By all means, jzlucas, keep posting the "baseless drivel" that is "nothing of substance." Truth drives these moonbats absolutely nuts, because it forces them to take a hard look at themselves. And (surprise!) they don't like what they see... Moonbat self-loathing, gotta love it.
There's still hope for you Eqt!! The Martians the Bush Administration has conspiring with may stab him in the back, and instead of sharing control of Earth with him, they're going to take it all for themselves and then give it away for management by Code Pink and Queers for Economic Justice! So keep the faith, bro!
some simple questions I don't know the answers to..... Where is the wreckage of a commercial jet liner at the pentagon? Why wasnt the grass scorched on the approach to the pentagon building? why wont the government release all the video tape from the numerous video cameras around the pentagon impact which would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what really happened? What are the parts of an engine found at the pentagon that are 100% not part of any boeing 757? Why was there almost zero Flight 93 wreckage found if the airplane just crashed into the ground? Why has little information about the crash ever been made public? Why did the Fema operations booklet, published right before 9/11 have a "bulls eye" target over the exact area of a reproduction of the world trade center towers? etc... etc... I could go on.. but I don't care to read conspiracies or poor responses to them... I like to think for myself and would like acurate, informative answers to these questions from my goverenment or anyone else who has a clue....
the "fist" one?!? Damn, now you're getting downright obscene!! Anyways, if your "struggle" ever comes to pass, it'll end with not a bang, but a whimper. I'll be kicking back here in Hawaii laughing about your failed "revolution" and watching all 4 of you get thrown into a paddy wagon.
jzlucas, i wish i had definitive answers and theories for you. unfortunately i only have questions. and i think it's healthy to have questions, and strange to me that anyone could be so certain of either possibility, let alone assert that certainty as strongly as hap is comfortable doing here are some things just off the top of my head that i wish i understood. i'm interested in any answers anyone has. admittedly i haven't made a concerted effort to track them down 1. why did condi warn willy brown not to fly on 911, prior to 911? how does this fit with her insistance on no foreknowledge? 2. why was bush so adamant about not testifying to the commission? 3. why did jeb ship several boxes of documents from the flight school out of the country? 4. why were the insider puts traded from accounts at alex brown, chaired by a former dci? 5. why aren't the pentagon videos released, and why arent the plane parts available for study? in a freaking museum for all to see even? why can't we study the black boxes? 6. why did so many at the pentagon smell cordite? 7. why are so many of the alleged hijackers still alive in their respective countries with no provable affiliation? 8. why did it happen very early in the first term of a narrowly selected big oil presidency with a HAL vp, and now here we are in an endless war to secure oil with runaway contracts to HAL as a result of 911? 9. why did bush have to come into this presidency so deep with the bin ladens and arabs in general 10. why was his cousin running the security firm for both the trade center and united airlines? 11. why did cheney, rumsfeld, jeb and wolfowitz have to pen a document prior to 911 basically saying we were strategically screwed in the absence of another pearl harbor (i forget the name of the doc) like theconman, i don't spend a lot of time on this. i'm definitely willing to accept that i could be wrong tho. how do you rationalize this confluence of circumstances hap? to me, the sheer lack of voluntary disclosure and number of convenient interrelationships is enough to feel it in my gut, and i admit that's all it is
What are your sources? This goes for the video as well. Here's more reading material: CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash." FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters. The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off." Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures." FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like." Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
quit spamming the thread, this info is all in the link. are you just trying to obfuscate the conversation or what?