Oh, ok so you're saying the planes caused all the bone fragments to shoot out?
I'm saying the buildings didn't fall at projectile speeds.
The proof just isn't there. It's not a solid case by any means. You do realize that right?
First off, I'm not saying that the planes caused all of the bone fragments to shoot out. If you have a chance read my posts with questions that I posed to JamMastaE and feel free to answer them if you're able. Now, if the buildings didn't fall at a fast enough rate of speed to project bone fragments out of them, how fast would a building have to fall to do such a thing? As to the proof not being there, the burden of proof is in the hands of the conspiracy theorists, no one else. As such, I ask you, as I did JamMasterE, to provide me with any proof, of a building that has collapsed on top of people, that is at least close to the size of the trade centers, that has not sent bone fragments flying for hundreds of feet around, but rather kept them confined to the building. If you can great, I will be standing by your side to blow the whistle. However, 9/11 was so unique in the destruction that occured, at such a magnitude that had never been seen before, how can you or anyone else that believes these theories say that the buildings collapse could not be responsible for bone fragments flying about? It's impossible and ludicrous to do so.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
Oh, ok so you're saying the planes caused all the bone fragments to shoot out?
I'm saying the buildings didn't fall at projectile speeds.
The proof just isn't there. It's not a solid case by any means. You do realize that right?
Roland,
regarding the towers collapsing, and i hate to even get in to this with you, because on many levels i regard you as a compatriot ... but don't you find it possible (if not plausible even) that with a gaping hole in the buildings struture ... and with the video showing the following even ... that the TOP PORTION of the building ... not one floor or two floors ... but a good twenty floors or so of the towers ... having been structuraly seperated from their lower floor counterparts ... CAME DOWN EN MASSE ... and look at the video ... the ENTIRE TOP OF THE BUILDING ... a solid chunk of floors ... snapped off of the remaining supports and fell AS A BLOCK (at least partially, and initially) through the floor and floors immediately below this block ...
that isn't even pancake ... not floor by floor pancake anyhow ... that is like dropping a 500lb ball of lead through a tissue ...
call the 500lb ball the top floors, and the piece of tissue the floor below it ... now stack a 1000 sheets of tissue togeather with just enough room for seperation (hell past the tissues to jenga blocks on either side) and the ball will fall through all thousand of those tissues as well ...
yeah sure, each sheet gives some resistance ... but the amount of resistance is paultry compared with the mass of the object falling through it ...
it isn't the greatest analogy, but i don't know much that IS a great analogy for such an event ... i just know that if you think about the top 1\5th of the building plummeting through the bottom floors, it may help you see that it need not have been a controlled demolition to happen ...
of course, i won't rule out entirely that some basement blast could have also made it much easier for the thing to come down ... but you can clearly see the top of the building "crushing" the sections below it ... that IS where the collapse starts and you can and have watched it over and over ...
instead of your singular focus on the buildings being "demolished" why not move on and discuss things like the time line and why the FAA chairman puts Dick Cheney in the command bunker around 8:20 but the 911 Commission Report doesn't put him there until like 8:50 ... or the war games, or the ISI Chief who met with our defense officials and who also ordered money wired to Atta ... or the numerous warnings that the administration received and did NOT act on ... or the reports that Osama was given medical treatment in as US military hospital some months before the attack (when he was a KNOWN terrorist threat) ...
why not bring up some of these points and pull some research for people to see on those instead?
You just seem to constantly hit a wall (no pun intended) with the building collapse theory ... maybe try another one?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
his/her point was that with conspiracy; there is nobody responsable. the evidence shows that it happened as we saw it. conspiracy says it didn't. if the evidence pointed to bush; the conspiracy would say he's not smart enough and is only the scapegoat. if det wire or piece of blasting cap was found pointing to implosion; the conspiracy would be that it was planted to cover up the truth.
conspiracy theorists don't look at evidence. in their minds; they believe they know the truth so evidence that doesn't fit their belief; is manufactured evidence. conspiracy theorists also need a conspiracy to fulfill that need. they have a need to disagree with what is accepted. if you believed it was an implosion and everyone else believed you; you would then feel that something else happened.
I was mearly asking the question to ascertain if they did anything to educate themselves on something other than wasting so much time on insulting people who don't see things the way they do.
But while i am answering you what you have said about facts and ignoring some could be turned around on people who believe everything the media throws at them. What makes the media loving folk so right?
conspiracy theorists suffer from a psycological condition. since you wouldn't believe this; he/she directed you to do the research yourself. your response was typical and straight to the defensive blaming yet another conspiracy.
What conspiracy are you talking about? Is propaganda a conspiracy?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Roland,
regarding the towers collapsing, and i hate to even get in to this with you, because on many levels i regard you as a compatriot ... but don't you find it possible (if not plausible even) that with a gaping hole in the buildings struture ... and with the video showing the following even ... that the TOP PORTION of the building ... not one floor or two floors ... but a good twenty floors or so of the towers ... having been structuraly seperated from their lower floor counterparts ... CAME DOWN EN MASSE ... and look at the video ... the ENTIRE TOP OF THE BUILDING ... a solid chunk of floors ... snapped off of the remaining supports and fell AS A BLOCK (at least partially, and initially) through the floor and floors immediately below this block ...
that isn't even pancake ... not floor by floor pancake anyhow ... that is like dropping a 500lb ball of lead through a tissue ...
call the 500lb ball the top floors, and the piece of tissue the floor below it ... now stack a 1000 sheets of tissue togeather with just enough room for seperation (hell past the tissues to jenga blocks on either side) and the ball will fall through all thousand of those tissues as well ...
yeah sure, each sheet gives some resistance ... but the amount of resistance is paultry compared with the mass of the object falling through it ...
it isn't the greatest analogy, but i don't know much that IS a great analogy for such an event ... i just know that if you think about the top 1\5th of the building plummeting through the bottom floors, it may help you see that it need not have been a controlled demolition to happen ...
Logic Alert.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
I don't see how it can happen top to bottom like an avalanche without any (or seemingly very negligible) upwards resistance to slow or even halt the process.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Way to prove me wrong. You essentially just proved everything i was talking about. You feel as though people that dont see things your way are ignorent or blind, or whatever... When really its all perception and opinion. You cant prove your claims anymore than they can... That doesnt mean either of you are stupid or ignorant. Them calling you crazy and a nut job is just as bad... but if you're calling people stupid or ignorant in retaliation, isnt that just as bad?
You are not showing anyone "the light". You are not here to save anyones soul. You are a person, on a message board that should be discussing thoughts, and possibly providing information and a viewpoint. Your mindset of "showing the light" like i said, comes off as a religious zealot who thinks all people who dont believe what they do, are damned to an eternity in hell.
And you discuss an open mind. You know how many people here have an "open mind?" Id say 2. Total. I dont who they are, but im sure they exist. Just because you believe an alternative theory doesnt mean your mind is open. I dont think its really fair to point out others not having an Open Mind when you think anyone who thinks differently than you is "in the darkness."
i couldn't agree more. i like drifting and enjoy talking with him. i respect his opinion and when it clashes with mine; i try to explain why i feel the way i do. when the smoke clears; if his opinion is different; i respect that. maybe he knows more than me or visa versa. that being said; i agree with you. i don't like being preached to when i know the person at the other end is someone on a message board with too much time on their hands and not privy to all the information needed to make a clear and unbiased conclusion.
I agree that bannings were a bit over the top. Obviously.
However, I think there is something to being able to call someone an asshole, say you want to kick their ass, and move on. A certain level of frustration release i think led to better debate in a lot of cases. Instead, this forum is now being overrun with passive aggressive attacks in nearly every post on peoples intelligence and in some cases, integrity. I've said some nasty things in the past to many posters, and sometimes still feel the desire to.. but im okay with the people ive been pissed off at.... and i think vice versa. But now its... "Its not my fault you are not smart enough to understand" and shit like that.
a little anger can liven up a debate... where as what goes on now just kills it.
once again i agree. i got banned for reporting a bad post. i'm the first to admitt that i'll bait the board by taking a subject to the extreeme to get the discussion moving. it works every time. sometimes it's necessary so we can find the middle ground. as a victim of unfounded personal attacks; i do see the need for banning at times. when facts are twisted to support someones agenda; that person has no place here. but calling someone an arsehole is real life. someone here almost got banned for calling someone thick. yet as long as you don't direct it at someone; you can use the worst language you can think up. i can see banning for threats; but for talking in real life conversation?
the best debates here are the heated ones. we find middle ground and usually find that either both sides can be right; or neither side is absolutely right.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I was mearly asking the question to ascertain if they did anything to educate themselves on something other than wasting so much time on insulting people who don't see things the way they do.
But while i am answering you what you have said about facts and ignoring some could be turned around on people who believe everything the media throws at them. What makes the media loving folk so right?
What conspiracy are you talking about? Is propaganda a conspiracy?
i'm the first to say ignore the media. when politically active; the press was told what i wanted them to tell the public. that is where propaganda comes in. propaganda is a means to accomplish an agenda. using a wild analogy; lets say you read that your community (block) was to be condemned to build a sewage plant. those people would be inspired to take a stand. that is propaganda. modified pictures posted on the internet to support an agenda is only those who seek to keep discontent at a high level. anyone can build a website and anyone can twist the truth. quite frankly; you'll never know the truth about a lot of things. but here's the secret; by you searching for the truth it distracts you from what [they] really don't want you to see.
when you think the trick is happening; it's already done.
i'm the first to say ignore the media. when politically active; the press was told what i wanted them to tell the public. that is where propaganda comes in. propaganda is a means to accomplish an agenda. using a wild analogy; lets say you read that your community (block) was to be condemned to build a sewage plant. those people would be inspired to take a stand. that is propaganda. modified pictures posted on the internet to support an agenda is only those who seek to keep discontent at a high level. anyone can build a website and anyone can twist the truth. quite frankly; you'll never know the truth about a lot of things. but here's the secret; by you searching for the truth it distracts you from what [they] really don't want you to see.
when you think the trick is happening; it's already done.
Hmm interesting as i have said before i don't really get my info from the web at the moment, i am more of a book person. What i'm reading up on is past anyway.
If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Hmm interesting as i have said before i don't really get my info from the web at the moment, i am more of a book person. What i'm reading up on is past anyway.
If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?
the media is for the sheep. life is too short. go out and live. make your own decisions. life follows logical progression. if it isn't logical; it probably isn't true. if bush put the 9/11 attack together in 8 months the man is a genius. if people were able to sneek in and cut support beams for an implosion without anyone seeing that's incredable. we should build churches in his honor. most importantly; if you found out the one person responsable; how would that effect your life? how would your life be better? i've done more in 51 years then most people do in 2 lifetimes. i only concern myself with what effects me and my life. i have the time to prove theories myself and i make my decisions based on that. i could be wrong or i could be right. but being wrong or right doesn't effect my life. i could spend days researching every theory but in the end i'll never get that time back. just as i'll never get back the time i spend at this bloody computer. be aware of what happens around you; but don't forget to live.
the media is for the sheep. life is too short. go out and live. make your own decisions. life follows logical progression. if it isn't logical; it probably isn't true. if bush put the 9/11 attack together in 8 months the man is a genius. if people were able to sneek in and cut support beams for an implosion without anyone seeing that's incredable. we should build churches in his honor. most importantly; if you found out the one person responsable; how would that effect your life? how would your life be better?
There are basically two breeds on conspiracy theorists: Those who believe that there's more out there than we're being told, those who are so unhinged from reality that they are probably DSM IV certifiable. And there's a difference between believing that there is more out there than the government is telling us, and believing that the government was in on the plot. History tells us that there's usually alot the government isn't telling us, but what the government usually is trying to conceal isn't some massive conspiracy, but rather, their own incompetence.
And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?
Secrecy breeds conspiracy theorists, and the rantings of crazed theorists only serve to further obfuscate the truth, which is usually much more mundane than we care to admit. It's a vicious cycle, but one that's very effective.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.
Interesting little conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory you have there.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There are basically two breeds on conspiracy theorists: Those who believe that there's more out there than we're being told, those who are so unhinged from reality that they are probably DSM IV certifiable. And there's a difference between believing that there is more out there than the government is telling us, and believing that the government was in on the plot. History tells us that there's usually alot the government isn't telling us, but what the government usually is trying to conceal isn't some massive conspiracy, but rather, their own incompetence.
And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.
Conspiracy theorists are as dangerous as what?
For one thing, there is no conspiracy theory. The attacks on 9/11 were conspired. Period. "Conspiracy theory" is a convenient tag mainly contrived by the mainstream press to edge doubt in the minds of their followship. Doubt, in dishonest press, can be a form of fear, or mystery. It can create more followship. You know, "there is reasonable doubt here, what happens next?" It's an old formula. You shouldn't buy into it.
For one thing, there is no conspiracy theory. The attacks on 9/11 were conspired. Period. "Conspiracy theory" is a convenient tag mainly contrived by the mainstream press to edge doubt in the minds of their followship. Doubt, in dishonest press, can be a form of fear, or mystery. It can create more followship. You know, "there is reasonable doubt here, what happens next?" It's an old formula. You shouldn't buy into it.
Q: I'm not sure I follow.
A: I know, the whole framework is convoluted to the point of non-language.
Q: The framework of what?
A: Conspiracy.
Q: In what way?
A: When you mention conspiracy now, regarding events regarding 9/11, it is a predetermined definition. It isn't any real definition at all.
Interesting little conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory you have there.
my favorite conspiracy theory: There is/was a longstanding belief that Yuri Gagarin was NOT the first man in space. What happened was, there were apparently radio transmissions detected by America, which indicated that the Russians had a man in space... one who wasn't Yuri Gagarin, and who apparently didn't make if home safely. When, in fact, what it was was simply a test flight of the spacecraft with a tape recorder onboard to test the communications systems. The russians kept much of their space program secret for a very long time, mostly for surprisingly mundane reasons.
Before Gagarin and Glenn, the international group that dealt with aerospace records (highest, fastest, farthest, etc.) set out some rules for "who is the first man in space." One of those rules was that the astronaut basically had to land in the same spacecraft he took off in.
Now, the Russians didn't splashdown in the ocean, but rather on land (which can be VERY bad news if you're a pilot.) So to solve this potential problem, the first Russian astronauts all ejected from their capsules before they actually impacted. But, according to the rules, you had to land IN your spacecraft, which meant that, merely on a technicality, the Russians would be disqualified and America would forever have the first man to return safely from space. So, to save face, and the history books, the Russians kept details of their programs secret.
It wasn't until a former mission controller from Houston, James Oberg, befriended some of his russian counterparts during training for the joint U.S.-Russian mission in 1975 that the truth began to finally come out.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
Q: I'm not sure I follow.
A: I know, the whole framework is convoluted to the point of non-language.
Q: The framework of what?
A: Conspiracy.
Q: In what way?
A: When you mention conspiracy now, regarding events regarding 9/11, it is a predetermined definition. It isn't any real definition at all.
um, excuse me... would you please stop muttering to yourself, it's disturbing the rest of the patients.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
This is the final part of John Pilger's article
"Iraq: the unthinkable becomes normal"
published in the UK's New Statesman, 15th November 2004.
Flying into Philadelphia recently, I spotted the Kean congressional report on 11 September from the 9/11 Commission on sale at the bookstalls. "How many do you sell?" I asked. "One or two," was the reply. "It'll disappear soon." Yet, this modest, blue-covered book is a revelation. Like the Butler report in the UK, which detailed all the incriminating evidence of Blair's massaging of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq, then pulled its punches and concluded nobody was responsible, so the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face. It is a supreme act of normalising the unthinkable. This is not surprising, as the conclusions are volcanic.
The most important evidence to the 9/11 Commission came from General Ralph Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). "Air force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring towards the World Trade Center and Pentagon," he said, "if only air traffic controllers had asked for help 13 minutes sooner ... We would have been able to shoot down all three ... all four of them."
Why did this not happen?
The Kean report makes clear that "the defence of US aerospace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with pre-existing training and protocols ... If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) ... The NMCC would then seek approval from the office of the Secretary of Defence to provide military assistance ... "
Uniquely, this did not happen. The commission was told by the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority that there was no reason the procedure was not operating that morning. "For my 30 years of experience ..." said Monte Belger, "the NMCC was on the net and hearing everything real-time ... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings ... and they were always listening in with everybody else."
But on this occasion, they were not. The Kean report says the NMCC was never informed. Why? Again, uniquely, all lines of communication failed, the commission was told, to America's top military brass. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, could not be found; and when he finally spoke to Bush an hour and a half later, it was, says the Kean report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed". As a result, Norad's commanders were "left in the dark about what their mission was".
The report reveals that the only part of a previously fail-safe command system that worked was in the White House where Vice-President Cheney was in effective control that day, and in close touch with the NMCC. Why did he do nothing about the first two hijacked planes? Why was the NMCC, the vital link, silent for the first time in its existence? Kean ostentatiously refuses to address this. Of course, it could be due to the most extraordinary combination of coincidences. Or it could not.
In July 2001, a top secret briefing paper prepared for Bush read: "We [the CIA and FBI] believe that OBL [Osama Bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."
On the afternoon of 11 September, Donald Rumsfeld, having failed to act against those who had just attacked the United States, told his aides to set in motion an attack on Iraq — when the evidence was non-existent. Eighteen months later, the invasion of Iraq, unprovoked and based on lies now documented, took place. This epic crime is the greatest political scandal of our time, the latest chapter in the long 20th-century history of the west's conquests of other lands and their resources. If we allow it to be normalised, if we refuse to question and probe the hidden agendas and unaccountable secret power structures at the heart of "democratic" governments and if we allow the people of Fallujah to be crushed in our name, we surrender both democracy and humanity.
Everyone just fell asleep and all at the same time. Anyone who was on their game was told to stand down by the newly self appointed Cheney.
...must have been the cheap booze open house White House party sept 10.
people were sleepy and cranky. The rest had the shits...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
the media is for the sheep. life is too short. go out and live. make your own decisions. life follows logical progression. if it isn't logical; it probably isn't true. if bush put the 9/11 attack together in 8 months the man is a genius. if people were able to sneek in and cut support beams for an implosion without anyone seeing that's incredable. we should build churches in his honor. most importantly; if you found out the one person responsable; how would that effect your life? how would your life be better? i've done more in 51 years then most people do in 2 lifetimes. i only concern myself with what effects me and my life. i have the time to prove theories myself and i make my decisions based on that. i could be wrong or i could be right. but being wrong or right doesn't effect my life. i could spend days researching every theory but in the end i'll never get that time back. just as i'll never get back the time i spend at this bloody computer. be aware of what happens around you; but don't forget to live.
True. Although I believe that it is inherent in people the need to cut away the bullshit and to dig for the truth. Something as significant as 9/11 - if only because of what it generated afterwards - will obviously cause people to ask questions. And there are just too many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 for it to be left alone. I don't for a minute believe that the Bush administration planned 9/11. I am pretty sure, from looking at the evidence, however, that they knew all about the plans for the attacks, and that they allowed the attacks to happen. They wanted a new Pearl Harbour, and they got one.
Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, could not be found; and when he finally spoke to Bush an hour and a half later, it was, says the Kean report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed". As a result, Norad's commanders were "left in the dark about what their mission was".
The report reveals that the only part of a previously fail-safe command system that worked was in the White House where Vice-President Cheney was in effective control that day, and in close touch with the NMCC. Why did he do nothing about the first two hijacked planes?
So let me get this straight,
Rumsfeld just happened to be MIA to give any shoot down order, and Cheney failed to issue one himself?
IF NO SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN, WHAT THE FUCK IS MINETA TALKING ABOUT !?!
Also, his testimony conflicts with the official timeline of The 911 Omissions Report, which states Cheney did not arrive until 8:50 or so ... though Mineta would put him there roughly 30 minutes earlier ...
IF NO SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN, WHAT THE FUCK IS MINETA TALKING ABOUT !?!
Also, his testimony conflicts with the official timeline of The 911 Omissions Report, which states Cheney did not arrive until 8:50 or so ... though Mineta would put him there roughly 30 minutes earlier ...
Does the order still stand? Of course the order still stands....no anchovies on mine... I told you!
It was all just about I pizza I guess...
Fox news is my hero!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
what is ridiculous is that you think some "goat herders" were smart enough and skilled enough to pull off 9-11.
so ex-military mercenaries(who murder for profit all over the world,see Black Water) are too incompetent to be able to pull this off but a group of rag tag "extremists" drew up the plans on the dirt floor of a cave and were able to penetrate the most advanced most OVER funded security system in the world?
Comments
First off, I'm not saying that the planes caused all of the bone fragments to shoot out. If you have a chance read my posts with questions that I posed to JamMastaE and feel free to answer them if you're able. Now, if the buildings didn't fall at a fast enough rate of speed to project bone fragments out of them, how fast would a building have to fall to do such a thing? As to the proof not being there, the burden of proof is in the hands of the conspiracy theorists, no one else. As such, I ask you, as I did JamMasterE, to provide me with any proof, of a building that has collapsed on top of people, that is at least close to the size of the trade centers, that has not sent bone fragments flying for hundreds of feet around, but rather kept them confined to the building. If you can great, I will be standing by your side to blow the whistle. However, 9/11 was so unique in the destruction that occured, at such a magnitude that had never been seen before, how can you or anyone else that believes these theories say that the buildings collapse could not be responsible for bone fragments flying about? It's impossible and ludicrous to do so.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Roland,
regarding the towers collapsing, and i hate to even get in to this with you, because on many levels i regard you as a compatriot ... but don't you find it possible (if not plausible even) that with a gaping hole in the buildings struture ... and with the video showing the following even ... that the TOP PORTION of the building ... not one floor or two floors ... but a good twenty floors or so of the towers ... having been structuraly seperated from their lower floor counterparts ... CAME DOWN EN MASSE ... and look at the video ... the ENTIRE TOP OF THE BUILDING ... a solid chunk of floors ... snapped off of the remaining supports and fell AS A BLOCK (at least partially, and initially) through the floor and floors immediately below this block ...
that isn't even pancake ... not floor by floor pancake anyhow ... that is like dropping a 500lb ball of lead through a tissue ...
call the 500lb ball the top floors, and the piece of tissue the floor below it ... now stack a 1000 sheets of tissue togeather with just enough room for seperation (hell past the tissues to jenga blocks on either side) and the ball will fall through all thousand of those tissues as well ...
yeah sure, each sheet gives some resistance ... but the amount of resistance is paultry compared with the mass of the object falling through it ...
it isn't the greatest analogy, but i don't know much that IS a great analogy for such an event ... i just know that if you think about the top 1\5th of the building plummeting through the bottom floors, it may help you see that it need not have been a controlled demolition to happen ...
of course, i won't rule out entirely that some basement blast could have also made it much easier for the thing to come down ... but you can clearly see the top of the building "crushing" the sections below it ... that IS where the collapse starts and you can and have watched it over and over ...
instead of your singular focus on the buildings being "demolished" why not move on and discuss things like the time line and why the FAA chairman puts Dick Cheney in the command bunker around 8:20 but the 911 Commission Report doesn't put him there until like 8:50 ... or the war games, or the ISI Chief who met with our defense officials and who also ordered money wired to Atta ... or the numerous warnings that the administration received and did NOT act on ... or the reports that Osama was given medical treatment in as US military hospital some months before the attack (when he was a KNOWN terrorist threat) ...
why not bring up some of these points and pull some research for people to see on those instead?
You just seem to constantly hit a wall (no pun intended) with the building collapse theory ... maybe try another one?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I was mearly asking the question to ascertain if they did anything to educate themselves on something other than wasting so much time on insulting people who don't see things the way they do.
But while i am answering you what you have said about facts and ignoring some could be turned around on people who believe everything the media throws at them. What makes the media loving folk so right?
What conspiracy are you talking about? Is propaganda a conspiracy?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Logic Alert.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i couldn't agree more. i like drifting and enjoy talking with him. i respect his opinion and when it clashes with mine; i try to explain why i feel the way i do. when the smoke clears; if his opinion is different; i respect that. maybe he knows more than me or visa versa. that being said; i agree with you. i don't like being preached to when i know the person at the other end is someone on a message board with too much time on their hands and not privy to all the information needed to make a clear and unbiased conclusion.
once again i agree. i got banned for reporting a bad post. i'm the first to admitt that i'll bait the board by taking a subject to the extreeme to get the discussion moving. it works every time. sometimes it's necessary so we can find the middle ground. as a victim of unfounded personal attacks; i do see the need for banning at times. when facts are twisted to support someones agenda; that person has no place here. but calling someone an arsehole is real life. someone here almost got banned for calling someone thick. yet as long as you don't direct it at someone; you can use the worst language you can think up. i can see banning for threats; but for talking in real life conversation?
the best debates here are the heated ones. we find middle ground and usually find that either both sides can be right; or neither side is absolutely right.
What are you a myna bird? I can read...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Polly Wanna...
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Cracker?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i'm the first to say ignore the media. when politically active; the press was told what i wanted them to tell the public. that is where propaganda comes in. propaganda is a means to accomplish an agenda. using a wild analogy; lets say you read that your community (block) was to be condemned to build a sewage plant. those people would be inspired to take a stand. that is propaganda. modified pictures posted on the internet to support an agenda is only those who seek to keep discontent at a high level. anyone can build a website and anyone can twist the truth. quite frankly; you'll never know the truth about a lot of things. but here's the secret; by you searching for the truth it distracts you from what [they] really don't want you to see.
when you think the trick is happening; it's already done.
Hmm interesting as i have said before i don't really get my info from the web at the moment, i am more of a book person. What i'm reading up on is past anyway.
If as you say searching for the truth distracts you what is the answer, or is the point to give and be a sheep?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
the media is for the sheep. life is too short. go out and live. make your own decisions. life follows logical progression. if it isn't logical; it probably isn't true. if bush put the 9/11 attack together in 8 months the man is a genius. if people were able to sneek in and cut support beams for an implosion without anyone seeing that's incredable. we should build churches in his honor. most importantly; if you found out the one person responsable; how would that effect your life? how would your life be better? i've done more in 51 years then most people do in 2 lifetimes. i only concern myself with what effects me and my life. i have the time to prove theories myself and i make my decisions based on that. i could be wrong or i could be right. but being wrong or right doesn't effect my life. i could spend days researching every theory but in the end i'll never get that time back. just as i'll never get back the time i spend at this bloody computer. be aware of what happens around you; but don't forget to live.
There are basically two breeds on conspiracy theorists: Those who believe that there's more out there than we're being told, those who are so unhinged from reality that they are probably DSM IV certifiable. And there's a difference between believing that there is more out there than the government is telling us, and believing that the government was in on the plot. History tells us that there's usually alot the government isn't telling us, but what the government usually is trying to conceal isn't some massive conspiracy, but rather, their own incompetence.
And it's that secrecy which breeds the rabid conspiracy theorists, who, in their own way, are just as dangerous as christians who blow up abortion clinics and muslims who fly planes into building.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Secrecy breeds conspiracy theorists, and the rantings of crazed theorists only serve to further obfuscate the truth, which is usually much more mundane than we care to admit. It's a vicious cycle, but one that's very effective.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Interesting little conspiracy theory of a conspiracy theory you have there.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Conspiracy theorists are as dangerous as what?
For one thing, there is no conspiracy theory. The attacks on 9/11 were conspired. Period. "Conspiracy theory" is a convenient tag mainly contrived by the mainstream press to edge doubt in the minds of their followship. Doubt, in dishonest press, can be a form of fear, or mystery. It can create more followship. You know, "there is reasonable doubt here, what happens next?" It's an old formula. You shouldn't buy into it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Q: I'm not sure I follow.
A: I know, the whole framework is convoluted to the point of non-language.
Q: The framework of what?
A: Conspiracy.
Q: In what way?
A: When you mention conspiracy now, regarding events regarding 9/11, it is a predetermined definition. It isn't any real definition at all.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
my favorite conspiracy theory: There is/was a longstanding belief that Yuri Gagarin was NOT the first man in space. What happened was, there were apparently radio transmissions detected by America, which indicated that the Russians had a man in space... one who wasn't Yuri Gagarin, and who apparently didn't make if home safely. When, in fact, what it was was simply a test flight of the spacecraft with a tape recorder onboard to test the communications systems. The russians kept much of their space program secret for a very long time, mostly for surprisingly mundane reasons.
Before Gagarin and Glenn, the international group that dealt with aerospace records (highest, fastest, farthest, etc.) set out some rules for "who is the first man in space." One of those rules was that the astronaut basically had to land in the same spacecraft he took off in.
Now, the Russians didn't splashdown in the ocean, but rather on land (which can be VERY bad news if you're a pilot.) So to solve this potential problem, the first Russian astronauts all ejected from their capsules before they actually impacted. But, according to the rules, you had to land IN your spacecraft, which meant that, merely on a technicality, the Russians would be disqualified and America would forever have the first man to return safely from space. So, to save face, and the history books, the Russians kept details of their programs secret.
It wasn't until a former mission controller from Houston, James Oberg, befriended some of his russian counterparts during training for the joint U.S.-Russian mission in 1975 that the truth began to finally come out.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
um, excuse me... would you please stop muttering to yourself, it's disturbing the rest of the patients.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Hardcore theorists are just as, in not more so, dangerous than religious fanatics.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
That's quite a leap in logic.
I'll be watching you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
hmmm, maybe I should set up a webcam and charge a fee
nah, I wouldn't want to bore you to death
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
hehee.
I have to ask. Do you actually believe the things you post?
Assuming the answer is yes, do you ever take the time to question your conclusions? Or, even read what is written, and study the content?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
This is the final part of John Pilger's article
"Iraq: the unthinkable becomes normal"
published in the UK's New Statesman, 15th November 2004.
Flying into Philadelphia recently, I spotted the Kean congressional report on 11 September from the 9/11 Commission on sale at the bookstalls. "How many do you sell?" I asked. "One or two," was the reply. "It'll disappear soon." Yet, this modest, blue-covered book is a revelation. Like the Butler report in the UK, which detailed all the incriminating evidence of Blair's massaging of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq, then pulled its punches and concluded nobody was responsible, so the Kean report makes excruciatingly clear what really happened, then fails to draw the conclusions that stare it in the face. It is a supreme act of normalising the unthinkable. This is not surprising, as the conclusions are volcanic.
The most important evidence to the 9/11 Commission came from General Ralph Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). "Air force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring towards the World Trade Center and Pentagon," he said, "if only air traffic controllers had asked for help 13 minutes sooner ... We would have been able to shoot down all three ... all four of them."
Why did this not happen?
The Kean report makes clear that "the defence of US aerospace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with pre-existing training and protocols ... If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) ... The NMCC would then seek approval from the office of the Secretary of Defence to provide military assistance ... "
Uniquely, this did not happen. The commission was told by the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority that there was no reason the procedure was not operating that morning. "For my 30 years of experience ..." said Monte Belger, "the NMCC was on the net and hearing everything real-time ... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings ... and they were always listening in with everybody else."
But on this occasion, they were not. The Kean report says the NMCC was never informed. Why? Again, uniquely, all lines of communication failed, the commission was told, to America's top military brass. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, could not be found; and when he finally spoke to Bush an hour and a half later, it was, says the Kean report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed". As a result, Norad's commanders were "left in the dark about what their mission was".
The report reveals that the only part of a previously fail-safe command system that worked was in the White House where Vice-President Cheney was in effective control that day, and in close touch with the NMCC. Why did he do nothing about the first two hijacked planes? Why was the NMCC, the vital link, silent for the first time in its existence? Kean ostentatiously refuses to address this. Of course, it could be due to the most extraordinary combination of coincidences. Or it could not.
In July 2001, a top secret briefing paper prepared for Bush read: "We [the CIA and FBI] believe that OBL [Osama Bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."
On the afternoon of 11 September, Donald Rumsfeld, having failed to act against those who had just attacked the United States, told his aides to set in motion an attack on Iraq — when the evidence was non-existent. Eighteen months later, the invasion of Iraq, unprovoked and based on lies now documented, took place. This epic crime is the greatest political scandal of our time, the latest chapter in the long 20th-century history of the west's conquests of other lands and their resources. If we allow it to be normalised, if we refuse to question and probe the hidden agendas and unaccountable secret power structures at the heart of "democratic" governments and if we allow the people of Fallujah to be crushed in our name, we surrender both democracy and humanity.
...must have been the cheap booze open house White House party sept 10.
people were sleepy and cranky. The rest had the shits...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
True. Although I believe that it is inherent in people the need to cut away the bullshit and to dig for the truth. Something as significant as 9/11 - if only because of what it generated afterwards - will obviously cause people to ask questions. And there are just too many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 for it to be left alone. I don't for a minute believe that the Bush administration planned 9/11. I am pretty sure, from looking at the evidence, however, that they knew all about the plans for the attacks, and that they allowed the attacks to happen. They wanted a new Pearl Harbour, and they got one.
So let me get this straight,
Rumsfeld just happened to be MIA to give any shoot down order, and Cheney failed to issue one himself?
Interesting.
So i WONDER what THIS GUY is talking about?
Norman Mineta, Transportation Secretary, Testifying About Staff Asking Cheney "DO THE ORDERS STILL STAND"?
IF NO SHOOT DOWN ORDER WAS GIVEN, WHAT THE FUCK IS MINETA TALKING ABOUT !?!
Also, his testimony conflicts with the official timeline of The 911 Omissions Report, which states Cheney did not arrive until 8:50 or so ... though Mineta would put him there roughly 30 minutes earlier ...
Think it may have been a confused testimony?
Norman Minetal INSISTS ON THE ACCURACY OF HIS TIME FRAME to a 911 truther ... calling the 911 Ommissions Report account "interesting" and not accurate!
WHAT THE FUCK !?!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As for the 9/11 Ommission, read this:
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209
It was all just about I pizza I guess...
Fox news is my hero!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well they were able to get Phds.....