Page 20 of 36 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 533

Thread: all 9/11 and related american political threads, merged here

  1. #286
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    638
    Nope, not that movie. I doubt I'll watch although I generally like his films. I suspect it's a propaganda piece.

    I prefer stuff like the symposium and the link that MP provided.
    What happens in Gong Sao stays in Gong Sao.

    "And then my Qi exploded, all over the bathroom" - name witheld

  2. #287
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    alternative histories are actual histories more often than not.

    It is the winners who write the History.

    9/11 has plenty of stink around it, that is for sure. Probably some stink that doesn't belong either.

    It bears further investigation by a non-partisan, non-government body. I wonder how the official report would stand up under that kind of scrutiny.

    I would venture to guess it would be hard pressed to defend it's points on all levels. there are many inconsistencies between what appareently happened and what is in the official report which by the way, if you're gopnna give face to any argument to the contrary you should probably read first.

    I found the document more interesting for what is not there as opposed to what is. The official report that is.

    You can get your own copy here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

    If you can't be bothered to read it, then you probably shouldn't be bothered to regurgitate what Alex Jones or Jeff Rense have to say on the matter.

    Both sides first, then find the middle ground. You'll likely form your own opinion that way.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  3. #288
    I'm watching the tin foil hat guys right now on C-SPAN. So far they haven't convinced me of their view point. I mean facts.

    One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings, weren't two planes slamming into the side enough? Also what about the fourth plane? Why let the passengers get on the cellphones?
    Last edited by rogue; 08-01-2006 at 03:42 PM.
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  4. #289
    Now some Lt Col (Retarded) just used all of the buzzwords that make the tin foil hat crowd all excited, and then he announced that he's running for congress in FL. He'll impeach Bush and Chaney too. I love these guys.
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  5. #290
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    638
    Wow, fair and reasonable commentary from someone who is completely objective.

    NOT!

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue
    One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings, weren't two planes slamming into the side enough?
    The point being that no, two planes hitting high in the building are not enough to take them down. The building were designed to withstand similar destruction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough melt the steel. Your way too biased to pay attention enough to get it right.

    Why don't you try to offer some substantial facts or is that too hard?

    Agree or disagree, at least get their claims right.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue
    Also what about the fourth plane? Why let the passengers get on the cellphones?
    From what I've read the claim is that cell phones don't operate at those speeds. At least they didn't at the time. They may have improved since then.

    Can anyone verify or refute that? With facts I mean.
    What happens in Gong Sao stays in Gong Sao.

    "And then my Qi exploded, all over the bathroom" - name witheld

  6. #291
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    638
    Funny how all the nutcases want open discussions and investigations while the other side just wants to call people names.
    What happens in Gong Sao stays in Gong Sao.

    "And then my Qi exploded, all over the bathroom" - name witheld

  7. #292
    I am biased, and I'm watching these clowns for entertainment. Put it this way, the operation as described by these nutcases is too complicated to pull off without a hitch.
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  8. #293
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Augusta, GA
    Posts
    439
    I told my self I wouldn't get into this. I hate these discussing but I'm a glutton for punshiment.

    The point being that no, two planes hitting high in the building are not enough to take them down. The building were designed to withstand similar destruction. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough melt the steel. Your way too biased to pay attention enough to get it right.
    There are simple things I think that keeps getting overlooked. There was never an idident of the magnitude to base many assumptions on. ie We never had two planes hit buildings of the WTC size to say that would or would not happen. We do know that buildings do indeed collapse do to fire damage and some have remained standing too. The Jet fuel was NOT the only thing burning in the buildings. This was said over and over by pple who were there including the firefighters.

    From what I've read the claim is that cell phones don't operate at those speeds. At least they didn't at the time. They may have improved since then.

    Can anyone verify or refute that? With facts I mean.
    I don't know too much about cell phones and altitude but I during my last trip to CA I did use my cell phone to call my friend in Santa Barbara to tell him I was coming into LV and that I should be ther in about 2hrs. I don't know how high we were or how fast were going but the phone worked fine, and yes I know I'm not suppose to make calls on the plane.
    Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Emperor of Baji!!!

    (Spellcheck by Chang Style Novice!)

  9. #294
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    842
    Um...they have some of the cell phone calls made by the victims on the 4th plane on tape. Right? That's how they know that they intended to fight the terrorists.

    Here's a link confirming this:

    http://www.post-gazette.com/headline...callnat3p3.asp
    Keep it simple, stupid.

  10. #295
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    638
    Cool. Intelligent conversation is much more interesting.

    Seems he used the in-flight phone. The argument is that cells phones didn't work because of timing issues at aircraft speed making it difficult to lock in on a tower.

    Supposedly that's no longer a problem since improvements the last few years.

    Asia
    As I understand it there are similar incidents to compare it to but I don't recall the specifics or where I read that.

    Do you happen to have an explanation for WTC7 coming down even though it wasn't hit?

    Supposedly Silverstein gave an order to 'pull it' just before it came down.
    What happens in Gong Sao stays in Gong Sao.

    "And then my Qi exploded, all over the bathroom" - name witheld

  11. #296
    I apologize to the tin hat crowd, the show on C-SPAN was nothing more than the fringe far, far left ranting about the usual crap. No logical arguments, a "good" idea from Hugo Chevez was mentioned and of course the "stolen election", the basic script. It was kind of fun when they also blasted the Democrats, Air America and Mother Jones besides others who aren't left enough for them.

    Sorry folks nothing of interest and nothing new, just a big lefty wacko circle jerk.
    I quit after getting my first black belt because the school I was a part of was in the process of lowering their standards A painfully honest KC Elbows

    The crap that many schools do is not the crap I was taught or train in or teach.

    Dam nit... it made sense when it was running through my head.

    DM


    People love Iron Crotch. They can't get enough Iron Crotch. We all ride the Iron Crotch for the exposure. Gene

    Find the safety flaw in the training. Rory Miller.

  12. #297
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Augusta, GA
    Posts
    439
    As I understand it there are similar incidents to compare it to but I don't recall the specifics or where I read that.
    I found examples of buildings burning and collasping and buildings burning and staying up. In the case of the Madrid Tower the upper floors collasped but the rest remained standing. But the thing is none of them shared the same architecture characteristics as the WTC. I found some examples of planes hitting builidings but they weren't 757's and didn't carry the same amount of fuel.

    Do you happen to have an explanation for WTC7 coming down even though it wasn't hit?
    The offical story is that it was ignited by debris form the planes. Looking at the video that is plausibleand have a long burning process, about 7hrs later I think. Its possible for it to have substained the same amount of damage to collapse, but thas just my speculation.

    Supposedly Silverstein gave an order to 'pull it' just before it came down.
    True but I recall he explained that he meant for the unit of firefighters in it to come out because the couldn't save the building. Those two words have been spun every which way but loose.
    Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Emperor of Baji!!!

    (Spellcheck by Chang Style Novice!)

  13. #298
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    When the Bush admin finally cops to shooting down Flight 93, maybe their other "explainations" will gain some credibility.

  14. #299
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423

    9/11 panel considered criminal probe of Pentagon's apparent lies

    WASHINGTON (AFP) - The 10-member commission that investigated the US response to the September 11 attacks reportedly considered seeking a criminal probe of the
    Pentagon, believing it had deliberately misled the panel and the public.

    The Washington Post said that the panel found discrepancies between statements officials of the North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) and the
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) made about their response to the hijackings and audiotapes and e-mails later made available.

    The panel, in a secret meeting at the close of its investigation in 2004, decided there was probable cause to believe the officials had broken the law by making false statements in the hope of hiding their bungled response, sources knowledgeable of the debate told the newspaper.

    The commission, however, decided to refer the matter not to the Justice Department but to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they see fit.

    The inspectors general report is complete and is being drafted, an FAA spokeswoman told the daily without divulging any aspect of the report.

    Originally, vague and at times contradictory statements about how the Pentagon tracked one or more of the four hijacked airliners were attributed to the confusion prevalent on the day of the attacks.

    The Pentagon for the first two years after the attacks maintained that its response had been quick and that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings.

    But after analyzing the audiotapes and other material the commission subpoenaed from NORAD and FAA, panel members found that the Air Force never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights.

    "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, told the daily in a recent interview.

    "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years ... This is not spin. This is not true."

  15. #300
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue
    I'm watching the tin foil hat guys right now on C-SPAN. So far they haven't convinced me of their view point. I mean facts.

    One professor is saying that the buildings were brought down using Thermade. The logical question would be why bring down the buildings, weren't two planes slamming into the side enough?
    I've read that professor's paper. If you read through it and check out the basic Newtonian physics, you can see it's fairly evident they were taken down with charges. The collapse time was ~11s. The fall time for objects in free fall in vacuum at the height of the towers is about 9s. The building (including the huge support beams meant to withstand many times the weight of the tower, plus wind stresses etc.) would have had to provide LESS THAN zero resistence to fall in 11s from "gravitational collapse".

    It's also interesting to note that the WTC-7 building collapsed in a similar amount of time, and was never hit with anything (and the "official" reports still claim that the WTC-7 collapse was due to "gravitational collapse" (that is, the top floor buckling the supports because of "fire damage" and then subsequently buckling the floor under etc.). How they expect anyone with a brain to believe that a building made to support its own weight multiple times over would just randomly collapse without being on fire (and, it can easily be shown that building fires and common kerosene fires WILL NOT COLLAPSE BUILDINGS (there are videos of older buildings than the WTC burning for HOURS with the same type of fires, and not collapsing. ) or having been hit with anything.

    The basic, high school level physics don't support the official story. Any time that is the case, the official story needs to be questioned or discounted completely.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •