DYSFUNCTIONAL COUNTRY, DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY

[Nursey]

Let me hear your views, assholish and otherwise on this article...

It seems to me that Americans for at least the past seven years have been stricken with a collective trance such as I have never witnessed in this country in my lifetime. Psychologist, Paul Levy, in his superb article Spiritually Informed Political Activism speaks to the necessity of waking up from the spell and speaking the truth about the criminal insanity that is running our nation and our world. He takes this "waking up" many steps further by the end of his article, but for now, I'd like to address the questions: "Why such seemingly impenetrable denial in the American psyche these days? Why are some people almost incapable of awakening?"

On the one hand we can argue that the economic system is arranged in such a manner that people are required to work two or more jobs in order to survive and are overwhelmed with work, family, and keeping their heads above water. In which case, who has time to read alternative media, research current events, or even read a book? We can also attribute the societal stupor to the remarkable job of dumbing-down that American, so-called, education has done in the past two decades so that the current generation can barely read, let alone, concentrate long enough to engage with even the most basic works on current issues.

But what if there were something even more fundamental and more human at the root of the collective coma that inflicts American society? What if "my government" in some part of my psyche, has come to represent "my family"? What if it's easier to walk around in glassy-eyed roboticism than feel the pain resulting from comprehending at the deepest level what my government has become? What if recognizing that I live in an empire that is making war on me as well as my neighbors and the rest of the world is too reminiscent of the family I come from?

Dysfunctional Government/ Dysfunctional Family

So what might be some similarities between my dysfunctional government and my dysfunctional family?

First, a family's job is to protect the kid. Maybe it doesn't always pay enough attention to the kid and isn't always there for him when he needs it, but the family doesn't target him as an enemy. When the chips were down, they are the kid's ultimate ally. If I look at what my government is actually doing, I will have to own that it has become my enemy, and that I am its enemy as well—that my safety is the last of its concerns, and that Homeland Security isn't about protecting me but about waiting in the wings to implement martial law or confine me to a forced labor camp for not paying my debts. Furthermore, a healthy family provides basic necessities for a child and doesn't take food out of her mouth. Yet what we have witnessed in the last seven years is all-out warfare not only on the indigent, which really has not changed since the Great Depression, but a concerted effort to obliterate the middle class in America. The daunting, inevitable realities of Peak Oil, global warming, and worldwide recession are likely to make all of that much worse.

As agribusiness is allowed to genetically modify foods and ultimately patent all forms of life , as Congressmen introduce legislation to gut all state safety laws that conflict with toothless federal safety laws, as pollution is in the process of annihilating the human race and the ecosystems, as nearly 50 million Americans endure illness without health insurance, as big pharma insists on medicating everything that moves, as every semblance of privacy and individual civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are shredded—your government, my government is indeed eating the chosen people. Its sole intent at this point in history is to devour its citizens and anything that threatens to obstruct its voracious expansion of empire.

Well, OK, but even if my government/family isn't my ally, at least there is the rule of law which keeps things from decompensating into utter chaos, right? The best answer to this question comes from former insiders—people who have worked within the centralized systems of law
enforcement, finance, the media, and intelligence for example. Mike Ruppert and Celerino Castillo will tell you that the United States government has gone and continues to go to extraordinary extremes to bring illegal drugs into the country. Former San Jose Mercury journalist, Gary Webb , told us in great detail how such operations worked during Iran-Contra. Catherine Austin Fitts has written extensively about her experience in finance and government and has specifically addressed the myth of the rule of law in relation to some $4 trillion dollars currently missing from the U.S. government and how narco dollars are laundered through the U.S. stock market.

America's Love Affair With The Mob

Curious, isn't it, how fascinated Americans seems to have become with organized crime? How many seasons did they live for their weekly "Sopranos" fix, cluelessly unaware of how life imitates the Department of Housing and Urban Development or how HUD imitates the Sopranos? It's "safe" and somewhat titillating to watch "Godfather" re-runs as a series of mafia hits unfold while Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), who ordered them, piously presides over the baptism of his son. "Gee, I don't know anyone like that. It's so "far" from my world," says the wide-eyed viewer, sucking up the sop of corporate media which has become just one tentacle of the globalist leviathan whose rapacious extremities comprise the other major institutions of our society: education, government, the intelligence community, the military, centralized financial systems, and organized crime. How fortunate for the criminal enterprise that this government has become so surreptitious that its citizens are mesmerized by fictitious mob bosses rather than the murderous racketeers that that actually run the world—the world of most Americans—the one they imagine is hermetically sealed by the "rule of law."

Recently, it seems that network and cable TV channels have become awash in prison voyeurism. On one night, MSNBC's "Lockup" airs three solid hours of life behind bars in various state prisons. In ghastly reminiscence of Rome's "Bread And Circuses", the antics of tattooed, pierced, bad boys and girls are sensationally displayed—human beings whose incarceration insures that the stocks of Wackenhut and Corrections Corporations of America remain bullish.

Healthy caretakers set limits and model fairness. To open one's eyes to the reality that the United States government is one of the most corrupt on earth is to risk the anguish of feeling unimaginably violated and used by a government family (crime family?) which holds only contempt for its citizen/offspring.

You're As Sick As Your Secrets

One hallmark of a dysfunctional system is secrecy. The Bush administration has been labeled by some members of the media as the most secretive in the nation's history. The mind reels at what information it holds on a plethora of issues that it is not disclosing, but in my opinion, the most egregious are the realities ofglobal warming and Peak Oil—issues of which it has been extremely aware for a very long time and has worked hard to suppress. To be intimately familiar with the disastrous consequences of climate chaos and the end of the age of hydrocarbon energy and do nothing is heinous criminal negligence.

History will indeed record that in the late twentieth and earlytwenty-first centuries, a small group of ruling elite in the most powerful nation on earth, which consumed the largest amount ofhydrocarbon energy on the planet, were well aware of the natural phenomena of global warming and Peak Oil, and knowing full well the catastrophic consequences of those, bunkered their own homes with solar panels and infinite quantities of food and water, yet failed to disclose information vital to the health and safety of all life forms worldwide and the ecosystems themselves and intransigently rebuffed all attempts to create viable solutions to issues which ignored and neglected, inevitably result in cataclysm.

Any caring parent, aware that a tornado was approaching and about to obliterate his/her home and family, would inform the children asquickly as possible, immediately gather them, and take them to a safe location. To move oneself to safety and leave one's children fending
for themselves is nothing less than criminal neglect, indeed manslaughter. But the "children" (citizens) of America who may have some inkling of energy depletion and climate chaos and their consequences, blithely assume that the election of a new "mommy" or "daddy" president in 2008 will make everything "all better." Like so many neglected children placed in foster homes, those citizens may get a new "parent" in 2008, but it will be another neglectful one, equally invested in guarding the secret that catastrophe is rapidly approaching—equally committed to his/her own political and economic (...?)

Don't Go There

I am convinced that one's personal family history plays heavily in how deeply one can look into the black maw of evil that now runs this nation. As I have stated in earlier writings, I have repeatedly encountered hundreds of individuals who simply cannot assimilate, let alone investigate, the voluminous research regarding September 11,2001. Frequently, they confess that they simply do not want to know that their government orchestrated the attacks that murdered 3,000 people in one day. They freely admit that they cannot bear the possibility that their government annihilated its own citizens, nor can they tolerate the sense of powerless they feel in relation to that possibility. Some individuals will never be able to dig deeper than the official story; others will be able to do so, but slowly,gradually, as the layers of their psyche absorb the anomalies that not only linger, but grow more blatantly incongruous with every passing day.

Mommy And Daddy And The National Melodrama

True to his scathing cynicism, James Howard Kuntsler in, Mommy And Daddy, says that "Politics is the way we work out our collective national psychology," and that "American politics have fallen into a gothic family melodrama, and the theme is the same one being played out on the micro level all over the country: failed parenting." Kuntsler asserts that the Republicans have made themselves into the Daddy Party, while the Democrats have become the Mommy Party. The Daddy Party is a stern, rigid taskmaster, while the Mommy Party wants everyone to feel good and wants all outcomes to be fair.

While I don't agree with everything in his article, I do agree with Kuntsler's projection that as the Daddy Party becomes more of a terminal failure, more eyes focus on the Mommy Party and its dazzling "supermom", Hillary, who will most certainly persist in keeping the family secrets and as Kuntsler says, "keep the corporate flywheels spinning, and even look after the family's security from the thugs coming into the `hood'."

Allowing oneself to enter the deeper layers of history and current events is to open oneself to transformation in the depths of one's own psyche. I believe that on some level, we all know this, and our readiness to engage or not engage with realities in the external world, which may alter the internal, calibrates our individual degrees of denial.

Carl Jung once said that human beings cannot bear too much reality. We prefer to assume that our government is incompetent, inept, and wasteful because it is not as excruciating as the reality that we are its next meal. Each day upon awakening, we have the option of continuing to perpetuate this delusion, or dig deeper. While the incompetent/inept/wasteful fantasy "feels" better, it is ultimately more dis-empowering, for as Larry Clow writes in his fabulous System Breakdown article, "…the thought of a malicious government that's actively out to manipulate us is an enemy we can fight, which is somewhat more comforting than the alternative—a series of bungling, incompetent institutions that have failed us, and will fail us again, just when we need them the most." In other words, denial is more soothing, but so is heroin.

Still another way of putting it might be: Ignorance is bliss—until it kills you.

link (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=102170)

[ucicare]

I got about this far.....

"....they confess that they simply do not want to know that their government orchestrated the attacks that murdered 3,000 people in one day....."

I want to know. So I read as much as I could about it a long time ago. Every evidence based, peer reviewed investigation concerning the theory that the US Government flew planes into buildings states loudly and boldly - IT WAS NOT A CONSPIRACY.

The only people who believe that it is a conspiracy are the one that WANT it to be a conspiracy. If you WANT something to be true, it's easy to disregard all contrary evidence, and cling to the weakest shreds of "proof" to support a bogus theory.

I am not so blind to believe that the US could not have had a hand in the attacks. Anything is possible. What I found is that the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY supports non involvement by the Government. If you believe anything else, I suggest that you pull your head out of your ass and look at the "other" proof.

You can start here - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

[Nursey]

You can start here - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1


Great. I can start off with an 'impartial investigation'(?) under the journalistic guidance of none other than Michael Chertoff's cousin!? :-\ I think i'd rather rely on my own investigative abilities, actually.

[Joeslogic]

The artical takes a lot a true points and meanders and rambles about the reasons for them in the end you have massive missunderstanding of the issues and a sadly mistaken idea of why.

[ucicare]

I think i'd rather rely on my own investigative abilities, actually.


Get real Nursey. The only investigation you have done "on your own" is to read what other people have said about what THEY have seen heard or done.

You haven't been in this country in 20 or more years have you?

But back to the article you posted -

The whole premise of it appears to be
Just look at a few statements and tell me if you really believe this -

1. "for the last seven years Criminal insanity is running our nation and our world."
So the Bush administration is criminally insane? And he runs the entire world?
All of the other world leaders are rational, sane poeple who are the mercy of this
madman? Right.

2. "the economic system is arranged in such a manner that people are required to work two or more jobs in order to survive."

Well lets see. I just work one job, but I'm a rich elitist Neocon so I don't count.
I do have lots of friends that have to work two jobs. It's not to survive though. It is so they can pay for their big assed houses in nice neighborhoods, and send their kids to nice schools, and pay for 2 brand new cars and at least one SUV to pull their travel trailer or Boat, and buy chemicals for their back yard pool, and pay the people that cut their grass, and make the payments on the condo at the beach
that they really can't afford, and pay cell phone charges for the whole family, and
buy 5 TV's and 5 computers and a whole host of other things they really don't
have to have to survive.

My parents only worked one job when I was kid. We had a three bedroom one bath
house that would be considered small by todays standard. One car, one TV and
one phone and one vacation a year. I could easily duplicate that lifestyle working
one day a week. Even at a low paying job, I could duplicate that lifestyle on a
single paycheck. "Survive" in American today means that you have to do without a
cell phone. Right now the unemployement level in Alabama is so low that wages
have climbed far above minimum wage for any job. Employers are begging for labor. There is absolutely not enough people willing to work to fill the jobs. A skilled
tradesman here can name his price.


3."the remarkable job of dumbing-down that American, so-called, education has
done in the past two decades so that the current generation can barely read..."

If Bush wanted to create a nation of Illiterates, why did he initiate the "no child
left behind program"? My daughter had to actually pass exit exams to graduate
High School. I didn't. If the US Government wants a nation of illiterates, why is
money so easy to get for College? Right now if I wanted to go back to school at
age 46 and earn a PhD, I could get up to $100,000 handed to me, and not have
to pay it back for at least 10 years. My kids can get all the money they want for
college without my signature. All they have to do is apply. That does not compute
with the statement above.

4. "If I look at what my government is actually doing, I will have to own that it has become my enemy"

Really? The Homeland Security program has done a decent job. No further attacks since 9/11. Wouldn't Bush have been smart to take the heat off of himself for Iraq by at least staging another attack on the homeland? Or by planting a few weapons of mass destruction to find? Or at least having a highly publicised failed attempt with a dirty bomb in Manhatten? He must be stupid to not know to do that. Or maybe it's really not a conspiracy after all.

5. "United States government has gone and continues to go to extraordinary extremes to bring illegal drugs into the country." "

Right.

If the US Government wanted to flood this country with Drugs, all they have to do is leagalize it. One act of congrees, and presto!, the job is done.

Drugs may well be the death of this country, but I would stake my life on the fact that our own Government is not the pusher.

My blood pressure riseth.

[pimpchichi]

your government is not one single entity though is it? ever thought there might be rogue elements that slip under your radar berreh? malignent influences here and there?

something stinks berreh.. and it's not just that rotten fish you're holding :D

[ucicare]

your government is not one single entity though is it? ever thought there might be rogue elements that slip under your radar berreh? malignent influences here and there?

something stinks berreh.. and it's not just that rotten fish you're holding :D



The simple fact that you are an idiot is evident in what you just wrote.

People who have little control of themselves have to create some hidden evil to explain away their own fears and insecurities. You and Nursey both fit this description.

As far as your statement goes -
There are bound to be malignant influences in Government, because there are HUMANS in government. A few evil people doesn't equal an orchestrated effort. The premise that there is some grand, well orchestrated plan for the elected Government of this country to destroy the populace is pure fantasy.

Smoke somemore weed and call me tomorrow.

[pimpchichi]

hmm actually barry you read much more into my post than was there.. whilst agreeing with what i'd said.. you came to a conclusion, whereas i hadn't!

perhaps you just wanted to lash out.. after all.. nursey had posted one of those articles that make your blood boil and your little fisties clench and wanna pound!!.. FATTY SMASH!

just so you know.. i have just the right amount of control over my life to be happy and content.. and i don't smoke weed :D ..

perhaps you should take whatever meds you take that act as a 'chill pill' and.. err.. don't call me tomorrow berry..

[ucicare]

Ok, so I lashed out.

SORRY.

I shouldn't have called you an Idiot, since that term is actually an anachronism. It was used in the 1800's to denote the lowest level of human function. A step up was the Imbecile, a further step up was the Moron, with the Simpleton rounding out the labels for the those who functioned below the average level of intellectual ability.

You are obviously well advanced from the idiot, and actually exceed the expectations for a Simpleton. Therefore I respectfully retract my slanderous labeling of you as an Idiot, and now coin you a modern day Thersites.

[pimpchichi]

well barry... given my newfound knowledge of greek history as given to me from comic book and movieland.. i'll coin you, with much confidence.. the modern day ephialtes :)

[pimpchichi]

of trachis of course.. and obviously as visualised by comic book and movie

[Nursey]

Get real Nursey. The only investigation you have done "on your own" is to read what other people have said about what THEY have seen heard or done.

Yes, forgive my sloppy wording, but i think you know what i meant. I'd rather rely on my own sources is what i should have said. Though i was the first person i knew of to doubt the official version of events regarding 9-11..due to having predicted the liklihood of such an event - a manufactured pretext to 'finish off Iraq' - being carried out by the Bush Administration (and said so the day he was elected). So i am my own source too on many matters.

4. "If I look at what my government is actually doing, I will have to own that it has become my enemy"

Really? The Homeland Security program has done a decent job. No further attacks since 9/11.

What about the neverending barrage of attacks on your freedoms? Anyway, you don't need extra security...you just need the security you have not to be ordered to stand down by Cheney.

Wouldn't Bush have been smart to take the heat off of himself for Iraq by at least staging another attack on the homeland? Or by planting a few weapons of mass destruction to find? Or at least having a highly publicised failed attempt with a dirty bomb in Manhatten? He must be stupid to not know to do that. Or maybe it's really not a conspiracy after all.

Why would they take such a monumentally idiotic (not 'smart' as you seem to believe) risk with the millions of scrutinising eyes and internet blogs all over the world on the alert for their next move? Why would they when they have so many gullible hordes - mainly in the U.S. - willing to swallow whatever bullshit they and their media whores peddle anyway, no matter how nonsensical and far flung it seems? They don't need to fool everybody to get away with their plans. Just the masses. (In fact, it seems they have their social engineering mapped out to an astonishingly precise degree after reading a little on the subject (http://www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html)).

If the US Government wanted to flood this country with Drugs, all they have to do is leagalize it. One act of congrees, and presto!, the job is done.

How could they amass undisclosed billions to fund the multitude of covert operations at home and abroad if the revenue from drugs was openly declared? And how would they garner the support of the general populace for such a radical move, particularly after conducting a decades long fake war on drugs.. without discrediting both themselves...and their fake war on terror? It's you who needs to 'get real'.

People who have little control of themselves have to create some hidden evil to explain away their own fears and insecurities. You and Nursey both fit this description.

How about you and your bedwetting? Does that fit the description?;) Or your reliance on medication to keep control of yourself? In fact, it does seem as if you are creating some 'hidden evil' to explain away your 'own fears and insecurities', rather than just approaching the matter from a purely logical view based on substantiated facts, as opposed to some fallacious pseudo-analysis designed to discredit those whose views strongly differ.

Allowing oneself to enter the deeper layers of history and current events is to open oneself to transformation in the depths of one's own psyche. I believe that on some level, we all know this, and our readiness to engage or not engage with realities in the external world, which may alter the internal, calibrates our individual degrees of denial.

[ucicare]

I am sure that what you just wrote sounds logical and convincing to you, in the same way that dead people bleed.

There was a patient in a psyche ward of a local hospital who insisted he was dead. No one had been successful in helping this patient overcome his distorted thinking. One day a young psychiatric resident asked his mentor if he could try to help this patient. The senior psychiatrist agreed.

The young resident said to the patient "I understand that you think you are dead". The man responded " I don’t think I’m dead, I know I’m dead".

The resident then asked him "Do dead people bleed"?

The man thought for a moment and then laughed and said "Of course dead people can’t bleed. Anyone knows that."

At that point, the resident took the man’s hand and pricked his finger with a needle. The finger began to bleed.

The resident pointed smugly to the man as said "then how do you explain the blood that is coming from your finger?"

The man looked thoughtfully at his finger for a while and then replied "That’s easy. It’s obvious that dead people do bleed."

The moral to this story is simple - when a firmly held belief encounters reality, reality suffers, not the belief. I am sure you will say that this axiom applies to me, not you. I believe we call such a situation an impasse. I call it "arguing with the dead."

[pimpchichi]

does praying really cure drug and sex addiction barry?
and why the fuck do you want to start shit with brawl hall?
is being a stupid asshole one of your professional qualifications?

[Joeslogic]

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n212/Joeslogic/NWOandVampiresandUFOs.jpg


Any more questions?

[ucicare]

does praying really cure drug and sex addiction barry?

No.

It doesn't hurt though. As far as scientific evidence, prayer has been shown to have a positive effect on people. So does a placebo, so I won't automatically credit God with the miracle.


and why the fuck do you want to start shit with brawl hall?

I don't. If I did, I would have done it. I was just bored and posted something to get a discussion going after an entire week of boring nothing in this forum. If you noticed, it was posted in the general mayhem forum. Hardly the place for seriousness now is it?


is being a stupid asshole one of your professional qualifications?


You might prove me to be an asshole, but you won't find supporting evidence for stupid. I can't ever remember scoring below the *99th percentile in any standarized IQ test that I have taken. I have proof of that if you need convincing. As far as professional qualifications, being an asshole is sometimes considered a character attribute in my profession, and is often a requisite* to the treatment of personality disorders (like yours).

*new concept alert for Pimp -
99th percentile - http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
requisite -http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/07/05.html

[pimpchichi]

why do you have a repeated need to brag about your IQ? do your feelings of inadequacy have something to do with it?..maybe that's why you attack dan.. maybe your bedwetting was related?.. when did that stop exactly out of interest?.. when you quit being a drunk?

and you don't have to be an 'idiot' to be stupid, asshole...


ps.. IQ tests are bullshit.. but i bet i score higher :-*

[Joeslogic]

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n212/Joeslogic/NWOandVampiresandUFOs.jpg

;D

[ucicare]

why do you have a repeated need to brag about your IQ?
I don't think that refuting your accusation that I am stupid by stating a verifiable fact constitutes bragging.

do your feelings of inadequacy have something to do with it?
I have never had feelings of inadequacy. I have had feelings of inferiority, however. As a child I was labeled "lazy" or "doesn't try" or even "stupid" by several teachers because I could not do the class work the way they wanted me to. I never felt they were right, but it certainly sticks in the mind of a child. I was an adult before I actually understood that they were very wrong, and that I was actually very bright. A diagnosis of AD/HD and the proper treatment really cleared things up.

Want proof that I am doing OK these days? The fact that I have no problem telling you the above personal things should testify of my current state of self assuredness. What you think of me really matters very little. I know who I am.



maybe that's why you attack dan..

I attack Dan because we both enjoy it. Pretty much the same for Nursey. I wouldn't be surprised if Dan and I work together someday. Ask him for yourself if he thinks I really don't like him.

As for you, I really have to work hard to like you. I think that you parrot what you hear Nursey say just to stay on her happy side. You appear to be the epitome of a *Minione. I hear very little original ideas from you, and even less self revelation. The fact that you completey hide the real you from everyone here tells me how inadequate and insecure you feel in YOU really are.

Damn Pimp, I signed in here with my real name, real address, and real picture. Does that sound like a man with something to hide?


maybe your bedwetting was related?..

the fact that I freely talk about my childhood should give you a hint that I am comfortable with it. Bed wetting past age five is very common with AD/HD. I feel a need to let others know about the realities of the problem.


when did that stop exactly out of interest?..

Stop bedwetting? At puberty, which is also common for AD/HD. About 13 best I remember. I had accidents occasionally up to age 16. Lots of fun.



when you quit being a drunk?

I can't ever remember ever being a drunk. I drank beer when I was in my early 20's, and probably had 4-6 beers at least 3 days a week for 2-3 years. At my size, that hardly gets a good buzz going. I quit for a long time.

I can take it or leave it now. I enjoy Beer with food, especially Raw Oysters or Boiled Shrimp. I am better off with my weight if I don't drink at all.

FYI - I tried MJ twice as a young adult, and didn't like it. I have never tried an other illegal drugs, and have never taken anything that wasn't prescribed to me.


you don't have to be an 'idiot' to be stupid, asshole...

I guess you offer yourself as proof of that hypothesis? ;)


ps.. IQ tests are bullshit.. but i bet i score higher :-*


I'll take that bet.

Get admitted as a fellow here and I will concede the contest - http://www.cerebrals.com/index.php?go=admission

*Explaination for Pimp. Take your choice of definitions. They all fit.
Minion - 1.n : a follower who hangs around in hope of gain or advantage
2. An obsequious or servile dependent or agent of another; a fawning favorite
3. An obsequious follower or dependent; a sycophant.

[pimpchichi]

wow you typed a lot..

i don't care whether you like me or not berry.. never have.. nor am i nurseys minion (btw i don't need your condescending definition postings.. my vocabulary is tiptop) nor do i parrot what i hear from nursey.. you don't hear revelations from me because i don't need validation by spouting crap about myself on here.. i only really post here to make my beloved happy.. and maybe to bait you a bit..

and actually looking at the entrance requirements from that link.. i guess i could well do it.. since the lowest score on my 3 mensa entrance exams was 147.. but that was back when i thought shit like that might mean something... then i went to one of the social gathering things the members organise..

jesus christ :-\

but hey.. if you wanna organise something.. and i don't have to go too far out of my way.. and it won't cost me anything.. i'll be happy to take tests, join a pointless club and make you my bitch :-*

[ucicare]

wow you typed a lot..

.. i only really post here to make my beloved happy..


Thanks for validating my point.

Now hook the leash on your collar and go back to bed.

[Disorder]

Ok people, the earth is changing, the new Earth Empire is awakening, the US wants control of the middle east because its is centrally/ strategically placed to deploy the world vader squads, aka world police, into any dissident Eurasian countries who think the mafia run 'bigbrotherhood' is a bad thing, its not just about oil, its about positioning. Fall in line DRONE, this is all we are going to be. Loss of Family values, freedoms, constant surveilance, why are these things happening, its because the all rich and powerful never want you to EVER EVER stop them, so wake up, because its time for them to realise they work for us, not the other way round.

Its a multiple attack, financial stain will cause a collapse, the aftermath(reccession) will cause lots of rioting, then the pol-military will spread out to calm it and there will be lots of shit to deal with.

The elites dont ever want you to know, that they are making the North American Union (yes they are, numbnuts) after this the Asian union will fall into line and the last 3 unions/misc nations will merge into the World Government.

The US government is a pawn of total world control, they want an infinate war (BTW its been announed that US occupation of Iraq & the middle east will be another 30 years or so) they also lied to you, to get what they wanted; the push for military action in the 'ME'. This has happened OVER AND OVER, pearl harbour/ gulf of tonkin/ WW2, were instigated because of a lie.

Take a look at the doublespeak that these countries spew fourth on a regular basis, if they really wanted to do stuff in our best interest, why dont they permanently shut down cigerette companies, instead of forcing us to stop or taxing us more? NO they want to tell us what to do and get away with it! This also includes pouring your 'dangerous' liquids away at airports (into 1 container too, where they 'dangerously' could mix, fucking lies) This is a precurser to the world control system, where they tell you what to do and you blindly obey, you will fight for them, or slave for them.

Why do they keep holding back electric cars? they arnt' inefficient( in fact far from it ), they just dont take FUEL

Why do they say we have to reduce CO2 emmissions? Its not causing the planet to heat up, because global warming is only 6% man made, the rest is the SUN and its been proven. Aside from the fact that we arn't the cause and they constantly lie to us, CO2 is actually essential to our survival, its just carbon dioxide, the stuff plants breath, so WE can breath, more CO2 is actually GOOD.

I'm starting to get really annoyed at peoples ignorance over social/policial shaping taking place in our world, but nobody 'cares' because you're all hooked on TV, games and just want to think what you are getting for tea, or what they are doing this weekend, or what hairstyle to go for next.

Its not so much a 'dumbing down' as it is total distraction. Watch the blue frilly hanky, watch it flutter around, watch watch *SLIPS other arm around side, unfastens watch and belt and removes wallet from pocket*

Stop defending them.

[pimpchichi]

wow you typed a lot..

.. i only really post here to make my beloved happy..


Thanks for validating my point.
Now hook the leash on your collar and go back to bed.


i should rephrase that.. it gave the wrong impression.. i only READ this forum still because nursey still posts here and i like to read what she wrote and me reading her stuff makes her happy somewhat.. i only really post to annoy you.. and joe..

and are you saying that wanting to make your loved one happy is a wrong thing?


Why do they keep holding back electric cars? they arnt' inefficient( in fact far from it ), they just dont take FUEL

electricity is still energy.. that you have to buy from people who use fuel to generate it... the thing holding back electric cars is people not wanting to buy them.

[Disorder]

Fair point, maybe they didn't invest enough to make it work, so that the cars themselves never appeared to be efficient and not a good choice for purchase? I think the last concern was the technology, that charging took too long and the batteries didn't last, but I'm sure it would be quite good now. The hydrogen fuel cell thing might also work.
It could be the elites dont want us to stop using petrol fuel because it already has the monopoly, bringing new forms of energy in would mean lots of new companies, regulations and all the other bullshit that they have already worked hard to gain control of.. Why reinvent the wheel as they say.

I was also reminded of the Simpsons with the cult that Homer joins that looks like freemasons or some secret order and they sing about keeping back the electric car, always makes me think hehe.

[pimpchichi]

i think you'll find that 'the elites' will also control the alternative energy sources once the technology is at a point where it is viable to be used by consumers.. after all.. who is putting the billions of dollars into the research that will get it working?.. and the hydrogen from hydrogen fuel cells isn't all that viable as an alternative energy since it is extracted from fossil fuels.. getting hydrogen from water uses up pretty much as much energay as can be gotten from the hydrogen produced.. i know that it's simply a matter of running electricity through water.. but on a scale where the supply could meet our vast demands?...

and if you wanna get all conspiratorial?.. why are you putting forward as an energy supply the one that bush said we'll put research funding into in one of his speeches.. do a bit of digging.. you see whos doing the research?

and it was the sacred order of the stonecutters btw

[ucicare]

and are you saying that wanting to make your loved one happy is a wrong thing?

Nah.

I'm just saying that you let your guard down for a bit and hit you with a sucker punch.

Lets call a truce. I'm busy today.

[pimpchichi]

oh yeah.. todays the most important day of the year for you jesus juicers

[ucicare]

oh yeah.. todays the most important day of the year for you jesus juicers


That was yesterday here. I skipped Church. Shame on me.

Today is Monday - back to work.

[Joeslogic]

Fair point, maybe they didn't invest enough to make it work, so that the cars themselves never appeared to be efficient and not a good choice for purchase? I think the last concern was the technology, that charging took too long and the batteries didn't last, but I'm sure it would be quite good now. The hydrogen fuel cell thing might also work.
It could be the elites dont want us to stop using petrol fuel because it already has the monopoly, bringing new forms of energy in would mean lots of new companies, regulations and all the other bullshit that they have already worked hard to gain control of.. Why reinvent the wheel as they say.

I was also reminded of the Simpsons with the cult that Homer joins that looks like freemasons or some secret order and they sing about keeping back the electric car, always makes me think hehe.


Demand will naturally drive technology for alternative sources. If oil is peaking then there is no worries change is inevitable as petrol fuels become to expensive. Batteries have come a long ways and I think if on a large scale battery powered cars were a solution can you imaging how bad it will be when some scumbag redneck dumps one in the river? Lead, lithium, acid. Alcohol sounds somewhat promising. Hydrogen fuel even better. But if oil really is peaking then the Elites you speak of have no choice in the matter. But consider this if oil sustains a price above some threshold then all of a sudden shale oil is feasible. Anyone watching that cookie jar to see who is buying up shale rich land?

But you are one of the only people to point out what I have said time and time again and that is if you take every bit of man made co2 you only have a small percentage of the total co2 output. Also there is an interesting theory about waters effect on co2 and the relation ship it has as a co2 reservoir. The earth is mostly water and water temperature is inversely proportional to the amount of co2 it holds. With all the geothermal activity as of late there is no wonder there is an increase in co2 levels. Also the increased solar activity is undisputable.

Imagine this the solar activity of the sun stabilizes and then goes to normal. Prompting a slight lowering of the earth’s water temp thereby sucking huge percentages of co2 out of the atmosphere.

Now we have a real problem if indeed co2 does have the thermal effect it is touted to have.

The next ice age upon us and before Gores dooms day prediction that we are going to melt by 2012. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/enviro_wackos/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html)

[Nursey]

The moral to this story is simple - when a firmly held belief encounters reality, reality suffers, not the belief. I am sure you will say that this axiom applies to me, not you. I believe we call such a situation an impasse. I call it "arguing with the dead."


But you are the one who is 'making reality suffer' by trying to portray both me and Pimp as being irrational and suffering from personality disorders just for having a conflicting view, not the other way round!? The reality of the matter is that you have never met us or even had a proper conversation with us. To make such authoritative sounding assertions about what we are like in real life and the mental problems we supposedly suffer as a result in an attempt to belittle our views, puts you in the position of the person who shapes reality to fit their firmly held belief - not us.

But anyway, i'm tired of discussions about 9-11, but particularly with people who think Michael Chertoff's cousin is a reliable source of information and that the laws of physics bend for America (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html). And believe that countless magnificent odds all miraculously occurred at the same time...which just so happened to deliver the perfect catalyst - 'a new Pearl Harbor' - described as being the necessary event to launch the next stage of the P.N.A.C....some of whose most prominent members just so happened to be at the helm when the entire debacle went down.

Or discussions of any sort, for that matter, with someone whose hallmark has become to accuse those who disagree with him of suffering from a mental illness or character disorder, thereby (conveniently) dismissing straight out of hand well reasoned challenges to their pumped-up, self-important opinions. Leads you to suspect that someone is really not quite as secure in their views as they like to make out. So, moving on...

Take a look at the doublespeak that these countries spew fourth on a regular basis, if they really wanted to do stuff in our best interest, why dont they permanently shut down cigerette companies, instead of forcing us to stop or taxing us more? NO they want to tell us what to do and get away with it! This also includes pouring your 'dangerous' liquids away at airports (into 1 container too, where they 'dangerously' could mix, fucking lies) This is a precurser to the world control system, where they tell you what to do and you blindly obey, you will fight for them, or slave for them.

I also see the fearmongering and the extremes they are going to to 'safeguard' the public against passive smoking as having the appearance of social engineering. As well as being an extremely lucrative (multi-billion dollar) money spinner for pharmaceutical giants who produce the nicotine 'smokeless delivery systems' such as patches and inhalers, of course. The scientist who first established a link between cancer and primary smoking has even stated that no real, conclusive scientific evidence exists which proves any significantly harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The anti-smoking activists only cite research which supports their claims and ignore all findings to the contrary. Anti-smoking groups which exert influence on politicians and media are all funded by the pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical industry also donates more money to American politicians and political parties than any other corporate entity and employ lobbyists to influence politicians. They spend billions on hundreds of thousands of events attended by doctors and their anti-smoking groups are very successful at promoting their interests in the media. The western anti-smoking crusade demonstrates how giant conglomerates are now capable of bypassing the laws of sovereign countries, influencing and shaping our lives under the auspice of health.


.Critics raise red flags as drug giant backs anti-smoking guide (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3393d14c-5466-4b65-8919-7f76acbace52)

Anti smoking groups have once again been criticised for failing to declare conflicts of interest.

Despite being heavily funded by the pharmaceutical giants, who gain from increased sales in nicotine replacement therapy, anti smoking research never declares any conflict. The anti smoking groups that push this research are also highly dependent on pharmaceutical funding and despite the high failure rate of NRT therapy they continue to push its use; even going so far as to say 'don't try to quit without it'.

With the virtual 'gagging' of the tobacco industry due to its past lies and misgivings there is now little balance in the debate with free reign being given to the other extreme, the anti smoking movement. It is high time that the pharmaceutical industry and the special interest groups that promote them were brought to task for terrifying the public over everything from sunshine to passive smoke for no better reason than promoting products that don't work and increasing the bottom line.

Meanwhile our politicians are duped, wittingly or not, and thousands of people are put out of work, by the exaggerations from the non-profits; American Lung, American Cancer, American Non-Smokers Rights Foundation, American Medical Association; nearly every university in the country including the U of M, etc.; all of whom have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying money from the very same pharmaceutical nicotine affiliated Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. link (http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html)

The undeniable connection between antismoking propaganda and the pharmaceutical industry -- or: ministries at the service of multinationals.

It is not a coincidence that the pharmaceutical giants pay antismoking activists all over the world to instigate hysteria and mass hatred against smokers. The goal of this marketing campaign, which involves even well-known names of international medicine, is quite clear: the smoker, frightened by the disinformation, tormented even by his kids (who get brainwashed in school), thrown out from public places and workplaces – and finally hated by society – tries to quit to conform. But, since he is told he is an “addict”, he must turn to the help of his doctor, who either sends him to a quit-smoking centre or prescribes the “therapy” directly, depending on the business arrangements made with Big Pharma. With public money, therefore, a private enterprise that is based on persecution is promoted – a persecution that goes after the very segment of the public that pays for that kind of marketing, using “public health” to induce the people to change their behaviour through using false and biased information, to satisfy the financial needs of private colossuses.

This is the chilling reality of the Fraud of the Century and documentation from two major pharmaceutical manufacturers corroborates the mountain of evidence (not the statistical one!...) we are accumulating. link (http://www.forces.org/evidence/money/introph.htm)

[phatboy]

I started reading this post from the beginning and have came to the conclusion that......

A) Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

B) America is the Evil Empire simply because in a few hundred years we have gone from a group of colonies to the most powerful country in the world. Nobody likes a show off.

C) Everyone wants Americas help, but then they want to dictate how we help.

D) It's all about money and self preservation.


I am by no means rich, however I do own my own house, have two new cars, one old car (92 Honda Accord for sale if you need one), A nice 32ft travel trailer, a jet ski, 4 wheeler, motorcycle, and an older 4x4 that I am rebuilding.

I only work one job. My wife is a real estate agent that works about 3-5 hrs a week.... I am good at finding deals. I make 4 payments monthly (other than insurance) Car, Truck, Camper, House. All of which I can pay with one paycheck. My wife likes to cook, but she doesnt like to clean so we eat out a lot. I am pretty copacetic with my life.

So hate me cause you live in a desert with no food.

Like Sam Kennison said, "See this, this is sand, yea, sand, you cant grow food in sand......SO FUCKIN MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!!AHHH AHHH"

[Nursey]

I think that you parrot what you hear Nursey say just to stay on her happy side. You appear to be the epitome of a *Minione. I hear very little original ideas from you, and even less self revelation. The fact that you completey hide the real you from everyone here tells me how inadequate and insecure you feel in YOU really are.

Damn Pimp, I signed in here with my real name, real address, and real picture. Does that sound like a man with something to hide?

So did Pimp...in the first year he posted at fugly. Should he post annual updates or something? And be honest here, you would never have been so candid (or joined for that matter) had you originally been aware of the true nature of this place, would you? I seem to recall a slight error on your judgement (http://www.fuglyforums.com/index.php?topic=3796.msg89744#msg89744) when you first got involved here? ;)

Doesn't it occur to you that perhaps one of the things that attracted me to Pimp was the extent to which his views were in harmony with mine on a wide range of key issues? As well as having the self-conviction to credibly refute my opinions where necessary, something i found extremely refreshing, after always having had the stronger/dominant mind in previous relationships.

i only really post here to make my beloved happy..

Except here he's being a nad.

[pimpchichi]

so are you saying i'm dominant?...

woo.. yeah bitch make me pie!
:D

[Joeslogic]

She makes you pee?

What..... in your pants?

[pimpchichi]

no joe.. in barry's bed.. but shhhh

[Nursey]

so are you saying i'm dominant?...


Well, when you're not being a fag. 8)

[pimpchichi]

so yes then.. i'm dominant

[Nursey]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/ohmikey.gif

[ucicare]

But you are the one who is 'making reality suffer' by trying to portray both me and Pimp as being irrational and suffering from personality disorders just for having a conflicting view, not the other way round!?

No, I think that you and Pimp are both whackos because you both post here on Fugly. Nobody in their right mind would every hang around this place.

Wait a minute....that means that I too am...no wait, thats not what I meant....


The reality of the matter is that you have never met us or even had a proper conversation with us. To make such authoritative sounding assertions about what we are like in real life and the mental problems we supposedly suffer as a result in an attempt to belittle our views, puts you in the position of the person who shapes reality to fit their firmly held belief - not us.

So call me and set me straight. You know that I have been DYING to talk to you for months.


any[/i] sort, for that matter, with someone whose hallmark has become to accuse those who disagree with him of suffering from a mental illness or character disorder, thereby (conveniently) dismissing straight out of hand well reasoned challenges to their pumped-up, self-important opinions. Leads you to suspect that someone is really not quite as secure in their views as they like to make out. So, moving on...

Would you like to do a little search and see when was the last time I labeled you anything?

I am NOT "improtected" by the way, so don't make any assumptions.

[Nursey]

I am NOT "improtected" by the way, so don't make any assumptions.

I never thought you were. I was just pointing out whose ass crack she craftily slipped into in order to negotiate her way around the forum.

So call me and set me straight. You know that I have been DYING to talk to you for months.

Just call Improtected. I'm not into talking dirty to middle aged men, errr...'big daddy'. :-\

[ucicare]

Just call Improtected. I'm not into talking dirty to middle aged men, errr...'big daddy'. :-\


She doesn't speak with a British accent. It's just not the same.

[Nursey]

She doesn't speak with a British accent.

Well, i sound more like Sean Connery than Liz Whorley. Stick that in your fantasy and shmoke it! ::)

[Nursey]

This is great. :D

Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader? (http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm)


The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?"

Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads.

Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles.

They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers.

First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill.

I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can.

Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation.

Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.

Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink.

Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater.

Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer.

The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution.

Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around.

Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right.

Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES?

We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered.

Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions.

But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars.

911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show.

On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars.

Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb.

Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices.

USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?

[phatboy]

Wow. I actually do feel dumber after actually reading that.

Did you know it was actually covert British agents that masterminded the Boston Tea Party? Or that the secession of the south in the Civil War was actually the same British Covert group. I mean just look at the teeth of those Brits.

Dont forget Pearl Harbor, I mean, we were just chomping at the bit to get into WWII full fledged. Think of all the scotch tape it took to get all those Americans to look Japanese.......

[Nursey]

Wow. I actually do feel dumber after actually reading that.

Did you know it was actually covert British agents that masterminded the Boston Tea Party? Or that the secession of the south in the Civil War was actually the same British Covert group. I mean just look at the teeth of those Brits.

Dont forget Pearl Harbor, I mean, we were just chomping at the bit to get into WWII full fledged. Think of all the scotch tape it took to get all those Americans to look Japanese.......


This has what to do with laws of physics and stand down orders?

[Joeslogic]

This has what to do with laws of physics and stand down orders?


Honestly Nursey you need to take a few steps back and look and what you have copied into this thread. The way you throw the word physics up there leads me to understand that you are either not paying close attention or have a really poor understanding of physics.

Do you think if they were designing two fairly identical towers using the same materials they would use the same exact materials if in the design one of the towers was designed to hold up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and 30 tons of matter pounding into the top qtr. of its height. Do you truly believe it would be made of the same reinforcement?

The whole idea if the beams having to melt have been gone over already. Time and time again however you bring it up as if there is a point we need to consider.

Do yourself a favor and take a physics class ok?

[Nursey]

Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity?

[pimpchichi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4261315.stm

this one burnt for around 24 hours...(not an hour or so) the top part of it collapsed... but the rest of it was obviously strong enough to hold out and not collapse almost in a freefall..

my theory??

the trrrrrrisst KNEW your buildings are WEAK like your MEN and your ECONOMY


VIVA ESPANA!!

[Joeslogic]

Well can a raindrop fall upwards torwards the clouds without any abnormal wind conditions?

[Nursey]

Brain scans revealed that the politically biased are virtually addicted to lying to themselves to maintain their view that their party and leaders are flawless. People of both political sides are equally affected by bias. When viewing truth that doesn't suit our ideals, most of us deny it and go on as if it never happened. Mainly because most of us don't even understand the way bias affects us or that it makes us completely irrational.

VIDEO (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=803888063&n=2).

[Joeslogic]

Hold on I have not watched the video but are you actually saying that this is a Republican conspiracy? ;D

Oh hell this is getting crazier by the minute. It's like the whole O.J. Simpson was conspired against by the whole LAPD conspiracy. At face value it’s totally nuts. You cannot keep that many people quiet. You have to ignore that there is a whole black segregated (by choice) section of the FOP that watch and monitor the department for anything out of line. And there is no party loyalty strong enough shit like that cannot simply be kept secret.

This is lunacy pure lunacy.

It's like you are compelled by some lunitic force to believe this shit.

[phatboy]

So how do you compare the structural integrity of a 32 story building, and the lateral force applied, to a 110 story building? There was more building above the planes than that whole building. Not to mention the concrete, steel, and all the other building material that it took to build a building that tall. The argument that Jet A does not burn hot enough is ridiculous. The heat doesnt have to melt the steel, just heat it up enough to make it pliable.

Boeing 767
Operating empty 90,535kg (199,600lb)
Max takeoff 181,890kg (401,000lb)


Cruising Speed around 500MPH

So you take this weight, the cruising speed and run it into a building, that construction started on in 1966, and see what happens. The heat from the fire didnt melt the steel, it just made it bendable. With all the weight above it, just heating it enough would cause the beams to bend, as the weight comes down, the 'pancake' effect happens, and as the weight falls, 1 floor height, the next floor, not designed to carry the added weight of the 30-40 floors above it.

We all watched the planes crash into the buildings. We saw the buildings collapse. And someone wants me to believe, as these buildings are collapsing, and all the people are running away from it, that someone stops, looks back and says, "Hey was that an explosion?" Yea, the government decided to kill over 3000 people just to go into Iraq.

Sometime the answer is right in front of your face.

But, here is a good read for all.

http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm

A few I liked....

Fallacy of opposition: those who disagree with you must be wrong and not thinking straight.

Multiple questions or assertions (plurium interrogationum): asking a complex question or a series of questions, or stating a complex assertion or multiple assertions, while only allowing for a single simple response, and then assuming the oppositions inability to adequately respond is indication that their position is wrong.

Shifting the burden of proof: demanding that the person denying and assertion prove his/her case, whereas the burden of proof is upon the person who argues the position.

[Disorder]

I was watching 9/11 almost from the beginning and I screamed at the TV when I saw the buildings collapse, the word I said was

' FARCE '

because what I was seeing was going against what I was hearing, it was a joke, ive seen dozens of buildings brought down by demolitions exactly like that, there is no way that could have happened the way it did if steel 'bent' because the 'bending' is a force that would transfer to the whole building itself, it WOULD NOT COME DOWN IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT WITH 0% SWAYING

If it had indeed, softened the steel, the supports would bend AT THE POINT THE HEAT WAS APPLIED,which means it would twist and topple over, ending up like an upside down U

Quite basic physics & gravity there really ::)

PS I havent watched a TV since that day (it was removed from my room), thats how much I believed it was a scam.

[phatboy]

Okay. Here is a simple test. Take an empty coke can, pop can to some, place yoour foot squarely on top and apply a good bit of pressure. Depending on your size, you can probably step on it completely. Have one of your friends, chums, mates, or your mom thump the can.

Which way did it go?

Okay? You see how that works?



*Special thanks to Mr. Wizards world, circa 1984 or so.......

[pimpchichi]

so the top of the building falling onto the floors underneath and making them 'freefall' was the scaled up equivalent of a person's weight pressing upon an empty (untrussed) cylinder of 24g aluminium? wow.. heavy stuff!.. was there much space between the atoms even?!?!?!

you know that when i was doing design and technology at school.. i created a platform out of balsa wood that could easily support my weight... in fact it was so overengineered that when a portion of it was destroyed it never collapsed... the strength of triangles wonderful things...

in fact i've seen many many many overengineered structures with lots of triangles in them in the many years i've been working in construction... i also know that buildings designed to withstand fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, bombs etc need plenty of precisely placed explosive to bring them down cleanly... i don't just read these things on websites.. i know these things because i work in the fucking building industry....

i know of course that steel loses half it's integrity at 500 degrees... i didn't realise though that the aviation fuel had drenched the whole building from top to bottom in about an hour and made it as weak as the scaled up equivalent of a person's weight pressing upon an empty (untrussed) cylinder of 24g aluminium... phew!!

obviously the trrrrists did though.. and knew your buildings are WEAK like your MEN and your ECONOMY!! and the fuel was STRONG and PLENTIFUL like JIHAD!

[Disorder]

If you can stand on a can to crush it in the same way every time I'll be amazed, because actually calculating where your foot and body mass should be placed for perfect center weight dispersion is only capable by very smart people or machines, you'll probably find drink cans bend to the side most attempts. ( actually its sort of to the side, and then in and down on top of its self, leaving not a flattened circle, but a spread out oval )

The keyword there is 'calculated', or you could possibly use 'formulated' or just 'premeditated' or 'PLANNED' they're all good.

[pimpchichi]

actually we have to crush cans lots since the council make us recycle and only collect once a fortnight, and since their sack is pretty small for my beer guzzling household crushing is the only way to get all our cans in there...

its actually very rare to have a can crush cleanly in on itself to create a circle..

unfortunately it was collection day today so the sack is bare... give me a week and i'll have lots of crushed cans to photograph for PROOF... because visual PROOF is great innit!?!.. words just don't have the same impact

[phatboy]

Did you see any of your mystical triangles in the buildings? I understand the cross beam and it's supporting ability, the can example simply shows that it doesnt have to fall over into a U shape. The fuel fire does not have to consume the whole building. Hell the Jet itself damaged the steal beams, causing the structural integrity to be compromised.

Have you seen the blueprints and building materials sheet for the buildings? I havent but I'm just curious what materials were used and to what specs. Most buildings of that height are built on a stacked design, with higher portions being smaller than the ones below. The Sears Tower is a good example, the Empire State as well.

Do you think the design company and the building companies would be so quiet if there was such compelling evidence that it wouldnt happen? Was I amazed that it fell like that? Yes. Do I believe that it was the governments idea? No. Do I think the government could have done more to prevent it? Maybe. It's easy to look back and say, "What about this?" But when people get these warning signs, that are so clear in hindsight (Va Tech), it's easy to point fingers.

What reason would the US government have for doing it? And dont say any bullshit about Iraq. Cause if that was it we would have already been 'attacked' by Iran.

Not too mention I dont ever remember al qaedda denying that they orchestrated the attack. Or the fact that your cousin, bin laden, even talks about the martyrs and how proud they made him.

I dont understand how you can look at a mountain of evidence, watch the actual video footage, and then still say the government did it.

What do you think would happen in this country if it was revealed that the government had fore warning, reliable fore warning, that such an attack was going to occur and did nothing to prevent it? Let alone the idea that it detonated thermal explosives that were preset in the WTC buildings prior to the incident?

I can live with the fact that you, and a lot of others, don't like the united States, and thats fine, but to say that as a country, our government, in an attempt to control the public performed these attacks is ridiculous.





DISORDER - would you say that two buildings built on Identical designs, to identical specifications, would react differently to almost identical attacks? Buildings that were essentially perfectly weighted to support themselves in winds up to and beyond 100mph? I will say that it was planned, but not by our government. Were other buildings around ground zero not damaged by the falling towers as they came down?

[Nursey]

I dont understand how you can look at a mountain of evidence, watch the actual video footage, and then still say the government did it.

I don't understand you can look at the MOUNTAIN of ANOMALIES...and the footage...yet still believe the government's version, unless you are extremely simple or in complete denial.

Here's a couple of videos you should watch:

FEMA & NIST's "Pancake Theory" is a Lie (http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=182632&fr=)

MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King: what most likely happened (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8533904938803031452)

[Nursey]

Brain scans revealed that the politically biased are virtually addicted to lying to themselves to maintain their view that their party and leaders are flawless. People of both political sides are equally affected by bias. When viewing truth that doesn't suit our ideals, most of us deny it and go on as if it never happened. Mainly because most of us don't even understand the way bias affects us or that it makes us completely irrational.



Hold on I have not watched the video but are you actually saying that this is a Republican conspiracy? ;D

Huh!? Go and lie down in a dark corner Joe. You're getting a little overexcited.

[Nursey]

Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html)
By Elaine Jarvik

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. (Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News)
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

[Nursey]

Using logic to counter 911 non-thinkers (http://www.rense.com/general74/illog.htm)

1. A building constructed over a highly sensitive, highly dangerous, highly expensive industrial site will be engineered and constructed that much stronger. Logical and rational, right? WTC-7 was engineered to be stronger, not weaker, than other buildings surrounding it, simply because it enclosed an electrical power station. But WTC-7 fell at near free fall speed. Logical deduction would conclude building 7 was purposely demolished at the end of the day on September 11, 2001, most likely to destroy evidence of arson and to clear the WTC site entirely.

2. Fuel fires burn intensely for short periods of time. Fuel fires also burn at well-known scientific temperatures. Scientifically, and thus logically, fuel fires cannot melt steel, which requires blast furnace conditions. Melted pools of steel were discovered, observed and recorded in the debris of three steel skyscrapers long after September 11, 2001. Logically then, fuel fires alone did not destroy the World Trade Center. Logically then, some other, far more powerful substance that could melt steel must have.

3. Passengers on commercial jets are required to check in at the desk and present their ticket and boarding pass. No passenger is allowed to board a major commercial carrier without first being logged onto a computer today. This list of passengers is called a flight manifest. This list of passengers is available to airline personnel within minutes. Logically then, the names of ALL hijackers should have appeared in the mainstream media hours (and days) after the flights crashed. They did not. Either there never were any hijackers or they boarded through the complicity of airline personnel, thus indicating a greater conspiracy. Logical.

4. When the chief of security of one government gives $100,000 to an alleged terrorist mastermind, and then meets with the security heads of the government to be attacked on the exact day of the attack, logically, some complicity is suspected. In the days before September 11, 2001 the head of Pakistani Intelligence, General Mahmoud Ahmed, wired $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta. Ahmed then attended breakfast on the morning of 9-11 with Porter Goss, the head of the House Intelligence Committee (and the next head of the CIA) and Florida Senator Bob Graham. Coincidentally, Florida was home base to most of the alleged hijackers. According to the FBI, Indian Intelligence and several press reports, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" (to use the FBI expression), allegedly ordered the bank transfer of $100,000 to the accused 9/11 ring-leader, Mohamed Atta, and then met on the morning of the attack with a trio of US lawmakers and top intelligence insiders, Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl for a friendly breakfast. What exactly did they discuss? Logically then, one could conclude a huge conflict of interests. Logically one could conclude a vast government conspiracy. As if to confirm a government conspiracy between the two security states, $8 billion in US aid was funneled to Pakistan between 2002 and 2006, ostensibly to fight the war on terror. No word where that $100,000 came from (US taxpayers?), money that was wired to mastermind Atta to attack America.

5. Airplane parts are easily traceable. Airplane parts are stamped with serial numbers. Machined airplane parts are made to exact specifications. Logically an aviation expert could take any large, machined part from any of the 911 attack sites and say, yes or no, this part originated from a Boeing 757. Or did NOT originate from a Boeing 757, as Jon Carlson claims. Scientific study of the engine parts alone could have demolished any and all 911 conspiracies. Logical, correct? But because no such investigations were permitted or conducted, a huge government conspiracy appears likely. Logically then, one could conclude the conspirators had something to hide.

I have noted only FIVE suspicious anomalies. Dozens of other examples exist. For example the disappearance of the black boxes from the WTC. While first responders claimed the black boxes were found, the government denies it. Since most of the WTC debris was sifted and sorted (or melted), anyone could logically conclude the government had something to hide. Anyone could logically conclude, without too much effort, that 911 was an inside job and continues to be the greatest unsolved crime in American history.

[Nursey]

Not too mention I dont ever remember al qaedda denying that they orchestrated the attack.


FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)

[Nursey]

Not too mention I dont ever remember al qaedda denying that they orchestrated the attack.


Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/)

[phatboy]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec9.pdf









I saw bin laden in that eminem video too.......

[ucicare]

Not too mention I dont ever remember al qaedda denying that they orchestrated the attack.


FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)


I guess we can rule out the video tape of him personally taking credit for it and saying that he planned it, right?

[Disorder]

I don't understand how people can be so oblivious, it boggles the mind. ???

[pimpchichi]

it's patriotism and allegiance.. it's been drummed in since birth... also not wanting to believe helps...

kindof like granny not wanting to believe little jimmy is a viscious animal abusing baby-raper.. even when the evidence and willing confession has been laid out there..


oh and hating brown people comes easily :)

[phatboy]

it's patriotism and allegiance.. it's been drummed in since birth... also not wanting to believe helps...

kindof like granny not wanting to believe little jimmy is a viscious animal abusing baby-raper.. even when the evidence and willing confession has been laid out there..


oh and hating brown people comes easily :)




They are more like urine color. Brown would be more like African.

I am sure that if I really wanted to waste my time, I could locate a whole bunch of sources on the internet, which noone has their own agenda on the internet, and produce piles of 'evidence' located to prove it was not the 'gubment' as you would have us believe. But Charlie Sheen said it was so, so it must be. But I am sure getting 3rd hand evidence of what someone thinks is good enough for some.

AND NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION. WHY?

What does the government have to gain by killing over 3000 of it's own citizens?

I dont want to hear the BS about "Its a war for oil" cause that is BS.

W wanted to finish his daddies war.....BS

To invade privacy with Homeland Security.......I think anyone living in a country that can follow a soccer 'hooligan' from the stadium to the suburbs has no room to say 'invasion of privacy.

So that leave us with:

We had some new weapons we wanted to test out.

Or maybe, just maybe

It was that radical islamics hate America so much that they would do anything, including killing themselves, to attack us. Kinda like the little korean kid that was upset at the "Rich Kids" and wanted to kill them. I guess our years of Fried Chicken, Collard Greens, Pecan Pie and Sweet Tea have driven those simple minded enough to be talked into killing themselves for someone elses ideas. If killing "infadels" and becoming a martyr is the fastest way to meet allah, why hasnt bin laden done it? Why wouldnt the leaders be the first inline? How much of a sheep do you have to be to not ask, "Hey why havent you 'crossed over' yet? Since it is so great..."

[Disorder]

They killed 3000 people to scare the public into thinking there was a serious threat, so they could push with their pre-planned military operation smoothly, which was already ready to go, they just needed the signal and the 'reason'

Forces are converging on Iran now, then we will get another 'scare', like the sailors thing tried to be and then they will have a good excuse.

Iran knows whats up, its being pushed into a corner and I think is at least trying to play a bit fair, but America is not playing fair.

It is about oil in one respect, but its also about tactical placement in that region, there's just no other reason why a nation would take these consequtive bordered regions, unless it wants something long term done with it.

[phatboy]

USS Cole, 93 WTC Bombing, Battle of Mogadishu (Blackhawk Down), 98 US Embassy Bombing, 9/11, do I need to go on? How many times do you take a punch before you swing back?

And now the Brits are in on the conspiracy?

Too many lips for there not to be a leak.

[Nursey]

AND NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION. WHY?

What does the government have to gain by killing over 3000 of it's own citizens?

"There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order."
-- Gary Hart, former Colorado Senator, at a televised meeting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14, 2001.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
-- David Rockefeller

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
— Herman Goering Nazi Air Force (Luftwaffe) commander at the Nuremberg Trials, 1946

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
-- Adolf Hitler

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
-- Josef Stalin



The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard, frequent Faux news pundant, as well as chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/williamkristolbio.htm

Here is what the wars in the middle east are really about, straight from the horses mouth:



What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.

That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.
[.....]

Thomas Friedman:
Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, (Thomas) Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
link (http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/haaretzdaily01.htm)


Too many lips for there not to be a leak.


But there are...numerous leaks (http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html), though they are immediately ruled out by people like you who, when faced with such info, say that the whole thing is too insane to even consider. But now that, after much debate you can no longer deny that we are in fact bringing up a whole range of perfectly rational, valid points that back up our argument...you look for something else from some other angle to throw in the path to keep the disturbing implications at bay from your safe, familiar bubble? Anything but face facts. Really, it doesn't matter how compelling a case is made, you refuse to even hear it and so keep continually shifting the goal posts.

I am sure that if I really wanted to waste my time, I could locate a whole bunch of sources on the internet, which noone has their own agenda on the internet, and produce piles of 'evidence' located to prove it was not the 'gubment' as you would have us believe.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/stickman.gif
I think you've wasted quite enough time doing that already haven't you? Culminating in this thinly masked admittance of defeat. You've just had enough of your arguments steamrolled to know it's time to bail out with some utterly crap excuse. So, it's a waste of time investigating further because you already, like, KNOW the 'gubment' didn't do it, so that's, like, the case closed? Yeah, scurry off. Find some hole to plunge your head into.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7504/blinderscv8.jpg

But Charlie Sheen said it was so, so it must be.

You're right. We're just those people that are saying it because Charlie Sheen says it. Or Michael Moor. Or Rosie O' Donnell. Even though we pre-empted them all by years. Kindly refrain from projecting your own mindset onto us, moron. :-\

Now for the '2 minutes of hate':
Or maybe, just maybe

It was that radical islamics hate America so much that they would do anything, including killing themselves, to attack us. Kinda like the little korean kid that was upset at the "Rich Kids" and wanted to kill them. I guess our years of Fried Chicken, Collard Greens, Pecan Pie and Sweet Tea have driven those simple minded enough to be talked into killing themselves for someone elses ideas. If killing "infadels" and becoming a martyr is the fastest way to meet allah, why hasnt bin laden done it? Why wouldnt the leaders be the first inline? How much of a sheep do you have to be to not ask, "Hey why havent you 'crossed over' yet? Since it is so great..."

Wow. You sure is smarter than a fifth grader, phatty! Genius, even.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/can.jpg

[pimpchichi]

Why wouldnt the leaders be the first inline?

i think perhaps you've misled yourself..
that day 4 years ago when you saw your president on that carrier making that epic speech.. he wasn't strictly in king leonidas mode..
though it is the nearest he's come to 'real soldierin' ;)

[Joeslogic]

At least Alec Baldwin (http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3) agrees with you Nursey I guess that (http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/) gives you some comfort.

[pimpchichi]

there are millions of assholes in the world joe... sooner or later assholes are gonna share your viewpoints

[Joeslogic]

Yeah but you have to be a particular kind of asshole to be protected. Imune to ridicule. Have microphones put in your face for your Anti-American opinion.

[Nursey]

i thought americans didn't do jealousy, they do aspiration!

[Michelle]

I'd like someone to explain the coincidence that all the biggest pot smoker dumbass tards I know are the only ones suggesting that 9-11 was a conspiracy by the government. Now that is a coincidence. I can only imagine what would happen if these morons were in medicine. They would be killing people right and left with their half baked or wholly "baked" drug induced damaged sub par to begin with brain dysfunctional paranoia unable to sort out any kind of truth from fiction to make any kind of logical decisions or recommendations

[pimpchichi]

i thought americans didn't do jealousy, they do aspiration!


that was me

i don't smoke pot

[Michelle]

i thought americans didn't do jealousy, they do aspiration!


that was me

i don't smoke pot


Ever have your head bouced off a telephone poll? What was your GPA in college if you attended college? Ever make the dean's list? Ever flunk any classes? Ever been hospitalized for paranoid schizophrenia, ever been diagnosed with a bipolar disorder? Ever use any drugs like ectasy? Ever abuse cocaine? Ever use any injectable illicit drugs? Did your mother drink extensively while pregnant with you? Ever been diagnosed with ADHD? Were you born full term? Have you ever had withdrawal symptoms from alcohol abuse? Have you ever been given a "rally bag" at a hospital? Have you ever been advised by a carerr guidance counselor that you are best suited for the service industry such as McDonalds?

[Joeslogic]

i thought americans didn't do jealousy, they do aspiration!


that was me

i don't smoke pot


Ever have your head bouced off a telephone poll? What was your GPA in college if you attended college? Ever make the dean's list? Ever flunk any classes? Ever been hospitalized for paranoid schizophrenia, ever been diagnosed with a bipolar disorder? Ever use any drugs like ectasy? Ever abuse cocaine? Ever use any injectable illicit drugs? Did your mother drink extensively while pregnant with you? Ever been diagnosed with ADHD? Were you born full term? Have you ever had withdrawal symptoms from alcohol abuse? Have you ever been given a "rally bag" at a hospital? Have you ever been advised by a carerr guidance counselor that you are best suited for the service industry such as McDonalds?


;D

[Nursey]

So you refus ta adreass my piont than.... I du nat blame you it's a lousing battle. Attack the messenger then an act of desperation.

Quite.

[Joeslogic]

ar you saying "Quite." like a librearian wouud say? "Shh bea quite poeple ar readun"?

or or yuw sayin "Quite." like my momma would say when i wuz in teb bathtub. "Now joe quite playin wit yore submarine an making it send up te parioscope"

or area you saying "Quite." like "my unacle Vern he an quite rite"

[phatboy]

ar you saying "Quite." like a librearian wouud say? "Shh bea quite poeple ar readun"?

or or yuw sayin "Quite." like my momma would say when i wuz in teb bathtub. "Now joe quite playin wit yore submarine an making it send up te parioscope"

or area you saying "Quite." like "my unacle Vern he an quite rite"


Joe, it is "Shhhh be quiet" for the librarian.

"Quit playin wit yo submarine"

and Yes, "Uncle Vern aint quite right" :D

And I think Dan made a very valid point. The people I have heard ranting about a consiracy are usually the dregs of society. The outcast. Those who say absurd things for attantion. And the pot heads who spend way too much time online looking at photoshopped images of 'pieces' of a missle, instead of realizing there were hundreds of people on those planes that actually still have loved ones who miss them.

[pimpchichi]

i think that says more about the bars you frequent than anything else, frankly.

[phatboy]

I dont go to bars, like you dont smoke pot.

[pimpchichi]

i don't smoke marijuana because it made me lethargic and didn't do my chest much good.. i gave up being a pothead many years ago.. i do have the very occasional toke in social situations.. but only to be polite.. i don't like getting stoned all that much.. it ruins the enjoyment of my drink

you don't go to bars because you're barred from most of them, and -all- the titty ones.. you gave up drinking in social situations many years ago.. because you embarrassed the people who invited you.. you prefer to drink at home alone anyway.. nobody judges you there

[pimpchichi]

RIGHT ROUND BABY RIGHT ROUND LIKE A SCRATCHED RECORD BABY RIGHT ROUND ROUND ROUND :D


hmm actually barry you read much more into my post than was there.. whilst agreeing with what i'd said.. you came to a conclusion, whereas i hadn't!

perhaps you just wanted to lash out.. after all.. nursey had posted one of those articles that make your blood boil and your little fisties clench and wanna pound!!.. FATTY SMASH!

just so you know.. i have just the right amount of control over my life to be happy and content.. and i don't smoke weed :D ..

perhaps you should take whatever meds you take that act as a 'chill pill' and.. err.. don't call me tomorrow berry..




Attack the messenger then an act of desperation.

[Nursey]

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth…. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it — now." Patrick Henry, 1775.

[phatboy]

i don't smoke marijuana because it made me lethargic and didn't do my chest much good.. i gave up being a pothead many years ago.. i do have the very occasional toke in social situations.. but only to be polite.. i don't like getting stoned all that much.. it ruins the enjoyment of my drink

you don't go to bars because you're barred from most of them, and -all- the titty ones.. you gave up drinking in social situations many years ago.. because you embarrassed the people who invited you.. you prefer to drink at home alone anyway.. nobody judges you there


No, I dont drink in bars because I am a dad, who spends time with his family. I drink when I am fishing, or playing golf.

I havent been banned from any bars, and the one here arent titty bars, they actually get totally naked, so it's just strip clubs.

I do drink in some social situations, like when I am in Athens, GA on a fall afternoon with 92,000 of my closest friends.

I dont drink at home, unless of course I am doing some yardwork, and I might have a beer or two..........

of course I'm sure that doesnt compare to sitting around your 'flat' drinking while it is raining outside. While you and your 'mates' play who has the biggest 'whanka' in the 'lou'. . . . .

[Nursey]

::) Blah blah blah. So anyway...i hope you can sleep well at night in the knowledge that there are such glaring inconsistencies between the official version that you subscribe to and fundamental laws of physics now that it has been clearly outlined by such 'dregs of society' as Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones...

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations."

...goddamn pot-smoker dumbass tard! >:(

[Michelle]

::) Blah blah blah. So anyway...i hope you can sleep well at night in the knowledge that there are such glaring inconsistencies between the official version that you subscribe to and fundamental laws of physics now that it has been clearly outlined by such 'dregs of society' as Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones...

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations."

...goddamn pot-smoker dumbass tard! >:(



Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances, including the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, which was held in Los Angeles on June 24-June 25, 2006.[11] While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[12] his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of rogue agents working within the U.S. government.[13] In an article published on September 5, 2006, Jones told The Guardian that the attacks were an "inside job".[14] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[15]

The paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor. [16][17] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[18] and shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners", and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[19]

Jones has always maintained that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, though it has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[20] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the fact it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.[21] The review was supposed to be three-tiered, with the school's administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department involved.[22] This action drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.[23]

As someone who has done research for 4 years prior to medical school (related to the first hand transplant from cadaver to amputee in the US) I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung. There are all kinds of crackpot studies that never get published. Even the ones that do get published often wind up being bullshit. You can't believe a study unless it is performed and reviewed and accepted by peers and then it's findings backed up by other separte researchers from unaffiliated groups. I would suspect that he may have decided to retire early on a book deal. There is a tendency for researchers to twist findings and try to garner money through sensationalism and outright falsifications. It happens all the time.

[Michelle]

As someone who has done research for 4 years prior to medical school (related to the first hand transplant from cadaver to amputee in the US) I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung. There are all kinds of crackpot studies that never get published. Even the ones that do get published often wind up being bullshit. You can't believe a study unless it is performed and reviewed and accepted by peers and then it's findings backed up by other separte researchers from unaffiliated groups. I would suspect that he may have decided to retire early on a book deal. There is a tendency for researchers to twist findings and try to garner money through sensationalism and outright falsifications. It happens all the time.

[Michelle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[Michelle]

anway go ahead and have your fun. Some people like to believe in ghosts you like to believe in government conspiracy theories. The judge likes to believe in dwarves.

[Michelle]

he did lose his position over his "research"/statements.

[Michelle]

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

[Michelle]

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

[Disorder]

People just dont like admiting they are wrong, its a pride thing above others, but sadly a lot of people just 'dont care' they are too wrapped up in themselves and their daily lives to begin to contemplate something like this, because living for tomorrow or to get that next paycheck has been the distraction the whole time. This is why its so important us 'truthers' so badly want you to hear us out, because, we're not doing it for us, we're doing it for you too.
Its a shame that we get ignored by the very people we are trying to help, why do we bother?

I put logical reasoning behind every questionable circumstance such as this, the tower job was an inside job, because:

1) America is now in the Middle East, its now after its 3rd consecutive region in a row: Iran
WHY? Mixed reasons, mainly oil and religion and it goes back into history, nobody is bothered to look, but it cannot be argued that they are now there.. purpose?

2) They needed an alibi (reason) to go that would seem honest in the eyes of the people, so they made the enemy visible for you to be scared of, it worked.
They have done this MANY times in history, again, nobody is bothered to look.

If there was really a terrorist threat, we would get constant attacks.. security is too good to get attacked, it was good BEFORE 9/11 which is why we didnt get attacked before 9/11 by so called 'terrorists'

4) The gov have lied in the past and will always lie, they want to kill you and claim they want to save you at the same time. Say one thing and do another. History again.

5) The official story was changed/ spun etc to what they wanted you to hear, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
The 'simplest solution' has always remained constant; that the towers 'were pulled' all we wanted to know was 'why?' and we have been beginning to understand that too.

6) 9/11 truthers use more evidence to support their arguments than any non-believers, they are also the most honestly direct and thorough in responses. This is evident in all the posts ive read on this forum related to politics and this event AND people I have tried discussing this with in RL, with mixed results. Non-believers are most likely to shrug off or evade the most hurtful truths as 'crazy' or that posters need 'tinfoil hats' or that we are 'drug addicts' without providing any substantial evidence to the contrary Are these people totally ignorant or just so stupid and without awareness of anything other than what they ate this morning, its astounding, really.

I mean bloody hell people, we are doing all the work for you, all you have to do is go and read up on history of politics and the world and its many religious wars, instead all you do is sit around, wait for us to bring the evidence to you and then dismiss it as 'baloney' with little more than 'i said so', 'i think so' or 'i was told so' you have to pull your fingers out of your arses and connect the dots, this picture isn't going to be completed without a single line drawn. Stop working against us.

That is all.

[Disorder]

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm


I stand corrected on some issues, however, what I saw(on the actual date) was a tower collapsing down on itself, like a demolition. Having 2 fall the same is improbable, having another (building 7) do the same again is statistically impossible.

[Michelle]

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm


I stand corrected on some issues, however, what I saw(on the actual date) was a tower collapsing down on itself, like a demolition. Having 2 fall the same is improbable, having another (building 7) do the same again is statistically impossible.



I suggest you get a structural engineering degree and then come back and say that. Next you are going to be trying to tell us how to best design a new safer space shuttle.

[Michelle]

based upon your experience playing galactica.

[ucicare]

I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung.



Very True.

I predict that by the time Dan is 35, he is a full blown right winger with a BMW and a stock portfolio.

[Michelle]

I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung.



Very True.

I predict that by the time Dan is 35, he is a full blown right winger with a BMW and a stock portfolio.




I don't pick sides. There are too many things I don't like about both of them. My biggest issue is clean air and water and controlling urban sprawl.

[pimpchichi]

6 posts in a row!.. was dan getting a wee bit flustered and clicking send before going away and thinking "and another thing!"


ps.. i think he'll have a cock portfolio..

btw.. i don't particularly care if you assholes sleepwalk into losing your constitutional rights and the freedom you were lucky enough to have been born into.. if you slip blindly into fascism.. (not that you'd notice btw LOOK WHOS GONE INTO REHAB THIS WEEK!!)...

i'm just pissed than when you let it happen it'll adversely affect me and my loved ones..

oh and brown people get hurt for it to happen

[Michelle]

6 posts in a row!.. was dan getting a wee bit flustered and clicking send before going away and thinking "and another thing!"


ps.. i think he'll have a cock portfolio..

btw.. i don't particularly care if you assholes sleepwalk into losing your constitutional rights and the freedom you were lucky enough to have been born into.. if you slip blindly into fascism.. (not that you'd notice btw LOOK WHOS GONE INTO REHAB THIS WEEK!!)...

i'm just pissed than when you let it happen it'll adversely affect me and my loved ones..

oh and brown people get hurt for it to happen


dumbass

[pimpchichi]

go smoke some more meth dan

[Michelle]

go smoke some more meth dan


i know you are but what am I

[pimpchichi]

is this you acknowledging with an ironically childish response that drug taking accusations with no basis in fact are immature and have no place in a debate.. (except of course to try and discredit your opponent when you cannot defeat their argument by other means)

..

or am i giving you too much credit and you're merely being childish :D

[Michelle]

is this you acknowledging with an ironically childish response that drug taking accusations with no basis in fact are immature and have no place in a debate.. (except of course to try and discredit your opponent when you cannot defeat their argument by other means)

..

or am i giving you too much credit and you're merely being childish :D


It means I'm done posting back and forth to you're ignorant ass.

[Michelle]

...and I ain't even going to take the time to spell your right your're so fkn stupid

[Joeslogic]

Ok I gotta say it cause it is sooooo very true.

Dan is in rare form and has SOUNDLY put three confused individuals in their place. There is no question about it.

[pimpchichi]

"go smoke some more pot!"
"dumbass"
"i know you are but what am i?"


yeah man.. he's really thrashed me with sound argument ???

[Disorder]

I think ive figured it out, the 9/11 story was vague on purpose, 'who did 9/11, why, how' and all that shit, its just served to distract us from what they are doing.. sure, it does matter what happened to it, but when the government use it as a weapon to keet us arguing, then it doesnt really matter who did it, all it matters is whats happening now because of it

its trivial really if we just set aside differeces, its just another left-right, conservative/republican SPLIT in our opinions, and they probably wanted it this way, we havent stopped fighting over this for 6 YEARS .

I think it really doesnt matter anymore, how it was brought down, or why, it happened and they got what they wanted.

[phatboy]

I guess that is the main part I dont understand. Who is 'they'? The entire government is in on it? I find that harder to believe than the idea of 'pre-set explosives' in the WTC buildings. Too many people. We can't get congress to agree that tobacco should be banned, but somehow 'they' organized the entire 9/11 attack with the complete approval of the government, down to the auditors that would have to show where the money went.

Then, you have to find explosives experts to set the charges, and detonate them, with no moral values or feelings of humanity. You have to have them set, in a building that was attacked in 93, by known terrorist, without having them detected. Have the charges sit there for months, it would take a while to set charges on all the floors, like they would have to do to have it set right, without being detected or accidentally going off. Plus you have to have access to the actual support beams, not just the walls in the stairwells.

Then there are the planes, the passengers, and the FAA. So you have to hijack 4 planes, with all the passengers and crew. I know all the Con-Theorist like to say they gassed the cabin. So now you have United Airlines, and American Airlines, involved in it too. You would have to disable the emergency oxygen as well, because someone would notice everyone passing out and falling down, and instinctively go to the mask, like they go over in the preflight routine. Not to mention the 80+ million per plane cost. And once again, pilots willing to kill innocent civilians, as well as themselves.

Add in all the NYPD, FDNY, people that responded to the scene. So now you are killing government employees, including some of the most decorated officers in the NYPD and FDNY. Seems a bit of a stretch just to go to war with Iraq.

[Nursey]

I can tell you the fact that his findings weren't published in a peer review journal put it on the level of dung.
Even the ones that do get published often wind up being bullshit.

Exactly, because there are serious flaws in the peer review system (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/17/1042520777393.html). It's the 'old boys' network', isn't it? In other words, the establishment.

The evolution of university-based research in recent decades has resulted in the growth of corporate structures and corporate mentality in science, and of the powerful funding councils, agencies, foundations, etc. These agencies control the distribution of research funds among scientists and, consequently, have a ruling influence on what research is done and who is allowed to do it.

pquote]Peer reviewers and the establishment
Because peer-reviewers are drawn, as a rule, from the members of the scientific establishment (allegedly the "best experts"), they will tend to support established (i.e. their) projects rather than truly innovative projects. Innovative projects are, by definition, not established. How supportive was the scientific establishment when Boltzmann presented statistical mechanics ? Christopher Columbus may never have left harbour if his travel plans had been subject to the prior approval of an expert peer review panel ! . link (http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/art96/bere.htm)[/quote]

Peer review merely reinforces orthodoxy. That is, if the conclusions of the research confirm what the peers already believe, then the peers approve it. Otherwise, it is rejected.

[Nursey]

And Phatboy, of course not everybody needs to know exactly what's going on, just a small group of about 25 (Leo Strassian) politicians and an 'elite core' of intelligence agents.

[phatboy]

And Phatboy, of course not everybody needs to know exactly what's going on, just a small group of about 25 (Leo Strassian) politicians and an 'elite core' of intelligence agents.


Sorry, I cant buy that.

'elite core' agents would probably have an issue with killing other Americans. Not to mention the fact that if you polled 100 elite agents, the fact that in choosing you are going to come across several, probably most, who arent going to be kosher with the idea of attacking their own country. Then you got to kill them too, so no one knows. . . . .

[Nursey]

Sorry, I cant buy that.

'elite core' agents would probably have an issue with killing other Americans.

"Noble lies" i believe it is called. The perfect example of how a heirarchical power structure works is the pyramid of knowledge that is representative of the masons. The lowly foot soldiers have no idea what is really going on at the top. The capstone area which compromises those who are in the know are carefully selected for their allegiance to the cause.

http://www.caterpillar.org.uk/warning/btn32.gif (http://www.caterpillar.org.uk/warning/fseals2.htm)http://cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/591_darpa_logo.jpg

Not to mention the fact that if you polled 100 elite agents, the fact that in choosing you are going to come across several, probably most, who arent going to be kosher with the idea of attacking their own country. Then you got to kill them too, so no one knows. . . . .

Considering how deeply Israel is involved, 'kosher' is an apt choice of words...


What were those five Mossad agents doing on 9/11/01?
Videotaping the WTC collapse, high-fiving one another and dancing?? They worked for a front company whose owner fled to Israel the next day, literally leaving everything behind. Over two hundred Israeli agents were expelled from the US in the months following 9/11/01.

5 Israelis arrested on 911 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/bergenrecord091201.html). The Five Dancing "Israelis" Arrested On 9-11 (http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm). Further research (http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=5+high+fiving+mossad+agents+911&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

When almost all the 25 mentioned earlier who architected the invasion of Iraq are 'dual loyalists' to Israel and America, don't you ever start wondering?

The coup really happened with the Federal Reserve Act :

How the Federal Reserve Runs the US (http://politics.netscape.com/story/2006/10/25/how-the-federal-reserve-runs-the-us/)

The Federal Reserve Act that began it all must surely rank as one of the most disastrous and outrageous pieces of legislation to the public welfare ever to come out of any legislative body. It may have also have been and still is illegal according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which happens to be the inviolable law of the land.


Now it's just a steady march towards a one world banking system.

Coup d'état in 1913 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22016)

Few Americans realize how radically America was changed in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.

Maybe most Americans don't even care.

"How does the Federal Reserve Board affect my life?" they think. "What do I know from Alan Greenspan? He's the guy who decides what interest rates are, right?"

The truth is the Federal Reserve, created in 1913, is a wholly unaccountable, private institution that affects the lives of every American -- probably more directly and profoundly than does the president of the United States. That's why Greenspan is often referred to as the most powerful man in America.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws" Mayer Amschel Bauer, who founded the Rothschild family

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." His son, Amschel Mayer Rothschild

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Another son, Nathan Mayer Rothschild bragged.

Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce. --President James A. Garfield

Is the Federal Reserve System secretly owned and covertly controlled by powerful foreign banking interests? If so, how? These claims, made chiefly by authors Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) and repeated by many others, are quite serious because the Fed is the United States central bank and controls U.S. monetary policy. By changing the supply of money in circulation, the Fed influences interest rates, affecting the mortgage payments of millions of families, causing the financial markets to boom or collapse, and prompting the economy to expand or to stumble into recession. Such awesome power presumably would be used to benefit the U.S. economy. Mullins and Kah both argued that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by foreigners. Although the New York Fed is just one of twelve Federal Reserve banks, controlling it, they claimed, is tantamount to control of the entire System. Foreigners use their command of the New York Fed to manipulate U.S. monetary policy for their own and, as Kah asserted, to further their global political goals, namely the establishment of the sinister New World Order.link (http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html)

I find that harder to believe than the idea of 'pre-set explosives' in the WTC buildings.

"There were many unusual evacuations and power-downs (http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=evacuations+power+downs+prior+911+wtc&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) in the WTC in the days just prior to 9/11. Marvin Bush, George W. Bush's brother, was one of the owners of Securacom (now called Stratasec) which was the company in charge of security for the World Trade Center"? link (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm)


Nothing In This World Is What You Are Being Told - What's a Commoner to Do? (http://ezinearticles.com/?Nothing-In-This-World-Is-What-You-Are-Being-Told---Whats-a-Commoner-to-Do?&id=116579)

I asked him, he being a retired CIA agent whose path and mine crossed briefly in this life, "If you can't tell me what you did, can you at least tell me what you learned?" His reply woke me up to what I already knew and suspect most humans know in their hearts who live on this planet, but don't want to know. He said, "Oh yes, I can surely tell you what I learned...Nothing in this world is as you are being told."

[Nursey]

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report (http://patriotsquestion911.com/)

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This website is a collection of their statements. It is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 90 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.


http://patriotsquestion911.com/

[Nursey]

The Evidence is in (http://stopthelie.com/the_evidence_is_in.html)

Professor Steven Jones presenting his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site. They dramatically show a PERFECT MATCH for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.) See video links (http://stopthelie.com/the_evidence_is_in.html)

[Joeslogic]

Ah Nursey Thermite is easy to make and very commonly known about. You can post mountains of supercilious evidence indicating intent always supplied as a one two punch a distraction ridiculousness of the first supplied thanks in large to the move-on crowd. That takes nothing away from the point Phat made. If you wanted to you could not pull it off.

Oh and if you apartment or house crashed to the ground there you would have it termite. Proof that GW sent one of his henchmen over to try and take you out. ::)

That shit is super easy to make and carried on a mop bucket to every janitor closet. LOL

You are so blind to what is so damn obvious. But your not the only ones look a majority of the world believes that Joe Wilson said he herd while having tea with Nigerian officials that Saddams envoy to to the region was in an attempt to negotiate another item in their massive chest of items worthwhile for barter, ..... sand I guess we know Iraq needs that. Oh and a badly forged receipt means....

Well you tell me Nursey what does it mean?

Oh and I have all the materials to make thermite in my garage. Come to think of it also in my bathroom, bedroom, car, truck. the list goes on.

[phatboy]

8)

[Joeslogic]

Lets just have a cut and paste war

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560:hx2yxincxdu

http://www.debunking911.com/

All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off... (http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm)

HA HA HA HA HA HA! ROTFL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OMG TISF STFU YKM LOLOLOLOL (http://www.debunking911.com/meeting.htm)

[Michelle]

Okay, I'm pretty sure everyone is familiar with the magazine popular mechanics. Here they take the time or waste the time if you will to debunk a few of the myriad of conspiracy theories put forth by tards and people looking for book deals and democratic nominations in predominantly dumbass democratic districts:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

[pimpchichi]

Ah, i understand now why 'meeshell' is making posts that are "peer reviewed" as 'putting the commie pinko left footer cheese lovin caliphate surrenderists in their place'!!... (but is actually merely spouting the tired old rhetoric of the unwitting empirical apologist) He/she's not actually following the thread! If it* was it'd know that mr chertoffs familial link with the architects of 911 compromise the validity of 'popular mechanics'.. Anywby i had a poin t but im typing this on my phone in the pub and am apparantly being ignorant so im off its probably costing me loads anyway . . . Fuck off

[Michelle]

Ah, i understand now why 'meeshell' is making posts that are "peer reviewed" as 'putting the commie pinko left footer cheese lovin caliphate surrenderists in their place'!!... (but is actually merely spouting the tired old rhetoric of the unwitting empirical apologist) He/she's not actually following the thread! If it* was it'd know that mr chertoffs familial link with the architects of 911 compromise the validity of 'popular mechanics'.. Anywby i had a poin t but im typing this on my phone in the pub and am apparantly being ignorant so im off its probably costing me loads anyway . . . Fuck off


Here's your brethren conspiracy theorist (only he is much more prolific than you with pg after pg of rambling nonsense) interacting with the al quaeda and al quaeda sympathizers some of whom pretend to agree others being insulted that anyone who say it wasn't the "mujhadeen" who were responsible for "this great act putting a spear in the heart of the" agains the kuffar pigs:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=45

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

[Michelle]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news1.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news2.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news3.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill2.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/gb_bill5.gif

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot1.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot2.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot3.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot4.gif

[Michelle]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[phatboy]

I will have to give dan kudos on the cartoons. Those were very interesting. You know, I havent heard any rebutals in a while. I am guessing the Neo-Cons found the flat that Nursey shares with her other conspiracies and she has been dining on the best food in camp gitmo........... ::)

[Nursey]

When you're ready to have a calm, rational debate i'll see some point in continuing. But there's not going to be any of that while you all view it so competitively.

Open-mindedness is an important part of having a real and respectful debate, but only when "open-mindedness" is properly defined. To be open-minded is to accept the possibility that you could be wrong. This means being open to new ideas or ideas which seem odd to you simply because they are different. Open-mindedness does not mean automatically assuming that every one else is right, though; one can still be open-minded and make judgments about the validity of a variety of claims.

Anyway, here's a new list of common characteristics (of non-philosophers) that I find especially depressing:

1) They don't understand that rational argument is a form of inquiry. This leads many to close their minds to the perceived "threat" of another's persuasion. They think it's all just a matter of opinion anyway, and so don't bother to seek the truth by challenging their own preconceived beliefs. This leads them to "argue" insincerely. So the perception of empty rhetoric can be sadly accurate when applied to other layfolk and partisans. (And don't get me started on politicians!)

2) They seem incapable of focusing on a particular argument. They don't realize that the only way to make progress is one step at a time. They tend to want to tackle everything about an issue all at once. So half-way through an argument, they will suddenly demand that you address some completely different point. (Especially if the previous argument wasn't going well for them. Perhaps this is related to the intellectual dishonesty mentioned in #1 above. (http://www.fuglyforums.com/index.php?topic=9465.60))

[phatboy]

But when your argument isnt rational, then how can we have a rational debate? The simple logistics of such an 'inside' job are enormous and more than highly improbable.

[Joeslogic]

It's a perfect example of the old saying "The pot calling the kettle black" Nursey.

BTW I got a Photoshop question.

[Disorder]

It's a perfect example of the old saying "The pot calling the kettle black" Nursey.

pfff, thats a bit rich coming from 'the hypocrite', you're the perfect example of the 'say one thing do another' corporate america, I bet you're a lawyer, they're usually assholes.

[Michelle]

It's a perfect example of the old saying "The pot calling the kettle black" Nursey.

pfff, thats a bit rich coming from 'the hypocrite', you're the perfect example of the 'say one thing do another' corporate america, I bet you're a lawyer, they're usually assholes.



............wah, wahh, waaah, wah wah
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/entertainment/jan-june00/peanuts49.jpg

[phatboy]

It's a perfect example of the old saying "The pot calling the kettle black" Nursey.

pfff, thats a bit rich coming from 'the hypocrite', you're the perfect example of the 'say one thing do another' corporate america, I bet you're a lawyer, they're usually assholes.


I dont know about joe, but I am not a lawyer, and yes I am an ASSHOLE.

Example:

I was going to one of our off-site processing facilities to work on an automation project. When I got to the parking lot someone was parked in my spot. Not worried about it I just pulled into one of the reserved spots across the lot. Well this security gaurd runs out as I am getting my computer out of the backseat of my truck and says, "Hey you arent allowed to park there, you need to move your truck"

To which I replied, "YOU GET THAT MOTHERFUCKER OUT OF MY PARKING SPOT AND I WILL MOVE MY DAMN TRUCK"

Then I closed my door, locked my truck and walked off.

Granted it wasnt his fault somone parked in my spot, but it is his job to make sure no one else does, or have them move.

[Joeslogic]

Lawyers are ass holes they are a major part of the problem with this country.

Oh and yeah I'm fully capable however of being an asshole myself. But trust me if you were in need of a hand, assistance, advice, a kind word, moral support, a smile, whatever you would do well to be in my circle of friends.

[MAJ Havoc]

I just don't want to be "pivot man."

[Joeslogic]

Hell we all eat asparagus no volunteers for that job. Back to being an asshole.

[Nursey]

It's a perfect example of the old saying "The pot calling the kettle black" Nursey.

It just becomes pointless when the whole discussion is overshadowed by character attacks, blanket ridicule of the whole subject, subject diversions, irrelevant crap being thrown in to muddy the points being made etc. You might successfully silence the opposition, but only by derailing the argument, which isn't much of an achievement.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4893/wavingpenusrl4.gif
Common derailing tactic.


There are precious few people in the world that have the clear, precise, lucid view on life that I do. And all others are just different varying degrees of wrong.

As you go out of your way to remind us, you are incapable of viewing things with an open mind, and refuse to entertain the possibility that you are wrong for one minute, not even hypothetically for the sake of argument.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

A good argument to support the controlled demolition theory was made, yet got quickly lost in all the crap that followed.

The ideal argument is a co-operative venture, in which both people attempt to arrive at the truth. This is far from the view of arguments many of us have, or of the view of arguing upheld by our society. For most of us, arguments are loud shrill exchanges, in which there are winners and losers. As in physical contests, the winner of such an argument is assumed to be the intellectual victor when, actually, nothing much intellectual has occurred.
[...]
Being good at arguing doesn't mean never having to concede a point, or never losing the exchange. Quite the opposite. A skilled arguer will always admit when she is wrong, and will listen closely to opposing viewpoints, not merely to detect their flaws but to honestly evaluate them. Arguing well means respecting reason and evidence.

But when your argument isnt rational, then how can we have a rational debate? The simple logistics of such an 'inside' job are enormous and more than highly improbable.

Your argument isn't rational. You are using an opinion of yours (what you *believe*) in one subject area to dismiss a sound conclusion (that you had no decent counterance to) in another.

The fact that a conclusion appears incredible to us is meaningless. What matters is whether the evidence justifies the premises of an argument, and whether the argument form is sound. If both of the facts are true, then the argument is valid and sound, no matter how perturbing the conclusion is.link (http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html)

[phatboy]

All that just to say that you and joe disagree?

The simple fact that your 'argument' is all based on 'likelihoods' and hearsay is why we dont agree with you. Quoting an anonymous source on the internet is like saying "cause I said so". I'm sure if you looked, you could probably find someone, somewhere, who says that eating fecies is good. That doesnt make it true.

[Michelle]

It's a perfect example of the old saying "The pot calling the kettle black" Nursey.

It just becomes pointless when the whole discussion is overshadowed by character attacks, blanket ridicule of the whole subject, subject diversions, irrelevant crap being thrown in to muddy the points being made etc. You might successfully silence the opposition, but only by derailing the argument, which isn't much of an achievement.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4893/wavingpenusrl4.gif
Common derailing tactic.


There are precious few people in the world that have the clear, precise, lucid view on life that I do. And all others are just different varying degrees of wrong.

As you go out of your way to remind us, you are incapable of viewing things with an open mind, and refuse to entertain the possibility that you are wrong for one minute, not even hypothetically for the sake of argument.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

A good argument to support the controlled demolition theory was made, yet got quickly lost in all the crap that followed.

The ideal argument is a co-operative venture, in which both people attempt to arrive at the truth. This is far from the view of arguments many of us have, or of the view of arguing upheld by our society. For most of us, arguments are loud shrill exchanges, in which there are winners and losers. As in physical contests, the winner of such an argument is assumed to be the intellectual victor when, actually, nothing much intellectual has occurred.
[...]
Being good at arguing doesn't mean never having to concede a point, or never losing the exchange. Quite the opposite. A skilled arguer will always admit when she is wrong, and will listen closely to opposing viewpoints, not merely to detect their flaws but to honestly evaluate them. Arguing well means respecting reason and evidence.

But when your argument isnt rational, then how can we have a rational debate? The simple logistics of such an 'inside' job are enormous and more than highly improbable.

Your argument isn't rational. You are using an opinion of yours (what you *believe*) in one subject area to dismiss a sound conclusion (that you had no decent counterance to) in another.

The fact that a conclusion appears incredible to us is meaningless. What matters is whether the evidence justifies the premises of an argument, and whether the argument form is sound. If both of the facts are true, then the argument is valid and sound, no matter how perturbing the conclusion is.link (http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html)


The fact is what you are saying right now is a false red herring argument. You are quoting aristotle who has been dead for a thousand years. The problem with the conspiracy theorists is that you shoot down one of there false statements and they come back with 10 more. You shoot those down and they come back with 100 more all copied and pasted from some site full of bogus information. In psychiatry there is something called delusional disorder. It is similar to schizophrenia but instead of having random hallucinations and delusions it is focused on a particular delusion. In the psych ward I had a patient who thought that the government had implanted a microchip in his nose and that they were using it to control his brain and use him as a guinea pig. He was paranoid of the government. He claimed that he had had an operation at a VA hospital (he was in the VA psych ward) to fix a deviated septum. He would not give up this belief and would talk of the microchip being used to microwave his testicles and all kinds of bull. Well anyway in treating this disorder you are not supposed to confront the falseness of the belief but to just not say one way or the other what you think of it in order to "maintain a theraputic alliance" in which the patient may ultimately give up the delusion but not likely (rare). It is said that by confronting the patient about the falseness of the belief will likely cause them to shy away from therapy. Some of the people spending most of their lives propogating all this stuff on the internet likely suffer from the paranoid form of delusional disorder. For example Mansoor Ali from Islamic Awakening has copied and pasted 1,000s of crap about the "9-11 conspiracy". It has consumed his life. It is particularly absurd in that he is posting all this crap in an pro al quaeda web site where a bucnh of jihaddist and jihaddist wannabes brag of their "operations" some of them becoming upset with him for denying the "lyons of 9-11" as per Osam bin laden did not "achieve this great thing".

[Michelle]

Do you deny the terrorist in saudi arabia tried to blow up the oil fields and assassinate political figures: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=95566&d=29&m=4&y=2007 The fact is that the wahhabi form of Islam promotes terrorism and it had been funded by the saudi gov't in the form of money for the madras or religous schools teaching this brand of Islam and it came back and bit them in the ass and sprung up the terrorism thing after it stopped suiting the purpose of fighting the russians in afghanistan. The trade centers had already been attacked even duringt the Clinton yrs - 1993 truck bomb. Are you claiming that Clinton "was in collusion" of this supposed great terrorist scheme by the US gov't? What about the 1983 marine barracks bombing during the Reagan yrs that killed 241 us servicemen. I suppose you believe Reagan the former actor orchestrated that attack.

[Nursey]

The fact is what you are saying right now is a false red herring argument. You are quoting aristotle who has been dead for a thousand years.

How is that a red herring? It's timeless wisdom that is relevant to any argument. It supported the point i was making, which is that despite being faced with clearly mapped out logic to support a conclusion that conflicts with yours, your prejudices prohibit you from entertaining the alternative theory even for the sake of argument. In fact, it seems that the more compelling the evidence the more closed your minds become to it, and considering you feel your sanity is hinged on the outcome of this debate, no wonder you're so unwilling to cede any ground and risk losing! I see what i'm up against.

No matter how effective or elegant your arguments may be, there are situations in which you will never convince the person to whom you are speaking. For example, the other person might have an unshakeable emotional investment in what seems like a purely intellectual position. In arguing with him, you are confronting not only ideas but emotional barriers that an experienced psychiatrist would have difficulty scaling. For example, you might be arguing for the theory of evolution with a fundamentalist Christian. Agreeing with any part of what you say would constitute relinquishing his religion and, perhaps, the structure of his social and family life which may be held together by a common faith. The other person's emotional stake in his position is too deep for any argument to convince him on the spot.

The problem with the conspiracy theorists is that you shoot down one of there false statements and they come back with 10 more. You shoot those down and they come back with 100 more all copied and pasted from some site full of bogus information.

Kind of like how you, phatboy Joe and Barry came back with 10 new explanations as to why it couldn't be an inside job after you'd had your argument about the cause of the towers collapse getting 'shot down' by logic (http://www.fuglyforums.com/index.php?topic=9465.60). Then you all come back posting links to neocon Michael Chertoff's cousin's spinjob at Popular Mechanics...

Some of the people spending most of their lives propogating all this stuff on the internet likely suffer from the paranoid form of delusional disorder.

Now it's Barry's favoured tactic of casting the opposition as suffering from a mental disorder. No doubt there are some who are mentally unstable, just as there are some who believe the official version who also suffer from such disorders. And although it is hard to visualise from your myopic viewpoint, there are in fact many millions of people the world over who have plenty of due cause to question the integrity of your government! I just attach more significance to pure logic than anything a bunch of corrupt, dual-loyalist Straussians with plans for world domination have to say. And i suppose all the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Government Officials (http://patriotsquestion911.com/) who criticised the 911 commission are suffering the same disorder?

Prominent Americans, and Others, Who Now Believe 911 Was an 'Inside Job'

Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech PhD in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW President Bush and founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

Department Head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) Kevin Ryan, the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Former Chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col.
(Ret) Don de Grand-Pre
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Chief Economist under George President Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 911 Truth, James
Fitzer http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont Graduate University, and author or editor ! of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honorable Paul Hellyer
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) Michael Meacher
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context

link (http://www.911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html)

EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (http://911proof.com/10.html)

CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (http://911proof.com/11.html)


For example Mansoor Ali from Islamic Awakening has copied and pasted 1,000s of crap about the "9-11 conspiracy". It has consumed his life. It is particularly absurd in that he is posting all this crap in an pro al quaeda web site where a bucnh of jihaddist and jihaddist wannabes brag of their "operations" some of them becoming upset with him for denying the "lyons of 9-11" as per Osam bin laden did not "achieve this great thing".

All that tells you is that naive idiots of all persuasions (including wannabee Jihadis) believe the official version.

[phatboy]

I really enjoy the way you find these links that quote "A NYC Firefighter" "A Wall Street Journal reporter" "A Maintenance Supervisor" "Paramedic Captain" "Police Officer Stated"

Not Lt. John Smith, of precinct 4, NYPD stated....

If this were true, why wouldnt they have been interviewed for the 9/11 commision? Why would a second rate website post their 'quotes' anonymously? It seems that the reason they dont do that is because they arent credible quotes.

Some woman on the sidewalk heres to FDNY firefighters talking,

"Hey did you hear how loud it was when that floor collapsed?" (FDNY 1)

"it was so loud that it sounded like a bomb went off"(FDNY 2)


"The firefighter said that a bomb went off" (Judy Gossip) to reporter from said publication.

Very similar cut and paste used by michael moore.

[pimpchichi]

actually joe.. it's just the blurb on that page with all the links that describe them that way.. if you click the links (at least the ones i clicked.. i didn't click them all .. just enough of them to see if you were talking bullshit as usual or not) the 'NYC firefighter's etc are named

[Joeslogic]

Phat you have to understand the move on, Michael More, George Soros crowd has paid hacks to do nothing but tirelessly dedicate resources 24/7 with piling more garbage propaganda into the web while others tirelessly disseminate the crap onto the forums. They are oblivious to any logic other than their conspiratorial own minds just like this thread even though they have been soundly proven wrong, in their own minds they see themselves as the logical ones.

They are helpless.

[phatboy]

You mean they are like the 'judge'?

[Michelle]

The fact is what you are saying right now is a false red herring argument. You are quoting aristotle who has been dead for a thousand years.

How is that a red herring? It's timeless wisdom that is relevant to any argument. It supported the point i was making, which is that despite being faced with clearly mapped out logic to support a conclusion that conflicts with yours, your prejudices prohibit you from entertaining the alternative theory even for the sake of argument. In fact, it seems that the more compelling the evidence the more closed your minds become to it, and considering you feel your sanity is hinged on the outcome of this debate, no wonder you're so unwilling to cede any ground and risk losing! I see what i'm up against.

No matter how effective or elegant your arguments may be, there are situations in which you will never convince the person to whom you are speaking. For example, the other person might have an unshakeable emotional investment in what seems like a purely intellectual position. In arguing with him, you are confronting not only ideas but emotional barriers that an experienced psychiatrist would have difficulty scaling. For example, you might be arguing for the theory of evolution with a fundamentalist Christian. Agreeing with any part of what you say would constitute relinquishing his religion and, perhaps, the structure of his social and family life which may be held together by a common faith. The other person's emotional stake in his position is too deep for any argument to convince him on the spot.

The problem with the conspiracy theorists is that you shoot down one of there false statements and they come back with 10 more. You shoot those down and they come back with 100 more all copied and pasted from some site full of bogus information.

Kind of like how you, phatboy Joe and Barry came back with 10 new explanations as to why it couldn't be an inside job after you'd had your argument about the cause of the towers collapse getting 'shot down' by logic (http://www.fuglyforums.com/index.php?topic=9465.60). Then you all come back posting links to neocon Michael Chertoff's cousin's spinjob at Popular Mechanics...

Some of the people spending most of their lives propogating all this stuff on the internet likely suffer from the paranoid form of delusional disorder.

Now it's Barry's favoured tactic of casting the opposition as suffering from a mental disorder. No doubt there are some who are mentally unstable, just as there are some who believe the official version who also suffer from such disorders. And although it is hard to visualise from your myopic viewpoint, there are in fact many millions of people the world over who have plenty of due cause to question the integrity of your government! I just attach more significance to pure logic than anything a bunch of corrupt, dual-loyalist Straussians with plans for world domination have to say. And i suppose all the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Government Officials (http://patriotsquestion911.com/) who criticised the 911 commission are suffering the same disorder?

Prominent Americans, and Others, Who Now Believe 911 Was an 'Inside Job'

Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech PhD in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW President Bush and founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

Department Head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) Kevin Ryan, the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Former Chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col.
(Ret) Don de Grand-Pre
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Chief Economist under George President Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 911 Truth, James
Fitzer http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont Graduate University, and author or editor ! of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honorable Paul Hellyer
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) Michael Meacher
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context

link (http://www.911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html)

EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION (http://911proof.com/10.html)

CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (http://911proof.com/11.html)


For example Mansoor Ali from Islamic Awakening has copied and pasted 1,000s of crap about the "9-11 conspiracy". It has consumed his life. It is particularly absurd in that he is posting all this crap in an pro al quaeda web site where a bucnh of jihaddist and jihaddist wannabes brag of their "operations" some of them becoming upset with him for denying the "lyons of 9-11" as per Osam bin laden did not "achieve this great thing".

All that tells you is that naive idiots of all persuasions (including wannabee Jihadis) believe the official version.


I tell you I don't even believe that you believe what you area saying. I have some experience with working with people from many different countries. I was the only American in a resarch lab with a lot of Dutch, Belgian, Argentinians, Germans, Columbians, Guatemalans, Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Bosnians, a guy from Russia, Indians, and so forth but it was only the Belgians and the Dutch that truly thought it was cool to blame every damn thing that was wrong with the world squarely at the feet of the United States no matter how implausable. Coincidentally, they were also the proudest of their countries out of all the different people from different countries and it just stuck in their crawl so to speak that they had been surpassed on so many levels throughout modern history by the United States. I got to be friends with them and even went to Washington to look as some of the museums and the east coast beaches and so forth and I understand a little about the mindset and truthfully the best thing to do is just let them yak away and the more absurd they become the bigger ass they make of themselves until maybe finally if becomes apparent to them that they are playing the part of a clown. Despite my better judgment I invite you to list your top pieces of physical evidence that show that the trade centers were brought down by a controlled demolition to be addressed here.

[pimpchichi]

wouldn't be much of a cover up if they left physical evidence laying around now would it...

i seem to recall talk of things being spirited away though

[Michelle]

http://www.plasticsurgeryresearch.louisville.edu/UL-Utrecht.jpg

[pimpchichi]

2nd row 5th from the right?.. that you?

[Michelle]

That was taken in Utrecht. I didn't go on that trip.

[pimpchichi]

so you just posted some pic of some people...

great ???

[Michelle]

so you just posted some pic of some people...

great ???


I was a medstudent back then I know all of them. I made some trips to Seattle and Chicago but not to Utrecht. If I had submitted a paper and it was presented in Utrecht I would have made the trip. Those are mostly the people from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany.

[Michelle]

Actually, I guess I wasn't even a medstudent. I was a graduate student.

[Disorder]

Actually, I guess I wasn't even a medstudent. I was a graduate student.


and that has some relevance how?

[Joeslogic]

Are you being factious? Really did you just read Dan’s post and say to yourself "Just to be cynical I'll act just like the clown he described"

[pimpchichi]

though dans posts didn't actually have any relevance...
apart from showing he can post group pictures of dutch people...
who are according to him anti-american..
which he knows because he spent time with a small group of them..
which he proved by posting some random picture of dutch people..
which proves..
erm he can find and post random pictures of dutch people...

[Michelle]

though dans posts didn't actually have any relevance...
apart from showing he can post group pictures of dutch people...
who are according to him anti-american..
which he knows because he spent time with a small group of them..
which he proved by posting some random picture of dutch people..
which proves..
erm he can find and post random pictures of dutch people...


Truthfully, I don't think they were really anti-American seeing as how a lot of them wound up staying in the US. They were more just conditioned to be anti-American in their countries because that was the "cool thing" to be. So much so that they had no qualms about speaking it out right in front of Americans while visiting the US. Some of them went back but about 1/2 stayed and I think they actually liked living in the US. They weren't really that bad just kind of misled.

[pimpchichi]

anyway...


wouldn't be much of a cover up if they left physical evidence laying around now would it...

i seem to recall talk of things being spirited away though

[phatboy]

anyway...


wouldn't be much of a cover up if they left physical evidence laying around now would it...

i seem to recall talk of things being spirited away though





You mean like all the precious metals that were stored in the safes in the bottom of the World Trade Center? You know, seeing as it was one of the worlds largest depositories of gold....I think if I had $950 Million in gold I would be there to 'spirit' it away too....

[Michelle]

Alright this getting old I propose that we now discuss how the fake moon landing was staged by Nasa, the area 51 cover up, how the US military caused the 2004 Tsunnami in the Indian Ocean, and how KFC is making black men impotent by lacing their chicken with a drug that only works on black people. Without smurf their is really no reason to address the issue of dinosaur like shape shifting alien reptiles that are currently ruling the earth.

[Nursey]

Please take 4 minutes of your time to watch the following videos. Then tell me what caused the structural collapse of building 7.

The first is rarely seen close up footage of WTC 7 before its collapse that was just released on youtube a couple of days ago. Compare the intensity of the fires to those that engulfed the Windsor Building in Madrid, a structure that burned for 28 hours without collapsing.


RARE CLOSE-UP FOOTAGE OF WTC 7 SHOWS LIMITED FIRES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPZmPfsffz0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Erumormillnews%2Ecom%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fforum%2Ecgi%3Fread%3D103691)

Windsor Building in Madrid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Erumormillnews%2Ecom%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fforum%2Ecgi%3Fread%3D103691)

Now compare both collapses. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6erWMPhVF4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Erumormillnews%2Ecom%2Fcgi% 2Dbin%2Fforum%2Ecgi%3Fread%3D103691)

[Joeslogic]

And from a structural engineering stand point in your own words Nursey what does that mean?

[ucicare]

I watched your video. Now please watch mine. Turn your speakers on, and notice this as you watch -

1. BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM and THEN the building falls.

2. The buildings fall from the sides in, not straight down like the WTC 7

3. The building crumple all over, not just a ride to the ground.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNshGhc8cnk

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA


Now consider this -

1. WTC 7 had a significant fire on the seond floor from the top.

2. TONS of water was being pumped to the floor above, as well as other areas. Water is heavy.

3. The building collaped straight down, after the weight of the upper floor impacted the interior. The weight of water was even, since water seeks it's own level. The impact was enough to cause a base failure and the building just fell.

4. Where was the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM?

Do this Nursey - I am serious. Take an undented aluminum can (soda or beer) and carefully place it upright on the ground. Now stand on it with one foot. Much to your surprise the paper thin walls will support your weight without collapsing.

Now while you are standing on it, have Pimp touch the can with his finger. The slightest touch will deform the can, and you will come crashiong down. (On his finger I hope). Buildings are the same. They support tremendous weights, but a comprised area can cause the whole thing to crash.

FYI - I am not wasting any more time with this. Find me a video with the Booms, and I will believe.

[phatboy]

They dont like the can theory baz. They think the towers fell straight down, in their own footprint. Which is how it miraculously killed FDNY and NYPD members that were not in it's immediate vicinity. Those close on one side died. Those close on the opposite side lived. It slid over as it went down.

I did miss the explosions though. That is a very valid point. It was thermal explosives that were designed by the government to have a low blast sound. And watching those videos it made a very interesting thing clear. There were a lot of individual bangs, as the interior support was weakened, then there was another series of explosions to bring it down. Odd. I am sure one of the NYPD helicopters that were in the air would have seen such explosions, or there would have been some footage as it fell.

[ucicare]

They dont like the can theory baz. They think the towers fell straight down, in their own footprint. Which is how it miraculously killed FDNY and NYPD members that were not in it's immediate vicinity. Those close on one side died. Those close on the opposite side lived. It slid over as it went down.

I did miss the explosions though. That is a very valid point. It was thermal explosives that were designed by the government to have a low blast sound. And watching those videos it made a very interesting thing clear. There were a lot of individual bangs, as the interior support was weakened, then there was another series of explosions to bring it down. Odd. I am sure one of the NYPD helicopters that were in the air would have seen such explosions, or there would have been some footage as it fell.


The real evidence speaks. Where are the BOOMS?

[Michelle]

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

WTC 7 Collapse
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Click to enlarge
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-collapse-sm.jpg
VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

[Nursey]

And from a structural engineering stand point in your own words Nursey what does that mean?

All i know for certain is what i can see for myself...that building 7 collapsed from the bottom up in an evenly dispersed, highly systematic (manmade looking) fashion.
The only historical precedent (other than that set by WTC1 and 2) we have of this type of structural failure is that seen during controlled demolitions. Fire has never caused a building to collapse in this fashion prior to or since 911.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/morondezvous/wtc-7_1_.gif

Yet you assure me that the buildings which many believe were brought down by a highly professional controlled demolition...and are the first and only buildings to have ever collapsed controlled demolition style without the cause being controlled demolition...behaved in a perfectly logical fashion?

Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of ANY steel-framed building, allegedly from fire. BUT – there were three such occurrences; not just one. The third building, Seven World Trade Center (7-WTC), was not hit by an aircraft loaded with jet fuel. Its collapse wasn't accompanied by a fireball, representing the alleged tank of diesel fuel burning or exploding - (which it didn't). That’s asking too much from ‘coincidence,’ just by virtue of two separate architectural styles; within an eight-hour period of time. Most spectacularly, no ‘official’ questions were asked.link (http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm)

The official explanations of WTC 7's collapse are problematic for several reasons:

* Fire has never caused any steel-framed high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction. 1 Other steel-framed skyscrapers have experienced far more serious fires than Building 7.
* WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
* WTC 7 fell precipitously, at a rate closely approaching the speed of gravitational free-fall. That necessitated the sudden removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent.
* The collapse of WTC 7 exhibited all of the features of a standard controlled demolition. To suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition could produce an event with all of the features uniquely characteristic of controlled demolition defies logic. link (http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html)

Maybe the answer does indeed lie in Professor Barry Swope's revised coke can buckling thesis, which astonishingly has not yet been accepted for peer review (as of this current posting). Or maybe the answer lies in the professional (unbiased) opinion of Danny Jawenko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI) - an explosives expert who has worked in demolition for 28 years and represents the 'absolute Dutch top'?

Don't they use controlled demolitions to bring down buildings that have otherwise been gutted by fire because they don't just collapse like that as a natural result of heat damage...until that fateful day?

And finally, consider this:

What would it be like if every steel frame high-rise in existence was likely to collapse as a result of a not-too-serious fire? No one would set foot in them! As a matter of fact, no one would build them - they would be too dangerous. If the WTC buildings did collapse from fire, these unprecedented failures would be extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profound forensic analysis (the painstaking reassembly of crashed aircraft comes to mind).

This did not happen. The steel from all three buildings was quickly removed - over the strenuous objections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and families of victims - and has been melted down inoverseas markets. The blueprints for the Towers have also become unavailable.

Two groups who have been extremely vocal in protest of the destruction of evidence and lack of real forensic investigation have been the families of those killed and firefighters. Fire Engineering Magazine - the primary journal for firefighters everywhere - ran a scathing editorial in January 2002 in which they referred to the official investigation blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society ofCivil Engineers as a "half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

This is obviously a big concern for firefighters because they have to go into burning buildings! Prior to 9/11 there was no precedent to prevent or even caution them against entering the WTC Towers to go about their work of rescuing people and putting out the fires.

Surviving audio-tape of firefighter communications from the South Tower show that they had reached the 78th floor sky lobby and found only "two pockets of fire". They called for "two lines" and began to implement their evacuation plan just before the Tower "collapsed".

Now what are firefighters supposed to do? In this new world, fires in high-rise steel structures can apparently trigger a "progressive total collapse" at any moment with no warning or even a clear set of causative conditions. And this can happen not only in stable damaged structures, but in healthy,intact structures as well!

I wonder how much fear this adds to the lives of our firefighters and if high-rise fire rescue efforts have been curtailed in any way since 9/11, perhaps even causing unnecessary loss of life, due to this new uncertainty over entering burning steel structures?
And this:

If the official story is true, then companies that offer complex controlled demolitions using explosives are clearly going to be out of business. Thanks to those wily hijackers we now have amuch cheaper solution. If a structural steel high-rise needs to be removed, all that is necessary is to pick a floor somewhere in the upper portion of the building, saw off a few columns, flood the floor with jet fuel, light a match and stand back.

The building will then (about 1 or 2 hours later) miraculously crush itself, shredding the steel intotidy 12-30 ft sections. The rest of the building will be conveniently converted into a fine dust that willbe spread over a large area so somebody else will have to clean it up! link (http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/contrib/911_physics_v9a.htm)

[Nursey]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/morondezvous/wtc-7_1_.gif
But anyway, it seems futile arguing when we don't even see the same thing when watching the same video. For example, I see a building collapsing from the base up in a smooth, uniform structural failure reminiscent of controlled demolition, whereas Barry sees an upper floor giving out causing a domino effect style, naturally occurring collapse. I must need reprogramming.

[Nursey]

The real evidence speaks. Where are the BOOMS?



Explosion Recorded from WTC7

Watch now on Studyof911.com (http://www.studyof911.com/video/flvplayer/playmovie.php?video=wtc7_explosion_01.flv)

Filmed from just behind and North of WTC7, a large explosion sound can be heard prompting a reaction from the firefighters and camera operator. The time has been confirmed at approximately 10:20am.

[Nursey]

"It's gonna explode" -- Explosions before WTC2's Collapse

Watch now on Studyof911.com (http://www.studyof911.com/video/flvplayer/playmovie.php?video=Its_gonna_explode.flv)

A mass of people start moving away from the WTC complex as explosions are heard and one New Yorker says, "It's gonna explode."

[ucicare]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/morondezvous/wtc-7_1_.gif
But anyway, it seems futile arguing when we don't even see the same thing when watching the same video. For example, I see a building collapsing from the base up in a smooth, uniform structural failure reminiscent of controlled demolition, whereas Barry sees an upper floor giving out causing a domino effect style, naturally occurring collapse. I must need reprogramming.


I hear what you are saying Nursey. But look carefully at the video. See the slight v shape at the top of the building? That was the first collapse, which sent the shockwave to the girders that held the whole thing up. It then began to fall by collapsing on itself.

It really bothers me is that the "evidence" video is only 9 seconds long.
9 seconds long Nursey. That means it has been clipped.
So what did they clip out of the video? If there was ANYTHING in the rest of the clip that would support an implosion, surely they would have included it. What was clipped was the failure of the second floor that happened just seconds before the building collapsed. Think about it. Why edit out only 9 seconds? Why start a video clip with the building already falling?

You are a smart person Nursey. Don't be fooled.

[Joeslogic]

It's a never ending relentless flinging of bullshit by these people Barry. The same people that hate America are the same people who constantly require lowering of standards in military enlistment. There are a lot of heroes and a lot of zeros in the military. Just wait till the dorks and simpletons come home and are manipulated by people into seeing things that never existed and then start their blogs about the atrocities committed by the American government. Catapulted instantly into rock star status zero to hero of the left for any betrayal, the payoff is huge and there are many with no real honor about them. Look at that Shit Bag John Murtha, or Kerry for example. Or that pervert in Virginia or West Virginia which ever it was.

[phatboy]

Don't they use controlled demolitions to bring down buildings that have otherwise been gutted by fire because they don't just collapse like that as a natural result of heat damage...until that fateful day?


They bring them down because they dont know when they will collapse. The structural integrity has been compromised and they bring it down for safety, the safety of firefighters and those in areas around the building. It's not a question of if, but when.

[Nursey]

See the slight v shape at the top of the building? That was the first collapse, which sent the shockwave to the girders that held the whole thing up. It then began to fall by collapsing on itself.

The 'v'? You mean the dip which appeared in the roof a split second before the whole building sunk down smoothly into the ground (as it would during a controlled demolition)? The dip in the roof which is in fact a typical characteristic of a controlled implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM)?
Are you really suggesting the entire (reinforced) building was completely LEVELLED (into fine powder) at the rate of freefall (in a vacuum).....by the "shockwave to the girders" from a floor collapse? Jeez! The contortions of logic you will go to to avoid facing up to the obvious!

It really bothers me is that the "evidence" video is only 9 seconds long.
9 seconds long Nursey. That means it has been clipped.
So what did they clip out of the video? If there was ANYTHING in the rest of the clip that would support an implosion, surely they would have included it. What was clipped was the failure of the second floor that happened just seconds before the building collapsed. Think about it. Why edit out only 9 seconds? Why start a video clip with the building already falling?

It's a short clip because it's just a gif animation. Here's video which shows the building prior to collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s).

Both Towers exhibited almost perfect radial symmetry in the "collapse" wave as it moved rapidly down each building. In natural materials failures (broken windows, cave-ins, etc) even small variations in material strength and stresses are amplified into highly asymmetric breakage patterns.

That's something we are intuitively aware of after a lifetimes' observations of the world around us. That's why the building collapses appear unnatural.

WTC7 came down in 6.5 seconds, imploding perfectly within its footprint, simultaneously collapsing straight downward from all points and looking just like a perfect controlled demolition.

The straight-down, vertical collapse of Building 7 could not have happened and with such perfect symmetry unless all 58 perimeter columns and all 25 core columns somehow were removed exactly simultaneously.

So what's the next new fangled explanation going to be? Girder shock, water flooding...anything but the one that it most closely resembles!

You are a smart person Nursey. Don't be fooled.

By what? My own eyes?

[Nursey]

Just wait till the dorks and simpletons come home and are manipulated by people into seeing things that never existed and then start their blogs about the atrocities committed by the American government.

I suppose all those who came back to tell of the atrocities they saw or committed in Vietnam were also just 'dorks' being manipulated into 'seeing things which never existed'? Including those suffering flashbacks? What about the ones who we know definately DID commit atrocities in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948755,00.html)? Are they being manipulated into seeing things which didn't exist too? And Jessica Lynch? Was she being manipulated into (http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000611.php).......nevermind.

[Joeslogic]

See what I mean you'r seeing the molding of falseality for the next 100 years.

In your lifetime the flow of shit will never cease.

[Nursey]

They bring them down because they dont know when they will collapse.

Or how. Because they don't just collapse neatly in a uniform, predictable fashion. The point i was making is that there are buildings which have been burned far longer more completely than WTC7 - but which still required manmade demolition to destroy the remaining structure.

The structural integrity has been compromised and they bring it down for safety, the safety of firefighters and those in areas around the building. It's not a question of if, but when.


But when it does, does it usually happen in an asymmetrical, barely predictable manner depending on areas which sustained worst damage etc., or does someone fart and the whole thing just suddenly collapses with all core and perimeter columns suddenly failing simultaneously?

[Joeslogic]

You did not pay attention did you Nur?

[Nursey]

See what I mean you'r seeing the molding of falseality for the next 100 years.

In your lifetime the flow of shit will never cease.


Yep. It's called the Project for a New American Century (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Centu ry).

[Joeslogic]

How many people died when "WTC7" went down?

[Nursey]

::)

[Joeslogic]

Indeed

[ucicare]

It's a short clip because it's just a gif animation. Here's video which shows the building prior to collapse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s).


That clip you just posted shows exactly what I am saysing. Watch ot csarefully. The first movement is the left top floor. It collapses. The building collapse follows that.

[Michelle]

Indeed


Man. I can't hang with these 9-11 conspiratory people. I had some friend come back I hadn't seen in 3-4 yrs and he started rambling on about the "9-11 conspiracy" for about 30-40 mins at a bar. He had been living in Seattle. The whole time he's rattling on about it I am thinking man I got better shit to do than hang out with someone this ignorant and maybe if I just keep my mouth shut he will move on to something else. Hope he doesn't call me up again.

[phatboy]

I like the way they take one point, and go, "But look" and then they want you to be astonished by the same bullshit you have seen a hundred times before. I'm sure at Georgia Tech they have a class designed just to teach engineers about the stresses a 90 Ton 500 MPH plane causes on the integrity of it's buildings and how they should collapse. I bet they even build 110 story replicas just for testing purposes.

What do controlled demolitions do? They dont 'blow up' the building, they weaken it so that it's own weight will cause it to collapse straight down, in a 'controlled' manner. All the videos barry posted there wasnt one boom. there were closer to 40 booms as seperate charges went off. So either the 'inside crew' had the complet building wired to go off synchornously, or maybe the boom was the last girder popping. The same way a tree will hold on, and hold on, and hold on, till POP it goes. Plus if there was an explosion of that magnitude, wouldnt there be some smoke, or fire, from the explosion?

And what was the 'fine powder' remark? You know what concrete is made of right?

[improtected]

here i've been reading quietly and forming my own thoughts and not getting involved. not because it's safe but b/c i've been too fucking busy in my own life (i know, it's exactly what they want).

but now i've gone and looked up some of the links and have done my own research, and although i admit i've been under a rock for, o say, 29 years.. what's up with all of the melted cars? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=melted+cars+WTC

interested to see both, well actually all ten sides and opinions.

i'm going to try to enjoy my vacation and go float my worries away
xoxo

[phatboy]

This car is not melted.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h55/phatboy30906/911car.jpg

[ucicare]

This car is not melted.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h55/phatboy30906/911car.jpg


www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5a2ENaH8Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5a2ENaH8Y)

I only watched the first video. The car said "there was hardly any fire on wtc7."
He was wrong. The videos are everywhere showing the top floors burning like crazy.

He was probably right about the Tour Buses. They are made of Aluminum, not steel. Aluminum melts at around 660C or so, which is well with the abilities of a simple cigarette lighter. Don't believe it? Get that aluminum can and your lighter and give it a try.

This is my favorite piece of insanity. He claims that it was a nuclear bomb, not two airplanes. It REALLY boosts the credibility of Rense.com
http://www.rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

[ucicare]

correction - cars can't talk.*

*Unless you want them to to "prove" a 9/11 conspiracy.

[ucicare]

I watched the clip again - hilarious. The guy she interviews is Don Somebody, and he is a "volunteer" from California "who just happened to be in the area."

Translation - "Don hitchhiked to NY recently to avoid being arrested for parole violations. He was sleeping off a crack binge under a bridge when he heard this loud noise....."

Idiots should not be quoted as "proof" of anything.

[Nursey]

but now i've gone and looked up some of the links and have done my own research, and although i admit i've been under a rock for, o say, 29 years.. what's up with all of the melted cars? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=melted+cars+WTC


This is also very interesting: WTC Meteorite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zbOGniIcTQ)

[Nursey]

That clip you just posted shows exactly what I am saysing. Watch ot csarefully. The first movement is the left top floor. It collapses. The building collapse follows that.

Yes, 9 seconds after the first huge explosion was heard, the smaller part on the left collapses quickly followed by the rest of the penthouse a second or two later when the entire building simultaneously collapses.

Here's a gif i did of the bit you mean using screenshots, the timing is only roughly accurate though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v185/dstrictnursey/roof.gif

It's what caused the implosion that caused the roof dip and full structural failure of all load bearing columns simultaneously which is the problem. You can see for yourself that the entire building sinks down into it's basement. You aren't saying the initial portion collapsing ahead of the rest of the roof caused that, surely?

[Joeslogic]

That clip you just posted shows exactly what I am saysing. Watch ot csarefully. The first movement is the left top floor. It collapses. The building collapse follows that.

Yes, 9 seconds after the first huge explosion was heard, the smaller part on the left collapses quickly followed by the rest of the penthouse a second or two later when the entire building simultaneously collapses.

Here's a gif i did of the bit you mean using screenshots, the timing is only roughly accurate though.



It's what caused the implosion that caused the roof dip and full structural failure of all load bearing columns simultaneously which is the problem. You can see for yourself that the entire building sinks down into it's basement. You aren't saying the initial portion collapsing ahead of the rest of the roof caused that, surely?

Interesting :o Oh BTW did you get any stats on how many people died in that?

[Nursey]

Also of interest:


It was reported by the BBC to have fallen 15 minutes before it had (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt6Rg79k1o8).

NBC News Dan Abrams Reporting WTC7 may collapse at 4:54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4RSMHHgHXk) (it actually collapsed at 5.20)

Larry Silverstein, lease holder of building 7 said in a documentary aired in September 2002 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100) "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Taking into consideration that Larry Silverstein received over 7 Billion dollars from insurance companies for the losses of the entire WTC Complex, which he presently controls, it is only reasonable that your 911 Commission should investigate and report to the American people the truth on those things that are not making sense concerning the WTC terrorist attacks. link (http://www.aztlan.net/911_commission.htm)

Large collection of news clips (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&mode=related&search=) (with annoying music added) where reporters and eyewitnesses tell of many explosions after the planes hit as well as reports of bombs in the basement and possible van bombs.

FBI reported CAR BOMB in the BASEMENT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGE6GNKNpPA)

News report: Truckload of explosives found near the George Washington bridge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytT7Z0yRUj4&mode=related&search=)

Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw)

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html)

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery.

"They were like happy, you know ... They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness.

They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives.

Suspicious Evacuations and PowerDowns prior to 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb1R42XzMU)


The above video contains a radio interview with a man who worked in WTC south tower from 1998 and who tells of an "unprecedented" 36 hour power-down (one week before 9-11) in the top 50% of floors of which there was only 3 weeks notice given to make all the preparations needed (people were 'scrambling to secure their systems before the power down'). His colleague who had worked there for even longer hadn't experienced anything like it apart from the bomb incident in the early 90's..
He was off on 9-11 and his apartment overlooked the towers. As soon as he saw the first tower go down he was highly suspicious as it 'just didnt look correct' it 'looked like controlled demolition had brought down the tower... it did not look like a building collapsing either from an airplane hitting it or from a fire inside', it 'seemed to crumble...and into dust, it just didn't ring true'.

Feeling retrospectively suspicious about the maintenaince workers coming into the building he should inform the authorities. He got in touch with the port authority and 911 commission to register the information...to have it 'acknowledged if only to be thrown away', but after repeatedly calling and writing letters, received no acknowledgement.

FBI whistleblowers are obstructed, silenced (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGAiyJ_l2a8&mode=related&search=)

The strange circumstances surrounding the unusual collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 have become a focal point for the researchers, writers and activists who have committed themselves to reopening the books on 9/11. Many of these people believe that the anomalous collapse of Building 7 is a 9/11 smoking gun, the Achilles' heel in the official version of what occurred on that day. The obvious controlled demolition of the building, proven so conclusively in several videos we have of its collapse, has been supported by other key pieces of evidence as well. These points taken together have proven to the satisfaction of most 9/11 researchers that WTC 7 was brought down not by fires weakening its superstructure, as claimed by the authorities, but was instead destroyed by an explosive system that could only have been installed in the building prior to 9/11.

After allegedly being struck by the North Tower's plummeting debris, fires were said to have been ignited in WTC 7 that grew throughout the day and finally compromised the building's steel structure, causing it to suddenly drop like a stone late in the afternoon. But gaping holes in this scenario have done nothing but arouse suspicion and disbelief in those who've carefully examined the evidence. Rather than presenting a viable scenario for Building 7's destruction, the inexplicable features of its collapse have instead helped to fuel broader speculation that 9/11 was essentially an inside job, an attempt by traitors within our own ranks to generate support for imperialist agendas that could otherwise never withstand the light of day.link (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm)

[Nursey]

Oh BTW did you get any stats on how many people died in that?


One.

Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed. Source. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497)

[quote]Reports that a body was found in the remains of Building 7 are intriguing for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that other reports claim that there were no casualties in WTC 7 whatsoever. Nonetheless, the US House of Representatives website posts a tribute to Secret Service Special Officer Craig Miller whose body was found in the rubble of Building 7 after he'd apparently perished during the "rescue effort" that day. But what really happened to Officer Miller — Secret Service Special Officer Miller? Not a firefighter. Not a rescue worker or cop — a secret service special agent.

Who on earth were you rescuing, Officer Miller? WTC 7 had been evacuated.


WTC 7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, had been owned by Manhattan real estate mogul Larry Silverstein since the '80s and was the HQ for his development company, Westfield America, for years. Building 7 was also the NYC home of the Secret Service, SEC, DoD, IRS, CIA and a handful of private financial institutions. But WTC 7 also housed Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), long considered by theorists as a possible operations center for the attacks.


Many researchers believe that shadowy elements within the agencies housed in WTC 7 are prime suspects in this sprawling conspiracy. To these theorists, Building 7 is a kind of nexus for the planning and execution of what may well have been the most audacious "black-op" or, more accurately, "false flag" operation in the history of covert actions. If they are correct, Building 7 was literally a nest of suspicious activity and its remaining intact may well have been a catastrophe for those who were counting on its destruction.

As 9/11 researchers are well aware, Larry Silverstein took over control of the entire World Trade Center just a few weeks before the attacks of 9/11, the first time the WTC had changed hands in thirty years and the first time it had come under private control. link (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm)

[Nursey]

Oh BTW did you get any stats on how many people died in that?


One.

But even if it was zero as most reports say, what difference does it make?

[Disorder]

I like it when after Nursey proves somebody wrong, they go all quiet or change the subject... just like I proved that 'isn't' is actually a contemporary and broadly used term and indeed never got a rebuttal in here http://www.fuglyforums.com/index.php?topic=9488.msg148280#msg148280 ..

Interesting Oh BTW did you get any stats on how many people died in that?


...Its nice when a noticable pattern emerges..

Especially one which gives you the privilege of being able to smirk ;)

[ucicare]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v185/dstrictnursey/roof.gif

It's what caused the implosion that caused the roof dip and full structural failure of all load bearing columns simultaneously which is the problem. You can see for yourself that the entire building sinks down into it's basement. You aren't saying the initial portion collapsing ahead of the rest of the roof caused that, surely?



Nursey, we seem to actually be having a conversation here instead of just arguing. I don't know how to react to that....

Anyway, let me say this - I am basing some of what I am saying on my own understanding of structures and metals. Part of the blessing/curse of AD/HD is that I have done a little of everything in my life. One of those things involved Metallurgy. For many years I worked with all kinds of metals in structural applications, and in tool and die making.I am (was) a certified Heat treating specialist. I am also currently A State Licensed Builder/Remodeler. (really - http://www.hblb.state.al.us/Lic_Search/search_detail.asp?FILE_NO=15984

In other words, I have a decent understanding of metals, and a decent understanding of building and structural design. I told you all of that to tell you this -

Lets say the building was not on fire. No damage anywhere. Get a big helicopter, and lift a 50 ton 100 x 200 feet long block of concrete 25 feet in the air and drop it onto the top of the building. It will probably not slow down until it hits the basement. The building will probably collapse into itself just like WT& did. It's not rocket science, it's simple physics.

Simple experiment - Take an undented aluminum can - and place a concrete block on top. It will hold it easily. (As a matter of fact, it will hold about 12 concrete blocks easily.) Now take just one block, and drop it from 12 inches above the can. It will flatten it like a pancake.

The point is you are failing to understand the significance of impact, and the effects of any amout of heat on steel. Consider that the entire penthouse fell first. It is clearly visible. Please understand that it probably went all the way to the basement before it stopped. This action yanked countless girders loose, and is the equivalent of gutting a structure. The I beam construction of this building was already compromised by two things - heat and quenching. The effects of heat are well understood. When metal gets hot, it expands and becomes more malleable. Although it might not fail, it definetely changes. Then come the shock of cold water from the fire trucks - hours after the blaze started, on the hot steel. This is called "quenching" in heat treating terms. Quenching rapidly effects the carbon in ferrous metals, and often makes it brittle. For this reason metal that is hardened by heating and quenching must be soften slightly (annealed or tempered) before it is useful. Otherwise, it make shatter under stress.

This is what I thing happened. Hammer from the top (penthouse), shatter at the bottom, and fall like a house of cards.

I don't find it hard to beleive at all. What I find hard to believe is that our government would blow up WTC7 with the whole world watching. Even if they did blow up the first two, (not) what could be gained by collapsing WTC7 right in front of everybody's eyes? It doesn't make sense.

[pimpchichi]

also aluminium cans don't have support columns.. they are hollow.. the aluminium can argument is a flawed analogy you keep throwing in.. why not compare the buildings to eggs?.. you can stand on them end to end.. (carefully)

[Disorder]

people keep using the can thing, because its cylindrical. Its the stuff they teach you in school, is that these forms hold a good proportion of weight, but never should be used here because I think the columns in the towers were square and arranged in 3's in a L shape like this

[+][+]
[+]


but the thing is, people keep arguing about if the towers were brought down, or the top portion collapsed into the rest, or not, it could even be both.

as in: the tower starts to collapse, or maybe looks like its not gonna hold THEN then the building is pulled to stop it toppling and reduce risks of to much damage

OR

the planes not obviously doing enough damage to bring down the towers THEN the area where the plane hit, and everything below it was pulled, to make it 'look' like the top had collapsed down on the rest.

[Joeslogic]

people keep using the can thing, because its cylindrical. Its the stuff they teach you in school, is that these forms hold a good proportion of weight, but never should be used here because I think the columns in the towers were square and arranged in 3's in a L shape like this







but the thing is, people keep arguing about if the towers were brought down, or the top portion collapsed into the rest, or not, it could even be both.

as in: the tower starts to collapse, or maybe looks like its not gonna hold THEN then the building is pulled to stop it toppling and reduce risks of to much damage

OR

the planes not obviously doing enough damage to bring down the towers THEN the area where the plane hit, and everything below it was pulled, to make it 'look' like the top had collapsed down on the rest.

Dang! ..... did ti kill anyone? You know tower 7 that is?

[pimpchichi]

Dang! ..... did ti kill anyone? You know tower 7 that is?


that question was already answered..

[Joeslogic]

My apologies ... and what might the answer be?

[pimpchichi]

Oh BTW did you get any stats on how many people died in that?


One.

But even if it was zero as most reports say, what difference does it make?

[Joeslogic]

What was his name?

I do not rely on reports to tell me if it make a difference or not I formulate an opinion based on observing the facts.

I like facts.

[ucicare]

Here are few facts for you Joe. Enjoy.

1. Earth is the only planet in our solar system not named after a pagan God.

2. Venus is the only planet that rotates counterclockwise. (More proof of 2012)

3. Urban birds have developed a rap style of chirping, different from their rural counterparts.

4. Two actors who portraited the "Marlboro Man" died of lung cancer.

5. 3 people are born every second. 1.5 people die every second. You do the math.

6. Dry fish food can make goldfish constipated.

7. Enough beer is drunk every Saturday (in America) to fill the Orange Bowl.

8. It is estimated at that at any given time 0.7 % of the Earths population is drunk. (this excludes Saturday night, where the percentage obviously soars.)

9. Banging your head on the floor uses 150 calories an hour.

10. A cat's urine glows under a black light.

[Joeslogic]

But are you absolutely certain?

[Joeslogic]

But even if it was zero as most reports say, what difference does it make?

Do you think it makes a difference?

[pimpchichi]

it depends whether you think every life matters

anyway.. got an hour to spare? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939

[Joeslogic]

Life is relative. Some souls are rotten to the core and need to be eliminated it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel. All life is equally important then yes but you have to consider sometimes the value in the absence of life.

An hour no but curiosity forced me to click the link. thanks for wasting 30 seconds of my time.

[ucicare]

I wasted four minutes.

Taking snippets of what people say under duress and building a case is stupid. Why haven't these hundreds of people who were actually there come forward screaming?

My God, one cop beats a kid and three video cameras catch it. The whole country screams until the cops is crucified in public. Then the same public stands by and remains collectively silent in the face of the alleged largest abuse of power the country has ever known?

BULL PATTIES.

[pimpchichi]

30 seconds? 4 minutes?.. so you couldn't watch further and see the pertinent information laid out... (pertaining to the questions and facts proffered in this thread)

why am i not surprised?

barry the public scream at what they're told to scream at

[ucicare]

This is fairly disturbing to listen to. It's a guy on a cell phone with an operator for about four minutes. At the end WTC2 crashes down and kills him. You can hear everything on the phone, and what you don't hear are any explosions that would indicate an intentional collapse.

Pretty unbiased stuff - therefore it is pretty good evidence.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40e6cb7913

[Joeslogic]

A cruel and tasteless attempt by public enemy number one Carl Rove who made that audio tape in a secret studio in his lair embedded deep below the white house. For the purpose of discrediting the true audio and video being faithfully dispersed to the masses by our friend George Soros.

:D

[Nursey]

You can hear everything on the phone, and what you don't hear are any explosions that would indicate an intentional collapse.

Well one thing that's innacurate about that video is that it shows the North tower (or WTC1 - with the antenna) collapsing in perfect sync with the rumbling heard in the phonecall...except the callers were in the South tower.

And one short telephone call from a quarter of a mile above ground (where no sirens can be heard) can't cancel out the large number of witness reports of explosions (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html) and ground shaking prior to collapse (http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/shaking.html).

Also, if it was a controlled, do you think we'd be looking at a standard demolition here? Considering it would be a covert operation designed to make it appear as though explosives were not used, it would have to be an extremely skilled operation, most likely using thermite/thermate or a similar substance (which produces a chemical reaction - not an explosion), as well as a powerful device (conventional or unconventional?) to take out the central core column at base level. That's just my guess, and as i'm no expert in nanoenergetics, couldn't tell you about the new race of superthermites (http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech) that have been developed.

In other words, I have a decent understanding of metals, and a decent understanding of building and structural design. I told you all of that to tell you this -

Lets say the building was not on fire. No damage anywhere. Get a big helicopter, and lift a 50 ton 100 x 200 feet long block of concrete 25 feet in the air and drop it onto the top of the building. It will probably not slow down until it hits the basement. The building will probably collapse into itself just like WT& did. It's not rocket science, it's simple physics.

This is what I thing happened. Hammer from the top (penthouse), shatter at the bottom, and fall like a house of cards.

Yeah. That must be it. Thanks for explaining it all so clearly. But perhaps you could also explain how dropping a large block of solid concrete from a height of 25 feet above the building is equatable to the effects of a hollow structure collapsing from the gravitational pull of its' stationary mass? How does the initial portion of the penthouse and its' contents collapsing from its own weight gather the momentum a solid block of concrete would gather if it was dropped from one story above the building? And even if there was heavy machinery housed in that part, what kind of substance is dense enough to smash through floor after floor of concrete and steel all the way to the basement without the floors eventually breaking it's fall? I doubt the penthouse (or its contents) fell all the way through the next couple of floors nevermind all 48 of them...

The point is you are failing to understand the significance of impact, and the effects of any amout of heat on steel. Consider that the entire penthouse fell first. It is clearly visible. Please understand that it probably went all the way to the basement before it stopped. This action yanked countless girders loose, and is the equivalent of gutting a structure.

The entire penthouse which starts to fall just as all sides of the building simultaneously fail, collapsing straight down in a smooth, uniform, vertical fashion at the rate of freefall, as is clearly visible?

I don't find it hard to beleive at all. What I find hard to believe is that our government would blow up WTC7 with the whole world watching.

And that is why you shy away from the most obvious and plausible explanation for the building's collapse in favour of silly, new-fangled scenarios you've invented that don't reflect the laws of nature (but support your faith drawn conclusion) to explain how the highly manmade-looking collapses are actually a natural phenomenon. What you are doing is shaping the argument to fit the conclusion. The end justifying the means, which isn't a rational way to approach the matter.

3) Perhaps related to the above two points: they only care about conclusions, and not the quality of particular arguments for getting there. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that they'd endorse the argument: "The moon is made of green cheese, therefore ." But rational argument is one arena in which the ends do not justify the means.

J. Edgar Hoover once said: “[i]The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous- he simply cannot believe it exists”… & he would know… as I believe that Hoover is someone who spoke from experience, not conjecture.

[ucicare]

I give up.....with this last thought.

I live here, you don't.

Amazing that we are both happy about that statement.

[Disorder]

What if the buildings were rigged and blown, but only in the key places around the location of the jet impact, arranged as such for the weight to take it down by itself. As in half and half.
Because its clearly a botched job with the jets, so its like them saying 'use plan B', and plan C was the carbombs and other crap that people kept seeing, ie the 'backup'

Still tho, it was brought down for a reason, it was most likely false flag terrorism on a grand scale and the american gov got what they wanted, its still obvious even today.

There is no enemy that can, or would, do something like this. You wouldn't randomly attack the biggest nation in the world fearing these actions against you? No, not really, the equivilent of dangling your wedding tackle in a lions mouth maybe, stupid to say the least.

The whole argument arises because people dont want to admit that the governement they have faith in and love so much, is run by torture-loving, economy destroying, corrupt megalomaniacs who really dont give a shit about them. It amounts to a denial that's so deeply entrenched in them through many decades of brainwashing 'good' and 'noble' endeavours of the american Peace Brigade, the World Police that want to save everyone, who could think that these great saviours of man are nothing more than a fiendish bully out to screw over whoever crosses their path.

[Nursey]

I give up.....with this last thought.

I live here, you don't.

Amazing that we are both happy about that statement.




So after all that, the truth is...you don't really want to know what happened at all and are only interested in finding ways to validate your faith drawn conclusion and make it appear rational, even if it means conjuring up logically warped scenarios to do so. I get it...U care...about all those people that were killed...but not if it starts to encroach in your comfort zone. Here's what the official verdict is on the strange collapse of WTC7...

According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? link (http://www.wtc7.net/)

9-11 commission report:
(avoids any mention of WTC7 as if it never existed.)

FEMA on WTC7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center):
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

NIST on WTC7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center):
NIST "anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007". NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure". In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7"

Not very satisfactory, is it? To anyone that cares about truth, anyway.

Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report (http://stj911.org/press_releases/NIST.html)

Gaps and inconsistencies reveal fundamental flaws in NIST's building collapse analyses

BERKELEY, CA (PRWEB) April 14, 2007 -- A group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members challenging the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01 has filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws inferences that are inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests, and exhibits a significant bias toward a preordained conclusion while ignoring available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have collapsed due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should have been studied by NIST, is explosive demolition. Ctd. (http://stj911.org/press_releases/NIST.html)

Architect Richard gage (http://911blogger.com/node/8079)

Richard Gage, AIA, has been an architect for 20 years and has designed numerous fire-protected steel-framed buildings. He is employed with a San Francisco Bay Area architecture firm currently performing Construction Administration for a new local $120M High School campus. He became interested in the 9/11 WTC high-rise "Collapses" after hearing the startling conclusions of a reluctant 9/11 researcher, David Ray Griffin, on KPFA radio in May of 2006 which changed his life radically and launched his own unyielding quest for 9/11 Truth, and inspired him to found the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org).link (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185225)

PHD Professor of physics Cali tech and Univ. of Iowa (http://innworldreport.net/video_launcher.php?2007-04-23i)

[Nursey]

Because its clearly a botched job with the jets, so its like them saying 'use plan B', and plan C was the carbombs and other crap that people kept seeing, ie the 'backup'


No, i disagree. I think anyone that knew about the towers design (they were overdesigned to withstand the impact of numerous jets) knew perfectly well the jets alone wouldn't bring them down. I think it went according to plan, (with perhaps a slight glitch with WTC7 according to this theory (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm)).

This puts another slant on what i see as a complex, multi-faceted 'supercrime'.

What happened at the Top of the Towers that morning in many senses served the same purpose as a magician’s wand- the events at the top were, in part, a sick sort of diversion, to draw attention away from the events going on at and below ground level.

As we all continue to learn more about this topic, we start to comprehend the grandiosity of the thefts and fraudulent transactions that took place under the umbrella of 9-11- specifically hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gold bricks which were surreptitiously liberated from their safety deposit vaults under the World Trade Center. Couple that with the realization of the verifiably true statement made by Donald Rumsfeld on September 10th 2001- wherein he announced that $2.3 trillion dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds had been misappropriated by Pentagon accountants and “lost”.

My point is that when we’re talking about Trillions of Dollars missing, we’re talking about the largest crime ever committed- right in front of all of our lives and using 9-11 as the getaway vehicle- and what was stolen, was our collective Future, it’s about time we realized it.

Not only did Rumsfeld’s September 10th ,2001 announcement not draw much attention then, but even today it’s widely unknown… and it’s worth mentioning here that DynCorp, which is partially responsible for the bogus Pentagon accounting, is still receiving tens of billions annually in Pentagon contracts… in other words, it’s my contention that what America doesn’t know is exactly what’s killing America, and Americans. 9/11 Whistleblower Richard Andrew Grove on the Meria Heller Show May 28th, 2006 - Transcript (http://xiandos.info/9/11_Whistleblower_Richard_Andrew_Grove_on_the_Meria _Heller_Show_May_28th,_2006_-_Transcript)

[Nursey]

What was his name?

Craig Millar. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497)

I do not rely on reports to tell me if it make a difference or not I formulate an opinion based on observing the facts.

I like facts.



Here are a few facts for you Joe. Enjoy!




tower seven fell in 6.5 seconds.
there were squibs.
there was molten metal.
evidence was illegally destroyed.
the blastproof fifteen million dollar office of emergency management was in tower seven.
the media ignored tower seven.
the 911 commission ignored tower seven.
FEMA could not explain the demise of tower seven.
NIST cannot explain tower seven.
planned implosion explains tower seven simply and perfectly.

[MAJ Havoc]

meh.

[Nursey]

meh.


Meh is a sheep's call for peace and order in a world of filth and disease. "Meh" stands for all the wrongs that need to be righted, the injustices that have gone unpunished and all the homeless and the hungry, the deranged and the insane. All the pain and all the suffering is drawn to the world's attention by the mighty call of the sheep, "meh."

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Meh

[phatboy]

What is that saying?

"It's like winning the Special Olympics, yea you won, but youre still a retard"

That is how this 'thread has gone' nothing but babble.

The man gives you a 911 tape of someone actually in the building, and you hear no explosions, but no, that is not good enough. So just be glad you live in the UK, and the only thing you have to worry about is if we decide the brits are terrorist too.... :-*

[ucicare]

FEMA could not explain the demise of tower seven.

FEMA had no answer. Well, that proves it to me.

[Nursey]

The man gives you a 911 tape of someone actually in the building, and you hear no explosions, but no, that is not good enough.

So what exactly are you saying? Because no explosions (though a thunderous eruption) can be heard in a phonecall from the 105th floor of WTC2, WTC7 was not a controlled demolition? Gee, thanks phatboy. Now we can simply sweep the elephant in the living room under the rug!



Except, i did already mention some form of thermite (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html) appears to have been used (coupled with cutting charges (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html) going off simultaneously further down the building where the 'squibs' were observed), and that would account for the thunderous roar as the collapse began (as well as the pulverising effect the collapse had on the WTC concrete). The phonecall doesn't negate the use of controlled demolition or all the reports of explosions (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html) from eye witnesses at the base of the towers.

[ucicare]

I talk to delusional and mentally ill people all day.

Someone please explain to me why I come home and do it.

[Nursey]

Because no explosions (though a thunderous eruption) can be heard...


The seismic record from Columbia University’s observatory in Palisades, NY (21 miles away) provides indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down those towers. At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph. At the precise moment the North Tower began collapsing, a 2.3 earthquake registered; however, as the buildings started to crumble these waves disappeared. The two ‘spikes’on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves. If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses. Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, “Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.” In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes.link (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html)

[phatboy]

Oh that makes sense. 110 stories of concrete and still 'had a very small seismic vibration' but a train goes by and has a larger one. What was I thinking. You are right nursey, you win the internet (thanks whipone) and we know you think Arab cock taste fantastic.........

[Nursey]

Oh that makes sense.
Duh...what can i say? You're a moron. :)

[phatboy]

:-*

[Disorder]

I talk to delusional and mentally ill people all day.

Someone please explain to me why I come home and do it.


Disagree. Stand Corrected. Fine. But as soon as any of you give up and accuse someone of being 'mental' in a last ditch attempt at saving your pride then it becomes obvious you're a complete fool. What good does that do? If you were actually physically blind, you wouldnt give up your 'seeing eye dog', so stop trying to hinder our progress.

Just take a look at what America is doing right now with Iran and the fact that its been doing it again and again and again for as long as history records. After all these times, you still have no clue whatsoever.

Compare the 'smoking gun' pearl harbour, to the twin towers, to the captured sailors farce (close call) that we've had recently, NOW what happens after these events? we go to war !

Do you not see a pattern.. they put the sailors in Iranian water to be captured, to evoke a response from a Iran, because its the same every time. they want a war with Iran, and they will use every dirty trick to get it, including misleading you into thinking Iran is 'bad', which didn't work.. coming up next, is probably another cataclysmic 9/11 style event.. why?.. because it sure as hell WORKS doesnt it!?

It doesnt take a scientist to figure out that America, the strongest nation, is out to take it all. But worse its classic frame ups you should recognise in movies you've seen hundreds of times, something the mafia might do perhaps? Have you ever seen The Godfather?

Time to put aside our petty squables and concentrate on who the real enemy is. I'll give you a guess, its nowhere near the middle east.


No, i disagree. I think anyone that knew about the towers design (they were overdesigned to withstand the impact of numerous jets) knew perfectly well the jets alone wouldn't bring them down. I think it went according to plan, (with perhaps a slight glitch with WTC7 according to this theory).

This puts another slant on what i see as a complex, multi-faceted 'supercrime'.


Ok well my initial thought(years ago), a fairly logical explanation, was that WTC7 was a staging area for the 2 main tower collapses, it was apparently a NORAD bunker, so that would mean military plans & documents, it might possibly have contained the 'rigging' ie any explosive equipment or tools needed. Its a great place to keep it, not so far away, means easy access and less exposure.
It is also the most likely reason it was left until last, if you take a gun from a hiding place and kill someone, you make sure its well hidden again, if you ditch it you risk it being found, with your prints on. Both of these methods are flawed so you would go to the extreme; total destruction.

I had read somewhere that each of the twin towers, were evacuated seperately using fire drills before 9/11, you know a lot more than me, perhaps you found them or am I talking bollocks.

In any case, we're looking at the event and its aftermath a lot, I think we should be checking backwards, before the event, to see if there is any way the buildings could be rigged without anyone seeing.

[Dwaine Scum]

this thread gave me diarrhea

[ucicare]

this thread gave me diarrhea


... you liked it.

Pay me.

[Nursey]

I talk to delusional and mentally ill people all day.

Someone please explain to me why I come home and do it.


Disagree. Stand Corrected. Fine. But as soon as any of you give up and accuse someone of being 'mental' in a last ditch attempt at saving your pride then it becomes obvious you're a complete fool.

Barry has been repeatedly using that tactic to try to appear superior in arguments (whenever he has no decent response) since his first week of posting. ;)


It doesnt take a scientist to figure out that America, the strongest nation, is out to take it all. But worse its classic frame ups you should recognise in movies you've seen hundreds of times, something the mafia might do perhaps? Have you ever seen The Godfather?

Hey...but that's, you know, the bad guys...who deal in death and corruption (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/bush_crime_family.htm)...this is the good guys we're talking about...the ones that smile and hold babies.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/6/Y/bush_baby_helpme.jpg

Time to put aside our petty squables and concentrate on who the real enemy is. I'll give you a guess, its nowhere near the middle east.

Jeez, can't Yeah but it's much easier to see other people's faults than it is to examine our own, which is what makes the whole divide and conquer thing so effective.



Ok well my initial thought(years ago), a fairly logical explanation, was that WTC7 was a staging area for the 2 main tower collapses, it was apparently a NORAD bunker, so that would mean military plans & documents, it might possibly have contained the 'rigging' ie any explosive equipment or tools needed.

Yeah, i agree. But according to one thoery, there might have been a glitch which caused a delay in it's destruction, was all i meant.

I had read somewhere that each of the twin towers, were evacuated seperately using fire drills before 9/11, you know a lot more than me, perhaps you found them or am I talking bollocks.

In any case, we're looking at the event and its aftermath a lot, I think we should be checking backwards, before the event, to see if there is any way the buildings could be rigged without anyone seeing.


Well there are reports of unusual power downs and evacuations in the lead up to 911, as well as the removal of bomb sniffing dogs on September 6th! Marvin Bush (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html) was one of those in charge of the company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center and Dulles Airport, both involved in the attacks.

Heightened WTC Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down

On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower."

WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but then called Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, was one of the company’s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news---or at least The 9/11 Commission Report.Source (http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)

Was it only a security system that was implanted during those years, or was it also the wiring for a long awaited plan?

Also worth mentioning is the highly unusual trading which took place just before 9-11, which has never been thoroughly investigated.

The Chicago Tribune reported on September 19, 2001, that there were many suspicious stock trades prior to 9/11. An abnormally high number of put options were placed on companies heavily impacted by 9/11. Sources told CBS News “they have never seen that kind of imbalance before.” The 9/11 Commission Report explained that “some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.” No connection to Al-Qaeda could be found, but the trades had links to people and companies associated with US intelligence agencies who were never thoroughly investigated.Source (http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/2006/09/08/was-911-an-inside-job/)

So many things that just haven't been properly investigated!

[pimpchichi]

I talk to delusional and mentally ill people all day.

Someone please explain to me why I come home and do it.


because a chatty household is a happy household?

[ucicare]

Barry has been repeatedly using that tactic to try to appear superior in arguments (whenever he has no decent response) since his first week of posting. ;)

Well lets see Nursey. Could that be because from the very first week that I posted here, my professional training and experience screamed the obvious to me?

Take at look at the International criteria for Paranoid Personality Disorder, and explain to me how you don't fit it perfectly. Keep in mind that you just need three for a diagnosis. Criteria "G" is a sure thing. Do two others hit you?



F60.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder
Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following:

(a) excessive sensitiveness to setbacks and rebuffs;
(b) tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;
(c) suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;
(d) a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;
(e) recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;
(f) tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;
(g) preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's not true.

[Nursey]

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Go and start another thread about it or something. Meanwhile, i'm eager to hear your latest wacky theory as to how this was a natural structural failure:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v185/dstrictnursey/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif

[ucicare]

i'm eager to hear your latest wacky theory as to how this was a natural structural failure:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v185/dstrictnursey/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif


This was not a natural structural failure. These things were present -
1. Fire that burned for at least 7 hours. Lots of fire. See the smoke in the video?
2. Tons of trapped water on upper floors.
3. Damage from the impacts of the collapse of WTC1 and 2 to the opposite face.
4. Impact from the penthouse collaping.

Oh, and the other two buildings? A 747 Jet hit those. Thats not very natural either.
None of that was "natural."

[Nursey]

This was not a natural structural failure.

Yeah ok...explain how it collapsed 'as a normal result of fire', then. ::)

These things were present -
1. Fire that burned for at least 7 hours. Lots of fire. See the smoke in the video?

Fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001, let alone implode and fall neatly into their footprints, as did WTC7. (Fires versus steel buildings (http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html)).

And yes, i see some relatively small outbreaks of fire limited to a few floors. But it's hardly a raging inferno that causes all the windows to break and steel to glow red, is it? Yes, i see some black smoke, as well as the huge, white dust cloud from the towers' collapse sprawling along the back of the image. But the Windsor building in Madrid (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html) burned ferociously like a torch all night, becoming a blackened concrete skeleton, yet still didn't collapse.
A 56 story building in Venezuela burned for more than 17 hours over 26 floors, and didn't collapse: Towering Inferno in Caracas (http://Venezuela's). Do you see difference between a real fire and the one that supposedly destroyed WTC7?


2. Tons of trapped water on upper floors.

Where did you get that information from?
It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.
(Although, considering WTC7 was 2 blocks away from the Hudson river, this seems odd)

3. Damage from the impacts of the collapse of WTC1 and 2 to the opposite face.

The damage from the collapse was only reported to be on one corner of the building, and happened 7 hours before the building fell. If this was a significant factor in the collapse, it would seem even more inexplicable for it to have fallen in such a sudden, uniform and symmetrical manner.

4. Impact from the penthouse collaping.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5339/wtc7penthousekinkto6.gif

Explain to me how that works, again? It's something along the lines of 'the whole structure can no longer bear the immense weight of that little penthouse, and all collapses at free fall', isn't it?

Oh, and the other two buildings? A 747 Jet hit those. Thats not very natural either.

No, yet these buildings were actually 'overdesigned' to withstand a jet impact...which they did - admirabley.

On January 25, 2001, Frank A. Demartini, an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, was asked about the structural stability of the twin towers. He said:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

(Of course, the planes that crashed into the twin towers were 767s, but in reality they are only slightly larger than a 707.) link (http://www.myspace.com/wtc_7)


California architect and member of the Requester group, Richard Gage, AIA, emphasizes that the buildings were designed to withstand 150mph lateral wind loads and even airplane impacts, and notes that vast majority of both towers were not damaged by fire or impact.

"There were 80 to 90 floors of completely intact steel structure below the impact zones, untouched by fire or damage, which had held up the mass above them for decades and, in the case of the perimeter columns, were over-designed by a factor of 20. Also, almost all of the mass of the building coming down from above was being ejected outside the footprint as it fell, so there is not even a "pile driver" to crush the building below, and thus no valid engineering explanation for the failure!" Gage says that the only way to achieve what NIST describes as "'such little resistance [from the structure below to the falling mass above,' was to destroy that solid intact structure with pre-planted explosives."

"It sounds extreme," he says, "even preposterous. But when you set aside your disbelief, you find explosives to be the only valid explanation for the 'collapse' and this explains many features -- such as the virtually free fall speed, symmetry, audible & visible explosions, pulverization to dust of all of the floors, file cabinets, etc. -- that are consistent with demolition style collapses, but not with historical structural failures by fire."

[phatboy]

Barry it is useless. She has all the answers. I will no longer post in this thread of such complete non-sense with people who live in such a narrow world, where they take your words, and then go 180 degrees and change it. So all please still enjoy.

Dont worry this will all change in 08 when bush is out of office and the dems find all the paper work about how he unknowingly masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Until that time,

TWEEK ON BITCHES!!!!!

[ucicare]

Barry it is useless. She has all the answers. I will no longer post in this thread of such complete non-sense with people who live in such a narrow world, where they take your words, and then go 180 degrees and change it. So all please still enjoy.

Dont worry this will all change in 08 when bush is out of office and the dems find all the paper work about how he unknowingly masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Until that time,

TWEEK ON BITCHES!!!!!


I know it is useless Phat, but I have to keep doing it. If I stop, the unbalanced state of logic and reason versus delusion and fantasy may cause the planet to wobble out of control.

I must Yin, and Nursey must Yank. ;)

That's just the way it is.

[Nursey]

Barry it is useless. She has all the answers. I will no longer post in this thread of such complete non-sense...

Bye then phatty. Don't forget to chuck this in the trash on your way out! ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/can.jpg

[Disorder]

1. Fire that burned for at least 7 hours. Lots of fire. See the smoke in the video?

NEWSFLASH

Fire smoke is BLACK... concrete dust is grey.

[pimpchichi]

actually fire smoke can be many colours, white, black, green, brown, yellow, orange etc. depends whats being burned and at what temperature

[ucicare]

1. Fire that burned for at least 7 hours. Lots of fire. See the smoke in the video?

NEWSFLASH

Fire smoke is BLACK... concrete dust is grey.


News flash update - You are an idiot.

[Disorder]

News flash update - You are an idiot.

Nothing new there then, I admit that I really don't know much at all. This whole thing is a learning experience since I first started to realise something was up and I'm perfectly fine with being corrected.

On the other hand, your Krispy Kreme College diploma isn't doing good for any argument you try and make, because every time you lose, you have to blame someone else for being stupid, instead of taking it on the chin like a man (or on the face like a woman).

actually fire smoke can be many colours, white, black, green, brown, yellow, orange etc. depends whats being burned and at what temperature

That is correct actually, I forgot about chemical reactions and such, although my point was generally referring to the smoke in the clip, which seems far too 'light' to be fire from burning wood/plastic/paper and such substances that are in an office building, which usually come out black.

[Joeslogic]

Ok no argument there I will attest that smoke can be of different colors all depending on the different materials. This is not a news flash really. It is also the same phenomena that makes fireworks different.

Grasp hold of that point with all the tenacity in your very soul. It will do you zero good however. I'm pretty sure that Barry was simply being factitious we all know this simpleton fact.

But let me ask you a question. Was the building made of pure copper? Pure Iron? Pure Zinc? Pure Titanium? Pure Aluminum? Hold on let me break out my table of elements.... come to think of it that would be stupid would it not?

If you went to the fireworks show and they shot each and every one off simultaneously. What color would the star burst be?