It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 25
59
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Why would they care to trick us into war when they don't care what we think?

Wow, this is right up there with; "Conspiracy too difficult to keep secret." You know, in the face of a few thousand people arguing that there was a conspiracy.

Have you been under a rock for 8 years? Seriously.

The Bush administration had high approval ratings, and the Media would allow no public questioning, or real debate on the wars. It was all "working with the enemy." I'm sure it's easy to dismiss now, but there was NO REAL OPPOSITION to Bush until around 2006 -- and the opening salvoes were from Feingold and Kucinich -- some of the few American heros we have in Washington.

I've been with the progressives and Air America from the beginning -- we were the last people holding out, like an underground. MOST of the people I met here in Georgia, would laugh in my face for suggesting that the War was bogus and that we had torture going on at Abu Ghraib -- which I knew about 18 months before it broke in the media.

It broke in the media, because Progressives pushed this information down their throats.

So don't tell me, Bush didn't care about how things seemed. Don't tell me I didn't read the Downing Street Memos.

Bush made a case for war, and their organization, used government funds to spread propaganda. The Lincoln Group, a think tank, got funds dierctly, and used those to plant stories in the Australian Media and places like that. Then our media could comfortably report the "news" that someone else had said -- all based on complete lies. The government sent 40 Iraqi families to Iraq secretly, and they all came back with; "No WMDs." They only used Curve Ball's testimony -- a drunk and tortured fool, only after they tried every other avenue to justify the war.

It was Monica Lewinsky all over again. The feeble excuse and plausible deniability to commit crimes.

And that's all 9/11 was -- a feeble excuse for the Patriot Act -- which was written before the towers fell.

Don't bother me with this alternate history stuff any more. I fricken lived through this decade, and it wasn't a sure thing we were going to get a Democratic administration or even an election. A lot of us were thinking there'd be martial law. There probably would have been, had Progressives and Americans who value Liberty not fought back and pushed the truth every step of the way.

>> There isn't much I haven't been called a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist on the past 8 years; That our elections were stolen, that there were no WMDs, that the case for war was planted in the Media, that the Anthrax didn't come from Al Qaeda (proven to have come from the lab in Maryland where it was tested, as a matter of fact), that there was a policy of torture,... so many things that I lose track of.

I'm a science geek and I program multimedia -- I don't need to be spending full time trying to dig up every link on why Donald Rumsfeld is a war criminal. If I had DECENT Americans, who remembered about our shared purpose and that there is a reason nobody trust the rich -- well then, the fact that half the country has an issue and a good number of us think there was a conspiracy, would be enough to open up a real investigation.

And don't insult my intelligence that the Bush 9/11 Investigation was more than a cover-up. Or I'll have to spend another week showing how they limited that and put cronies in charge.




posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Kratos1220

Originally posted by jfj123



To me it's typical government screw ups.

...

If there were evidence in those steel beams sent to china, we never would have sent them to china. They would have been melted down locally and under government control.



LOL. This was TYPICAL of government, between 2000 and 2006. You must have a short memory.

Two weeks after Clinton takes office -- we get the WTC bombing. The FBI conducts an open investigation and there are no weird incidents. Most everyone is rounded up and the Blind Sheik is in prison. No Patriot Act. No Wars. No Billions missing without receipts.

FEMA used to help people. WE HERE that it was incompetence. But while trucks of ice couldn't find Louisiana for 3 weeks, the Bush administration closed 144 public schools, appointed a fascist to the supreme court (who helped shut down the recount as a protester in Florida if you are into trivia), and managed to clear some brush, and get the Republican Radio shows to convince everyone a Federal Disaster, means that local city governments are responsible for everything.

Oh, how fun it was, debating this, with people who excused every mistake and failure with "these things happen."

They never happened before -- it is the greatest tragedy and self inflicted wound. I really felt raped after Katrina. After Abu Grahab. After 9/11. I had to debate that torture was wrong, that we don't abandon cities, that America is this icompetent, but -- don't you dare limit power of the people who just screwed up -- take their word for it or some LIBERAL will screw it up worse.

Now, instead of standing trial and going to prison for Treason, these jerks get to count their Billions of taxpayer loot, and spend all their time throwing a monkey wrench into Obama's efforts to deal with the financial ruin they left.

We are supposed to think that bombing other countries is a better INVESTMENT, than rebuilding America and putting Americans to work. I'm debating the survival and security of America, with people who just accepted that we cannot do anything right, and that we can never secure anything unless we bomb the world.

>> The whole thing the entire time Bush was in office, was to ridicule dissent, pass massive failures off on "that's what you get with government" and not notice all the money getting trucked out the back door to no-bid contractors whose many crimes and failed projects never got questioned. And on top of that, we get accused that Liberals, and America never did things right.

I'm really insulted that I would have to link to it --- but our economy has always done better under Liberals.

And I am losing all respect for Conservatives who excuse torture, failure, and corruption.


>> Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that "IF THE BEAMS SHOWED EVIDENCE WE WOULDN'T HAVE MELTED THEM DOWN." That's some real circular logic. If we are accusing the Bush administration of covering up 9/11, then of course, we should expect that they would present us with all the evidence to prove they were involved.

I'm going to talk to other people from now on. It seems that it is pointless talking to people who make statements like this. I cannot prove ANYTHING to a person who doesn't see what is wrong with that statement.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by VitriolAndAngst]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-Hey -- they'd be unbraced if the entire building didn't come straight down. Sure, if they are sticking up in the air AFTER the floors below were collapsed, then welded sections might topple AFTER they were exposed, or at least a number of stories.

2-WELDS are usually stronger than original steel when done right, ARC welders fuze the steel and such joints are NOT weak points.

3-Buckling can happen with one tube, if the forces are NOT straight down.

4-If the inner floor held, such that it pulled on the core -- well, the core held it up when it wasn't collapsing, you don't add more weight suddenly by collapsing it.

5-You have a theory where the floors break free of the core, and no explanation then of how it was brought down.



1- you have this bassackwards. If the building collapses, by whatever means, the descending parts will strip off floors, even in the core area. But the upper block is more than 30-40 ft, so AFTER the floors are gone, there's still more building coming down. THIS is where columns are buckled, etc.

2- true, but the welds need to be to full depth of the columns to be AS STRONG, the connection can never be stronger. I've only seen examples of them being welded to ~ 1/2 depth. This would mean that it would only be 1/2 as resistant to side impacts as the columns. Follow me here - The cores were 36-42 ksi steel, and they used 7018 rods, which is 70 ksi. So some will say that this means the weld is ~ 2x as strong as the welded material. This is wrong when you really think about it. What you are confusing is that the BEAD material may be ~ 2x as strong, but the connection is not. This is cuz when the weld transitions from the BEAD to the column, the column is again only 36-42 ksi steel. And if it is indeed only welded to ~ 1/2 depth, then the connection is weaker. The strength of the welding rod cannot make the connection stronger than the column, just as using stronger bolts to connect 2 parts together cannot prevent the assembly from failing if the failure is not at the connection. Hope you can understand that.

3- I think the term is axial buckling. This happens when straight down forces are applied that are beyond the strength of the columns.

4- correct. But what happens is you now have an unbraced column that is more prone to buckling, or breaking welds from side impacts. This is the point you're not seeing.

5- it? The floors were knocked off by the descending columns



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-Everything you said is wrong. Fitting facts to the incident.

2-There was no evidence that the fire at WTC was that hot.

3-It had black smoke, there were people looking out through holes near the fire,

4-Every estimate, is taken from the highest theoretical temperature, and the weakest assumed tolerance.

5-And still, it collapsed at free-fall speeds

6-but no explanation for the fall of the core.

7-Buckling? Are you kidding me? That would require it to move to the side.

8- The only two ways would be if the bundle split like a flower,

9-Apologies Seymore, I didn't quite see what you were explaining.



1- it's not ME saying that fires get that hot, etc. It's fire engineers saying that. I'll take their expertise over your statements.

2- but professional fire engineers - not just me
- say that these is a reasonable expectation

3- she later jumped. What do you think that says about how hot it was?

4- wrong. These are all middle of the road estimates. The TM, OTOH, uses minimum temps and highest tolerances.

5- no, it didn't. It fell at about 40% slower than freefall acceleration.

6- I gave you a quote for how only 250C is needed over a period of 1 hour to expect collapse. Read the NIST report, it talks about creep buckling of the cores. This is another name for buckling that takes into account longer time periods.

7- or tipping.

8- kinda like this? Lower left of the core - is it opening up like a flower? concretecore.741.com...

9- what does this mean? Do you recognize then that I'm not just making stuffup, and that I have been quoting engineers?



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by jfj123
 


Why would they care to trick us into war when they don't care what we think?

Wow, this is right up there with; "Conspiracy too difficult to keep secret." You know, in the face of a few thousand people arguing that there was a conspiracy.

Have you been under a rock for 8 years? Seriously.

Evidently you've missed my point entirely.
The idea that the bush administration would trick us into war by staging 9/11 means that they want/need the American citizens support/acceptance. If this is the case, why have they ignored what the American people have wanted over and over? One hypothesis flies in the face of the other. You can't have it both ways.


The Bush administration had high approval ratings, and the Media would allow no public questioning, or real debate on the wars. It was all "working with the enemy." I'm sure it's easy to dismiss now, but there was NO REAL OPPOSITION to Bush until around 2006 -- and the opening salvoes were from Feingold and Kucinich -- some of the few American heros we have in Washington.

Based on your hypothesis, why did they need those approval ratings???


I've been with the progressives and Air America from the beginning -- we were the last people holding out, like an underground. MOST of the people I met here in Georgia, would laugh in my face for suggesting that the War was bogus and that we had torture going on at Abu Ghraib -- which I knew about 18 months before it broke in the media.

Just curious where your sources for abu ghraib came from?
And just for the record, I never was a bush supporter and never believed in the iraq war.

Also, I was really upset when Kucinich dropped out of the pres. race. I would have voted for him.


So don't tell me, Bush didn't care about how things seemed. Don't tell me I didn't read the Downing Street Memos.

Did you see his approval ratings when he left office ? Of course he didn't care what the American public thought.


Bush made a case for war, and their organization, used government funds to spread propaganda. The Lincoln Group, a think tank, got funds dierctly, and used those to plant stories in the Australian Media and places like that. Then our media could comfortably report the "news" that someone else had said -- all based on complete lies. The government sent 40 Iraqi families to Iraq secretly, and they all came back with; "No WMDs." They only used Curve Ball's testimony -- a drunk and tortured fool, only after they tried every other avenue to justify the war.

Curve Ball was already deemed unreliable prior to his testimony regarding iraq.

It's funny how you think I am/was a bush supporter and that I believe(d) everything that the administration said when most of my posts have stated the exact opposite. If you're going to respond to my posts, please read them first.


Don't bother me with this alternate history stuff any more. I fricken lived through this decade, and it wasn't a sure thing we were going to get a Democratic administration or even an election. A lot of us were thinking there'd be martial law. There probably would have been, had Progressives and Americans who value Liberty not fought back and pushed the truth every step of the way.

Like I wasn't there either with the same worries? Most people I know were talking about what we would do if bush refused to leave office so get off your holier then thou kick ok ?


I'm a science geek and I program multimedia -- I don't need to be spending full time trying to dig up every link on why Donald Rumsfeld is a war criminal.

I NEVER said he wasn't and personally I believe he is and he isn't the only one in that administration.


If I had DECENT Americans, who remembered about our shared purpose and that there is a reason nobody trust the rich -- well then, the fact that half the country has an issue and a good number of us think there was a conspiracy, would be enough to open up a real investigation.

Hey I'm all for a REAL investigation. The problem is no matter what, whichever group is chosen, they will be labeled by the truthers as traitors and liars unless they come up with the outcome the truthers WANT and NEED.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

FEMA used to help people. WE HERE that it was incompetence. But while trucks of ice couldn't find Louisiana for 3 weeks, the Bush administration closed 144 public schools, appointed a fascist to the supreme court (who helped shut down the recount as a protester in Florida if you are into trivia), and managed to clear some brush, and get the Republican Radio shows to convince everyone a Federal Disaster, means that local city governments are responsible for everything.

Oh, how fun it was, debating this, with people who excused every mistake and failure with "these things happen."

OK please show me any post where I agreed with anything the bush administration did or even excused it. If you can't then don't direct this crap at me and pretend this is what I believe in.


They never happened before -- it is the greatest tragedy and self inflicted wound. I really felt raped after Katrina. After Abu Grahab. After 9/11. I had to debate that torture was wrong, that we don't abandon cities, that America is this icompetent, but -- don't you dare limit power of the people who just screwed up -- take their word for it or some LIBERAL will screw it up worse.

Yep I had the same problem as you.
I've said from day 1:
Iraq, katrina, abu grahab, enhanced interrogation (IE TORTURE), illegal wire tapping, extraordinary rendition, illegal foreign prisons, etc.. were all wrong and goes completely against what The United States Constitution stands for.


Now, instead of standing trial and going to prison for Treason, these jerks get to count their Billions of taxpayer loot, and spend all their time throwing a monkey wrench into Obama's efforts to deal with the financial ruin they left.

I'll vote for trial in a second !


We are supposed to think that bombing other countries is a better INVESTMENT, than rebuilding America and putting Americans to work.

So says darth cheney and his illegal companies.


I'm debating the survival and security of America, with people who just accepted that we cannot do anything right, and that we can never secure anything unless we bomb the world.

I'm sure there are those people here but I am not one of them. Stop pretending like I am so you can make yourself feel better.


>> The whole thing the entire time Bush was in office, was to ridicule dissent, pass massive failures off on "that's what you get with government" and not notice all the money getting trucked out the back door to no-bid contractors whose many crimes and failed projects never got questioned. And on top of that, we get accused that Liberals, and America never did things right.

I agree.


I'm really insulted that I would have to link to it --- but our economy has always done better under Liberals.

And I am losing all respect for Conservatives who excuse torture, failure, and corruption.

Me too.

Are you starting to catch on yet????



>> Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that "IF THE BEAMS SHOWED EVIDENCE WE WOULDN'T HAVE MELTED THEM DOWN." That's some real circular logic.

My god READ WHAT I WROTE !!!

If there were evidence in those steel beams sent to china, we never would have sent them to china. They would have been melted down locally and under government control.

Notice how I didn't say what you thought?
I'll tell you the same thing....if you're going to reply to my statements, please read them first.


I'm going to talk to other people from now on. It seems that it is pointless talking to people who make statements like this. I cannot prove ANYTHING to a person who doesn't see what is wrong with that statement.

You read the statement wrong. That's not what I said at all.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

This is what I'd like to see:
3 chair council of the following people
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Robert Wexler
They would in turn hire 10 people in each of the fields required for a proper investigation.
The 3 chair council would be given complete access to all agencies investigations and related evidence.


Admittedly, I don't know much about political names. I only know a couple and only Ron Paul out of those you posted, so I'll take your word for it on the other two.



This is one of the reasons why I don't think the government would, assuming it could, try and trick us into war. You said they don't care what we want which is a very good point. We know for sure that was how the bush administration operated. The bush administration also didn't care what we thought. This is obvious based on the popularity rating in the 20's when bush left office. That being said, why would they need or even want to trick us to believe anything? That would imply they cared what we thought and wanted and you just said they didn't and I agreed with you. See where I'm going with that?


The answer to "Why would they need or want to trick us" is easy IMO. We, the people, needed to be kept under the illusion that we still had a say in what went on. Maybe I was just out of the loop, but it wasn't as obvious back then that we didn't have a say as it is right now. If we are fooled into thinking we were attacked, we would want the war which I believe is what the government wanted all along. They get what they wanted and we make Bush's job easier by supporting him long enough to get things going. If you think about it, it's frightening as to how easy it is to control people with their emotions and no one has to tell you that 9/11 brought out a ton of emotion in people. I'm sure this made it easier to cover up as well.


Now back to the problem with SOME of the truthers is that the nuts seem to have the loudest voice so it drowns out those who have at the least, reasonable questions. By default, people like you, get linked to the nuts which automatically ruins your credibility so the nuts ruin it for everyone.


They sure do.



Haven't you heard? Before bush and darth cheney left office, they announced that they already captured the ring leader of 9/11 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed... Wait a minute???

...

My personal thought is that he is the equivalent of the spiritual cheerleader and financial collections guy and has nothing to do with day to day operations or planning.


Just one of the many things we need answers to. *shakes my head* This is all a tragedy within a tragedy.


originally posted by VitriolandAngst

WE impeached Clinton over lying about sex -- after 6 years of investigations that proved him INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES. And now, we can't investigate a president after a smoking ruin in which they are complicit, and when their only excuse is criminal incompetence.


That's a really good point as well as everything you mentioned about previous false flags and the such.

See, this is why it's so easy for me to believe the government would do this. If I may briefly wander off-topic, look at BigPharma and the FDA for example. They got caught red-handed suppressing health risks for the drug Vioxx which killed around 55,000 people in six months (I think it was six months). They didn't care about us, they cared about money and human life was expendable. I certainly don't believe this was the first time they did this, only the first time they were caught.

Then look at the food and water supply. Food that is poisoned with pesticides which especially includes anything with cottonseed oil in it. Cotton isn't a food crop and therefore isn't restricted as far as what chemicals can be used on it. Nasty stuff. Then there's the mercury in foods and the trans fats they now sneak into foods. By law, yeah LAW, they are allowed to say there are no trans fats in the food if there is less than .5 grams in it. So, 4.999999g? Great, enjoy, lie away, the law says it's ok. The health problems associated with these things are well documented.

The water, containing fluoride even against the will of the people, has also been proven to cause many health risks including fertility problems, thyroid dysfunction, arthritis, fluorosis (softening of teeth and bones), increased risk of bone fractures, alzeimers, increased risk of lead poisoning and evidence of lower IQ in children for starters. It is a poison so toxic that it is used in commercial pesticides as the main ingredient and that's not even the full extent of what's in the water.

Who benefits? BigPharma and the FDA when we have to take their drugs later in life to treat the ailments that ingesting poisoned food and water their whole life causes them. I'm sure there are other examples, but this proves that human life is way down on the priorities list with money and power being at the top. They would not and do not hesitate to sacrifice us for more of those two things.

IMO, the only difference between these situations and 9/11 is that 9/11 was all at once in the open for all to see. Sacrifice some of us to gain the power over the rest of us needed to make us agree to anything, then abuse that power. All war is based on some kind of deception to manipulate and trick us into thinking we need it all while we feel like it was our choice all along.

Independence limited, freedom of choice is made for you my friend, freedom of speech is words that they will bend, freedom with their exception, freedom no longer frees you - Metallica, Eye of the Beholder

So, to me, taking down three buildings with two planes and some explosives under the guise of a "terrorist attack" to get what they want from us is not that far of a reach for me, it just came in different packaging. Maintain the illusion to the public, get what you want from them and everyone is happy. Fortunately, it seems people are finally waking up to this and the government seems to care less about hiding it. I fear that the awakening has taken too long, though.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yep I had the same problem as you.
I've said from day 1:
Iraq, katrina, abu grahab, enhanced interrogation (IE TORTURE), illegal wire tapping, extraordinary rendition, illegal foreign prisons, etc.. were all wrong and goes completely against what The United States Constitution stands for.

Not just wrong, criminal on many different levels. Even genocidal. So why is it such a stretch to imagine they were involved in EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PNAC PLANNING DOCUMENT CALLED FOR: a "new Pearl Harbor."


OK please show me any post where I agreed with anything the bush administration did or even excused it. If you can't then don't direct this crap at me and pretend this is what I believe in.

By spending half your life strenuously arguing that 9/11 wasn't an inside job (without even examining the evidence), that's exactly what you're doing.

Whether you like it or not, any objective observer would definitely consider you a propagandist and accomplice of the Cheney/Bush/Neocon crime cabal.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Yep I had the same problem as you.
I've said from day 1:
Iraq, katrina, abu grahab, enhanced interrogation (IE TORTURE), illegal wire tapping, extraordinary rendition, illegal foreign prisons, etc.. were all wrong and goes completely against what The United States Constitution stands for.


Not just wrong, criminal on many different levels. Even genocidal. So why is it such a stretch to imagine they were involved in EXACTLY WHAT THEIR PNAC PLANNING DOCUMENT CALLED FOR: a "new Pearl Harbor."

Criminal....I have an appropriate phrase for you -HIGH TREASON.
Would they do it? Possibly. Did they have the mentality necessary-NO.


OK please show me any post where I agreed with anything the bush administration did or even excused it. If you can't then don't direct this crap at me and pretend this is what I believe in.


By spending half your life strenuously arguing that 9/11 wasn't an inside job (without even examining the evidence), that's exactly what you're doing.

Read a lot about 9/11 and about the supposed evidence. The problem is that all the supposed evidence is just opinion, mostly not based on science. For example, people will say over and over that a jet made up of more fragile materials couldn't have damaged the WTC's. The reality is that physics say it can and I've even posted example of how more fragile materials can damage stronger materials. This is just one example of many.


Whether you like it or not, any objective observer would definitely consider you a propagandist and accomplice of the Cheney/Bush/Neocon crime cabal.

The irony here is that I AM the objective observer
I don't have a side except the truth. Currently based on all available evidence, there was no inside job. Now new evidence may come to light which could change that and if it does, I'll change my stance accordingly.

In short, I'm not interested in pretending people are guilty of more crimes then they are.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Criminal....I have an appropriate phrase for you -HIGH TREASON.
Would they do it? Possibly. Did they have the mentality necessary-NO.

Exactly what do you mean by "the mentality necessary?" That nobody was smart enough to pull it off? Of course Bush was a mental midget of a shrub, but to think this was beyond the capacity of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and the rest of the PNAC cabal along with elements within the CIA and Mossad is shockingly naive.


Read a lot about 9/11 and about the supposed evidence. The problem is that all the supposed evidence is just opinion, mostly not based on science. For example, people will say over and over that a jet made up of more fragile materials couldn't have damaged the WTC's. The reality is that physics say it can and I've even posted example of how more fragile materials can damage stronger materials. This is just one example of many.

Why do you choose a ridiculous strawman example like the "no planes theory" or my favorite, holograms, to make your point about "ALL the supposed evidence?" This is just disinformation that's intended to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. No credible 9/11 researcher or inside job proponent believes this silliness, but I guess it worked on you.


The irony here is that I AM the objective observer
I don't have a side except the truth.

You only think you're objective. If you really believed in "truth", you wouldn't spend half your life trying to discredit it with ridiculous "no plane" theories. Instead of focusing on disinformation, perhaps you can explain the BILLIONS of dollars of 9/11 stock puts that were never investigated but that led directly to Deutschebank and the CIA's executive director.

Read the post from the professional options trader halfway down the last page.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
its truly bizarre that 911 may be the most obvious and blatant conspiracy of all time, and these people (i struggle to call them that) SEE NOTHING.

the only logical conclusion i can come up with is they fall into one of 3 main categories:

they're either in denial

they haven't done any real research

or they're part of the coverup.

Pretty much sums it up.


[edit on 15-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by jfj123
Criminal....I have an appropriate phrase for you -HIGH TREASON.
Would they do it? Possibly. Did they have the mentality necessary-NO.

Exactly what do you mean by "the mentality necessary?" That nobody was smart enough to pull it off? Of course Bush was a mental midget of a shrub, but to think this was beyond the capacity of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and the rest of the PNAC cabal along with elements within the CIA and Mossad is shockingly naive.

No there is evidence all around us that they didn't have the intellect to pull of a conspiracy of this nature.


Read a lot about 9/11 and about the supposed evidence. The problem is that all the supposed evidence is just opinion, mostly not based on science. For example, people will say over and over that a jet made up of more fragile materials couldn't have damaged the WTC's. The reality is that physics say it can and I've even posted example of how more fragile materials can damage stronger materials. This is just one example of many.

Why do you choose a ridiculous strawman example like the "no planes theory" or my favorite, holograms, to make your point about "ALL the supposed evidence?"
Once again, you're not reading what I'm writing. Did I mention holograms in the above example? NO I did not. My example had nothing to do with the holonut hypothesis.


This is just disinformation that's intended to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. No credible 9/11 researcher or inside job proponent believes this silliness, but I guess it worked on you.

Yes physics works well on me
Like I said, people in the truther movement have claimed that the planes which were built less sturdy then the buildings, could not have damaged the buildings. This is not true. NOT ONE TIME DID I MENTION HOLOGRAMS IN MY ABOVE EXAMPLE.


The irony here is that I AM the objective observer
I don't have a side except the truth.


You only think you're objective.

You only think I am not
but since you're not objective, you can't see that I am. If you didn't spend so much time trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing, you would see that



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No there is evidence all around us that they didn't have the intellect to pull of a conspiracy of this nature.

There is? Care to elaborate on your insider knowledge of the intellect and capabilities of the PNAC neocon cabal, CIA and Mossad?


Once again, you're not reading what I'm writing. Did I mention holograms in the above example? NO I did not. My example had nothing to do with the holonut hypothesis.

Never claimed you did. I just said holograms is my favorite example of disinformation that's frequently cited by debunkers.


Yes physics works well on me

Glad to hear it. Then I'm sure you'll be able to explain how the free-fall speed collapse of ALL THREE WTC towers violated the laws of physics, specifically the principles of conservation of energy and momentum.

Or maybe I'm underestimating the abilities of those clever Muslims, who can do everything from suspend the laws of physics, cause buildings to collapse without damaging them and master the survival of jet crashes:

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! (written a month after 9/11)

The Hidden Story of Building 7 and The Controlled Collapse of WTC 7

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers Are Still Alive!


You only think I am not
but since you're not objective, you can't see that I am.

OK Mr. Objective, but you seem to have missed one:


Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Instead of focusing on disinformation, perhaps you can explain the BILLIONS of dollars of 9/11 stock puts that were never investigated but that led directly to Deutschebank and the CIA's executive director.

Read the post from the professional options trader halfway down the last page.




[edit on 15-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
A Naval Architect, Marine Engineer and manager of a Swedish company that investigates shipping accidents recently published two articles about the destruction of the WTC:

WTC 7 - the Case for no Collapse - Debunking the WTC7 Conspiracy Theory of NIST

and

WTC 1 - the Case for Collapse/Crush down Arrest and clear Thinking - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST

Although they get a bit technical, they're aimed at the layperson and help to draw out the absurdity of what NIST have tried to palm the world off with. Like the towers, ships are essentially huge metal boxes and like steel-framed buildings, when they encounter massive collision forces (much greater than those imagined in Bazant's "pancake theory") and fires they do not implode.


At the moment of contact of A) the 'WTC upper part and lower structure' or B) 'two ships in collision', a certain momentum (mass times velocity), energy (momentum times velocity divided by 2) and force (energy divided by displacement) are involved. Acceleration does not come into the picture! Local failures occur, energy is absorbed, friction between failed parts in contact develops, forces and loads are re-distributed and the destruction is always arrested after a while as will be shown below. Or the ships just bounce against each other!

It is quite simple to learn what happens in collisions or impacts! Gravity alone will not suffice to crush anything.


The professional deniers will try to rubbish these articles (that's their job) but I would recommend anyone who isn't convinced yet - don't be distracted - take a look.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

No there is evidence all around us that they didn't have the intellect to pull of a conspiracy of this nature.

Once again, you're not reading what I'm writing. Did I mention holograms in the above example? NO I did not. My example had nothing to do with the holonut hypothesis.


NOT ONE TIME DID I MENTION HOLOGRAMS IN MY ABOVE EXAMPLE.

The irony here is that I AM the objective observer
I don't have a side except the truth.



So they didn't have the 'intellect'!! Who are "they" you're referring too??

There's something extremely disingenuous about you, jfj123!

Why don't you tell us that you spend half of 2008 debating holograms and 3-D
imaging? Or to be fair - at least many months?

Why do you call people "holonut", and by implication, 'idiots, dumb-asses, fools,
tin foil hat loonies etc. etc. for questioning this technology?
And who, obviously, after not receiving any answers, embark on natural speculations as to why no answers are forthcoming!
Why is this called "Holonut hyphotesis" by you?

The facts, the absolute facts are, that DARPA according to their budget papers would
have spend millions upon millions of dollars developing this new technology all through
the nineties and well into the next century.
The undisputed facts are that Japan, amongst others, is very advanced in their
knowledge about this technology, and no reason exist to doubt that USA likewise would
be equally advanced. Especially if one should take DARPA's budget papers into account.

The absolute facts are, that in any investigation no stone should be left unturned.
Anything worth looking at should be analyzed, probed and investigated for probable
clues before it either be discarded as useless, or retained as possible useful evidence.

This is not what is happening with hologram technology and 3-D imaging.
This is rejected as fairy-tale stuff, and only fit for loonies and dumb-wits!

The people who promulgate and promote this insane approach seems to be totally
ignorant of the fact that whatever you send out will sooner or later return to the
originator. The 'boomerang effect' is inevitable. It never fails.

So the people who want to know, who are curious, who ask questions, who seeks
answers, who speculate as to why no answers are given; or in short, those who seek
the truth, are the idiots!

And those who want the truth to be concealed, by all devious and nasty means, by
name-calling, ridicule and the like, want to be considered the intelligent and clever
ones???

Gives us a break for heavens sake!

These people are the true idiots, because they cannot even grasp the bleeding obvious:
That the more they tell people there's nothing behind the thick hedge to bother about,
the more people would want to look for themselves whether this is true or not.
Sooner or later the truth, whatever it is, will be revealed.

So why are the true dummies doing this? What is it they don't want us to know about?
What are they trying to hide?

Could this really be the "hot potato"??

Naturally, that should be one of the first things coming into mind, shouldn't it!!

Really!!

Honestly!!

Seriously!!















[edit on 15-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Never claimed you did. I just said holograms is my favorite example of disinformation that's frequently cited by debunkers.


[edit on 15-2-2009 by GoldenFleece]



Please, GoldenFleece, please review and revise your opinion on the matter.

You do not yet posses all the information available for you to come with such a bold
statement, as if it should be considered an established fact.

It is not.

Much more needs to be revealed before you can honestly make up your mind about
this technology.

Its not as clear cut as you would like it to be!


from DARPA's budget papers 2000 - 2007 page 123:

".....
These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 

I actually agree with you. I've seen video of a holographic person walk out on stage and address an audience with no one suspecting anything until he ended his speech and suddenly disappeared! I have no doubt the U.S. military possesses holographic technology that's sophisticated enough to fool anyone.

What I object to are the debunkers constantly using this to ridicule the entire 9/11 truth movement. Just because holographic technology was possible doesn't mean it was used during 9/11. Until someone can provide some real solid evidence that it was employed, I think the whole discussion is counterproductive. It's much more effective to emphasize what can be proven, e.g. the numerous secondary explosions heard before the towers collapsed, squibs and free-falls of WTC 1 and 2, molten metal and >2000 degree temps under the WTC rubble, the demolition of WTC 7, 9/11 insider stock trading, hijackers who are still alive, the many Pentagon anomalies, etc., etc., etc.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by djeminy
 

I actually agree with you. I've seen video of a holographic person walk out on stage and address an audience with no one suspecting anything until he ended his speech and suddenly disappeared! I have no doubt the U.S. military possesses holographic technology that's sophisticated enough to fool anyone.

What I object to are the debunkers constantly using this to ridicule the entire 9/11 truth movement. Just because holographic technology was possible doesn't mean it was used during 9/11. Until someone can provide some real solid evidence that it was employed, I think the whole discussion is counterproductive. It's much more effective to emphasize what can be proven, e.g. the numerous secondary explosions heard before the towers collapsed, squibs and free-falls of WTC 1 and 2, molten metal and >2000 degree temps under the WTC rubble, the demolition of WTC 7, 9/11 insider stock trading, hijackers who are still alive, the many Pentagon anomalies, etc., etc., etc.


Thank you GF, that's so good to hear.

Don't worry about the anti-truthers. They're doing an excellent job ridiculing
themselves.

"Just because holographic technology was possible doesn't mean it was used during 9/11."

True.
But it doesn't mean it was NOT used either.

When you do a puzzle, you are guided by the picture printed on the lid of the box,
and the box contains all the pieces needed to recreate this same picture. No more and
no less.
It doesn't matter where you start. The whole exercise is to complete the already known
picture.

We are not in the same situation, as we got pieces missing here and there, but our
purpose is the same nevertheless: to recreate the "picture" already existing.

I think that 3-D imaging is one of the missing pieces, and if we want to complete the
'picture', I suggest we keep on looking for this missing piece, together with the others
we are also still looking for.

But of course, it would not surprise me in the least, if this particular piece of the puzzle
should turn out to be the last one needed to be found to make this dreadful incomplete 'picture' whole again!

I say we should keep looking. It 'feels' right for me, sort of in a 'goose-bump' way -
if you understand what I mean!

I naturally agree with the other points you're making!




[edit on 15-2-2009 by djeminy]

[edit on 15-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 

I don't want to miss quote you now are you saying there was a holographic image of a plane on 9/11? That seems to be a large part of the problem any time someone gets fanatical about something anything becomes possible. I suggest if anyone would ever believe what happened on 9-11 it has to be rooted in facts. If you examine the facts there is no doubt a plane crashed into the WTC. Now why may be a different story.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by djeminy
 

I don't want to miss quote you now are you saying there was a holographic image of a plane on 9/11? That seems to be a large part of the problem any time someone gets fanatical about something anything becomes possible. I suggest if anyone would ever believe what happened on 9-11 it has to be rooted in facts. If you examine the facts there is no doubt a plane crashed into the WTC. Now why may be a different story.



I,m really glad to hear you don't want to 'miss quote' me. I always wonder why people
have a foretaste for wanting to do this in the first place!!

So why don't you use 'the copy and paste' method instead?

For example as I'm doing it here:

"That seems to be a large part of the problem any time someone gets fanatical about something anything becomes possible."

One can only deduce from this that you're talking about personal experience!
Intelligent people naturally are fully aware of the fact, that one cannot be searching
for the truth and be 'fanatical' at the same time.
The two things of course are mutually exclusive; if the word 'fanatical' should be taken
at face value, and not merely in jest.

Copy and paste the part, in context of course, you want me to reply to, and we can
take it from there.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
www.nytimes.com...




BEIJING — A fierce fire engulfed one of the Chinese capital’s most architecturally celebrated modern buildings on Monday, the last day of festivities for the lunar new year when the city was ablaze with fireworks. By late evening the blaze was still raging and the cause remained unknown, but it seemed clear that the 34-story structure, not yet completed, had been rendered unusable.









As you can clearly see, we have another Building on Fire far worse than WTC-7. It is not the Building in Madrid So I believe this one is MADE OF STEEL---Guess what? It does not do the 6.5 second global collapse! Guess it would need a CIA office for that one.


You can see more video of it here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 9-2-2009 by talisman]

[edit on 9-2-2009 by talisman]


If you want to bring down a building then you need to fly an airplane into it...


[edit on 16-2-2009 by spacial]




top topics



 
59
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join