Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: theworm on February 17, 2007, 04:00:15 PM
-
this fool keeps thinking Bush blew up the WTC. those towers were DESIGNED to implode like that as to not take out 10 city blocks. the air coming out of the windows in the lower floors (your "tiny explosions") are from the compressed air blowing out the windows. damn democrats. leave it up to Hilarly Clinton, she would have all terrorist suspects staying at the Ritz, ordering room service and putting it on hard working rebulicans to pay the bill.
-
Take it to the Politics board, "theworm".
-
Since ya brought it up...
No, I never said Bush did anything but read "my pet goat" and look confused. I said the buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions, and that FAA/NORAD lied about their timeline and destroyed evidence. This demonstrates assistance here, which warrants a second, independent 911 investigation.
Sounds like the 911 Truth movment is kinda important to you. Learn more!
911 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
-
this fool keeps thinking Bush blew up the WTC. those towers were DESIGNED to implode like that as to not take out 10 city blocks. the air coming out of the windows in the lower floors (your "tiny explosions") are from the compressed air blowing out the windows. damn democrats. leave it up to Hilarly Clinton, she would have all terrorist suspects staying at the Ritz, ordering room service and putting it on hard working rebulicans to pay the bill.
apparently tower 3 ws designed to fall by itself...for no reason...
wake the f**k up..o yee of the "i'm christian and white..no..wait REALLy white" crowd..
the other crowd that refuses to believe this are the black crowd that got shit on all their lives..and now..found someone else to shit on themselves so now (all a sudden) feels a bond wityh whitey..
pfft..
Physics dont lie..
-
theworm are you suggesting that WTC conspiracists are just trying to create elaborate storys which hold no basis to cover up their own pathetic existance?
-
DESIGNED to implode so they do not take out 10 city blocks....
why would Americans wanna kill 5000 innocent Americans. Just stupid to think so. A demolition crew got in there minutes after the planes hit. Sounds plausible to me.
-
this fool keeps thinking Bush blew up the WTC. those towers were DESIGNED to implode like that as to not take out 10 city blocks. the air coming out of the windows in the lower floors (your "tiny explosions") are from the compressed air blowing out the windows. damn democrats. leave it up to Hilarly Clinton, she would have all terrorist suspects staying at the Ritz, ordering room service and putting it on hard working rebulicans to pay the bill.
designed to implode? that doesn't make sense. and no they weren't, they were designed to STAY UP. it's impossible to make a building "designed to implode". make a building collapse perfectly on itself is an extremely difficult process that requires explosives all over the building in very specific places. it is 100% irrefutably unequivocally inarguably impossible to make a building "designed to implode" for any given situation when an airplane hits it.
if you knew jack shit about anything you wouldn't have to be told that you moron. and yeah, hilary "voted for the iraq war" clinton would put terrorists in the ritz. boy you're a political guru aren't you? ::)
-
this fool keeps thinking Bush blew up the WTC. those towers were DESIGNED to implode like that as to not take out 10 city blocks. the air coming out of the windows in the lower floors (your "tiny explosions") are from the compressed air blowing out the windows. damn democrats. leave it up to Hilarly Clinton, she would have all terrorist suspects staying at the Ritz, ordering room service and putting it on hard working rebulicans to pay the bill.
So true. I actually posted specific evidence on this where about 90 percent of the Towers were air, which accounts for rubble height after the destruction.
-
Yes - the tower collapses violated 3 laws of physics/motion that day.
If you like science, check out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7961056561589268281&q=911+controlled+demolition&hl=en
-
theworm are you suggesting that WTC conspiracists are just trying to create elaborate storys which hold no basis to cover up their own pathetic existance?
no they r just trying to educate the lemmings so they'd stop living their pathetic follower existance and for once....think!
melting points of steel dont change just cause bush wants em 2.. ;)
-
I watched that video... It's very interesting.
The one thing I never did like was how this video had more answers than the Government ever disproved.
They produce more answers than the Government ever produced as well, which really isn't very comforting and unfortunately gives them more credit...
Remember... there are conspiracy theorists, then there are conspiracy realists.
Everything is not a conspiracy, but there are some things that people continually probe into and get road blocked by higher powers.
As a fictional character once stated.
"Once you've elimated the impossible, all that remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".
-
Hey, if you guys are so confident, I am sure you would support a new investigation.
Four of the ten 9/11 Commission members have already called for one. They aren't happy with it either.
And, an Oct 8th CNN poll sais that 84% of Americans do not believe the Official Story on 9/11.
Cap and worm, that puts you in a very small minority.
-
ok, and G.W. Bush MADE hurricane Katrina to hurt black folks. Man, Bush is an evil genious!!!
ps. more whites were killed in Katrina that blacks....never hear that though.... hmmm
you damn liberal hippies...go hug a tree
-
okay, folks, the worm is a blaringly obviously troll. assuming he isn't actually a liberal getting a rise out of people, he's just a fucking moron. everyone step out of the thread and move on, stop giving this idiot any more of your time.
-
We shouldn't accuse anyone - even though Bush did fight ANY investigation for 441 days until the 911 widows marching on the white house lawn every day got media coverage. Then, he allotted a paltry $13mil to it, and appointed 9 of his dad's old oil buddies to run it. Then, he censored the evidence, rushed them, etc.
But nobody should be accused. All I want is a second investigation where these questions can be answered. Pearl harbor had FOUR investigations. Time will give us a second 911 investigation.
-
no they r just trying to educate the lemmings so they'd stop living their pathetic follower existance and for once....think!
melting points of steel dont change just cause bush wants em 2.. ;)
Steel loses half it's strength at a certain temp....the jet fuel fire burned hotter than that temp. The steel weakens and collapses under the weight of the concrete slabs composing wach floor
-
ok, and G.W. Bush MADE hurricane Katrina to hurt black folks. Man, Bush is an evil genious!!!
ps. more whites were killed in Katrina that blacks....never hear that though.... hmmm
you damn liberal hippies...go hug a tree
I thought this was about 9/11?
9/11 was no natural disaster...
-
Steel loses half it's strength at a certain temp....the jet fuel fire burned hotter than that temp. The steel weakens and collapses under the weight of the concrete slabs composing wach floor
Actually, according to physics, that jet fuel could not possibly have burned beyond the temperature for that building, not in that SHORT amount of time... had the fire burned for maybe 12 hours, sure... but 1 hour... not at all.
-
cap86, there were molten pools of steel under the debris, 50 feet deep.
This is what many scientists call a smoking gun for the use of explosives.
Not bent - MELTED, molten steel.
It is very obvious that bombs were used - you had two 110 story buildings vaporizing in MID AIR that day. This does not happen in reality. And while politically it may have been needed to justify wars in mid east for resources, it was still murder x 3000 civilians.
I don't want anyone to take any answers from me, or from worm. Go to google video and watch the documentaries on it. Decide for yourself.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+conspiracy&so=0
-
Steel loses half it's strength at a certain temp....the jet fuel fire burned hotter than that temp.
pm me the scientific proof..
and even if it did..what r the chances of the buildings..BOTH..going STRAIGHT down..ocums razor..google it. ;)
LOOK UP THE PROBABILITY OF THAT HAPPENING :-\
i'm a scientist at heart..shit just dont make sence here..
the 3rd place..it just evaporated?? hell man..stell DOES NOT just evaporate..
\
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8795795223394289910&q=bush+nazi
owell..i'm gonna go drink..this shit stresses me out..i REALLy hope i'm wrong about bush..but it dosen't look good..
-
Actually, according to physics, that jet fuel could not possibly have burned beyond the temperature for that building, not in that SHORT amount of time... had the fire burned for maybe 12 hours, sure... but 1 hour... not at all.
THANKYOU..
you gotta remember though..most here have NOT taken past high skool physics..
most failed that 2.. :-\
-
Can a call for a complete investigation even be considered an irrational position?
I mean, with any event where 3000 people die, there is usually a very thorough investigation. But since even the 9/11 commission chairs call it incomplete and advocate the need for a second investigation, I think it's very clear there has not yet been a complete investigation.
IMO, 911 Skeptics who call for a second investigation are rational, scientific thinkers who would like to see an event examined thoroughly. Heck, to accept an admittedly incomplete narrative with zero cross-examinination would border on incompetent and could be construed as actually blocking due inevstigative process.
One could even see people who try to block a 9/11 investigation as being traitors. hell, what are they trying to hide? Why would they not want us to find out everything about the terrorists and intel failures? What are they hiding? Perhaps after a 9/11 investigation we should look into those folks who fought the truth coming out. Why aid the enemy like that?
Any true American who loves his/her country should support a full investigation of 9/11 - ReOpen 911.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+conspiracy&so=0
-
this fool keeps thinking Bush blew up the WTC. those towers were DESIGNED to implode like that as to not take out 10 city blocks. the air coming out of the windows in the lower floors (your "tiny explosions") are from the compressed air blowing out the windows. damn democrats. leave it up to Hilarly Clinton, she would have all terrorist suspects staying at the Ritz, ordering room service and putting it on hard working rebulicans to pay the bill.
Jesus, another intellectual giant.....
-
It's so funny - the number of people who believe "inside job" actually seems to outnumber those who still believe the official story!
For anyone who hasn't seen it - here is the original video which opened up hundreds of millions of eyes worldwide. it's not perfect, but it's well rounded, very good for young folks, and points out some major probs the with official story.
LOOSE CHANGE:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change
Remember - this isn't about political parties - it's about if the crime on 9/11 involved more than just those 19 hijackers. If they had help, those people need to be held accuontable.
-
THANKYOU..
you gotta remember though..most here have NOT taken past high skool physics..
most failed that 2.. :-\
Perhaps... Steel ratings also determine how much heat, and how LONG... that's what people often forget... Yes, steel may have a temperature tolerence of let's say 2000 degrees... which is about what I believe it was in this instance (or somewhat close), but that tolerance is based on how LONG it can withstand that heat as well.
As with any physical body, heat must be passed into the material and from there, via conduction, it moves throughout the material... It is not an "instant" process... and once it has been conducted... there is still an amount of time that the steel is structurally sound.
It doesn't jive with physics at all.
Had a single section of the building lost it's tolerance, you would have seen one section of the building start to fall before the others... The area which had been degredated would have started the process and would be quite noticable.
-
It's so funny - the number of people who believe "inside job" actually seems to outnumber those who still believe the official story!
For anyone who hasn't seen it - here is the original video which opened up hundreds of millions of eyes worldwide. it's not perfect, but it's well rounded, very good for young folks, and points out some major probs the with official story.
LOOSE CHANGE:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change
Remember - this isn't about political parties - it's about if the crime on 9/11 involved more than just those 19 hijackers. If they had help, those people need to be held accuontable.
What hijackers... you mean the ones that were found ALIVE in other parts of the world and could not have possibly rammed a jet into a building?
-
What hijackers... you mean the ones that were found ALIVE in other parts of the world and could not have possibly rammed a jet into a building?
Yes, those guys. FBI director Robert Mueller admitted we may never know the true identitied. The autopsies from the Flight 77 wreck showed no arabs, and no arabs bought tickets for that one. Weird huh? They magically ID'd all 19 of the guys by 10 am the next morning. yes, they claim they got all the DNA found, and checked, from the 10 that died in the towers. How impossible is that? But that's the "official story".
Does anyone really believe they recovered, identified, checked the DNA from those ten guys, who were vaporized at the 80th or 90th floors, in less than 24 hours?
-
there isnt one bit of evidence to say it was demoed. most of you make assumptions based on edited and manipulated videos from conspericy theorists. the only people who believe in this crap are bush and war haters - thats it.. you hate our president and you hate our war, which is fine.. but dont go making shit up for political reasons. 911 was planned and accomplished by terrorists, and yes its that simple
-
there isnt one bit of evidence to say it was demoed. most of you make assumptions based on edited and manipulated videos from conspericy theorists. the only people who believe in this crap are bush and war haters - thats it.. you hate our president and you hate our war, which is fine.. but dont go making shit up for political reasons. 911 was planned and accomplished by terrorists, and yes its that simple
I actually am asking more questions, not making assumptions... I would like the Government to rebutt, but so far, they have not done so...
-
there isnt one bit of evidence to say it was demoed. most of you make assumptions based on edited and manipulated videos from conspericy theorists. the only people who believe in this crap are bush and war haters - thats it.. you hate our president and you hate our war, which is fine.. but dont go making shit up for political reasons. 911 was planned and accomplished by terrorists, and yes its that simple
NYPD, USAF, EMTs all saying there was a 20-second countdown to demolition of WTC7. A 47-story skyscraper falls in 6.5 seconds to 2 stories of steel.
oh yeah - this was explosives. And I voted for Bush twice - this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with investigating the crimes. If there's nothing to hide, nobody should disagree a complete investigation will unite the American people.
-
I actually am asking more questions, not making assumptions... I would like the Government to rebutt, but so far, they have not done so...
the government doesnt have to. the 911 commission report was not designed to disprove conspericy theorists. it was to figure out how and why the terrorists were able to do so much damage and get through security so it can be prevented.
if one conspericy theorist could get something published in a newspaper or on tv, then the government would respond. why hasnt our media- that hates bush, not go after him? because there is no proof. and of course the conspericy theorists will say the government controlls the media which is why nothing has come out- which is just another conspericy.
with 911 conspiracy's everything that doesnt match up or go along with their story is yet another conspericy.
-
dude, 240, you voted for bush in 2004? 2000 i can excuse, but 2004? the hell is wrong with you?
-
NYPD, USAF, EMTs all saying there was a 20-second countdown to demolition of WTC7. A 47-story skyscraper falls in 6.5 seconds to 2 stories of steel.
oh yeah - this was explosives. And I voted for Bush twice - this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with investigating the crimes. If there's nothing to hide, nobody should disagree a complete investigation will unite the American people.
lies- there was no fucking countdown. like ive argued with you before, so the government was able to plan this hole operation then they decided to have a countdown? did they have a guy press the button on the middle of the street too? once again 0 evidence
-
lies- there was no fucking countdown. like ive argued with you before, so the government was able to plan this hole operation then they decided to have a countdown? did they have a guy press the button on the middle of the street too? once again 0 evidence
from a rational standpoint, it's a valid exercise to ask a lot of these questions. there are many, many questions in the official 9/11 story that don't make sense, and discounting everything that doesn't line up with the "official story" as conspiracy nutjob fodder is unfair and i believe unpatriotic.
saying bush was behind it is dumb, because if he was he wouldn't have sat in that classroom with "the pet goat" looking like a moron for a good 7-8 minutes, but the official story that 19 hijackers simultaneously flew three planes into buildings and got brought down in a 4th location is equally fallacious.
-
the government doesnt have to. the 911 commission report was not designed to disprove conspericy theorists. it was to figure out how and why the terrorists were able to do so much damage and get through security so it can be prevented.
if one conspericy theorist could get something published in a newspaper or on tv, then the government would respond. why hasnt our media- that hates bush, not go after him? because there is no proof. and of course the conspericy theorists will say the government controlls the media which is why nothing has come out- which is just another conspericy.
with 911 conspiracy's everything that doesnt match up or go along with their story is yet another conspericy.
Actually, yes, the government DOES have to... I'm a citizen and they answer to ME.
You believe whatever people want to spit at you fine... I'm a bit more inquisitive, especially when stuff doesn't jive.
-
the government doesnt have to. the 911 commission report was not designed to disprove conspericy theorists. it was to figure out how and why the terrorists were able to do so much damage and get through security so it can be prevented.
if one conspericy theorist could get something published in a newspaper or on tv, then the government would respond. why hasnt our media- that hates bush, not go after him? because there is no proof. and of course the conspericy theorists will say the government controlls the media which is why nothing has come out- which is just another conspericy.
with 911 conspiracy's everything that doesnt match up or go along with their story is yet another conspericy.
the fact that you misspell "conspiracy" five times in this post doesn't bode well for your supposed authority on the matter.
moreover, the 9/11 report was not made to explain what happened on 9/11, it was made with the conclusion in mind and to compile as much support as was possible for the predetermined end explanation. which is a terribly un-scientific way to go about doing things on par with intelligent design.
-
240 I don't understand this conspiracy theory. Why would their be one. I mean how does the US benefit from doing this to ourselves. DId the US make a bunch of money from it. Did the US acheive more power from it. Did the US acquire more land from it. I mean I don't understand why would the government do any of this. Just for fun?
-
Actually, yes, the government DOES have to... I'm a citizen and they answer to ME.
You believe whatever people want to spit at you fine... I'm a bit more inquisitive, especially when stuff doesn't jive.
will you agree the majority of the media is anti bush? just look at tthe things they've done in the past,, even going as far as faking documents.. ever read the ny times? now why hasnt anything come out yet? your an idiot if you dont believe that if dan rather got ahold of something that proved 911 was an inside job that it wouldnt be all over your tv. there are millions of people wanting to destroy bush- most Democrats in congress were trying to get him impeached.
president clinton- the smartest, sneakiest presidentperson in history couldnt keep a blow job undercover- plus whitewater and hundreds of other things. how could something that would require hundreds if not thousands of people not see one whistleblower? because it was terrorists and nothing more. this isnt the x-files, theres no mulder or scully.
-
240 I don't understand this conspiracy theory. Why would their be one. I mean how does the US benefit from doing this to ourselves. DId the US make a bunch of money from it. Did the US acheive more power from it. Did the US acquire more land from it. I mean I don't understand why would the government do any of this. Just for fun?
from a strictly practical version, you have to realize who PNAC (project for a new american century) is. these are a bunch of guys, including cheney/rumsfeld/perle/wolfowitz/others, who wanted to invade iraq desparately, circa 2000. their report, which came out prior to 9/11, mentioned it would be a lot easier to accomplish their goals if they got a "new pearl harbor".
now, in my opinion, this does not indicate that they PERPETRATED 9/11, but it casts a huge shadow of doubt upon them.
-
240 I don't understand this conspiracy theory. Why would their be one. I mean how does the US benefit from doing this to ourselves. DId the US make a bunch of money from it. Did the US acheive more power from it. Did the US acquire more land from it. I mean I don't understand why would the government do any of this. Just for fun?
a better question is if they wanted to invade iraq,, wouldnt it have been smarter to use iraqi terrorists? the biggest complaint of the war has been that iraq had nothing to do with 911. wouldnt the ''fake iraqi'' terrorists have been a better solution?
-
will you agree the majority of the media is anti bush? just look at tthe things they've done in the past,, even going as far as faking documents.. ever read the ny times? now why hasnt anything come out yet? your an idiot if you dont believe that if dan rather got ahold of something that proved 911 was an inside job that it wouldnt be all over your tv. there are millions of people wanting to destroy bush- most Democrats in congress were trying to get him impeached.
president clinton- the smartest, sneakiest presidentperson in history couldnt keep a blow job undercover- plus whitewater and hundreds of other things. how could something that would require hundreds if not thousands of people not see one whistleblower? because it was terrorists and nothing more. this isnt the x-files, theres no mulder or scully.
they absolutely are not anti-bush. in fact the media has been demonstrably pro bush as much as they could be. bush is an absolutely terrible president, yet he has gotten a free pass for most things until lately. election coverage in 2000 and 2004 proved the media was much nicer to bush than it was to gore or kerry by a LONGSHOT (think the "invented the internet" BS, love canal, or the fact that the swift-boat veterans were given ANY press).
the reason clinton couldn't keep a BJ undercover was because the entire congress was venemously against him and launched investigations every time anything did or didn't happened, you're acting like some sneaky reporter ran around popping clinton for things when that's not how it happened at all.
you need to actually look into the issues you cite instead of taking talking points from whatever pundit you watch or listen to.
-
Hey 240,
Did you know there was a fire engine loaded with watches and jewelry under all the debris? When people were running out, some firemen were loading up from the boutiques surrounding the Path station.
As far as the third tower falling, they knew it would come down a few hours before it fell. If you want to talk conspiracy, why isn't anyone saying the terrorists brought carry on bags full of detonation material? Also, how would they remove the sheetrock from the beams to plant explosives when those floors were leased/occupied? LOL, have you guys ever walked through a high rise being constructed? How do you think the steel is fastened? So funny.
Cantor - cement
-
a better question is if they wanted to invade iraq,, wouldnt it have been smarter to use iraqi terrorists? the biggest complaint of the war has been that iraq had nothing to do with 911. wouldnt the ''fake iraqi'' terrorists have been a better solution?
absolutely. however, this doesn't mean the official story is accurate. it just means the EXTREME theory that bush organized and perpetrated 9/11 all by his jolly lonesome doesn't make sense.
-
the worm is full of shit
240 is full of shit
only i know the truth
lee priest mistook the towers for a fitness chick and smacked them to the ground
-
they absolutely are not anti-bush. in fact the media has been demonstrably pro bush as much as they could be. bush is an absolutely terrible president, yet he has gotten a free pass for most things until lately. election coverage in 2000 and 2004 proved the media was much nicer to bush than it was to gore or kerry by a LONGSHOT (think the "invented the internet" BS, love canal, or the fact that the swift-boat veterans were given ANY press).
the reason clinton couldn't keep a BJ undercover was because the entire congress was venemously against him and launched investigations every time anything did or didn't happened, you're acting like some sneaky reporter ran around popping clinton for things when that's not how it happened at all.
you need to actually look into the issues you cite instead of taking talking points from whatever pundit you watch or listen to.
this is the most delusional post ive ever read. THE MEDIA ISNT ANTI BUSH? where the fuck do you live? in the fox news greenroom?
-
240 I don't understand this conspiracy theory. Why would their be one. I mean how does the US benefit from doing this to ourselves. DId the US make a bunch of money from it. Did the US acheive more power from it. Did the US acquire more land from it. I mean I don't understand why would the government do any of this. Just for fun?
Did you fail at school Kieth?
-
from a strictly practical version, you have to realize who PNAC (project for a new american century) is. these are a bunch of guys, including cheney/rumsfeld/perle/wolfowitz/others, who wanted to invade iraq desparately, circa 2000. their report, which came out prior to 9/11, mentioned it would be a lot easier to accomplish their goals if they got a "new pearl harbor".
now, in my opinion, this does not indicate that they PERPETRATED 9/11, but it casts a huge shadow of doubt upon them.
What's next, you'll say they sat around the campfires at Bohemian Grove deciding who would run into the towers to plant explosives?
::) - ::)
-
this is the most delusional post ive ever read. THE MEDIA ISNT ANTI BUSH? where the f**k do you live? in the fox news greenroom?
the media ISN'T. independent non-partisan groups have repeatedly shown studies that when it comes to coverage, the media is actually more generous with bush than would be expected. you're one of those people who thinks that when the media reports a story like "bush's approval down to 30%" that's somehow anti-bush. the media is far harsher on democrats. and there is no single outlet as blatantly partisan as FOX.
i'll tell you what's a clear example of the media being anti someone. when the media uncritically reports that nancy pelosi asked for a military jet when she had no part in it. the media reporting that john kerry's silver star may not have been earned despite the 'swift boat veterans' irrefutably having no way of knowing what happened that day and being on the RNC's payroll. fox news doing a hit piece on al gore over the fact that he uses airplanes without actually CALLING gore's office to find out that he flies coach whenever he can and goes out of his way to offset the carbon emissions that result from his flights.
-
ps for anyone stupid enough to think the US government didnt a) do 911 themselves or b) let it happen, check this shit out
WTC tower 7 ... 50 story building .... not hit by a plane. ... home to the FBI, secret service, CIA, and mother fucking SEC at the height of enron/worldcom investigation/fraud ... collapsing:
(http://www.911truestory.com/wtc7.gif)
wake the fuck up!
-
What's next, you'll say they sat around the campfires at Bohemian Grove deciding who would run into the towers to plant explosives?
::) - ::)
uh... did you miss my last sentence where i said it doesn't indicate that they perpetrated 9/11? if you're that bad at reading comprehension i can't imagine how anyone could expect you know what you're talking about.
-
uh... did you miss my last sentence where i said it doesn't indicate that they perpetrated 9/11? if you're that bad at reading comprehension i can't imagine how anyone could expect you know what you're talking about.
but it casts a huge shadow of doubt upon them.
I read very well, but I doubt you understand what I wrote. Do some reading and come back to me.
Mandalay - Aves
-
Democrat: [dem-uh-krat] –noun 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
-
I watched that video... It's very interesting.
The one thing I never did like was how this video had more answers than the Government ever disproved.
They produce more answers than the Government ever produced as well, which really isn't very comforting and unfortunately gives them more credit...
Remember... there are conspiracy theorists, then there are conspiracy realists.
Everything is not a conspiracy, but there are some things that people continually probe into and get road blocked by higher powers.
As a fictional character once stated.
"Once you've elimated the impossible, all that remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".
Hey, That's Sherlock Holmes. And he wasn't fictional. Was married to my great-grandmother for nigh 30 years. ;)
-
Since ya brought it up...
No, I never said Bush did anything but read "my pet goat" and look confused. I said the buildings were brought down in controlled demolitions, and that FAA/NORAD lied about their timeline and destroyed evidence. This demonstrates assistance here, which warrants a second, independent 911 investigation.
Sounds like the 911 Truth movment is kinda important to you. Learn more!
911 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Jesus Christ dude, stop the madness already. The one chief fact you keep missing is that those buildings simply didn't collapse in the same manner as a controlled demolition.
1) the collaspes all began at the point of initial impact of the planes.
2) Controlled demolition explosions start low and work their way up. According to what you claim are the charges, they are working their way from the top-down.
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-12.jpg)
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-10.gif)
Your theory was even disproved by Skeptic magazine...a magazine who's whole purpose is to debunk conventional explanations. Even they don't buy this conspiracy bullshit.
-
That is true. It helps the building collapse on itself
-
Jesus Christ dude, stop the madness already. The one chief fact you keep missing is that those buildings simply didn't collapse in the same manner as a controlled demolition.
1) the collaspes all began at the point of initial impact of the planes.
2) Controlled demolition explosions start low and work their way up. According to what you claim are the charges, they are working their way from the top-down.
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-12.jpg)
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-10.gif)
Your theory was even disproved by Skeptic magazine...a magazine who's whole purpose is to debunk conventional explanations. Even they don't buy this conspiracy bullshit.
Yes, they did, but why did the buildings act as if they were in free fall... timing of the fall clearly shows that as it fell, there was absolutely NO resistance to the fall... If a building falls from top to bottom, there should be some resistance at each floor.
The time it took for the buildings to fall was as if it was in free fall.
Why also did one which was hit earlier stay up the longest? the identical structures, the identical buildings, slight differences in height of impact do not corrolate to why the South tower fell first.
-
NO PLANE HIT WORLD TRADE 7.
But it fell anyway.
-
Yes, they did, but why did the buildings act as if they were in free fall... timing of the fall clearly shows that as it fell, there was absolutely NO resistance to the fall... If a building falls from top to bottom, there should be some resistance at each floor.
The time it took for the buildings to fall was as if it was in free fall.
Why also did one which was hit earlier stay up the longest? the identical structures, the identical buildings, slight differences in height of impact do not corrolate to why the South tower fell first.
I honestly can't say as I don't have a physics degree. I'm sure if I search long and hard enough though as have all of the conspiracy theorists, I can come up with a plausible explanation.
As far as why the south tower fell first, I absolutely disagree with you. There was nothing slight about the differences where they were hit. My explanation would be simply that it was hit more to the side and lower thus putting more weight and stress on the weakened area. I was there, less than a mile north, and every person on the street thought the South Tower was going to topple. No one thought they'd go as they did but topple it did just as was suspected and if you look at the videos, the fall starts exactly at the point of impact, as does the north tower.
So now I'd ask you to explain the following.
Given it takes a great deal of time, equipment and manhours to prepare a reasonably sized building for demolition, how do you explain that TWO 110 story buildings and ONE 50-somthing story building were prepared for demolition in what was supposed to be a week without no one noticing? All this work of course done without breaking open walls which would be required to expose critical beams. Those supposed charge blasts you see happen every 10 stories or so. The demo workers snuck onto fully occupied floors with no one knowing and planted charges? Doubtful is an understatement.
-
NO PLANE HIT WORLD TRADE 7.
But it fell anyway.
You're right but countless tons of buildings 1 and 2 fell on it. The infamous pictures you see are from the North. From the south, the building was decimated. It fell hours later. Why would they wait to detonate if that's what they did? I was at the site several weeks after for a memorial and saw the damage done to buildings 4 & 5 which are further away than 7. The south sides were pummeled. Hell, the world financial center had serious damage and that was way across West street. I'm surprised it stood as long as it did given it was built in the same manner.
-
You're right but countless tons of buildings 1 and 2 fell on it. The infamous pictures you see are from the North. From the south, the building was decimated. It fell hours later. Why would they wait to detonate if that's what they did? I was at the site several weeks after for a memorial and saw the damage done to buildings 4 & 5 which are further away than 7. The south sides were pummeled. Hell, the world financial center had serious damage and that was way across West street. I'm surprised it stood as long as it did given it was built in the same manner.
no steel concrete building had ever fallen.
the buildings around it were hit with "countless tons of building". Not WTC7. Look at the pics of it, I can post a dozen if you want. The front was fine - just fires. "countless" tons would be zero, unless you count the fine dust cloud. I'm sorry, but even NIST doesn't say that "countless tons" of debris brouhgt it down, cause that just didn't happen. They blame fire.
-
Given it takes a great deal of time, equipment and manhours to prepare a reasonably sized building for demolition, how do you explain that TWO 110 story buildings and ONE 50-somthing story building were prepared for demolition in what was supposed to be a week without no one noticing? All this work of course done without breaking open walls which would be required to expose critical beams. Those supposed charge blasts you see happen every 10 stories or so. The demo workers snuck onto fully occupied floors with no one knowing and planted charges? Doubtful is an understatement.
Blasts were every 30 feet. The pieces fit perfectly on the trucks of the company which also cleaned up OK city and WACO.
Watch 911 Mysteries. They interview many employees who detail oddities there over the 6 weeks before. Concrete powder everywhere. Heavy machinery on empty floors. The weekened before, there were teams of men with jumpsuits in the building with spools of cable for "internet upgrading" that no one can find paperwork for, but they shut down the elevators and power in half of the building to do.
You should research this. You seem intelligent, just haven't been exposed. There was a lot of new people there doing new things in the 6 weeks before, and the power outages, bomb dogs being removed, etc, on the weekend before which should get most people curious.
-
Blasts were every 30 feet. The pieces fit perfectly on the trucks of the company which also cleaned up OK city and WACO.
Watch 911 Mysteries. They interview many employees who detail oddities there over the 6 weeks before. Concrete powder everywhere. Heavy machinery on empty floors. The weekened before, there were teams of men with jumpsuits in the building with spools of cable for "internet upgrading" that no one can find paperwork for, but they shut down the elevators and power in half of the building to do.
You should research this. You seem intelligent, just haven't been exposed. There was a lot of new people there doing new things in the 6 weeks before, and the power outages, bomb dogs being removed, etc, on the weekend before which should get most people curious.
LOL, thanks for the acknowledgment of my intelligence although I suppose that's debatable :D Interesting though how the implication is that if you take your side you're "intelligent" and if you don't you're not but whatever.
Fact is I have researched this, watched Loose Change and countless other conspiracy films on the subject as well as purchased magazines, read articles, etc. I then read the other side of the argument and based on what I've seen on both sides as well as with my own eyes I simply do not believe this was a conspiracy and controlled demolition. Once you believe that then you have to believe the events of the whole day were staged. Conversely, if you don't believe it was a controlled demolition or that a radio controlled plane hit the towers or whatever other theory you guys have come up with, then you must discredit all the theories. There have been enough holes in your "proof" that for me personally I simply can't believe any of it then. There are too many theories you guys simply can't explain other than with "watch the videos". OK, I've watched them and I'm still not convinced.
Sorry if that makes me unintelligent or naive or whatever other names you guys wish to call me and those who don't believe. Believe me I've got a STRONG interest in finding the truth and based on what I've seen the truth is a plane full of frightened passengers hit the towers and caused them to fall. Nothing more.
-
no steel concrete building had ever fallen.
the buildings around it were hit with "countless tons of building". Not WTC7. Look at the pics of it, I can post a dozen if you want. The front was fine - just fires. "countless" tons would be zero, unless you count the fine dust cloud. I'm sorry, but even NIST doesn't say that "countless tons" of debris brouhgt it down, cause that just didn't happen. They blame fire.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm)
-
rjp, here's the thing...
If even ONE of these events of 9/11 was fake/shady -
whether it be the small hole at the pentagon, WTC7, the FAA employee admitting destroying tapes, NORAD lying on the stand, Bush lying about what he knew (he was told of 3 hijacked planes before walking into that school), the missing plane in Penn, or many other events...
If even ONE of these is shown to be complicit, you have an inside job. You can punch holes in my theories all day - but if ONE of them is true, then I just showed 911 was an inside job.
-
rjp, here's the thing...
If even ONE of these events of 9/11 was fake/shady -
whether it be the small hole at the pentagon, WTC7, the FAA employee admitting destroying tapes, NORAD lying on the stand, Bush lying about what he knew (he was told of 3 hijacked planes before walking into that school), the missing plane in Penn, or many other events...
If even ONE of these is shown to be complicit, you have an inside job. You can punch holes in my theories all day - but if ONE of them is true, then I just showed 911 was an inside job.
Wow, I'm convinced. Why don't you use this amazing intuition/research and get us a definitive answer on the Kennedy assassination. Shouldn't take you long. ::)
-
rjp, here's the thing...
If even ONE of these events of 9/11 was fake/shady -
whether it be the small hole at the pentagon, WTC7, the FAA employee admitting destroying tapes, NORAD lying on the stand, Bush lying about what he knew (he was told of 3 hijacked planes before walking into that school), the missing plane in Penn, or many other events...
If even ONE of these is shown to be complicit, you have an inside job. You can punch holes in my theories all day - but if ONE of them is true, then I just showed 911 was an inside job.
Burden of proof isn't on me my friend and you and your theorists have yet to prove a thing. Believe me, if you did every major news station would be on this story like stink on a turd...or are they in on it too?
-
I honestly can't say as I don't have a physics degree. I'm sure if I search long and hard enough though as have all of the conspiracy theorists, I can come up with a plausible explanation.
Given it takes a great deal of time, equipment and manhours to prepare a reasonably sized building for demolition, how do you explain that TWO 110 story buildings and ONE 50-somthing story building were prepared for demolition in what was supposed to be a week without no one noticing? All this work of course done without breaking open walls which would be required to expose critical beams. Those supposed charge blasts you see happen every 10 stories or so. The demo workers snuck onto fully occupied floors with no one knowing and planted charges? Doubtful is an understatement.
I don't have a physics degree either, however my major did require a lot of high level math and for electives I chose Physics as my science requirements... I'm just saying that the freefall scenario seems odd... nothing more.
I don't disagree that it seems a far stretch, but so many people have gone on record discussing oddities in the weeks preceeding 9/11 that I truly don't know how I can completely dismiss the idea... I am definitely on the fence about the issue... I wish the boys in Washington would man up and really have a thorough investigation.
It's funny... If you or I commit a crime, we go to court and the Prosecution will pull out tons of evidence to enhance their case... the Government in this instance has provided us, the people who they ultimately work for, with almost zero evidence.
My issue is fundamental... The conspiracy theorists are producing more evidence and answering more questions than the US Government and I think that trend needs to be reversed.
The Gov. should ALWAYS be providing more evidence in these cases, that's why I get so miffed.
-
Burden of proof isn't on me my friend and you and your theorists have yet to prove a thing. Believe me, if you did every major news station would be on this story like stink on a turd...or are they in on it too?
Do you believe the govt influences what the media puts on tv - yes or no?
-
Do you believe the govt influences what the media puts on tv - yes or no?
It is common knowledge that the government does influence what the media provides... whether it's pro government or not... they must do so in certain instances to protect the individuals, or that's the belief... I would also like to remind people that we have people on trial right now for exposing names of CIA operatives TO the media... That's influence in a different way, but influence none the less.
-
Do you believe the govt influences what the media puts on tv - yes or no?
Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Don't you know you don't answer a question with a question? Unless of course you're trying to misdirect and then it's a pretty good tactic.
-
and when you go beyond the evidence of that day -
PNAC) when you realize that in 2000, a group of future bush admin people wrote a paper in which they planned out the invasions in the middle east and said that "a catalyzing event - like a new Pearl harbor" would be needed to justify these invasions for the American people.
Warnings) 29 separate foreign intel warnings on 9/11 which Bush ignored:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence
Investigation) JFK, Challenger, Columbia, pearl harbor - all investiations started within a week. Bush told congress there would be zero investigation and Rusy shipped all the metal (possibly containing explosives residue) to china for recycling in violation of federal law. (it did come 441 days later after mass protests, but was very limited)
Economy) After dot-com bust of jan 2001, the economy was sinking to another recession. monster war spending helped that recover and let the fed justify lowering rates which helped the economy recover.
Motive) Early 2002, the towers would have been demolished anyway due to cost prohibitive asbestos and corrosion repairs needed. Also money, the owner put $14 MILLION down and cashed checks for almost TEN BILLION dollars, six weeks later.
More motive) 2.3 trillion dollars announced missing on 9/10 from Pentagon accounting dept. The next morning, a plane hits the pentagon accounting department. The 2.3 trillion is never found. hell, the plane hits at 9:32 AM after what I am guessing is a 9:30 AM meeting.
So even if you believe everything made sense that morning (which I certainly don't, but even if you do), you'll see that Bush investigating himself for 9/11 is a very bad thing. more than enough motive and example to show the investigation was biased.
-
Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Don't you know you don't answer a question with a question? Unless of course you're trying to misdirect and then it's a pretty good tactic.
Five companies, each tied to wallstreet, govt, and defense operations, also control 90% of the media.
So yes, I believe that they do decide editorial content based upon the goals of all their operations. Exposing 9/11 as a fraud would cripple the defense spending (as people stopped supporting the war), would get people kicked out of office (bad for political ties) and might cause civil unrest (bad for wall street).
Also, the *underground media*, or the large group of cable access, internet webcast, online newspapers, blogs, etc have been pretty good at covering the events of 911 and the holes in the story.