i found the quote: "do u have any idea how much time i spend every day signing my name? i am going to feel utterly useless if i can't do that anymore," "you know, by the time you become leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions, you may find you can get away with virtual presidents, virtual prime ministers, virtual everything." that's quite an insight into the reality of american politics.
hmmmmmmmmm??? i seem to remember nikki spewing something after his bad friday girls night out: and: still more from nikki's "girls gone bad" night out:
the way i write should not be a concern for u and if it is, well... too bad. and please, u have proven nothing, i caught u in a wild lie that wtc was not built taking into account a boeing707 slamming into it; u accused me of lying and i have proven u are full of shit on at least 2 occasions. u can carry on, as i said earlier u degenerated neocons bounce off me. and u make assertion as well, as many as i do. so as long as i am here i will trash any stupid accusation u make. your politics are much more abhorrent since u support a group of murderers and u dont need to go into ct to prove that. go ahead and buy the whole bogus war on terror, its not your fault if u cant see it is a fabrication to push political agendas. there's at least one politician and a few veteran cia officers as well as many, many concerned citizens that think the same way i do. it's all a matter of opinions and u are just too much of a pigheaded fanatic to see that....really, really sad.
yeah he's surely one of the nicest guys i ever met. so polite and kind. very tolerant and compassionate. u know the kind of guy u would have hang around your children all day.
I tend to agree with this point about both parties. I'm a third, fourth, fifth party supporter along with runoff elections and tight term limits. When it comes to the 9/11 conspiracy though I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. I don't know about strutural capabilities and fire resistant materials but I do know two things. 1) The buildings were hit by airliners. 2) Nearly the entire Islamic world marched in the streets praising the deaths of all those people. Those two things make them my enemy. In my opinion I think it's a hell of a stretch to beleive that the administration plotted, planned, and executed 9/11. That they planted engineered explosives and carried out the entire thing without the mainstream media finding out and jumping all over this for the ratings alone. With that being said I do beleive that it's not to far of a stretch to beleive that the administration may have known something about it prior to the event. That they may have been complacent through thier ignorant beleif that no one would actually carry out such an attack or even that they may have thought that they could gain political favor by this. Just my opinion. No fact or fiction
yep, and i respect your opinion. keep in mind tho that there are declassified docs that prove false flag ops to slam planes into major historical bdg and then blame it on the enemy were already planned decades ago. look up operation northwood: the similarities with 911 are chilling. and yeah the kindest thing u can say to this admn is that they let it happen imo, think about this...the whole neocon team wrote a doc titled re-building american defenses calling for a pearl harbor like event in order to push their revolutionary imperialistic agenda,. so it is safe to say these guys could welcome a terror attack with open arms, and do nothing to stop it. that's why people should be very worried about this govt and possible terror attacks. now they wanna go to war with iran at all costs; if they discover a plot about iranian determined to attack american cities dont u think they would be tempted to let if happen?
Me: >Actually, the very thing that could convince me of >demolition is missing, mising , missing -- and that >is the visual evidence of the organized explosives >required to slice the outer columns. >Those few random windows blowing out in the videos >are neither enough to do the job, nor in the right >location for the failure sequence. Bit: >u are not looking hard enough. there are telling videos >that show evidence of cutter charges blowing the >outer columns. will find one for u...u are free to choose >to see them. Sure, please post said video(s). I'd be delighted to see a video that shows those outer columns being sliced in the perfectly timed sequence required to collapse those floors all in order like they did. >also those "squibs" do infact correspond exactly to the >very same pivotal reinforced floors designed to prevent >total collapse. I have to admit that you've lost me on this statement, but I will respond generically -- I'll be looking forward to some evidence supporting your claim that what appears (in the video I've seen so far) to be very rare and widely distributed occurances some ways ahead of the collapsing floors to rather be "exactly" placed on "pivitol" floors. JB
Where to begin - Ok, algoxy.com makes a rather poor case for the concrete, honestly. The best evidence seems to be sunlight shining through the building, showing the hallways. But even funnier is the second link you give. It starts right off in the second para under The Structural System heading with the statement that it was the first super tall building designed without any masonry. FYI - masonry = cement or brick...... It has several more references to wallboard providing the fireproofing to the core steel, with no mention at all of concrete... It DOES however, have 2 mentions of concrete cladding from some British engineers, BUT it was dated Dec 2001, so maybe they were ill informed. Funny thing, the first link you gave was to a British run site..... I see a pattern here. The 3rd link was dead, but I searched around a little and found this passage: Reinforced concrete is much tougher than gypsum, but it is not fireproof. The heat of a fire dehydrates the concrete, and it eventually crumbles. http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-02/features/featbuildings/ This is the same link. I see absolutely no reference here to the core being concrete in the core, other than for the floors. So overall, I'd say your evidence for concrete covering the core was VERY weak and definitely contains some conflicts and inconsistencies. I'm sure there's some actual construction plans out there somewhere - Library of Congress, NY city Library, something... Go find it if you want to convince others... WTC engineers - DeMartini was a construction manager - so I don't know that he was an engineer or not, do you ? And the netting comment seems a little odd too, since a mosquito net is under tension and the exterior panels would be under tension OR compression , depending on which side of the tower they were on and on load factors such as wind direction, etc. And anyways he states that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of --- A ---- jet plane. The use of A generally means - ONE !!! He states as his OPINION that the towers could withstand multiple impacts. If you want to claim THAT, then it would be an accurate statement..... As far as Skilling goes - who knows how good a study they did. Remember, this building was designed in the 60's so no computer modeling was available to them. Who knows if they figured the insulation being removed. Do you have a link saying he did?