friend, don't forget that
in order for this to be valid the reverse would mean you believe al qaeda crashed those planes?
you can not compare an accidental crashing of a cessna to 4 known hijacked planes deviating from their flight plans (the point NORAD or military wou'd've stepped in) and 2 of them hitting buildings. did 2 other cesna's hit buildings before that one in florida? were they know to be hijacked? did NORAD or the FAA even have any reason to suspect anything foul from these cesnas? were their phone calls from them stating they were hijacked?
are you honestly telling me 4 planes were hijacked, some for over an hour, and that is not enough time for NORAD or the military to respond???
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Cool.
So you're suggesting that this situation best compares to the evidential record of 9/11? Are you saying that we have no more available evidence regarding 9/11 than we do regarding the color of space aliens?
You've amply proven that Dick Cheney is a jerk. I share your conclusions there. There are many unsolved murder cases in Washington DC. I'm not of the opinion that Dick Cheney is responsible for those murders.
Sleep well at night with that one. Again, just because two things are theories does not make them equal. In case you missed it:
The validity of a theory or hypothesis is the measure of supporting causal evidence relative to the conclusion. Just because the NIST/FEMA/911commission documents propose theories does not put them on equal ground as someone who proposes a theory that 9/11 was an "inside job" or someone else who proposes a theory that 9/11 was done by space beings from Mars.
it depends on the person. ppl like kennedy saw hte plan and thought it was horrible...others obviously did not, they thought it was a good plan. i think ppl like rummy and cheney don't care about ppl dying, just look at their careers for proof.
how? jfk was the one who said no to the plan....
part of the same paper also speaks of the need for an american presence in the gulf region and even mentions saddam and regime change
it speaks of many other things...militarizing space, control of regions like the gulf regions, spending more on the military...
so you don't think the term 'a new pearl harbor' was an analogy?
no, i used several statements from that paper. they say they want tos pend the surplus on bombs, they say they want to control the gulf region and while removal of saddam is a good reason control of the region is more important, they say no one will support this unless a new pearl harbor happens...so, again, are you saying they meant 'unless pearl harbor, hawaii is attacked we will not get enough support'??
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
It is circumstantial to suggest that Donald Rumsfeld was involved in 9/11 because he changed the NORAD command structure before 9/11. It is circumstantial to suggest that Dick Cheney was involved in 9/11 because he is a fool and a jerk. It is circumstantial to suggest that the government was involved in 9/11 because they were involved in operation northwood. It is circumstantial to suggest that explosives were planted in a building because there was a scheduled "power down" 3 days beforehand. It is circumstantial to suggest that PNAC was involved in 9/11 because they stated that a significant event would be required to move US military operations in a new direction.
It is not cirumstantial to suggest that steel structures are weakened by intense heat from two exploded jets. It is not cirumstantial to suggest that Al Qaeda played a role in 9/11 when multiple members of their leadership have admitted that fact. It is not circumstantial to suggest that a building, to list during collapse, must have an opposing physical force relative to gravity.
Do you understand how that works?
Only if the Al Qaeda theory was based on the circumstances preceding the event. Again, do you understand the difference between causation and circumstance?
I'm not telling you that. You're telling me that.
In theory, NORAD certainly could have responded. I don't have a shred of evidence to suggest they did respond in time. Plausibility and fact are not the same, understand?
Just because someone "doesn't care about ppl dying" doesn't mean they're orchestrating death on 9/11. Do you understand this?
It's obvious to me that he's had second thoughts. I mean, he did orchestrate the Bay of Pigs so he doesn't care about ppl dying. Therefore, he orchestrated 9/11.
Hold on a minute....are you telling me that a conservative neo-con group actually wants to spend more on the military, militarize space, and control regions????? I'm shocked.
Anyway, Ronald Reagan called. He wants his ideas back.
No, you've convinced me otherwise. It was a literal call to arms for the administration.
I'm not saying that. You are.
i can tell you why it fell straight down and prove it with an experiment you can perform yourself. but it's really not worth my time. people have their minds made up. nothing will change that. building are built differently so your comparison doesn't make sense. it's like saying building x in CA didn't fall because of the earthquake because the building next to it didn't fall. it must have been explosives.
and so what if it was explosives? the result is the same. if you don't believe the confessions of those responsible than what will you believe? some people have such boring lives that they come up with these wild theories and try to promote them.
I am undecided...but in defence...he has had many reference to academics just as schooled as anyone involved...some very very intelligent people support his views...as does the other side....
Yes, there are some very well educated dentists, theologists, solar energy experts, journalists, lecturers, pilots, peace activists, economists, and environmental health experts he can point to.
You forgot to add structural engineers....I have spoken to regarded professional Ph.D structural engineer (and I will not say his name for his sakes) that says without a doubt he believes explosives were used....both are theories....both have intelligence backing both sides....it comes down to what answers you want to hear really....like i said I am stuck in the middle of the two extremes...I dont believe the official story cause when in my recent memory has the government EVER been forthright with any sort of information (blacked out info. proves that too me)...but the detail of the other extreme would require a high amount of secrecy that something should have been leaked out already to prove it...right now I believe the US knew what was coming and either ignored it as not good enough info. or let it happen for political gain...which one I am unsure....but it is my opinon and I can at least have that...
And what does this "regarded professional Ph.D" use as evidence? Is he also a Jenga fan?
What many here continue to ignore is that I want to hear that the government did it. No one on this board has more disdain for the government than I do.
It isn't about what you want to hear. It's about what conclusions are supported by the entire body of available evidence.
Thats insulting to someone of his intelligence....as evidence he uses may aspects an extensive background in material science, building stresses and constructon, heating/MP's of the structural steel, force of impact, jet fuel characteristics, the evidence of the building falling...etc. Many things...how does this discredit him? I think it does not.
Side-Note:
The best theory I have heard is that actual planes never hit the WTC's and that some sort of holographic imaging was being used...now that was a good one...to cover up the actual explosion...WOW
I'm sure the video evidence is on youtube already.
Strange that in his evidence for explosives being used that he does not mention explosives.
I did enjoy it. Holographs typically don't have families and friends though.
That would fall under the etc. part of my list...sorry thought that would be a given!
Yes that has been my favorite theory bar none....a good laugh....
you hit the nail on the head and i bet no one catches it.
we have a group of people here who couldn't build a dog house; arguing material science; metalurgy; building stress; sulfur content of jet fuel; flow rates of liquid; etc; and trying to legitimize their conclusions.
Funny cause that is what the official version uses to though...you have to use science to find the true answer.....and couldn't build a dog house...the man has designed buildings he hardly is just a guy behind a paper...
if someone a serial killer says something like i may have a chance w/ john's wife if only he was dead, then he ends up dead...some ppl would see that as motive
It's o
difference being 9/11 has been exploited to further an agenda. certain ppl stated they needed 'a catalyzing event like a new pearl harbor' to happen in order for them to fulfill htese agendas...then they take steps that help the event take place.
so, you have a group saying they want a, b and c to happen but only if d happens first can they do it. then yuo have these same ppl doing things that help d happen...then they exploit d so they can carry out a, b and c.
again, both are theories, yours just has a governmental stamp on it. you are so tied up in being right you can not concede this. you can point to physics professors who say the official story makes sense, i can point to those who say the opposite. you can point to engineers who say it's possible, i can point to those who say the opposite. you dont believe it, fine, don't. but when yours is just as provable as mine don't act as if yours is the holy truth
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way