[RenegadeRick]

A one time event? That burned for an hour. Inside a building. As you've acknowledged, more than enough heat and pressure to soften the steel. The molten state occured during (I've turned brass, aluminum, and steel momentarily molten during a simple impact test with a 20 lb weight falling 5 ft... I wonder what half a million tons over a couple hundred feet does) and after the crumpling as fuel (jet fuel and building materials) continued to combust under the heat and pressure of a compacted skyscraper.

In fact YOUR argument is one against the presence of explosives, as unlike jet fuel a bomb WOULD be a one time event and wouldn't explain the fact that i-beams were still white to red hot when pulled out of the rubble days and weeks later. If explosives were the only thing that could melt steel it would have been solid again by the time it hit the ground.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's a conspiracy or that no one else understands it. It just means you don't understand it.

Thanks Ohio. I appreciate your well reasoned response. Best I have heard yet. Seriously.

However, I am still not understanding how oxygen can get to the fires while being placed under pressure by the tons of rubble. Could you please explain this again. Slowly... cuz , ok?

Thanks.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Seriously, you're ****ing loony. You're looking for conspiracy and manipulation in the way some dude posted a link to a funny article he read once. Take a step back and think about that one. Do you find yourself thinking that the fact that the street light goes from red to green to yellow and then BACK TO RED is moooore than just coincidence? Prozac, dude. Prozac.

Man, I so don't want to take the bait on this one but what the heck, why not?

I honestly believed he was pushing the page as a credible argument. My apologies. I really was only curious if he can access the google cache. No conspiracy, just curiosity.

And for the record, I will have you know that it is indeed more than coincidence that the lights go red, green, yellow, and red again. I possess reliable information that traffic lights and their lighting patterns were, in fact, developed by a rare, hyperintelligent breed of humans. I believe they are called engineers.

 

[MarinR00]

If I post web pages from Maddox X as legitimate arguments, then I have no place posting anywhere on this forum. It is just a funny site. But I think I already made it clear, twice, that I was just trying to lighten the mood in here. Geez, that’s the last time I try and do that.

Thanks for the back-up ohio.

 

[MikeD]

The one that works for the independent investigation crew that never truly existed

I love that. "Hey, a plane crashed into the building!! I guess what we'd better do is create an independent comission on the spot to prove this rather obvious fact, prior to cleaning this all up, because someone on the Internet will be suspicious that we actually shot a cruise missile at our own building instead, meanwhile shooting down the real flight without leaving any trace of it..."

 

[3D.]

I love that. "Hey, a plane crashed into the building!! I guess what we'd better do is create an independent comission on the spot to prove this rather obvious fact, prior to cleaning this all up, because someone on the Internet will be suspicious that we actually shot a cruise missile at our own building instead, meanwhile shooting down the real flight without leaving any trace of it..."

Yep, crime scenes are never fully investigated, especially when we're attacking other countries:biggrin:

 

[rockwool]

“Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction.”

How many times haven't things looked impossible/unexplainable and when you put some effort in them they slowly start to seem possible/explainable? Looking at conspiracies at first they are ridiculed as it is a collective known fact that they don't exist, but once you start gathering some greater amount of information about, in this case 9/11, you see a lot of coinsedences.

Coincedences that on their own is nothing but coincidences but toghether they form a pattern. Just because a thing never been done it doesn't mean that it won't have a first time when it happens.

“At other times, the unfolding of complex sequences of events such as political phenomena are explainable, but not in simple terms. Conspiracy theories are often preferred by individuals as a way to understand what is happening around them without having to grasp the complexities of history and political interaction.”

There will always be complexities as such, but complexities don't mean that "they don't conspire against you". Among all these sequences and the things tin foil hats lose them selves in, some will be just such complexities as the above, human error and pure simple coincidence.

Looking at 9/11 there are a few things that, on their own, are beyond question and some that are questionable to various extent. The sheer number of those insidents/sequences are so many that even if we stack them and wright of half of that stack off, they will still be enough for any prosecutor to go into a further investigation. So where's that independent investigation to shut us loons up?

If you don't have anything to hide you can be perfectly open about it, right? That investigation won't come untill enough people ask for it.

“According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another.”

Naturally, once you've realized that something is possible your eyes open to other things as well. Look at sports; once a person has passed "the magic line", like a time run below or a distance jumped past what everybody felt had an invisible wall as no one managed to do it before, the rest of the field in soon time raise their game and follow.

On a personal experiance you might have found a hughe double of stairs which no one jumped with their bike before. Winter comes and you mature in your biking as you think a lot about that set of stairs and all the other biking you managed to evolve in during the past year, then when spring comes you stand at that set of stairs and suddenly they look doable. You do them, King Dingaling has shown the way and your mates shotly follow once they've seen that it's possible.

Simple psychology, really.

”Christopher Hitchens represents conspiracy theories as the 'exhaust fumes of democracy', the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.”

But looking at 9/11 that large amount of information is only circulating among a small number of people; those searching for it. Here at this forum we have only discussed some of all I've seen. My buddies and people around me in general posses none of that information.

Hitchens is also forgetting all conspiracies that has been documented at least since the days of antient Greece, looong before the "democracies" of today. Talking about historical events conspiracies are recognized and considered as unquestionable things that have happened, but in comes the 20th century and suddenly all those conspiracies are things of an unmature past; like "we're all grown now and don't do that **** anymore".

“In that context, a typical individual will tend to be more isolated from the kinds of peer networks that grant access to broad sources of information, and may instinctively distrust any statement or claim made by certain people, media, and other authority-bearing institutions. For some individuals, the consequence may be a tendency to attribute anything bad that happens to the distrusted authority.

The person who wrote that wants the reader to think that questioning, or distrusting to use his own words, is a bad thing and thus making good honest Joe think "I don't wanna be like them tin foil hats" and effectively shuts them up.

The other thing the author of this is doing is manipulating the reader to think that information not comming from "the kinds of peer networks that grant access to broad sources" are dodgy. Dodgy because they don't come form the 85% of media that is owned by 5 media conglomerates, one might ask.

Who are these people that want to own/controll our thoughts? Shouldn't they be questioned and met with suspission?

 

[rockwool]

Yep, crime scenes are never fully investigated, especially when we're attacking other countries:biggrin:

Crime scenes are covered with sand to hide evidence and others are shipped of to Malaysia while the scrap workers shipping the stuff of are paid 3 times more (if I remember correctly) the normal salary.

 

[3D.]

“At other times, the unfolding of complex sequences of events such as political phenomena are explainable, but not in simple terms. Conspiracy theories are often preferred by individuals as a way to understand what is happening around them without having to grasp the complexities of history and political interaction.”
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

This is a real load of crap right here. In reality, it works opposite to what is stated.

Conspiracies, in general, especially some that are unproven theories, are usually much more complex than what we are spoon fed by our leaders.



What's the more difficult comprehension for the average nit wit?:

A. that the Taliban has a 15-20 year history of doing intimate (dirty) business with our CIA globally and has basically been a ticking time bomb since we cut them their first pay check way back when.

-or-

B. the Taliban is nothing more than a group of crazed muslim extremists that will sacrifice everything to impede our ambition of free will, and free thinking.


I think Fox news has answered this for us all, no?

I pulled this all from Wikipedia, for simplicity sake. I broke my rule about trusting on-line sources, but I do know this information can be found in physiology texts (most of which I was forced to read back at school).

Isn't this the exact type of simplifying that conspiracy types are being accused?

 

[ire]

A. that the Taliban has a 15-20 year history of doing intimate (dirty) business with our CIA globally and has basically been a ticking time bomb since we cut them their first pay check way back when.

The Clinton administration was going to work with the Taliban on an oil pipeline in the lmid to ate 90s until the heat from their human rights violations got to be too great. Many groups that are now our enemies were friends at one point, Taliban, Sadaam, and Osama.

 

[3D.]

There was some real shady business going down with us funding both sides of the battle field (if ya know what I mean) during some earlier Taliban conflicts. Not to mention Arbusto (spelling) and the Bush family's oil endeavors w/Bin ladens (commonly accepted facts).

You're right business pals sometimes end up as foes, but I don't think we should be lied to about those "complexities" now, should we?

 

[3D.]

I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that we fvcked Sadaam a while back by funding both sides of the battle field during the Iran/Iraq conflict.

 

[MikeD]

Crime scenes are covered with sand to hide evidence and others are shipped of to Malaysia while the scrap workers shipping the stuff of are paid 3 times more (if I remember correctly) the normal salary.

Ummm, crime scenes (and the scenes of acts of war and mass casualties) are cleaned up after the rescue work is done and the relevant officials are through with them.

You're saying the FAA, FBI, and intelligence services weren't given access to the scene?

Or that a smoking pile of toxic rubble and bodies should have been left smouldering in downtown Manhattan for a few years so that paranoid European hippies could come and give them a rigorous going-over in person at their leisure?

 

[3D.]

Or that a smoking pile of toxic rubble and bodies should have been left smouldering in downtown Manhattan for a few years so that paranoid European hippies could come and give them a rigorous going-over in person at their leisure?

No, but you certainly should not perform an illegal debris removal (unprecedented action). All previous building collapses of this magnitude where thoroughly investigated (however inconvenient it may have been) until this administration decided it was irrelevant in this case.

Remember? We were all told on 9/11 that there was a confession from the Taliban distributed by an undisclosed source.

BBBBBBBUUUUUUULLLLLLSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!TTTTTTTT

 

[3D.]

You're saying the FAA, FBI, and intelligence services weren't given access to the scene?

You're right, they did have full access, but isn't that kinda like the a pitcher umpiring his own pitch?

 

[MikeD]

No.

Umpires don't pitch. It's exactly like the legally-designated authorities investigating what they're charged to do...

 

[3D.]

I think you missed my point. Having organizations that could very well be negligent in the prevention of this matter investigate there own mishap is clearly a conflict of interest, isn't it?

 

[3D.]

Furthermore, to have the conclusion of there investigation handed to us like a large plate of swiss cheese.

I'm really not stretching this, there are way to many unanswered questions and holes in this one to call it a complete investigation.

I'm sure you can agree with this to some extent.

 

[rockwool]

There was some real shady business going down with us funding both sides of the battle field (if ya know what I mean) during some earlier Taliban conflicts. Not to mention Arbusto (spelling) and the Bush family's oil endeavors w/Bin ladens (commonly accepted facts).

You're right business pals sometimes end up as foes, but I don't think we should be lied to about those "complexities" now, should we?

Arbusto is right. Suposely mean little bush.

 

[rockwool]

I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that we fvcked Sadaam a while back by funding both sides of the battle field during the Iran/Iraq conflict.

As I remember it you only funded the Shah who was put to rule after the UK asked you to overthrow Mozaghadeh (spelling?) because he wanted a bigger cut from what Brittish Petroleum, BP, was giving them for their oil.

The US then branded him as a communist and overthru him. The Shah then reigned for 20years until 1979 when the Persians had had enough of his madly opressive rule and as a reaction in came Khommeini with his clear anti-American politics.

Anyways, you sold ****loads of weapons to Iran under the Shahs rule, for instance, they were the only country to be allowed to purchase F-14 Tomcats.

To create a "balance" in the area the US then put Saddam Hussein to power as he was violently against Iran as the majority of Iraqians are Shia just like the Persians. Saddam then started a war against Khommeinis Iran that after a few years he started losing.

In steps the us who sent Rumsfeld to kiss him and promise him US intelligence and weapons if he continued the war.

It's all in Why We Fight, watch it!

 

[rockwool]

Ummm, crime scenes (and the scenes of acts of war and mass casualties) are cleaned up after the rescue work is done and the relevant officials are through with them.

You're saying the FAA, FBI, and intelligence services weren't given access to the scene?

Or that a smoking pile of toxic rubble and bodies should have been left smouldering in downtown Manhattan for a few years so that paranoid European hippies could come and give them a rigorous going-over in person at their leisure?

No, I'm saying that they didn't keep any of the evidence as they should. I'm also saying that it's more proof that they are hiding something as they covered that **** up. I belive it's against police praxis to get rid of evidence, specially all of it (sence it was quite a lot of it in NY). More coinsidences..

 

[MarinR00]

What I love about this thread is, I doubt anyone here is or was

1) Part of the alleged Government cover-up
2) Part of the Government period
3) A structural engineer, who has studied, first hand, the evidence collected
4) A psychic
5) A person who has extensive an extensive background in Black Ops
6) A person who has an extensive background in terrorism
7) The head of the CIA
8) President Bush
9) God

All anyone is doing, is piecing together things that they read on the internet (the best source as we all know) and saw on “documentaries.” (I use that term loosely) Simply parroting back the jumbled pieces of information they have constructed doesn’t constitute an argument.

Conspiracy Theories are a waste of time, because you can’t prove them, hence why they are conspiracies. Even when respected bodies come forward (Cambridge, Popular Science, the American Engineer Counsel, to name a few) and provide evidence again it, conspiracy theorist still aren’t satisfied. They are only satisfied when their point is proven, which will never happen, so they will never go away.

Will we ever find out what really happened? Nope.

Are people putting way to much thought and energy into what already happen and not enough thought into how to cope with the new world we live in? Yup.



Oh, wait, since I am in the United States Army, I must be a pawn, who has been brainwashed to answer the party line. Another conspiracy theory!

Just call me, Jason “MarinR00” Bourne.

 

[Changleen]

The way I see it, there are many aspects of the 'official' story that are, in all likelyhood, crap. The fact is however, that this was now several years ago and the 'repercusions' based on the 'official' story have now been enacted and their repercusions and the repercusions of those have now occured. I don't believe everything I am told about 9/11, but in many ways it is too late. The possibility of some sort of huge revaltion aside, it's gone, passed, we will never find out the full depth of the truth.

Mike, you can I think admit there are several aspects of the official story that do not add up.

You other guys - I think we need to deal with the consequences now, even if the situation was a lie. There is little point dredging this up any longer. Everyone knows the current US administration bends and distorts the truth. Depending on your world view you will see this to a larger or smaller extent. The thing we can all agree on is that it occurs and that Nov 2008 can't really come soon enough.

 

[rockwool]

Your conclusions are ridiculous, and I don't mean that in a good way.

What I love about this thread is, I doubt anyone here is or was

1) Part of the alleged Government cover-up
2) Part of the Government period
3) A structural engineer, who has studied, first hand, the evidence collected
4) A psychic
5) A person who has extensive an extensive background in Black Ops
6) A person who has an extensive background in terrorism
7) The head of the CIA
8) President Bush
9) God

All anyone is doing, is piecing together things that they read on the internet (the best source as we all know) and saw on “documentaries.” (I use that term loosely) Simply parroting back the jumbled pieces of information they have constructed doesn’t constitute an argument.

You are stating that unless someone here is one of the things on your list, then it's impossible for us to know anything about 9/11 or anything for that matter. What you are saying is that you don't acknowledge the way how we humans have leared since day one; from each other. We pass one thing from one to the other, animals do so too.

What the internet and documentaries gives us are information that some people have collected and presented to us, just like a book does, but in another medium. Is it the type of medium that you fail, or is it that information can be obtained by other means than self experianced/learned?

These articles and documentaries are many times presented with interviews of people who has somehow obtained greater knowledge about the sertain subject discussed, people that could be one of the eight on your list or some other authority on the subject that you might have missed to list.

What do you sugest, that we travel around for our selves and interview all these people? Should we video these interviews to pass on to others what we've learned or do you dismiss that as a way of gaining knowledge?

Conspiracy Theories are a waste of time, because you can’t prove them, hence why they are conspiracies. Even when respected bodies come forward (Cambridge, Popular Science, the American Engineer Counsel, to name a few) and provide evidence again it, conspiracy theorist still aren’t satisfied. They are only satisfied when their point is proven, which will never happen, so they will never go away.

No. The word "conspiracy theory" is something consisting of two words, those are: Conspiracy and theory, but I'm going to let this guy below explain it to you as he can do it better:

We've all been conditioned to assosiate the word "theory" with the word "conspiracy", because after all, no conspiracies could possibly be true, they're all just theories, aren't they? Well, in the phrase "conspiracy theory" there are two words, the first word "conspiracy", the second word is the active word "theory".

By definition, theory, is a supposition, an idea, a consept, a hypothesis. Let me give you an example:
In theory, if I purchase a raffle ticket I could win a prize. Now, as long I don't purchase a raffle ticket, my win is theoretical.

But once you purchase a raffle ticket the win is no longer theoretical, it becomes a possibility, and the more raffle tickets you purchase the more possible, and eventually the more probable the win becomes.
Such is the case with "conspiracy theory", as long as there is no evidence it is a conspiracy theory.

But once you have a piece of evidence, no matter how flimsy or circumstantial it may be, it becomes a possibility, and the more evidence that is gathered the more possible and eventually the more probable the conspiracy is.

-Dave vonKleist, Talk Radio Host, The Power Hour

Popular Science and the American Engineer Counsel, yeah I think I remember the arguments of those two being refuted in one of the documentaries I saw. I'll see if I have the time to rewatch them to search for it. Cambridge, I have no memory of it being discussed.

Non the less, evidence against all things have not been presented, in fact, evidence has not been released from the popo as "there's an ongoing investigation". More coverup.

But I guess just because something doesn't exist in Jason Bournes consience, it doesn't mean that it doesn't excist at all. The ostrich syndrom.


Do you want to look into a conspiracy that might interest you? Are you interested in your money, keeping more of them instead of paying a lot of taxes? You could pay less, y'know. Well if you are, then take a look at how the Fedral Reserve became to be a privately owned bank, having the power of creating money out of nothing, collecting interest on the money borrowed to the U.S.A.; something only countries should have the power to do.

That money should come to the benefit of the US American people in the way of lower taxes, a healt plan, and better infrastructure (more weapons and higher salaries for those governmet workers perhaps?).

Will we ever find out what really happened? Nope.

Nothing would have ever been done/invented/achieved with an attitude like that.

Are people putting way to much thought and energy into what already happen and not enough thought into how to cope with the new world we live in? Yup.

The world is as ****ty as it is just because of ignorance and because of we don't put an effort to change it. Another world is possible, we just got to work toghether in greater numbers to make it happen. Nothing or very small achievments can be done by a single person, unified as good as possible it's a whole other thing.

Look at how the military works; send John J Rambo out on his own and he'll cause a stirr (you still lost that war though). But if you have hundreds of people backing up every man with a gun, as it is today with intelligence, logistics, unified communications and fire support from all of the militarys branches (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines), you have greater means of achiving your goals.

Look at the past 2000-3000 thousand years of history and see how much better it has become for the common man, in a sence of how much power the ruling classes have lost over them, as his knowledge has grown. Education/information and food so that they have the energy to grow is the way out of this hell hole.

The rulers have seen this too and are scared ****less, I bet. That's why they keep our minds occupied with conflicts and wars all the time; Devide and rule, they don't want us to unite. That's why a lot of people go hungry today, when we have the means to feed all and heel the most.

That's why the majority of the worlds population are better kept illiterate, that's why this current US administration is against internet and wants to cencor it in the form of Internet 2. Censorship, is that considered an American thing? Because I'm against it.

Oh, wait, since I am in the United States Army, I must be a pawn, who has been brainwashed to answer the party line. Another conspiracy theory!

Just call me, Jason “MarinR00” Bourne.

Brainwash, we could start a new thread debating what that is. Sounds like violatent Scottsh Briting the inside of your cranium to me.

Pawn? If a person does as he pleases with another person, makes him do things he and others conseder unethical and what not, what do you call the person being used?

You're not going to like the above and others in this forum won't eather. We can lie to others, keep our mouths shut, out of politeness, but you asked. Should we lie to our selves? I'm convenced that that is the main hinderance of personal growth, the single most important thing an individual can do for him self, but it inevitably also affects everybody and everything around him. Don't mean to insult you with that, seriously, just give you something to reflect on.

 

[rockwool]

The way I see it, there are many aspects of the 'official' story that are, in all likelyhood, crap. The fact is however, that this was now several years ago and the 'repercusions' based on the 'official' story have now been enacted and their repercusions and the repercusions of those have now occured. I don't believe everything I am told about 9/11, but in many ways it is too late. The possibility of some sort of huge revaltion aside, it's gone, passed, we will never find out the full depth of the truth.

Mike, you can I think admit there are several aspects of the official story that do not add up.

You other guys - I think we need to deal with the consequences now, even if the situation was a lie. There is little point dredging this up any longer. Everyone knows the current US administration bends and distorts the truth. Depending on your world view you will see this to a larger or smaller extent. The thing we can all agree on is that it occurs and that Nov 2008 can't really come soon enough.

I don't think that will help as the D's allow this to happen all the time by woting, to different exstent, to uphold the continuance of these lies and them behind them. Has the President and Dick Cheeney been impeached yet yet?

Two party system? Man that's almost as bad as Soviet Russia's one party system. But if we compare it to that, then we see it's 100% more democratic. That's possitive.

 

[MarinR00]

Rockwool, once again you have left me speechless with an argument that is circular in nature, has no definitive end state, skews history, is based solely on conjecture and uses attacks against myself and the United States as pillars to prop up the afore-mentioned weak argument. Soliloquies on how the world can be a better place, why the US is the problem, etc are nice when using the internet as a soap-box, however are irrelevant in a debate, especially when the evidence you present to counter well-known published reports is “yeah I think I remember the arguments of those two being refuted in one of the documentaries I saw.” If that isn’t bullet-proof, I don’t know what is.

I enjoy watching you dissect my posts line by line. It amusing and boring at the same time.

If I could actually have a debate with you, it would be so, but you have yet to present any topic to which I’ll bite. Specifically, any topic to which I have enough personal knowledge in the matter to debate, because unlike you I have stricter guidelines on the use (and abuse) of evidence as you.

Your argument is that the “evidence” provided by competent authorities is wrong. You have submitted “counter evidence” by amateurs, documentaries, websites and conspiracy theorists as proof there was a cover up. However you have no background, nor the expertise necessary to support either one based on your own knowledge of the subject matters involved (government, engineering, international relations). Because if you will dispute and throw out the evidence of governments, independent study panels and top engineers from around the world, then by exception you are saying that you (and those your quote) are more professional, knowledge, resourced and efficient than the previously mentioned groups. You merely picked the theory (of the myriad out there) that supported your own personal agenda. Your strongest argument is that more than one person agrees with you that there is a conspiracy theory. I am not debating whether there was a cover up or not, I am debating the evidence you are presenting and your methods of arguing it.

On a different matter, let me ask you this, what is your idea of a utopia. You continually post in the forums what is wrong with the world, and Lord knows I actually totally agree with you on a lot of it, yet never what right looks like, unless I missed it. Please enlighten me as to what, in your mind, the world should look like. And more importantly, what you are doing to make it so.

Tell your buddy Lars Vilks I said hi and good luck.

 

[rockwool]

Rockwool, once again you have left me speechless with an argument that is circular in nature, has no definitive end state, skews history, is based solely on conjecture and uses attacks against myself and the United States as pillars to prop up the afore-mentioned weak argument. Soliloquies on how the world can be a better place, why the US is the problem, etc are nice when using the internet as a soap-box, however are irrelevant in a debate, especially when the evidence you present to counter well-known published reports is “yeah I think I remember the arguments of those two being refuted in one of the documentaries I saw.” If that isn’t bullet-proof, I don’t know what is.

I enjoy watching you dissect my posts line by line. It amusing and boring at the same time.

If I could actually have a debate with you, it would be so, but you have yet to present any topic to which I’ll bite. Specifically, any topic to which I have enough personal knowledge in the matter to debate, because unlike you I have stricter guidelines on the use (and abuse) of evidence as you.

Your argument is that the “evidence” provided by competent authorities is wrong. You have submitted “counter evidence” by amateurs, documentaries, websites and conspiracy theorists as proof there was a cover up. However you have no background, nor the expertise necessary to support either one based on your own knowledge of the subject matters involved (government, engineering, international relations). Because if you will dispute and throw out the evidence of governments, independent study panels and top engineers from around the world, then by exception you are saying that you (and those your quote) are more professional, knowledge, resourced and efficient than the previously mentioned groups. You merely picked the theory (of the myriad out there) that supported your own personal agenda. Your strongest argument is that more than one person agrees with you that there is a conspiracy theory. I am not debating whether there was a cover up or not, I am debating the evidence you are presenting and your methods of arguing it.

On a different matter, let me ask you this, what is your idea of a utopia. You continually post in the forums what is wrong with the world, and Lord knows I actually totally agree with you on a lot of it, yet never what right looks like, unless I missed it. Please enlighten me as to what, in your mind, the world should look like. And more importantly, what you are doing to make it so.

Tell your buddy Lars Vilks I said hi and good luck.

Get of your high horse Jason. Did I ask you to present any evidence in the "Are They Trying To Start A War" thread about your claims of Europe being isolationist and what not, just because you think that they should be helping the US to loot Iraq?

No I didn't, and you still haven't watched the documentaries made by those amatures that don't know what they're talking about (unlike you and I..), which means that you talk about a flavour that you haven't tasted yet...

Europe being at Russias mercy, China and Russia being a threat with military personel all over, France getting ready to rejoin NATO and do what..? Where do you show these stricter guide lines that I lack?

You're full of it, and again you go of on a rant instead of answering my "dissections" of previous post (dissections that I use to make it clearer of what exactly I'm adressing), and you still haven't answered my original quesions nor the last in the "Are They Trying To Start A War" thread.

The US being isolationist until Pearl Harbour...Is that skewing history, revisionism, or does it fall under altering teh meaning of words.

Lars Vilks is an unsensitive SOB, I wouldn't dream of taking a dump on any God and his followers. All the **** Muslims go through today is like the Jew bashing of yesterday.

Utopia and how we get there is a big thing to discuss, not in this thread, you have a lot to answer already in two threads, jalla.

 

[MarinR00]

Now tell me this isn't fun!

There is no point in providing you evidence to back up my claims because:

A) I’m sitting in Baghdad with little or no ability to do any sort of legitimate research, which I know you would use as an immediate weapon to attack my argument.

B) Because you have proven that, even if evidence is presented, you will pick and choose what you want based on your Euro-centric and hostile view towards American foreign policy. So even if I were to present irrefutable evidence to back up any of my statements, you would have a very easy time dismissing it on the grounds of it doesn’t jive with your own prejudices.

However, in my spare time (which isn’t a lot) I am compiling a list of evidence, based on historical events, to counter your rebuttal. Give me some time, and perhaps, one day, you will have a little Ridemonkey-gram sitting in your in-box.

Inshallah



By the way, my name's not Jason.

 

[3D.]

yet never what right looks like, unless I missed it.

US troops stopping African genocides



-instead of-








and you guys being lied to in the middle east

 

[MikeD]

US troops stopping African genocides

Hey, something we could actually agree on...

 

[3D.]

Hey, something we could actually agree on...

I had to resort to something irrefutable, just in case you jumped back in:biggrin:

 

[Changleen]

New topic: WTC 7

So, at 5pm~ish on 9/11 WTC7 is demolished.

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

So:

1) The official story 'does not know' why WTC7 collapsed, despite the famous 'pull it' quote, despite that it looks exactly like a demolition, despite that 'no steel framed building ever collapsed etc...'
2) It had to be rigged with explosives to be demolished in that fashion.
3) You can't rig a building in a day.

Therefore, WTC7 was rigged with explosives before 9/11.

Therefore either the official explanation contains lies, or the government had no idea that somebody rigged a building that it rented/owned several floors of offices in (including the feds), with demolition charges.

Discuss.

 

[MarinR00]

I can't see the pictures! They are blocked for some reason.

 

[Changleen]

I can't see the pictures! They are blocked for some reason.

Imagine how it looks when a building is demolished.

 

[Changleen]

Try this one:

http://11syyskuu.net/video/wtc7collapse.gif

 

[RenegadeRick]

I can't see the pictures! They are blocked for some reason.

Did you try the Google cache?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Your argument is that the “evidence” provided by competent authorities is wrong. You have submitted “counter evidence” by amateurs, documentaries, websites and conspiracy theorists as proof there was a cover up. However you have no background, nor the expertise necessary to support either one based on your own knowledge of the subject matters involved (government, engineering, international relations). Because if you will dispute and throw out the evidence of governments, independent study panels and top engineers from around the world, then by exception you are saying that you (and those your quote) are more professional, knowledge, resourced and efficient than the previously mentioned groups. You merely picked the theory (of the myriad out there) that supported your own personal agenda. Your strongest argument is that more than one person agrees with you that there is a conspiracy theory. I am not debating whether there was a cover up or not, I am debating the evidence you are presenting and your methods of arguing it.

Hey, R00 and Ohio. Since R00 brought up the idea that we were not qualified to investigate the matters herein, may I ask another dumb question?

Have either of you actually read Dr. Jones paper?

To the best of my knowledge, no peer review of this paper has occurred. Would you gentlemen be so kind as to share your thoughts? Maybe refute a position or two? I would like to know what it was that caused me to be misled by this scientist.

Thanks

 

[Transcend]

Well there is certainly no question that builkding 7 was a controlled demolition. I've seen controlled demolitions that didn't come down that precisely. Not to mention that the police were evacuating the area and telling people th ebuilding was going to collapse. ha.

 

[MikeD]

Have either of you actually read Dr. Jones paper?

To the best of my knowledge, no peer review of this paper has occurred. Would you gentlemen be so kind as to share your thoughts? Maybe refute a position or two? I would like to know what it was that caused me to be misled by this scientist.

Thanks

I may only have been a dumb grunt, but I know thermite isn't a "cutting charge" and would be really difficult to time to create a synchronicitous effect. "Cutting charges" are explosions that peak very quickly (C4 et al) , expending energy in short sharp waves that tend to break through things rather than push them, like TNT or other more-progressive explosives do. They are extensively used in demolition, whereas thermite is not; it's not even an explosive, it's an incendiary.

I'd be most interested to read what an acutal building demolition engineer has to say on the topic, because most of what I've read has been anecdotal and theoretical, written by Internet amateurs (including professional engineers who don't deal in the specific subject matter). I'd like to know just how much explosive would have to be used to bring the tower down, where it'd be placed, how it'd be linked to the other charges, etc.

Because from my knoweldge of explosives, you simply couldn't covertly install and continue to hide the kind of charges you'd need to demolish a skyscraper.

And from my knowledge of politics, if you're a conspirator, you couldn't have cooked this up in the short time the Bush administration was in power, which points to Clinton being complicit, and perhaps others earlier.

I also think Ohio's earlier response does a good bit to refute Jone's idea that only thermite could have caused the heat necessary for the effects observed.

So basically, this argument is getting me nowhere, and you guys will always think the Mossad has been working on this since 1949 (before the towers were built)--nothing will ever make everything "add up" except that America is at fault--and I'll still continue to think that three passenger planes struck targets in the US.

MD

 

[Westy]

I may only have been a dumb grunt, but I know thermite isn't a "cutting charge" and would be really difficult to time to create a synchronicitous effect. "Cutting charges" are explosions that peak very quickly (C4 et al) , expending energy in short sharp waves that tend to break through things rather than push them, like TNT or other more-progressive explosives do. They are extensively used in demolition, whereas thermite is not; it's not even an explosive, it's an incendiary.

I'd be most interested to read what an acutal building demolition engineer has to say on the topic, because most of what I've read has been anecdotal and theoretical, written by Internet amateurs (including professional engineers who don't deal in the specific subject matter). I'd like to know just how much explosive would have to be used to bring the tower down, where it'd be placed, how it'd be linked to the other charges, etc.

Because from my knoweldge of explosives, you simply couldn't covertly install and continue to hide the kind of charges you'd need to demolish a skyscraper.

And from my knowledge of politics, if you're a conspirator, you couldn't have cooked this up in the short time the Bush administration was in power, which points to Clinton being complicit, and perhaps others earlier.

I also think Ohio's earlier response does a good bit to refute Jone's idea that only thermite could have caused the heat necessary for the effects observed.

So basically, this argument is getting me nowhere, and you guys will always think the Mossad has been working on this since 1949 (before the towers were built)--nothing will ever make everything "add up" except that America is at fault--and I'll still continue to think that three passenger planes struck targets in the US.

MD

Just thought I'd add that traditional building implosions require extensive demolition to weaken the building. Not doing so woud typically require so much explosive material that the building would blow up instead of imploding.

 

[ohio]

Y'all seem to have a lot of energy for this sort of thing. I suggest you start reading here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383
Plenty of conspiracy theorists there too, but buffered by a whole lot of folks a lot more informed than any of us on the actual science/physics/engineering. It's three threads of about 500 pages each. Enjoy.