« First « Previous Comments 30 - 69 of 375 Next » Last » Search these comments
More food for thought: One family has either financed, supported, helped maintain their power of, about every well known dictator/despot for close to 100 years.
From Hitler, to Saddam, Osama, Quadhaffi, Shaw of Iran, and numerous others. That same family seems to always be around or part of the group who take the aforementioned OUT of power.
And, there's another member of that family who is considered to be somewhat smarter, but far more sinister, just waiting in the shadows for the year 2016 to come around. Lookout Saudi Arabia, as their power has surpassed their usefulness.
The real war is on liberty.
True. 9/11 was an excuse the government used to demolish even basic human and civil rights. The Bush administration didn't use explosives to bring down any buildings, but that administration did choose to ignore the threat -- Bid Laden Determined to Attack in the United States -- so that they could use the resulting tragedy for political gain. Dick Cheney got his Pearl Harbor, and all he had to do was nothing.
The Bush administration let 9/11 happen. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. And they would have done it again because letting 9/11 happen is why Bush got a second term and was able to implement all his evil policies. For Republicans, 9/11 is the best thing they could hope for and given a chance to prevent it, they wouldn't.
The real war is on liberty.
True. 9/11 was an excuse the government used to demolish even basic human and civil rights. The Bush administration didn't use explosives to bring down any buildings, but that administration did choose to ignore the threat -- Bid Laden Determined to Attack in the United States -- so that they could use the resulting tragedy for political gain. Dick Cheney got his Pearl Harbor, and all he had to do was nothing.
The Bush administration let 9/11 happen. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. And they would have done it again because letting 9/11 happen is why Bush got a second term and was able to implement all his evil policies. For Republicans, 9/11 is the best thing they could hope for and given a chance to prevent it, they wouldn't.
That's pretty much how I see it - Occam's razor.
That's pretty much how I see it - Occam's razor.
yeah, I wouldn't put it past them "letting" it happen.
Not necessarily the whole suicide plane part, but the hijackings themselves, since in the past arab extremist hijackings were resolved without too much brouhaha, maybe a passenger or two killed, no biggie.
In this thesis, perhaps the "Truther" movement is counter-intelligence intended to 'poison the well' here about actual admin culpability.
Not that people aren't crazy enough to gin up this stuff on their own.
Does anyone remember the anthrax attacks?
I was thinking about this the other day. The FBI tortured Irvin into suicide by leaking all kinds of personal things that he did or wrote without charging him, but it was an entirely circumstantial case. They searched his house and effects countless times but never could match the time frame and batches he worked with with the samples from the letters. They had all the samples from the letters, samples from the labs, and abundant records, plus years to analyze them, but could never tie the batches he worked with nor any of his effects to the anthrax letters.
At one point they were going to write him off as a suspect but I believe political pressure "to find somebody, anybody", led them to simply harass Irvin constantly in hopes he would go nuts and have a meltdown, which would make him look guilty.
Remember Richard Jewell, the security guard at the Olympics? What happened to him reminds me of what happened to Irvin. The FBI and the newsmedia slandered his ass for months, leaked all kinds of personal shit, but he turned out to be 100% innocent; it was Eric Rudolph who did it (and, in fact, called in the bomb threat 10 minutes AFTER Jewell found the bag and notified the authorities) I believe he sued them and won.
Does anyone remember the anthrax attacks?
Yeah, the terrorist attacks that happened after 9/11 which give lie to the Republican talking point that "Bush kept us safe after September 11".
"Bush kept us safe after September 11".
Like Obama prevented a Depression and created Jobs.
Feed 'em beans and fuck 'em up the ass, American people will believe anything.
Even some of the investigators admitted that they did not believe the results
of the report
Can you provide the quotes?
All I hope to achieve from this thread is to inform more people of the controversy and make an attempt at debating the deniers.
Debate the deniers? What on Earth does that mean? You and your ilk are the deniers. And you have already long ago drawn your conclusions. You always trot out this line about being open and interested in the debate, etc. etc. No, you aren't. Your posts show that to be a lie. You are a conspiracist. You are just trying to give yourself a bit of credibility, but you are clearly being disingenuous, so it actually gives you less.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html
There are no quotes in that link. It is an anonymous redacted email on a blog. Pretty much worthless.
When you say the investigators admitted that they did not believe the results, I'd expect an attributed quote from a prominent investigator.
I'll assume you were exaggerating again...
I know everything.
I don't have any inclination to post any facts to educate those with lesser knowledge. LOL
History tells you everything you need to know. You're focusing upon detailed specifics instaed of charactoristics of every major event in the last 100 years.
This is the right approach. Do not keep arguing about unanswered questions until the end of times. Read WG Tarpley's " Synthetic Terror Made in USA", the most profound study of 9/11. If you have time check out Dimitri Khalezov_9_11 the third truth. Learn.
I could say, "Anyone who believes that steel frame buildings can pulverize themselves by office fires is an idiot", But I don't.
The problem with saying that would be, it's a strawman argument. When steel is heated, it becomes easier to bend, as anyone can see. That fact has been known since ancient times, and yet 9/11 conspiracy theorists overlook it. When you heat trusses and columns that have a lot of weight on them, they can bend and collapse. There is no need for explosives, conspiracies, or anything else, just heat.
you may think that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.....
but what about the stuff they put in the jets to make those "Chem trails" who knows what's in that stuff or how hot it burns ..
jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel
The steel did not need to melt, it needed only to weaken enough to bend under the weight from above. Once the bending started, there was no way to stop the collapse. That's why steel buildings always have fire insulation, although alas the twin towers did not have good enough fire insulation on 9/11.
The steel did not need to melt, only weaken enough to bend under the weight from above.
At which point all the pillars in the basement got blown up in both WTC towers and the entire building disintegrated into dust!
Weakened steel does not blow the columns or disintegrative steel or concrete.
BULLSHIT!
Never in history before 2001 have three buildings that were concrete steel reinforced crumbled due to fire
NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!
But you are supposed to believe it like the sheople you are.
That's why steel buildings always have fire insulation, although alas the twin towers did not have good enough fire insulation on 9/11.
Is that why the grey smoke was billowing out of the building due to the fire suppression systems kicking in , WHAT FIRE! confirmed by fireman on the scene!
The NASA recorded temperature was not hot enough to do whatever these morons are claiming.
And don't forget the billions in gold and silver bullion that just vanished!!!!!
Once the bending started, there was no way to stop the collapse.
Bending is not splintering, shredding or disintegrating, is it!
What do you think the odds of 3 buildings that caught fire collapse into perfect pancakes?
It is PHYSICALLY impossible and mathematically improbable. These kinds of buildings have "NEVER" collapsed EVER! Some have burned for days and days without falling. Let alone fold into a pancacke straight down.
It's just too perfect.
Some people said here that the steel bent? well if it bent why did the building not bow , nope, it just fell straight down like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
Why did the second building fall first? If the fire burned much longer in building 1 and according to some delusional logic that fire did it , Answer that.
It is proven the fire did not burn for long as the you think in the videos, we see tons of grey smoke due to the fire suppression kicking in. Fireman confirmed this.
Fireman also confirmed the explosions in the basement eye witnesses said it looked like molten lava down there, long before the towers collapsed and no fire ever reached them.
I see 'the professor' is off again peddling the same old crap. Wash, rinse, repeat. Surprise, surprise.
I was not aware of a fire raging there. No footage really shows that kind of thing, but I see your point. It just seems kinda odd. I thought it just was vibrated into failure. Was the fire due to the planes crashing or something else and it just happend to match the time frame of the crashes? That could have been the case. Totally serious questions here, not any type of bs.
WHat do you think about the straight drop vs a lopsides tip over for the big buildings?
I also dont see why the towers went down in a tight footprint, instead of tipping over, like a pez despenser.
Bop69, I will think of this comment whenever you tell other people how to live. The towers didn't tip over like a tree, or if you prefer a Pez dispenser, because they were strong enough to resist the airplane impacts; each had been designed specifically to withstand a 707, an earthquake, and NYC's 100mph windstorms. The towers fell because heat from the fires weakened their structural steel until it buckled, at which point gravity pulled them down. As anyone with even a grade school education could explain to you, gravity always pulls down. As anyone who has studied even high school physics could tell you, when the upper floors of a building come down, they strike the lower floors with a force proportionate to the square of their velocity, in addition to their weight. Your inability to comprehend this fact, more than a decade after witnessing it in action, shows truly astonishing stupidity. What amazes me about ignorance is, the most ignorant people are the most blind to their own ignorance, and opine with arrogant certitude about how other people whom they've never met should be required to live their own lives. I count that as one of the costs of Bronze Age religions; people listen to a preacher, and if they feel like they understood the sermon, they feel like they know all they need to know, even though those sermons are a little short on science.
I thought it just was vibrated into failure.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose, since heat is a vibration, I will give you this one. Yes, vibrations in the form of heat caused the buildings to fail. Most people would call those vibrations by a more common name: fire.
I was not aware of a fire raging there. No footage really shows that kind of thing, but I see your point. It just seems kinda odd. I thought it just was vibrated into failure. Was the fire due to the planes crashing or something else and it just happend to match the time frame of the crashes? That could have been the case. Totally serious questions here, not any type of bs.
WHat do you think about the straight drop vs a lopsides tip over for the big buildings?
There's this thing called the internet that has videos like this on it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
Are you saying that doesn't look like a rather serious fire?
He was a tenured professor. As you aren't actually a professor, perhaps you should google how difficult it is to get rid of such employees. He was put on paid leave and shortly after that retired without fighting his case. That in no way shape or form constitutes being forced out.
And you don't look at the evidence. You simply keep repeating all your go to truther spiel. Unbiased indeed.
guys guys guys ... you mis-read my posts. I am not suggesting anything weird happened, I'm just asking questions outloud. Geeze.
guys guys guys ... you mis-read my posts. I am not suggesting anything weird happened, I'm just asking questions outloud. Geeze.
No, you made a completely inaccurate statement that you have now glossed over.
I am not suggesting anything weird happened, I'm just asking questions outloud. Geeze.
You're just questioning the government BS and something weird did happen; for the first time in history a steel framed building supposedly collapsed from office fires.
Blah, blah, blah. Every steel frame building is of course constructed the same. Every fire is the same. Oh, hang on...
Blah, blah, blah. Every steel frame building is of course constructed the same. Every fire is the same. Oh, hang on...
Do you have anything to add to the debate Bigs?
There's nothing to debate. You will just go ahead and post up the same old videos/arguments whenever you want to stroke your ego and then willfully ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Some contrary evidence to counter the above 'facts'? How about everything that hasn't been filtered through your bullshit conspiracy websites? Real science, real research. You should try it some time 'professor'.
No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire alone. World trade Center Seven collapsed from fire alone according to the official story.
lol, these fools on Patnet don't care about facts.
"NO STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE ALONE, EVER "
A steel framed building has burned for over 24hrs and not fallen.
On top of that we are now we supposed to believed that this steel and concrete reinforced buildings ( 3 of them) all BENT under fire and collapsed (never ever happened before or will happen again) and still fell like a PANCAKE! Not toppled over but shredded, disintegrated and EXPLODED!
WAKE UP YOU FOOLS! WAKE UP!
NASA already produced the heat indexes for the fires and they are not high enough to melt the "reinforced steel" made in Japan, to very high standards.
It did not burn for very long either and the fire suppression systems kicked in producing grey smoke. confirmed by witnesses and fireman on the scene inside the building.
Many fireman witnesses confirmed explosions in the basement producing molten lava of the connecting columns well before the collapses. No fire every reached the basement.
!
Self recognition of one's flaws is the first step towards recovery.
Glad you've made that first step.
It is nice that patrick provides this webspace for the extremely mentally weak fringe idiots to get together.
steele is not a fuel source, so I would expect the fuel/consumables to be removed when the fuel source is spent and the steele left standing there. Cement is not a fuel source either. So, smoldering frame makes sense.
Puhim, the physics, metallurgy and demolition expert, speaks.
So you got nothing but insult. Thank you for your contribution.
It's not an insult. He is none of those things and neither are you, and yet you both think you have greater insight than the overwhelming number of such people who have shown your tin-foil hat 9/11 conspiracy nonsense for what it is, complete and utter bullshit.
« First « Previous Comments 30 - 69 of 375 Next » Last » Search these comments
don matter so don beech