Eddie believes in 911 inside job?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Just thought i would paste the other side of the arguement.

http://www.layscience.net/?q=node/124

I only had to go so far as look at the second picture http://www.layscience.net/files/wtc/2.jpg to realize instantly that those buildings didn't fall down naturally.

That's no collapse.... the building is atomizing instantaneously all the way to the ground.

impossible.

nobody

spiral out wrote:

I didn't reply to you before about Zeitgeist, i have seen it and it has some interesting points in it. Of course that doesn't mean everything in it is true.

as I said...it was a pleasure to watch, especially the first part;)
yet, hardly anything is true. especially when he tries to compare 911 to the beginning of other wars. believe it or not, there are still historical facts that are not open to interpretation, and in this movie almost everything about the US' joining WWI and WWII is plain false or left out!

also interesting-it stylizes this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Thomas_McFadden
as a HERO and MARTYR!!

spiral out wrote:

The North American Union is real and will happen as will an Asian union headed by Australia, i posted a link to that a while ago, So it's not really a conspiracy theory, We have the European union so why not other Union's?
Whether it's good or bad really depends on peoples view of Europe as i guess that is the model.

I think it's highly unlikely, because neither the US, Mexico nor Canada would have an interest in it. Europe (or Africa for that matter) are in a whole different situation (a lot of countries, weak on their own, even defenseless). EU is more like USA than NAU...
What is even more unlikely is that people will be marked with some chip. Seriously?? Who would let that happen to themselves? I don't believe even 5% of us citizens let alone world citizens.

whether the EU is good or bad partly can also be seen in statistics about the average wealth (=for everyone in the population) ascending after their country joined the EU...just one point...

if you haven't yet...check out the website I linked above. I'm not trying to convert you or anything...but as Zeitgeist, that website also is very interesting...plus it is more succesful in disproving claims, than zeitgeist is in proving them...

and the last thing: if the movie really has a valid point to make? Why does it use such a massive amount of deception? it's not like it has to do it that way...it's not a government;)....or is it???;)

m.

nobody

spiral out wrote:

On the information note I am talking about the history that i have picked up from books by Chomsky and other such writers.

I've also read Chomsky...yet this is not everything...and I don't mean you should read the "other side's" account...I mean good old boring unsensational scolarly history...where the guy actually parts facts from opinion and interpretation...it's not as interesting as Chomsky...buy once in a while...it's a very good thing to do...and I assure you: there are scolarly works out there like that...I'm not saying that they don't voice an opinion or give their interpretation->but they will tell you when they do that...

m.

slightofjeff

I've looked through this whole thread and I have but one question:

How do we know Ed believes 911 was an inside job? That sort of is the premise of the whole thread, but I'm not sure where that is coming from.

nobody

slightofjeff wrote:

I've looked through this whole thread and I have but one question:

How do we know Ed believes 911 was an inside job? That sort of is the premise of the whole thread, but I'm not sure where that is coming from.

I think that was the question of the thread...if he believed in an inside job...

m.

slightofjeff

nobody wrote:

I think that was the question of the thread...if he believed in an inside job...

m.

Oh, I get it. Well, then in reality, this thread should have been one response long:

"How the fuck should we know?"

nobody

slightofjeff wrote:

Oh, I get it. Well, then in reality, this thread should have been one response long:

"How the fuck should we know?"

well, people were trying to find "evidence" in the lyrics...
I thought you've read through the thread??;)

m.

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I only had to go so far as look at the second picture http://www.layscience.net/files/wtc/2.jpg to realize instantly that those buildings didn't fall down naturally.

That's no collapse.... the building is atomizing instantaneously all the way to the ground.

impossible.

Atomizing? Well the building is collapsing but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is atomizing. I don't see how you see that but what one of those pictures that i posted shows to me is during the collapse of the building the smaller pieces of debris are falling at the speed of gravity while the building is collapsing behind it at a slower rate. Therefore debunking your theory that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity. Look at all the pictures.

Your picture shows a large plume of dust and debris in the air which is what you would get when a building collapses. This is the problem i have with the conspiracy people. A simple picture like you posted all of a sudden turns into proof of atomizing? Its a picture of a building collapsing..nothing more, nothing less.

nobody

MakingWaves wrote:

Atomizing? Well the building is collapsing but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is atomizing. I don't see how you see that but what one of those pictures that i posted shows to me is during the collapse of the building the smaller pieces of debris are falling at the speed of gravity while the building is collapsing behind it at a slower rate. Therefore debunking your theory that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity. Look at all the pictures.

Your picture shows a large plume of dust and debris in the air which is what you would get when a building collapses. This is the problem i have with the conspiracy people. A simple picture like you posted all of a sudden turns into proof of atomizing? Its a picture of a building collapsing..nothing more, nothing less.

but he wants to see it that way...
otherwise...what would he post about here on this forum?
what would I post about...?;)

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

Atomizing? Well the building is collapsing but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is atomizing. I don't see how you see that but what one of those pictures that i posted shows to me is during the collapse of the building the smaller pieces of debris are falling at the speed of gravity while the building is collapsing behind it at a slower rate. Therefore debunking your theory that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity. Look at all the pictures.

Your picture shows a large plume of dust and debris in the air which is what you would get when a building collapses. This is the problem i have with the conspiracy people. A simple picture like you posted all of a sudden turns into proof of atomizing? Its a picture of a building collapsing..nothing more, nothing less.

This is what I don't understand about official story people. Look at the building...

just look at it....and then try to understand how the forces of gravity alone could cause that.

atomizing turning into a vast pile of dust...

no way...

nobody

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This is what I don't understand about official story people. Look at the building...

just look at it....and then try to understand how the forces of gravity alone could cause that.

atomizing turning into a vast pile of dust...

no way...

well, maybe you should not just look at one picture...but the countless of other pictures which show a bit more than "atomized" stuff...

has it ever occured to you, that under this dust cloud, there might actually still be "a few bits and pieces" if you might call them that way...

the buildings were filled with countless fires fueled by all kinds of materials...
if at one point where the planes crashed some floors collapsed and the others on top fell down on what is essentially a builing filled with air...then yes...it can collapse pretty quickly...not at free fall (cause it didn't) but close to it...


ever heard a story about a conspiracy theorist disapearing by the way?...you might want to think the conspiracy has an interest in shutting the advocates of truth up...yet that architect that you keep linking and others like him keep travelling the country effortlessly...cashing in everytime he delivers his "science"...

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

nobody wrote:

well, maybe you should not just look at one picture...but the countless of other pictures which show a bit more than "atomized" stuff...

has it ever occured to you, that under this dust cloud, there might actually still be "a few bits and pieces" if you might call them that way...

the buildings were filled with countless fires fueled by all kinds of materials...
if at one point where the planes crashed some floors collapsed and the others on top fell down on what is essentially a builing filled with air...then yes...it can collapse pretty quickly...not at free fall (cause it didn't) but close to it...


ever heard a story about a conspiracy theorist disapearing by the way?...you might want to thing the conspiracy has an interest in shutting the advocates of truth up...yet that architect that you keep linking and others like him keep travelling the country effortlessly...cashing in everytime he delivers his "science"...

m.

Aside from steel beams cut into mostly manageable pieces for quick removal....no...there wasn't any large chunks to be found as in what a gravitational collapse would produce.

look into it for yourself.

slightofjeff

MakingWaves wrote:

Atomizing? Well the building is collapsing but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is atomizing. I don't see how you see that but what one of those pictures that i posted shows to me is during the collapse of the building the smaller pieces of debris are falling at the speed of gravity while the building is collapsing behind it at a slower rate. Therefore debunking your theory that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity. Look at all the pictures.

Your picture shows a large plume of dust and debris in the air which is what you would get when a building collapses. This is the problem i have with the conspiracy people. A simple picture like you posted all of a sudden turns into proof of atomizing? Its a picture of a building collapsing..nothing more, nothing less.

leave him alone. He obviously has a phD in physics. Or building demolition. At any rate, he knows a building atomizing when he sees it, dammit!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

slightofjeff wrote:

leave him alone. He obviously has a phD in physics. Or building demolition. At any rate, he knows a building atomizing when he sees it, dammit!

You don't need a phd in anything to be able to understand that steel buildings don't fall down like a house of cards because of fire.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Atomize: To reduce to fine particles or spray.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atomized&x=0&y=0

(no charge for the vocabulary lesson)

MakingWaves

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Atomize: To reduce to fine particles or spray.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atomized&x=0&y=0

(no charge for the vocabulary lesson)

I know what atomizing means smart ass. A fucking huge building collapses and you say there is no way it causes a huge cloud of dust. Look at the rest of the pictures available. Then say the building was atomized. That just might be the dumbest arguement I have ever heard. If it had been truly atomized they could have fucking vacuumed up the sight or just let it blow away with the wind, not taken months to remove the debris. And people wonder why the conspiracy people are not taken seriously by mainstream media and the majority of people.

You could also use atomize in a sentence like, "The large group of conspiracy nut jobs atomized into many groups that desperatly need to get a grip on reality."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

I know what atomizing means smart ass. A fucking huge building collapses and you say there is no way it causes a huge cloud of dust. Look at the rest of the pictures available. Then say the building was atomized. That just might be the dumbest arguement I have ever heard. If it had been truly atomized they could have fucking vacuumed up the sight or just let it blow away with the wind, not taken months to remove the debris. And people wonder why the conspiracy people are not taken seriously by mainstream media and the majority of people.

You could also use atomize in a sentence like, "The large group of conspiracy nut jobs atomized into many groups that desperatly need to get a grip on reality."

Why ask pointless questions then if you already understand the implications of the terminology being used...hmm

It's right in front of your face and you can't see it...

Follow the path of least resistance.

The official story is a farce...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MakingWaves wrote:

I know what atomizing means smart ass. A fucking huge building collapses and you say there is no way it causes a huge cloud of dust. Look at the rest of the pictures available. Then say the building was atomized. That just might be the dumbest arguement I have ever heard. If it had been truly atomized they could have fucking vacuumed up the sight or just let it blow away with the wind, not taken months to remove the debris. And people wonder why the conspiracy people are not taken seriously by mainstream media and the majority of people.

You could also use atomize in a sentence like, "The large group of conspiracy nut jobs atomized into many groups that desperatly need to get a grip on reality."

blow away in the wind....vaccum it up..... you're reasoning for alternatives is concerning....hope they use a hepa filter... yeah right...

just use your eyes and look for evidence of what I meant for atomizing... I even provided a picture for you.....sigh....

stuck on a word you are...

rediculous..

Heineken Helen

MakingWaves wrote:

Atomizing? Well the building is collapsing but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is atomizing. I don't see how you see that but what one of those pictures that i posted shows to me is during the collapse of the building the smaller pieces of debris are falling at the speed of gravity while the building is collapsing behind it at a slower rate. Therefore debunking your theory that the buildings fell at the speed of gravity. Look at all the pictures.

Your picture shows a large plume of dust and debris in the air which is what you would get when a building collapses. This is the problem i have with the conspiracy people. A simple picture like you posted all of a sudden turns into proof of atomizing? Its a picture of a building collapsing..nothing more, nothing less.

that's exactly how I see it too... anytime I've seen a building being demolished, it looked like that... only to a much smaller extent so I've never understood where the atomising thing came from

Heineken Helen

ok, here's a block of flats being demolished in Dublin a couple of years back... look at how it atomises!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJYc6yGklkw&feature=related