Jump to content

9/11


PolyNewbie

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

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(2) 93 was shot down against orders and that pilot was discharged. I do not have a link for that.

So where was Flight 93 going?

So, let me get this straight your just making stuff up now.

I will explain what the motivations are for the US government to do the terror attacks on 911, the invasion of Afganistan and Haiti as well as all the other wars and how it fits in with globalization, the new collectivism & the police state and give proof.

Afghanistan, who the hell wants that crappy country. So far you keep on talking about concentration camp's, gave us a link to a site which says an energy beam brought down the twin towers, etc. Really, if you can't give proof other than posting that crappy video over and over again what's the point. I'm not living in a police state, and I have often helf view's which don't go along with what the American government does, I'm not in a concentration camp yet. As for Haiti, what would the US gain out of going into Haiti. I believe you said cheap labour, but the US can get cheap labour anywhere.

I want someone to tell me how OBL could benefit from 911 and what his motivations were.

Power, OBL has attacked American's many times before, their's alot of kooky people out there. That's like asking how did Hitler benefit from the holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will explain what the motivations are for the US government to do the terror attacks on 911, the invasion of Afganistan and Haiti as well as all the other wars and how it fits in with globalization, the new collectivism & the police state and give proof.

I for one, can't wait, provided it doesn't involve any links. I'd also love it if you could answer the rest of the questions I asked: the "hows" and the "whys".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats the phot that was taken after they put all the debris on the lawn. Incidentally there was no trace of an airplane on the lawn in orginal photos of the incident but the official claim was that there marks. Weeks later the Pentagon lawn was all dug up and replaced as if there had been holes.

Pentagon Crash CNN

CNN Commentary

(These are both from before the PM photos.)

Second: you didn't really answer the question. I want to know why they'd use a missile when they were using planes in NYC and PA.

I don't know - it could be that there was a big wire spool in the way where the plane supposedly went.

See Spools in way of flight path

BlackDog: So which is it? Is the problem that an airplane cannot penetrate the walls, or is the problem that it didn't penetrate the walls enough? You're contradicting yourself.

I'm wondering how soft humans, soft luggage, & a soft aluminum fusalage can penetrate 3 very think concrete walls in a cartoon type cutout style and while the engines have virtually no affect on the walls.

If the landing gear was enough to penetrate 3 thick concrete walls, why didn't the engines leave cartoon cutouts as well ?

So where was Flight 93 going?

I have no idea. It was likely loaded with agents and just landed somewhere else. That section of the pentagon needed to be hit because the most powerful investigative body in the US government was conducting an investigation of the neocons. A mistake could have had the plane hit where Cheney was instead. Therefore use guided missile.

BlackDog:

All of that depends entirely on the planes speed and trajectory when it hit the ground. The fact that it nosedived straight in means the impact crater was small, but deep. And again: why did they hijack 93 in the first place?

I've never seen any photos iof a deep crater. Are you suggesting taht the plane simply buried itself in the ground ?

BlackDog:

Nope. In my example of the Hudson Department Store in Detroit, it took a crew of professional demolition experts three months to wire an abandoned building half the size of one WTC tower with enough explosives to bring it down. You're telling me a crew of dupes were able to wire up two 110 storey buildings in 36 hours? Bull. Shit.

No way - it may take a few years to put the wires in place. The contractor could have thought they were putting wires in for a sound system, fire alarms or a top secret pentagon project or anything else. Explosives would be placed after all the time consumming work was done. I would bet this is how they set up demolitions because why leave explosives lying around connected to wires when a thunder storm could set them off.

BlackDog:

Oh and as for the bomb sniffing dogs being removed: why didn't they detect the bombs (and there must have been thousands of them) when they came back?

They didn't come back.

BlackDog:

So you and all these "experts" claiming CD have no idea how they actually pulled off a CD that, in the case of the twin towers, looked nothing like any conventional CD (again: CDs tend to start at the bottom and implode the building down, not start at the top, like the WTC.)

The towers wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished because they went straight down at near gravititational speed meaning the remainder of the building offered no resistance to the falling upper part of the building. All the concrete was turned to dust = plus all office equipemnt was turned to dust. But it was nothing like a conventional CD. We do know that US gov developed nuke technology to demolish buildings but it was never seen to be used so its difficult to speculate on what that would look like.

So why would Osama do this ? Did he want to see the heroine trade restored for Afganistan ? Did he want us to kill off a pile of Afgans ?

How did he know the USA would not be able to respond to four planes headed for these targets ?

How do you know these wanted terrorists were even on the plane ? CNN even reported their names were not on the flight manifest right after the attack. How did gov know two days after the crash exactly who did it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My questions are for anyone but CanadianBlue. I no longer wish to hear about Elvis, The Never Ending Story, The Holocaust or what wikipedia thinks of conspiracy theorists.

Also, the pentagon arguement is a bad arguemnt. Some truthers think a plane hit the pentagon, others do not. Its irrelevant to the arguement. there are good arguements for both sides.

I think the evnts in NY prove 911 to be an inside job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Hardner:an intriguing tale of global conspiracy involving trusted figures pulling off a grand deception ?

Here is what David Rockefeller has said:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose members have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion over forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop a plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work now is much 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 practised in past centuries"- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, at the Trilteral commission in June 1991.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats the phot that was taken after they put all the debris on the lawn.

And they did this while the fire was still burning, in plain sight of the media, rescue workers and eyewitnesses? Uh Huh.

Incidentally there was no trace of an airplane on the lawn in orginal photos of the incident but the official claim was that there marks. Weeks later the Pentagon lawn was all dug up and replaced as if there had been holes.

What about the light standards that had been sheared off by the plane: did they cut them off too? Oh and you don't suppose the replacing of the lawn had anything to do with the dozens of heavy trucks and other vehicles that were driving across it, do ya?

Pentagon Crash CNN

CNN Commentary

So live commentary on the scene (in which the reporter admits to seeing small pieces of debris everywhere) is to be taken at face value? I remembe rthat morning that as many as 6 planes were reported hijacked: is that gospel as well?

I don't know - it could be that there was a big wire spool in the way where the plane supposedly went.

So they can fake a plane crash, truck in wreckage under everybody's nose afte rthe fact, but they couldn't move some fucking spools? Do you even think about this stuff?Oh

Incidentally, your link debunks the claim that there were obstacles in the way.

I'm wondering how soft humans, soft luggage, & a soft aluminum fusalage can penetrate 3 very think concrete walls in a cartoon type cutout style and while the engines have virtually no affect on the walls.

If the landing gear was enough to penetrate 3 thick concrete walls, why didn't the engines leave cartoon cutouts as well ?

You're assuming the plane would have remained intact on impact. The bulk of a planes mass would be centred on the fuselage, thus that section would have the most force behind it. Upon impact, the the wings would have folded inward.

If the landing gear was enough to penetrate 3 thick concrete walls, why didn't the engines leave cartoon cutouts as well ?
The landing gear wouldn't have "penetrated the walls" but would have been part of the debris.
I have no idea. It was likely loaded with agents and just landed somewhere else.

Earlier you said it was shot down by mistake. If you keep changing your story like that, people might start to think you're full of shit.

That section of the pentagon needed to be hit because the most powerful investigative body in the US government was conducting an investigation of the neocons. A mistake could have had the plane hit where Cheney was instead. Therefore use guided missile

So it was part of a government conspiracy to attack the government? You're just making this shit up as you go, ain't ya?

I've never seen any photos iof a deep crater. Are you suggesting taht the plane simply buried itself in the ground ?

Look! A big fuckin' crater!

What does "buried itself into the ground" mean?

No way - it may take a few years to put the wires in place. The contractor could have thought they were putting wires in for a sound system, fire alarms or a top secret pentagon project or anything else. Explosives would be placed after all the time consumming work was done. I would bet this is how they set up demolitions because why leave explosives lying around connected to wires when a thunder storm could set them off.

Do you actually know anything about how CDs work? Plus, you said elsewhere that the entire building was wired. To plant explosives in two 110 story buildings would stil take a lot longer than 36 hours.

They didn't come back.

Yes they did, as MH showed.

The towers wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished because they went straight down at near gravititational speed meaning the remainder of the building offered no resistance to the falling upper part of the building. All the concrete was turned to dust = plus all office equipemnt was turned to dust. But it was nothing like a conventional CD. We do know that US gov developed nuke technology to demolish buildings but it was never seen to be used so its difficult to speculate on what that would look like.

Okay, that's it I'm out of here. You're obviously making stuff up on the fly here. Next you'll be telling me WTC7 was brought down by the Mole People. You're clearly out of your mind, or this is all some kind of performance art project.

Either way, I've entertained your craziness long enough. I encourage the rest of the posters here to stop as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Dog

The landing gear wouldn't have "penetrated the walls" but would have been part of the debris.

He was talking about the engines. Those should have made holes, or at least made some damage to the outside walls where they would have hit. To say that the wings folded in on then fuselage and was dragged in is quite ludicrus from my view. Those wings would have sheared off and a good deal of wing/engine should have been laying on the lawn somewhere.

To address the CD for WTC 1 and 2, you do not need to wire up the whole building. Only key parts. The design of the WTC was unique as well. Only the Sears Tower in Chicago comes close to the design of the WTC. I am on the notion that it is possible the planes has explosived on them as well.

Yesterday they put up the first beam for the Freedom Tower. It will be 1776 feet tall. Symbolic in nature as well. 1776 was the year of the US's Declaration of Independance.

What about the light standards that had been sheared off by the plane: did they cut them off too? Oh and you don't suppose the replacing of the lawn had anything to do with the dozens of heavy trucks and other vehicles that were driving across it, do ya?

Those light standards should have ripped the plane up. Some damage to the wings should have happened, and more debris than what was found, SHOULD have been there. How many light posts were damaged? 4-8 of them? (not 100% sure). Not to mention the engine of one of the 767's that hit WTC 1-2 was found a couple blocks away and mostly intact. From the photos (do a search) you can tell it is an engine from a large aircraft. That engine hit the WTC, then fell a few hundred feet and crashed on the sidewalk. Quite different from the Pentagon crash. Little to no debris from the engines.

What we should look at for the Pentagon, is take Google Earth for example. Angle your view so you can get an idea of where the plane came into the Pentagon. Now you may not get a 3D view of the surroundings, but with other maps of the area, you should be able to determine how clear the path was into the Pentagon.

Actually what I suggest is to fly a 767 into the Sears tower and record the results. Crazy idea, I know. Not really practicle as well.

I know Polynewbie is a bit extreem and I find some of his claims outrageous and have end up ignoring alot of what he now dwells on. Something more happened that day, and we have yet to see what the result really was of that tragic day.

Black God, you ignore PNs claim about the US turning into a police state. It is quite far off yet, but much is in place to get there. Instead of bringing it in RIGHT after 9-11, it will take time and be really subtle. People do not notice small changes as much as big ones. And most of the population does not consider the small stuff, and put 2 and 2 together. I have researched it some and there are about 5 executive orders that, by themselves do not a whole lot, but together, they are a forumula for Martial Law. The language in which these laws and orders are written confuse many. Even me. So much language clutter it washes away the clear picture of the true meaning. When people get confused, they say 'screw it, I don't understand it' and then throw it aside. Politicians know this and take advantage of it. Just look around and find out how many in congress/senate actually read the Patriot Act before it was signed into law. To have a senate vote on a piece of very important legislature that no one is really certain of what it is about. They have not read it. Those politicians have failed us. Yet they will be the first to call you unpatriotic at every turn when you disagree with them.

Britian is practicly there with all the CTC's and now some are mounted with speakers. Big Brother talks back.

I gotta get back to work, I will give you my theory why all this is happening. That should take some time to write out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address the CD for WTC 1 and 2, you do not need to wire up the whole building. Only key parts. The design of the WTC was unique as well. Only the Sears Tower in Chicago comes close to the design of the WTC. I am on the notion that it is possible the planes has explosived on them as well.
A much more likely explaination is the fire and structural damage caused a progressive failure of supports. This explains the symmetric collapse without resorting to bizarre, unproveable theories. Other buildings have collapsed into their footprint after gas line explosions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My questions are for anyone but CanadianBlue. I no longer wish to hear about Elvis, The Never Ending Story, The Holocaust or what wikipedia thinks of conspiracy theorists.

Also, the pentagon arguement is a bad arguemnt. Some truthers think a plane hit the pentagon, others do not. Its irrelevant to the arguement. there are good arguements for both sides.

I think the evnts in NY prove 911 to be an inside job.

Wikipedia is made up of common people PN. Besides, the only reason your not responding is because I caught you in your own BS.

The event in New York on 9/11 prove it to be an inside job, that's great proof.

Poly,

You need to acknowledge my post of 01:12 AM, with regards to the dog.

How could the dogs have been removed if at least one dog was killed on 9/11 ?

Don't expect an answer, we have all caught PN BS, when he is proved wrong he moves onto something else.

Here is what David Rockefeller has said:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose members have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion over forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop a plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work now is much 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 practised in past centuries"- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, at the Trilteral commission in June 1991.

Have you ever considered getting into directing or writing because you have a vivid imagination.

I'm out, peace.

CIA, Mossad, MI6, CSIS, for life PN! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:A much more likely explaination is the fire and structural damage caused a progressive failure of supports. This explains the symmetric collapse without resorting to bizarre, unproveable theories. Other buildings have collapsed into their footprint after gas line explosions.

Links to these accidents ? How do you know they collapsed into their own footprints ?

If buildings naturally collapsed the way wtc7 did, why have controlled demolition teams ? Why not just start a few fires in random places, set up the cams and watch the building collapse perfectly straight down and symmetrically ?

*Nothing* happens symmetrically without an element of control, not erosion, not forest fires, not volcanic eruptions. Its due to a concept called entropy and the second law of thermo.

Show me one scientist that thinks buildings collapse naturally the way wtc7 did.

As far as the dead dog, I don't know where the dead dog came from. Scott Forbes has said as a witness that they removed the dogs. Maybe the dead dog was not a bomb dog. Maybe the dog was another form of guard dog, maybe it wasn't in the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go to the site, then you can see that it was an explosives sniffing dog that died in the attacks.

Perhaps this is just one tiny mistake made by the 'truthers'. But take and look and see if the mistake is acknowledged, and the statement retracted.

I prefer to focus on facts such as this, because they're easier to discuss without having technical knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GH now?

He was talking about the engines. Those should have made holes, or at least made some damage to the outside walls where they would have hit. To say that the wings folded in on then fuselage and was dragged in is quite ludicrus from my view. Those wings would have sheared off and a good deal of wing/engine should have been laying on the lawn somewhere.

Why? Why assume that? Are you basing this on your advanced knowledge of air crash analysis? Or are you just supposing?

Like so many other truthy claims, this one seems to be based on nothing mor ethan the guesses of unqualified observers making assumptions based on...what I don't know. T.V. and movies, I assume.

To address the CD for WTC 1 and 2, you do not need to wire up the whole building. Only key parts.

Both towers were struck in different areas, and both towers' collapses began exactly at the respective point of impact. This video has a number of angles of the collapse, all of which show the origin points. Based on that alone the CD explanation is ridiculous. The logistical issues of preparing two 110 storey structures for a covert controlled demolition make is merely the icing on the cake.

Those light standards should have ripped the plane up. Some damage to the wings should have happened, and more debris than what was found, SHOULD have been there. How many light posts were damaged? 4-8 of them? (not 100% sure). Not to mention the engine of one of the 767's that hit WTC 1-2 was found a couple blocks away and mostly intact. From the photos (do a search) you can tell it is an engine from a large aircraft. That engine hit the WTC, then fell a few hundred feet and crashed on the sidewalk. Quite different from the Pentagon crash. Little to no debris from the engines

So what? Different buildings, different planes all travelling at different speeds striking at different angles: comparing the Pentagon and WTC crashes is apples and oranges.

Black God, you ignore PNs claim about the US turning into a police state

I didn't ignore it. I dismissed it completely.

Instead of bringing it in RIGHT after 9-11, it will take time and be really subtle.

If the changes are designed to be so subtle that no one will notice, why pull off the 9-11 attacks at all? What's the point of faking a terrorist attack to create public outrage to pave the way for a police state if the public doesn't know what's happening?

And most of the population does not consider the small stuff, and put 2 and 2 together. I have researched it some and there are about 5 executive orders that, by themselves do not a whole lot, but together, they are a forumula for Martial Law. The language in which these laws and orders are written confuse many. Even me. So much language clutter it washes away the clear picture of the true meaning. When people get confused, they say 'screw it, I don't understand it' and then throw it aside. Politicians know this and take advantage of it. Just look around and find out how many in congress/senate actually read the Patriot Act before it was signed into law. To have a senate vote on a piece of very important legislature that no one is really certain of what it is about. They have not read it. Those politicians have failed us. Yet they will be the first to call you unpatriotic at every turn when you disagree with them.

So you admit to a limited understanding of what post 9-11 security legislation entails, yet feel comfortable enough to denounce them as measures designe dto bring about a police state?

Britian is practicly there with all the CTC's and now some are mounted with speakers. Big Brother talks back.

Which goes to show that a mass catastrophe of 9-11 proportions is not necessary for the state to spy on citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truthy

A small point of order, BD:

This is truthy.

This is a truthie.

These are truthies.

Black God, you ignore PNs claim about the US turning into a police state. It is quite far off yet, but much is in place to get there. Instead of bringing it in RIGHT after 9-11, it will take time and be really subtle. People do not notice small changes as much as big ones. And most of the population does not consider the small stuff, and put 2 and 2 together. I have researched it some and there are about 5 executive orders that, by themselves do not a whole lot, but together, they are a forumula for Martial Law. The language in which these laws and orders are written confuse many. Even me. So much language clutter it washes away the clear picture of the true meaning. When people get confused, they say 'screw it, I don't understand it' and then throw it aside. Politicians know this and take advantage of it. Just look around and find out how many in congress/senate actually read the Patriot Act before it was signed into law. To have a senate vote on a piece of very important legislature that no one is really certain of what it is about. They have not read it. Those politicians have failed us. Yet they will be the first to call you unpatriotic at every turn when you disagree with them.

Gost, I don't think that anybody here actually disputes what you're saying here.

Politicans and law enforcement agencies *have* exploited anxiety over terrorism to obtain powers that are contrary to our ideas of due process and personal freedom. It is perfectly legitimate to be concerned that these laws could be used for purposes for which they weren't intended, or used unjustly.

I suspect that Black Dog would probably be the last person to support giving law enforcement authorities the power to suspend peoples' right to due process.

But you don't have to buy into the conspiracy theory to be concerned about the Patriot Act etc. It's not accurate to suggest that people don't care about the potential for abuse in these laws just because they don't believe 9/11 was all an elaborate hoax.

If anything, the 9/11 truthies are doing a disservice to their fellow Americans by taking attention away from real issues such as the Patriot Act and related issues. They actually tarnish the image of people who are trying to defend civil liberties. If someone speaks about the potential for abuses in these laws, it becomes that much easier for people to dismiss them as "one of those kooks".

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was talking about the engines. Those should have made holes, or at least made some damage to the outside walls where they would have hit. To say that the wings folded in on then fuselage and was dragged in is quite ludicrus from my view. Those wings would have sheared off and a good deal of wing/engine should have been laying on the lawn somewhere.
BlackDog:Why? Why assume that? Are you basing this on your advanced knowledge of air crash analysis? Or are you just supposing?

It just seems odd that an aluminum fusalage can make a hole that is cartoon like going through three 3 ft thick concrete walls and the engines don't make a hole.

It seem to me that if anything would make a hole in the concrete the engines would. They are made of the hardest metal know to mankind in the most sophisticated metalurgical labs and have tons of angular momentum due to a spinng core of somehwhere between 20,000 and 60,000 RPM. This makes them like a rifle bullet.

I'm basing this on my knowledge of elementary physics. One does not have to be a mathemetician to know that 2+2 does not equal 5.

Maybe you are right this is just another one of those unimportant questions around 911 that we should ignore. :blink:

BlackDog:Like so many other truthy claims, this one seems to be based on nothing mor ethan the guesses of unqualified observers making assumptions based on...what I don't know. T.V. and movies, I assume.

See above. Why do you resort to stupid comments when you are losing an arguement ? Do you think it makes you seem more intelligent ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MichaelHardner:If you go to the site, then you can see that it was an explosives sniffing dog that died in the attacks.

Perhaps this is just one tiny mistake made by the 'truthers'. But take and look and see if the mistake is acknowledged, and the statement retracted.

I prefer to focus on facts such as this, because they're easier to discuss without having technical knowledge.

A dead dog doesn't count for much in this - if they lied about 911, could they not lie about a dog ? This is not evidence - its rumours of evidence.

Maybe Scott Forbes was mistaken - still the buildings collapsed straight down and that doesn't happen as a result of asymetrical building damage. As we both know you cannot show any examples of buildings collapsing straight down into their own footprints as a result of an unanticiapted & uncontrolled explosion. You cannot find any scientists that share your viewpooint.

Your science is dead wrong, but you cannot discount scientific arguement just because your BS doesn't pass for science - which is what you are trying to make happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GhostHacked:I know Polynewbie is a bit extreem and I find some of his claims outrageous and have end up ignoring alot of what he now dwells on. Something more happened that day, and we have yet to see what the result really was of that tragic day.

Example ? I can back everything up that I say. I make no outrageous claims that cannot be backed up by scientists with Phd's saying the same thing. Just because something sounds outrageous to you does not make it outrageous. Its an outrageous world we live it - torture, child rape/sex slaves, drug trafficking. The list never ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes them like a rifle bullet.
The engines are attached to an extremely weak wing structure that would hit any barrier first. The collapsing wing structure would deflect the momentum of the engines sideways - enough that by the time the engines hit the wall they were likely not travelling straight at the wall and would be more likely to bounce off the the wall much like a rock skips off the surface of water when thrown at an angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BD I have been there for a while, probably longer than PN.

Why? Why assume that? Are you basing this on your advanced knowledge of air crash analysis? Or are you just supposing

Well it is basic observation.

767 hits WTC 1, explodes and one engine is found intact for the most part. You figure a crash and a free fall of a few hundred feet would destroy the engine.

767 hits the Pentagon, but little to no debris is found. From the photos they have of both sites, the engine from WTC has more material in it than what was found at the Pentagon. That does not strike you as odd?? To me it just does not make sense. Logic may need to come into play. Occam's Razor can lick my ass. I hate it when people quote this.

Kimmy

If anything, the 9/11 truthies are doing a disservice to their fellow Americans by taking attention away from real issues such as the Patriot Act and related issues. They actually tarnish the image of people who are trying to defend civil liberties. If someone speaks about the potential for abuses in these laws, it becomes that much easier for people to dismiss them as "one of those kooks".

I agree. The legislation that was passed after 9-11 is what people should also be taking into account.

Here is the way I see it. Short brief summary.

The US knows it is in an energy crisis, which if not resolved, the economy will collapse.

9/11, Patriot Act, NSA ect ect ect. Martial Law ..ect Fema Camps.

Iraq invasion (sorry preemptive war on terror)

Peak Oil/Petrodollar collapse, leads to economic depression.

Controlling the oil in the Middle East.

When oil becomes to expensive to extract and we use to much of another natural resource to extract it, we loose twofold. Oil and what ever we use to extract it. After peak oil, there is less and less oil in the ground and it creates a bell curve. The result of less oil, is our way of life becomes threatened. THIS is what Bush and Co and really saying in my view. The American way of life is being threatened for sure. But not by terrorists.

Once oil is on the down turn, you cannot power everything you had before. Can't move as many vehicles per day, cannot heat as many homes, or cannot provide electricity to people. Transporation slows down and goods and services no longer travel half way around the planet to get to you. Most of the FOOD you eat and buy from grocery chains, does not come from any local farmer. Family farms have been replaced by corporate farms.

What happens to the machine when there is no more oil to grease the wheels? Or what happens to the machine when you cannot give it as much oil as it needs. It starts to fail. Cuts are made to non essential areas. Moving food around will become quite hard. I live in Ottawa Canada, no more California grapes for me.

With the energy bubble bursting and the food supply becomes interrupted (not to mention killing fast food chain restaurants) Many people are going to be looking for food. Many many people. How does one avoid this crisis? Gotta control the population so things don't get out of hand. Large camps are going to be set up to control this population that is in search of food. I see utter chaos, for everyone thinks this breakneck speed of progression and economic 'growth' will just keep on growing. Wake up, there is more at stake here.

Predictions on North America reaching peak oil in 2005-2010.

Russia and Europe by 2015.

The more China and other countries progress, the energy consumption rises dramaticly.

Remember Bush's statement after 9/11 - Go back to the mall, spend spend spend. Everything is fine.

War on Oil, not terror. More later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dead dog doesn't count for much in this - if they lied about 911, could they not lie about a dog ? This is not evidence - its rumours of evidence.

Maybe Scott Forbes was mistaken - still the buildings collapsed straight down and that doesn't happen as a result of asymetrical building damage. As we both know you cannot show any examples of buildings collapsing straight down into their own footprints as a result of an unanticiapted & uncontrolled explosion. You cannot find any scientists that share your viewpooint.

Your science is dead wrong, but you cannot discount scientific arguement just because your BS doesn't pass for science - which is what you are trying to make happen.

PN,

I'm not the one talking about the building collapse. That issue is too fraught with complications.

I ask you to note whether the Scott Forbes statement is ever re-explained or qualified, or retracted in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the photos they have of both sites, the engine from WTC has more material in it than what was found at the Pentagon. That does not strike you as odd??
What you makes you believe that the photos captured the entire crash site? One of the biggest flaws in the truthie arguments is that they try to draw conclusions from random samples of photos from the crash site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Links to these accidents ? How do you know they collapsed into their own footprints ?
http://www.lalamy.demon.co.uk/ronanpnt.htm
However, at 5.45 a.m Thursday morning when the explosion occurred in Flat 90 - a south-east corner flat on the 18th floor of the new building, blowing out sections of the outer wall, the modern design apparently proved to have a major fault which allowed a domino style collapse of wall and floor sections from the top of the building to the ground.
Progressive collapse can happen - there is nothing unnatural about it. Your entire argument is based on a false assumption.
*Nothing* happens symmetrically without an element of control, not erosion, not forest fires, not volcanic eruptions. Its due to a concept called entropy and the second law of thermo.
Then why does Mount Fuji look like a symmetrical cone if nothing symmetric happens in nature? But that is beside the point. The buildings are not natural - they are very regular structures with a predictable design. This design is what makes progressive collapse not only possible but very likely when fires are combined with structural damage.
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.

Guest
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 - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...