What really happened ....11 september

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NickBarings, Dec 5, 2006.

  1. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    blah, blah, blah, blah ........

    All I know is you're acussing LOTS of people of mass murder on the flimsiest of evidence and it is a sickening display. No Offense, but this shit just really drives me nuts .........


    YOU PEOPLE ARE CONVINCING OTHERS OF THIS BULLSHIT...


    "Magic Passports" ?????? OK, it is not entirely inconcievable that someone PLANTED a passport of a KNOWN terrorist that they beat to death while torchering....... WHO THE FUCK CARES?!

    The buildings would have fallen on their own, everyone should agree, all this controlled demolition garbage boils down to a belief the feds risked all for a little *more* dramatic effect.

    Penn and Teller's is the best response. Every shred of evidence I've read, and I've read them all, is just plain laughable.
     
    #611     Dec 29, 2006
  2. man

    man

    i am very authentic in my naivity. no pretending here!
    i swear!
    seriously, i guess it is somewhat naive to buy every
    argument that comes up, just because it seems to
    support one's view. i mean there was a pic claiming
    that you can see a demon's face in the smoke ... i
    guess at some point you will draw your line as well.
     
    #612     Dec 29, 2006
  3. man

    man

    you seem to believe two paradox things. first the
    building was so strong that a controlled perfect downfall
    required a lot of unhideable preparation. second the
    building was so weak that it went down perfectly
    without any preparation whatsoever. now, which one
    do you believe in: very strong or very weak building.
     
    #613     Dec 29, 2006
  4. Yes, it is strange that no footage is available showing anything hit the Pentagon, which must be one of the most heavily guarded builidings (CCTV anyone) in the world.
    Is there any public witnness who saw a plane passing by? Someone must have seen it; there is a highway nearby, if I'm correct.

    Some remarks about this thread:

    a) I think it is a coverup, but not necessarily of an inside job. I think the situation was preventable and some made (knowingly) mistakes, so it happened. Things went wrong on a scale that is not seen fit for the people (us) to understand.

    b) I can agree with the opponents of CT's that they seem farfetched. But see it as brainstorming and theorizing to find a fitting solution to the many questions we all have. I find it hard to believe that there are that many people who actually believe the official stories. I mean, when was the last time your government didn't lie to you?

    c) On the other hand I don't understand the anger that possesses Ratboy (and others) sometimes. His content is original and mostly to the point, but the argument is largely wasted on his adversaries because of his language. Anger is a sign of fear; what are you afraid of, Rat?

    Ursa..
     
    #614     Dec 29, 2006

  5. Another dumb neo-commie robot with its head stuck up its ass.......or is that Bushes ass. You stink Bitch. Now go fetch me another pristine passport to plant up your ass, f'n paper trading loser.
     
    #615     Dec 29, 2006
  6. man

    man

    i find that a strong argument. what is lacking is how
    many peer reviewed articles have there been that
    support the official case. if its more than twenty then
    i am convinced.
     
    #616     Dec 29, 2006
  7. i apologize for my language, it was in direct response to neophyte's chosen "curse word." but if it is offensive to you i will make an effort to avoid doing so in the future.

    honestly i dont think it has anything to do with fear on this board. anger may be a response to fear in a star wars movie according to yoda but wanting the truth to reach the people is an honorable pursuit. if i dont come across like Mr Rogers it is because the stakes are so high now. little babies have their limbs ripped off their bodies over in the middle east while pseudo liberals and neocons yuck it up at the local starbucks arguing about arcane issues regarding nothing that makes a *&^% bit of difference.

    so pardon me for being enthusiastic in my demeanor but wars based on lies and killing innocent civilians, have raised the bar so to speak. the time for nice nice is long over and uneducated people like neophyte need to be on the fast track to catch up to the rest of us or he is aiding these criminals in their war crimes.
     
    #617     Dec 29, 2006
  8. i pray you are being sarcastic.
     
    #618     Dec 29, 2006
  9. acussing? torchering? penn & teller? multiple "cussing"?

    your honor, i rest my case.:cool:
     
    #619     Dec 29, 2006
  10. BINGO.

    I agree, and the CT'ers have provided no proof to refute the idea that if one floor of the structure at the impact level collapsed onto the floor below it, the force would easily be enough to cause the collapse of that severely weakened lower floor... and then things follow on from there. I admit I am not a structural engineer (unlike the CT'ers whose whole argument is based on an assumption that they can make very sophisticated analyses of structural dynamics).

    But the real point is above. In any film footage of the collapse, what you see is the top section begin to fall. That is it. You do not see a series of times explosions evident on the outside of the building at all. We know that the structural support of this building was of the 'perimeter tube' variety. If demolition crews were to bring this building down without the help of an airliner, they would have to plant charges at the site of the structural supports of the building - that is, at the perimeter tubes. However, we see absolutely no sign whatsoever of times charges at these sites when the building collapses. Batgirl's 'squid' video is the exception that proves the rule. One little puff of smoke. So... the theory that the collapse was caused solely by preset explosive charges and that the airliners were a red herring is absurd on the face of it. We simply do not see the detonations at the perimeter of the building that would be necessary,

    However, the CT theory could work if one believed that demolition crews had planted extensive charges at a few floors, with the idea that by causing a floor or two to buckle, the whole structure could be brought down (as actually happened). In this case... what is the theory? The demolition guys rigged up explosives at a few selected floors within a range and then the hijacker pilot was told to fly the plane into those floors, thus obscuring the sight of the actual detonations? Laura and Jeb Bush were airborne in a black helicopter and pressed the button at the instant that the planes impacted the building? If this is the theory, we can rule out the idea that the hijackers were piloting the planes at the moment of impact, or that they were not trained pilots. No plan which involves a precise flying job like this could depend on the skills of a pilot who had a few weeks in a simulator. Could even a skilled pilot fly the aircraft into a 40 foot vertical window at 500 mph on a wildly curving flight path, in the state of rapture that presumably goes with imminent martyrdom?

    Way, way too complicated. Way too many questions. Wield Occam's razor and stop the madness.
     
    #620     Dec 29, 2006