Hollus

What are you talking about? Who mentioned planes firing missles before impact? Thats the most rediculous thing Ive ever heard. Dont try and debunk my arguments by introducing wacky theories which I have never endorsed. I have no comment on the pentagon attack. It really has no bearing on wether or not the destruction of WTC #1 #2 & #3 was an inside job.

What leads you to that idea? I have been investigating this for quite awhile, there is much more evidence to this being an inside job than just the impossibility of the governments claim. Do I have to be an engineer to have an opinion on somthing? So you agree the government is full of shit? Does that not leave you questioning their legitimacy? They are supposed to be the ones to investigate it and provide the proper analisys but they have clearly missled and avoided it. They did not even provide any examination of the collapse of WTC 7 as if the complete destruction of a 47 story building was not an issue. They lied about the wieght bearing structure of the twin towers and said that the inner core was a hollow elevator shaft when infact it contained the 47 steel pillars that were the main wieght bearing structure of the building. The towers were marvels of engineering. They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 jetliner which is similar in wieght and size as the ones that were used. Does it not seem strange that when the structure failed, there was no investigation as to why. No examination of the steel which would have indicated what the flaw of the design was. Even in much smaller catastrophies we typically will reconstruct things as completely as possible, as in when flight WTA 800 crashed pieces were dredged off the bottom of the sea to allow a detailed analysis, in this case the exact opposite was done.

So what? The governments "9/11 Commission Report" is on sale for twice that price and its full of ommissions, distortions and flat out lies. - Robert W. Bowman, Lt. Col., Air Force (ret.); former director of Advanced Space Programs Development ("star wars"), Air Force Space Division, under Presidents Ford and Carter. James H. Fetzer, Co-chair of Scholars for 9/11, Truth: www.st911.org -Frank A Demartini Chief Engineer WTC Construction and Project ManagerIt has been admitted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. There could not have been a controlled demolition without pre-positioned explosives. It takes days to rig a 47 story building with explosives. Any structural engineer will tell you that it is impossible for the 47 steel pillars to collapse into themselves into roughly 30' peices as they did, without use of thousands of pre-positioned explosives. Is the government being honest with you, or do you want to believe it so badly that you just don't care?

The pro wieghs in? Give me a break! You obviously havent even watched the video. It is full of structural engineers who clearly explain the impossibility of the official goverment claim of what happened. Your quite obviously ignoring very appropriate questions raised by some of the most qualified opinions of the matter. Do I have to go through the video and type out the qoutes that prove the impossibility of the collapse? Can you debunk any of the statments made by these experts? Do you have any information that supports the government claim that the collapse was caused by fire? No you don't. Here is an updated version of the video with even more expert testemony regarding the conspiricy. Watch it, or don't and continue clinging to your unsubstantiated belief.

The damning evidence in the video isnt in its beggining. If your not willing to even watch it than I have no interest in debating your lazy intellect. Plus your reply does not address any of the points in my post. If the jet fuel didnt burn off, and if it was burning in the building, than why did the heat trace not show up on the thermo imageing? GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO. I can't find the video on that page. Do you have a direct link or show me because I'm blind apparently. This should be it:9/11 Reviseted If that does'nt work, go to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ and scroll down 'till you see the 'videos and audio' list on the left side of the screen. Obviously titled '9/11 Reviseted'. There are also many others on the subject.

The damning evidence in the video isnt in its beggining. If your not willing to even watch it than I have no interest in debating your lazy intellect. Plus your reply does not address any of the points in my post. If the jet fuel didnt burn off, and if it was burning in the building, than why did the heat trace not show up on the thermo imageing? GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO. Perhaps my lazy intellect has something to do with the fact I have made my living working on and flying heavy jet aircraft for the last 33 years, including Al Qaeda's weapon of choice. However you want to justify it.

Great work? They were better off under Saddam. Before the first gulf war Iraqi's enjoyed the highest standard of living in the middle east. That was because Saddam- who was insalled by the US and supported throughout much of his rain of terror without question- became an economic nationalist. Only when Saddam quit fallowing orders did the US see fit to fabricate information to provide pretext for military intervention. Like in the first gulf war when they said Iraqi troops were lined along Suadi Arabias boarder ready to invade. Or when they took a poll of the American people that asked whether or not they would support an invasion of Iraq if it was shown they had nuclear weapons- to which 90% said yes- then used that poll 12 years later to fabricate a pretext for war based on Saddams 'WMDs'.

Source for Geoffrey and scribblet:http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...&of=ENG-PSE. from Amnesty International. Mabye not everyone was delibratly killed, but enough were that it is considered routine. To those of you that seem to think the children are incouraged by their parents to engage in stonethrowing you are mistaken. Of course they love their children more than they hate Israel, the children engage in this defiance themselves and catch hell from it from their parents. Can you picture any parent sitting at their kitchen table when their child arrives from throwing stones at fully armoured tanks- obviously posing no threat- to which the tanks routinly return lethal fire; could you picture that parent saying: "oh great johnny, maybe you dented the steel. If you throw enough rocks maybe you might eventually do some damage." No, I dont think thats what its like. From what Ive heard and read, parents go searching for their children if they suspect they might be stone throwing because they want their children to live. How can it be considered justifyable for fully armoured tanks to fire back at stonethrowers? there is no threat, their killing them for because the children are expressing their anger. There are many undeniable casses of children who pose absolutly no threat- just walking to school, or hanging laundry, or sitting in UN schools- being shot to death. The list goes on...

The damning evidence in the video isnt in its beggining. If your not willing to even watch it than I have no interest in debating your lazy intellect. Plus your reply does not address any of the points in my post. If the jet fuel didnt burn off, and if it was burning in the building, than why did the heat trace not show up on the thermo imageing? GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO.

And with every home they demolish they create a new population of people with nowhere to go. Dont try and say that Israel does not target the general population. Did you read my previous post? Childen are sniped for no apparent reason or for throwing rocks at tanks. If your child or little brother or childhood friend was delibratly shot by the Israeli military; or if tanks and bulldozers showed up outside your home which your family has lived for generations; or if you wittenessed your loved one shot and bled to death 20 yards away from you for being on the street outside your home on a curfew day, and not even being able to approach your loved one for the military ordering you not to move; your opinion of them might change.

No steel structured highrise has ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11, and there have been much more intense fires that left nothing but steel frames. The towers collasped to dust; clean-up crews found no office debree bigger than a few inches. Try dropping a chunk of concrete from 1000' and see if it smashes into fine dust like the dust that covered manhatten as far as Jersey. The black smoke from the fires indicated that the fire was burning cool from lack of oxygen; firefighter thermo imageing did not show any areas in the building hot enough to melt steel. WTC 7 was delibratly 'pulled' as reported on CNN on the afternoon of 9/11; the owner gave the OK to pull it and recieved 13 billion in insurence. All officail theorys as to why the towers collapsed have been debunked by numerous reputable organizations. The 'pancake theory' is impossible, esspecialy at near freefall speeds. The 47 steel pillars that were the main structure of the building collasped into 20'-30' pieces which were immediatly loaded on to barges and shipped to China where they were melted down, preventing examination of the steel, which would have shown wether or not explosives were used. The 9/11 Commision Report does not even mention the 47 steel pillairs but unstead, flat out lies by saying the building were supported by an exoskelleton. Steel, even at near melting temperatures, retains a great deal of structural integrity; the pilliars should have been sticking out hundreds of feet from the wreckage. It is illegal to remove anything from a crime seen before an investigation. Video of the collapse shows what demolition expert reffer to as "squibs" shooting out below the collaspe lines during the fall. The collaspe began at the very top floor, above where the planes entered (very suspicious). Only 600,000$ was spent in the 'investigation' as to why the towers collapsed; more mony is spent on investigations of crashed planes. Why was a thourough investigation as to why the structure failed not carried out? When the planes hit, the buildings ocillation was consistent with what was expected from such an impact. The towers restabalized at a rate that indicated maintianed structural integrity. In the week previous, power outages and evacuation drills were carried out in the area. On the morning of the attacks Cheney was in NY participating in drills designed to address such an event as highjacked airliners crashing into targets, yet the administration claimed they had never imagined such an attack. Following the attacks they invaded the wrong countries, as Suadi Arabia and Pakistan both had many more connections with the highjackers than did Afghanistan. There is doucumentation of the head of Pakistans intelligence agency- the ISI- wiring 100,000$ to the mastermind of the attacks Mouhammed Atta, weeks before the attacks. The CIA have a well doucumented 'hand in glove' relationship with the ISI. In a matter of days after the attacks, a delegation from Pakistan-including the head of the ISI- arrived in Washington and declared allegence in the 'war on terror'. Thats all I can think of right now off the top of my head, but there is much more. Here is a video that examines the conspiracy:9/11 Reviseted If you watch this and still claim that the American government did not intentionaly bring down WTC #1 #2 and #7 than I would love to hear your stochastic theory. Take a look at the many videos and articles on informationclearinghouse. I reccommend the one titled: "Dr. Michael Parenti: Terrorism, Globalization and Conspiracy".

Was'nt chemical weapons a big part of the so-called justification for war? But its OK for the US to rain white phosphorus all over fallujah killing all life indescriminatly? Accusations have been made of genocide in fallujah, but its hard to verify because only certain hand picked journalists are allowed to report on the city. On freelance journalist that made the trip himself, mesteriously had his hotel room broken into and his footage stollen. But here is a video that shows the raining of the phosphorus and its aftermath. It also interviews soldiers that were there and seen it themselves.

What choice do Palestinians have but gorilla warfare and suicice bombings? Palestinian children-like 7yr olds- are delibratly shot at the rate of 1 every 2 days. Children have been sniped in the head from sniper towers while doing school work in their classrooms. 1000 pound bombs dropped on schools for what reason? The official anwser: "It was a school funded by Hamas and they [children] would have been the next generation of suicide bombers". Walls and checkpoints prevent Palestinians from leaving their ghettos, unable to visit family that live with in walking distance from them. Children that live within sight of the mediterranian sea but have never been. Last year somthing like 170 days of the year were curfew days in which anyone seen in the street is shot dead; on these curfew days they've created street schools that take place in someones back room so the children can atain some kind of teaching. Children engage in stone throwing against fully armoured tanks in a show of resistance, this is a daily occurence; the tanks fire back and kill the children! The regular killing of small children is not an issue to Israel! Since the end of WWII Israel has been expanding its boarders by displacing Palestinian communities. How do they do it? They roll in to town with tanks leading the way, followed by specially built for Israel, armoured bulldozers; without even showing a face a voice comes over the loadspeaker telling the inhabitants that they have 2hrs to pack and leave. No previous warning. The houses are leveled and the former inhabitants move into friggin tents! If I had to face the adversity that the Palestinians endure day in and day out, I'd probably blow myself up in protest too. Get out Israel. Quit supporting Israel America. Also worth noting: Israel counts every stone thrown at their tanks as a terrorist attack. So when you hear some zionist freak saying Israel sustained 357 terrorist attacks last week, it just means their tanks were battling with stone throwers.

You've said absolutly nothing to discredit him.

This is not WWII. One striking difference in that comparison is that England was not in a position of power in facing Hitler’s aggression. In this case, we are the aggressors. You do realize this is Washingtons policy towards "any society that might serve as a succesful example of an alternative to the capatilist model, and to prevent the rise of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy..."-William Blum Should this only apply to non-secular regimes? How 'bout secular regimes with ties to terrorism? Or how 'bout your own government? I think he's got a better idea of the 'American way' than most North Americans. Oh NO! Not crocodiles!

Im not a liberal, and had I'd accessed this info sooner I would have brought it up then. Emmerson signed a public decleration of recusal in 2004 that stated: I'd say his former employer- being the largest forestry company in Canada- is directly involved.

So your saying that because he's from BC, the area affected most by the softwood dispute, this means he's the most qualified to make the deal? No matter if he's personaly vested in the outcome? No matter if his decisions reflect the interests of Canfor not BCers? Obviously people think he's the best choice for MP in the area. Afterall, they did vote for him. Exactly, his constituants voted in a plurality for him. Thats what I don't understand. They elected the guy they don't like? Unbelievable. Reflects poorly on the common sense of Vancouverites. So theres no reason to question the ethics of elected MPs? Who cares if he was elected by the Vancouver/Kingsway riding, it is'nt exactly the forestry capital of BC, the job loses are not happening there.

I think the miss-conception is that there is a centralized terror network of Islamist trying to achieve world domination. In reality I see a growing movement against western imperialist oppression. I understand that the current Islamic ideology that’s so fervently against western society has been largely influenced by the philosophy of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was a western educated Egyptian who studied at Colorado State in the 1950s. During his time in the US he experience what he considered a “shocking” and “primitive” society that evoked the worst traits in human nature: materialism, poverty, tyranny, immorality, and ignorance – things he thought could only be solved through submission to God's sovereignty, as fulfilled in Islam. So Qutb returned to Egypt and entered politics in the hope of defending Islam from corrupting western influence. He did not advocate the use of violence in achieving his political goals. Only through the vicious torture which he endured at the hands Egyptian guards trained in the art of torture by the CIA¬- in a tactic to repress resistance to American imperialism- did he find the inspiration to advocate violent resistance. Qutb was executed but, his interpretation of jihad and its application for societal change has influenced many later Islamist activists, both violent and non-violent. Their ultimate goal was, is, has always been, for Muslim lands to be governed by Muslims. In 2002 a taped message from Osama bin Laden began: “The road to safety begins by ending the aggression. Reciprocal treatment is part of justice. The [terrorist] incidents that have taken place…are only reactions and reciprocal actions” In 2004 a taped message from Osama said: “The greatest rule of safety is justice, and stopping the injustice and aggression… What happened on 11 September and 11 March [Madrid] is your commodity that was returned to you… we would like to inform you that labeling us and our acts as terrorism is also a description of you and of your acts… Our acts are reaction to your own acts, which are represented by the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine… Which religion considers your killed ones innocent and our killed ones worthless? Reciprocal treatment is fair and the one who starts injustice bears the greater blame… The killing of the Russians was after the invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya; the killing of Europeans was after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; and the killing of Americans on the day of New York was after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian Peninsula.” I think appeasement from the position of strength is a powerful and noble action that will go much further in building peace than our bombs will.

So your saying that because he's from BC, the area affected most by the softwood dispute, this means he's the most qualified to make the deal? No matter if he's personaly vested in the outcome? No matter if his decisions reflect the interests of Canfor not BCers?

What the hell does that mean? The question is not why is it the party line, the question is why is it correct. "Emerson is the most qualified person to secure a deal on softwood lumber" Damn near impossible to accomplish that from the Liberal benches when the Conservatives are in power. Why is he the most qualified? Because he recieves a pension from a company that benefits from the disputes continuence?

What the hell does that mean? The question is not why is it the party line, the question is why is it correct.

Emerson shelved a deal on softwood before the federal election. He refused to address our unfair stumpage subsidies(which is the US' dispute) because it was not in the best interest of the biggest forestry companies. The big companies are still turning profit throughout this dispute, but the smaller ones have gone out of business consoladating more of the industry into the biggest companies. 500 jobs gone in my community. Emerson is not managing forest in the best interest of Canadians, he's getting his orders from the lobbyists. Since the Forest Revitalization Act in 2001 we've been selling old growth at 25cents a cubic meter(physically the size of your average telephone pole). "Dogwood’s[NGO] Horter thinks companies like Canfor, and CEOs like Emerson, aren’t that unhappy with the U.S. tariffs. The tariffs and duties—which the big companies can absorb and still make a profit—set up a situation in which they can swallow up the smaller ones for whom the duties really are devastating. This is exactly what has happened." Do you actually think about things geoffrey or do you just take opposition to whatever you percieve as coming from the 'left'? Emerson is the most qualified person to secure a deal on softwood with the right government behind him. He needs to be Trade minister, it is the best interest of Canada and BC forestry workers. Do you have anything to base this on, or are you just repeating the party line?

How about the whole 'intellegent design' thing down in the states? They were sure trying to push that.

Sure, stand up for the Muslum hater.

Emerson shelved a deal on softwood before the federal election. He refused to address our unfair stumpage subsidies(which is the US' dispute) because it was not in the best interest of the biggest forestry companies. The big companies are still turning profit throughout this dispute, but the smaller ones have gone out of business consoladating more of the industry into the biggest companies. 500 jobs gone in my community. Emerson is not managing forest in the best interest of Canadians, he's getting his orders from the lobbyists. Since the Forest Revitalization Act in 2001 we've been selling old growth at 25cents a cubic meter(physically the size of your average telephone pole). "Dogwood’s[NGO] Horter thinks companies like Canfor, and CEOs like Emerson, aren’t that unhappy with the U.S. tariffs. The tariffs and duties—which the big companies can absorb and still make a profit—set up a situation in which they can swallow up the smaller ones for whom the duties really are devastating. This is exactly what has happened." Do you actually think about things geoffrey or do you just take opposition to whatever you percieve as coming from the 'left'?