Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 … 24 25 Next

Topic: 911 truth movement
Zapchaser Joined Sat 04/14/07 Posts: 2491	Thu 01/10/08 04:44 PM
sometimes a plane hitting a building is just a plane hitting a building though. for a FAT coverup i would have to point you to the Oklahona city bombing, but this was nothing more than a buncha towelheads working together with boxknives. .. and us getting caught with our pants down. mabe thats the really hard part. I said at the time that our country was twice as strong the day after than before. We were lucky that it wasent 100 planes instead of four. It also shows me though that our security at that time was obviously inadequate. Rambill, racism is disgusting. It really sickened me to read that filth and being the eternal optimist that I am and trying to find humor in all that I see, I cannot see anything funny in that. WTF? How in the **** DO YOU GET RACISM OUT OF THAT? I think your the one whos stuck on the race card. recpognising that the enemy happen to be middle eastern isnt racism its common sense. Forgive me rambill, I meant to say bigot rather than racist.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 04:45 PM Edited by madisonman on Thu 01/10/08 04:57 PM
The evil deeds that men do... and for what? Who had the most to gain by such actions? Honestly who has gained the most, no BS the oil companies and the war profiteers. hey did you read about how the Gulf of Tolkin event was in fact a conspiracy top go to war? But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam. The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement. "What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said. "There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512 so none of you super god fearing patriots have anything to say about how the gulf of tonkin was a "faked" incident to draw america into vietnam?

mrtxstar Joined Sun 12/30/07 Posts: 436	Thu 01/10/08 05:15 PM Edited by mrtxstar on Thu 01/10/08 05:16 PM
And for this we should forevermore distrust the government?

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 05:32 PM
And for this we should forevermore distrust the government? Well I wouldnt forever Trust them either

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 01/10/08 05:36 PM
The evil deeds that men do... and for what? Who had the most to gain by such actions? Honestly who has gained the most, no BS the oil companies and the war profiteers. hey did you read about how the Gulf of Tolkin event was in fact a conspiracy top go to war? But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam. The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement. "What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said. "There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512 so none of you super god fearing patriots have anything to say about how the gulf of tonkin was a "faked" incident to draw america into vietnam? Disgusting bigotry. Talking down on people who believe in God, which you are, with the words you choose. Sick.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 05:40 PM
Its simply a figure of speach try not to be so easily offended after all this is the internet but of course the main topic is 911 and all its mysteries, one of them being this.......................In 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission: Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??" Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory often claim that Mineta was referring to United 93 and not to unidentified plane coming towards Washington D.C. before the explosion at the Pentagon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 01/10/08 05:43 PM
Its simply a figure of speach try not to be so easily offended after all this is the internet but of course the main topic is 911 and all its mysteries, one of them being this.......................In 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission: Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??" Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory often claim that Mineta was referring to United 93 and not to unidentified plane coming towards Washington D.C. before the explosion at the Pentagon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE The last paragraph says it all. Conspiracy theorists believe what they want to hear and will twist it to fit their own desired theories to bring them into a collective group bent on playing a grand part in what would be a grand mission of importance. It's nearly a mental disorder.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Thu 01/10/08 05:49 PM
Yes I have been hearing about it off and on for a while never realy got into it but i saw this vid called loosechange on some website it gave some compelling evidence that at least there are many unanswered quistions. What has allways botherd me was the way those buildings completly collapsed as they did. It still does make me wonder No those videos are propaganda. I am an engineer and though I am electrical I did have a class with a Civil Engineering teacher that explained to us how the towers collapsed. The insulation that was used in the twin towers actually caused the fuel to burn hot enough to melt steel. Then when the steel frame of the building melted it collapsed upon itself. The have since changed building regulations so builders over a certain height now have to have a special kind of insulation so this doesn't happen again.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 05:50 PM
Its simply a figure of speach try not to be so easily offended after all this is the internet but of course the main topic is 911 and all its mysteries, one of them being this.......................In 2003, Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission: Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??" Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory often claim that Mineta was referring to United 93 and not to unidentified plane coming towards Washington D.C. before the explosion at the Pentagon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE even if it were as they said referring to flight 93 it is rather telling since 911 has been portrayed as some type of bungling, they caught us by suprize fiasco....... ya know "they turned the transponders off< we couldnt track them, ya know the whole nonsencicle story by now you dont need a refresher

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 01/10/08 05:54 PM Edited by Starsailor2851 on Thu 01/10/08 05:55 PM
even if it were as they said referring to flight 93 it is rather telling since 911 has been portrayed as some type of bungling, they caught us by suprize fiasco....... ya know "they turned the transponders off< we couldnt track them, ya know the whole nonsencicle story by now you dont need a refresher And this coming from someone who decided to change their tune immediately when they were stonewalled by a previous point of mine. Very weak. Didn't expect anything less worthy of a rebuttal and yet here I am, simply to point out how weak the attempt of backing up and starting over again is. Shows you weren't certain of yourself at all and my point hit a nerve of reality in you, yet you won't admit that and attempt to take another jab at it.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 06:05 PM
You are deluded you havent proven anything in any way all you do is make accusations and when confronted with cold hard facts you dont coment on them you just start name calling or acting bizzare. in fact not one of you "I believe the offical version of 911 types" has proven anything beyond "cuz thats how they said it happened" gota run for now do some homework

Starsailor2851 Joined Mon 07/02/07 Posts: 1430	Thu 01/10/08 06:10 PM
You are deluded you havent proven anything in any way all you do is make accusations and when confronted with cold hard facts you dont coment on them you just start name calling or acting bizzare. in fact not one of you "I believe the offical version of 911 types" has proven anything beyond "cuz thats how they said it happened" gota run for now do some homework Hah, first you make a argument you can't back up that I broke completely apart (editting it and changing the argument is waving the white flag my friend, it makes it appear like you know you were in the wrong), then you go on to backtrack and change the point you were making, and now you go on to attack the debate participator. Bravo. Cold hard facts, funny....considering I have just as many facts from professionals dedicated to fields of study, and they don't have behind them personalities dedicated to getting rich over conspiratorial subjects like 'Mr.' Alex Jones.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 06:26 PM
I dont even have a clue as to wha you are babbling about starsailor

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Thu 01/10/08 06:35 PM
You are deluded you havent proven anything in any way all you do is make accusations and when confronted with cold hard facts you dont coment on them you just start name calling or acting bizzare. in fact not one of you "I believe the offical version of 911 types" has proven anything beyond "cuz thats how they said it happened" gota run for now do some homework Ok, I guess we will just assume my civil engineering teacher was lying then shall we?

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 07:00 PM
You are deluded you havent proven anything in any way all you do is make accusations and when confronted with cold hard facts you dont coment on them you just start name calling or acting bizzare. in fact not one of you "I believe the offical version of 911 types" has proven anything beyond "cuz thats how they said it happened" gota run for now do some homework Ok, I guess we will just assume my civil engineering teacher was lying then shall we? I didnt see your comment but I didnt know that fire insulation now makes things burn hotter

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 07:02 PM
Yes I have been hearing about it off and on for a while never realy got into it but i saw this vid called loosechange on some website it gave some compelling evidence that at least there are many unanswered quistions. What has allways botherd me was the way those buildings completly collapsed as they did. It still does make me wonder No those videos are propaganda. I am an engineer and though I am electrical I did have a class with a Civil Engineering teacher that explained to us how the towers collapsed. The insulation that was used in the twin towers actually caused the fuel to burn hot enough to melt steel. Then when the steel frame of the building melted it collapsed upon itself. The have since changed building regulations so builders over a certain height now have to have a special kind of insulation so this doesn't happen again. since your so in the know I have been trying for days to figure this out.......tell m why its wrong after you view the link http://iwilltryit.com/freefall1.htm

Guitarjizzard Joined Thu 01/03/08 Posts: 165	Thu 01/10/08 07:33 PM Edited by Guitarjizzard on Thu 01/10/08 07:33 PM
No those videos are propaganda. I am an engineer and though I am electrical I did have a class with a Civil Engineering teacher that explained to us how the towers collapsed. The insulation that was used in the twin towers actually caused the fuel to burn hot enough to melt steel. Then when the steel frame of the building melted it collapsed upon itself. The have since changed building regulations so builders over a certain height now have to have a special kind of insulation so this doesn't happen again. Lets get this straight shall we? Is you teacher claiming that steel -with a melting point of roughly 2500 degrees- melted via an exothermic reaction between it and insulation? Or do you mean the insulation came off during impact and permitted the heat to melt the unprotected steel? Please cite ANY reference to this claim. Your teachers conjecture doesnt count. Theres huge problems with either scenario--Lets start with Jet-A burns at about 600 degree in open conditions. Even in the optimal conditions, max temperature harldy approaches 3/4 of what it takes to liquify steel. Even IF this were plausible, this can not account for the 80 something stories that were nearly vaporized as well. I know, i know, then the floors pancaked down...at near free fall speed and pulverized the other floors right? Maybe your civil engineering teacher should have spent more time in general physics. This is uncharacteristic of any building collapse, regardless of cause, in history (well with exception to controlled demo of course). Arguments from authority only work when they are factually correct with verifiable data. Please provide this teachers contact information and educational facility so I can contact him directly to clarify your statement.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Thu 01/10/08 07:39 PM
You are deluded you havent proven anything in any way all you do is make accusations and when confronted with cold hard facts you dont coment on them you just start name calling or acting bizzare. in fact not one of you "I believe the offical version of 911 types" has proven anything beyond "cuz thats how they said it happened" gota run for now do some homework Ok, I guess we will just assume my civil engineering teacher was lying then shall we? I didnt see your comment but I didnt know that fire insulation now makes things burn hotter Not all insulation is fire.. what about insulation to prevent temperature changes. They didn't expect a fire on the outside of the building that high in the air.

madisonman Joined Sun 12/23/07 Posts: 4573	Thu 01/10/08 07:41 PM Edited by madisonman on Thu 01/10/08 07:43 PM
You are deluded you havent proven anything in any way all you do is make accusations and when confronted with cold hard facts you dont coment on them you just start name calling or acting bizzare. in fact not one of you "I believe the offical version of 911 types" has proven anything beyond "cuz thats how they said it happened" gota run for now do some homework Ok, I guess we will just assume my civil engineering teacher was lying then shall we? I didnt see your comment but I didnt know that fire insulation now makes things burn hotter Not all insulation is fire.. what about insulation to prevent temperature changes. They didn't expect a fire on the outside of the building that high in the air. Oh ummm they built it to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707, at least that is what the real engieers who designed the building said. I am sure they knew it would have fuel in it..

mnhiker Joined Wed 02/14/07 Posts: 3771	Thu 01/10/08 07:50 PM
One thing I haven't seen in all these posts is to account for any flammable material inside the towers. Office building have drapes, furniture, desks, chairs, etc..., all of which are flammable. There was also the elevator shafts which would help spread a fire. The steel did not have to melt to collapse, just weaken.