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.

 

Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

page: 11
121
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine
 


Does the FEMA report describe finding a liquid eutectic mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?


I believe that they never found a liquid eutectic mixture consisting primarily of iron. They may have found evidence of such as a solid material.



My mistake, I should have made the question weasel-proof. Of course.

Here it is rephrased:

Does the FEMA report describe finding evidence of a liquid eutectic mixture consisting primarily of iron, or not?

Yes or no....


And did you not just post this?:


Originally posted by pteridine
There is no proof of molten iron


www.abovetopsecret.com...



...A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron


www.fema.gov...




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
However this is quoted from a summary, and not really an accurate reflection.


You don't think FEMA provided an accurate summary of their own findings? That's the first time I've heard that one.


this still does not provide evidence of the apparent 'tons of molten metal' claimed by some truthers.


Doesn't negate it either. We just don't have that evidence.

People on the other side of the fence have also been denying any molten steel at all though for a good while, and I think that's interesting considering FEMA published this not even a year after 9/11.


The amount of metal would have been very small in total


You don't have that evidence either. I'm sure it's comforting to state this like it's a fact, but it's really not. Denial is too easy from behind a computer. Like I said, people have been denying for years what the government itself admitted in 2002, as one small example relevant to the present discussion.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't think FEMA provided an accurate summary of their own findings? That's the first time I've heard that one.

Summaries are summaries, they omit detail for brevity. If you want to quote from a paper, quote the facts, not the abridged version



Doesn't negate it either. We just don't have that evidence.

True enough, I have no quarrel with that.


People on the other side of the fence have also been denying any molten steel at all though for a good while, and I think that's interesting considering FEMA published this not even a year after 9/11.

The reasoning for this goes as follows:
1. Molten metal was found
2. Molten metal means hotter temperatures than fire can achieve
3. Molten metal therefore means controlled demolition

With this molten metal, this chain is not accurate, as not only would the eutectic require temperatures well in the range of normal fires, but it also leaves a distinctive signature that was only observed on a total of 2 samples.


You don't have that evidence either. I'm sure it's comforting to state this like it's a fact, but it's really not. Denial is too easy from behind a computer. Like I said, people have been denying for years what the government itself admitted in 2002, as one small example relevant to the present discussion.

The evidence is right in front of you, the beam that was eroded had only a certain mass. I guess you could argue that more beams were consumed like this but we don't have any information of that. I would probably not disagree though.

I do think you've misunderstood what people have been arguing against, it's not that ANY molten metal existed, we know many did, lead, brass, tin, aluminium etc are all within fire ranges. It's that there were temperatures higher than that achievable by a normal office fire which would imply some sort of conspiratorial aspect.

No matter how you present it, this eutectic reaction does not prove higher than normal fire temperatures, nor is it particularly strong evidence for controlled demolition unless you have more information I'm not aware of.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't think FEMA provided an accurate summary of their own findings? That's the first time I've heard that one.

Summaries are summaries, they omit detail for brevity. If you want to quote from a paper, quote the facts, not the abridged version


Can you explain what is in the whole of FEMA appendix C that contradicts their own summary?





People on the other side of the fence have also been denying any molten steel at all though for a good while, and I think that's interesting considering FEMA published this not even a year after 9/11.

The reasoning for this goes as follows:
1. Molten metal was found
2. Molten metal means hotter temperatures than fire can achieve
3. Molten metal therefore means controlled demolition


This is supposed to explain why some "debunkers" have erroneously claimed there was no molten steel?


but it also leaves a distinctive signature that was only observed on a total of 2 samples.


Given the hundreds of tons of steel that was not analyzed I don't really find this surprising.



I do think you've misunderstood what people have been arguing against, it's not that ANY molten metal existed, we know many did, lead, brass, tin, aluminium etc are all within fire ranges. It's that there were temperatures higher than that achievable by a normal office fire which would imply some sort of conspiratorial aspect.


I'm not talking about molten "metal" in general, and I don't know why you're bringing this up to me.

No, I have been here a few years and I have definitely seen plenty of "debunkers" claiming there was never any molten iron found, period. Pteridine just made the claim himself for god's sake, did you not see it?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you explain what is in the whole of FEMA appendix C that contradicts their own summary?

Sure, although I should apologise. I thought you were quoting from the 3 line summary after the results, but it turns out you were not. Still, if you read further down you will find that this was FeO and FeS, Iron Oxide and Iron Sulphide. The elements are listed individually, but in fact they existed primarily as compounds and have significantly different chemical properties than pure iron.


This is supposed to explain why some "debunkers" have erroneously claimed there was no molten steel?

I wouldn't know, I'm simply explaining why 'molten steel' has become a buzzword and how the existence of liquids containing iron does not somehow immediately prove a conspiracy theory.


Given the hundreds of tons of steel that was not analyzed I don't really find this surprising.

That's not entirely accurate, tens of thousands of tons of steel were visually inspected at various points. However, I do agree an awful lot of steel was probably not inspected to any acceptable standard. Still, you would expect many more than 2 pieces if this was something that was occuring throughout the towers. Bear in mind that the piece from the WTC was from something like the 53rd floor, well below the fires and so it is assumed to have occured post collapse (plus the fact it would have to be horizontal iirc).


I'm not talking about molten "metal" in general, and I don't know why you're bringing this up to me.

Just pointing out that nobody is against molten metal in general



No, I have been here a few years and I have definitely seen plenty of "debunkers" claiming there was never any molten iron found, period. Pteridine just made the claim himself for god's sake, did you not see it?

Well in a sense he is right, the liquid material was not 'molten iron', as that implies pure iron with an oxide coating on the exterior. This is not what FEMA found. However, i'm not about to go telling you what other people think.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Your reference [fema403_ch3.pdf] describes high temperature corrosion, including sulfidation and oxidation. Part of this attack includes formation of a eutectic melt on the surface of the metal which penetrates grain boundaries and makes the steel susceptible to further corrosion. This melt contained iron, oxygen and sulfur and is described as "sulfur rich." It is not described as "molten iron" but would be more like a molten slag, of sorts.

The erosion of the steel was caused by high temperature oxidation and sulfidation; nowhere does the report mention bulk molten metal. The idea that metal was dripping off the steel beams is incorrect.

The bottom line[s]:
1. The "sulfur rich" eutectic mixture contained iron, oxygen and sulfur. It was not molten iron.
2. The erosion was from high temperature oxidation and sulfidation, and was not the result of melting of the steel.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you explain what is in the whole of FEMA appendix C that contradicts their own summary?

Sure, although I should apologise. I thought you were quoting from the 3 line summary after the results, but it turns out you were not. Still, if you read further down you will find that this was FeO and FeS, Iron Oxide and Iron Sulphide. The elements are listed individually, but in fact they existed primarily as compounds and have significantly different chemical properties than pure iron.


Iron was by far the most prominent element and it still melted. Iron oxide has a similar melting point to elemental iron and from what I'm reading iron sulfide decomposes to iron oxide at 400 C. If that's correct then that in itself is very interesting because prolonged exposure to temperatures higher than 400 C should have actually greatly reduced the amount of iron sulfide.






This is supposed to explain why some "debunkers" have erroneously claimed there was no molten steel?

I wouldn't know, I'm simply explaining why 'molten steel' has become a buzzword


Well that wasn't what I was asking for and I don't particularly need that explanation, as I've been here long enough to see it unfold for myself.


However, I do agree an awful lot of steel was probably not inspected to any acceptable standard. Still, you would expect many more than 2 pieces if this was something that was occuring throughout the towers.


With a competent investigation you might expect as much, but this is goes back to the entire problem. The investigations in general were infamously lacking.

There is the so-called "meteorite" too, which was never analyzed despite it being a very prominent and public piece of debris. "You would expect" someone would have analyzed it due to its bizarre nature, but no, apparently not. So the moral of the story is you can't really "expect" to take anything for granted when dealing with these studies.


Bear in mind that the piece from the WTC was from something like the 53rd floor, well below the fires and so it is assumed to have occured post collapse (plus the fact it would have to be horizontal iirc).


Fire would have little to do with intentional sabotage pre-collapse, so your logic must be thrown out the window if we are considering all possibilities fairly.



Well in a sense he is right, the liquid material was not 'molten iron', as that implies pure iron with an oxide coating on the exterior. This is not what FEMA found. However, i'm not about to go telling you what other people think.


You are being ridiculous. The iron came from the steel. If you think ANY of this has to do with "pure iron with an oxide coating on the exterior" then you are already imagining something completely unrealistic and irrelevant to the actual subject of the study. This was originally steel that was melted, formed into puddles of its constituent elements plus a lot of sulfur from somewhere else.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The bottom line[s]:
1. The "sulfur rich" eutectic mixture contained iron, oxygen and sulfur. It was not molten iron.


Do you know what "semantics" are?

This is a straw-man anyway. No one is saying pure molten iron was present. That the iron would contain impurities is a given considering it would have come from steel.

I don't see how you live with yourself.


2. The erosion was from high temperature oxidation and sulfidation, and was not the result of melting of the steel.


Then what is FEMA talking about when they mention "inter-granular melting"? What exactly melted?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The bottom line[s]:
1. The "sulfur rich" eutectic mixture contained iron, oxygen and sulfur. It was not molten iron.


Do you know what "semantics" are?

This is a straw-man anyway. No one is saying pure molten iron was present. That the iron would contain impurities is a given considering it would have come from steel.

I don't see how you live with yourself.


2. The erosion was from high temperature oxidation and sulfidation, and was not the result of melting of the steel.


Then what is FEMA talking about when they mention "inter-granular melting"? What exactly melted?


Read my original statement that got your panties in a knot. I said that there was no evidence for molten iron.

You immediately challenged the statement with the FEMA appendix reference. You misunderstood the FEMA reference and now want to chalk it up to semantics. Now you are saying that impurities would be in the iron because it came from steel. This is not iron with impurities from steel. This is a eutectic mix of metal sulfides and oxides and is a molten slag that melts much lower than metallic iron or steel. Check "The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel" by Camp and Francis for some idea of the impurity levels in steel.

As to how I live with myself, it is tough, but I take some satisfaction in educating you in technical areas where you are lacking. Don't thank me, your continuing admiration is reward enough.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You speak for yourself.

The steel had holes melted through it and was completely compromised. This is what FEMA shows.

Yet you claim no pure iron was molten.

Well Jesus Christ, give him a cookie. He thinks he's proven something important.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pteridine
I look forward to it for the entertainment value.

It's a sad time we live in when individuals use 9/11 research or anything 9/11-related as "entertainment value". You really should talk to someone about that because that's not normal.


It is a sad time we live in when those who choose to debate technical matters have little to no technical skills. It is a sad time we live in when those who claim to search for the truth are only seeking to bolster their preconceived notions that their own people were responsible for said disaster.

"You really should talk to someone about that because that's not normal."


How much technical skill do you have that qualifies you to debate these matters?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You speak for yourself.

The steel had holes melted through it and was completely compromised. This is what FEMA shows.

Yet you claim no pure iron was molten.

Well Jesus Christ, give him a cookie. He thinks he's proven something important.

But you quoted a section saying that the iron was eroded through eutectic intrusion into grain boundaries. Do you now think that this is wrong? Why are you supporting one side until it's shown to not support your ideas, and then switching to an alternate proposition which is incompatible with your original claim?

If the metal of this beam was eroded through thermal means, the slag that formed on the surface due to this eutectic mechanism would not survive. You cannot choose both unless you can come up with some convincing way for both to affect the steel at the same time.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Nice waffle. If the iron being molten was not important, why did you bring it up in the first place? From what I have seen, the "molten iron" argument is sometmes tied to the erroneous conclusion that there must have been some super stuff in the rubble that caused the collapse and that it was still down there cooking. This is also sometimes linked to Jones' inconsequential thermite paper in a comedy of errors.
We have gone over this many times. The only way the rubble stays hot for weeks on end is with fire. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? There was fuel, ignition sources, air, and a nice insulating pile of debris to keep things hot and keep water from extingushing things. The surface temperatures at some locations were 700C, enough to melt aluminum...on the surface. How hot were they underneath? No one knows. The NIST reference you posted said at least about 1000C, based on the metallurgy. This is probably an accurate number. At 1000C, iron is readily oxidized and, in the presence of sulfates, will quickly erode.

Have a cookie, you'll feel better.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks

How much technical skill do you have that qualifies you to debate these matters?


If technical qualification was required for debate, there would be very few of us debating.

How much do you have to ask the question?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek






Ok a decent start at the list, however, most of these have already been explained, some years ago. I'll just point out the obvious ones:




Simple misreporting, when someone said is about to collapse, turned into, already collapsed. It was an insane day. Recall other newsreports that turned out to be false: car bombs going off in NYC, car bombs at the Capitol Building, car bombs at the Washington Monument, another plane hitting the White House, car bombs in the tunnels of NYC, etc.


I respect your analogy regarding how insane the day was, but this report was not an every day goof. A live bulletin that is broadcasted from a station has to go through rigorous protocols before being aired, the news editor would not go live if the report had not come from a reliable source, or verifying that the report was indeed bona fida. Remember the B.B.C. crew were not at the scene but in a station roughly a mile from the WTC, someone had to relay this information to them, how can that person`s account of WTC7 collapsing be so graphical for an error?, again we need an independent investigation regarding where and whom supplied this info to the B.B.C.






Maybe he saw it on TV after said events? Just a thought. Bush misspoke a lot, remember?



Bush did misspeak, no doubting that
, he clearly stated he saw the 1st impact on T.V. whilst waiting to go into the classroom and thought to himself ....`What a terrible pilot`, the only video footage of the 1st impact was by the Naudet brothers and was not to be released until the following day, again this needs investigating.





Ok, I'll bite, that might be good.


There are many websites where neutral video editing experts have studied several films and their findings posted, these really do merit a lot of attention.







Already been done: The website appears to have already expired, but here is the information about exactly what was on those tapes. And BTW, they were not from the "Pentagon" per se.
85 tapes


As I have not been anywhere near involved with 9/11 as I used to be, I was not aware of all the videos being released
.



never heard of this one, but maybe interesting. Never heard the part of the satellite feed in Bush's limo though.


Around the time Bush made his statement regarding him watching the 1st impact on T.V. some people decided that it warranted some research and requested to the respective agencies for the data curtsey of the FOIA for the relative paper work, here`s the replies they got.....









Was he denying ALL molten steel, like in terms of huge pools and puddles of molten steel? Or was he aware when he was denying the microscopic traces of sulfidized steel that was only noticed when put under a microscope? Honest question. Methinks that those trying to paint him in a ngeative light, are trying to twist it around into something he may have not been aware of. Plus I dont see what this would prove anyways.


If you watch the video in my signature you will clearly see him denying all knowledge of molten steel, this proves if nothing else that Gross was blatantly lying.



There is a whole database of Oral Testimonies as you have stated. Hundreds of people. Of course not all accounts are going to jive 100%, in any case or disaster or event. People will remember things differently, either slightly, or completely. Some like to cause trouble, others forget, others try and change what they remembered to hide the horror or are in denial. But just as an example, what if an eyewitness swears on the Bible she saw Elvis piloting the plane, or just after the buildings started to collapse, she saw Elvis running away from WTC7 with a remote trigger, should she also be taken seriously?



People will remember things differently, but my whole point here is how the hell can a commission set up for the sole purpose of finding out the truth, completely overlook testimonies by those that mattered most.. The first responders?.



Already been explained years ago. I'm sure its on ATS here somewhere.



Again this is not an aspect that can be duly explained without intricate examinations of her tax returns for that year including her stock market activities and how frequently she gambles on put options.



Now that would be a good one.
But just so you know, the reasons why he was ignored, rebuffed, etc, maybe have a very "mundaine" reason to it. Beurocracy, rocking the boat, annoying his 'bosses' with his "go-get em" attitude. Take your choice. I imagine its like working in a large office where they expect you to follow the party line, dont rock the boat, and dont be an overachiever. Some bosses hate upstarts trying to out-do them. But thats my opinion,



I hear your assessment
, but here we have a man whose job in hand was counter terrorism, especially connections with Al Qeada etc, he was doing nothing more than his job, now let`s say for argument`s sake you are working as a customs officer at a harbour for the drug trafficking dept, a well known narcotics dealer is on his way through as a passenger using fake id, you report this to your seniors and you are told to back off, then the guy lands in the harbour and goes about his business completely hassle free, it is then stated nationally that the guy just imported 5 tons of the finest coc aine, and an apb is put out on him, what would your reactions be to this?.



Could be a good one. My take is that god forbid some Americans found out who they were and tried to lynch them. i do recall that Osama has been largely removed fromt he family and ostricized. But people dont know that and would have possibly done some harm to the family living here.


No doubting that the general public would lynch them
, but here we have a very wealthy family whose brother/son etc was a known and highly dangerous terrorist, why at the very least were the Bin Laden`s not put on house arrest and their assets frozen until further notice?, let`s bend the rules here and make it publicly known that all his family were in jail for terrorist charges, and would all be facing the death penalty unless he handed himself in, here we had a perfect scenario for a trade off, his surrender for his families lives, we all know that these practises and far worse are undertaken by the relative agencies in order to get their suspects.



So I do hope you take some time to look over these, and not handwave them away. I've seen most of your questioons answered years ago, but some I have not. ATS has a bunch of info that you maybe interested. Good luck.


Well thanks for the
, but at the end of the day all these points need investigating by the respective agencies with the appropriate powers to seize all the available evidence at hand.

/cheers



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks

How much technical skill do you have that qualifies you to debate these matters?


If technical qualification was required for debate, there would be very few of us debating.

How much do you have to ask the question?


Very clever of you to try and sidestep my question. Here's the bit you snipped that you did not address.

"It is a sad time we live in when those who choose to debate technical matters have little to no technical skills. It is a sad time we live in when those who claim to search for the truth are only seeking to bolster their preconceived notions that their own people were responsible for said disaster."

That is your quote.

You are stating that those of us that disagree with you, lack the ability to debate technical matters by assuming we have little or no technical skills to do so yet when I ask you the same question, you say that if technical qualification was required for debate, there would be very few of us debating!

So why do others require technical skills to debate these issues but you do not?

As to your question, I probably have about as much qualifications as you do.

"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it."

BTW I find your signature a little odd considering you spend so much time trying to debunk everyone's questioning of the OS.



edit on 13-9-2010 by The Ghost Who Walks because: Responding to the question asked



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


WOW it must be true, Willie Nelson believes it, so it must be true. And I know he
wouldn't lie, so where do I sign.

I think these people are just in Denial. They deny that the US attitudes towards the
rest of the world would lead them to hate the USA that much that they would want
to blow something up.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
 


BS,
Calm yourself. What I said was, "If we assume that the molten metal was steel, although the firefighters did not sample it, my previous statement still applies; this only shows how hot underground fires can be and is not indicative of anything else."

The rubble on the surface was 700 C; internal temperatures were undoubtedly higher. Any aluminum would have been melted. Lead from the UPS would have been melted. If the temperatures were high enough, even the steel would have been melted. We see reports of bulk molten metal but have no proof that it was steel. Hot corrosion would not be surprising in such conditions.



FYI:
Metal composition can USUALLY be identified with it's molten color. Aluminum is white or silvery when molten, and Iron is orange to light yellow. There are of course, lot's of other metals and thermal spectra bands -- but these are the most likely two metals and you can tell from a photo which is which.

>> I'd have to go with "pteridine" on the likelihood of underground fires; they can continue for weeks with a something like a gas line. The collapse would NOT snuff them out, and there would be PLENTY of oxygen available for a while within the debris -- and let's not forget that the HUGE underground structure and tunnels can allow for Air to be sucked into the fires from underneath.


>> But, I'm going to side with the point that there was NOTHING conceivable in the WTC that would melt iron, or keep it melted -- that's just not explainable with the Government theory.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


The problem with statements like this -- especially from Bush, is that you cannot be sure of the CONTEXT of the statement, because nobody actually can be sure that Bush was ever commenting appropriately, in context, or not having a Cocaine flash-back.

His best defense seems to be, that nobody can tell if he is Evil or Stupid -- I vote that he's damn brilliant, has run his shtick for a long time, but is actually addle-brained in regard to speech (but he is aware of his intent). He isn't Purely evil -- he just feels super-entitled, only cares for the elite, and really, has no conscience at all. So it's more like a smart child who likes things to go "boom!"

>> What we really need is a law that anyone holding Power in the USA, is culpable, regardless of intent -- and that being STUPID can get you the firing squad if it's impossible to tell it from treason.


>> My position for US security is; it could be MIHOP or LIHOP or even Moron-Hop. I don't give a damn. I think that the entire administration should be tried and given the choice of wearing a blindfold or not. We invaded two countries and did NOT get Bin Laden and killed/displaced over a million -- so what is the value of a couple dozen crooks/arrogant fools if it will be a deterrent in the future?

Also with the Fed or WTO -- if you lose a couple trillion, it's basically a threat to the welfare and security of the USA; we need to DETERR such threats in the future -- so just in case; carpet bombing should be in order.

We have this policy of pre-emptive warfare, that did nothing for security but put us in debt and make the Muslim world angry -- so why not preemptive justice, where we get rid of Fools or Crooks to prevent anyone in the future thinking they can get away with this?

>> If the office of the President obstructs justice to the degree that we cannot know what happened -- why cannot we assume the worst and say; "we can't be sure -- so to defend the future security of this Republic; throw them in a hole and lose the key."

It should be GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. There should be a higher bar on people of power, because right now, we've got to prove EVERYTHING to put people of power on trial. BP's greed resulted in killing off a good portion of the Gulf Ocean. They will never stand trial and no evidence will be allowed to be gathered.

>> Conspiracy theories are NOT the result of "scary events" -- the are the result of a non-transparent government. US security is via Transparency. This "we have your security in mind so no questions" seems more likely to create an insurrection if it continues.

We have not had the Sherman Antitrust Act enforced in over ten years. Nobody I know but some token sacrificial lambs of people who are in power have EVER seen the inside of a jail. Massive failures, corruption and "trust us" at all levels. I'm sick of having a Conspiracy Theory because everybody is lying to me. The rich and powerful in this country are out of control, are shipping our jobs to China, and the greatest "clear and present danger" in 2010 was an Oil Company and our Economy, NOT Al Qaeda.


>> A private company now makes our nuclear weapons. They've been having strikes of security and engineers due to poor working conditions, unsafe long working hours, low pay, and safety. Did you know that from our Media? What happens WHEN America becomes broke because all the corporations have off-shored to China and they have the most MONEY?

Blackwater and Nuclear weapons manufacturers -- do you really think they are loyal to anything but themselves?

>> 9/11 was a tragedy NOT because some people died -- more innocent people get killed each in Police Raids (~ 10,000 a year). 9/11 was a tragedy because our Justice System was not involved, our Democracy was harmed because of obstruction and internal spying -- the REACTION from the government to the "tragedy" is far more a threat to our way of life than anything these Terrorists have ever dished out.

The TRUTH MOVEMENT, needs to move from a "trial by rumor" to a "Security by Truth" movement. Lying to the Public and Obstructing Justice should be seen as worse than bombing a consulate. Too many huge events are happening and NOBODY is responsible -- that SHOULD NOT be tolerated. Someone's head needs to be on the line or they should abdicate their post.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

But theres one thing,, I dont think Bush ever said anything worth while out side of a script written down by a faceless Person that nobody knows hiding in the Shadows!



new topics

top topics



 
121
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join