PolyNewbie

jbg: Check out Paul Craig Roberts Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: [email protected] There is a whole other side to these wars that is not being presented by mainstream media. It is as consistent in its opinion as mainstream media but this stuff does not go through the Pentagon for approval before you see it. If you care to investigate the truth behind all this, you will be in for a shocker and be prepared for a depression that will last a few weeks. The truth behind all of this is more evil than you could ever see on a Block Buster DVD. For 911 Truth, go to 911Reasearch.wtc7.net. or st911.org There is a lot of fake 911 truth sites made to confuse. I have an engineering background (bachelors degree EE). I assume since you are a lawyer that you will be able to see the truth quite quickly.

I have heard a big group of lawyers that defend doctors laugh and joke about how corrupt they are with my own ears. Most trial lawyers are the lowest of the low. I assume a lawyer is criminal until proven otherwise. However, lawyers are self governed and therefore deserve to be judged based on the actions of their colleagues. As far as doctors pay goes, they deserve it for the following reasons: (1) The knowledge & education required and the fact that it must be updated all the time. (2) They are responsible for lives and must pay trial lawyers to defend themselves when accused of wrong doing. (3) They expose themselves to disease when working in hospitals and face real life threatening risks. (4) They do not profit from being corrupt or incompetent. (5) Irregular hours and being on call. I think nurses should be paid more in line with doctors since they bear responsibility for life that equals or exceeds that of doctors.

Its a cheap shot to bring this into the debate. But its the only way you think you can win so I understand. The fact is that truth is no defense in a Canadian court room. Its Canadian lawyers that scare me. As far as I am concerned the legal system in Canada is corrupt and I don't want to end up in a court room in front of a judge that changes court transcipts after the hearing is over. I do not want to be threatened and extorted by a gang of Canadian lawyers that worship Lucifer in their spare time and laugh and joke about how corrupt they are.

We have been through this. Not all supports can collapse at the same instant. After some supports fail the remaining supports provide an unbalanced force which cause the part of the tower to begin roatating before falling. This also fits in with observations of the collapse. The rotating part of the tower was subsequently blown apart with bombs - something obvious from the videos of the collapse. See above. I don't don't want to argue against your analysis. Your analysis is just ramblings of a fool / wannabe - nothing more. I will not talk about simple high school physics with you any more. All the NIST evidence is correct. Most evidence was destroyed but there is nothing *wrong* in the NIST report. The problem with the NIST report is all the evidence they ignored and the fact that they failed to explain why the buildings collapsed. Not true. A handful of engineers paid by the government proactively endorse the official version. Far more engineers and scientists are in the truth movement. How is that obvious ? You should watch a movie called "The Power Of Nightmares" its a documentary on Google. Neocon philosophy is that it is OK to to lie to the general population. Also see Officials That Question 911 Report

No, you said that I was using non Newtonian physics when I said your free body diagrams were wrong. The only other kind of physics there is besides Newtonian for this application is special relativity which deals with an observer and general relativity which deals with gravity. The temperature distributions are on 911Research and copied from NIST The firemen inside the tower before the collapse say the fires can be knocked out with only two lines. Cold fires produce a lot of smoke. Hot fires burn efficiently and do not produce a lot of smoke. Its a material property of steel. It goes through an elastic region than a plastic region before it collapses. This is from the stress strain characterization of steel. The criminal justice system has nothing to do with this. This is straight litigation. Quite a few demolitions exoperts as well as physisists say the most likely explanation is explosives. NIST did not address this issue at all. No one but you has ever said the buildings could not have been brought down by explosives unless they were directly paid off by government - ie Van Romero, who first said it had to be CD - no doubt then retracted his staement saying it must have been fires just before getting big promotions and grants. Its funny how all these incompetents get promotions within the Bush regime instead of getting fired. This happened with many NORAD officials after NORAD was blamed for incompetence around 911. Its called "being paid off for being a patsy"

No one could be as incompetent as Bush. Its all by design so that people do not realize the true reason as to why this is all happening. The central bankers want a world government and for that to happen the USA and its constitution and manufactering capability must be destroyed. David Rockefeller explains it: "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years." "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money." Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995) "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913) New World Order Quotes

The data taken right out of the NIST report proves it ! Hoffman takes apart NIST and shows that from their data the steel could not have gotten hot enough to fail. The steel reached a max temp of 600 deg F. That means a point of half strength for steel. More than half of the steel in the collapse are was still there after the crash - again according to NIST. The building core was designed with an overbuild factor of 6 and there was very little wind that day. Furthermore the building stood after most fires went out then suddenly collapsed. You are in no position to tell me I am wrong about science. I have repeatedly shown your errors on the most elementary of concepts - free body diagrams. The evidence of NIST and an elementary knowledge of mechanics is all you need to see that the buildings could not havbe collapsed on their own. Furthermore, steel bends before it collapses. The building was not bent in any way before the collapse. It stood straight right up until the first explosion was heard. Some things are just impossible. The official hypothesis put forward by NIST is impossible - thats why they didn't prove it and left it only as a hypothesis. If you prove it and they don't pay you you will have no problem getting a lawyer to work for you on contingency. I think the truth movement is more qualified to diswcuss what the truth movement is and represents than anyone else. So really what wiki censors for is accuracy according to wiki. ..or possibility. Its impossible for three buildings in one day to collapse perfectly straight down at near freefall speed due to assymetrical damage and fires. Its not "improbable" - its impossible. Also the video footage taken from many sources show that explosion sounds took place before any collapse initiated. In 911eyewitness they have explosions taking place several minutes before any collapse. In 911 Mysteries they show the results of an explosion below the lobby while in the lobby long before the building collapses. Theur are plenty of witnesses to these explosions as well as a smashed up lobby right inside one of the towers.

That is the only possible explanation. Its been prioven by many people many ways, all with Phd's in science. Any other theory about how the buildings collapsed can be shown to be false and any other theory so far presented has been shown to be scientifically impossible. There is a milliuon dollar challenge for anyone that can prove that the buildings did not collapse as a result of explosions. I posted a link on this thread: see "Million Dollar Challenge". I see. So freedom of speech is OK as long as it doesn't involve any conspiracy theories. We all know conspiracies are impossible with governments - especially the Bush government.

CanadianBlue: "Polynewbie, you have used the same argument's that have been used from a man who has been described as a neo-nazi anti-semite. Are you telling me that you haven't based your theories on Lyndon Larouche, despite having a thread dedicated to his work?" When I posted that thread I had not yet listened to LaRouche or looked at any of his work. I was looking for opinions of him. I have only looked at his economics and nothing else since then, besides reading a bit about how Bush framed him and stuck him in jail when casually looking through Tarpleys book.

This was reported in the NY times. Webster Tarplays book unauthorized biography of Bush has copies of the NY Times in it. Its historical fact that Brown Brothers Harriman was shut down for a few days over this and Bush had to stop paying the NAZI's I do not want stuff brought into this discussion about the ADL or Jews. I'm not going to jail to have this discussion with you. No, I do not do this. I use experts in various fields to back up my opinions. They just happen to be posted on websites. Multiple videos show the explosions occuring before the buildings began to collapse. All the videos show the buildings falling straight down - three in one day. The grainey videos show the collapses going straight down just fine. I also saw the same thing on TV. If you want to believe buildings just collapse straight down at near freefall speed naturally then there is no point in argueing further. I say that is the result of controlled demolition, you say buildings just naturally collapse that way as a result of assymetrical damage and fires. Lets agree to dissagree on that point. No they do not. the 911 truth movement has not been allowed to edit their definitions. There is no definition for the North American Union permitted. Wiki is controlled media.

This is a thread about 911. I do not care to answer your questions or have a debate about Prescott Bush. The fact that he was arrested during ww2 for supporting Hitler is a matter of public record. It was in the NY Times - there is a clip of it lying around the web somewhere. I don't care what wikipedia says about anything political. This thread is about 911. Can you please repeat your case against my ideas on the motive on 911 without simply cutting & pasting from somewhere else ? I do not want to read a pile of stuff that has nothing to do with what we are talking about to try and find the bit that does. As far as defending my own conspiracy theories: (1) They are not my own conspiracy theories and (2) I have put up piles of evidence as well as links to ex congressmen, ex senators, generals, Phd engineers, ex heads of federal intelligence such as CIA & FBI, and ex foriegn heads of intelligence that think 911 was an inside job. I have posted physical proof that 911 was an inside job. I have posted irrefutable evidence of guilty behaviour in the form of a coverup after the attacks and defence standdown before the attacks. I have shown that the NIST report does not say what people think it does and that the NIST report does not even investigate why the buildings collapsed and does not consider any other possibility than Bin laden having done it. That is not an investigation. Why do you post such nonsense like "You can't even defend your conspiracy theories".

Its in the interview with the law professor I posted. As far as my theories around 911, lots of people share the same ideas and know that the central bankers actually run the country. Its not a new or original idea shared only by myself and Lyndon LaRouche. HR6166 and The Military Commissions Act means that the government can grab you off the street - its even a crime for anyone to say that they saw you grabbed off the street, and then take you away torture you and kill you. Did you not hear about John Yoo saying that they can torture little kids in front of their parents using genital manipulation ? Why don't you try listening to the interview and here what this law professor says? There are others that say the same thing. I'm not dodging any of your questions but I will not answer any questions having to do with Jews or the ADL. Someone could misinterpret what I am saying and I could be arrested and thrown in jail just based on the fact that someone chose to misinterpret what I am saying - like you often do on this forum.

Roy Wilson, CanadianBlue: You are just a couple of idiots. I will not respond to any more posts from you.

I am not familiar with LaRouches ideas on 911. I have never heard him speak about it. This thread is about 911. The motive for 911 was to start wars and to make money from futures markets & weapons sales as well as to implement the police state and make the country go broke. It also distracted everyone froma 2.3 trillion dollar dissapearance announced by Donald Rumsfeld on Sept 10 2001.

You guys are giving the level of debate I would expect from a retarded ten year old.

No, but many demolition experts have said the same think. Von Romero said it then he changed his mind a week or so later and got big promotions + money and now he is a White House lobbyist. You do not have to be a mathemetician to know that 2+2 is not 5 and you do not have to know how to wire a building for CD to recognise a CD any more than you have to be an aeronautical engineer to know that houses don't fly.

I dtermined that 911 was an inside job the day it happened. I didn't neeed LaRouche or anyone else to tell me because I saw wtc7 collapse and the only way a building can collapse like that is with controlled demolition. The only people that could wire a government building for controled demolition like that is the US government. I have not read or heard anything from laRouche about any conspiracy theory at all. I read and listen to him about economics. I have no idea why he thinks 911 was an inside job although I do know that is what he thinks.

Roy Wilson: I guess you, like the rest of the people argueing about this know nothing about the Federal Reserve or even what a fiat currency is. I have been listening to LaRouche and reading his materials and he keeps saying the Bush administration are behind NAZI ideas and have a NAZI background. There is lots of historical evidence to support this (not just hit pieces). Prescott Bush was working for the Harriman bank which was closed during a time during ww2 for sending money to Hitler. LaRouche isn't the only one saying this. Bush's are fascists. Rockefeller isn't Jewish. The banks own USA that is absolute fact that no one can deny. They print the money and every dollar that exists in the USA (electronic or paper) is being rented from private bankers who print it for practically nothing (reserve ratio = 300:1). Bankers make more from every house built, every weapon made or every job ever done than anyone else and that has been true for almost 100 years. The federal reserve act of 1913 was sneakily signed into law when many congressmen were away for the holidays. At that point & forward the private banks have been in control of the US economy.

If I got into a discussion about the ADL it is possible that I could be arrested and sent to jail fror a long time. We are in Canada. I will not engage in any discussion about Jews or the ADL. It doesn't matter what I think, even if my thoughts are that the holocaust happened. Any one of you guys could have me arrested and locked for one misstep on a discussion about this. I prefer to stick with topics whose ideas are not being policed. I do not believe that the conspiracy of ruining the USA economically, militarily, in farming and in education has anything more to do with Jews than it does Christians or Muslims. Its not about religion its about an oligarchy trying to take everything away from everyone else and have it all for themselves.

I'll wait till you guys have something to add to the discussion at hand rather than stupid insults and copied hit pieces. Why stick around then ? Why not go watch TV ?

I think you should listen to the interview before commenting about it.

So what ? Just because you have heard this arguement from them doesn't mean its wrong. If you dissagree that the banks own the USA you are in dissagreement with just about every economist on the planet! Private bankers print off interest bearing fiat currency and lend it to the government at face value. The only way a government would do this is if they were owned and operated by private bankers. Even John Kenneth Galbraith admits that the private bankers control the USA in his book Money. He only gives the topic one paragraph.

This thread isn't about Larouche

Larouche wants to (1) Nationalize the banks (2) rebuild the USA infrastructure with non interest bearing currency. These two things are strongly against the Bush doctrine which is too destroy the manufactering capability of the USA and to let private bankers take over. So Bush and his gang do everything they can to discredit LaRouche. LaRouche is not in the pockets of the international bankers.

As for the unquoted part of your post I will take the law proffessors opinion about the law over yours. I have heard several interviews with different law professors all saying the same thing. If you want his name then listen to the interview. You are afraid to listen to the interview aren't you. :angry: You haven't proven that Luceferians do not exist because its impossible to prove a negative like that.