short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

MakingWaves · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Wow average citizens have access to FBI and CIA intelligence reports?

Bravo....indeed.

I don't even know what you are talking about. All I was saying was before hand it was amazing how many people thought something like this would never happen to us.

MakingWaves · April 2007

pj's big canuk fan wrote:

it makes me sad to think that the lives of the innocient victums have been scared by the actions of a leader who only protects himself and not the wonerful lives of his constituents. and now they have to carry the shame of one mans greed on thier shoulders while thier young return to the land of freedom in coffins. shame on you bush the fortunate and rich need the backs of the poor and the under privlagde to stand on

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

A lot of these other people or first hand accounts that you have referred to have been completely false or they have taken facts and left out information to try to prove their point.

Both sides are just theories and both point to certain aspects of that day to prove their point. Acting like it's only one sided is showing a clearly biased blindness.

MakingWaves · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Both sides are just theories and both point to certain aspects of that day to prove their point. Acting like it's only one sided is showing a clearly biased blindness.

I will admit i do have a clear biased blindness. But I feel that way because the side of the arguement that I am on has so much more fact then the conspiracy side that in my opinion makes the conspiracy notion seem completely ridiculous and impossible.

Specifics · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

A lot of these other people or first hand accounts that you have referred to have been completely false or they have taken facts and left out information to try to prove their point.

This could well be true, but it could be just as true for the side you vehemently back, trying to blind people with science and rhetoric which doesnt quite satisfy,

I think the difference is an open mind, one side is desperate to believe, and one side wants to question. Arguments are equal for me, but that is not good enough when the official side puts in little money or effort to get to the bottom of it. Also most of the belittling and negativity comes from people on the official side of things, to questions that seem to me sensible and honestly asked. This is what tips me a little on the sinister side of things.

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

I will admit i do have a clear biased blindness. But I feel that way because the side of the arguement that I am on has so much more fact then the conspiracy side that in my opinion makes the conspiracy notion seem completely ridiculous and impossible.

I strongly disagree with that but I won't resort to calling you ridiculous or a nut....it only cheapens your argument.

MakingWaves · April 2007

Specifics wrote:

This could well be true, but it could be just as true for the side you vehemently back, trying to blind people with science and rhetoric which doesnt quite satisfy,

I think the difference is an open mind, one side is desperate to believe, and one side wants to question. Arguments are equal for me, but that is not good enough when the official side puts in little money or effort to get to the bottom of it. Also most of the belittling and negativity comes from people on the official side of things, to questions that seem to me sensible and honestly asked. This is what tips me a little on the sinister side of things.

I understand what you are saying and I think a lot of the negativity from my side of the arguement stems from people seeming to ignore facts that are put before them and won't budge from the belief of a conspiracy. Picking out only bits and pieces of the information instead of looking at the big picture.
I don't like to sound like an asshole but I get frustrated trying to figure out how people could think a conspiracy of this size could be accomplished and then looking at the facts makes it even more frustrating that people still refuse to believe what happened.

But you are correct. I should be more open minded.

MakingWaves · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I strongly disagree with that but I won't resort to calling you ridiculous or a nut....it only cheapens your argument.

I appreciate that and apologize for saying that stuff.

What do you strongly disagree with?

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

I appreciate that and apologize for saying that stuff.

What do you strongly disagree with?

That was kind of you.

I disagree with this statement: 'But I feel that way because the side of the arguement that I am on has so much more fact then the conspiracy side'

I believe plenty of compelling facts have been posted by the 'conspiracy side' in this thread and so many others.

MakingWaves · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That was kind of you.

I disagree with this statement: 'But I feel that way because the side of the arguement that I am on has so much more fact then the conspiracy side'

I believe plenty of compelling facts have been posted by the 'conspiracy side' in this thread and so many others.

I can see why people think that but I think it is because the conspiracy side leaves out parts of the facts.

For instance, the arguement of why planes weren't scrambled and why they couldn't intercept the hijacked planes sounds very reasonable and does sound like part of a conspiracy. However, parts like below are left out.

"Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

They just weren't prepared for anything like this and I still don't think they are which is the sad part.

MakingWaves · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That was kind of you.

I disagree with this statement: 'But I feel that way because the side of the arguement that I am on has so much more fact then the conspiracy side'

I believe plenty of compelling facts have been posted by the 'conspiracy side' in this thread and so many others.

What can I say? I can tell people like Roland are very smart...I just want to convince him to switch teams.

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

I can see why people think that but I think it is because the conspiracy side leaves out parts of the facts.

For instance, the arguement of why planes weren't scrambled and why they couldn't intercept the hijacked planes sounds very reasonable and does sound like part of a conspiracy. However, parts like below are left out.

"Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

They just weren't prepared for anything like this and I still don't think they are which is the sad part.

It's just a bit much for me to swallow that they would never think someone would hijack a flight inside the US and they wouldn't have any training on such a scenario. It sounds like a bunch of made up explaining after the fact to me.

MakingWaves · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's just a bit much for me to swallow that they would never think someone would hijack a flight inside the US and they wouldn't have any training on such a scenario. It sounds like a bunch of made up explaining after the fact to me.

You know how the US thinks or used to think. We are invincible and no one can touch us.

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

You know how the US thinks or used to think. We are invincible and no one can touch us.

That just doesn't do it for me. It's a well known fact that the white house had knowledge of the possibilty of attacks being carried out using airplanes.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0408-04.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

69charger · April 2007

Specifics wrote:

What Roland said about water ( speedy fucker ) slap yourself with a feather, or stand on a coke can.

Slap yourself with a feather at 500mph and let me know how that turns out for you.

Basic physics at work here.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

Only one section of the Madrid building was made with steel supports. The rest of the building incorporated a cement core with cement reinforced structure. Therefore those sections didn't collapse. What you have shown here proves nothing once again.

reading...

onelongsong · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That just doesn't do it for me. It's a well known fact that the white house had knowledge of the possibilty of attacks being carried out using airplanes.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0408-04.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

and the possability of attacks being carried out with biologicals; chemical weapons; dirty bombs which could leave an area barron for hundreds of years; truck bombs (like blowing up hoover dam, etc) and all types of weapons and possabilities. why doesn't the whitehouse evacuate the entire country until all threats have been dealt with.
you people make me laugh.

onelongsong · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Obviously Cement is much more resistant to heat. Who is disputing that fact?

You, or someone, made the comment hey and guess which part collapsed? meaning the steel only section of the building.

Well I showed the time line of how that collapsed. Floors collapsing and hitting floors and coming to a complete stop, then those floors dropping and smashing into other floors and stopping...and so on slowly progressing in that manner over a few hours.

Now that we understand how fire alone contributes to the collapse.

So do you think by adding an airplane to the mix, it now somehow goes from that type of collapse...to complete building failure collapse going all the way down without stopping or slowing down now?

Wasn't the Madrid tower completely raging and engulfed in flames from top to bottom??? Were any of the the WTC towers?

Madrid Windsor building fire:

at the height of the fire (there's a building in there somewhere):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/mad00000.jpg

various other stages:
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor8.jpeg
http://www.zlonk.com/images/wtc/windsor.jpg
http://www.lmc.ep.usp.br/People/Valdir/imagens/fire/Madrid_Windsor.jpg
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/windsor7_800c_peak.jpg

.

cement will pop and break apart under heat.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

cement will pop and break apart under heat.

actually I may have misread something about the Madrid tower construction thinking a section of it was designed with vertical steel supports only not vertical concrete supports. Not sure where I saw that... Concrete is more heat resistant than steel.

When I think of a building being on fire, or succumbing to fire, I picture the Madrid tower...not the fires I saw on 9/11.

.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

and the possability of attacks being carried out with biologicals; chemical weapons; dirty bombs which could leave an area barron for hundreds of years; truck bombs (like blowing up hoover dam, etc) and all types of weapons and possabilities. why doesn't the whitehouse evacuate the entire country until all threats have been dealt with.
you people make me laugh.

repeated reports of particular individuals involved leading up to a specific event in a specific manner? and with a previous action of aggression linked to it with a proclamation?

okie...

short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Comments

Categories