Jump to content

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

CanadianBlue:That's odd since many of your theories revolve around the same idea's that Larouche has talked about. What benefit would their be for making the country go broke, I think thats more from mismanagement than anything else. As for the police state, you still haven't provided the statute which says the government can kill people without trial.

Once again Polynewbie before you call us idiot's, why don't you answer the question's instead of constantly dodging them.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

CanadianBlue:I haven't found much evidence, other than hit pieces be some far right groups against George Bush Sr. I've posted the link about Prescott Bush and you have yet to respond to it.

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.

CanadianBlue:So far I have brought forward a strong case against what you believe the motive behind September 11 was and you refuse to answer it. If you can't defend your own conspiracy theories then what's the point of debating on here.

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
The ADL claims the rumors are false: http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm - I realized it is a bit of thread drift but it is yet more evidence that your sources of information are extremely suspect.
I don't care what wikipedia says about anything political.
But you care what is said on random sites that happen to support your views. Wikipedia is probably one of the more reliable sources of information for sensitive topics because it allows people to critique the content of any given page.
I have posted physical proof that 911 was an inside job.
No you haven't - you have posted links to websites that attempt to draw dubious conclusions based on grainy video evidence. That is not considered proof of anything. You really should stop using the word proof because you don't have a clue what it means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:The ADL claims the rumors are false: http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm - I realized it is a bit of thread drift but it is yet more evidence that your sources of information are extremely suspect.

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.

Riverwind:But you care what is said on random sites that happen to support your views.

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.

Riverwind:No you haven't - you have posted links to websites that attempt to draw dubious conclusions based on grainy video evidence. That is not considered proof of anything. You really should stop using the word proof because you don't have a clue what it means.

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.

Riverwind:Wikipedia is probably one of the more reliable sources of information for sensitive topics because it allows people to critique the content of any given page.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that is the result of controlled demolition, you say buildings just naturally collapse that way as a result of asymmetrical damage and fires. Lets agree to disagree on that point.
But your entire theory rests on the idea that a controlled demolition is the only possible explanation. Your theory falls apart completely if you accept alternate explanations for why the buildings collapsed.
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.
The fact that they keep truthies off the site - or at least limited to pages describing 9/11 conspiracy theories demonstrates why Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:But your entire theory rests on the idea that a controlled demolition is the only possible explanation. Your theory falls apart completely if you accept alternate explanations for why the buildings collapsed.

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".

Riverwind:The fact that they keep truthies off the site - or at least limited to pages describing 9/11 conspiracy theories demonstrates why Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the only possible explanation. Its been proven by many people many ways, all with Phd's in science.
That is complete crap - there is simply not enough reliable data to develop a proof.
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.
Pointing to flaws in existing explanations does not mean that they are completely wrong. This is your biggest problem: you don't understand what a scientific proof is yet you claim to have knowledge of scientific principals.
There is a million 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".
A PR stunt, I could promise a million dollars if someone can prove the theory of gravity and be certain that I would never have to pay a cent. The fact is it is impossible to 'prove' what happened since there is no accurate data that would make a true proof possible. That is why it is important to look at things like plausibility - the truthies theories are ridiculously implausible when compared to the obvious explainations.
I see. So freedom of speech is OK as long as it doesn't involve any conspiracy theories.
Wikipedia is a resource for people looking for reasonably accurate information. The truthies can run their own websites but it is ridiculous to expect an organization that believes in accuracy to give truthie theories equal billing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:That is complete crap - there is simply not enough reliable data to develop a proof.

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.

Riverwind:Pointing to flaws in existing explanations does not mean that they completely wrong. This is your biggest problem: you don't understand what a scientific proof is yet you claim to have knowledge of scientific principals.

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.

Riverwind:A PR stunt, I could promise a million dollars if someone can prove the theory of gravity and be certain that I would never have to pay a cent. The fact is it is impossible to 'prove' what happened since there is no accurate data that would make a true proof possible. That is why it is important to look at things like plausibility - the truthies theories are ridiculously implausible when compared to the obvious explainations.

If you prove it and they don't pay you you will have no problem getting a lawyer to work for you on contingency.

Riverwind:Wikipedia is a resource for people looking for reasonably accurate information. The truthies can run their own websites but it is ridiculous to expect an organization that believes in accuracy to give their theories equal billing.

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.

Riverwind:That is why it is important to look at things like plausibility - the truthies theories are ridiculously implausible when compared to the obvious explainations.

..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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Oh really? - does Hoffman have sensor data from inside the WTC that 'proves' that no steel exceeded 600F? Didn't think so. Hoffman is guessing that the temperature would not exceed 600F. The theories I have read suggest temperatures reached 1400F in places. Impossible to prove one way or the other.
Furthermore the building stood after most fires went out then suddenly collapsed.
Can you prove that the fires went out? Do you have video evidence from inside the tower? Extremely hot fires don't produce a lot of smoke. Basically, Hoffman and the other truthies have proved nothing because they have no data that would allow them to prove something.
I have repeatedly shown your errors on the most elementary of concepts - free body diagrams.
No you haven't - you raised a couple points which I addressed but eventually you started babbling about relativity and demonstrating that you have problems comprehending the English language.
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.
Again, how do you know that? Do you have sensor data from inside the building that proves that none of the internal supports started to bend? Can you prove that the audible explosions occurred before the first floor collapsed? A more likely explanation is that any noise was the first floor collapsing. Whatever happened it is impossible to prove one way or another because there is no accurate data available.
If you prove it and they don't pay you you will have no problem getting a lawyer to work for you on contingency.
Do you understand why the criminal justice system presumes an accused is innocent until proven guilty? It is that way because it is often impossible to prove beyond reaonsable doubt that someone is innocent or guilty. So the people who wrote the rules decided put the onus on the state to prove guilt. That reward is bogus because it presumes that their theory must be correct unless it is proven wrong. That is not the way it works. If it is not possible to prove definitively what happened then we must look at plausibility. The truthie theory is so implausible that it cannot be taken serious unless it is proven definitively - something that is impossible with the data available.

Plausibility is the key. Truthies will be viewed as nothing more than a bunch a nutjobs until the plausibility issue is addressed. Whistle blowers are the only thing that could possibly give the the truthie theories plausibility. And I mean people who actually planted the explosives coming forward and describing how they did it.

..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.
My point is it is not improbable - symmetric collapse is the natural way for buildings to collapse. It would have been extremely odd if the buildings had collapsed any other way. You are the one that obesses about proof. Give me a proof that a building can topple over without a large external force. I know that such a proof does not exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:No you haven't - you raised a couple points which I addressed but eventually you started babbling about relativity and demonstrating that you have problems comprehending the English language.

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.

Riverwind:Oh really? - does Hoffman have sensor data from inside the WTC that 'proves' that no steel exceeded 600F? Didn't think so. Hoffman is guessing that the temperature would not exceed 600F. The theories I have read suggest temperatures reached 1400F in places. Impossible to prove one way or the other.

The temperature distributions are on 911Research and copied from NIST

Riverwind:Can you prove that the fires went out? Do you have video evidence from inside the tower? Extremely hot fires don't produce a lot of smoke. Basically, Hoffman and the other truthies have proved nothing because they have no data that would allow them to prove something.

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.

Riverwind:(re steel bending before collapse)Again, how do you know that? Do you have sensor data from inside the building that proves that none of the internal supports started to bend?

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.

Riverwind:(re proving explosives not used)Do you understand why the criminal justice system presumes an accused is innocent until proven guilty?

The criminal justice system has nothing to do with this. This is straight litigation.

Riverwind:The truthie theory is so implausible that it cannot be taken serious unless it is proven definitively - something that is impossible with the data available.

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
You so friggen clueless it is scary. I was _mocking_ you because you clearly don't understand physics. My arguement is the buildings cannot possibly tip unless there is something that can extert a force equal to the weight of the structure while it is tipping. OTH, You seem to think that a building would sit still suspended in the the air while it tipped.

If you really want to argue against my analysis then please answer this question: if some of the supports in a building collapse then what force would cause the building to tip? Gravity alone is not enough - there must another force. What exerts this force and how would you calculate the magnitude and direction?

The temperature distributions are on 911Research and copied from NIST
NIST does not know either -they just guessed. You cannot claim that the temperature distributions were correct in the NIST but reject the other evidence in the report.
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.
Cold fires turn into hot fires - smoke disappears but extremely hot fires are burning inside. Fits with the available evidence can't be proven.
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.
So? The steel just has to weaken to the point that it could not support the load - this would then overload the other supports which collapsed immediately even though they were not over heated.
Quite a few demolitions experts as well as physisists say the most likely explanation is explosives.
The overwhleming majority of construction scientists and engineers believe it is a progressive collapse. A few nutbars seeking 15 minutes of fame does not prove anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Once again, find the actual statute that says the US can kill any person they find on the street, you have not shown me the statute. I'm not going to go looking for it when you made that rediculous claim.

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.

You won't get it any worse than Zundel, unless your a complete anti-semite. Your dodging the question once again about ADL, so all we really have is to assume you have anti-semitic beliefs if you think your going to be charged with hate speech.

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.

Once again this has everything to do with Lyndon Larouche since I'm talking about motive, and you can't substantiate any of your facts. I use wikipedia due to the fact that at the bottom of the page you will find links and footnotes which can add to the articles unbiased opinion which was based on facts. Larouche has made this claim about Prescott Bush, once again this has everything to do with 9/11.

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.

I cut and paste because I try to use facts to back up my argument. Something you should consider doing yourself before making wild claim's about Lucifarian's, and conspiracy theories.

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.

Who have all been quoted out of context by an obscure website, doesn't count as proof unless they say Sept 11 was the work of the US government and the Rockefellers.

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.

I disagree, from your posts you seem to support what Larouche stood for:

This is an excellent presentation on the USA place in the world and the internal workings of the USA on a macro level.

It ties in the Crusades and why Rumsfeld & the gang are doing evrything they can to destroy the USA (Harper in Canada too) to re ignite the Crusades so that the world population can live under an oligarchy.

The Greatest Crisis In Modern History

Sharkman,

I don't actually need your permission to listen to what he says. What he says does make a lot of sense.

The people that put him in jail are probably at least as corrupt as he is and he may have been standing up to them.

As far as him saying there is a great big conspiracy goeing on, he is not alone, but many who have spoken up about it mysteriously die or get locked up on trumped charges, harassed by the FBI, etc. The same sorts of things happened in Germany in the 30's, many honest people were discredited of locked up - its nothing new.

Its about the most interesting thing I have ever heard on the web. LaRouche has real wisdom because he has been around for a long time.

As well it's odd that you and Larouche would hold the same opinion's don't you think. I highly doubt you came up with all of this on your own. If you only look at his economics and nothing else, don't you thing it's kind of odd that he would harbour such anti-semitic belief's if he is indeed full of wisdom as you have claimed?

You can't find a motive, and all I've heard is the exact same arguments coming from a well known NEO-NAZI and ANTI-SEMITE named LYNDON LAROUCHE.

Once again, if you can't substantiate your claim's why are you still posting. Give us links or footnotes to back up what your saying. As well, remember that their are always people who are professor's, scientists, and politician's, who make up maybe one percent of their occupation who are outside of the mainstream opinion for a good reason.

This has everything to do with September 11 as your theories are based around what Larouche believes, so it is a topic of discussion and one which you have been back pedalling on. I assume I will only get an answer which will be something saying the government was behind all of Larouche's anti-semitic remarks, even in his own publications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a holocaust denier but since you brought that up, show me one piece of evidence that they submit that you do not agree with. You have to put some meat into your posts to make good arguement.

You made this post in a previous thread, so I am simply going to ask you to do the same.

What is your agenda, to overlook the obvious, that Radical Islam is at war with us?

JBG, Polynewbie is a Larouche follower, all of his opinion's are the same as the views of Lyndon Larouche in term's of conspiracy theories. He even said the term anti-semitism is a form of thought control, and admitted he would be charged with a hate crime if he let his true feelings about the Jews known. I still have trouble getting him to answer a few basic question's, and Polynewbie continues to backpeddle claiming he's going to be put in jail if he let his true feelings towards the Jew's known.

I do believe that Israel has an unreasonable amount of control over the USA. I have not yet been convinced that Israel had something to do with 911 - more than Canada and other countries anyway. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Israel was behind the attacks on 911.
Western influence on Arabic society has put fundamentalist governments in power in the Middle East to keep the fires of hatred burning because a de stabilised Middle East serves USA interest as well as Israeli interest as long as the fires of hate burn.
When you consider your use of the term "anti semetic" is incorrect and molds your thinking you may begin to realize how much of a thought controlled person you are. The Semetic peoples are Arabic not Israeli, but your thinking has been purposely warped to give "Jews" a new name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for this whole 9/11 conspiracy based on science, let's look at who supports these theories, and who started the movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Avery

Loose Change openly suggests a missile hit the Pentagon yet does not acknowledge the dozens of eye witnesses at the scene who reported seeing a large commercial jet
While some of the calls from Flight 93 were made with Airfones, the documentary asserts that other calls made with cell phones could not have happened from cruising altitudes. However, in the recent book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" by Popular Mechanics editors (ISBN 1-58816-635-X), they point out Flight 93's altitude was lower and it was frequently over rural areas with powerful cell towers.[2] Commercial airlines are testing new cell phone systems since it's a cost effective replacement to the unpopular Airfone being phased out. Reception is also improved (cell calls were dropped on Flight 93), works over the ocean, decreases avionics interference and flight crews can disable the phones.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGR0KRCBA1.DTL

Compares the Collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high rise fires, but does not clarify differences in building design and size, structural damage and compromised fireproofing.[24] (However, not all the critiques agree on this point - 9-11 Research, for example, critiques Loose Change but supports the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center). There is no exploration on the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F."[25] Kevin Ryan the "expert" source from Underwriters Laboratories for steel certification is actually a non-expert from a subsidiary for water testing.[3] Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel,[24][3] and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004.[26] The NIST proved that the fireproofing was not intact by firing shotguns on fireproofed steel.
Critics also point out the documentary quote mines sources, uses unreliable or out of date sources and cherry picks interview footage. It quotes Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on its maneuverability; but it leaves out the end of the statement, "... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."[28] Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller, as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash; over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12 passengers "using mostly dental records."[29] There is an interview of chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills when he took lessons at Freeway Airport; it fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
The original release of Loose Change Second Edition had factual inaccuracies; some of these have been corrected (or removed) in the recut Second Edition.[32] The most notable are:
The New York's Empire State Building was not hit by a B-52 in 1945, but rather a B-25 Mitchell which is less than one-third the size of a B-52. (the first prototype B-52 would not fly for another seven years)
The suggestion that $167 billion in gold was stored in vaults beneath the World Trade Center was removed as it exceeded the entire amount of U.S. gold reserves by approximately $67 billion. The "$230 million in precious metals" stored at the WTC complex were in fact recovered.[
Loose Change implies 757's only have Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy, when in fact the engines used in Flight 77 are Rolls-Royce engines.[34] Bollyn, an American Free Press reporter whom Loose Change references got the incorrect information from a factory in Indiana which makes engines for smaller aircraft; rather than the companies in Quebec and Derby that overhaul the 757 engines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found out the truth behind 9/11. Read and learn the truth.

When someone at South Park Elementary defecates in a urinal (note: this is not the first reference to urinal defecation in South Park, as Cartman and Kyle accuse each other of it in episode 311 "Starvin' Marvin in Space"), Mr. Mackey searches for the boy responsible. Cartman begins to rant that it was a conspiracy, "just like 9/11", which he had been ranting about for a while. The others, on the other hand, simply brush him off as a "retard." Cartman performs an investigation, which he presents to his class in an impressive PowerPoint presentation. He claims that the true culprit behind the 9/11 attacks was Kyle. He has no real evidence to conclude this but uses some numerology involving Kyle's score on a test he earned a few days after the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, he manages to convince everyone that Kyle is guilty. When Kyle tells his mother that everyone thinks he is the 9/11 culprit, she calls a town meeting, arguing that children don't understand enough about the September 11th attacks. However, many of the townspeople also believe 9/11 might have been the result of a conspiracy, so they hire The Hardly Boys (parody of The Hardy Boys) to discover the results of both the 9/11 attacks and the urinal incident, which the Hardly Boys decide must be related. During the whole process they make concealed sexual comments in their investigation.

Kyle enlists Stan's help, and they leave South Park to find an organization that can prove Kyle's innocence. The group they find, however, believes that the United States government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. The conspiracy organization have bottles of anthrax, which they use as "evidence" of the attack. As Kyle is holding them, a SWAT team attacks and arrests Kyle, Stan, and the leader of the conspiracy organization. They are taken to The White House. Presidential officials, along with President George W. Bush, quickly admit that the government actually is behind 9/11. Bush explains the incredibly convoluted method, which seems to greatly dishearten Kyle (who responds repeatedly with a comical, high-noted "Really?!" response), who always believed such theories were stupid. Since Bush admits this information, he decides to kill Stan, Kyle, and the conspiracy leader, as to not have this information leak out. The head of the conspiracy group is executed by George W. Bush.

George W. Bush executing the head of the conspiracy group.As Dick Cheney tries to execute Stan and Kyle with a crossbow (in a parody of Cheney's hunting incident), he misses and allows the boys to escape. Meanwhile, Clyde is caught for the urinal incident, and while he admits to it, his parents tell Mr. Mackey he had a colostomy at age 5. Meanwhile the students continue to take glee at Mr. Mackey's determination to find the culprit. Later, in Chicago, Stan and Kyle run into the leader of the conspiracy group alive and well. After a short chase by Stan and Kyle, he is cornered in a back alley and shot dead by the father of the Hardly boys, who reveals that his sons discovered that all the conspiracy websites are false and run by the government. Stan, Kyle, and the Hardly family congregate at the Hardly house as the Bush Administration arrives, and eventually admits that the government wasn't behind 9/11. He explains they actually run the websites, so that the fourth of the country who are dumb enough to believe conspiracies will believe the government is all-powerful, while the other 3/4's know the truth: that "a bunch of pissed off Muslims" actually executed the 9/11 attacks.

Stan putting a gun to Kyle's headWhen the father of the Hardly boys questions why everyone knew they were at the Hardly house, Stan puts a gun to Kyle's head and admits that he was the one who pooped in the urinal; the whole point of going with Kyle on this strange mission, he explains, was so they could get the "proof" that the government was behind 9/11, and the urinal incident (which again seems to be illogically linked in most people's minds), which the government was willing to go along with if it made people think they were all-powerful. Thus in the end, the fundamentalists are concluded to be responsible for 9/11, the government admits to Stan, Kyle, and the Hardly family that they wanted people to believe the government was in full control of everything. Soon after Stan receives his punishment for pooping in the urinal: cleaning the urinal, while Mr. Mackey lectured him (and unwittingly making Stan laugh).

Sorry, I wanted to bring some kind of humour to this topic. It's a hell of alot more interesting than some plot by the Rockefellers!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:You so friggen clueless it is scary. I was _mocking_ you because you clearly don't understand physics. My arguement is the buildings cannot possibly tip unless there is something that can extert a force equal to the weight of the structure while it is tipping. OTH, You seem to think that a building would sit still suspended in the the air while it tipped.

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.

If you really want to argue against my analysis then please answer this question: if some of the supports in a building collapse then what force would cause the building to tip? Gravity alone is not enough - there must another force. What exerts this force and how would you calculate the magnitude and direction?

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.

Riverwind:NIST does not know either -they just guessed. You cannot claim that the temperature distributions were correct in the NIST but reject the other evidence in the report.

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.

Riverwind:The overwhleming majority of construction scientists and engineers believe it is a progressive collapse. A few nutbars seeking 15 minutes of fame does not prove anything.

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.

jbg:What is your agenda, to overlook the obvious, that Radical Islam is at war with us?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadianBlue: You seem to need to paint people as anti semites. It doesn't matter if I was an anti semite or not (which I am not). The ADL can lock you up based on someones interpretation not what you meant to say

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After some supports fail the remaining supports provide an unbalanced force which cause the part of the tower to begin roatating before falling
It does not make a difference if you assume the load is distributed unevenly across the remaining supports. The problem is the same: after one support fails the other supports have to support more load. A building cannot tip unless the remaining supports can support the entire weight of the top of the building. If the remaining supports cannot support the entire weight of the building (as is the case with most skyscrapers) then the building cannot tip - it must fall straight down.

Answer this question: The system is at rest so there is no momentum. If you claim that the system must rotate then there must be forces other than gravity acting. What are these forces and how do you calculate their magnitude and direction? Simply saying they are 'unbalanced' is not good enough.

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).
There you go again - making claims of irrelevant expertise. The fact that you cannot understand the simple physics problem I presented suggests that if you are an engineer you probably are not a very good one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:It does not make a difference if you assume the load is distributed unevenly across the remaining supports. The problem is the same: after one support fails the other supports have to support more load.

No !!! The load does not get distributed evenly across remaining supports after some supports are broken because it is evenly distributed across them before failure! and the situation only gets worse as the collapse progresses. You are using your own imagination as your text book.

Riverwind:If you claim that the system must rotate then there must be forces other than gravity acting.

No !!!!! Of course there are forced acting on the system that are not gravity !!! The supports oppose gravity.

You keep doing this and I keep showing how you cannot even understand basic static mechanics, let alone deformations or dynamics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No !!!!! Of course there are forced acting on the system that are not gravity !!! The supports oppose gravity.
Right - then how do you calculate the magnitude of these other forces? You keep evading the question. If you actually do understand the question and you try to calculate the magnitude of the force you will discover that:

1) The sum of all forces for all remaining supports must equal the weight of the building.

2) The building cannot possibly tip if the remaining supports cannot support the weight of the building.

If you want to claim that the forces exterted by the remaining supports are less than the weight of the building then you have to explain why. The only active force is gravity - the normal forces from the supports are only present in reaction to gravity. When a support fails gravity pulls the building down - this causes the normal force exterted by the other supports to increase. They must increase until they are equal to weight of the building - this is basic physics stuff yet you don't seem to get it.

You keep doing this and I keep showing how you cannot even understand basic static mechanics, let alone deformations or dynamics.
Try answering the question instead of throwing around buzz words that you likely read on some truthie site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Canadian lawyers worship Lucifer [satan]?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...