theres going to be another huge staged terrorist attack

[drizl]

andits going to be bullshit. more innocent people dead, more lies and deception and dismantling of our rights as citizens. elections coming up, support for the war on terror is running low, the "partial disruption" of the uk "terror plot", and all the fishiness surrounding the investigations and detentions of the suspects. the looming middle east crisis which the us is begging to enter. the war on terror is going to be a long one they tell us. they dont tell us that they are going to be the ones prolonging it, and the cause of even more terrorism, fake or real, justified or not, as this country turns into a full on police state.

rise up
sometimes it takes revolution to find a solution.

[Qdrop]

you are such a fucking political hypochondriac.

[QueenAdrock]

Meh. Back in 2004, we weren't scared into voting for Bush. I mean, sure he'd tell us we're all in danger, and raise the terror color meter like it was going out of style, but all of that we generally overlooked. I don't remember any terrorist plots or anything being foiled.

[Bob]

rise up
sometimes it takes revolution to find a solution.

then what?

[Qdrop]

then what?
they don't know, bob...they NEVER know.

conspiracy theorists are adrenalin junkies...they just want intrigue and action.
and they want to feel important....like they know something we don't...and WE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIM, LIKE HE IS OUR LEADER....OUR PROPHET....RESPECT HIS OUTSIDE-LOOKING-ING PERSPECTIVE AND APPLAUD HIM!

[Bob]

it's just something that bothers me, people say REVOLT REVOLT YOU NEED TO RISE UP AND REVOLT but then what? what happens then? you can't just revolt for fun, you need a plan. nobody agrees with anyone else as it is, the hell are we gonna do in a post-revolution state? at least the founding fathers had a plan, and they're damn lucky they pulled it off.

i'm not saying we should just lay back and never do anything ever, but geez, don't go jumping the gun here. think, then act

[abcdefz]

at least the founding fathers had a plan, and they're damn lucky they pulled it off.




Thank the French. :)

[Bob]

Thank the French. :)

but i mean even after the revolution, we're lucky the country stayed together at all, much less prospered. even the founding fathers had a bitch of a time coming to a consensus. imagine a group as large and diverse and angry and dumb as today's americans trying to write a constitution.

alls i'm saying is you can't just "revolt" and expect your problems to magically go away. even if you pull it off under the best conditions, you're left with a whole batch of new problems and you'd best be ready to deal with them.

[drizl]

i doubt that the power structure will survive after the big changes that are to come with global warming. it seems like heirarchies are becoming ever more desperate for resources. i imagine a future with a lot of suffering, and i see the people at some point becoming fed up with the lies, the hypocracy and the destruction. i dont see governments being able to cope with the human potential.

[drizl]

you are such a fucking political hypochondriac.

how clever Q. well dont wet your panties over it

[enree erzweglle]

I wonder why people who are planning these attacks are still doing so wrt airplanes. It seems to me that if their aim is to instill fear, they'd be more effective if they started carrying out some level of bombings--perhaps widespread and consecutive--in the U.S., similar to what happened in the summer of 2005 in Europe.

Given heightened airport security, I find it hard to believe that it's easier to take down airplanes than it is to do something locally. Is it simply a matter of access--that the people who want to do these things don't have enough or adequate connection points/contacts right in the U.S.? (Because if they were already in the U.S., it seems like it would be terribly easy to do a lot of things in most major cities. Maybe I'm just being naive in thinking that, but it seems to me that security in my city is more a matter of heightened awareness: someone might notice a weird package or a suspicious person, but I don't think there's anything more than that happening...?)

[drizl]

I wonder why people who are planning these attacks are still doing so wrt airplanes. It seems to me that if their aim is to instill fear, they'd be more effective if they started carrying out some level of bombings--perhaps widespread and consecutive--in the U.S., similar to what happened in the summer of 2005 in Europe.

Given heightened airport security, I find it hard to believe that it's easier to take down airplanes than it is to do something locally. Is it simply a matter of access--that the people who want to do these things don't have enough or adequate connection points/contacts right in the U.S.? (Because if they were already in the U.S., it seems like it would be terribly easy to do a lot of things in most major cities. Maybe I'm just being naive in thinking that, but it seems to me that security in my city is more a matter of heightened awareness: someone might notice a weird package or a suspicious person, but I don't think there's anything more than that happening...?)

the bombings that happened in the uk in 2005 are equally as confusing as what happened on 9-11. all the "malfunctioned"security cameras...the #30 bus going off route, being able to find id cards of the suspected bombers to place the blame, the shooting of the poor brazilian electrician, protection of the supposed "mastermind" (http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/mastermind_mi6_asset.htm) the timing of the event- given mr blairs failing policies and the iraq war- its the uk 9-11 state sponsored terrorism, false flag operation to coerce the public mind into accepting increased fear and security programs, decreased freedom (free speech bans) and the rule of assholes.



the recent airplane incidents were designed to scare people worldwide, specifically in the us and uk, on a large scale again. we are being prepared for something big and it wont be "islamic fascists" living in caves who will be the perpatrators.

[drizl]

they don't know, bob...they NEVER know.

conspiracy theorists are adrenalin junkies...they just want intrigue and action.
and they want to feel important....like they know something we don't...and WE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIM, LIKE HE IS OUR LEADER....OUR PROPHET....RESPECT HIS OUTSIDE-LOOKING-ING PERSPECTIVE AND APPLAUD HIM!

im not trying to come up with the solution. i just have this terrible feeling in my gut that something big and terrible is on the way. and others have this feeling too...others who know how to read behind the lines in the press, who have seen this scenario played out time and again, in madrid, in london, in new york city.....fear and surrender to authority.

i have my own opinions about how i feel we need to restructure society. i have my own feelings about what is right and what is needed. most importantly, decentralization and the integration of sustainability. i dont believe that will come without total overthrow of the powerstructure, which i believe to be inevitable as more citizens become disenfranchised, and enraged with the lies and deceit and the loss of innocent lives counting in the millions. the fall out of global climate change....these factors will bring down the bullshit and make more and more people empowered to seek truth and understanding, cooperation and sustainability.

so what if im a romantic. so what if what i believe is against the grain and you disagree. i feel what i feel and i cant stop that.

[drizl]

what i have is hope for humanity that we can come together and defeat the tyranny of power. fact is, we are held back from realizing our true capacities as human beings, for love and harmony. if we were allowed to, and if these qualities were cultivated throughout societies, the world would be a much better place, and gradually, the world would change into the world we all want. globalization and mass communications have us interconnected and ready for this....we have evolved these systems to bring us together even though they have been abused and misused by many. the potential is there, within and without for all of this.

[enree erzweglle]

what i have is hope for humanity that we can come together and defeat the tyranny of power. fact is, we are held back from realizing our true capacities as human beings, for love and harmony. if we were allowed to, and if these qualities were cultivated throughout societies, the world would be a much better place, and gradually, the world would change into the world we all want. globalization and mass communications have us interconnected and ready for this....we have evolved these systems to bring us together even though they have been abused and misused by many. the potential is there, within and without for all of this.That's a very noble and ideal goal. I don't know how to guarantee a global spread of it, though, but I try to do everything I can to cultivate it in my own life and every single person here and everywhere can try to do the same thing.

I always think it's ironic when we say things like ^^^ (good things) yet we have such hatred or disrespect for people in our individual lives, for the people we meet one-on-one. We espouse these grand ideas for how the world should be, but we have hatred and disrespect for or show apathy toward people in our own lives.

It's easy to say that we should have unity and love and understanding and we say things like `I can't believe how people can DO a set of horrible things to other people!' then we turn around and tell people in our immediate lives essentially to fuck off or we ignore problems locally or we contribute to them, we spread this individual meanness and disrespect and that snowballs into something bigger. Those things all contribute to or detract from a greater good and you can affect change immediately in your own life and in the lives of the people you touch with just the tiniest bit of effort, with that much more patience and kindness. I think people sometimes think the world's problems are so overwhelmingly insurmountable that they nearly write off the solutions and go on in their lives status quo, but doesn't it really start on this tiny, individual scale. Every single thing counts.

[Qdrop]

im not trying to come up with the solution. i just have this terrible feeling in my gut that something big and terrible is on the way. and others have this feeling too...others who know how to read behind the lines in the press, who have seen this scenario played out time and again, in madrid, in london, in new york city.....fear and surrender to authority. people have been having those "feelings" since the beginning of civilization....and have always been wrong when predicting the end of civilization as we know it and all that shit.
you are nothing new.


so what if im a romantic. so what if what i believe is against the grain and you disagree. i feel what i feel and i cant stop that. the problem lies in your propensity to be yet another Doomsday theorist who is trying whip others into a fright just for the adrenaline rush.

it's destructive and irresponsible.

[enree erzweglle]

the recent airplane incidents were designed to scare people worldwide, specifically in the us and uk, on a large scale again. we are being prepared for something big and it wont be "islamic fascists" living in caves who will be the perpatrators.I don't know, maybe I'm on the fringe of this, but I think if the idea is to instill fear, isn't it much more effective to try to reach into and affect the areas of everyday life for most people? I know that a lot of people travel, but not everyone does and the ones who do are already on alert. Plus the airline security processes that are in place now are fairly robust.

Most everyone does have to work, though, or use services that cities offer and our awareness of potential problems is not at all heightened in that regard. I would be much more afraid (I'd alter my life more) if there were spot attacks in U.S. cities.

Either I'm in some minority in thinking that or I'm being naive--maybe there is much more involved in planning/executing smaller scale attacks to happen in the U.S. than there is for developing new explosives and then getting them onto commercial planes.

[drizl]

you are nothing new.


the problem lies in your propensity to be yet another Doomsday theorist who is trying whip others into a fright just for the adrenaline rush.

it's destructive and irresponsible.

i figure im being constructive and responsible.

im not talking about doomsday. im talking about the very seriousness of the whole situation before us. can you argue global warming? do you listen to what experts and scientists say about global warming?

Are you an individual? do you draw conclusions on your own, or do you simply believe what is convenient for you? do you have a conscience? do you care about what is going on in the world today? can you put up with what is going on in the world today? can you tolerate it? do you accept it?



if you do, you are the coward, you are the weapon of the weak. i am proud of what i feel and think because i believe in what im saying and doing. i know what is true and right for me, and i am aware of what is happening around the world as a result of the new imperialism and desire for global domination is doing for the poor, the innocent and the people in between the crossfire.

you can call me a hypocrite, a conspiracy theorist, a doomsday theorist or whatever label you want to brand me as. im just putting out ideas and communicating the feelings that i have, and that i fear most are not prepared to accept. and i have faith that in the end, the universe is good, that all things are good, and that all this shit we are going through, and all the horrendous shit that others are going to will one day lead to a greater awakening of the human struggle and purpose.

just because i choose to talk about 9-11 or global warming makes me offensive?

stand up and be strong. you are the weapon of the weak, until you decide that you arent going to put up with the shit anymore.

[drizl]

I don't know, maybe I'm on the fringe of this, but I think if the idea is to instill fear, isn't it much more effective to try to reach into and affect the areas of everyday life for most people? I know that a lot of people travel, but not everyone does and the ones who do are already on alert. Plus the airline security processes that are in place now are fairly robust.

Most everyone does have to work, though, or use services that cities offer and our awareness of potential problems is not at all heightened in that regard. I would be much more afraid (I'd alter my life more) if there were spot attacks in U.S. cities.

Either I'm in some minority in thinking that or I'm being naive--maybe there is much more involved in planning/executing smaller scale attacks to happen in the U.S. than there is for developing new explosives and then getting them onto commercial planes.



the idea of hijacking planes hits everyone here in the us and all those throughout the world for that matter because of what happened on 9-11. small scale attacks such as the anthrax attacks right after 9-11 (proven to be military grade anthrax originating in an actual government lab) are also used. different means to different ends. one day there will be a time again, where they will choose small town, localized events for their agendas.

and im not saying that all terrorist attacks are state sponsored, but i think we would all be appauled to discover that many are. and some of the largest most unbelievable terrorist atrocities in fact, are.

[HAL 9000]

The key challenge for any conspiracy is to mitigate the risk posed by whistleblowers. The extent to which such risk can be mitigated must surely depend on how many potential whistleblowers exist and how likely they are to blow said whistle (which itself is a function of loyalty and potential reward from whistle blowing).

In some of the conspiracies discussed on this is the, the whistleblower risk is ludicrous – for 9/11 to be a conspiracy (sat least to the extent proposed in the documentary 'Loose Change') there would have to be hundreds if not thousands of people 'in on it'.

What's more, there are many more people who with a chance observation of piece of video footage could capture an image that would blow the conspiracy apart (and to date no image has definitively done this).

Also the potential financial payoffs for breaking the conspiracy are huge in terms of the potential media interest.

Ultimately it comes down to a matter of probability, a potential conspirator must know that a plot like faking the 9/11 attacks is extremely unlikely to be successful due to many different risks but particularly the whistleblower risk. It would seem illogical to suppose that an individual or organisation with so much power would take such a huge risks to achieve such a mediocre goal. If one wished to terrorise the world there would be much easier and cheaper ways of going about it.

[Qdrop]

Drizl there are legitimate reasons why I, and others, think you are just full of hot air.

First and foremost, virtually every conspiracy claim you have made about 9/11 are simply regurgitated drivel that has long been debunked by countless experts, eyewitnesses, and anyone with a mild understanding of physics, scientific process, logistics, and common sense.
you and others have been dismantled, point for point to all onlookers taking note.
there is no need to rehash it now....
it's like arguing with a creationist....you are going on faith alone, so science/logic will have no effect on you.

Global warming has only recently (within the past 2 years) been CONCLUSIVELY proven to be taken place (through satelite data and deep ice core samples)....but how much humans are contributing, how much humans can halt it's process, and MOST IMPORTANTLY how much global warming will take place and how soon, is still widely debated.
the claims of nearly complete scientific consensus on those issues have been widely exagerated....and requires only a cursory knowledge of how claims of "scientific consensus" are made and abused (much like statistics) to see how the debate is much more widespread than many want to let on.

finally, your general hyper-revolutionary anarchistic tone makes you come of like a over-caffienated college freshman looking for a cause to deposit his general paranioa into.

it's because of the reasons listed above that your claims or being "more educated" and "more informed" cause the lot of us to break into barely stifled laughter.

you marginalize yourself, man
i'm not the one doing it.

[drizl]

The key challenge for any conspiracy is to mitigate the risk posed by whistleblowers. The extent to which such risk can be mitigated must surely depend on how many potential whistleblowers exist and how likely they are to blow said whistle (which itself is a function of loyalty and potential reward from whistle blowing).

In some of the conspiracies discussed on this is the, the whistleblower risk is ludicrous – for 9/11 to be a conspiracy (sat least to the extent proposed in the documentary 'Loose Change') there would have to be hundreds if not thousands of people 'in on it'.

What's more, there are many more people who with a chance observation of piece of video footage could capture an image that would blow the conspiracy apart (and to date no image has definitively done this).

Also the potential financial payoffs for breaking the conspiracy are huge in terms of the potential media interest.

Ultimately it comes down to a matter of probability, a potential conspirator must know that a plot like faking the 9/11 attacks is extremely unlikely to be successful due to many different risks but particularly the whistleblower risk. It would seem illogical to suppose that an individual or organisation with so much power would take such a huge risks to achieve such a mediocre goal. If one wished to terrorise the world there would be much easier and cheaper ways of going about it.


first off, nothing was faked about 9-11....planes did hit the world trade centers, something hit the pentagon, and a plane did end up on the ground in peices in pennsylvania.
to say that the trade centers were downed by controlled demolition doesnt require foreknowledge by thousands. norad not reacting has nothing to do with foreknowledge, but with confusion due to a myriad of other drills taking place that day, drills that targeted the same area on the same hours, just like what happened in london...
there is virtually NO evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, and in fact, scientific evidence like q is suggesting totally debunks the possibility of a plane having hit the building.
there is plenty of evidence that the towers were demolished. and perhaps the most simple and irrefutable proof that the towers were demolished is a simple calculation in physics, the speed of a free-falling object. if you notice, both towers fell at near free fall speed. (lb) that is impossible had there not been a controlled demolition. scientific analysis of some molten steel found at the world trade center is proven to have thermate residues in it. theres plenty of science and evidence.


and Q:


the only peice of information i have seen you reference was an article in polpular mechanics written by ben chertoff, cousin of mike chertoff (the head of the homeland security department). keep in mind that the magazine popular mechanics was created by william randolph hearst who basically invented corporate media and corruption therein.
you also reference some weird website that looked like it was put together by some 3rd grader too....i dont remember what it was though, maybe you can repost the link.



there is no lack of evidence out there...and the fact that the heads (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060805/D8JA0FDG0.html) of the 9-11 commision are writing books now saying that there was purposeful deceit and run around going on during the investigation (why on earth would anyone give the run around, or lie during an investigation of an attack on their own country killing their own citizens). look at the reaction of the cabinet during these attacks, during the commision and since the attacks. look at how they got into office and where they came from, their past political histories.
if you broaden your perspective and look at this from ANY AND EVERY angle, you see more and more evidence of a coverup at the very least, and complicity at the very worst, for the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the madrid bombings and the london bombings.

the evidence is becoming refined, and better understood daily, and the cases are being made. soon your argument will no longer stand.

[drizl]

Drizl there are legitimate reasons why I, and others, think you are just full of hot air.

First and foremost, virtually every conspiracy claim you have made about 9/11 are simply regurgitated drivel that has long been debunked by countless experts, eyewitnesses, and anyone with a mild understanding of physics, scientific process, logistics, and common sense.
you and others have been dismantled, point for point to all onlookers taking note.
there is no need to rehash it now....
it's like arguing with a creationist....you are going on faith alone, so science/logic will have no effect on you.

Global warming has only recently (within the past 2 years) been CONCLUSIVELY proven to be taken place (through satelite data and deep ice core samples)....but how much humans are contributing, how much humans can halt it's process, and MOST IMPORTANTLY how much global warming will take place and how soon, is still widely debated.
the claims of nearly complete scientific consensus on those issues have been widely exagerated....and requires only a cursory knowledge of how claims of "scientific consensus" are made and abused (much like statistics) to see how the debate is much more widespread than many want to let on.

finally, your general hyper-revolutionary anarchistic tone makes you come of like a over-caffienated college freshman looking for a cause to deposit his general paranioa into.

it's because of the reasons listed above that your claims or being "more educated" and "more informed" cause the lot of us to break into barely stifled laughter.

you marginalize yourself, man
i'm not the one doing it.

i dont mind that you think im full of hot air, i think its funny, and sad on your part that although you claim to know what you are talking about when it comes to this, that you have absolutely no idea, are totally misinformed, and that you are literally in denial when it comes to understanding globalism, terrorism, the environment, and politics. your quick to shove off the idea of conspiracy theory and want to trust the media (like polular mechanics) to explain to you how wrong conspiracy theorists are.

think about the fact that they wrote that article by the way. if its so clear why even spend time on it. is it because the homeland security chief and his cohorts feel threatened by what these theorists are saying?

and now that you come up against individuals that actually know a little something about the situations, all you can say is "theres no need to rehash it now", "we've already proven you wrong" (even though theres all sorts of definitive evidence gathered by the scholars for 9-11 truth movement, an organization of several hundred university professors and scholars) etc....
and you cite the same pathetic sources each time.
im not going on faith alone for these arguments. in fact i get my ideas from researching and paying attention. i dont base all of these things on faith, but i do have a gut feeling that we are being prepared for something big to happen. and even that, is based on evidence, and from having paid attention to how the government is approaching these latest "terrorist plots" and the middle east situation. once you understand them, you can literally read them.


and for global warming, scientists have been sounding the alarm for decades. i believe it was james lovelock, founder of the gaia theory who was one of the first to truly understand the planetary organism and suggest that we do have an impact and are creating irreversible change and global warming.



"in the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
-mark twain

[Qdrop]

to say that the trade centers were downed by controlled demolition doesnt require foreknowledge by thousands. what is wrong with you?
how fuckin stupid can one person be.

norad not reacting has nothing to do with foreknowledge, but with confusion due to a myriad of other drills taking place that day, drills that targeted the same area on the same hours, just like what happened in london... and how many times have similar drills taken place when NO terrorist attacks took place simutaneously?
thousands upon thousands probably?

making connections that aren't there....
you're discounting the misses, and trumping up the hits.

have you ever thought about someone, and then suddenly the phone rings and it's them?
psychic?
no.
...what about all the times you thought about them and they DIDN'T call?

it's the same principle here.

there is virtually NO evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, and in fact, scientific evidence like q is suggesting totally debunks the possibility of a plane having hit the building. that's complete bullshit, man. we went through this a while back...i posted links to ACTUAL FUCKIN PHOTOS OF THE DEBRIS...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

there is plenty of evidence that the towers were demolished. NO! NO THERE NOT! IT'S ALL BEEN DEBUNKED!

and perhaps the most simple and irrefutable proof that the towers were demolished is a simple calculation in physics, the speed of a free-falling object. if you notice, both towers fell at near free fall speed. (lb) that is impossible had there not been a controlled demolition. THEY DID NOT FALL AT FREE FALL SPEEDS! YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

and here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf


^you can't touch that. you can't.
give up.

the only peice of information i have seen you reference was an article in polpular mechanics written by ben chertoff, cousin of mike chertoff (the head of the homeland security department). keep in mind that the magazine popular mechanics was created by william randolph hearst who basically invented corporate media and corruption therein. you cling to these connections like they somehow make all the science bunk.
this is because you cannot refute any of the cold science and facts put forth that debunks those claims, so people like you just attack the messenger...thinking this will making everything else go away.
the problem is that the messenger is moot in this point...whether it's chertoff, Jesus fuckin Christ, or Satan himself.


you also reference some weird website that looked like it was put together by some 3rd grader too....i dont remember what it was though, maybe you can repost the link.
yeah, this one:
911myths.com

pretty sad the a couple of guys with other careers and a little time on there hands, were able to debunk or question virtually every conspiracy claim with ease, using info available to us all.

makes people like you look that much more pathetic.


there is no lack of evidence out there...and the fact that the heads (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060805/D8JA0FDG0.html) of the 9-11 commision are writing books now saying that there was purposeful deceit and run around going on during the investigation (why on earth would anyone give the run around, or lie during an investigation of an attack on their own country killing their own citizens). this is not to suggest claims of conspiracy, but rather cover-ups by people who fucked up.
2 very differant things.


if you broaden your perspective and look at this from ANY AND EVERY angle, you see more and more evidence of a coverup at the very least, and complicity at the very worst, for the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the madrid bombings and the london bombings. gee, can't tell that YOU just watched Terrorstorm or anything...
you fucking lemming.

[drizl]

yeah, attack attack...not sure if you noticed but your http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html link actually proves that the towers were brought down by explosives...pointing out the pulvarization of concrete and also the near free fall speed of the collapse. it also states the official 9-11 commission report stated it took nearly 10 seconds for one to fall and 12 for the other. buildings that tall, if they were to collapse "pancake theory" style, would take much much longer and would have left debris which looked much much different.
so nice one digging up that one, what did you do, a quick search on the net and then not even read your "evidence"?

i love how you jump to these strange conclusions that and try and redirect what i am saying to make it look ridiculous: norad having drills has nothign to do with terrorist attacks. im sure they have major drills maybe a couple of times a year, or every couple of years. was it just coincidence that norad was conducting drills which put hijacked planes in virtual skies, which therefore confused them as to what was hijacked, real, or phoney? was it coincidence that our air defence was completely helpless to stop any of those planes? i tend to think not.

you look at this all with blinders, and you actually trust a source which you claim: "pretty sad the a couple of guys with other careers and a little time on there hands, were able to debunk" nice work buddy, nice sources.

i got to run to work, but as soon as i get a chance, i will check out the rest of your sources, and see who did the investigating and who they were representing, because based on my theory, and the many theories of others, these folks should be either dead wrong, or purposefully deceiving the public.
lighten up a little buddy, you seem like your about to have a heart attack.

[drizl]

awww lemming. cute:rolleyes:

[Qdrop]

yeah, attack attack...not sure if you noticed but your http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html link actually proves that the towers were brought down by explosives...pointing out the pulvarization of concrete and also the near free fall speed of the collapse. it also states the official 9-11 commission report stated it took nearly 10 seconds for one to fall and 12 for the other. buildings that tall, if they were to collapse "pancake theory" style, would take much much longer and would have left debris which looked much much different.
so nice one digging up that one, what did you do, a quick search on the net and then not even read your "evidence"?

my bad, i meant to copy the link directly above it from Dr Frank Greening:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf


but while you're at it, check out that other link http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html and, as 911myths.com points out, pay attention to their calculations of collapse time, and the way the pancaking towers are assumed to come to a dead stop as each floor is hit.

[QueenAdrock]

There was debris at the Pentagon. I drove by it during the cleaning up...smoke was pouring out of that building. I remember you could stand on the top of the dorms in Georgetown and just watch the smoke billow in the air. I'm pretty sure a missile wouldn't have that effect. Granted, there are some unanswered questions, but there's no doubt to me that the Pentagon was partially destroyed...and very badly hit. My friend's dad died at the Pentagon.

[racer5.0stang]

It is possible that there will be more terrorist attacks just not on us, but Israel. Now that Iran and Syria consider Hezbollah the victors over Israel, I'm sure they will sic Hezbollah on them again.

Maybe they will come after Israel themselves next time.

Time will tell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14356871/

[drizl]

my bad, i meant to copy the link directly above it from Dr Frank Greening:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf


but while you're at it, check out that other link http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html and, as 911myths.com points out, pay attention to their calculations of collapse time, and the way the pancaking towers are assumed to come to a dead stop as each floor is hit.


in response to your post, i read some, not all of the 32 pages, but maybe about 15, skimming through and looking at the parts i figured would be more or less "conclusive".

this man assumes, based on his calculations that the collapse of the top structure upon the first of the "pancaking floors" resulted in a time delay of only 15.3 milliseconds due to the resistence of the steel support structure.
that means that the structure only resisted for 15 thousands of a second. can one even comprehend that amount of time!? its totally unreasonable.
this man then goes on to say, and probably quite accurately, that the total allotted resistence time for over 100 floors of gigantic steel support columns and structure was 0.5 seconds for the first tower, and only 0.3 seconds for the second!!! now, i do have a degree in architecture and sat through 3 years of structure classes, but it doesnt take an educated person to comprehend almost 100 floors for each tower resisting collapse from the top down for only .3 seconds! the only explaination for this lack of resistence from supporting floors beneath is that there was a catastrophic failure, from the area of impact on downwards and that the only possible, reasonable explaination of these failures is that there was something which prevented any resistence from those lower floors, for example, a controlled demolition of the major supporting columns.



but thats okay, because this researching is not jumping to any conclusions, he is only analysing the impacts and collapse! this doesnt debunk anything! its only an analysis. why it is on a website devoted to debunking 9-11 conspiracy theorists i dont know, but perhaps it was intended to have the same affect on others as it did to you. "heres a 32 page report, no one is going to read the whole thing, but they will see that its 32 pages worth of analyses and it is under the heading 'debunking 9-11 myths' so maybe they'll look at it and figure it must be debunking the explosives theory"


i'll go after your sources, and you stick to mine. i mentioned nothing about janedoe911.com. i stick to well researched, respectable conclusions based on substantial evidence and my own critical thinking. i dont know much about this site, and havent looked at much of its research or sources. since i gave a look at your 32 page report on the wtc collapse, and i read half of it, i suggest you take a look at stephen jones research, and read half of his report.

thermate found in molten steel on a steel support column from the wtc (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html).

[drizl]

There was debris at the Pentagon. I drove by it during the cleaning up...smoke was pouring out of that building. I remember you could stand on the top of the dorms in Georgetown and just watch the smoke billow in the air. I'm pretty sure a missile wouldn't have that effect. Granted, there are some unanswered questions, but there's no doubt to me that the Pentagon was partially destroyed...and very badly hit. My friend's dad died at the Pentagon.
http://www.loosechange911.com/img/evidence/pentagon/lc2e_pentagon32.jpg
notice the cable spools and construction equipment untouched by the plane that supposedly skidded across the ground before slamming into the building. notice the size of the hole.

the hole in the inner ring (http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/nov01/war18.jpg)
how can the plane have traveled through 5 rings (http://www.thmedia.net/taylor/pent/Pentagon_9_7_01.jpg)of very thick steel reinforced concrete leave this hole and yet the only evidence we have of the plane that remained were these pictures: oddly placed peice of wreckage (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0203/ccb482f596328c1f14ff.jpeg) and this (http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg).


read this (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_swirling.html). based on the photo evidence of the rotor peice in the picture, american free press contacted the makers of the boeing 757 engines and APU (auxiillary power unit, another rotor on the tail of the aircraft) finding that
- honeywell, maker of the APU says it isnt theirs.
- Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce who make the main engines claim its not theirs
so how can this be?

[gorilla]

Driz is diluted, it must be the hash. There is no science to chaos my friend. There was no contolled lab in which the towers fell nor was the pentagon attack a science experiment. That day was pure chaos, stop using loose ends to seize an oppurtunity to jump on your soap-box.

The government is not perfect I agree, but it is not evil. I witnessed the events of 9/11/01 firsthand and I take great umbrage with your accusations.

[drizl]

c'mon q.

umbrage? why should you take offense to anything i say regarding 911? its so embedded in our heads to take offense to these things, but the fact is, that you dont have to read this, you already knew it was going to hurt your feelings right?

we are responsible for our government, and we are responsible for the shit in afghanistan and iraq right now. something like 1,600 people killed in baghdad last month? and then there was nicragua, columbia, chile, vietnam, hiroshima, haiti and on and on and on. now we have the information, now we have the power to do something about it. we need to get beyond this crazy bullshit corporatized and corrupt crapsmear of a lie that we are told is democracy.

[drizl]

this is the same story told over and over again, the history of civilization, the rise and fall of power. let us evolve.

[drizl]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm[/url]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

NO! NO THERE NOT! IT'S ALL BEEN DEBUNKED!



snopes is an urban legend website. it even uses the pentagon video which shows no plane hitting the building in defense of the plane hitting the building:p

[drizl]

3,400 iraqis killed in the month of july.

[Qdrop]

Drizl, every single one of your questions have been answered, over and over....
if you wanted to, you could look it all up yourself.

i gave you links and scientific data to answer your questions....you responded that you 3 years in architect school made you smarter than the professor who's data i linked you to.

you're obsessing and getting stuck on minute details and trivial points...refusing the see the obsurdity of it all with the big picture...
there is just no logical way a demolition crew could have set up charges in either tower in less then 2 months, let alone one day during a power down.
the crew and logicstics necessary would be so large...a cover-up would be impossible.
and that's just the towers.
same with WTC7.

same with the logistics of firing a missile or small drone plane into the pentagon....

it's just not possible to plan, orchestrate, execute AND cover up something of that scale.

we've done this dance long enough drizl...
i'm done.

continue talking to yourself.

[drizl]

Drizl, every single one of your questions have been answered, over and over....
if you wanted to, you could look it all up yourself.

i gave you links and scientific data to answer your questions....you responded that you 3 years in architect school made you smarter than the professor who's data i linked you to.

you're obsessing and getting stuck on minute details and trivial points...refusing the see the obsurdity of it all with the big picture...
there is just no logical way a demolition crew could have set up charges in either tower in less then 2 months, let alone one day during a power down.
the crew and logicstics necessary would be so large...a cover-up would be impossible.
and that's just the towers.
same with WTC7.

same with the logistics of firing a missile or small drone plane into the pentagon....

it's just not possible to plan, orchestrate, execute AND cover up something of that scale.

we've done this dance long enough drizl...
i'm done.

continue talking to yourself.

q, now your cornered and have nothing but to revert to your "everything's been answered already" retort. however, even though one of your sources that you claim to show proof of the building not being imploded shows nothing of the sort, it is simply an analysis of the towers falling and an absurd calculation to validate the pancake theory. .3 seconds of total floor resistence in the second tower, come on, thats totally absurd.

1. learn how to read, learn how to interperit and learn how to draw logical conclusions.
2. learn how to listen to other peoples arguments and read other peoples evidence. you have blinders on my friend.
3. look at your "evidence" and understand your sources. as i have already said, the popular mechanics article is totally bunk due to conflict of interest, the scopes website is an urban myth website- hardly something to base an argument on, and what you call evidence which debunks charges being set in the towers is actually just calculations of the time it took for them to collapse and reaches no real conclusions.

we know the wtc7 was imploded because the owner of the entire world trade center site admits to it! and the trivial, minute details you claim as being illogical are actually what we need to look at to understand what really happened that day. when you see the details, the squibs, the near free fall speed of the collapse, the lack of any evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon (other than a few oddly placed airplane parts) and then take into account the testimonies of hundreds in regards to the 9-11 commission report, the admitted cover up of the investigation by many members of congress, the actions/inactions before around and after 9-11 of our administration, and the turn in foreign policy in correlation to the project for a new american century, you begin to see.

and that is what so many people who dont want to believe that there is more to 9-11 than what we are told revert to: its impossible, it cant happen, theres no way that they could get away with it, its too unbelievable. open your eyes, there have been evil men before, there are evil men now, and there will be evil men tomorrow. we can literally remote control planes, we can detonate explosives from hundreds of miles away, and we have staged all kinds of "terrorist attacks (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2064)" in the past.
there are certain factions within this government and allies of this government (like israel), who have control of the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, who are quite capable of pulling these sort of attacks off. they have done it in the past, and they are doing it today.
game. set. match.


see you later q:)

[Qdrop]

1. learn how to read, learn how to interperit and learn how to draw logical conclusions.
2. learn how to listen to other peoples arguments and read other peoples evidence. you have blinders on my friend.
3. look at your "evidence" and understand your sources. as i have already said, the popular mechanics article is totally bunk due to conflict of interest, the scopes website is an urban myth website- hardly something to base an argument on, and what you call evidence which debunks charges being set in the towers is actually just calculations of the time it took for them to collapse and reaches no real conclusions.


i feel like a chimp is trying to teach me how to talk....

we know the wtc7 was imploded because the owner of the entire world trade center site admits to it! "pull it" referred to pulling the firefighters and letting the building burn you idiot-
ah fuck it....
you beleive what you want...


game. set. match.

yeah man....cause as you can see...everyone believes you...

do some more cartwheels for us, jester...

[drizl]

lol. nice:)

pulling the building doesnt refer to pulling the firefighters and letting it burn. its also interesting to note that not only were there molten pools of steel beneath wtc 1 and 2 but also under wtc 7. but go ahead, and interperit what larry said however you want. through all of this, i have figured out that you base your conclusions about what happened that day on the premise that you dont want to believe it, and that you will justify, as many others do, this disregard of factual evidence and validation through illegitimate sources that you may or may not even read, to protect yourself.

little do you consider however, the impact that this has on global politics and the plight of literally millions of people, muslims, "terrorists", governments and innocent bystanders. its exactly this pompous, comfortable, ignorant and disinformed fearful pathetic attitude that the government cherishes. so keep on keepin on buddy, until you figure it out for yourself. because thats the only way. i hope i helped you break down some of your barriers through all of this. peace out my nigga.

[Qdrop]

peace out my nigga.

what the fuck is wrong with you?

[drizl]

what? did i say nigga?

[drizl]

pardon the expression

[HAL 9000]

Out of interest, and I apologise if this has already been covered, what is the conspiracy theorist view on why the gov would use a jet or missile into the pentagon. Surely, if you wanted to make the world believe that a Boeing had hit the pentagon, wouldnt the best way to achieve this be to fly a Boeing into the Pentagon.

Most of the points raised like the speed of the falling WTC seem to have really obvious explanations, Im no architect and I have not researched it, but I dont see any evidence that points to the buildings being collapsed by explosives.

As I said earlier, ultimately the scale of the conspiracy makes it almost impossible, and that is what kills this theory.

[Qdrop]

Out of interest, and I apologise if this has already been covered, what is the conspiracy theorist view on why the gov would use a jet or missile into the pentagon. Surely, if you wanted to make the world believe that a Boeing had hit the pentagon, wouldnt the best way to achieve this be to fly a Boeing into the Pentagon. yeah, seems like common sense, right? the "conspirators" used them to fly into the WTC....why use a missile to hit the Pentagon.
these are obvious lapses in logic, that tin-hatters just brush off..

Most of the points raised like the speed of the falling WTC seem to have really obvious explanations, Im no architect and I hav not researched it, but I dont see any evidence that points to the buidlings being collapsed by explosives. that's because there isn't any...
just faulty math...out of context quotes....and poorly annalyzed photos of the buildings coming down that tin-hatters claim to be squib charges.

As I said earlier, ultimately the scale of the conspiracy makes it almost impossible, and that is what kills this theory. that's becuase you're using rational logic and a clear head.
how irresponsible of you.

YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE! YOU HAVE TO!
IT'S SO MUCH FUN TO BELIEVE!!!1

[drizl]

Out of interest, and I apologise if this has already been covered, what is the conspiracy theorist view on why the gov would use a jet or missile into the pentagon. Surely, if you wanted to make the world believe that a Boeing had hit the pentagon, wouldnt the best way to achieve this be to fly a Boeing into the Pentagon.

Most of the points raised like the speed of the falling WTC seem to have really obvious explanations, Im no architect and I have not researched it, but I dont see any evidence that points to the buildings being collapsed by explosives.

As I said earlier, ultimately the scale of the conspiracy makes it almost impossible, and that is what kills this theory.


as to why a boeing would not have been used....firstly, because of the buildings low profile, it would be extremely difficult to get a direct hit (http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg). one needs to understand the pyschological impact of our nations department of defense being targeted and hit. if a plane hadnt hit the building we might tend more to shrug it of subconsciously, but when we see our security on fire, we would tend more to panic. the pentagon [I]had[I] to be hit that day.
when you look at the photographic evidence, in order for the plane to hit the building where it did, and given its size and speed it owuld have had to hit the ground first, take a look at these images:
1 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/blue6_spools.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html&h=290&w=656&sz=35&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=6v63lMEhUz_MdM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bspools%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)
2 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/blue6_spools.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html&h=290&w=656&sz=35&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=6v63lMEhUz_MdM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bspools%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)
3 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/blue6_spools.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html&h=290&w=656&sz=35&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=6v63lMEhUz_MdM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bspools%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)

notice there is no skid mark consistent with an airplane skidding (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/FedEx_Boeing_727.JPG) along the ground prior to impact.
had the plane come in at any greater of an angle which would not have skidded the damage done would have looked much different, thus the official government explanation of the plane having hit the ground first.

[drizl]

Out of interest, and I apologise if this has already been covered, what is the conspiracy theorist view on why the gov would use a jet or missile into the pentagon. Surely, if you wanted to make the world believe that a Boeing had hit the pentagon, wouldnt the best way to achieve this be to fly a Boeing into the Pentagon.

Most of the points raised like the speed of the falling WTC seem to have really obvious explanations, Im no architect and I have not researched it, but I dont see any evidence that points to the buildings being collapsed by explosives.



As I said earlier, ultimately the scale of the conspiracy makes it almost impossible, and that is what kills this theory.


it all seems so obvious. we all saw the planes hit the building on tv, we all saw them fall down. its so obvious. but consider that this was the first time in the history of modern steel structured skyscrapers that one, wait no, two, wait, three had collapsed from a fire. there have been cases like this:
in madrid (http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2005/02/310908.jpg), where a building burned for a full day, at equally as hot of temperatures over longer sustained time, and still didnt collapse.
the empire state building (http://www.nytstore.com/ProdImages/NSAPESB2_small.jpg)being hit by a B52 BOMBER! and didnt collapse.


but all it takes is to understand the melting point of steel in comparison to the heat of the fires, analysis of the video and eyewitness accounts from janitors, firemen, policemen, workers, reporters and onlookers, evidence of thermate on molten steel taken directly from one of the columns, pools of molten metal in the basements of wtc 1, 2 and 7, the admitted implosion of building 7 by the trade center owner larry silverstein which contradicts the 9-11 commission conclusion, and the nature of the collapse and the fact that all concrete was pulverised into dust (there should have been many very large chunks, but do to the acceleration of near free fall speed and the possibility of explosives) and the sections of steel columns found in the rubble. theres more...

[HAL 9000]

as to why a boeing would not have been used....firstly, because of the buildings low profile, it would be extremely difficult to get a direct hit (http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg). one needs to understand the pyschological impact of our nations department of defense being targeted and hit. if a plane hadnt hit the building we might tend more to shrug it of subconsciously, but when we see our security on fire, we would tend more to panic. the pentagon [I]had[I] to be hit that day.
when you look at the photographic evidence, in order for the plane to hit the building where it did, and given its size and speed it owuld have had to hit the ground first, take a look at these images:
1 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/blue6_spools.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html&h=290&w=656&sz=35&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=6v63lMEhUz_MdM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bspools%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)
2 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/blue6_spools.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html&h=290&w=656&sz=35&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=6v63lMEhUz_MdM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bspools%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)
3 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/blue6_spools.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html&h=290&w=656&sz=35&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=6v63lMEhUz_MdM:&tbnh=61&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcable%2Bspools%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)

notice there is no skid mark consistent with an airplane skidding (http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/FedEx_Boeing_727.JPG) along the ground prior to impact.
had the plane come in at any greater of an angle which would not have skidded the damage done would have looked much different, thus the official government explanation of the plane having hit the ground first.

I don’t want to get into a scientific argument over this because I am sure that there are far more qualified people having tit for tat debates over this than us.

But I do bring a number of skills to this debate that I think are worth noting…
1. I hold a private pilots license, as a result I know that flyng an aircraft into a 5 story building would be pretty easy. The key thing to note is that when a plane lands (with its nose up) it is attempting to minimise its velocity, a terrorist would presumably be trying to hit with max velocity which would require the nose to be down (tail in the air) and would explain why the lawn is not damaged. I await a valid reason why anyone would use a missile or jet instead of a real airliner.

2. I did physics at school which means that I know the law of conservation of momentum and that in an elastic collision with a stationary body, the total final velocity is given by (m1v1)/(m1+m2) where m1 is the mass of the falling pile driver of the top of the WTC, m2 is the mass of a single floor of the WTC and v1 is the velocity with which the impact occurs. Its clear that m1 only has to be 100 times heavier than m2 (which seems likely) for the rate of acceleration to be about 99% of G. Even playing around with the numbers, it seems clear that one would expect WTC to collapse at about G or just under. Certainly closer to G than a basketball (which has a low terminal velocity). Obviously Im no scientist and this point can be debated but clearly the rate of descent argument is no clincher.

You also mention other buildings that were on fire, this is a pointless argument because the fires had different fuels or the building was constructed differently. I saw this argument in Loose change but it clearly has no merit. I actually find it strange that WTC 7 (or whatever it is called, the CIA building) collapsed, maybe it was pulled, but that does not point to a big conspiracy, just a contingency plan to stop investigators trawling through sensitive files in the inevitable investigation. All speculation as I have not looked into this.

All this is irrelevant however because ultimately the conspiracy is doomed by its size and vulnerability to a whistleblower, I must emphasise the point that for this scheme to be a worthwhile exercise, it has to be more than a theoretical possibility, it needs to be a statistical certainty before the rewards are worth the risks. Because its success could never be made certain the scheme could never become worthwhile.

[D_Raay]

I don’t want to get into a scientific argument over this because I am sure that there are far more qualified people having tit for tat debates over this than us.

But I do bring a number of skills to this debate that I think are worth noting…
1. I hold a private pilots license, as a result I know that flyng an aircraft into a 5 story building would be pretty easy. The key thing to note is that when a plane lands (with its nose up) it is attempting to minimise its velocity, a terrorist would presumably be trying to hit with max velocity which would require the nose to be down (tail in the air) and would explain why the lawn is not damaged. I await a valid reason why anyone would use a missile or jet instead of a real airliner.

2. I did physics at school which means that I know the law of conservation of momentum and that in an elastic collision with a stationary body, the total final velocity is given by (m1v1)/(m1+m2) where m1 is the mass of the falling pile driver of the top of the WTC, m2 is the mass of a single floor of the WTC and v1 is the velocity with which the impact occurs. Its clear that m1 only has to be 100 times heavier than m2 (which seems likely) for the rate of acceleration to be about 99% of G. Even playing around with the numbers, it seems clear that one would expect WTC to collapse at about G or just under. Certainly closer to G than a basketball (which has a low terminal velocity). Obviously Im no scientist and this point can be debated but clearly the rate of descent argument is no clincher.

You also mention other buildings that were on fire, this is a pointless argument because the fires had different fuels or the building was constructed differently. I saw this argument in Loose change but it clearly has no merit. I actually find it strange that WTC 7 (or whatever it is called, the CIA building) collapsed, maybe it was pulled, but that does not point to a big conspiracy, just a contingency plan to stop investigators trawling through sensitive files in the inevitable investigation. All speculation as I have not looked into this.

All this is irrelevant however because ultimately the conspiracy is doomed by its size and vulnerability to a whistleblower, I must emphasise the point that for this scheme to be a worthwhile exercise, it has to be more than a theoretical possibility, it needs to be a statistical certainty before the rewards are worth the risks. Because its success could never be made certain the scheme could never become worthwhile.

I tend to agree with you Hal, however, what if there were only a select few closely trusted individuals that were actually privy to the intent of the venture?

I mean to say that if it were me, that is how I would go about it. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled..." and so on.

The links to Mossad are disturbing, as are the instant messages beforehand to prominent Israelis. The dancing Israelis in the white van with blueprints of the towers has not been explained adequately or logically enough for me. WTC 7 bothers me a great deal.

In short, I just don't believe this is simply a closed case. There are just too many unanswered questions. And these questions are met with a hostility that is inappropriate and a bit suspicious for just seeking information that should be of utmost importance for the well being of the citizens of this country.

[drizl]

word.

[drizl]

hal-


you arent taking into account the resistance of the structure from the trade center towers. the central structure is no small thing, perhaps some of the biggest, strongest columns devised in such a building. you should look into all of this, especially the official explanations because just by the process of the investigation, there is enough evidence to show that the government is hiding information. and in this case, the argument for things being too sensitive to release to an investigative committee just doesnt stand, it was used far too often and was only an excuse for not disclosing information which might shed light on failures otherwise unknown, and maybe even complicity. watch the extras on michale moores documentary fahrenheit 9-11, where george bush gives the press conference after his testimony to the 9-11 commission panel. a testimony he delayed as long as he possibly could, agreeing only to testify in the end, if no records or transcripts be made of his testimony, if he didnt have to swear under oath, and only if he could testify with dick cheney together, in the same room!! what the fuck are they hiding!


also, in regards to flying a cessna into a five story building versus a commercial airliner:
a cessna is much smaller, much slower, and much easier to maneuver. you really cant make a comparison between flying a cessna and a commerical airliner, they are just too different!

[drizl]

who the fuck cares about that jon benet ramsey girl or whatever her name was. another WMD to suck on, dominating every minute on every major news channel (cnn, fox etc...) while the crisis in the middle east gets shelved. convenient. maybe when this story is over, it will just about be time to go to war with iran...maybe this story being slammed down our throats will make us forget that bush delayed the peace process in lebanon and supported failed efforts on behalf of israel...maybe it will further cloud, distort and confuse the public mind so that we will more willingly except their wars, their terrorist activities and their lies.

[yeahwho]

who the fuck cares about that jon benet ramsey girl or whatever her name was. another WMD to suck on, dominating every minute on every major news channel (cnn, fox etc...) while the crisis in the middle east gets shelved. convenient. maybe when this story is over, it will just about be time to go to war with iran...maybe this story being slammed down our throats will make us forget that bush delayed the peace process in lebanon and supported failed efforts on behalf of israel...maybe it will further cloud, distort and confuse the public mind so that we will more willingly except their wars, their terrorist activities and their lies.

Dude, I for one never take my eye off the ball. JonBenet and Mel Gibson stories are fun. It gives people a thing called balance.

[D_Raay]

You know the other thing that sticks with me is the reaction of Bush himself.

Call it the "dog that did not bark".
Why wasn't he whisked off by the secret service posthaste especially considering the circumstances.

[Ali]

you cling to these connections like they somehow make all the science bunklike the science confirming Global Warming?

Sorry, couldn't resist;)

[Qdrop]

like the science confirming Global Warming?

Sorry, couldn't resist;)

i already agreed (after the most recent satelite and deep ice-core samples) that global warming has finally been confirmed....over a year ago.

it's the human impact, the rate of global warming, and the likely effects that are being debated now....

[D_Raay]

i already agreed (after the most recent satelite and deep ice-core samples) that global warming has finally been confirmed....over a year ago.

it's the human impact, the rate of global warming, and the likely effects that are being debated now....
Yeah sure now you say that.

You couldn't be wrong and we were all lemmings before. I wonder what else you are going to be proven wrong about,and then act self righteous.

[drizl]

You know the other thing that sticks with me is the reaction of Bush himself.

Call it the "dog that did not bark".
Why wasn't he whisked off by the secret service posthaste especially considering the circumstances.



dick cheney was whisked away to an underground bunker (http://www.911truthmovement.org/dear_secretary_mineta.html)

[drizl]

i already agreed (after the most recent satelite and deep ice-core samples) that global warming has finally been confirmed....over a year ago.

it's the human impact, the rate of global warming, and the likely effects that are being debated now....


yeah stupid, he already agree to that like a year ago.


lovelock (http://www.energybulletin.net/320.html), inventor of gaia theory says that its too late. that it is already well underway and irreversible. it will be interesting to see how humanity pulls out of it, and personally, i dont think it will be pretty.

with all the power mongers, nuclear weapons, "terrorism"/war, and societies built around petrochemicals, its going to be an interesting transition to having to deal with climate change and mass population movements, food shortages etc... that will accompany.

but i see lots of hope in all of it too. this might be exactly what we need in order to realize what it means to be human, to evolve and to live in harmony.

[Qdrop]

Yeah sure now you say that. i guess, unlike you, i wait for conclusive multi-verified evidence on subjects before i support them.

i believe NOW, because of science...you believed it THEN because you are liberal lemming who was towing the line.

your belief deserves little respect.

You couldn't be wrong and we were all lemmings before. you were.
you, particularly, struggled to have ANY scientific discussion on the matter....you barely even understood it as i remember...but you basically just stated the argument of intimidation (EVERYONE knows it real....only stupid republicans don't believe it blah blah...).
i waited for more conclusive evidence and stood by my skepticism.

that's what smart, independent people do, D.

I wonder what else you are going to be proven wrong about,and then act self righteous.i wonder what other liberal tow-line you're gonna pull, with little self-conscious thought behind it.
i guess if you throw enough "liberal-belief spaghetti" at the wall, some of it will stick, right?

[drizl]

"you, particularly, struggled to have ANY scientific discussion on the matter....you barely even understood it as i remember...but you basically just stated the argument of intimidation (EVERYONE knows it real....only stupid republicans don't believe it blah blah...).
i waited for more conclusive evidence and stood by my skepticism.

that's what smart, independent people do, D"


kind of like how you approach any discussion of 9-11

[Qdrop]

kind of like how you approach any discussion of 9-11

exactly, tinhat.

[D_Raay]

i guess, unlike you, i wait for conclusive multi-verified evidence on subjects before i support them.

i believe NOW, because of science...you believed it THEN because you are liberal lemming who was towing the line.

your belief deserves little respect.

you were.
you, particularly, struggled to have ANY scientific discussion on the matter....you barely even understood it as i remember...but you basically just stated the argument of intimidation (EVERYONE knows it real....only stupid republicans don't believe it blah blah...).
i waited for more conclusive evidence and stood by my skepticism.

that's what smart, independent people do, D.

i wonder what other liberal tow-line you're gonna pull, with little self-conscious thought behind it.
i guess if you throw enough "liberal-belief spaghetti" at the wall, some of it will stick, right?

Unlike you, I was able to draw a logical conclusion from scientific findings without having to rehash those findings at nausea.

Assuming everyone knew of this evidence before spouting off about a subject
is not struggling to comprehend, rather simply not being suffuciently motivated to get into a lengthy technical discussion about it.

Smart, independent people don't speak to admire their own speech (as laden with mispellings and errors as it is), and your skepticism borders on the ridiculous.

I have not the time nor the inclination to debate hardheaded self admirers who imagine they have the intellect to point out other people's shortcomings, when in fact they are just desperately seeking to verify their own paltry existence.

[Qdrop]

Unlike you, I was able to draw a logical conclusion from scientific findings without having to rehash those findings at nausea.

Assuming everyone knew of this evidence before spouting off about a subject
is not struggling to comprehend, rather simply not being suffuciently motivated to get into a lengthy technical discussion about it.

Smart, independent people don't speak to admire their own speech (as laden with mispellings and errors as it is), and your skepticism borders on the ridiculous.

I have not the time nor the inclination to debate hardheaded self admirers who imagine they have the intellect to point out other people's shortcomings, when in fact they are just desperately seeking to verify their own paltry existence.

K.
bye.

[drizl]

exactly, tinhat.


i was saying that about you q. regardless....

[Qdrop]

i was saying that about you q. regardless....
no shit, sherlock.


you're a quick one, you are....

[drizl]

"...Only 20% of all voters, and 26% of Labour voters, say they think the government is telling the truth about the threat, while 21% of voters think the government has actively exaggerated the danger." (in reference to the 'liquid bombers'.)

source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1855568,00.html#article_continue)


now the danger of that, and of all skepticism for the governments story of 9-11, is that with more and more people each day questioning official stories, it will take a major incident, most likely staged, in order to rally support and discredit all who do not support the war on terror.

any terrorist organization should know that public support for the governments of britain and the us is lagging, and that this fact is more powerful than any potential attack aimed at american or english citizens.