Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: EL Mariachi on December 15, 2007, 04:49:22 PM
-
Teh proof is out there, are you man enough to take it?
-
Hahahah the us government said 6 of the hijackers were still alive, this just gets better and better. And then they mysteriosly find a hijackers passport that fell out of the plain. If yo americans believe this crap, you re dumber than i thought.
-
spray paint ZEITGEIST EVERYWHERE
vandalism world wide i demand of you!
-
Any more talk of this and you're out of TEAM NASSER. >:(
-
Teh proof is out there, are you man enough to take it?
Ask 240 , he could write a book on the subject. But honestly, anyone with half a brain knows it was a planned to initiate the Freedom act bill, which just lets the gov't whatever the fuck they want :)
and you [americans] morons are agreed to it! :)
-
Teh proof is out there, are you man enough to take it?
Inside job? Not sure. What I think is that the government was aware it would happen and allowed it to happen, for the economic benefits which stemmed from it.
PS - 240 or Bust should be all over this thread.
-
I thaught that ''americans are dumb'' is a myth. god bless you all, this is moronic as it gets.
Better stay the fuck out then, huh?
-
I thaught that ''americans are dumb'' is a myth. god bless you all, this is moronic as it gets.
Yeah, and I "THOUGHT" you were dumb. You should us dumb Yankees.
-
yeah, 67% of Americans now believe it was allowed to happen. Much higher worldwide.
While it's a terrible thing - most of us support the goals behind it (setting up bases in the middle east, controlling oil reserves) and we're all going to live better because of it. The minute I realized I was a hypocrite for loving the spoils of these elective wars, I had to stop preaching about it. ANyone with a brain knows there is a lot of shady stuff around it, and there will be add'l inevstigations (pearl harbor had 4, JFK had a few) in the coming decades.
One of those things in life. You can't change it, and they can only fool us every few decades. A shame, but something out of our control.
-
Bush: '' Ofcourse we're after Osama Hussein. Uhh Uhh i mean Osama Bin Laden''
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
-
the world really isn't what you think it is now is it
-
You give our government far to much credit to pull something like this off. To many timing issues and to many people to keep quiet for it to work. Did some top brass in the CIA or White House maybe know it was going to happen, could be. Was Bush on the phone with Osama picking out targets, me thinks not.
-
Teh proof is out there, are you man enough to take it?
You're an idiot. ::)
-
You guys are not any better then the government if you dont do anything about it. Bush is just a puppet for some jew bankers that continue to fatten their pockets trough propaganda and casualties. When are you gonna wake up, are you a man enough to wake up?
-
Well, lay out your proof...... ::)
-
Teh proof is out there, are you man enough to take it?
Hi
240 is back
-
yeah, 67% of Americans now believe it was allowed to happen. Much higher worldwide.
While it's a terrible thing - most of us support the goals behind it (setting up bases in the middle east, controlling oil reserves) and we're all going to live better because of it. The minute I realized I was a hypocrite for loving the spoils of these elective wars, I had to stop preaching about it. ANyone with a brain knows there is a lot of shady stuff around it, and there will be add'l inevstigations (pearl harbor had 4, JFK had a few) in the coming decades.
One of those things in life. You can't change it, and they can only fool us every few decades. A shame, but something out of our control.
Fucking Neo-Con Prick!
Just for that I hope your white trash ass falls hard in the coming recession!
-
Well, lay out your proof...... ::)
Building 7 is clearly blown with explosions.
-
Well, lay out your proof...... ::)
If I had a video of the explosives being placed in the towers would that do it for you ::)
-
How could you know it was what you say it was? ::)
Will it be conclusive and practically airtight?
Will it be something that could hold up in a court of law?
Or will it be some over dramatized, graphic heavy, grainy assumptive vague glimpse of something and obviously spun to make the average Joe who gets most of his exercise by jumping to conclusion go "wow, oh my god i never thought of that!" and conveniently ignores real facts that someone put together with Final Cut and uploaded to youtube?
If so, then it won't do it for me. ;D
-
Building 7 is clearly blown with explosions.
Clearly? based on what comparative evidence?
And if so, that mere point makes all the events of 9/11 an inside job?
Try again sunshine.
-
Clearly? based on what comparative evidence?
And if so, that mere point makes all the events of 9/11 an inside job?
Try again sunshine.
Jebus did it.
-
Jebus did it.
I knew you were a closet believer... ;D
-
Clearly? based on what comparative evidence?
And if so, that mere point makes all the events of 9/11 an inside job?
Try again sunshine.
hahah yes, WTC7, an upscale financial skyscraper in lower manhattan just happened to have a gigantic industrial hazardous fuel tank in its basement, which was detonated by 'falling debris' from the WTC resulting in a TEXTBOOK controlled clean collapse.
WTC 7 is the gaping asshole in the whole event than no one can account for.
-
hahah yes, WTC7, an upscale financial skyscraper in lower manhattan just happened to have a gigantic industrial hazardous fuel tank in its basement, which was detonated by 'falling debris' from the WTC resulting in a TEXTBOOK controlled clean collapse.
WTC 7 is the gaping asshole in the whole event than no one can account for.
Controlled clean collapse compared to what?
Do only controlled demolitions produce controlled like collapses?
If a person is shot does their body always react the same way in the way it reacts to the force of a bullet? (JFK lug blahahahahaha)
And for what purpose?
Why "pull" the building?
Could fire cause a fuel tank to explode?
Could debris rupture gas lines?
Do we know the extent of the damage in building from the debris?
-
Controlled clean collapse compared to what?
every other modern skyscraper that has collapsed
Do only controlled demolitions produce controlled like collapses?
yeah pretty much
Do we know the extent of the damage in building from the debris?
many other building in the vicinity were severely damaged including some reduced to a burned out(but sill standing) shell, WTC 7 appeared relatively undamaged then all of a sudden collapsed in a perfect textbook collapse, the only skyscraper in history to collapse from fire alone.
-
-
every other modern skyscraper that has collapsed
Such as?
many other building in the vicinity were severely damaged including some reduced to a burned out(but sill standing) shell, WTC 7 appeared relatively undamaged then all of a sudden collapsed in a perfect textbook collapse, the only skyscraper in history to collapse from fire alone.
So becuase other buildings were damaged and they didn't fall down, then WC7 was certainly demolished?
You have pictures or saw for your self every side of WTC7?
Do you know for a fact it collapsed from fire alone? Was there other factors? Do you have undeniable proof based on structural engineering? do you have the blue prints? Do you know all the other things that were involved? Do you know how to read the blue prints to rule out any possibility of it doing what it did?
Or are you basing this on faulty logic full of holes and lack of expertise and incomplete facts?
-
Such as?
no other skyscrapers have collapsed besides those on 9/11, thats the point. for example the 2nd tallest building in LA had a severe fire burn some 13 floors for almost a day and there was never a threat of collapse.
So becuase other buildings were damaged and they didn't fall down, then WC7 was certainly demolished?
the fact that it had far less visible damage than other nearby buildings, and especially the way it fell, makes it incredibly suspicious.
You have pictures or saw for your self every side of WTC7?
Do you know for a fact it collapsed from fire alone? Was there other factors? Do you have undeniable proof based on structural engineering? do you have the blue prints? Do you know all the other things that were involved? Do you know how to read the blue prints to rule out any possibility of it doing what it did?
the official story is that it fell from fire, and structural damage from falling debris. the only skyscraper ever to do so
Or are you basing this on faulty logic full of holes and lack of expertise and incomplete facts?
are you more of an expert than me? watch that clip and tell me thats not a controlled demo. dont be afraid to let the possibility slip into your mind ;D
-
dude would you stop the red highlights in while responding in my quote box? ;D
no other skyscrapers have collapsed besides those on 9/11, thats the point. for example the 2nd tallest building in LA had a severe fire burn some 13 floors for almost a day and there was never a threat of collapse.
Were the conditions and buildings exactly the same?
the fact that it had far less visible damage than other nearby buildings, and especially the way it fell, makes it incredibly suspicious.
Is suspicion as good as fact?
how to read the blue prints to rule out any possibility of it doing what it did?
the official story is that it fell from fire, and structural damage from falling debris. the only skyscraper ever to do so
Do you have the official story? does the writers of the official story have allt he variables, conditions, and information at the time of the collapse. where they in the building?
are you more of an expert than me? watch that clip and tell me thats not a controlled demo. dont be afraid to let the possibility slip into your mind Grin
I have no problem agreeing to the possibility that it could have been a controlled demo, but i do have a problem, based on common sense, to conclude it is a controlled demo with my limited knowledge of the above mention fields of expertise and lack of all the info, and i am certainly not gullible enough to be swayed by a video that shows less than 1% of all the factors involved in the collapse.
However, there is a reason why commercial advertising works well......."seeing is believing" Just ask Bush and his propaganda war machine called the American Media.
-
dude would you stop the red highlights in while responding in my quote box? ;D
Were the conditions and buildings exactly the same?
Is suspicion as good as fact?
Do you have the official story? does the writers of the official story have allt he variables, conditions, and information at the time of the collapse. where they in the building?
I have no problem agreeing to the possibility that it could have been a controlled demo, but i do have a problem, based on common sense, to conclude it is a controlled demo with my limited knowledge of the above mention fields of expertise and lack of all the info, and i am certainly not gullible enough to be swayed by a video that shows less than 1% of all the factors involved in the collapse.
However, there is a reason why commercial advertising works well......."seeing is believing" Just ask Bush and his propaganda war machine called the American Media.
1. i guess but its less clear this way
2. are they ever?
3. you cant always judge a book by its cover. but usually you can
4. do you have the official story? what reasons do you have for concluding that that is any less unreasonable than the alternatives?
-
NIST said the fuel tank was a non-factor. Near empty and never detonated.
THey also said they'l have a full explanation for why WTC7 fell. It's 3 years late.
It'll never come. THey got away with it. Our descendents will look at it like we look at pearl harbor - some BS that some people here let happen to justify greater actions (us beating down hitler before he vanquished europe and took on the USA HERE) for our longterm good.
-
NIST said the fuel tank was a non-factor. Near empty and never detonated.
THey also said they'l have a full explanation for why WTC7 fell. It's 3 years late.
It'll never come. THey got away with it. Our descendents will look at it like we look at pearl harbor - some BS that some people here let happen to justify greater actions (us beating down hitler before he vanquished europe and took on the USA HERE) for our longterm good.
You're white trash neo-con material 240...you actually like what's going on....pathetic.
-
Fucking Neo-Con Prick!
Just for that I hope your white trash ass falls hard in the coming recession!
neocons are deceptive. I am not. I'm a realist. I know that th US dollar would have been in serious shit if Iraq stopped selling oil in dollars. Taking over stopped that.
It's fucked up, i agree. which is why i admit i'm a POS hypocrite for supporting it. The neocons are the ones calling 911 CT nonsense, and talking about how we're not there for oil, but democracy.
It's like this... you want the most shrewd businessmen running your retirement package, right? You want the most cunning, manipulative SOBs trading your $ because you know they know how to twist arms and make the most of your $. And you begrudgingly accept their higher rates cause you believe it's worth it. The neocons in power now are ilke that. You know they're stealing, you know they're out doing bad shit... but...
how many here would choose to live in poverty and have us do the right thing in the world? how many would give up living beyond our nat'l means despite minimal SCAs in the global market/ How many want to be 37th in the world? I sure don't.
nations have done this since the beginning - manipulate other nations so their people can live better. China and Rus and every other nation would be exploiting our alaskan oil right now if they could get away with it.
we elect people with dirt on their hands because that's what the job requires. A nice guy who does the right thing will quickly let us be manipulated by our neighbors. I'm a POS for my position, but i'm honest about it.
-
You're white trash neo-con material 240...you actually like what's going on....pathetic.
I feel guilt for supporting us expansion. but i do believe we're lacking any real sustainable competitive advantages
i was crying anti war, 911 CT stuff for a year here. I'm by no means a lifetime neocon. I was a repub til 2005, then confused, now I don't know. I could vote for obama just as easily as huck. I just dont know...
no need to call names - i'm being honest and i do feel bad for it. I think it's inevitable, and none of us can really change anything.
-
I feel guilt for supporting us expansion. but i do believe we're lacking any real sustainable competitive advantages
i was crying anti war, 911 CT stuff for a year here. I'm by no means a lifetime neocon. I was a repub til 2005, then confused, now I don't know. I could vote for obama just as easily as huck. I just dont know...
no need to call names - i'm being honest and i do feel bad for it. I think it's inevitable, and none of us can really change anything.
All you have done is given up. Nothing honest about that, or noble for that matter.
-
How could you know it was what you say it was? ::)
Will it be conclusive and practically airtight?
Will it be something that could hold up in a court of law?
Or will it be some over dramatized, graphic heavy, grainy assumptive vague glimpse of something and obviously spun to make the average Joe who gets most of his exercise by jumping to conclusion go "wow, oh my god i never thought of that!" and conveniently ignores real facts that someone put together with Final Cut and uploaded to youtube?
If so, then it won't do it for me. ;D
exactly... you made my point more perfect than I had imagined :) Just so people know exactly what the impossible is that you want when you say, show me the proof... You probabaly shouldn't mention court of law though, we both know that men are found guilty all the time on less than sturdy material.
-
Hey cut the crap, there is plenty of evidence.
- just look how many people reported explosions that were there
- how about the owner of the world trade building making a insurance policy for terrorism attack
- how about the building structure, that was designed not to crush when hit by something
- how about the government report tyhat 6 hijackers survived
- how about reported bin laden visiting a american hospital
- what about the NORAD not doing their job that day at all
- how about the official warnings from a lot of nation's prior to the attack that it will happen, us doing nothing about it
I know you will come with some bullshit claims to justify all this. Either you re plain dumb or you re part of the propaganda, which is it?
-
I will say this in regards to the subject: I was about 200 yards from the WTC when the planes hit the towers. When the first plane hit I went downstairs to get a coffee at a nearby Starbucks, and although AT THE TIME no one knew what had happened (right after the first plane hit everyone kept taking about a bomb going off in the observation deck) all nearby streets were being cordoned off and there were black SUVs all over the friggin streets. I'm taking about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the tower here, not 2 hours. And yes, let it be known, the people driving those cars were wearing suits.
That's one of the things that struck me as odd on that day... well, that and the huge airplane engine "parked" right in front of out building.
-
1. i guess but its less clear this way
thanks
2. are they ever?
Well I'd think they'd need to be very close for your conclusion to be true. At lease scientifically when they conduct experiments they can't come to legitimate conclusions if the conditions are not similar. But WE laymen, do all the time and that's why that logic about other buildings is false.
3. you cant always judge a book by its cover. but usually you can
In very simple things you can, but this case with the complexity of it, it is pure speculation based on incomplete facts with out expertise.
4. do you have the official story? what reasons do you have for concluding that that is any less unreasonable than the alternatives?
The official story is vague also. Which can mean they don't have many of the facts either, but does not prove conspiracy or a demolition.
-
exactly... you made my point more perfect than I had imagined :) Just so people know exactly what the impossible is that you want when you say, show me the proof... You probabaly shouldn't mention court of law though, we both know that men are found guilty all the time on less than sturdy material.
Look, there are many videos running around in cyberspace, most of them are over dramatized rookie crap.
If there was a video, and it was conclusive, then we'd have been seeing soo much more of it.
So my point is, if you had one that wasn't of the garbage you see on youtube, then by all means show it, but you don't, because otherwise we'd have seen it before.
And yes, men have been found guilty on less sturdy material, but this isn't about finding a man or a small group guilty, this is about the fantastical notion that hundreds or thousands of people were in involved scamming in the worst attack in US soil in History. A REAL video, would go along way. Not one where someone thinks the reflections on the news helicopters were holographic devices emitting an image of a plane.
-
It's asinine to believe the official story - there have been hundreds of holes punched in it by contradictory govt reports, NYPD/FDNY, and videotaped evidence.
It's asinine to want anyone sent to jail for it - there has not been enough proof at all.
It's reasonable to want a second investigation to look into the myriad of new evidence and witnesses who have come fwd since the report was issued 3 years ago. It's reasonable to want a crime thoroughly investigated, isn't it? Nothing unpatriotic at all about that.
Heck, it might be considered unpatriotic - even anti-American - to prefer that a crime against americans NOT be fully investigated. I mean, if there was a countdown to demolition (as video and witnesses show), then at the very least Silverstein committed insurance fraud for $450 mil and one man died in that tower unnecessarily, right?
-
Hey cut the crap, there is plenty of evidence.
- just look how many people reported explosions that were there
- how about the owner of the world trade building making a insurance policy for terrorism attack
- how about the building structure, that was designed not to crush when hit by something
- how about the government report tyhat 6 hijackers survived
- how about reported bin laden visiting a american hospital
- what about the NORAD not doing their job that day at all
- how about the official warnings from a lot of nation's prior to the attack that it will happen, us doing nothing about it
I know you will come with some bullshit claims to justify all this. Either you re plain dumb or you re part of the propaganda, which is it?
Still haven't shown anything concrete there. I have high hopes for you. Please elaborate on every point there, provide proof, links, etc.., all you have there is speculation. How long have you been reading those web sites?
Is making and insurance policy out of the ordinary considering the WTC was attacked before? Have you ever heard of any coincidence of a person getting something like insurance before it happened? right.
When a building is on fire, are there never explosions? Especially a building this big? right.
Building designed not to crush wne hit by something? You mean they design buildings to with stand Airliners full of fuel crashing into them? They design building thnking that someday, maybe pieces of other building might crash into them? right.
Well how about that report that 6 survived? Where is it? And does the government or news agencies EVER report news that isn't accurate? So everything they report is always accurate? right.
Yeah bin laden in a hospital in the USA? Nice rumor. Any links? Name of hospital? Is this 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand info? Because it's "reported" it must be true. right.
Do you know what NORAD's job is? Do you know the protocol for something like this? Do you know if they even had a plans for an attack like this? Do you know what the defense poster was at the time of the attack? But now you know you all of this and know they purposely didn't do their job. right.
do you know how many thousands of pieces of information we get on a daily basis? Do you how many warnings we get? Do you have the power to know which are relevant and which aren't? right.
-
It's asinine to believe the official story - there have been hundreds of holes punched in it by contradictory govt reports,
It's asinine to want anyone sent to jail for it - there has not been enough proof at all.
It's reasonable to want a second investigation to look into the myriad of new evidence and witnesses who have come fwd since the report was issued 3 years ago. It's reasonable to want a crime thoroughly investigated, isn't it? Nothing unpatriotic at all about that.
Heck, it might be considered unpatriotic - even anti-American - to prefer that a crime against americans NOT be fully investigated. I mean, if there was a countdown to demolition (as video and witnesses show), then at the very least Silverstein committed insurance fraud for $450 mil and one man died in that tower unnecessarily, right?
I 100% agree there needs to be a second investigation. But i am not foolish enough to buy into all the fantastical speculation based on garbage that so many conspiracy hungry people love to do.
-
I will say this in regards to the subject: I was about 200 yards from the WTC when the planes hit the towers. When the first plane hit I went downstairs to get a coffee at a nearby Starbucks, and although AT THE TIME no one knew what had happened (right after the first plane hit everyone kept taking about a bomb going off in the observation deck) all nearby streets were being cordoned off and there were black SUVs all over the friggin streets. I'm taking about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the tower here, not 2 hours. And yes, let it be known, the people driving those cars were wearing suits.
That's one of the things that struck me as odd on that day... well, that and the huge airplane engine "parked" right in front of out building.
Interesting story, I guess they had to remote detonate the bombs from somewhere...
-
I 100% agree there needs to be a second investigation. But i am not foolish enough to buy into all the fantastical speculation based on garbage that so many conspiracy hungry people love to do.
There will be a second investigation. It's been drawn up by many - problem is, lawsuits keep getting crushed in court under label of nat'l security, and for a congressoinal investigation we all know Bush will veto it - despite that fact that some from his own CABINET have called it in inside job now.
It'll just take time. Bush will retire to S. America, Cheney will follow Haliburton to Dubai in 2008, they'll both get their $ and leave. America will heal its wounds from this sad time in history. The next President will focus on domestic healing, scaling back Iraq to S. Korea-like levels, and improving our social standing in the world now that Buch and CO. improved our military and strategic resource standing.
It's cyclical. I keep saying that. We have a war presidency to gain resources, bases, position, and favorable relationships, under the heading of an "ism" - fascism, nazism, communism, terrorism (vague and never defeatable). Then, we have a healing presidency that heals the economy. Reagan - domestic. Bush 1- Gulf War 1. Clinton- domestic and economy. Bush2- Gulf War 2, afghanistan. Next prez. will heal things here.
-
I will say this in regards to the subject: I was about 200 yards from the WTC when the planes hit the towers. When the first plane hit I went downstairs to get a coffee at a nearby Starbucks, and although AT THE TIME no one knew what had happened (right after the first plane hit everyone kept taking about a bomb going off in the observation deck) all nearby streets were being cordoned off and there were black SUVs all over the friggin streets. I'm taking about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the tower here, not 2 hours. And yes, let it be known, the people driving those cars were wearing suits.
That's one of the things that struck me as odd on that day... well, that and the huge airplane engine "parked" right in front of out building.
Considering they knew where the plane was heading a few minutes before it hit, and there was government offices in the area, it's not surprising. Plus "they" knew a plane had hit the tower, while others didn't.
-
- despite that fact that some from his own CABINET have called it in inside job now.
Really? And who they be? And what did they say?
-
Still haven't shown anything concrete there. I have high hopes for you. Please elaborate on every point there, provide proof, links, etc.., all you have there is speculation. How long have you been reading those web sites?
Is making and insurance policy out of the ordinary considering the WTC was attacked before? Have you ever heard of any coincidence of a person getting something like insurance before it happened? right.
When a building is on fire, are there never explosions? Especially a building this big? right.
Building designed not to crush wne hit by something? You mean they design buildings to with stand Airliners full of fuel crashing into them? They design building thnking that someday, maybe pieces of other building might crash into them? right.
Well how about that report that 6 survived? Where is it? And does the government or news agencies EVER report news that isn't accurate? So everything they report is always accurate? right.
Yeah bin laden in a hospital in the USA? Nice rumor. Any links? Name of hospital? Is this 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand info? Because it's "reported" it must be true. right.
Do you know what NORAD's job is? Do you know the protocol for something like this? Do you know if they even had a plans for an attack like this? Do you know what the defense poster was at the time of the attack? But now you know you all of this and know they purposely didn't do their job. right.
do you know how many thousands of pieces of information we get on a daily basis? Do you how many warnings we get? Do you have the power to know which are relevant and which aren't? right.
Oz, you owe it to yourself to watch Loose Change 3. They answer many of these questions with actual media reports and govt documents. They prepared repeatedly for these kinds of attacks. Hell, the Boeing pilot who piloted the plane that hit the pentagon actually used to work at the pentagon - in the room that was hit - and they ran drills on exactly that - a plane hitting it. You see 1993 photos of the man posing with a model of the building and a plane hitting it. LC3 also lists many other exact preparations/drills which contradict "we never imagined such attacks".
I don't have the energy to argue what you wrote point by point... but know that the warnings delivered to GWB were very specific, from other heads of state, and from his top men at our intel agencies. They were the biggest, clearest, most detailed reports that any prez has probably ever received of such an attack - and they came from all our allies. 29 total warnings. YOU are an intelligent poster, Oz. I don't think you can believe that Bush would receive identical warnings from so many grousp in a 2-day span in August, and "overlook" it. I mean, the head of the FBI takes a red-eye to TX in the middle of night to hand-deliver the intel - and it's "overlooked". Do you believe that?
-
Still haven't shown anything concrete there. I have high hopes for you. Please elaborate on every point there, provide proof, links, etc.., all you have there is speculation. How long have you been reading those web sites?
Is making and insurance policy out of the ordinary considering the WTC was attacked before? Have you ever heard of any coincidence of a person getting something like insurance before it happened? right.
When a building is on fire, are there never explosions? Especially a building this big? right.
Building designed not to crush wne hit by something? You mean they design buildings to with stand Airliners full of fuel crashing into them? They design building thnking that someday, maybe pieces of other building might crash into them? right.
Well how about that report that 6 survived? Where is it? And does the government or news agencies EVER report news that isn't accurate? So everything they report is always accurate? right.
Yeah bin laden in a hospital in the USA? Nice rumor. Any links? Name of hospital? Is this 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand info? Because it's "reported" it must be true. right.
Do you know what NORAD's job is? Do you know the protocol for something like this? Do you know if they even had a plans for an attack like this? Do you know what the defense poster was at the time of the attack? But now you know you all of this and know they purposely didn't do their job. right.
do you know how many thousands of pieces of information we get on a daily basis? Do you how many warnings we get? Do you have the power to know which are relevant and which aren't? right.
You re a good lawyer, just too bad you re defending the wrong sides. How is it so that everything the government says you assume its true? You know how corrupt the government is, dont you? When the government comes with phony bin laden footage, you assume its real and not played? What is the formula of deciding what information is correct?
Are you honestly that naive to think that the ''wealthy bankars'' dont rule the us government? That wars are been started trough them so they can make interest money off the war. I quess you ll scream to give you proof of that ::)
Can you proof to me that it was not an inside job? There is always an excuse to be found to defend your opinion.
Do you gather information at television, and then draw your own conclusions?
And about the witnesses that reported the explosion sounds, they heard explosions, try to get that trough your head, real demolition explosions, please tel me you have something better to offer then claiming that that type of explosians can happen during a collapse, can yu proff that its possible to have massive explosions during a collapse, then prove it.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com have you seen this film? Why would you believe the presidents story, and not the actual workers and witnesses that had something to do with the whole 911? Could it not be that Bush is making a conspiracy ''terror'' theory for his own reasons?
-
911 gives me a headache now. i'm going to watch the bucs play. you kids keep discussing it :)
-
You re a good lawyer, just too bad you re defending the wrong sides. How is it so that everything the government says you assume its true? You know how corrupt the government is, dont you? When the government comes with phony bin laden footage, you assume its real and not played? What is the formula of deciding what information is correct?
Are you honestly that naive to think that the ''wealthy bankars'' dont rule the us government? That wars are been started trough them so they can make interest money off the war. I quess you ll scream to give you proof of that ::)
Can you proof to me that it was not an inside job? There is always an excuse to be found to defend your opinion.
Do you gather information at television, and then draw your own conclusions?
And about the witnesses that reported the explosion sounds, they heard explosions, try to get that trough your head, real demolition explosions, please tel me you have something better to offer then claiming that that type of explosians can happen during a collapse, can yu proff that its possible to have massive explosions during a collapse, then prove it.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com have you seen this film? Why would you believe the presidents story, and not the actual workers and witnesses that had something to do with the whole 911? Could it not be that Bush is making a conspiracy ''terror'' theory for his own reasons?
All due respect, you are not thinking objectively and you are taking your and other's assumptions and speculations as fact. I'm also, not defending any side.
I don't take everything the government says as true just as i don't take everything the government says as false. I apply common sense to it and reserve determination when i have enough facts both from outside sources and inside ones.
You know how corrupt the government is, dont you?
Exactly how corrupt is it? Is it as corrupt as it is in Russia? Is it 100% currupt? If it's corrupt then does that certainly prove 9/11 was a inside job? Where is the government corrupt?
You see, El, you are assuming and connecting your assumptions based on incomplete fact to something that you are speculating on. That's the fallacy of your arguments.
When the government comes with phony bin laden footage, you assume its real and not played? What is the formula of deciding what information is correct?
How do you know it's phony? When his tapes came out i did not use them as reason to believe he was behind it, actually what did it for me was News sources outside the US.
Now whether he was the only one behind is another story, but because there isn't much evidence on that i don't spend time believing that it is.
Are you honestly that naive to think that the ''wealthy bankars'' dont rule the us government? That wars are been started trough them so they can make interest money off the war. I quess you ll scream to give you proof of that ::)
I actually believe that to an extent. But not to the extent that implicates that 9/11 was staged.
Can you proof to me that it was not an inside job? There is always an excuse to be found to defend your opinion.
That's like a creationists argument asking if you can prove that god doesn't exist and because you can't prove it then god must exist. That's stupid, sorry.
Do you gather information at television, and then draw your own conclusions?
I realize the state of our media in this country and no i don't draw conclusions from it. i use common sense combined with mainstream media and alternative media, and i have a several friends in other countries who tell me what their news is telling them. It's often very different.
And about the witnesses that reported the explosion sounds, they heard explosions, try to get that trough your head, real demolition explosions, please tel me you have something better to offer then claiming that that type of explosians can happen during a collapse, can yu proff that its possible to have massive explosions during a collapse, then prove it.
Explosions in big buildings are common when they are on fire. THE WTC was very big, with many things and conditions that could cause explosions that would have been indistinguishable from demolition explosions.
El, if you really want to know the truth, approach this as a scientist and a lawyer, would. You'll find that must of the things you assert are pure speculation and that you jump to conclusions based on incomplete info.
-
El,
the 911 truth video take some leaps of faith, but they do absolutely show things that shouldn't be. Several of the 911 hijackers being trained by the military and staying with an FBI CI? No - that shit smells fishy as shit and should be investigated. in itself, these facts don't prove anything. But they do shoot holes in the official story.
I think Oz is right - we can't convict anyone based upon these oddities. But we sure should investigate. Find out why they were trained by OUR military, who they stayed with and why, etc. For SOME reason, the white house fought the first investigation for 441 days (despite challenger, JFK, pearl harbor investigations starting in about a week each time).
Final word is that the official story STINKS, but we can't convict anyone yet, and need a second investigation. Govt have allowed/assisted attacks before to justify wars and domestic policy, and we can all agree that oil interests and military position have benefited GREATLY from these wars, which 911 permitted. If 911 wasn't their work, it was the neocons wet dream for the plan they completed in 2000.
-
Look, there are many videos running around in cyberspace, most of them are over dramatized rookie crap.
If there was a video, and it was conclusive, then we'd have been seeing soo much more of it.
So my point is, if you had one that wasn't of the garbage you see on youtube, then by all means show it, but you don't, because otherwise we'd have seen it before.
And yes, men have been found guilty on less sturdy material, but this isn't about finding a man or a small group guilty, this is about the fantastical notion that hundreds or thousands of people were in involved scamming in the worst attack in US soil in History. A REAL video, would go along way. Not one where someone thinks the reflections on the news helicopters were holographic devices emitting an image of a plane.
get off the delusion pal, your first response was right on... We both freaking know that if I posted a video of the demolition being laid by the actual individuals laying it, that it would constitute the best evidence ever put out and the only thing that would happen is it would be denounced by skeptics as a pure fabrication. Someone like Popular Mechanics would review the material and announce something that looks funny and express doubts then everytime it was played on the net, one would go to the skeptics material as a rebuttal. It then quickly would just become another item tossed around in threads like this before the next point is entered. At this point it's fucking religion to everyone involved. For 90% evidence matters not at this point, minds are made up come hell or high water.
-
get off the delusion pal, your first response was right on... We both freaking know that if I posted a video of the demolition being laid by the actual individuals laying it, that it would constitute the best evidence ever put out and the only thing that would happen is it would be denounced by skeptics as a pure fabrication. Someone like Popular Mechanics would review the material and announce something that looks funny and express doubts then everytime it was played on the net, one would go to the skeptics material as a rebuttal. It then quickly would just become another item tossed around in threads like this before the next point is entered. At this point it's fucking religion to everyone involved. For 90% evidence matters not at this point, minds are made up come hell or high water.
umm. no.
-
I will say this in regards to the subject: I was about 200 yards from the WTC when the planes hit the towers. When the first plane hit I went downstairs to get a coffee at a nearby Starbucks, and although AT THE TIME no one knew what had happened (right after the first plane hit everyone kept taking about a bomb going off in the observation deck) all nearby streets were being cordoned off and there were black SUVs all over the friggin streets. I'm taking about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the tower here, not 2 hours. And yes, let it be known, the people driving those cars were wearing suits.
That's one of the things that struck me as odd on that day... well, that and the huge airplane engine "parked" right in front of out building.
you watch too many movies.. do you believe anyone here is going to believe that while committing the most insane and daring conspericy in history. they are going to have guys in black suvs with an airplane engine on stand by? have them swarm in right after the plane hits. in the middle of nyc, full of witnesses? then to top it off they have their infamous black suits on.. lol. your full of shit
-
umm. no.
uhm, yea... been doing this so very long enough to know different.
-
Oz,
early in the 911 debate, people like OReilly and Glen Beck (which most would agree are white house semi-spokesmen) debated the facts/
However, in the last few years that has changed. There are a great deal of things that these talking heads won't discuss anymore. I mean, is Oreilly going to tell dozens of firefighters they're all wrong?
They used the popular mechanics group to defend against anything. Their credibility waned when it came out 1) the editor was Chertoff's cousin, and 2) THey claimed to have evidence that no one else was allowed to see. Aside from a violation of the law, this evidence also claimed things like "All 10 WTC hijackers DNA was recovered and tested by the next day" - I mean, simply impossible stuff they refused to quantify when asked for how they reached said conclusions. PM no longer does interviews - why is this? They'll do fluff pieces but stopped debates.
Oz, there's a ton of evidence out there. I quit following it months ago, but seriously, the media coverage I still see - and they refuse to even LOOK at evidence now. They call it unamerican to even look at movies like this. Why? OReilly debated Loose chnge 2 for years - it was okay then? Suddenly, loose change 3 comes out (with some huge huge smoking guns) and NOW it's unamerican? Explain that.
-
uhm, yea... been doing this so very long enough to know different.
IDC how long you been doing w/e you think you've been doing, you asked about a video, and I quantified it. If there was a legit video, we'd have seen it now n e way. Had it not been for the rookie you-tube crap i'd wouldn't have had to. Only an idiot wouldn't have answered yes, the same kind of idiot that changes his views and gets sold on anything and everything CT oriented.
No delusion, your view about life and the world may have deteriorated beyond total cynicism and paranoia but mine hasn't. I don't let speculation rule my common sense.
-
Oz,
early in the 911 debate, people like OReilly and Glen Beck (which most would agree are white house semi-spokesmen) debated the facts/
However, in the last few years that has changed. There are a great deal of things that these talking heads won't discuss anymore. I mean, is Oreilly going to tell dozens of firefighters they're all wrong?
They used the popular mechanics group to defend against anything. Their credibility waned when it came out 1) the editor was Chertoff's cousin, and 2) THey claimed to have evidence that no one else was allowed to see. Aside from a violation of the law, this evidence also claimed things like "All 10 WTC hijackers DNA was recovered and tested by the next day" - I mean, simply impossible stuff they refused to quantify when asked for how they reached said conclusions. PM no longer does interviews - why is this? They'll do fluff pieces but stopped debates.
Oz, there's a ton of evidence out there. I quit following it months ago, but seriously, the media coverage I still see - and they refuse to even LOOK at evidence now. They call it unamerican to even look at movies like this. Why? OReilly debated Loose chnge 2 for years - it was okay then? Suddenly, loose change 3 comes out (with some huge huge smoking guns) and NOW it's unamerican? Explain that.
When i see LC3, i'll let you know. In the mean time, i agree, with some of what you just said.
-
When i see LC3, i'll let you know. In the mean time, i agree, with some of what you just said.
It's on google now. I was a little disappointed in it. I mean, it was super complete, and I recognized probably 3 dozen facts - from the mouths of the govt itself - which you could call smoking guns. It's still the INTRO to 911, ya know? Like, very simple. There are now 150+ documentaries on the complex stuff. But LCFC (final cut, or part 3) really does convince the newbie that something smells in the story. Very good movie, but for me, it was a bit repetitive.
I don't think we should even accuse anyone, despite the odd huge August warnings which were ignored). I think another investigation should take place. ANyone who says the first investigation is adequate, well frankly, they're just plain wrong. Tons of evidence has come out, and 4 of the commissioners want a new investigation, one calling it a "complete whitewash"! Plus Keane said there were huge huge pieces they weren't allowed to see, and both chairs want a new investigation.
It's a sad period, but the more time passes, the more it just becomes part of history. 6 1/2 years now. Seems like it was yesterday. Most ppl are pissed when they find out, but hey, what can you do? You tell a few ppl, maybe debate it on a forum, and that's it. The only "win" is that if everyone knows, they cannot pull that shit again for a few decades.
-
When i see LC3, i'll let you know. In the mean time, i agree, with some of what you just said.
you catch on fast
-
you catch on fast
You get sold easier than a 5 year old.
-
El M, did you see part 3?
By the way, El M.... when you come on all strong about it, people who are republicans, and people used to mocking CT, will just think you're nuts.
instead, talk facts.
The man who piloted Flight 77 (that hit the pentagon) used to work in the precise room that was hit with the plane. He had personally ran drills (when working at the pentagon) on a plane hitting, a decade earlier. Not only does this dispel the "We couldn't have imagined this could happen" Rice/Bush tagline, but you have to consider the probability of such a thing happening. Couple in the flight recorder path which said the plane never dipped below 180 feet and the 85 missing videos (FBI admits there were 85) ... you have to ask yourself... Does this make sense?
See, things like that make people think. You don't want to debate hate and anger and yell at us... we're americans and we get defensive. Just talk facts, baby!
-
Where is part 3. 240?
-
IDC how long you been doing w/e you think you've been doing, you asked about a video, and I quantified it. If there was a legit video, we'd have seen it now n e way. Had it not been for the rookie you-tube crap i'd wouldn't have had to. Only an idiot wouldn't have answered yes, the same kind of idiot that changes his views and gets sold on anything and everything CT oriented.
No delusion, your view about life and the world may have deteriorated beyond total cynicism and paranoia but mine hasn't. I don't let speculation rule my common sense.
Wow, and even Beach Bum said I wasn't one of the crazy CTrs... I have never just bought into theories because they are there and have one by one researched my ass off with a truth goal in mind before leaning one way or another in any given conspiracy. There are several mainstream theories that I do not believe and join skeptics on. I enjoy my daily life despite what I believe of some things, but hey, thanks letting me know I've "deteriorated beyond..." Look, I do not think it's unreasonable at all for these people to know what kind of evidence you're wanting, when you ask, because I've seen my fair share of decent to good evidence although not a smoking gun, dismissed immediately... So I think it's fair to say at this point you and many others need a smoking gun of astounding clarity. If I'm wrong, please by all means list 3 hypothetical items that would "do it for you" That way we won't waste anymore time until we get that special item... I wonder why some of you guys believe there was a conspiracy with the Kennedy assassination? I mean really, where's the OMG Holy Crap smoking gun? There's not one... What we have with that is an amassed bulk of gathered facts that lead many to conclude conspiracy, not any different than many have come to believe about 9/11... In fact there is closer to a smoking gun with 9/11 than Kennedy. Actually several items that are closer and they have all simply been dismissed and laughed at.
-
Wow, and even Beach Bum said I wasn't one of the crazy CTrs... I have never just bought into theories because they are there and have one by one researched my ass off with a truth goal in mind before leaning one way or another in any given conspiracy. There are several mainstream theories that I do not believe and join skeptics on. I enjoy my daily life despite what I believe of some things, but hey, thanks letting me know I've "deteriorated beyond..." Look, I do not think it's unreasonable at all for these people to know what kind of evidence you're wanting, when you ask, because I've seen my fair share of decent to good evidence although not a smoking gun, dismissed immediately... So I think it's fair to say at this point you and many others need a smoking gun of astounding clarity. If I'm wrong, please by all means list 3 hypothetical items that would "do it for you" That way we won't waste anymore time until we get that special item... I wonder why some of you guys believe there was a conspiracy with the Kennedy assassination? I mean really, where's the OMG Holy Crap smoking gun? There's not one... What we have with that is an amassed bulk of gathered facts that lead many to conclude conspiracy, not any different than many have come to believe about 9/11... In fact there is closer to a smoking gun with 9/11 than Kennedy. Actually several items that are closer and they have all simply been dismissed and laughed at.
I may have got a little carried away here and i apologize. But i did preface deteriorated beyond with "may have". What would i need to believe they put bombs in the WTC's? Good question. Independent (non government and "untouchable") legit 3rd party investigation that laid out scientific evidence in the debris and others things such as video, testimony, records etc... But it's too late for all that.
-
911 gives me a headache now. i'm going to watch the bucs play. you kids keep discussing it :)
And just think.... you used to be like the energizer bunny when it came to 9/11 ;D
-
You know, 240, El and company, This last Saturday for the first time ever, someone talked to me about 9/11 being an inside Job. I was at a local farmer's Market in the morning buying some fresh seafood, and fella approached me passing out leaflets about 9/11.
1st time I ever seen or heard anything outside, the media and the internet about it.
-
And just think.... you used to be like the energizer bunny when it came to 9/11 ;D
i know right? It was without a doubt more than those 19 pricks... I mean, if WTC7 collapsed from a controlled takedown (as video shows they were warned and the 20 second countdown), then that means the building was wired with explosives at some point. kh300 conceded yes, it was a controlled demo, as have many others.
When was it wired? Couldn't have been ON 9/11, cause you don't carry explosives into a raging fire. Before? Okay. So "someone" wired a building containing SEC, FBI, Mayors office, and secret service with bombs, and they didn't care?
So there's more to it than 19 assholes. Yeah, it's probably classified, probably for the better good, and certainly way above our pay grade. But WTC7's takedown means there were more than 19 people at work on 9/11 bringing down buildings.
-
You know, 240, El and company, This last Saturday for the first time ever, someone talked to me about 9/11 being an inside Job. I was at a local farmer's Market in the morning buying some fresh seafood, and fella approached me passing out leaflets about 9/11.
1st time I ever seen or heard anything outside, the media and the internet about it.
Isn't there a group in the US dedicated to spreading the news that 9/11 was an inside job? A friend of mine in the US told me he was driving down the road and saw a couple of intersections that had traffic cameras. Somebody had sprayed painted the control box for all the cameras with "9/11 was an inside job."
-
i know right? It was without a doubt more than those 19 pricks... I mean, if WTC7 collapsed from a controlled takedown (as video shows they were warned and the 20 second countdown), then that means the building was wired with explosives at some point. kh300 conceded yes, it was a controlled demo, as have many others.
When was it wired? Couldn't have been ON 9/11, cause you don't carry explosives into a raging fire. Before? Okay. So "someone" wired a building containing SEC, FBI, Mayors office, and secret service with bombs, and they didn't care?
So there's more to it than 19 assholes. Yeah, it's probably classified, probably for the better good, and certainly way above our pay grade. But WTC7's takedown means there were more than 19 people at work on 9/11 bringing down buildings.
There's some other questions you might want to ask about that.
Why?
Why demolish the building? For what purpose?
It's a government building housing SEC, FBI offices, they would have a legit reason to seal it form the public. There would no reason to "pull" it.
-
Isn't there a group in the US dedicated to spreading the news that 9/11 is an inside job? A friend of mine in the US told me he was driving down the road and saw a couple of intersections that had traffic cameras. Somebody had sprayed painted the control box for all the cameras with "9/11 was an inside job."
Wow. I'm sure there is a group or groups, this fella i met belonged to some group i think. I never read it, i was busy with my Mom who's visiting for the holidays and left it in my flannel shirt. Just remembered it this morning.
That's was the first time outside, TV and the internet and Popular Mechanics I've heard anything about it.
-
There's some other questions you might want to ask about that.
Why?
Why demolish the building? For what purpose?
It's a government building housing SEC, FBI offices, they would have a legit reason to seal it form the public. There would no reason to "pull" it.
Enron and other investigations had all their paperwok moved to WTC7 right before 911. THese investigations were crippled by the lost evidence, and those missing minutes of "Cheney meets Lay in 2001" were never released.
Plus, many believe that WTC7 was the command central for what was happening at the WTC1/2, if you believe they were controlled demolitions (as more and more scientists and physicists and engineers now do). Each building dropped as the fires subsided and 4 choppers met overhead and mics picked up 9,3 booms several seconds before collapses started. THis had to be controlled from somewhere. Was it WTC7? Perfect view and impervious to damage. who knows.
Remember tho - all 7 buildings of WTC were destroyed. WTC1,2,7 collapse. 6 had a huge crater unexplained. Others were fires and reports of massive blasts and of course, smoke rising before anything fell.
History is gonna have a field day laughing at us for 911.
-
Enron and other investigations had all their paperwok moved to WTC7 right before 911. THese investigations were crippled by the lost evidence, and those missing minutes of "Cheney meets Lay in 2001" were never released.
Plus, many believe that WTC7 was the command central for what was happening at the WTC1/2, if you believe they were controlled demolitions (as more and more scientists and physicists and engineers now do). Each building dropped as the fires subsided and 4 choppers met overhead and mics picked up 9,3 booms several seconds before collapses started. THis had to be controlled from somewhere. Was it WTC7? Perfect view and impervious to damage. who knows.
Remember tho - all 7 buildings of WTC were destroyed. WTC1,2,7 collapse. 6 had a huge crater unexplained. Others were fires and reports of massive blasts and of course, smoke rising before anything fell.
History is gonna have a field day laughing at us for 911.
That's pretty speculative 240. Even then, no reason to blow it. they had legit reason to seal it and no way to predict if anything would hit it from the WTC's.
-
That's pretty speculative 240. Even then, no reason to blow it. they had legit reason to seal it and no way to predict if anything would hit it from the WTC's.
sealing it is one thing. destroying it is another. If you just committed the crime of the century, would you prefer to 'seal' it, or delete it? Besides, there was $450 mil insurance $ on that building, and an asbestos bill double that.
That's pretty speculative 240. Even then, no reason to blow it. they had legit reason to seal it and no way to predict if anything would hit it from the WTC's.
IF 1/2 was a controlled demo, then yes, there was VERY good way to predict what would hit if from the towers, 350 yards away. simple demolition, man. come on... they run computer models, they know where the shit will land.
-
sealing it is one thing. destroying it is another. If you just committed the crime of the century, would you prefer to 'seal' it, or delete it? Besides, there was $450 mil insurance $ on that building, and an asbestos bill double that.
IF 1/2 was a controlled demo, then yes, there was VERY good way to predict what would hit if from the towers, 350 yards away. simple demolition, man. come on... they run computer models, they know where the shit will land.
That's just too far fetched and open to too many different variables to execute a opp by predicting how a building will fall.