Thanks for sharing that. Just to counterbalance, I'll add this one. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=54 I have noted, despite the truthseekers concerns, that his own dowsing indicated that there would be truth among lies being told in the interview with Arizona. It makes it difficult to decipher. But I have a channeled source that I have considered credible that backs up Stichen, reptilian deception, the corruption of world leaders, strange rituals involving sex and minors, the significance of bloodlines, power in the hands of a few families, and the potency of blood and it's ability to be programmed. JohnnyK
What makes more sense. A. Terrorists put together a plan that worked for them by flying into two of the most high profile (make that three) in the US, which represents the epitome of capitalism and military might to show the world that we can be got to and unhinged. Sounds like motive to me. or B. Some kind of mastermind plot put together by...who again? Oh yeah, very rich people who rule everyone and everything, who would like nothing better than to disrupt the most stable financial market in the world. One of which I'm sure they (the really rich and powerful and mean and old and evil and want to rule the world people) have no stake in. They just want really low prices. Now they weren't just happy with flying into buildings, no they actually planted explosives in all the right places in three buildings with painstaking precision and detonated them just to make sure those building came down. You know, shaped charges and all. Couldn't be too difficult, just a few columns here and there and about a 100 miles of wire to link all of them together... I could go on and on, but then I'd have to bring UFO's and Bigfoot into the picture. --------------------------------- idiots.
Try this MO on for size: Those in power find out about the plot to take down the towers and ask themselves if it is to their advantage. If so, assist them, one way or another. Or get others to think it is their idea. Same result. Case solved.
Who is THEY? And how would it be to their advantage? So THEY aligned themselves with the terrorists either directly or indirectly? And then coordinated the whole thing without a hitch? wow.
Id have to think that it would take an assortment of individuals to pull something like this off... and somehow at sometime as it always does at least one of these people would step forward and bring down the house ; perhaps he is no longer with us...
At least Achilles tries to make a point, however misguided. YOU on the otherhand are just wrong. I don't have a miserable existence I'm not a neo-anything mentally unbalanced psychotic...I've been called worse I can't remember the last time anyone told me to do something other than to take out the trash...which is what I'm attempting to do now. Actually I do tend to think in black and white. Thinking grey is too much like brown. Too many ifs ands or buts. Spend all the time thinking about a situation while never coming up with a solution. I'm about as religious as a toad. Good Day and piss-off.
Actually, that doesn't quite wash. If "those in power" knew about the plot and if its follow-through was to their advantage, then why get involved at all and risk being implicated? Why not simply allow it to happen? Are you suggesting that the outcome would have been any different if the buildings didn't fall? In my opinion, the outrage would have been sufficient either way to engage a war on terror. Further, I suspect that the buildings would have been taken down even if they did not fall that day. The structural damage would have been irreparable. Even if the heat had not caused the steel structure to collapse that day, it would have at least severely compromised it. If you were a tenant, would you have gone back inside after "repairs?" Would an insurance company have renewed its policy? I have no doubt that there is evil in this world. And I have no doubt that there is much in the way of misinformation floating around about any number of issues. But are we to just readily believe that "those in power" are so stupid? If you want to discuss misinformation of potentially catastrophic proportions, then I suggest you have a look at the hyperlink in the following thread: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66296 Please take the time to read the hyperlinked article. I watched the segment on 60 Minutes, and the misinformation they reported on is downright scary.
Not just an assortment of individuals, highly specialized individuals. There's not that many in the entire world skilled enough to bring down buildings of that size with explosives. And why wouldn't the terrorists take the claim for also planting the explosives? I mean after all, that is their forte? Think of the credibility they would gain and would take the heat off of THEY. If this was for real, someone would have actually stepped forward already. Just too many illogical pieces trying to form an illogical puzzle.
If you admit being uninformed, how can you possibly make similar accusations of me about a knowledge set you know little about? You engage in the exact same type of baseless supposition you accuse me of. Except I am right. And you are wrong. I am going to prove this through simple math and media reports. Look. Airliners Involved: Flight 11 and Flight 175 Flight 11 Airliner model: 767-200 ER (extended range) Flight 175 Airliner model: 767-200 ER (extended range) Flight Plan of #11: Boston to LA Flight Plan of #175: Boston to LA With me so far? Same planes, same origin, same destination. 767-200 ER Max Range: 12,200 km (TRANSPACIFIC) 767-200 ER Max Fuel Capacity: 23,980 gallons Distance between Boston and LA ---- 4300 KM Now. Airliners only fill their tanks with enough fuel to safely arrive at their destination. This is common sense and common knowledge. If you don't believe me, look it up. So, lets start crunching numbers: boston to la --- 4300 KM divided by max range 12,200KM = 35% Therefore, Boston to LA encompasses a distance of 35% of the 767-200ERs' max range and therefore, max fuel capacity at cruising speed. Agreed? But now we need to factor in additional fuel for takeoff, wind compensation and holding pattern requirements. Lets give it a generous 15%: 35% x 1.15 = 40.25% (of max range fuel requirement). Lets not forget to tack on the industry standard 10%+ emergency fuel reserve. 40.25% x 1.1 = 44.275% (of max range fuel requirement). Now. 44.275% x max fuel capacity (23,980 gallons) = 10,620 Gallons. But we're not even done yet. Why? Because you still need to factor in both WTC flights were in air - burning fuel - for roughly 45 mins before they hit the towers. Let refer to the WashingtonTimes timeline for specific numbers, shall we? Flight 11 takeoff - 7:59 a.m Flight 11 impact - 8:46 a.m Flight 175 takeoff - 8:14 a.m Flight 175 impact - 9:02 a.m http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/articles/timeline.html Now, you've got to subtract 45 mins of fuel from your 10,620 gallon figure considering Boston to LA is a ~6 hr flight. That will put you WELL BELOW 10,000 gallons And probably much closer to the 8500 gallons stated by Miles Obrien from CNN here: "The captain likely planned for a five-hour flight, so there was roughly 8,500 gallons of jet fuel in its three tanks." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/13/se.23.html Certainly within the ballpark of the 10,000 gallons quoted by UK's Telegraph here: "If that had been done, Flight 175 would probably have been shot down before it could deliver its deadly cargo of 10,000 gallons of fuel into the World Trade Centre's south tower." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/13/whij13.xml The old adage is true here. You can lead a horse to water..... Look at 95% of the media reports: 'the jetliners were BRIMMING with fuel', 'the flights tanks were *topped up* for the cross country flight'. TOTAL BULLSHIT!! The ERs capacity is built for TRANSPACIFIC flights (12,000KM). Boston to LA is ONE THIRD that. And either WTC flight wasn't even half full!! Take for instance the debunking article that Bronks posted that was supposedly gonna shred my argument into confetti: "The terrorists certainly made sure they hijacked planes which had plenty of fuel on board. A Boeing 767 at the start of a long haul flight would be carrying around 24,000 gallons of fuel." Get the picture yet?? There is something very wrong here. The media is not doing its homework about 911. Period. There is no simple fact checking going on. What is being promulgated as 'the truth' is nothing more than gross distortion and lies whose only creditability rests in the Publics unwillingness to question it. Look at Bronks (no offense intended here). He posts an article that is full GROSS exaggerations and outright lies. contradicted by survivor accounts, common knowledge and Government reports themselves!! Why does Bronks believe it? Because perception determines reality. Major media is the lense through which the VAST majority of Americans rely on for their perception of world events. If that lense is cracked, scratched, or obscured by layers of filth, so to will your perception of the world be. Unless you step outside that paradigm and do your own research, collect your own facts and perform your own analysis, you will remain a slave to the framed reality the media decides to show you. Why is media selling you lies? There are lots of reasons. But at most levels, the media is just like you: Brainwashed and a phoney Patriot. A phoney Patriot is someone who conflates love of country with love of Government - which conveniently demands the rejection of grave doubts concerning Government integrity from acceptance into ones awareness. Consciously, most 'good Americans' will not allow themselves to even contemplate their Government is capable of such horror. This is what Phoney Patriotism does - creates false maps of reality by cordoning off avenues of thought that are simply 'not allowed'. The media is no less vulnerable to brainwashing as you are. So every fact they collect, every witness they interview and every op-ed piece written, is unconsciously sculpted to harmoniously fit with the 'truth' as told by the Leaders. This is called group think. And the more people that buy into these 'myths' the more credible they become. Until, they are just 'the truth'. And by the way, you owe me an apology for making the accusation I embellished my figures. Clearly, I did not.