[quote]23andbeginner wrote:
I am not saying this is anything outstanding or impressive.
[/quote]
We noticed.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
23andbeginner wrote:
…
You laugh at the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you ever take a stop watch and time how long it takes the north tower to fall? It falls faster than it should, dosn’t it? What about building 7? Care to explain any of those two. I sure can’t. Everything i learned miserable failed on this.
…
How fast should the towers have fallen?
How do you know?
Why did they fall at speeds other than what the “should have”?
Please enlighten me.[/quote]
C’mon Zap! You mean they never taught you in school the rate at which 100 story towers disintegrate when thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burn hot enough to melt the steel support structures? Sheesh. You were shorted somewhere in your education.
[quote]23andbeginner wrote:
Vegita wrote:
23andmoron,
Dude you really take this stuff seriously. I’m cool with reading about this stuff and while I won’t come right out and say I am 100% positive that any conspiracy theory is ficticious, I will make fun of them and have a good time with them.
What? Yuu don’t know for sure but you still make fun of it? Are you the type of guy that laughs at someone falling down some stairs and breaking their neck?
The funny thing about conspiracy theorists is that it benefits themselves for the theories they talk about to be true. It gives them a feeling of superiority equal or even greater to that or the subjects in the conspiracy theory itself.
I know. That is in fact the problem there is a billion good reasons why they are called conspiracy theories. But what if one is actually correct? And I am not talking about the lizards here. You wouldn’t know, would you?
When an individual reads up on and believes in one of these, they get the feeling of uncovering a massive network of secretive individuals and how great thier detective skills or at last thier ability to research stuff is.
Hmm or they stay sceptical and dig deeper. See the movie in plane sight for example made me go to my parents and show them what “really” happend on 9/11 then i further researched it and it turns out alot of the points ar bogus. You can never just believe what you see or feel or hear. An opinion is just as valuable as the time you put in acquiring it.
Trust me, I have believed myself in many of these theories including much of Ickies work.
Take the bloodline thing. It really doesn’t work the way he portrays it but does that discredit his work on symbolism and some other fantastic stuff he put out like the best explanatrion of what genetics really are? I don’t really think it does. Fits what is being discovered more and more and even written about on this site on the topic of sports and genetics. Looks like he has it spot down. Did you ever say something that turned out to be wrong? I bet you never did right? Well maybe we shouldn’t expect anyone to give us all the answers. We need to get rid of that tv mentality and look at what we can get our hands on to form an honest opinion and maybe hold the laughter as long as we don’t know where the fault in logic or whatever is.
You laugh at the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you ever take a stop watch and time how long it takes the north tower to fall? It falls faster than it should, dosn’t it? What about building 7? Care to explain any of those two. I sure can’t. Everything i learned miserable failed on this.
The simple fact is that no matter what, unless aliens land, make contact, and it becomes general public knowledge, no one can ever be certain, unless they themselves have a close encounter.
Fair enough. I didn’t have one but i didn’t claim aliens were here did i?
Likewise with the illuminati, unless one has first hand evidence of it’s existence, then all is merely heresay.
Weishaupt existed. That is not science fiction. I happen to know someone majoring in history and he told me there is tons of evidence they did exist at some point of time. Skull and Bones is real. The Bilderbergs are real, David Icke has the mother lodge of the Scottish right of freemasonry on one of his videos. Most masons don’t even know something like that exists.
My father and grandfather were both in the freemason orginazation.
In which one? That is very important as most of them offer only 3 degrees and noone ever said that any of these were the satanic root or anything like that. They all say most are very ignorant of what the freemasons are all about.
My father is no longer a member and from what I can tell, has had no attempts on his life, nor mentioned anything to me about the orginazation being a satanic cult.
If he had been a 33rd degree mason maybe they would have killed him. Was he?
He said they had secrets, but laughed and said it’s as complex as a college fraternaty orginazations.
The pyramid structure (the same one that is on the dollar bill, just like the owl (Bilderberg sign) and i got one here i know it’s on there and you do too) perfectly explains why that is so, doesn’t it? There might be a chance it would work that way.
A secret handshake and some other meaningless bullshit.
They do the longhorn stuff too? lol
So while I didn’t necessarily give you the time of the day on this thread, don’t assume that i’m not just as well researched as you are on these matters.
On the money issue? I doubt it. For someone who claims to know Ickes work very well you are sure very ignorant of how he says the masons work.
If I think it’s silly, it’s my right to think that.
Year sure. I just want to know why people think what they think. There is no point in a post saying he is black and then another guy coming on and say no he is white if neither can prove any of that. Noones opinion is going to change at all. Noone learns anything. If you are right, then why not show me what is wrong with what i am saying. If i said 3 sets o 10 are just as good as 10 of 3 for anybody at all times, would you say: you are an idiot and move on or at least point out CT’s or CW’s work on that or even rephrase what you know about it and point at important sstuff i should read like page so and so in supertrain? If you fall in the first category then i think there is really no point there except maybe feeling superior yourself. In essence exactly what you said above.
V
[/quote]
Please learn the quote function better, it’s agonizing reading it like that.
To your point about proving you wrong. Well you would have to make a good case with facts other than saying people existed. Saying adolf hitler existed and then saying well see he was bad, he was part of the conspiracy, is a little too much of a leap of faith for me.
And yes if someone came in here and told me to curl in the squat rack, or do 1 set of 500 at a slow pace or to eat simple sugars in vast quantities I would make fun of them and call them a dweeb and a troll. Arguments like that are so stupid, I do not need to waste any time trying to explain JB’s or CT’s or CW’s ideas to that poster. They are here and are just being a dipshit. I’m not saying you are trying to be a dipshit, but in order to come to some of the conclusions you have, you need to show us, or tell us where to find, HARD evidence, and if there was HARD evidence, it would be all over the place.
V
Attach the stone of shame!
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
23andbeginner wrote:
…
You laugh at the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you ever take a stop watch and time how long it takes the north tower to fall? It falls faster than it should, dosn’t it? What about building 7? Care to explain any of those two. I sure can’t. Everything i learned miserable failed on this.
…
How fast should the towers have fallen?
How do you know?
Why did they fall at speeds other than what the “should have”?
Please enlighten me.
C’mon Zap! You mean they never taught you in school the rate at which 100 story towers disintegrate when thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burn hot enough to melt the steel support structures? Sheesh. You were shorted somewhere in your education.[/quote]
I feel ripped off. Perhaps if I was a Structural Engineer I would have taken the right classes.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
23andbeginner wrote:
…
You laugh at the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you ever take a stop watch and time how long it takes the north tower to fall? It falls faster than it should, dosn’t it? What about building 7? Care to explain any of those two. I sure can’t. Everything i learned miserable failed on this.
…
How fast should the towers have fallen?
How do you know?
Why did they fall at speeds other than what the “should have”?
Please enlighten me.
C’mon Zap! You mean they never taught you in school the rate at which 100 story towers disintegrate when thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burn hot enough to melt the steel support structures? Sheesh. You were shorted somewhere in your education.
I feel ripped off. Perhaps if I was a Structural Engineer I would have taken the right classes.[/quote]
Sry about not having paragraphs in there. It’s awful to read with the typos bad grammar and spelling, but english is not my first language obviously, so i am sorry about that as well. I just don’t want to go over every post 10 times and make sure it is readable.
I know this takes away from the arguments i try to make, but i seriously didn’t expect anyone to really start discussing it other than the ones that already believe a big chunk of it anyway. From reading other posts on here i thought it just won’t happen. Why do i say all this? I don’t even know. So here goes:
I happen to have taken some basic classes on mechanics but i cannot translate alot of what we talked about. I gotta admit though, that this won’t help for the simple fact that you need physics to look at what’s wrong and not mechanics.
In mechanics, you learn stuff like if you place a steel column onto something for example 2 positions (auflager we call that i don’t know the word in english) and put a slightly one sided force onto it or whatever what kind of bending power is expected inside the used metal and how something is going to behave if you bend it, rotate it or whatever else you can think of. Things like that.
You basically learn which dimensions to use and what kind of safety is appropriate. That’s how you kind of start of and eventually you look at dynamic systems with a lot of connections and forces.
The safety margin on WTC was humongous from what i understand (it would take a single guy with limited understanding years to go through all the math without using autocad and teamwork to prove this) but the power of wind alone should be huge and the workers that build the thing didn’t seem afraid to walk around up there even when statically important connections havend been made yet,
So therefore i assume the building was just like the experts stated built with a far greater safety margin than what was needed. There is no need to get into the fire thing here. I could do that as well but then someone would pull out the 500 pages MIT wrote to that and noone would assume my little math play could be accurate.
I’ll say something on this anyway but don’t pay too much attention as this is not what’s important or proof of any theory. MIT looked at it from an energy level perspective and i don’t really see a point in doing a thermodynamical analysis like MIT did.
They kind of jump to conclusions in there plus how does a non expert know what 4k Joule are compared to let’s say 400000 Joule and what the energy total has to do with anyting. Even experts would struggle here.
I mean i am far from an expert but from what i leraned in thermodynamics they would then have to calculate how much energy is in the room anyway on the atomic level and (man i really have hard time saying this in english) all that. Then you would have to go on doing the analysis in thermodynamics, but they don’t do that. They just throw numbers at you that proof there was alot of energy.
Nothing i can conclude from this really. That i did notice and you would, too if you would read it. They simplified kind of looked at it like this: If i have a ton of fuel and that explodes it’s this much energy. They forgot to mention, that the jet fuel couldn’t use all this energy in one blow as there wasn’t enough oxygen. That is why there was smoke in the first place.
Then they failed to calculate how much air was there in the moment of the biggest explosion. The fireball did go up the building and leftover fuel burned in there, so that proofs, that not all the energy was used at the same time.
Then they jump to the damage done by the plane. Now this is mechanics. But instead of thinking about how much of this energy was going to which spots on what area and going into analysis from there (structural damage), they simply kind of add up the enrgy numbers. Now from what i understand energy through heat is a very different thing and you can’t just add all this up but some of the most brilliant people on this sector did something like that.
I read all of it but you go through the pages and you can’t follow any red line. They go in such detail on some things, that it is very hard to understand but they never put together a real structural analysis and then look at the thermodynamic side, it’s weird. How can they just sum up the damage like that.
If you throw a Molotow-Cocktail against a wooden wall the structural damage would be very insignificant but the energy of the fire would be alot bigger and totally differnt in nature. On an outside wall there would be plenty of air and when a certain heat is reached the wood would catch on fire and that would do the damage.
It’s a different story when throw it in a dog house with only one window open. It would take longer to burn and reach sufficent heat. All this can’t just be ignored and all the energy possible combined and a heat calculated out of numbers for stractural damage through the plane.
It just doesn’t make sense to me but there is a chance that my knowledge is too little and i didn’t pay sufficient attention at all times and follow through line by line with a claculator. I remember that i didn’t fully understand their calculations so don’t take my word for it. If anyone is an expert on this and wants to comment go right ahead.
I strongly believe there conclusions are somewhat strange. It’s very scientific sound but the principals of what they did why and how are unclear. That’s not scientific at all to me.
I am again getting carried away. I was gonna talk about the physics.
I am sorry if i really dumb this down for everyone to understand. I am aware of the fact that most of you guys can be expected to easily do this as well, but just in case someone never did it on any problem like this and really wants to know if this can be right or anything like that.
This is really basic and anyone can do it. The gravitational acceleration is g. g = 9.82 m/sec? on earth (it really depends but we can use 10 if you like to calculate a safety margin. It is not even 10 where it is the highest on earth and using a lower number would make the time longer as you can see below)
If you were to hold a stone on top of the WTC and just drop it it would fall free. The air resistance would only slow it down very very little. We could try to calculate this in but let’s just assume it falls without any friction at all which again makes the time shorter than it propably really is.
The buildings height is 1368 feet or 417 meters according to most sites (wikipedia e.g.). I just googled this and believe this should be accurate.
So to calculate the time for the free fall it’s this formula h = 1/2 g * t?.
You can look this up in any physics book. If you want to know the time something takes in free fall from a cartain height to reach the ground you rearrange this to
t = square root of (2h / g).
Let’s put in the numbers:
t = square root of
[(2 * 417 m)/ (10 m/s?] =
square root of [834 m /(10 m/s?)]
If you divide by a/x it is the same as multiplying it by x/a.
t= square root of (834m * s?/10 m)
So essentially you can see that you take the square root of s? and so you see it is right. You get seconds. The time is in seconds.
We now have:
square root of 834 ms? / 10m
which is the same as
square root of 83.4 s? = about 9 s
The top of the building in free fall takes about 9 s to hit the ground (it is really longer, that’s the shortest possible time)
Now break out you stop watch and go to your favorite video
10:28:23 North Tower starts to crumble
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)
I have done this before but i can’t find the video that had the whole tower. The above is based on seismographic data and is off a conspiracy site i believe, so if anyone has a good realtime video on dvd or anything break it out and time it. 39-23 = 16s.
I had 14 seconds timed for the heavy bottom top parts (just below 30th floor of the building) to hit the ground, (the very top part just magically turned to dust) but if a fire weakend the structure below and the tower collapsed like that than there would have been a great deal of friction.
So if it takes only .2 s for a high floor to give out and it should be way higher than that from what i have heard a professor say. If you dropped a 2000000 ton weight on a steel structure like that from the height of one floor, it would take something like 2-3 seconds to copletely give out according to him-
[The guy built bridges, towers, high buildings (12 floors i bleive) and is a math expert] He said the first floor would have taken some time to give out in a case like that. He guessed something like 2-3 seconds. Even if it is only on average .2 s a floor for the floor to give out and every floor does faster than the one before (it should actually slow down), it still adds up to a pretty big sum, something like 22 seconds and that is just the time it takes the structure to give out.
Man, even if it magically got even faster here it would still take something like 11s. You just don’t accelerate a gigantic mass in milliseconds. We are talking 200000 tons of steel / 110 floors = roughly 1800 tons of steel that do not want to move. The steel is the same on the bottom. It never had a problem supporting the 200000 tons, so don’t tell me it was a huge force that pushed from the top and then it just punched through.
Thats complete nonsense. If you chose to say that then maybe you are completely crazy after all. Now add that to the time of free fall from floor to floor that we have here and you should get something like at least 20 seconds for the collapse. The only way this could go faster is with explosives being used.
If you want me too, i’ll take a look at a fast falling visible section of the video for 2 seconds from the start of its displacement and calculate the speed and compare that to the speed it should have but really that is enough evidence for me. I don’t know if all the rest is true on every site you know but surely 9/11 defied physics in that aspect.
The only way it could fall so fast was if the columns didn’t support the falling mass a whole lot (the airplane hit was way up there no real structural or fire damage below, right?) and even then the mass would just start to move and the inertia of it would considerably slow down the falling mass. It would still take longer to fall down than it did it would seem.
There is a good explanation though. In a controlled demolition the blast goes out to the sides as well (just like much of the rubbel did) and the missing air then creates an underpressure that kind of sucks the mass down. That way it doesn’t slow down. it might even speed up. and that is exactly what you see, when you watch that video.
That’s why the official story can’t be true. It is impossible. If it happend like we were told it would propably have taken the building something like a minute to come down if it did would at all and that’s what all experts agreed on shortly after this happend. Then everybody magically changed their story.
Then these weird MIT and Fema bullcrap investigations come out and magically make something that everyone would think is impossible very possible. I mean hey that was 1345678987654321,1234345645577 Joules of energy in 3,412334567898 seconds whatever is supposed to mean, no need to look at physics with a minimal understanding of mechanics here. Have faith in god he can make everything possible. It was Osama bin God maybe?
And that’s also how “the passport that was a rumour that might be true” (FBI) got through the 300000000000000000000000 Joules, oh year right.
That’s why i think it must have been an inside job. Well that and about a ton of other evidence for bombs including tv broadcast, firefighters, eyewitness accounts, especially those from the ground level, and then FBI and CIA involvement with almost all the terrorists, Deutsche Bank inside trades, kids that knew it would come down, norad standing down, different timelines, contradicting stories, silverstein admitting to pulling building 7 on tv, g.w. claiming to having seen the first plane hit the tower, drills on this stuff, miss rice telling us she never saw that one coming and the proven fact they did plus their writings about something like a new pearl harbour.
man i could go on for hours but that nobody excepts on here, noone checks it out, it’s all rubbish anyway.
I just think to myself:
Sometimes when it looks like a fish, swims like a fish, lives in water, smells like a fish it might be a fish , rather then a light reflection of o piece of wood that dives around under water magically just like a fish and has been used to smack fish dead, so it smells.
No you go and explain what i asked you to, pls.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
23andbeginner wrote:
…
You laugh at the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you ever take a stop watch and time how long it takes the north tower to fall? It falls faster than it should, dosn’t it? What about building 7? Care to explain any of those two. I sure can’t. Everything i learned miserable failed on this.
…
How fast should the towers have fallen?
How do you know?
Why did they fall at speeds other than what the “should have”?
Please enlighten me.
C’mon Zap! You mean they never taught you in school the rate at which 100 story towers disintegrate when thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burn hot enough to melt the steel support structures? Sheesh. You were shorted somewhere in your education.[/quote]
I almost laughed dude…
Please, for the love of all that is good, don’t let this thread die this way.
T-Nationers, since this is the conspiracy thread, I thought that I would add my $0.02. What is you opinion on this little bit of info?
GOP Wants to Create Secretive Gov’t Agency
By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer
5 hours ago
WASHINGTON - By creating a federal agency shielded from public scrutiny, some lawmakers think they can speed the development and testing of new drugs and vaccines needed to respond to a bioterrorist attack or super-flu pandemic.
The proposed Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency, or BARDA, would be exempt from long-standing open records and meetings laws that apply to most government departments, according to legislation approved Oct. 18 by the Senate health committee.
Those exemptions would streamline the development process, safeguard national security and protect the proprietary interests of drug companies, say Republican backers of the bill. The legislation also proposes giving manufacturers immunity from liability in exchange for their participation in the public-private effort.
“We must ensure the federal government acts as a partner with the private sector, providing the incentives and protections necessary to bring more and better drugs and vaccines to market faster,” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said when the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions approved the bill.
The agency would provide the funding for development of treatments and vaccines to protect the United States from natural pandemics as well as chemical, biological and radiological agents.
But it is the secrecy and immunity provisions of the legislation that have alarmed patient rights and open government advocates. The agency would be exempt from the Freedom of Information and Federal Advisory Committee acts, both considered crucial for monitoring government accountability.
“There is no other agency that I am aware of where the agency is totally exempt either from FOIA or FACA,” said Pete Weitzel, coordinator of the Coalition of Journalists for Open Government. The coalition is an alliance of journalism groups, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors and Associated Press Managing Editors, that wrote to lawmakers seeking amendments to the bill. “That is a cause for major concern and should raise major policy concerns,” Weitzel said.
Burr spokesman Doug Heye said the provisions would keep competitors from gaining proprietary information through FOIA. However, confidential business information already is exempt from FOIA.
“There’s no secrecy involved in BARDA,” Heye said. “That is absolutely false. This is an agency that will be putting out information daily.”
Some Democrats question whether the public would accept drugs or vaccines developed in conjunction with the agency, citing the abortive 2003 effort to vaccinate 500,000 front-line health care workers against smallpox. Only about 40,000 workers ultimately received the vaccine amid concerns about the vaccine’s safety, which health authorities initially downplayed.
“Republican leaders in Congress are now proposing a plan that would make exactly the same mistake,” Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said in a statement. “Their plan will protect companies that make ineffective or harmful medicines, and because it does not include compensation for those injured by a vaccine or drug, it will discourage first responders and patients from taking medicines to counter a biological attack or disease outbreak.”
The bill does provide for limited compensation. However, another provision would grant drug companies immunity unless “willful misconduct” can be shown.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said it was reviewing the bill. Another industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, declined comment.
The National Vaccine Information Center, an advocacy group, called the legislation “a drug company stockholder’s dream and a consumer’s worst nightmare.”
The proposed law comes amid growing concern about pandemics and the government’s ability to meet such threats. For instance, the United State needs another three to five years to develop the manufacturing capacity to produce 300 million doses of flu vaccine, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The agency would improve on Project BioShield, a barely two-year-old program also meant to encourage production of vaccines and drugs, Heye said.
“While some progress has been made, we still haven’t seen the participation from companies, universities and research institutions in developing vaccines we might need to protect us from the next threat, whatever that might be,” Heye said. “One of the reasons is (they) don’t want to put their very existence on the line.”
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the agency as proposed would represent a setback to decades of progress in opening up to the public the process of testing the safety and efficacy of drugs.
“These provisions are extremely dangerous,” Wolfe said. “The fact that they are being proposed, really exploiting people’s fears about pandemics and epidemics, is outrageous and goes backward on the progress on the use of the Freedom of Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act to increase public scrutiny and increase the correctness of decisions that are made.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike agree the drug industry needs some protections to encourage it to produce emergency stocks of vaccines and drugs, but Democrats have balked at providing blanket immunity without first establishing a compensation fund for patients.
Republicans are pushing for liability protections for vaccine manufacturers on other fronts as well. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is seeking to add such protections to a defense appropriations bill.
Frist spokeswoman Amy Call said drug company concerns about liability are real.
“There’s really no financial incentive for them to get into the market, sell to the government at a reduced rate and then open themselves up to losses that could potentially bankrupt them,” Call said.
The push for liability exemptions may force the Burr bill to the sidelines until the next session of Congress, Republican and Democratic aides said. But Call said Frist intends to pursue the legislation.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Attach the stone of shame![/quote]
But to whom, dammit, whom!
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
T-Nationers, since this is the conspiracy thread, I thought that I would add my $0.02. What is you opinion on this little bit of info?
[/quote]
Fucking Bilderberger-Illuminati-Bohemian Grove-French!
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
T-Nationers, since this is the conspiracy thread, I thought that I would add my $0.02. What is you opinion on this little bit of info?
…
[/quote]
Please don’t spoil this thread by putting real news in it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
T-Nationers, since this is the conspiracy thread, I thought that I would add my $0.02. What is you opinion on this little bit of info?
…
Please don’t spoil this thread by putting real news in it.[/quote]
Oops, sorry! 
[quote]23andbeginner wrote:
Kuz wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
23andbeginner wrote:
…
You laugh at the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you ever take a stop watch and time how long it takes the north tower to fall? It falls faster than it should, dosn’t it? What about building 7? Care to explain any of those two. I sure can’t. Everything i learned miserable failed on this.
…
How fast should the towers have fallen?
How do you know?
Why did they fall at speeds other than what the “should have”?
Please enlighten me.
C’mon Zap! You mean they never taught you in school the rate at which 100 story towers disintegrate when thousands of gallons of aviation fuel burn hot enough to melt the steel support structures? Sheesh. You were shorted somewhere in your education.
I almost laughed dude…[/quote]
Well, I gave it a whirl. FYI, your post above has got to be a T-Nation record for longest ever. I felt like my mouse hand would go numb scrolling through that sucker.
So what’s your opinion? Do you think the hijackers put a ton of bombs in the WTC before they flew the planes into the building?
Do you think i messed up somewhere?
Aren’t multiple bombs in the building proof, that the official story is crap?
Who stands to gain? Some are Silverstein (got himself a huge insurance a couple of weeks before the incident), Controlled Demolition (sold the maerial and was paid for removal) and Dicks Company as well as (removal e.g.) G.W.B for political reasons (Afghanistan and also to some extend Iraq).
To sum up what i said, banking system works in favour of a group of people. Bankers rule almost every country in the world. They always win no matter what happens and stem from old Illuminati leaders. The people lose more and more rights due to faked terrorist events like WTC carried out by CIA trained individuals and paid for by the CIA…
The Illuminati explanaition seems to be able to predict where politics is going and just like it says parties don’t seem to matter very much.
That’s in a nutshell a ton of evidence for the ongoing of a conspiracy rather than just a theory. If you can disprove any of this go ahead and what kind of mason was your dad?
[quote]23andbeginner wrote:
So what’s your opinion? Do you think the hijackers put a ton of bombs in the WTC before they flew the planes into the building?
Do you think i messed up somewhere?
Aren’t multiple bombs in the building proof, that the official story is crap?
Who stands to gain? Some are Silverstein (got himself a huge insurance a couple of weeks before the incident), Controlled Demolition (sold the maerial and was paid for removal) and Dicks Company as well as (removal e.g.) G.W.B for political reasons (Afghanistan and also to some extend Iraq).
To sum up what i said, banking system works in favour of a group of people. Bankers rule almost every country in the world. They always win no matter what happens and stem from old Illuminati leaders. The people lose more and more rights due to faked terrorist events like WTC carried out by CIA trained individuals and paid for by the CIA…
The Illuminati explanaition seems to be able to predict where politics is going and just like it says parties don’t seem to matter very much.
That’s in a nutshell a ton of evidence for the ongoing of a conspiracy rather than just a theory. If you can disprove any of this go ahead and what kind of mason was your dad?
[/quote]
All circumstantial evidence there, Basically you give a possible motive and that is it. There is no HARD proof that bombs were involved. If they were going to use bombs, why use the planes to begin with? Why not just blow the buildings and have it look like al-queda did it? And with regard to your equations about how fast the building should have fallen, You MUST be wrong somewhere or there are other factors involved that you are not considering. I didn’t read through all of them because honestly, someone else would have figured it out already if it were true.
I have no idea what type of freemason he was. It was a local chapter in a small town so I assume he would have no knowledge of a satanic worshoping cult.
Here is my main point dude, if it’s true or not, what are YOU going to do to change anything? NOTHING, so why not focus on the more important things in life like girls and sex and having fun? SEE!
V
You got yourself in trouble because if you bring this up and i comment on it you will need to keep debating and clearly you won’t be able to disproof these points made here so you won’t try and just go on with posting funny pictures and smartass remarks that turn out to look pretty stupid. Educated people from an engineering background as well aas smart open minded people will likely realize alot of the stuff posted is nonsense if they go through all these links. It took about 45 minutes to do that for me and i bet a native american is much faster. If i am wrong simply debunk the debunkers of the debukers 
http://www.911inplanesite.com/debunking_the_debunkers.htm
http://rense.com/general62/deun.htm
Interesting is also this:
http://www.nderf.org/NDE%20Rhetoric.htm
thomas eager:
The first one is consistent with what i am thinking when reading that interview. He doesn’t make a whole lot of sense yet supposedly he is such a good professor.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/eagar.html
These are also pretty good, although i don’t now about all those points but it proofs my point that there is strong evidence suggesting MIT is full of shit as well as the reports by FEMA and NIST.
We can go over those as well.
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/9-14-03/discussion.cgi.47.html
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/peculiarbehavior.html
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t56551.html
You are linking to discussion boards and nut-job websites.
I don’t care what i link to as long as you can’t refute the argument it’s valid. I very closely know someone who is a professor in the same field as Eagar is and my construction knowledge superseeds his, nough said. The guy is no expert at all and people reading this will see that the point these people make on those boards are very valid.
The other link just leaves out the main topics and uses a lot of rhetorical stuff like strawman arguments. It also flat out lies a couple of times and you just have to read these links. Of course if you only read links that are straight from the government how can you be unbiased and open minded at the same time. YOu clearly don’t show interest in finding out the truth.
Anything to contribute or again just distraction and strawman arguments and stuff like that? None of you smart enough to engage in a discussion and actually make better points?
I thought so.
[quote]23andbeginner wrote:
I don’t care what i link to as long as you can’t refute the argument it’s valid. I very closely know someone who is a professor in the same field as Eagar is and my construction knowledge superseeds his, nough said. The guy is no expert at all and people reading this will see that the point these people make on those boards are very valid.
The other link just leaves out the main topics and uses a lot of rhetorical stuff like strawman arguments. It also flat out lies a couple of times and you just have to read these links. Of course if you only read links that are straight from the government how can you be unbiased and open minded at the same time. YOu clearly don’t show interest in finding out the truth.
Anything to contribute or again just distraction and strawman arguments and stuff like that? None of you smart enough to engage in a discussion and actually make better points?
I thought so. [/quote]
Oh, I’m sure you outshine all the MIT professors.
You posted a freaking link to other nut-jobs arguing on Arianna Huffington’s website. There is nothing to refute there.