View Full Version : Wtc7?
I have read the report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf) of the official inquiry into the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11 and there are a few things puzzling me, I wonder if anyone here knowlegable in the science of phisics could explain it to me.
The third building to collapse was not hit by a plane so there was no structural damage, the official explanation is that heat from the fires weakened the steel supports causing the building to collapse. Given that in all history both before and after 9/11 fire has never caused the collapse of a steel framed building this seems to me unlikely. I am at a loss to understand how a few small fires could generate enough heat to melt massive support columns, I know myself that ordinary fires do not melt steel, I have a stove made out of steel, you need a blast furnace or oxy-acetalene to melt steel.
The other thing puzzling me is that watching the video (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg) of the collapse I see that it was perfectly symetrical, the building fell straight down and landed in its own footprint. For this to happen wouldn't all the steel support columns have to have melted at exactly the same time?
If anyone here with a knowledge of physics or structural engineering could offer me any explanation as to how the official version of the collapse of WTC7 could possibly be correct without breaking several of the fundamental laws of physics I would be very interested to hear it.
Fred, which particular laws of physics are you interested in? Which ones do you think appear to be tested by the video sequences, the Executive Summary of the reports and the information provided on a conspiracy theory website?
I'll include a link to a website that displays an A-Z of Physics laws, let us know which ones you think have been challenged.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
But I thought that you already knew that the Illuminati are responsible for the destruction of the WTC, and their links with the Zionists ensured that all Jewish staff got the nod the day before so they stayed at home.
But I thought that you already knew that the Illuminati are responsible for the destruction of the WTC, and their links with the Zionists ensured that all Jewish staff got the nod the day before so they stayed at home.
I haven't mentioned any of those things.
All I did was ask for any possible explanation of how an ordinary fire could be hot enough to melt steel and how localised fires could cause every steel support in a building to give way at exactly the same time.
Ok, what is an ordinary fire?
Also can you point me to the bit where it says that every steel support gave way at exactly the same time.........is that in the full report or included in the Executive Summary you posted a link to? Or is it your assumption after watching the videos?
souperman
17-Mar-06, 14:05
If I remember correctly from a previous programme the impact of the planes combined with the intense heat actually caused the fireproofing on the steelwork to become detatched. This now exposed steelwork was weaked by the continual heat from the fires, eventually and tragically this steelwork then failed and collapsed, the weight of the floors collapsing from above was too much for the remaining framework to support, each floor failing immediately as it was hit from above.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Very interesting, and if you follow the links enough, quite confusing, too!!
I’m at a bit of a loss to find out what is giving you cause for concern in relation to the collapse of WTC7.
I have read the Executive Summary of the FEMA report which states(In relation to the Twin Towers) :
The collapse of the towers astonished most observers, including knowledgeable structural engineers, and, in the immediate aftermath, a wide range of explanations were offered in an attempt to help the public understand these tragic events. However, the collapse of these symbolic buildings entailed a complex series of events that were not identical for each tower.
I notice from your original post that you say that an “ordinary fire” cannot melt steel. I have asked what do you mean by ordinary in this context, as the fires caused by such an event would seem to me to be anything but ordinary. So much so that on page two of the FEMA executive report you find the following (again talking About the Twin Towers):
However, the structures were subjected to a second, simultaneous severe loading event in the form of the fires caused by the aircraft impacts.
The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings’ contents causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power production of a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames whist simultaneously softening and weakening these frames.
Now these statements do relate directly to the Twin Towers and not to WT7, on page 4 of the FEMA executive summary, it states that:
WTC7 collapsed completely after burning unchecked for approximately 7 hours, and a partial collapse occurred in an interior section of WTC5. Studies of WTC7 indicate the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure.
I have not yet seen or read anything that causes me to challenge any laws of physics, just to make sure that I was not way off the track I had a check on the temperature of a fire (maybe an ordinary fire, I don’t know), anyway this is what I found:
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/3B.html
According to this the temperature can get up to around 1400C. I then had a look (just a quick look like) at what temperature is required to melt steel, I found this:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99021.htm
Seemingly Steel melts at around 1300C. So even being simplistic and without going into too much detail, I fail to see what laws of physics are challenged.
Am I missing something Fred? Is there something else I should be looking at?
If I remember correctly from a previous programme the impact of the planes combined with the intense heat actually caused the fireproofing on the steelwork to become detatched. This now exposed steelwork was weaked by the continual heat from the fires, eventually and tragically this steelwork then failed and collapsed, the weight of the floors collapsing from above was too much for the remaining framework to support, each floor failing immediately as it was hit from above.
WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Very interesting, and if you follow the links enough, quite confusing, too!!
I looked at the site and followed the links. The explanations all seem to include plane impact and jet fuel, they seem to be totally ignoring WTC7 which was the length of a football pitch away from the nearest building hit by a plane.
wickerinca
17-Mar-06, 20:20
Sorry Fred. I must be missing something too. It says in the FEMA report that WTC7 was hit by debris from the collapsing towers and the ensuing fire burned for 7 hours before the building collapsed. Please excuse my ignorance but what was WTC7? and why is it giving you concern?
I have not yet seen or read anything that causes me to challenge any laws of physics, just to make sure that I was not way off the track I had a check on the temperature of a fire (maybe an ordinary fire, I don’t know), anyway this is what I found:
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/3B.html
According to this the temperature can get up to around 1400C. I then had a look (just a quick look like) at what temperature is required to melt steel, I found this:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99021.htm
Seemingly Steel melts at around 1300C. So even being simplistic and without going into too much detail, I fail to see what laws of physics are challenged.
Am I missing something Fred? Is there something else I should be looking at?
I'll tell you what, you take a candle like the one in the link you posted with a temperature of 1400C, hold a six inch nail in the flame and see how long it takes to melt.
Now these statements do relate directly to the Twin Towers and not to WT7, on page 4 of the FEMA executive summary, it states that:
WTC7 collapsed completely after burning unchecked for approximately 7 hours, and a partial collapse occurred in an interior section of WTC5. Studies of WTC7 indicate the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure.
That's it? Investigating the collapse of an entire building and they say it might have been this or it might have been that. In the same paragraph they say that no other steel framed building had ever suffered a fire induced collapse.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/world/madrid_venezuela_fire.jpg
This steel framed highrise in Venezuela raged for 17 hours and didn't collapse. Some have burnt as long as 6 days.
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/b7_nofire.jpg
WTC7, the building in the background above, had two localised fires with nothing but a small amount of smoke and a few flames visible and it dropped like a stone, perfectly symetrical, the roof staying parallel to the ground, at freefall speed.
2little2late
17-Mar-06, 22:20
Watched a documentary a couple of years ago about conspiracy theories. Every day the American airforce have training flights over the USA, yet a week before the disaster all activity was halted. Why?
Why did the buildings implode the way they did? Was this a result of controlled explosions.
A cctv image showed what looked like a missile hitting the pentagon.
It is claimed the USA knew this was going to happen and used this as ammunition (pardon the pun) to use in the war against terror.
I am of the opinion that this is fact.
The same fact that man never did walk on the moon, but that's a different story.
Anyone who has seen a building demolished with dynamite knows that the charges can be exploded in such a fashion that the building implodes into its site. The World Trade Centre buildings were structurally unsound and collapsed like layer cakes. There was a long article on this in the New Yorker.
fred,
To see why WTC7 really came down, listen to what Mr. Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, had to say:
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV (http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV)
sorry fred i dont normaly disagree with what you say but one statement you made which if i knew how i would put in quotes stands out "a normal fire will not melt metal. almost 18 years ago there was a british tragedy that should answer you questions have you forgotton the images of the piper alpha when the accomodation decks colapsed into the sea all that was left was molten metal.
Watched a documentary a couple of years ago about conspiracy theories. Every day the American airforce have training flights over the USA, yet a week before the disaster all activity was halted. Why?
There are a lot of things which haven't been adequately explained about the events on and leading up to 9/11 but each has a slight amount of plausible deniability. You can watch a video of the twin towers collapsing and hear and see the detonations, you can listen to the eye witness accounts of the firemen who were there but there is always that just possible explanation to allow people to not see what they don't want to see and not believe what they don't want to believe.
Apart from WTC7 that is, after looking at the evidence available I don't believe that anyone can give me an even remotely plausible explanation of how fire could have caused that building to collapse at all let alone in the manner it did.
pultneytooner
17-Mar-06, 23:19
The same fact that man never did walk on the moon, but that's a different story.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonapo.htm#NASA%20Masonic%20Conpsiracy
sorry fred i dont normaly disagree with what you say but one statement you made which if i knew how i would put in quotes stands out "a normal fire will not melt metal. almost 18 years ago there was a british tragedy that should answer you questions have you forgotton the images of the piper alpha when the accomodation decks colapsed into the sea all that was left was molten metal.
Are you calling Piper-Alpha a normal fire? At Piper-Alpha there were two 40cm pipelines each feeding three tonnes of gas a second under preasure into the fire, I think comparing that to burning office furnature is like comparing a volcano to a candle. Even so the platform didn't melt, most of it collapsed into the sea but part of it remained after the fire was put out, unmolten.
http://www.caolila.org.uk/images/0fb27fd0.gif
Anyone who has seen a building demolished with dynamite knows that the charges can be exploded in such a fashion that the building implodes into its site. The World Trade Centre buildings were structurally unsound and collapsed like layer cakes. There was a long article on this in the New Yorker.
Did the article tell you that WTC7 imploded and collapsed into its site?
Sorry Fred. I must be missing something too. It says in the FEMA report that WTC7 was hit by debris from the collapsing towers and the ensuing fire burned for 7 hours before the building collapsed. Please excuse my ignorance but what was WTC7? and why is it giving you concern?
Oh there are a lot of things that are giving me concern, a lot of things that don't add up. Like why when it took FEMA a week to get to New Oleans after Katrina hit they were at the WTC site so promptly for 9/11, they arrived with all their equipment on the evening of the 10th.
WTC7 is important because all the other highly suspicious circumstances can be explained away somehow even though the explanations are far fetched to say the least. WTC7 can't be explained, there is only one possible explanation for it, that the American government knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen.
Fred firstly have you read the ENTIRE report or ONLY the Executive Summary you posted?
I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?
Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7.
Alternatively please get to the point you are trying to make......yawn.
pultneytooner
18-Mar-06, 22:29
Researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.
There was physical damage to the south face of building 7 on about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approximately 10 stories.
About 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.
Also discovered were previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks or kinks in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other.
An unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor and this could have caused a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section came down.
Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another and with columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would have likely been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
A fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours and there was no firefighting in WTC 7.
The fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators.
Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line which was supplying fuel to the fire for a long period of time.
Those combined factors along with the building's unusual construction was enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.
Which researchers?
I don't see anything new in there, it looks to me like the various hypotheses put forward by FEMA in their report (yes scotsboy I did read it), which even they admitted had a low probability, strung together and exagerated.
It completely ignores the fact that even if the building had been a raging inferno there wouldn't have been enough heat to weaken the supports and there was no raging inferno. Ever see a car burn out? Modern cars are crammed full of foam and plastic and have tanks of petrol, they burn fierce, they burn hot and they burn for a long time but did you ever see one where the very thin steel bodywork had melted? It doesn't happen which is why in over a hundred years of high rise buildings all over the world and many fires some with the entire building a roaring inferno the only buildings which collapsed were at the WTC.
There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
Fred firstly have you read the ENTIRE report or ONLY the Executive Summary you posted?
I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?
Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7.
Alternatively please get to the point you are trying to make......yawn.
"I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?"
I suspect that Fred is actually referring to what people naturally "feel" is the expected reaction. I also suspect that you realise this also, but for some reason seem intent on needling.
"Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7."
Once again, I suspect Fred meant a non-hydrocarbon fed fire (which I also suspect you thought) - the "needling" criticism applies here also. (yawn)
I still see nothing that challenges the laws of physics. Maybe you can enlighten me Mareng.
If you consider I am needling then there is little I can do to convince you otheriwise. I simply think Fred has a different agenda than challenging the laws of physics in relation to the collapse of WT7. Let me postulate a challenge to the laws of physics as alluded to by Fred, in the controlled demolition bypothesis........I didn't hear a bang beofre the collapse, nor do any of the reports make reference to one...that I have read.........which to be honest is not a lot.
Fred wrote:
There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.
Appendix C of the report covers limited Metallurgical Examination of the metal support beams Fred.
Appenidix D details how the metal sections/pieces were chosen for analysis.
The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:
The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
Fred wrote:
There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.
Appendix C of the report covers limited Metallurgical Examination of the metal support beams Fred.
Appenidix D details how the metal sections/pieces were chosen for analysis.
The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:
The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
Fred wrote:
There would be one way to tell for sure, that would be to take the steel supports and analize them, test if they had indeed been weakened by the heat of a fire or not. Unfortunately that isn't possible, they started shipping all the evidence from the crime scene off to Asia to be melted down almost immediately after 9/11, before the necessary tests could be done.
Appendix C of the report covers limited Metallurgical Examination of the metal support beams Fred.
Appenidix D details how the metal sections/pieces were chosen for analysis.
The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:
The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
The Report conclusion in Chapter 8 also indicate that:
The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence".
But then they didn't include controlled demolition as a hypothesis. They just assumed that because no one could possibly have known about the attack before it happened that it would have been impossible but if they had looked they would have seen that there is very strong evidence that many people did know about the attack in advance. The Pentagon obviously knew because their Generals were warned not to fly on September 11th, Wall street obviously knew because a lot of people were dumping shares in the airline and the insurers of the WTC before September 11th.
If WTC7 was demolished intentionally, wouldn't there be plenty of witnesses? I mean, it would take a lot of planning and execution.
wickerinca
20-Mar-06, 05:05
So........the US Government thought that the two planes flying into the WTC wouldn't cause enough damage and outrage so they decided to blow up the odd surrounding building or two just to make the whole disaster a bit bigger? Are you seriously suggesting that Bush and his cronies knew that these planes were going to fly into the towers and just let it happen and, in fact, helped in the destruction?
I firmly believe that there are many conspiracies undertaken every day at all levels of government but honestly....??!!
If WTC7 was demolished intentionally, wouldn't there be plenty of witnesses? I mean, it would take a lot of planning and execution.
Well yes, there were plenty of witnesses, half the world has seen the building collapse in a manner entirely consistent with a controlled demolition.
It would have taken quite a bit of preparation, experts would need detailed plans and specifications and would run computer simmulations to decide on the best places to plant the explosives. Then a team would need access to the building without being seen, ideally the building would have been completely evacuated for several hours, such as in a training exercise for a terrorist attack. The team would then have to conceal thermite and explosive charges capable of being detonated by radio. Yes, I would say that the organisation which planned such a thing would need to have their members in key positions in the Government.
Now what about the terrorists attack, wouldn't that need a lot of planning and execution? First you would need to get a large number of known terrorists into the United States unnoticed. Then you would need to send them for flying lessons without the FBI realising. Then on the morning of 9/11 you would need to get all these known terrorists on planes at the same time without anyone noticing. You have to do all this when the American government has been warned by just about every intelligence service in the world that something like 9/11 is about to happen and will be wathcing your every move. Even after you've done all that the standard procedure when a plane is hijacked is to scramble fighters, how on earth did the people who planned 9/11 think they were going to deal with the fighters?
wickerinca
20-Mar-06, 15:08
I'm waiting for a reply to my comments fred. Your response to rheghead's last post indicates that you consider the US government to be responsible for the deaths of many of their own people along with many ex-pats.
I was under the impression that these young men that hi-jacked the planes did not become terrorists until after the had seized control of the flight decks.....and I am sure that some of them had been trained to fly in the UK as is normal for some would be pilots from countries that do not have their own accredited flying schools.
And as for the 'team' that would have sneaked into WTC7 on some pretext or other and planted the explosives etc,....don't you think that in this day of whistle-blowing just one of them would have let something slip.........or have they all been silenced???
Come on fred.....answer. I believe that Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy et al are following this thread to get ideas for their next novel!!
Off to read about the non-existant Apollo Moon landings and the US Governments latest plans to put a man on the dark side of the moon....I hear another lp (or should I say cd/dvd?) in the making.
I'm waiting for a reply to my comments fred. Your response to rheghead's last post indicates that you consider the US government to be responsible for the deaths of many of their own people along with many ex-pats.
Well yes I do consider some people in the US government to be responsible for the deaths of many of their own people, 2318 military personel in Iraq for a start and who knows how many in New Orleans. What makes you think they would lose any sleep about the deaths on 9/11 when it would make the entire Neocon manifesto possible?
Take a look at the Neocon plans for the world at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
It was written in September 2000 before 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq, take a look on page 51 where it says:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Then take a look at the end at the list of people who wrote that report and see how many names you recognise.
If you are asking me if I think those people would sit back, let 9/11 happen and see all their dreams come true rather than prevent it to save American lives I'm telling you now I'm damned sure they would.
Whilst I disagree with you on many things Fred, it is very difficult to see exactly what Paul Wolfowitz brings to the World Bank!!
And as for the 'team' that would have sneaked into WTC7 on some pretext or other and planted the explosives etc,....don't you think that in this day of whistle-blowing just one of them would have let something slip.........or have they all been silenced???
We know that Hitler did something similar when he helped with the burning of the Reistag Building and plenty of patriotic Germans who believed passionately in the supremicy of the Fatherland were in on it.
We also know that in 1962 the American Chiefs of Staff planned to do just the same sort of thing to give them an excuse to invade Cuba, they called it Operation Northwoods, they obviously thought they could get away with it.
We also know that it would have been extremely unlikey even for one of the buildings hit by a plane to collapse as a result yet three buildings collapsed, no other steel framed building has ever collapsed as a result of fire and here we have three in one day one of which wasn't even hit by a plane.
Have you been following the Moussaoui trial by the way? Have you read the testiomony of the FBI agent in the past couple of days?
Crikey Fred
i should watch my back if i was you! You are single handedly unmasking a whole range of theories and the information you are intent on suggesting are facts are bound to annoy key political figures. You might be targeted by a hit squad of secret american agents intent on silencing you - after all if 9/11 was a plot by the politicians then some wee mannie living in Caithness isnt going to be too much trouble for them to finish off.
Lock your doors, assume a new identity, dye your hair and change your accent and dont answer the door to strangers.
Be afraid :eek: :eek: :eek:
fred knows what he's talking about.
wtc7 was "pulled" that's obvious. if only fred dibnah were here.
wtc1 & 2 we're also "pulled" after the planes hit them.
their collapse defies a law of physics indeed.. the law of falling bodies.
if you pull buildings of these sizes.. it takes months of planning... so did the gov know about it? just think about that for a min. georgey boy didn't exactly look so surprised did he? he also stated, " I saw the first plane hit on TV and thought, boy what a terrible pilot". NOBODY saw the first plane hit on video unless of course you watched a simulated rehearsel of some sort.
how did that concrete pulverise the way it did? mini-nuclear devices.
this subject is so huge... one cannot elaborate on a forum... try infowars.com
wealth... and I mean wealth of documented and researched EVIDENCE...
but why? read the patriot act that was enacted months after 911.. makes EVERY criminal a " terrorist "
not to mention it violates almost every amendment in the bill of rights.
it was only a small hurdle in the race for total enslavement of the people.
freds right about the Project for the New American Century. read it.... it's scary really. Nae muckin' aboot.. they just come right out and tell you what they are planning. for more good info try Joan Veon.
dunno about wtc7 but did watch a prog on the telly explaining how the towers collapsed. i thought all the conspiracy theories were to do with the pentagon.
that program on Discovery... how the towers fell is the biggest piece of propaganda out.
the WHOLE thing was a finely tuned gov op.
btw... why is up to 8 of the hi jackers still alive and everyone knows Osama is a CIA asset... Tim Osman. He (bin laden) collaborated with the US military as he was one of the main guys in the northern alliance in the 80's/russia affair.
Everyone also knows that the Bin Laden family have extremely close ties with the BUSHS and the us gov AND are in the CARLYLE group...(THE war machine) as is John Major and the Bushs.
Bin Laden Construction build every single foreign US military base on the entire planet. c'mon!
Everyone also knows that the Bin Laden family have extremely close ties with the BUSHS and the us gov AND are in the CARLYLE group...(THE war machine) as is John Major and the Bushs.
It does seem strange that America tried everything to find some connection between Saddam and Bin Laden and eventually had to fabricate evidence of a meeting between an Al Qaida member and an Iraqi minister which they held up and half of the population of America screemed "nukem".
Yet everyone ignores the fact that Bush and Bin Ladens brother were busines partners.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
it takes weeks op planning to get a demolition that perfect and there is no way in hell that a fire can cause such a large building to fall in that way.
also quiet interesting that the owner of the building made a $500m profit from it collapsing
Glad we have some others with open minds looking at all the evidence.......but you have all missed the real reason for all of this. Wafah Dufour bin Ladin has just been given her own reality TV show in the US. She is the niece of Osama - no way would she have been given this airtime if the twin towers never came down........now her agent once ate shwarma in a cafe frequented by none other than.....................
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
it takes weeks op planning to get a demolition that perfect and there is no way in hell that a fire can cause such a large building to fall in that way.
also quiet interesting that the owner of the building made a $500m profit from it collapsing
aye... and now Larry Silverstein also has purchased the Sears Tower in Chicago just after 911... with a similiar insurance policy. Sears Tower... zip code (postal code) 060606.... June 6th, 2006.. that's too obvious hey? must be just an ugly coincidence.
oh yea... Larry Silverstein.. said on the day of 911 to a news agency (there is video of it if you go lookin) where he said "we decided to pull it, and then we watched the building collapse" referring to WTC 7
I am sure if you approached a reputable news agency with these claims, you will then be taken deadly seriously and the idea will hold up to public scrutiny.:eyes ;)
if only fred dibnah were here.
Indeed, I am sure Fred Dibnah could have brought the twin towers down using only three car tyres and a handful of kindling wood. That would have saved having to let Doctor Who loose with his sonic screwdriver to weaken the structure in advance and the later release of Photon Torpedos from the Enterprise.
LOL i'm glad someone sees my humour :-)
btw... there is an interesting turn of events in America going on just now... Charlie Sheen? He's spoken out on the Alex Jones show... first time this stuff has been addressed on mainstream media.. CNN & Fox News.... good job Charlie.. but, DUCK!
be wary... very wary of what will happen next.
btw... there is an interesting turn of events in America going on just now... Charlie Sheen? He's spoken out on the Alex Jones show... first time this stuff has been addressed on mainstream media.. CNN & Fox News.... good job Charlie.. but, DUCK!
be wary... very wary of what will happen next.
One of the strangest things about 9/11 is that there wasn't an indipendant public inquiry, I would have thought they would have wanted to know what went wrong. First of all Bush opposed any public inquiry at all, he said he would investigate it himself. Then when they did get an inquiry it was the most blatant whitewash of all time. The investigating pannel was picked by Bush, at first he appointed Henry Kissinger as chair but he resigned. The person who decided what was to be investigated and what wasn't has co-authered a book with Candoleeza Rice. Even after rigging the pannel bush refused access to White House doccuments and refused to testify unless he could decide what questions he was asked.
In an interview with ABC news the Mayor of New York said this about events on the day:
I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna' to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
Who warned him the buildings were going to collaps and how did they know? That's the sort of question the 9/11 inquiry should have been asking and that's the sort of question they ignored. WTC7 wasn't mentioned at all in the report, they just ignored it, pretended it never happened.
Notably, Charlie Sheen questioned the collapse of WTC7 as well.... CNN took a poll and out of 54,000 some people... 83% agreed with him that there needs to be a "proper" investigation. People are waking up and it's about time. Pretty sad.. when they need a celebrity to bring out some REAL questions.
I am sure if you approached a reputable news agency with these claims, you will then be taken deadly seriously and the idea will hold up to public scrutiny.:eyes ;)
Go look up CNN and type in Charlie Sheen 9/11
I'm getting tired of doing your research for you.
Research - LOL, yeah, right.
I’m at a bit of a loss to find out what is giving you cause for concern in relation to the collapse of WTC7.
I have read the Executive Summary of the FEMA report which states(In relation to the Twin Towers) :
I notice from your original post that you say that an “ordinary fire” cannot melt steel. I have asked what do you mean by ordinary in this context, as the fires caused by such an event would seem to me to be anything but ordinary. So much so that on page two of the FEMA executive report you find the following (again talking About the Twin Towers):
Now these statements do relate directly to the Twin Towers and not to WT7, on page 4 of the FEMA executive summary, it states that:
I have not yet seen or read anything that causes me to challenge any laws of physics, just to make sure that I was not way off the track I had a check on the temperature of a fire (maybe an ordinary fire, I don’t know), anyway this is what I found:
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/3B.html
According to this the temperature can get up to around 1400C. I then had a look (just a quick look like) at what temperature is required to melt steel, I found this:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99021.htm
Seemingly Steel melts at around 1300C. So even being simplistic and without going into too much detail, I fail to see what laws of physics are challenged.
Am I missing something Fred? Is there something else I should be looking at?
how about that one silly little nonchalant fact that during all these years of construction of steel structured buildings.....
until 9/11 not one steel structured building EVER collapsed due to fire?!?!? and well... BAM on one day in September 2001... three buildings.. two of which were highly over-engineered are hit by planes and in less than an hour come down on top of each other. Last year in Iran, a plane slams into an apartment building in Tehran and guess what... big FIRE! and guess what else? no collapse. They must know something about engineering we don't?!?!
Here's some facts for you...
Steel-framed highrises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been widespread for over 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg
The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.
Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".
Research indicates that even if a steel frame building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study (http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html) contains the following:
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500 C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360 C.
Research - LOL, yeah, right.
Try some.
Here's a question I haven't been able to come up with an answer to, where are the black box recorders from the planes?
There were two on each plane, a flight recorder and a cockpit voice recorder. They are virtually indestructable and the investigators would know roughly where to look for them. The official report says they were never found the FBI says they haven't got them.
The 9/11 Commission was given $3m to investigate and later got another $11m. Only a fraction of the $40m Congress apointed for the Clinton Lewinski investigation I'll admit but even so they should be expected to come up with some answers to questions like these.
Cetainly seems to be something amiss if they cant find them. To be honest Fred I dont have the time nor the inclanation to look inot it fully, however a quick google revealed sites which said they had/hadn't been recovered. Data/information from these certainly appears to be missing from the official reports, I'll grant you that.
Cetainly seems to be something amiss if they cant find them. To be honest Fred I dont have the time nor the inclanation to look inot it fully, however a quick google revealed sites which said they had/hadn't been recovered. Data/information from these certainly appears to be missing from the official reports, I'll grant you that.
No you don't have the time or the inclination or even the resources to look into it few people have, that is what an official and fully independent inquiry is for. Makes you wonder why there has never been one.
You may remember a film called Fahrenheit 9/11 which outlined some of the inconsitencies with the official version of events on 9/11. The White House and the Neocon movement went to great lengths to discredit the film and its director and tried to prevent it being shown. One of the major forces behind the campaign to discredit Micheal Moore was a Neocon called Howard Kallogian and the organisation he founded Move America Forward.
Howard Kallogian was in the news today:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/29/13339/2816
Fred... are you an Alex Jones fan? seen any of his films?
The problem I have with Michael Moore is he expects to get taken seriously, then when challenged about some of his written work, he says it was meant to lampoon the situation......I am talking specifically about his take on the Northern Ireland situation.
Farenheit 9/11 in my opinion was gash.
Fred... are you an Alex Jones fan? seen any of his films?
I don't think so, I'll take a look tonight.
Right now I'm busy trying to find out what is happening to the American economy. They stopped issuing the m3, the report of how much money they are printing, this month and there are rumours that the printing presses are working flat out printing $2 trillion. I remember reading a few days ago that some countries in the Middle East were dumping some of their dollar researves, Saudi Arabia a quarter I think.
David Walker, the Government Auditer, has given an interview on TV that I haven't watched yet but doesn't sound good, this could be the inevitable meltdown and if it is the proverbial fan had better look out.
George Brims
30-Mar-06, 10:50
I can't see what law of physics is violated when a big heavy thing falls straight down. In my experience that is what big heavy things do. Does anyone imagine that the Twin Towers or WTC7 were going to somehow throw themselves to the side as they fell?
Someone mentioned "over-engineered" with respect to the Twin Towers. Actually one of the main conclusions of the engineering analysis of the towers was that they were anything but. They were in fact spectacularly vulnerable to collapse. The Twin Towers didn't have a simple skeleton as most skyscrapers do (Empire State is a good example), but were instead formed as tubes with floors fitted across them. Few buildings are built that way. Bin Laden chose the target well. Don't forget civil engineering is his family's business.
There is also a lot of mention of "steel towers don't fall down". This is folklore, nothing else. Any steel tower will fall down if it is damaged badly enough. However if the steel is strong enough to last through the consumption by fire of all the fuel inside you will be left with a steel skeleton (which is about as useful as a building that collapses - you have to tear it down and rebuild anyway).
Fire engineers are well aware of how buildings collapse. In the case of the First Interstate building in LA, the opinion of the engineers on site was that the building was within 30 minutes of collapse when the fire was brought under control. One of the lessons of that fire was the value of the sprayed-on insulation routinely applied to steelwork in modern buildings. It's been sprayed on a lot thicker since then. Oh and all buildings over 6 floors high in California now have to have sprinkler systems - the First Interstate fire would have been out in minutes with trivial damage if it had had sprinklers.
OK enough from me. I must away to the Post Office and send Charlie Sheen some more tinfoil for his hat.
The Twin Towers didn't have a simple skeleton as most skyscrapers do (Empire State is a good example), but were instead formed as tubes with floors fitted across them.
That is not true.
The 9/11 commission report stated that the core of each building was a "hollow steel shaft". The fact is that the core of each building was 47 cross-braced steel columns, I've seen the plans and seen photographs of the towers being built.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/mage6.jpg
The floors inside the steel columns were independent of the floors outside.
Unfortunately those facts would not fit in with the official "pancake" theory and had to be changed.
I can't see what law of physics is violated when a big heavy thing falls straight down. In my experience that is what big heavy things do. Does anyone imagine that the Twin Towers or WTC7 were going to somehow throw themselves to the side as they fell?
Someone mentioned "over-engineered" with respect to the Twin Towers. Actually one of the main conclusions of the engineering analysis of the towers was that they were anything but. They were in fact spectacularly vulnerable to collapse. The Twin Towers didn't have a simple skeleton as most skyscrapers do (Empire State is a good example), but were instead formed as tubes with floors fitted across them. Few buildings are built that way. Bin Laden chose the target well. Don't forget civil engineering is his family's business.
There is also a lot of mention of "steel towers don't fall down". This is folklore, nothing else. Any steel tower will fall down if it is damaged badly enough. However if the steel is strong enough to last through the consumption by fire of all the fuel inside you will be left with a steel skeleton (which is about as useful as a building that collapses - you have to tear it down and rebuild anyway).
Fire engineers are well aware of how buildings collapse. In the case of the First Interstate building in LA, the opinion of the engineers on site was that the building was within 30 minutes of collapse when the fire was brought under control. One of the lessons of that fire was the value of the sprayed-on insulation routinely applied to steelwork in modern buildings. It's been sprayed on a lot thicker since then. Oh and all buildings over 6 floors high in California now have to have sprinkler systems - the First Interstate fire would have been out in minutes with trivial damage if it had had sprinklers.
OK enough from me. I must away to the Post Office and send Charlie Sheen some more tinfoil for his hat.
George ...at last a voice of reason, thanks for clearing up the issue of damaged buldings falling down, and no mention of the CIA, KGB, MI6, or even the Mossad, or Boss being responsible
I can't see what law of physics is violated when a big heavy thing falls straight down. In my experience that is what big heavy things do. Does anyone imagine that the Twin Towers or WTC7 were going to somehow throw themselves to the side as they fell? the speed that they came down is more of a factor here.
Someone mentioned "over-engineered" with respect to the Twin Towers. Actually one of the main conclusions of the engineering analysis of the towers was that they were anything but. They were in fact spectacularly vulnerable to collapse. The Twin Towers didn't have a simple skeleton as most skyscrapers do (Empire State is a good example), but were instead formed as tubes with floors fitted across them. Few buildings are built that way. Bin Laden chose the target well. Don't forget civil engineering is his family's business.
Fred has done his homework.... 47 columns indeed! over-engineered.
There is also a lot of mention of "steel towers don't fall down". This is folklore, nothing else. Any steel tower will fall down if it is damaged badly enough. However if the steel is strong enough to last through the consumption by fire of all the fuel inside you will be left with a steel skeleton (which is about as useful as a building that collapses - you have to tear it down and rebuild anyway).
Fire engineers are well aware of how buildings collapse. In the case of the First Interstate building in LA, the opinion of the engineers on site was that the building was within 30 minutes of collapse when the fire was brought under control. One of the lessons of that fire was the value of the sprayed-on insulation routinely applied to steelwork in modern buildings. It's been sprayed on a lot thicker since then. Oh and all buildings over 6 floors high in California now have to have sprinkler systems - the First Interstate fire would have been out in minutes with trivial damage if it had had sprinklers.
3 1/2 hours it burned (interstate building) minutes in the case of the towers? besides the fires in the towers WERE put out... explain the MANY MANY people standing in the hold where the plane went???? couldn't have been too hot there could it?
OK enough from me. I must away to the Post Office and send Charlie Sheen some more tinfoil for his hat. hmm... in the CNN poll 83% of people AGREE with Mr. Sheen. Maybe you should keep your tinfoil for yourself?
George ...at last a voice of reason, thanks for clearing up the issue of damaged buldings falling down, and no mention of the CIA, KGB, MI6, or even the Mossad, or Boss being responsible
I just did a Google search on the words "bush lied" and it threw up 15,700,000 pages, try it yourself and see the variety of things he has lied about.
Yet you are willing to believe that 19 young Arabs launched an air attack on the country with the most sophisticated air defences on the world aided by nothing but box cutters and on the orders of an old man on dialysis sat in a cave in Afghanistan because Bush says that's what happened.
Get real man.
i did the search your right fred its a lot of sites. looked up 9/11 conspiracy thories there was over 800,000. wwent into the article about charlie sheen its very interesting reading. a lot of it though will take a while to go through it. save it for a rainy day.
I just did a Google search on the words "bush lied" and it threw up 15,700,000 pages, try it yourself and see the variety of things he has lied about.
Yet you are willing to believe that 19 young Arabs launched an air attack on the country with the most sophisticated air defences on the world aided by nothing but box cutters and on the orders of an old man on dialysis sat in a cave in Afghanistan because Bush says that's what happened.
Get real man.
Fred I did a search on Google also on "Fred lied" Results 1 - 10 of about 2,760,000 for fred lied (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/lied%26r%3D67). (0.27 seconds
what does that prove?
I also did a search on "Golach lied" Results 1 - 10 of about 104 for golach lied (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/lied%26r%3D67). (0.80 seconds)
Seems your a bigger liar than I am Fred
weekweeker
30-Mar-06, 20:52
has every one forgot that when the planes crashed into the towers they took out some of the cololms thus weakening the others by overloading before the fires even started.the top of each tower did come down at a slight angle.but once they fell on to the lower floors(below impact points) the rest of the buildings collapsed more or less staight down as the weight that landed on each floor would have caused the steel to buckle immediatly giving the impression of small explosions
has every one forgot that when the planes crashed into the towers they took out some of the cololms thus weakening the others by overloading before the fires even started.the top of each tower did come down at a slight angle.but once they fell on to the lower floors(below impact points) the rest of the buildings collapsed more or less staight down as the weight that landed on each floor would have caused the steel to buckle immediatly giving the impression of small explosions
Have you forgotten that WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane?
George Brims
30-Mar-06, 21:48
Yet you are willing to believe that 19 young Arabs launched an air attack on the country with the most sophisticated air defences on the world aided by nothing but box cutters and on the orders of an old man on dialysis sat in a cave in Afghanistan because Bush says that's what happened.
Those "most sophisticated air defences" were designed to deal with attacks from *outside* the US, not hijacked planes *inside*. As usual airport security was focused on preventing a repeat of the last major attack (Lockerbie). I routinely travelled in the US with a bunch of potentially lethal tools in my luggage before 9/11. In hindsight of course people should not have been allowed to do that. As for the "19 young Arabs", do you think because they were young and Arab they couldn't be smart, determined and fanatical? And that "old" man in a cave is three years younger than me so watch the wisecracks sonny!
Fred I did a search on Google also on "Fred lied" Results 1 - 10 of about 2,760,000 for fred lied (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/lied%26r%3D67). (0.27 seconds
what does that prove?
I also did a search on "Golach lied" Results 1 - 10 of about 104 for golach lied (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&oi=dict&q=http://www.answers.com/lied%26r%3D67). (0.80 seconds)
Seems your a bigger liar than I am Fred
What if it with this forum that you can't have a debate without making it personal?
I was just discussing the tactics of speed cameras on another thread and got accused of having ulterior motives and I can't discus the blatant inacuracies and ommissions of the 9/11 report on this thread without being called a liar.
George Brims
30-Mar-06, 22:06
Well I am going to make a personal comment. It is a common characteristic of conspiracy loonies that they often have no idea when other people are making a joke.
I think Golach's point was that you can't base an argument on how many people believe something (almost 1/3 of the US population apparently still thinks Bush is doing a good job and they couldn't be more wrong). If I tell a lie few people will be bothered but George Bush's lies have a little more impact, so obviously there are a lot more places pointing it out. There are also a lot more Freds than Golachs out there, skewing the statistics he quoted.
Well I am going to make a personal comment.
I suppose it's all you can do when the facts and the evidence doesn't support your argument.
George Brims
30-Mar-06, 23:21
Well there are NO facts that contradict the following statement: The World Trade Center was destroyed by a terrorist attack, which comprised two hijacked passenger planes flying into the twin towers, causing structural damage and fires which weakened both towers enough to make them collapse.
Obiron..... if you want to watch all the videos for free covering charlie sheen's comments on 9/11 and people who have come on to support him on his comments on CNN please go to www.youtube.com (http://www.youtube.com) and search charlie sheen or go to infowars.com and they are all there too.
golach.... go to google and search "failure"
george.... do you not find it interesting that after 40 some years of armed undercover agents on planes... 2 weeks before September 11th they stopped doing it???
also, does everyone not find it astounding that Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother owned and was in charge of the security firm in charge of the WTC complex?? That proof can be found in Barbara Bush's Memoirs book "Reflections". Even more convenient? Marvin Bush's security contract on the complex RAN OUT on 9/11... don't believe me... research it yourself (I believe AP reported it first).. i know it sounds mental... but, it's all documented.
Nobody has said anything about all the folks hangin' out of that huge hole the plane went through. couldn't have been very hot.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/170105woman.jpg
There is a firefighters dispatch tape that can be heard saying they had the fires almost out! then.. a few minutes later.... they were demolished.
back to building 7... why then were two other buildings closer than building 7 to the towers that were not brought down? The Millenium Hilton and the Bankers Trust? btw... the Bankers Trust Building had parts of Tower 1 fall on it & in it!... and DID also catch on fire which raged for hours but, it's still standing there today.
interesting also... what was in building 7???
CIA
FBI
Guiliani's so called "bunker" (where they were probably overseeing the entire "operation" of 9/11)
Department of Defense
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
Inland Revenue Service
Securities and Exchange Commission
Secret Service
look it up yourself...
Larry Silverstein originally owned JUST WTC 7 then a two months before 9/11 he bought the whole complex and put a record insurance policy on it $3.5 billion which he has now collected but, he even tried to get more..... his orginal investment was $200 million. The official report says that Building 7 collapsed due to fire... yet, Silverstein says they decided to "pull" it. Pull it means pull it in on itself.... demolish it.
When they demolish a building they put a crimp in the middle to make sure it falls in on itself.. you can see that clearly in the demolish of Building 7.
weekweeker.... as for the small explosions.. go look up the Seismic Reports from Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatiory in Palisades, New York... 21 miles away. and.. there were SEVERAL reports on the day of secondary explosions including a chopper that was hovering above before they collapsed.
anyways... why did they haul away all the debris (evidence) it was shipped to China for recycling! You don't haul away a crime scene and start investigating it a YEAR later! Why would they wait a year to investigate anyways????????
What if it with this forum that you can't have a debate without making it personal?
I was just discussing the tactics of speed cameras on another thread and got accused of having ulterior motives and I can't discus the blatant inacuracies and ommissions of the 9/11 report on this thread without being called a liar.
You started it by your Googling "Bush Lied" example, I was not making it personal, just disproving your theory, but if you want to make it personal, I am willing to go head to head with you.......because I am sure I have more supporters in CCWS than you have
George.... I guess you better send Ed Asner some tinfoil for his hat too.
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/300306asner.htm
interview from last nite.
Well... I hope you have a lot of tinfoil... cause Hugo Chavez (El Presidente de Venezuela) is gonna need some too.
Breaking News!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm
and Michael Meacher MP!
George Brims
31-Mar-06, 07:32
Dear old Ed. I really am fond of the guy. He has stood up for many unpopular and righteous causes in his time. But in recent years many of the things he has said have made me sorely concerned about his sanity.
As for Hugo Chavez, I like a lot of what he has to say and his concern for the welfare of his own people. But I do wish he would shut up and keep a lower profile until we can vote the oil-based administration out of the Whire House. Doesn't anyone remember the name Salvador Allende? Now *there* was a conspiracy.
If that prisonplanet web site is where you are getting your worldview, then I understand better where you are coming from. You have been sucked in by the Libertarian conspiracy vacuum. Those guys are barking. (For example take a look as the ads they run about legally avoiding income tax. There are two categories of people who maintain that US income tax is "voluntary" - con artists and the dupes who fall for their nonsense.)
All this assertion that 9/11 was some sort of gummint plot goes beyond what I've always believed - to quote the late Dr Azimov, never invoke a conspiracy when plain incompetence will explain what's happened. The only conspiracy is the one between the mainstream media and the White House to let George Bush deny he was asleep at the wheel when America was attacked, and then pin it on Saddam Hussein (who was plenty bad enough all on his own).
You started it by your Googling "Bush Lied" example, I was not making it personal, just disproving your theory, but if you want to make it personal, I am willing to go head to head with you.......because I am sure I have more supporters in CCWS than you have
If I had been debating with Bush I'd have made it personal by saying he lied but I wasn't.
At least now you've made it clear now how things work, you and your caithess.org clique just gang up and shout down anyone who's opinions you don't agree with.
Well there are NO facts that contradict the following statement: The World Trade Center was destroyed by a terrorist attack, which comprised two hijacked passenger planes flying into the twin towers, causing structural damage and fires which weakened both towers enough to make them collapse.
Only one country in the world has ever been found guilty in the World Court of being a terrorist state.
In 1986 there was a UN Security Council resolution calling on all countries to obey international law, it was vetoed by the same country.
Shortly after the UN General Assembly passed a similar resolution, two countries voted against, one of them was the same country.
If terrorists were responsible for 9/11 then don't you think that the government of that country is the most likely to be involved?
Fred, can you tell me George Bushes motive for bombing the London Underground?
Dear old Ed. I really am fond of the guy. He has stood up for many unpopular and righteous causes in his time. But in recent years many of the things he has said have made me sorely concerned about his sanity.
What difference does it make if you like the guy? Surely the only thing that matters is if what he is saying is true or not.
There are a lot of people all saying the same thing, people you can't write off as insane and ignore, if that one won't do for you try this one.
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm
At least just read what he says with an open mind.
Fred wrote:
At least just read what he says with an open mind.
Oh the irony.
read the link its interesting but its a lot to take in. i thought i was a good one for reading conspiracy theories but i must just scratch the surface. like i said its the pentagon "plane" that i read a lot about.
At least now you've made it clear now how things work, you and your caithess.org clique just gang up and shout down anyone who's opinions you don't agree with.
Are you insinuating, that because I disagree with you I am a member of a clique? I have disagreed with most of the diatribe that you have been spouting for a long time now. But as for being a member of a clique...no...I am my own man and if I continue to dislike your ravings I will say so. That is my privilage, but if you dont like my critisism, well what can I say....one thing it will not be is to say sorry.
Dear old Ed. I really am fond of the guy. He has stood up for many unpopular and righteous causes in his time. But in recent years many of the things he has said have made me sorely concerned about his sanity.
As for Hugo Chavez, I like a lot of what he has to say and his concern for the welfare of his own people. But I do wish he would shut up and keep a lower profile until we can vote the oil-based administration out of the Whire House. Doesn't anyone remember the name Salvador Allende? Now *there* was a conspiracy.
If that prisonplanet web site is where you are getting your worldview, then I understand better where you are coming from. You have been sucked in by the Libertarian conspiracy vacuum. Those guys are barking. (For example take a look as the ads they run about legally avoiding income tax. There are two categories of people who maintain that US income tax is "voluntary" - con artists and the dupes who fall for their nonsense.) Actually George I get my views from a variety of sources even others that are far more "bizarre" than what you think prisonplanet is. Fact is, you call it "libertarian" but, really the truth is in todays politics there is no "left" or "right". eg. Cameron & Blair are interchangeable.. practically the same person. They like to lead you down the garden path with their false left-right paradigm. I have been sucked in by the truth. I have learned how to deal with cognitive dissonance. Most on the other hand cannot come to grips with dissonance and react quite irrationally and run and hide from anything they cannot bear to believe. People do NOT like to believe they have been had or that they really are just slaves. The minority admit it and get on with it trying to inform the rest of the herd. Just cause you've been force fed something your whole life through social control, the media & politics... doesn't make any of it true or right for that matter.
Tell me which part of you life is not completely controlled by someone else?????
All this assertion that 9/11 was some sort of gummint plot goes beyond what I've always believed - to quote the late Dr Azimov, never invoke a conspiracy when plain incompetence will explain what's happened. The only conspiracy is the one between the mainstream media and the White House to let George Bush deny he was asleep at the wheel when America was attacked, and then pin it on Saddam Hussein (who was plenty bad enough all on his own).
Are you insinuating, that because I disagree with you I am a member of a clique? I have disagreed with most of the diatribe that you have been spouting for a long time now. But as for being a member of a clique...no...I am my own man and if I continue to dislike your ravings I will say so. That is my privilage, but if you dont like my critisism, well what can I say....one thing it will not be is to say sorry.
So why were you threatening me with your "supporters" then?
Once again you jump in with personal insults, words like "diatribe" and "ravings" and once again you offer no logical argument, once again you can't alter the facts so you attack the person.
Fred, can you tell me George Bushes motive for bombing the London Underground?
Do you have any sensible arguments?
Oh the irony.
So is there any truth in the rumour that Saudi Arabia is developing nuclear weapons? A German magazine has published some evidence today and keeping an open mind I don't know just how reliable it is. They seem to have a bit more than the Americans have on Iran and one hell of a lot more than they did on Iraq and they killed over 100,000 people on the strength of that but then there wern't many people around with open minds in 2003 saying "hang on, there isn't actually any real evidence of weapons of mass destruction" everyone just said "Bush says they have weapons of mass destruction so it must be true" and anyone who argued otherwise just got ridiculed...or it was let slip that their wife was a CIA agent.
There are a lot of people who want just one thing, a full and truly independent inquiry into the events of 9/11 which will be allowed to see all the evidence and consider all the possibilities, that can't be bribed to leave certain peoples involvement out of the report and that won't alter the facts to fit the official story or just ignore anything which they can't make fit.
As how you argue it there is a lot of very damning evidence that the American government was at least an accessory to the crime and more coming to light every day, it just doesn't seem right that they were the judge and jury at the trial.
Why would they (Saudi) need them Fred? Wouldn't Bush just give them some?
Why would they (Saudi) need them Fred? Wouldn't Bush just give them some?
Hell no, if they had nuclear weapons they wouldn't need America's protection anymore and they could cancel all deals.
I still want to know what laws of physics you question? Can you ellaborate?
Also please provide a definition of ORDINARY FIRE in your context and a reference to this in terms of WTC7.
Alternatively please get to the point you are trying to make......yawn.
It's all here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The melting point of steel, the temperatures reached in the actual fire, a description of the different types of fires and the temepratures they burn at, the conservation of momentum in a falling object.
This was research done by respected scientists not conspiracy theorists, they estimate the odds of the twin towers collapsing due to the reasons given in the official report as at least a trillion to one, that's the twin towers not WTC7, WTC7 would be impossible.
Fred, can you tell me George Bushes motive for bombing the London Underground?
Oh how they laughed, oh how I was ridiculed on this board when I said that it was our invasion of Iraq which caused the London bombings. Rubbish they said, it's all part of a plot by radical Muslims to take over the world and destroy freedom and democracy, Tony Blair says so it must be true, I mean 9/11 happened before we invaded Iraq didn't it? That proves it.
The findings of the Home Office investigation have now been released to the press.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745085,00.html?gusrc=rss
Fred, have you seen this ?
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293140235
Fred, have you seen this ?
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=293140235
Yes, they try to explain that one away by saying it was the floors collapsing inside forcing air and debris out of the windows. They rely on the big lie principle, the bigger the lie the more people will believe it, they rely on the fact that the sheeple would rather believe anything and live in a nice cosy world where their government would not murder 3,000 of their own so they will not even bother to look at the facts, not even bother to think about it. Even though the undenyable truth is staring them in the face they will close their eyes and scream "conspiracy theory".
There is mountains of eyewitnes testimony from people who saw and heard the demolition charges going off both in the basements of the towers and higher, the flashes and the squibs were caught on video, the collapse of the buildings was entirely consistent with a controled demolition and no one can come up with any other even half plausible explanation as to why the buildings collapsed.
pultneytooner
02-Apr-06, 12:31
No-one believes this, Fred, because no-one can comprehend that a western government can be so evil.
You are effectively, banging your head against a brick wall.
Until people look at things like this with a totaly open mind they will never realise the evil that is perpetrated by our so called civilised governments.
These people rely on information overload like a giant jigsaw puzzle you haven't a chance of completing, so much information that you haven't the mind or the inclination to comprehend it all.
No-one believes this, Fred, because no-one can comprehend that a western government can be so evil.
You are effectively, banging your head against a brick wall.
Until people look at things like this with a totaly open mind they will never realise the evil that is perpetrated by our so called civilised governments.
These people rely on information overload like a giant jigsaw puzzle you haven't a chance of completing, so much information that you haven't the mind or the inclination to comprehend it all.
When you say noone you mean British or American folk right? Because there ARE plenty of people, whole countries in fact that DO believe it. Not only do they believe it they know it. For instance, Jimmy Walter and William Rodriguez are chased by the CIA, thrown out of government offices in America when they try to speak to officials against the "official" story. They are even put on "no fly" lists so they can't leave the country. But, when the Venezuelan government escorts them to Venezuela and they arrive in government offices there.. they are welcomed and invited to meet with the President of the Assembly (2nd in command of Venezuelen gov) and the President, Hugo Chavez himself, provided with 24 hour military escorts (They are being chased by the FBI in Caracus) and free accomodation in undisclosed places. Right now, today, they are shooting videos in Spanish about the proof of a governement cover up under the request of Hugo Chavez.
In Venezuela, the mainstream media report facts about 9/11 NOT the "official" story from the 9/11 Whitewash Commission and guess what George? Alex Jones and Prison Planet are quoted as SOURCES of the documented FACTS. Why? Probably because Alex Jones and Greg Palast of the BBC warned Hugo Chavez he would be kidnapped as part of a CIA op.... and he was kidnapped, 4 days after it was reported.
William Rodriquez was working in the twin towers and is a survivor of 9/11. He was one of the last people pulled from the rubble and has been decorated by the gov. for bravery... he testified for the 9/11 Commission but, all his evidence omitted. Jimmy Walter is a multi-millionaire philanthropist who has already spent $7 million + dollars on trying to get the REAL evidence out.
Jimmy Walter also has been invited to speak to the insurance company in Germany I believe who paid out $7 billion dollars to Larry Silverstein based on the "official" story. Needless to say, jimmy Walter is living a dangerous life just now.
The 100th Monkey is just about here folks.
" In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain
No-one believes this, Fred, because no-one can comprehend that a western government can be so evil.
Yet all the evidence is there that they are evil. They have an official policy of torturing people. Even when the people of America and Congress were repulsed and a law was passed outlawing torture Bush made a presidential signing statement that he was going to carry on torturing people anyway. They are anti American, when someone pointed out to him that the patriot act undermined the constitution Bush shouted “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”.
The one thing people should have learned from Katrina is that Bush is quite prepared to let American people die if it suits him. I don't think the Neocons even consider them people, they are untermenchen, what Leo Strauss taught were the "vulgar many" there to be lied to and manipulated by the "wise few". The Neocon philosophy can be every bit as evil and nasty as the Nazi philosophy was, it teaches that one group of people are superior to other groups of people just the same, it teaches "The Noble Lie", that in order for the "wise few" to rule over the "vulgar many" it is neccessary for them to be constantly lied to and it teaches that rule by the "wise few" is better than rule of law or democracy, it is a totalitarian philosophy.
Much of Straussian philosophy derives from Plato and as theory is sound but in practice is extremely dangerous, especially when a bunch of retards who's great great grandfathers made the family fortune in the slave trade decide that they are the "wise few".
I have read a lot of your posts over the last few months and, although I have my own deep seated beliefs on the subject of Conspiracy Theories, I must admit the Neocon is a new beast to me. Refer me to relevant web sites so I can read for myself about something which is raising my hackles. I used to think that Monsanto had bought all the governments and I could still be right.[evil]
Katrina was a NASA experiment in weather control which went drastically wrong. They were attempting to cause floods in Iran in order to destabilise the Government.
The most successful cover-up was that concerning the Tsunami which was caused by the deliberate destruction of an American Nuclear Submarine by the CIA. The actual intention was for the main damage to be caused along the coast of the Indian Sub-Continent to give Bush an excuse to invade China in order to "stop them taking advantage of the situation!"
Global Warming is a deliberate act by Bush to cause dissent in the Kremlin due to lack of ice for their vodkas.
I daren't say much more about what's happening because there are some men outside acting rather strangely. They look like they have some sort of hearing and eye-sight problems, but what concerns me most is that they keep muttering into their lapels.
It's great fun this is, it's nearly as exciting as the good old days of Reds under the Bed!
At least, I think that was what my elderly maiden aunt used to look for!
On a more serious note, does anybody know if Monty Python's been back on the telly, lately? :roll:
I have read a lot of your posts over the last few months and, although I have my own deep seated beliefs on the subject of Conspiracy Theories, I must admit the Neocon is a new beast to me. Refer me to relevant web sites so I can read for myself about something which is raising my hackles. I used to think that Monsanto had bought all the governments and I could still be right.[evil]
You could look up Neocon on google or in the wikipedia but it's heavy going and neocon covers a lot of ground, I'm talking about the Straussian neocons who control the American government.
There is an interesting interview here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
which is pretty good at explaining the basics and has plenty of links.
There were three hour long documetaries called "The Power of Nightmares" run by the BBC which go into depth on both the neocon and the radical Muslim philosophies and how they relate to modern, post collapse of the USSR, history. How they became allies in the war against communism and then continued to be allies in the fight against modern liberalism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3951615.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm
You can download the videos here: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
The plot thickens. None of this would have been allowed to happen if the light had still been burning in Comrade Stalin's Office in the Kremlin!
He would have known how to deal with these Enemies of the State!
Does anybody know where I can get hold of an Ice Pick?
Ah, the good old days, I really miss them? Not a Terrorist in site!
No bombings, no hijackings, no riots on the streets and plane travel was as safe as sky-scrapers!
Can I still get a flight to Dawson's Field anybody, or failing that, Entebbe will do?
pultneytooner
03-Apr-06, 13:58
Obviously this thread is not for you, jaws, otherwise you would have come up with some constructive and valid criticism to fred's views.
If you don't want to debate his views sensibly, why bother posting on this thread?
Obviously this thread is not for you, jaws, otherwise you would have come up with some constructive and valid criticism to fred's views.
If you don't want to debate his views sensibly, why bother posting on this thread?
His motives clear, his points obvious. Leave e' poor shark alone Left Handed Weeker.
Obviously this thread is not for you, jaws, otherwise you would have come up with some constructive and valid criticism to fred's views.
If you don't want to debate his views sensibly, why bother posting on this thread?
Sorry, pultneytooner, I will explain! My comments were serious.
There have been conspiracies to dominate the world since humans first realised there was another tribe on the far side of the hill.
They did not start with the Cold War, nor will they end when the US, the Russian Confederation, Al-Qaeda, China, or any other group or power you care to think of, ceases to exist.
Strangely enough, neither did they start with George W. or 9/11 either.
Humans have always had a need for some mysterious power pulling the strings and controlling what happens.
Some believe in a God or Gods, other's believe it is some Machiavellian Group or Groups working towards World Domination.
The former, at this point, I will leave for theological debates. As far as the latter is concerned then for that to be occurring then I have to assume that, either the people pulling the strings are of supreme intelligence, or the other leaders in the World are just complete imbeciles.
The former must either be so clever that they are able to get away with it or the latter are so dim that they do not realise they are being manipulated.
I consider both of those possibilities to be so ridiculous that they can be discarded without consideration.
The concept of the whole of the World's Media, and I mean every source of news in every country in the World, and all those Ruling in every Country in the World are being made to dance to the tune of a handful of unaccountable people working behind the scenes just plain silly.
The only thing that was new about 9/11 was that the bombs weren't on the planes, the bombs were the planes and the effect was a little more spectacular.
There are more conspiracy theories about the WTC than there are about who killed Kennedy, how Pearl Harbour happened, or who set Mary Queen of Scots up.
Now, does anybody wish to tell me about little green men, fairies at the bottom of my garden or where on Loch Ness is the best place for sightings of the Monster.
And just why should this thread not be for me?
And just why should this thread not be for me?
You have said nothing about any of the evidence at all, you made up your mind before the evidence was even presented then ignored all the facts, you have done exactly what the 9/11 commission did.
I started this thread asking for an explanation, any hypothesis at all as to how the official version of the collapse of WT7 could be explained without breaking the laws of science. How could an ordinary hydrocarbon fire which is not being mechanically fed with large amounts of oxygen melt steel? How could a building with a few locallised fires have every one of its support columns fail at exactly the same time to enable it to collapse level and symetrical? So far no one has been able to answer these questions, even the 9/11 commission report which was supposed to look into every aspect ignores WTC7 completely, like the collapse of a skyscraper doesn't even desearve a mention.
There have been conspiracies before, there was Watergate, there was the Iran-Contra conspiracy, the American government has a long history of conspiracy and lies. For the invasion of Iraq they first decided to go to war then conspired to manufacture the evidence of weapons of mass destruction to manipulate Congress and the people.
You can stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts if you like but I'm a realist and I know that the only hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7 which fits all the known and proven facts is controlled demolition. If anyone here can come up with any other hypothesis which would explain molten steel other than thermite charges then speak up, let's hear it.
Here is the evidence:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg
The remains of a steel girder being removed from Ground Zero 8 weeks after 9/11 still glowing almost white hot. Now can anyone here tell me what caused that girder to reach that temperature? Any explanation at all? Any even remotely plausible explanation?
As Sherlock said, when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how implausible, has to be the truth and as Occam said, the simplest hypothesis which meets all the known facts is usually the truth.
Niall Fernie
05-Apr-06, 10:39
You can download the videos here: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
Ahh archive.org, home of the "way back machine" great to see caithness.org they way it used to be, them was the days...
Anyway, out of interest, how hot does steel have to be before it looses its load bearing strength? Surely you do not have to actually melt steel before it will give way. However I like Conspiracy Theories so keep it coming :)
pultneytooner
05-Apr-06, 13:42
What is the melting point of Mohamed Atta's passport?
I think they should market this material to make blackboxes for jetliners.
Thanks to Jaws for a much better post.
Fred, far better minds than mine seem to have understood the physics of how it happened without any sort of added conspiracies.
The simple truth is, that two planes, controlled by terrorists were flown into the buildings causing so much damage that they collapsed.
Fanciful inventions and explanations about other things having been secretly involved, including radio controlled jet liners flown automatically are simply wishful thinking!
When anything of that magnitude happens there is always a plethora of people with fantasies which they assure us are more likely than the simple facts.
If people are willing to believe that Western Governments, Secret Services or Politically Motivated Organisations are intelligent and crafty enough to carry out even one percent of their supposed conspiracies and get away with it they people are more gullible then even I thought. Most of them would have trouble organising a children's birthday party without forgetting to invite the children!
The design parameters for such buildings, with regard to aircraft impact, were created when the largest planes were the Boeing 707 and even then no account was made for a full load of aviation spirit.
The planes involved were slightly larger than a 707 and had what amounted to a full load of fuel.
Just like the plane which witnesses definitely saw shot down off New York by a non existent US Navy Missile the WTC Collapses will keep science fiction writers entertained for years. It will join the assassination of JFK. the death of Princess Diana, the sinking of the Titanic, the torpedoing of the Lusitania and a thousand and one other conspiracies.
Personally I have very good reason to believe that they are all a nasty attempt by Little Green Men to create despondency amongst the people of the world so that when they land their UFOs they will by welcomed with open arms.
Now, if anybody wishes, I will explain in great detail Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Three little Pigs and Little Red Riding Hood. I have heard Fairy Stories all my life and some of them made far more sense than almost every Conspiracy Theory I have come across.
Fred, I am no expert on glowing metal girders but ask the fire brigade just how long some fires will burn for. Even a simple barn fire can take many days to extinguish and they are certainly on a far smaller scale. Coal mines have been known to burn for years and there are underground fires in the Derbyshire Pennines which have been burning for decades.
What I find difficult to understand is that only a small number of people seem to notice that there are inexplicable things which happened whilst all the other well educated and well capable experts throughout the world are too stupid to recognise it.
And the Americans never went to the Moon and the Soviets were so stupid that they never notice that Nixon was really talking to a couple of guys in Hollywood. Unless, of course, the Kremlin were all part of the conspiracy as well.
Anyway, out of interest, how hot does steel have to be before it looses its load bearing strength? Surely you do not have to actually melt steel before it will give way. However I like Conspiracy Theories so keep it coming :)
Structural steel loses half its strength at 650c, the steel in WTC7 was designed to support three times its maximum load and on 9/11 was not even carrying half of maximum load. Even at 650c the steel should have held three times the weight it was carrying.
But this is irrelevant, there was loads of molten steel about, it was seen flowing on the day and caught on video, lumps of it were being dug out of the rubble still glowing weeks later. The steel in the photo above is over 1000c and the molten steel would have had to be over 1500c to melt. There is no way a normal hydrocarbon fire can heat that amount of metal to that sort of temprature or anywhere near, even a perfect raging inferno engulfing the entire building.
All the theories on 9/11 are conspiracy theories it's just a matter of which one you choose. The official conspiracy theory that it was a group of Arabs who did the conspiring, the theory it was the American government that did the conspiring or the theory that both a group of Arabs and the American government did some conspiring. I'll let you choose the one you like best but there is one thing there is no doubt about whatsoever and that is that the official explanation of what caused the collapse of the buildings is physically impossible, that is not a theory, that is proven fact. The information above came from a scientific paper written by a respected physicist, Dr. Steven Jones, and submitted for peer review. There have been two other papers published, one by Dr. David Ray Griffin Phd and one by Dr. James H Fetzer Phd saying the same thing and there is a very long list (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html) of people in the academic world agreeing with them.
There is not ONE person to come forward who supports the "official" story of 9/11 that has come out in public to debate the questionable issues arising out of this disaster with someone that sees the obvious holes in the story!
It is soooo OBVIOUS what happened... the official story defies instinct and logic when you simply watch what happened! Look, the second tower collapsed in 8.4 seconds. that means 10 floors a second - free fall speed! think about it, say a ten story building has a crazy raging fire and the steel starts to deteriorate. Will it all of a sudden fall in 1 second?
NO. Where the structure is weakening... it might start to fall into the floor below... the weight of it MIGHT be too great and cause the building to start falling in on itself. But, there will be DELAYS as it gradually weakens from the weight bending and breaking concrete and such! It will NOT fall at free fall speed! That's ridiculous to assume and defies logic! You do not need to be an expert to know that!
Secondly, one of the towers fires did not penetrate the entire width of the building barely half actually... one would assume if it where to collapse because of this... the side with the fire will collapse causing an uneven collapse, a kinda topple over effect not straight the way down and CERTAINLY NOT at free fall speed!
Several experts on 9/11 have challenged supporters of the official story including officials of the 9/11 Commission and NOBODY has taken up the debate and never will. Wouldn't like to get caught out in public - everyone knowing then you're a mass murderer!
Why did they start "investigating" a year later?
Why did they haul away all the evidence?
They said "we don't know what caused building 7 to collapse". Larry Silverstein said he pulled it! Simple as that.
Go Hugo Chavez! I hope he takes Bush and co to the cleaners!
Why did they haul away all the evidence?
Or more to the point who haulled away the evidence? Which company got the contract to destroy a crime scene?
Guess what folks, the company which got the contract was Controlled Demolition Inc. (http://www.wasteage.com/news/waste_construction_company_proposes/index.html) They were first in with a plan, only 10 days it took them, well ahead of all the competition.
Here is their web page (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=10).
ditto company that worked the oklahoma city bombing
So, just so a simple minded person like me can understand, can somebody please, in simple words of less than three syllables, explain exactly what did happen.
Who made all the arrangements? Who did all the work prior to the incident occurring?
What exactly did they do? How did they arrange for the two planes to fly into the buildings?
What exactly did they do to the two towers to prepare them for demolition?
How many people were involved in the Conspiracy?
Oh yes, and how come nobody noticed all the preparations?
I'd love to know, without searching every the sites of all the usual suspects, just exactly who, when, what, where and why about the dastardly deed.
And don't try to convince me it was all Bush's idea because that would negate the previous stories that he can't get "Good Morning" right without a prompt.
I can't be bothered to work my way through the countless contradictory versions of all the various "Experts", especially all those who the whole world seem to be ignoring.
Simplify it for a poor simple minded imbecile who still believes in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.
Do tell! Oh please do tell!
And were the same people responsible for the London Bombings or is that another Conspiracy altogether?
Personally I believe the whole thing was faked and was filmed in a studio with the world's media tricked into believing it!
nobody knows the answers to your questions except the perpetrators themselves I would assume. although, we can speculate by defining the possible motive.
your eyes and your guts should tell you there are hundreds of holes in the story. the official story and what you saw on tv defies logic...
if you cannae be bothered to research it then how can you have an educated opinion on it?
nobody knows the answers to your questions except the perpetrators themselves I would assume. although, we can speculate by defining the possible motive.
your eyes and your guts should tell you there are hundreds of holes in the story. the official story and what you saw on tv defies logic...
if you cannae be bothered to research it then how can you have an educated opinion on it?
I never research anything. I use the knowledge I have picked up along the way. Does this negate my opinions and gut feelings because I don't spend hours trawling the net for facts, figures and statistrics?
What was your first feeling when you saw the event? I mean before they put all the stuff on the telly about Bin Laden and the hijackers?
when you research something... you don't use one source. You find varying sources and your logic to form a hypothesis.. otherwise its biased right?
oh yea.. I'm not much of a statistics person. But, I've reread your post.
I research because I like to seek the truth for myself.. not have it force fed to me off the propaganda box.
So, just so a simple minded person like me can understand, can somebody please, in simple words of less than three syllables, explain exactly what did happen.
Did you ever hear a story about an emperor and some new clothes?
My first gut feeling was that it was a play i was listening to when i switched on Radio 4. Then i thought it was a terrible accident, then i realised as the second plane hit that someone was doing this deliberately, then i realised that the terrible impact of a plane into a skyscraper had weakend the building and it collapsed, then i realised hundreds of poor people were dead or dying, then i realised that it was being claimed by terrorists and then i just shook my head at the state of the world.
Seems to me that no one ever flew a plane into a skyscraper before so how would we know what would happen if they did. If we had experimented and flown a plane into a skyscraper before just to see what happened then the findings might match what happened on 9/11. if we did it again then the findings might match it too.
You can prove anything you want. I still beleive it was a terrible act of terrorism by an extreme group and not some mad conspiracy theory. Nothing i have read or "researched" has made me think otherwise
here are some more conspiracy theories i found when searching
Name badges.
A conspiracy that allows total strangers to know your name and Humiliate
you. An opportunity for others to make people feel uncomfortable. After
Decades of retails assistants being shouted at by name by complete strangers this isn't enough. Recent government legislation in the Trading standards act 1999 subsection 18 paragraph 12 states "All staff shall wear badges containing the words 'Here to help' and shall wear smiles on their faces to ensure they mean it" The government further tries to control society by introducing Badges at an early age. Badges proclaiming it's your birthday are worn by EVERYONE as a small child. Bright colours and an association with Positive mental FEELINGS OF JOY AND HAPPINESS.
This further backs up the governments control over the nations population by
providing further information such as Age, Occupation, Place of Birth (Yes I
had a badge for Night porter shifts in the Travel inn that said John,
Glasgow). Who needs computers or Big Brother. The government is spying on us with Name Badges!!!
AND
Bananas
Bananas are the favoured food of the devil.
All people who eat Bananas are going to hell.
Yellow 6
Banana 6
Monkey 6
666
AND
Religion and christmas are just big Fakes.
Look at this.
God has 3 letters,
Mary has 4 Herod has 5 Joseph has 6 Wise men has 7 The Bible has 8 Bethlehem
has 9 The Saviour has 10 Jesus Christ has 11 New testament has 12 Christmas
tree has 13 and if you lay them out like this they even look like a
christmas tree.
God
Mary
Herod
Joseph
Wise men
The bible
Bethlehem
The Saviour
Jesus Christ
New testament
Christmas Tree
God
God
God
Is all the stuff here about 9/11 any less fanciful than these?
You can prove anything you want. I still beleive it was a terrible act of terrorism by an extreme group and not some mad conspiracy theory. Nothing i have read or "researched" has made me think otherwise
Why do you ignore the fact that no plane hit WTC7? Why do you shut that out of your mind and pretend it didn't happen? Why does it seem to you no one ever flew a plane into a skyscraper before? Do you not know about the B25 Mitchel Bomber that slammed into the 79th floor of the Empire State building in 1945? Or like WTC7 do you see what you want to see and disregard the rest?
WTC7 was not hit by a plane and disintegrated into dust, the Empire State building was hit by a plane and still stands.
That it was a terrible act of terrorism by an extreme group there is no doubt, no one will argue with you there, the only question is which of the extreme groups was behind it.
Fred
Its difficult to find serious analysis on the collapse of WTC7 amid the conspiracy theories that there are on the internet - indeed look on google and i had to sift through 11 pages before i found a site that wasnt conspiracy theory based. I agree the conspiracy theory is sexy and inviting to those of us who liek that sort of thing but there IS evidence out there that the collapse of WTC7 was explainable without the conspiracy that you all seem so fond of. There is a report by the National Institute of Science and technology which describes the reasons why it collapsed, there ARE alternatives to the conspiracy theories which abound. an example of the reason that WTC collapsed is here -
When the South Tower fell WTC 7 took only minor damage. However, when the North Tower fell WTC 7 got clobbered. Debris covered the walkways in front of the building and part of the roof. The SW corner was knocked out from the 8th to the 18th floor. The middle 1/4 of the south face was destroyed beneath the 10th floor with damage going well into the building. There was a hole on the 14th floor where something big went in. 2 elevator cars were knocked into the lobby. Fires were reported on the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 21st, 23rd, and 30th floors plus additional fires in the 20s and 30s not assigned to specific floors
The empire state building and the plane that hit it were of a completely different design to the WTC buildings. The plane that hit the Empire State building weighed 10 tons and the jets that hit the WTC weighed 185 tons. The Empire State building was a skeleton steel building and the load bearing was completely different. The WTC had exterior load bearing walls and much of its construction was from tubular steel. The Empire State Building appears to be built of concrete and steel and have load bearing away from the exterior walls, All girders, columns and floor beams are said to be solid steel and then coverned with concrete.
IN addition in the days before computers all buildings apparently over estimated the load bearing capacity they needed. Two to one they say - you over estimated to be on the safe side. Today cost cutting perhaps overrides safety margins and if the computer says you need a specific load bearing ratio then thats what you get no more. Apparently it is recognised that fire resistance increases the higher the ratio of concrete in a building. I read an estimate that the Empire state building had a concrete/steel ratio of 60/40 and the WTC buildings had a ratio of 40/60.
To be honest i could lose the will to live with civil engineering reports but i ploughed through some i found on page 11, 27, 31 of the google search i did and found enough scientific and engineering evidence that gave me cause to doubt the conspiracy theorists.
Finally there have been mentions of the "propaganda box" and "seeing what you want to see" i do beleive that 11 pages of conspiracy theories suggests that there is as much propaganda there as anywhere else and also there is as much ignoring of other evidence amongst those of you promoting the conspiracy theory as anywhere else.
My first gut feeling was that it was a play i was listening to when i switched on Radio 4. Then i thought it was a terrible accident, then i realised as the second plane hit that someone was doing this deliberately, then i realised that the terrible impact of a plane into a skyscraper had weakend the building and it collapsed, then i realised hundreds of poor people were dead or dying, then i realised that it was being claimed by terrorists and then i just shook my head at the state of the world.
Seems to me that no one ever flew a plane into a skyscraper before so how would we know what would happen if they did. If we had experimented and flown a plane into a skyscraper before just to see what happened then the findings might match what happened on 9/11. if we did it again then the findings might match it too.
You can prove anything you want. I still beleive it was a terrible act of terrorism by an extreme group and not some mad conspiracy theory. Nothing i have read or "researched" has made me think otherwise
Wrong. A plane hit the Empire State Building in 1945. It is still standing.
I believe in November a plane hit an apartment building in Tehran.... burned and didn't collapse.
Again, WTC 7 anyone? And free fall speed of the collapse? hhmmm
Bankers trust had big chunks of WTC1 fall on it.. it burned.. it didn't collapse.
yea... the propaganda box... that stuff gets pounded in your head everyday. You need to seek different points of view to form your own hypothesis don't you?
I already responded to the plane and the empire state building.
Numerology? That's a different game. But, the religion thing. I believe christianity is based on Babylonian mythology, but, that's a different thread.
Do you think that we should have killed innocent people in Afghanistan and take over and occupy their country based on the official assumptions of 9/11?
Fred
Its difficult to find serious analysis on the collapse of WTC7 amid the conspiracy theories that there are on the internet - indeed look on google and i had to sift through 11 pages before i found a site that wasnt conspiracy theory based. I agree the conspiracy theory is sexy and inviting to those of us who liek that sort of thing but there IS evidence out there that the collapse of WTC7 was explainable without the conspiracy that you all seem so fond of. There is a report by the National Institute of Science and technology which describes the reasons why it collapsed, there ARE alternatives to the conspiracy theories which abound. an example of the reason that WTC collapsed is here -
The empire state building and the plane that hit it were of a completely different design to the WTC buildings. The plane that hit the Empire State building weighed 10 tons and the jets that hit the WTC weighed 185 tons. The Empire State building was a skeleton steel building and the load bearing was completely different. The WTC had exterior load bearing walls and much of its construction was from tubular steel. The Empire State Building appears to be built of concrete and steel and have load bearing away from the exterior walls, All girders, columns and floor beams are said to be solid steel and then coverned with concrete.
IN addition in the days before computers all buildings apparently over estimated the load bearing capacity they needed. Two to one they say - you over estimated to be on the safe side. Today cost cutting perhaps overrides safety margins and if the computer says you need a specific load bearing ratio then thats what you get no more. Apparently it is recognised that fire resistance increases the higher the ratio of concrete in a building. I read an estimate that the Empire state building had a concrete/steel ratio of 60/40 and the WTC buildings had a ratio of 40/60.
To be honest i could lose the will to live with civil engineering reports but i ploughed through some i found on page 11, 27, 31 of the google search i did and found enough scientific and engineering evidence that gave me cause to doubt the conspiracy theorists.
Finally there have been mentions of the "propaganda box" and "seeing what you want to see" i do beleive that 11 pages of conspiracy theories suggests that there is as much propaganda there as anywhere else and also there is as much ignoring of other evidence amongst those of you promoting the conspiracy theory as anywhere else.
At Last a voice of reason, very well put Squidge,I and my so callled "clique" the whole one of me is behind you 100% on this
Numerology? That's a different game. But, the religion thing. I believe christianity is based on Babylonian mythology, but, that's a different thread.
Do you think that we should have killed innocent people in Afghanistan and take over and occupy their country based on the official assumptions of 9/11?
Christianity stems from the Persian cult of Mithrism not Babylonian. Judae-ism is more likely to be based on Babylonian, or at least Chaldean, mythology. As you say, thats another thread.
Christianity stems from the Persian cult of Mithrism not Babylonian. Judae-ism is more likely to be based on Babylonian, or at least Chaldean, mythology. As you say, thats another thread.
that is a good debate! but, yes another thread.:)
Wrong. A plane hit the Empire State Building in 1945. It is still standing.
I believe in November a plane hit an apartment building in Tehran.... burned and didn't collapse.
Again, WTC 7 anyone? And free fall speed of the collapse? hhmmm
Bankers trust had big chunks of WTC1 fall on it.. it burned.. it didn't collapse.
yea... the propaganda box... that stuff gets pounded in your head everyday. You need to seek different points of view to form your own hypothesis don't you?
Hmm you edited your post to add in stuff
ok
Empire sate building - different build different sized plane - MASSIVELY different - plane that hit Empire State building was 10 tons, the plane that hit WTC was 185 tons - big difference.
The plane that hit the building in tehran was just over 70 tons at maximum take off weight. The building it hit was ten storeys high. - massively different again.
The WTC Top twenty storeys collapsed and in the other one the top thrity floors collapsed. The buildings themselves were 110 storeys high - big difference to the ten in Tehran.
Bankers Trust Building was built around 1912 again completely different construction than the WTC. WTC7 would have been the same low concrete high steel build as the twin towers. As for different hypothesis then maybe you just need to be more open in what you read....
As for Afghanistan I dont promote or applaud the declaration of War in any way. My views have been well documented over the last few years on this board. I struggle with war and the rights and wrongs of it and have no clear answer for you
keep diggin!:lol: but, I suppose these are all possibilities. but, what about the tower that the fire didn't penetrate the whole width of the building? and how about the fact that the fires were just about out?
say what you saying about the buildings being of poor construction is true... what are the chances both buildings would come down and in such a close space of time?
what about WTC 7?
what about Norad standing down?
what about the fact that there were drills being run at the same exact time.... drills executing response measures to planes hitting the twin towers? same happened in London on 7/7.
Well i would think that given that the buildings were the same type of construction and had suffered similar types of trauma its not surprising they behaved in a similar way. Had one collapsed and one didnt then there might be something surprising in THAT.
I didnt say the buildings were of POOR construction but that they were of construction different to that of the other buildings you mention. They met all the regulations necessary Im sure but that doesnt mean they wee designed to deal with planes crashing into them.
WT7 was of a similar low concrete high steel construction but apparently hasd some unusual design features which meant that some russes were carrying larger loads than expected. In addition on about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out. This mean that the building was severely compromised.
Flippin heck Sjwahwah i like to answer questions im asked in full - to post and then find that you have edited your posts to add in extra questions drives me daft!!!!!
Im away home now and wont be here til after easter so ill pick up the thread then and see whether there is anything more to add.:)
Ohhhhhhhh HOLIDAYS :) :)
at the end of the day no matter how you debate it a lot of people lost their lives and their families are still mourning their loved ones.
actually they were designed to withstand a hit from a plane...a jumbo jet actually... considering they were the tallest buildings in the world when they were built.
they were also insured against this... if they weren't designed for it they wouldn't be insured against it... too high of a risk.
that's right. they are mourning... and most of them are aware it's a cover up and the ALL have questions that have not been answered! They are trying to sue the government.... but, that is a big no no. George says so.
But no one knew the amount of damage it would do if it was hit did they???given that the previous expamples you quoted were for buildings of a differnt construction and the planes were miles and miles larger - now i am truly going away:grin:
well.. i presume they studied previous disasters and air wrecks and applied the necessary engineering.. don't you think?
sorry... i write, I press post.. then I read and edit... that's what the edit button means I think.
This whole game has no existance. We are all involved in a virtual reality and as such we have no real physical reality. As in any other computer derived synthetic virtual reality the parameters can changed at any time. Any scenario can be played out and all things are possible. If this reality has been created and controled to test theorys regarding the potential of the human race then we can expect all manner of things which will suggest conspiracy but in fact is the gameplayer supreme who has a strange sense of humour. Maybe God is a bored child on a wet day playing with his new computer. The Maya state could end at any time and we might be allowed to really exist, get sent back to the beginning or the Cosmic PC is shut down and we cease to exist as if we never had existed. If our continued existance depends opon how we have performed up to now all I can say is Goodbye everyone because we do not deserve the chance of a snowball in a hot fire.[evil] [evil] [evil]
..... afterall, we, it, they are only holograms.
..... afterall, we, it, they are only holograms.
Closer than you think, pixelheed.[evil]
Joshua chist blew his trumpet and e' walls o' Cherico fell doon, wis at a conspiracy too. Watch oot for wild trumpet players at's Bin Liners replacement for suicide bombers.
This whole game has no existance. We are all involved in a virtual reality and as such we have no real physical reality. As in any other computer derived synthetic virtual reality the parameters can changed at any time. Any scenario can be played out and all things are possible. If this reality has been created and controled to test theorys regarding the potential of the human race then we can expect all manner of things which will suggest conspiracy but in fact is the gameplayer supreme who has a strange sense of humour. Maybe God is a bored child on a wet day playing with his new computer. The Maya state could end at any time and we might be allowed to really exist, get sent back to the beginning or the Cosmic PC is shut down and we cease to exist as if we never had existed. If our continued existance depends opon how we have performed up to now all I can say is Goodbye everyone because we do not deserve the chance of a snowball in a hot fire.[evil] [evil] [evil]
so life is really like the matrix films :confused
so life is really like the matrix films :confused
Exactly but not quite. I do not believe for a minute that I am a battery in the real world. I believe that we do not exist outside of the virtual reality, we are digital information only and this game if designed to test us to see if we deserve the gift of life. So far, we have failed every test.
who knows if we are real or exist in some game. i thought life was life until i saw the ideas of the matrix.. yes i ken its a film but the thought behind it really made me think.
who knows if we are real or exist in some game. i thought life was life until i saw the ideas of the matrix.. yes i ken its a film but the thought behind it really made me think.
The concepts explored in the Matrix were there long before the film was made. In Hindu philosophy the concept of the illusion, the Maya state, has been arround for a lot longer than movies.
gleber2.... yer a man of the maya huh? so, 2012?
gleber2.... yer a man of the maya huh? so, 2012?
I am a man of constant sorrow and although I am familiar with the concept of Maya I would not go as far as to say that I am a man of the Maya. 2012 has been expostulated, but, by my calculations, we should be looking from 2007 to 2009. My kharma is relatively clear and I don't really fear Judgement day. How about you?? In my reality there are no absulutes. All things can be right and all things might be wrong. Let us wait and see.
not scared... but, I have entertained the ideas of the holographic universe and it makes sense. But, I do live in the 5 sense reality... doomsday? if it were something to worry about.. there really is no point in worrying - although preparing for probable future events is high on my list. You must just live day to day and question everything that doesn't sit right.
I only say 2012 because there sure is alot of talk of the mayan calendar these days. And I see the irony of freemasonry history contorted with things like the 2012 olympics in London. It's too obvious and makes one chuckle.
I don't like the fact that how I percieve the 9/11 incident is a very ugly thing indeed but, I think we need to be informed and the people who do surround us in this reality need to unite and shed materialism & social control, we need to learn how to respond to dissonance rationally and effectively. I'm not speaking on this thread to convince anyone of anything. But, you can't unhear something and that in itself has momentum.
not scared... but, I have entertained the ideas of the holographic universe and it makes sense. But, I do live in the 5 sense reality... doomsday? if it were something to worry about.. there really is no point in worrying - although preparing for probable future events is high on my list. You must just live day to day and question everything that doesn't sit right.
I only say 2012 because there sure is alot of talk of the mayan calendar these days. And I see the irony of freemasonry history contorted with things like the 2012 olympics in London. It's too obvious and makes one chuckle.
I don't like the fact that how I percieve the 9/11 incident is a very ugly thing indeed but, I think we need to be informed and the people who do surround us in this reality need to unite and shed materialism & social control, we need to learn how to respond to dissonance rationally and effectively. I'm not speaking on this thread to convince anyone of anything. But, you can't unhear something and that in itself has momentum.
You make a lot of sense to me,check. The Maya I refer to is not The Maya Nation of the Yucatan, but the Maya state or the illusion of life as preached by Hindu philosophers and gurus of India. You may be right along with Fred about 9/11 but, in the end, what does it matter. It is in the past, it is history and we have to be concerned about today and tomorrow.
Although I can go along with the holographic universe theory, this end of the world is nigh stuff, is leaving me behind.
Its not a new idea though. Every generation has its Armageddoners and Gleber, I know, has been a fully paid up member of that club for almost 30 years.
Its fascinating.
Some o these final days folks are the same crowd who would condemn billions of mainstream religous nuts for believing some of the crazy stuff they believe. Then I find that these guys have some pretty strange beliefs themselves. Gleber, sjwahwah, Fred to name but a few.
Glebers right about one thing. The human race is indeed certifiable and I would suggest, his part in it is sealed forever.
I am still trying to find my part but |I have a feeling it wont be long in coming.
Although I can go along with the holographic universe theory, this end of the world is nigh stuff, is leaving me behind.
Its not a new idea though. Every generation has its Armageddoners and Gleber, I know, has been a fully paid up member of that club for almost 30 years.
Its fascinating.
Some o these final days folks are the same crowd who would condemn billions of mainstream religous nuts for believing some of the crazy stuff they believe. Then I find that these guys have some pretty strange beliefs themselves. Gleber, sjwahwah, Fred to name but a few.
Glebers right about one thing. The human race is indeed certifiable and I would suggest, his part in it is sealed forever.
I am still trying to find my part but |I have a feeling it wont be long in coming.
Ah,blessed the man who can make me laugh while appearing to be serious.You are a past master at it.. The Christian fanatics really believe their doctrine. I put mine forward as a possibility only. You must see that there is a difference? My part sealed? No ,I am getting weirder with every passing aeon.
Did you ever hear a story about an emperor and some new clothes?
Indeed I have read the story, in fact I have written quite a few new chapters of it in the past myself. Not only that but there are several more sets of my specially designed Emperors Clothes which have not yet been seen through.
When I have to choose between the (I don't want a ban so I will word this carefully) perpendicular male hen and the conspiracy I will invariably choose the former.
The main reason for doing so is that I have no faith in the concept that any group of humanity, however small or intelligent, can organise anything, let alone in secret, without the whole arrangement falling into chaos as soon as they make the first step.
The only Emperors who have clad themselves in imaginary clothes are those who refuse to accept that a small bunch of deluded people really did believe that they could alter my view of the world by trying to use terror tactics to alter my views.
An act of terrorism is simply that, no more and no less, and trying to move the blame from the terrorists to anybody else, no matter who, is certainly not going to alter my view of the pathetic morons that they are.
My only answer to those who attempt to benefit from terrorism or to manipulate it for their own ends is to reply, "Tried hard, failed miserably!"
Better people than them have tried to terrorise society and better people than me have had funerals in order to stop them.
People who try to excuse terrorism, or to move the blame from those who use terrorism, do nothing more than encourage it.
All they do is persuade those who wish to use terrorist tactics is that slaughtering more people will help them gain their objectives and are equally as guilty.
Terrorists and the people who wish to explain their despicable behaviour away are deserving of nothing more than contempt.
Too many decent people have given far too much for me to believe otherwise.
Cowards and mountebanks stand at the back of the crowd and encourage others to risk their lives. The apologists and explainers have usually never even been anywhere near real danger, all they do is paint the banners for others to carry.
Yes, I have seen that the Emperor has no clothes and I have also seen the thugs and apologists who have tried to make me see otherwise.
I hold both in equal contempt, in honour I can do no otherwise.
nobody knows the answers to your questions except the perpetrators themselves I would assume. although, we can speculate by defining the possible motive.
your eyes and your guts should tell you there are hundreds of holes in the story. the official story and what you saw on tv defies logic...
if you cannae be bothered to research it then how can you have an educated opinion on it?
What I know and what I sy are two different things.
Your answer says everything.
It's obvious there is a conspiracy but only those involved know about it!
So you admit that all else is speculation. To put it another way I would describe it as "Wishful thinking!"
I take it you have decided how to spend your Lottery winnings then.
For those who do not wish to believe that buildings can suddenly collapse, take a look at this site. It shows what can happen when a little old lady decides she wants a cup of tea.
http://www.lalamy.demon.co.uk/ronanpnt.htm
Obviously this thread is not for you, jaws, otherwise you would have come up with some constructive and valid criticism to fred's views.
If you don't want to debate his views sensibly, why bother posting on this thread?
Sorry for the delay pultneytooner, I hadn't realised I was supposed to take this thread seriously. I thought World Domination vanished with the Romans.
(It’s an English thing, you understand)
An act of terrorism is simply that, no more and no less, and trying to move the blame from the terrorists to anybody else, no matter who, is certainly not going to alter my view of the pathetic morons that they are.
So back in 1989 all those poeple saying "hang on, this is not right, too many questions not answered, there should be a full and independent inquiry" after Lockerbie were just pathetic morons were they?
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005)
How about all the people who said "there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction, the American government is fixing the evidence so they can invade Iraq"?
Were they all pathetic morons?
How about all the people who were saying "global warming is real" for 30 years while the American government was denying its existence?
Pathetic morons?
For those who do not wish to believe that buildings can suddenly collapse, take a look at this site. It shows what can happen when a little old lady decides she wants a cup of tea.
http://www.lalamy.demon.co.uk/ronanpnt.htm
Which illustrates two points very nicely.
1. Progressive collapse does not cause the entire building to be pulverised.
2. The effects of explosives on a high rise building.
If there had been simultanious explosions at several points around the building then the results might have been similar to WTC7.
I dunno Fred... I'm pretty bored of splitting hairs with neocons that are so scared to admit they've been had once again, and you?
George Brims
07-Apr-06, 23:07
Fred, that was a differently constructed building (much like a stack of dominoes) under different circumstances (explosion of accumulated gas, no fire). You can't draw any conclusion about the WTC buildings from what happened to that one.
sjwahwah - what *exactly* do you think the term "neocon" means? As I understand it, it refers to those on the far right of the US political spectrum, deriving much of their philosophy (and I use that word loosely) from the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. If you're simply throwing the word out as a generic insult (like calling someone a Nazi) then you need to grow up. Adults generally don't use such ad hominem remarks as a substitute for real arguments.
us, uk? is their much of a difference?
take it as you will.
Fred, that was a differently constructed building (much like a stack of dominoes) under different circumstances (explosion of accumulated gas, no fire). You can't draw any conclusion about the WTC buildings from what happened to that one.
Hey, he started it not me, I didn't post the link.
sjwahwah - what *exactly* do you think the term "neocon" means? As I understand it, it refers to those on the far right of the US political spectrum, deriving much of their philosophy (and I use that word loosely) from the late Senator Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. If you're simply throwing the word out as a generic insult (like calling someone a Nazi) then you need to grow up. Adults generally don't use such ad hominem remarks as a substitute for real arguments.
You are correct, the neocons include some very influential people among their members, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to name but a few but not JAWS.
Actually I'm not so sure about Scooter Lybby anymore, grassing up Bush and Cheney might have made him a bit unpopular with the rest of the boys, could have been expelled.
Which illustrates two points very nicely.
1. Progressive collapse does not cause the entire building to be pulverised.
2. The effects of explosives on a high rise building.
If there had been simultanious explosions at several points around the building then the results might have been similar to WTC7.
The Ronan Point collapse was from one small leaking gas cooker similar to the ones in many peoples homes. The minor explosion caused elderly woman who lit the cooker was so small that it didn't kill her. The origin was in one kitchen dislodging only one wall about four floors from the top of the building but the result collapsed every floor on that part of the building.
Had there been one major explosion taking out most of one floor either in the centre or to the whole of one side and most of another then the result would, no doubt, have been a total collapse.
All that happened at Ronan Point was that one single wall in a tower block near to the top was slightly dislodged. The rest of the floors both above and below pancaked down collapsing the whole corner of the building.
If one household cooker backfiring can demolish the whole corner of a block of flats then one fully laden plane full of tons of aviation fuel would have a far more dramatic effect than a minor cooker problem.
Of course, it could be that the neocons hadn't quite got their techniques perfected in the 1960s.
What nobody taught the idiots flying the planes was that hitting buildings of that size about a quarter of the way up would cause immediate collapse due to the extra massive weight above the damaged sections.
None of the points raised answers the simple question of who carried out all the pre-planned work needed for a carefully planned controlled demolition to occur?
If the collapse was carefully planned and controlled then it would have taken many people and several days to complete the work needed.
Where are all the people who scratched their heads and concluded, "So that's what all those men were doing cutting through supports and carefully placing explosives."
Or are all the people who worked in the Towers complicit in the conspiracy as well? Perhaps somebody bribed them to keep quiet or have the neocons arranged for them all to quietly disappear?
Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the little old lady at Ronan Point was carefully checked out and no connection with CIA has, so far, been discovered.
I am also personally assured by the former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin, that they have no information which could shed light on the atrocious behaviour of a little old lady murdering people by collapsing part of a block of flats.
Hey, he started it not me, I didn't post the link.
You are correct, the neocons include some very influential people among their members, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to name but a few but not JAWS.
Actually I'm not so sure about Scooter Lybby anymore, grassing up Bush and Cheney might have made him a bit unpopular with the rest of the boys, could have been expelled.
Have you not discovered the link between two American Universities and a secret society called "Bones"? I can't remember the full name but i'm sure some of your informative sites will give details. They are actually the ones in charge of the whole political hierarchy in the US. They have control of both the Republicans and the Democrats so it doesn't matter who the President is, they have total control.
the Neocons are complete amateurs by comparison, these guys have been at it for generations going right back to those involved in the Declaration of Independence.
George Brims, you really should know better, I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge.
The "Neocons" are the latest version of the "Bogey Man" used to frighten the plebs into doing as they are told. I really thought you would have known that.
They are everywhere in the nasty, capitalist, global, profit seeking, megalomaniac American controlled West determinedly seeking World Domination and will go to any lengths to achieve it.
Watch this site for your next exciting episode of "Conspiracy Theory".
To be safe, say nothing to your neighbours until you are sure they are fully paid up members of the Party.
Fred, steel yourself man, steel yourself, did nobody tell you?
I'm a "Sleeper" hiding my real identity of Iosif Vissarionovic Dzhugashvili.
The World has not seen the last of me, my reincarnations are infinite, my Terror extends from beyond the grave.
So back in 1989 all those poeple saying "hang on, this is not right, too many questions not answered, there should be a full and independent inquiry" after Lockerbie were just pathetic morons were they?
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005)
How about all the people who said "there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction, the American government is fixing the evidence so they can invade Iraq"?
Were they all pathetic morons?
How about all the people who were saying "global warming is real" for 30 years while the American government was denying its existence?
Pathetic morons?
So where was this "all knowing" senior police officer when the miscarriage of justice was actually occurring? Why is it that he waited before trotting off to a newspaper to tell his story? Strange how all these people become all knowing and conscious ridden when they think they can be paid for their fantasies.
Why did he not speak up at the time?
I know of one Senior Police Officer who had direct instructions from God. Are you saying that as a result there must be a God?
And you wish me to accept that a person in a senior position in the police would watch a grave miscarriage of justice and would suddenly get a huge fit of conscience when he had retired and got his pension?
I would seriously suggest that he is a man without honour. Had he been so concerned, having full knowledge at the time, I would have hoped he would he would have had the guts to speak up at the time and not wait until there was little chance of him being contradicted.
Such people are bot interested in justice but in lining their own pockets. They are little more than the "kiss and tell" brigade out for a quick buck a somebody else’s expense.
Have you not discovered the link between two American Universities and a secret society called "Bones"? I can't remember the full name but i'm sure some of your informative sites will give details. They are actually the ones in charge of the whole political hierarchy in the US. They have control of both the Republicans and the Democrats so it doesn't matter who the President is, they have total control.
the Neocons are complete amateurs by comparison, these guys have been at it for generations going right back to those involved in the Declaration of Independence.
George Brims, you really should know better, I'm surprised at your lack of knowledge.
The "Neocons" are the latest version of the "Bogey Man" used to frighten the plebs into doing as they are told. I really thought you would have known that.
They are everywhere in the nasty, capitalist, global, profit seeking, megalomaniac American controlled West determinedly seeking World Domination and will go to any lengths to achieve it.
Watch this site for your next exciting episode of "Conspiracy Theory".
To be safe, say nothing to your neighbours until you are sure they are fully paid up members of the Party.
Fred, steel yourself man, steel yourself, did nobody tell you?
I'm a "Sleeper" hiding my real identity of Iosif Vissarionovic Dzhugashvili.
The World has not seen the last of me, my reincarnations are infinite, my Terror extends from beyond the grave.
jaws... i am of the opinion you actually know what yer talking about, ya just have a candid but, healthy response to what you do know. And, I never called YOU a neocon. But, there are those who are really digging for there place in the neocon army. "Supporting" the winning team, as if they'll gain something from it or come out on top with the "winners" when the poo hits the fan. Kinda like Dundee fans wanting Gretna to win, firstly to beat the "big team" and secondly cause they need verification that their team (Dundee) lost cause Gretna is soooo good- amazing how that happens ay? One minute an enemy another their biggest fan. Fact is were slaves to their game. Look at Agenda 21 for instance.
Anyways, is there really a difference between uk and us? I don't think so. They're all the same people.
jaws... i am of the opinion you actually know what yer talking about, ya just have a candid but, healthy response to what you do know. And, I never called YOU a neocon. But, there are those who are really digging for there place in the neocon army. "Supporting" the winning team, as if they'll gain something from it or come out on top with the "winners" when the poo hits the fan. Kinda like Dundee fans wanting Gretna to win, firstly to beat the "big team" and secondly cause they need verification that their team (Dundee) lost cause Gretna is soooo good- amazing how that happens ay? One minute an enemy another their biggest fan. Fact is were slaves to their game. Look at Agenda 21 for instance.
Anyways, is there really a difference between uk and us? I don't think so. They're all the same people.
Sjwahwah, are there more than one of you or are you schizoid or are you a creature of the balance, capable of being male and female at will. An amazing difference in your style, grammar and spelling in various posts on this thrtead.
Not that I care, mind you, just curious and probably quite wrong.
Sjwahwah, are there more than one of you or are you schizoid or are you a creature of the balance, capable of being male and female at will. An amazing difference in your style, grammar and spelling in various posts on this thrtead.
Not that I care, mind you, just curious and probably quite wrong.
I might be a schizo.. if only I believed in such a thing.:) But, I really have you confused don't I? :Razz I assure you, I'm a woman and I'm only one person with one personality. LOL
I might be a schizo.. if only I believed in such a thing.:) But, I really have you confused don't I? :Razz I assure you, I'm a woman and I'm only one person with one personality. LOL
She postures and hides
I know not why
Probably to confuse
An old man such as I.
Perhaps she's drunk
or something other
Can't really tell
this single mother....
jaws... i am of the opinion you actually know what yer talking about, ...
Anyways, is there really a difference between uk and us? I don't think so. They're all the same people.
Yes, I tend to agree with you about JAWS.
But to the final statement in the post, twice the issue has been raised of a difference between UK and US. I think that there is a difference. If you are talking western philosophy as opposed to eastern, then, no, there would not appear to be much difference in UK and US. If you are talking degrees of social responsibility, then I think that there is a difference.
Yes, I tend to agree with you about JAWS.
But to the final statement in the post, twice the issue has been raised of a difference between UK and US. I think that there is a difference. If you are talking western philosophy as opposed to eastern, then, no, there would not appear to be much difference in UK and US. If you are talking degrees of social responsibility, then I think that there is a difference.
yea, sorry canuck.... I do mean "philosophy"... but, I do think there is the same degree of "social responsibility" as well.... UK might look like "followers" but, are we?
She postures and hides
I know not why
Probably to confuse
An old man such as I.
Perhaps she's drunk
or something other
Can't really tell
this single mother....
He's a poet and didnae even know it! An assuming poet I might add!:Razz
yea, sorry canuck.... I do mean "philosophy"... but, I do think there is the same degree of "social responsibility" as well.... UK might look like "followers" but, are we?
I don't see the UK as followers, at least, not of the American ethos.
Now I am going to leave you to continue in your conversation with Gleber2.
yea, sorry canuck.... I do mean "philosophy"... but, I do think there is the same degree of "social responsibility" as well.... UK might look like "followers" but, are we?
The first president of the USA was a hemp growing, weed smoking revolutionary. Where did they go wrong???We, the UK, started it all with our ludicrous empire so the rot was in USA right at the beginning. Who follows who???
I don't see the UK as followers, at least, not of the American ethos.
Well, that is where I dispute. The American ethos is not a bad thing... it is what the government is doing to it. And I think the UK shadow what the USA does. Leads me to assume they have the same agenda.
Editing in response to Gleber2 response... Who is leading who? that is a good question. That is why I say they are the same "thing" if you will... they are interchangeable.... the popes the pope no matter where in the world yer a catholic right?
He's a poet and didnae even know it! An assuming poet I might add!:Razz
No, just bored and too wired to go to bed. Never thought myself a poet and I am really quite unassuming. I have written a fair wheen of songs though.
Won't they have fun reading this tomorrow morning!!!
Of course song lyrics constitute poetry.
.... the popes the pope no matter where in the world yer a catholic right?
I would say "not really". The pope is revered more in some areas, listened to and followed more closely by some people, less by others.
Well, that is where I dispute. The American ethos is not a bad thing... it is what the government is doing to it. And I think the UK shadow what the USA does. Leads me to assume they have the same agenda.
Editing in response to Gleber2 response... Who is leading who? that is a good question. That is why I say they are the same "thing" if you will... they are interchangeable.... the popes the pope no matter where in the world yer a catholic right?
When the puppet master pulls the strings, the puppet dances. From thoughts of the Illuminati to thoughts of the neocons and the way that the real conspiracies have been covered up, who can tell if the hidden powers of England still pull the strings. Have you heard of the concept of Rex Deus? Perhaps the Priory of Zion is the boss. Also, we must not overlook the number of American presidents who have been 33% masters of the Free Masons.
Won't they have fun reading this tomorrow morning!!!
Of course song lyrics constitute poetry.
Pedant.....
I suppose they will have a good time reading this the morn.
I am only commenting on the assumption of me being a "male" and the single mother thang. LOL
You a bit of a musician then Gleber2?
I would say "not really". The pope is revered more in some areas, listened to and followed more closely by some people, less by others.
But the pontif is still the Pontif where ever you are. Or is Canada in a different cotinuum.
Freemasonry! Now there is a subject I know a bit about. I don't like talking about it much though.... it's a bit dark for public.
I suppose they will have a good time reading this the morn.
I am only commenting on the assumption of me being a "male" and the single mother thang. LOL
You a bit of a musician then Gleber2?
Forty years on the boards although I sang my first song to an audience when I was five or six. That means 55 years on the boards.Did you not say in an earlier post that you were a single mum or was it just Mum. Pardon me if I erred.
the pope's the pope and he likes his dope. I dig the whole fish god thang he's stylin.
the pope's the pope and he likes his dope. I dig the whole fish god thang he's stylin.
Is that Dagon the Fish God from H.P.Lovecraft.
The symbol of a fish depicts Nimrod, who the Philistines worshiped as the fish-god Dagon. The Trinitarian Christians continue to use the pagan fish symbol of Dagon, and deceptively contend that "ichthys," the Greek word for fish is an acronym for "Jesus the Christ, God's Son, Savior" That's all I know... and the depictions are so similiar to the pope it's unreal.
The symbol of a fish depicts Nimrod, who the Philistines worshiped as the fish-god Dagon. The Trinitarian Christians continue to use the pagan fish symbol of Dagon, and deceptively contend that "ichthys," the Greek word for fish is an acronym for "Jesus the Christ, God's Son, Savior" That's all I know... and the depictions are so similiar to the pope it's unreal.
Ah, these Christians will believe anything. Jjc had a fish avatar. Does this mean that he was a spare Pope. He certainly issued a lot of Bull. Never had much time for the Philistines since they got beat by the Jews.Nimrod was friend of mine. Socalled because he was always lookinfg for subs.
jjc?.........................jesus
Ah, these Christians will believe anything. Jjc had a fish avatar.
You have strayed to a subject which I can talk about.
Jjc's fish avatar was actually quite derogatory toward Christians. It mocked the creationist theories, it mocked Christianity whether one was a creationist or not.
I don't think that Christians will "believe" anything. Now I have to go back and figure out what you were talking about. Ah, yes, ichthys. You have that translated correctly. But it is not a trinitarian symbol, just basic Christian.
jjc was one of the original orgers.
jjc?.........................jesus
No, an exorger. Must have been before your time.
No, an exorger. Must have been before your time.
But we don't know if perhaps he returned under another name. It would be about February, 2006 when this all happened.
You have strayed to a subject which I can talk about.
Jjc's fish avatar was actually quite derogatory toward Christians. It mocked the creationist theories, it mocked Christianity whether one was a creationist or not.
I don't think that Christians will "believe" anything. Now I have to go back and figure out what you were talking about.
Jjc was derogatory to everyone who disagreed with him.He was an adamant non-believer. I am not anti Christian as such, I am anti religion, the opium of the masses.Nimrods are the Aircraft which the RAF use for search and rescue, particularly submarines. A sub, as I used it, refers to a loan from your friends when you're boracic. I reserve the right to be facetious at this time on a Friday night.:p
Seems as though everything is before my time!
There is quite a bit of conflicting theories of Christianity and origin and etc. And Greek translations... I wouldn't claim they would be correct.. but, anywho religion scares the geejeezus oot a me! But, not as much as freemasonry.
aha... i get the nimrod and sub thang. hehe
anti theist here indeed.. another religion another war
You are both starting to make sense now. Time to log off. Actually, I keep loosing my connection so I will close it down now. Thanks for the chat. c
Seems as though everything is before my time!
There is quite a bit of conflicting theories of Christianity and origin and etc. And Greek translations... I wouldn't claim they would be correct.. but, anywho religion scares the geejeezus oot a me! But, not as much as freemasonry.
Religion tries to promise heaven or hell with dogma and promises. Freemasonary only has the power granted by money and position and seems to be an empty vessel. Such power is transitory and has a finite life in the global scenario that is about to unfold.
Plague and Famine are afoot and War is everywhere. Pestilance will follow and when the horsemen meet the balance will be broken. Roll on Armageddon, the sooner the better.
I am sure that this three way conversation will brand us forever as heeders and raving loonies but I would rather that than live in the real world where Golach reigns supreme.
you can only be a loonie if you believe in such a thing.:o)
hehe dogma... bring on the dogma.
Scotland is the "spiritual" home of freemasonry tho.... shiver.
Plague and Famine.. indeed.. on the doorstep.
you can only be a loonie if you believe in such a thing.:o)
hehe dogma... bring on the dogma.
Scotland is the "spiritual" home of freemasonry tho.... shiver.
Plague and Famine.. indeed.. on the doorstep.
There is more to Scotland than meets the eye. You will find her feelers everywhere and we sell an incredible ammount of whiskey. Check the book The Hiram Key and the book of Hiram.
This for Canuck.
On religion.
I wonder why men always turn to God,
To ask for absolution for their sins,
As if religion takes away the load
And makes the sinner think that he can win.
If he who murders, steals or does foul deed,
Can with clear heart repent each Sabbath day,
There is no need for man to hide his greed,
His sins are all forgiven if he prays.
Each church believes that only it is right,
All other creeds are heading for hell's fire,
All other creeds,well hidden from God's sight,
Are guaranteed to face a future dire.
So tell me who is saved and who is damned
And what is it that God expects from man.
Boy Boy, reading this thread has been like sitting in Glebers front room. Mind you, masel and Gleber would have fallen oot long before Canuck came knocking on the front door and I have a feeling sjwahwah would have been shown the door, even before maself.
Its fascinating stuff though and for anyone to call them "heeders" takes away from something that would do no harm to kids if they were taught it in school. At least, then we would be able to understand the source of all this conspiracy theory stuff.
I notice the masons are getting a mention. Theres never a good conspiracy theory without the masons. Thank God for the masons or should that be thank Satan for the masons.
Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper? He sold his soul to Santa.
All this stuff is basically about the question every human asks but rarely finds an answer to, Who am I?
Golach calls them heeders but that shows both a lack of respect and a disregard for people who are different than him.
In my opinion, Canuck has crazy beliefs too, but no one would go about calling her a heeder. Well, I might, but she has to forgive me.
Dont forget, Galileo was very nearly hung for suggesting the world may be round and go round the sun.
The Ronan Point collapse was from one small leaking gas cooker similar to the ones in many peoples homes. The minor explosion caused elderly woman who lit the cooker was so small that it didn't kill her. The origin was in one kitchen dislodging only one wall about four floors from the top of the building but the result collapsed every floor on that part of the building.
Look, you posted the link, you posted the link to a building in which there was an explosion and only the part of the building in which the explosion occured collapsed as an example of how a building can completely collapse without the use of explosives. All we need now is Gollach coming along saying it's good to see someone talking sense and I'll know they're putting something in the water.
None of the points raised answers the simple question of who carried out all the pre-planned work needed for a carefully planned controlled demolition to occur?
If the collapse was carefully planned and controlled then it would have taken many people and several days to complete the work needed.
Where are all the people who scratched their heads and concluded, "So that's what all those men were doing cutting through supports and carefully placing explosives."
You haven't been paying attention. There are only 5 companies in the world which could bring down one of those buildings as cleanly and perfectly as WTC7 fell. On the day of 9/11 only one man in the world expected the buildings to collapse, all the experts, the civil engineers, the fire brigade, the people who designed the buildings said they were safe. One man, the CEO of Controlled Demolitions Inc., one of the 5 companies, was ringing the Fire Officers and the Mayor telling them the buildings were going to collapse.
Controlled Demolitions Inc. subsequently got the very lucrative contract to destroy the crime scene see earlier post.
No one cut through any supports before the day. Supports were cut on the day of 9/11 with preplaced thermite charges. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and powdered aluminium which burns very hot, over 2,000c, in the old days it's what they used to weld railway lines together. The supports were melted, that is why there was molten metal flowing out of the buildings on the day and white hot girders being dug up weeks later. If you watch this video you will clearly see where damage from the plane impact has uncovered one of the thermite charges, you will see the thermite reaction and you will see the molten metal flowing from it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11
Once the supports were weakened explosive charges were use to blow out the main support columns. Just about everyone who was there on the day reported hearing, seeing or feeling the explosions.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12564.htm
During the weeks before 9/11 regular checks with explosive sniffing dogs were stopped. There were also several security alerts when the towers were completely evacuated. The principles in the security firm which handled the WTC were George Bushes brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker. On the weekend before 9/11 there was a 36 hour power down supposedly to replace power cables, during this time the security cameras and security locks were not working and a lot of engineers were coming and going all the time.
So where was this "all knowing" senior police officer when the miscarriage of justice was actually occurring? Why is it that he waited before trotting off to a newspaper to tell his story? Strange how all these people become all knowing and conscious ridden when they think they can be paid for their fantasies.
Why did he not speak up at the time?
Earlier in this thread someone asked a question about the American governments part in 9/11, wouldn't a lot of people know about it and why wouldn't they say anything.
Now you've just answered their question.
We have a Chief Constable and a senior CIA officer both saying the same thing, that cruicial evidence in the Lockerbie case was planted by the CIA and guess what, you don't believe them. Why would any of the people who know the truth about 9/11 say anything and lose their jobs, or worse, when people like you just won't believe them anyway?
No, the police officer in question is not being paid and wanted to remain anonymous but I'm sure you won't let the facts affect your judgement in any way.
At least, then we would be able to understand the source of all this conspiracy theory stuff.
As far as I'm concerned it's easy, there are a lot of known and proven facts about 9/11 which just can not be explained by the official version of events, hundreds of them right from start to finish.
All the facts, all of what was seen on video, all the eyewitness accounts, that the buildings fell at all, that they fell in the manner they did it all fits perfectly with a controlled demolition. Hardly any of the known facts fit with the official version, they have to rely on a string of miilion to one coincidences to try and make their theory fit and even then they don't succeed.
The symbol of a fish depicts Nimrod, who the Philistines worshiped as the fish-god Dagon. The Trinitarian Christians continue to use the pagan fish symbol of Dagon, and deceptively contend that "ichthys," the Greek word for fish is an acronym for "Jesus the Christ, God's Son, Savior" That's all I know... and the depictions are so similiar to the pope it's unreal.
Nimrod 'The Mighty Hunter'
He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord." Genesis 10:9
this is the reason the aircraft got the name
Sorry I baled when I did last night. It looks like you had quite an interesting discussion after I left.
This for Canuck.
On religion.
I wonder why men always turn to God,
...
And what is it that God expects from man.
I think that you have offered the answer yourself. The poet speaks often of "man" or "men". That to me is one of the great problems with religious systems. They are based on a "male" hierarchical model. So, I am apt to dismiss religious comment that speaks of the human relationship with God as only a relationship between man and god.
However, if I were to take the poem seriously my thoughts would be that the author has missed the positive aspects of a life of faith. I am not sure that any of the theology he proposes actually fits anything I believe and I am as main stream as you can get either in Canada or in Scotland. Gleeber may think that I have some crazy ideas, but they work for me. (Would someone PM me with a definition of a "heeder"?)
Sorry I baled when I did last night. It looks like you had quite an interesting discussion after I left.
I think that you have offered the answer yourself. The poet speaks often of "man" or "men". That to me is one of the great problems with religious systems. They are based on a "male" hierarchical model. So, I am apt to dismiss religious comment that speaks of the human relationship with God as only a relationship between man and god.
However, if I were to take the poem seriously my thoughts would be that the author has missed the positive aspects of a life of faith. I am not sure that any of the theology he proposes actually fits anything I believe and I am as main stream as you can get either in Canada or in Scotland. Gleeber may think that I have some crazy ideas, but they work for me. (Would someone PM me with a definition of a "heeder"?)
A heeder is someone of questionable sanity. The author of the poem uses man to mean mankind, to mean the whole human race. He hasn't "missed" the positive aspects of faith because he has never felt the comfort of "faith". The theology represented was a comment on all religion. I am the author and I wrote this sonnet as one of twenty while occupying a cell in Inverness Prison. Gleeber thinks that any Christian has crazy beliefs but thats his choice. Ever been involved in the Toronto Mission(Think thats it.)?
We may have hijacked this thread last night but I enjoyed talking with you and the other heeder.
Golach calls them heeders but that shows both a lack of respect and a disregard for people who are different than him.
In my opinion, Canuck has crazy beliefs too, but no one would go about calling her a heeder. Well, I might, but she has to forgive me.
Dont forget, Galileo was very nearly hung for suggesting the world may be round and go round the sun.
Gleeber there you go again, puting words in my mouth and thinking my thoughts for me, I have great personal respect for Canuck, she is a very sensible person in my opinion. I refered to one poster in here as a header, and the person is a female so is definately different from me. I have great regard for lots of folk with differing ideas, but that should not and will not stop me posting my opinions if I feel so inclined. I am a Senior Citizen Gleeber so show me some respect, then maybe when you reach my age some chiel will say there goes Owld Gleeber, my goodness that mannie has my respect.
Wow, we hijacked the thread! Does this mean I was involved in some kind of conspiracy? That won't look good on my resume.
We are now so far off the topic of the thread it might be best to have this discussion somewhere else. Besides, religion is a subject I take far too seriously for the somewhat lighter life approach one would associate with conspiracy theory discussion on caithness.org. I wonder, though, just how many people log on to read our blether?
Ever been involved in the Toronto Mission(Think thats it.)?
We may have hijacked this thread last night but I enjoyed talking with you and the other heeder.
Toronto Mission? I've not heard of it, but maybe it goes by another name? Maybe Yonge St. Mission.
Are the words "heeder" and "header" the same thing?
Thanks golach for the kind words.
I don't know if we necessarily hijacked it. Religion and Freemasonry all have something to do with 9/11 and WTC7 too.
Gleeber there you go again, puting words in my mouth and thinking my thoughts for me, I have great personal respect for Canuck, she is a very sensible person in my opinion. I refered to one poster in here as a header, and the person is a female so is definately different from me. I have great regard for lots of folk with differing ideas, but that should not and will not stop me posting my opinions if I feel so inclined. I am a Senior Citizen Gleeber so show me some respect, then maybe when you reach my age some chiel will say there goes Owld Gleeber, my goodness that mannie has my respect.
I am 4 years behind you Gollllach and could not respect your attitude if ye lived to be a hundred and ten.Ye referred to two posters as heeders and I am one of them I believe.It is my old and respected friend, Gleeber, who called Canuck a heeder, and I can't see where he insinuated that you did.. My opinion of Christians, let alone Christian Ministers, is very similar to Gleebers as it happens, so maybe Canuck is a heeder. She's an awfy nice heeder though.
I've met a lot of nice people who are headers.
My opinion of Christians, let alone Christian Ministers, is very similar to Gleebers as it happens, so maybe Canuck is a heeder. She's an awfy nice heeder though.
I suspect that the opinions of Gleber2 and gleeber are somewhat similar to the opinions I have of some of my colleagues.
I don't mind being a heeder if it means you won't be too scathing in your comments of the words I might wing your way from this side of the big pond.
I suspect that the opinions of Gleber2 and gleeber are somewhat similar to the opinions I have of some of my colleagues.
I don't mind being a heeder if it means you won't be too scathing in your comments of the words I might wing your way from this side of the big pond.
Ye micht be a nice heeder but ahll treat ye chist lek anyither heeded at might wing harsh wurds accross e' pond.
I don't know if we necessarily hijacked it. Religion and Freemasonry all have something to do with 9/11 and WTC7 too.
religion i get but freemasonry. im confused????
:lol: I would have posted this on another thread or two but we've been told by the sensitive and wise to stick to the topic of the thread. I never thought that I would truly believe in conspiracy theorys but what is happening on this forum today is remarkably like a conspiracy. Cleek,cleek went the frightened mouse.[evil]
:lol: I would have posted this on another thread or two but we've been told by the sensitive and wise to stick to the topic of the thread. I never thought that I would truly believe in conspiracy theorys but what is happening on this forum today is remarkably like a conspiracy. Cleek,cleek went the frightened mouse.[evil]
What you see on this forum is no different to what happened to WTC7, people have an irresistable urge to control what other people do because that means that they are better than the people they control and people like feeling better than other people. The neocons want to contol what the entire world does but to do that they have to control the natural resources like oil. To control the natural resources they have to invade a few countries but to do that they needed a reason, they couldn't just tell the American people the truth.
Notice what has been said about the use of sockpuppets, how widespread it was on this forum. That is people breaking the rules to take control, one person winning the argument through weight of numbers, a way for one person to gang up on another. Everyone agrees that it is wrong, deceitful, dishonest but people did it anyway because they saw a way to be in control and they saw they could do it without getting caught.
Yet when I say that the neocons would let 9/11 happen or even make it happen there is disbelief, they would never do a thing like that people say, no one would do a thing like that but just as all the evidence from the WTC collapse says that it was due to a controlled demolition all the evidence says that that is just the sort of thing they would do.
Hey Fred, are you part of a conspiracy to expose conspiracy. I'll join.[evil]
I would have posted this on another thread or two but we've been told by the sensitive and wise to stick to the topic of the thread. I never thought that I would truly believe in conspiracy theorys but what is happening on this forum today is remarkably like a conspiracy. Cleek,cleek went the frightened mouse.
Ach come on now Gleber2, when did you ever listen to the sensitive and wise? You are your own man you keep telling me one of the unenlightened, or so you say.
I dared to dismiss this consiracy theory whilst in this thread and was virtually accused of being a member of an Orger's clique, I am now begining to suspect there is a trio, not far from this thread that could to some seem like clique. Just cannot think of a suitable name for the alleged clique :lol:
Ach come on now Gleber2, when did you ever listen to the sensitive and wise? You are your own man you keep telling me one of the unenlightened, or so you say.
I dared to dismiss this consiracy theory whilst in this thread and was virtually accused of being a member of an Orger's clique, I am now begining to suspect there is a trio, not far from this thread that could to some seem like clique. Just cannot think of a suitable name for the alleged clique :lol:
O unenlightened one, kindly explain you allegations, I'm, like Prince Charles, all ears.:Razz
14 storey scaffolding in Milton Keynes.... only part collapsed and it took 10-20 seconds to do so and not at free fall it is reported it incrementally came down.... hhmmm... WTC 2 ... 1100 storey in 8.4 seconds... steel and concrete.:roll:
I dared to dismiss this consiracy theory whilst in this thread and was virtually accused of being a member of an Orger's clique, I am now begining to suspect there is a trio, not far from this thread that could to some seem like clique. Just cannot think of a suitable name for the alleged clique :lol:
You got accused of being a member of an orger's clique because you said:
I was not making it personal, just disproving your theory, but if you want to make it personal, I am willing to go head to head with you.......because I am sure I have more supporters in CCWS than you have
You admitted it.
Hey Fred, are you part of a conspiracy to expose conspiracy. I'll join.[evil]
No, I'm not a part of anything, I wanted to be an individualist when I was younger but they wouldn't let me join.
I think it is already accepted by most people who have looked at the facts that the official version of events is pure fiction but up until recently the mainstream media didn't want to know, too much to lose by upsetting the White house, none of them wanted to be the only network not invited to press conferences anymore but that's slowly changing. There was going to be a segment on CNN's Showbiz Tonight program last night on the 9/11 coverup but they couldn't get anyone to give an opposing viewpoint, as how they tried they couldn't get anyone to defend the official version of events so it had to be cancelled.
George Brims
13-Apr-06, 19:13
I notice the WTC discussion has developed one of the traditional characteristics of a groundless conspiracy, namely endless discussion of explanations for a particular fact which *isn't* a fact. We keep hearing that the WTC towers fell in 8.3 or 8.4 seconds, which would be approximately the time a frefalling body would take to drop from 1100 feet (assuming no air resistance or a really dense object). Various theories such as explosive charges are then posited to explain this. But the first tower took close to 20 seconds to collapse, not 8.3.
I notice the WTC discussion has developed one of the traditional characteristics of a groundless conspiracy, namely endless discussion of explanations for a particular fact which *isn't* a fact. We keep hearing that the WTC towers fell in 8.3 or 8.4 seconds, which would be approximately the time a frefalling body would take to drop from 1100 feet (assuming no air resistance or a really dense object). Various theories such as explosive charges are then posited to explain this. But the first tower took close to 20 seconds to collapse, not 8.3.
I don't know where you get your information from but when I read Dr Griffith's paper he estimated 12 to 15 seconds and the evidence for freefall was based on debris outside the building perimiter falling at the same speed as debris inside the building perimiter on the video. Even at 20 seconds that would be a lot faster than could be explained by the official pancake theory but still consistent with a controlled demolition.
You judge for yourself, the video is at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC
and there is a timer on it. You can keep pressing the pause button to watch it a bit at a time, is the debris thrown out of the building falling at about the same rate as the building? How long does it take the building to collapse?
Minor fires in floors 7 & 12 of WTC7 ... when looking at the collapse of WTC7 from both available angles. The penthouse collapses in first before the rest of the building (on the 47th floor)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.