I haven’t read this thread in a while but I see it has hopes of at least being in the ballpark with ‘The Legal Cockblock’ over in Sex and the Male Animal. 
Now, to read the rest of the thread…
[quote]cesliwakan wrote:
i dont want to believe that a government would kill it’s own people. i just want proof either way.[/quote]
You want PROOF that the government did not blow up the twin towers?
(Shaking head)
[quote]why does being able to see both sides of a story make me a nut job?
[/quote]
You have it all wrong my very confused friend!
It’s not seeing both sides of an issue that makes you a nut. It’s the fact that you cannot see a bullcrap story from reality that makes you a nut.
Do you also need proof that the government is NOT covering up that they have made contact with aliens from another planet?
See my point?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
cesliwakan wrote:
i dont want to believe that a government would kill it’s own people. i just want proof either way.
You want PROOF that the government did not blow up the twin towers?
(Shaking head)
why does being able to see both sides of a story make me a nut job?
You have it all wrong my very confused friend!
It’s not seeing both sides of an issue that makes you a nut. It’s the fact that you cannot see a bullcrap story from reality that makes you a nut.
Do you also need proof that the government is NOT covering up that they have made contact with aliens from another planet?
See my point?
[/quote]
Yes I want proof.
when a government that has made plans to attack itself in order to raise support for world change (northwoods), has a suspicious attack that works to inforce its prior agenda. i wonder.
i want someone who can address the facts, to explain some things. sorry.
tell me some things about the story that are bull crap. i am interested. if things can be explained then i will agree with you.
and dont call me a nut job, especially after calling me a friend.
[quote]cesliwakan wrote:
ZEB wrote:
cesliwakan wrote:
i dont want to believe that a government would kill it’s own people. i just want proof either way.
You want PROOF that the government did not blow up the twin towers?
(Shaking head)
why does being able to see both sides of a story make me a nut job?
You have it all wrong my very confused friend!
It’s not seeing both sides of an issue that makes you a nut. It’s the fact that you cannot see a bullcrap story from reality that makes you a nut.
Do you also need proof that the government is NOT covering up that they have made contact with aliens from another planet?
See my point?
Yes I want proof. [/quote]
You do want proof that the government is not hiding information that they made contact with aliens from other worlds?
[quote]and dont call me a nut job, especially after calling me a friend.
[/quote]
Hey…relax, I have a few friends that are nut jobs…
ZEB, while you may have some valid points, you are ignoring this man’s questions only to insult him.
If you think his opinion and/or questions are so pathetically stupid, don’t waste your time or energy on insulting him, it’s rude and unnecessary. Either give the man his proof or just ignore him.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I haven’t read this thread in a while but I see it has hopes of at least being in the ballpark with ‘The Legal Cockblock’ over in Sex and the Male Animal.
Now, to read the rest of the thread…[/quote]
LOL you really like that thread huh? I’ve seen you advertising it all over the place!
This link constantly needs to be posted on these threads:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This link constantly needs to be posted on these threads:
9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunking | World Trade Center Myths [/quote]
wow thanks!
see why cant people be more like you? your mom must be proud. i appreciate it!
[quote]gojira wrote:
O.K. look, I really hate the Bush administration, I mean REALLY HATE IT. But even I have a hard time believing something like this. I don’t even wish it were true so I could say “told ya so”.
It really bothers me that people keep claiming this to be true. How would you feel if you lost a loved one in this tragedy and some wack-job comes around claiming that it was done on purpose by our government.
Rove is evil, but not that evil.[/quote]
So you don’t think our own government would do that or even let it happen on purpose?
The same government that holds people without trial, ships people off to secret prisons to be tortured, illegally spies on it’s own citizens and lied to start an illegal war that was supposed to cost $50 billion and is now on it’s way to $1 trillion?
Just a slight miscalculation – “incompetence” pays big $$$$$ these days.
Just because 19 “terrorists” gave certain people everything they ever wanted, doesn’t mean those people didn’t do everything in their power to stop it – right?
U.S. Strategy Plan Calls For Insuring No Rivals Develop
New York Times
8 March 1992
The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.
http://911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=86
Lone Superpower Plan: Ammunition for Critics
New York Times
10 March 1992
The Pentagon’s draft policy statement that foresees a one-superpower world in which no collection of allies or foes is allowed to become a rival reflects intense pressure in the American military establishment to define a robust mission for itself in the post-cold-war era.
Should this draft policy be issued this month to the military chiefs under Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s signature, the Bush Administration will find itself at odds with a number of its international allies and, domestically, with the Democratic majority that controls Congress.
And, perhaps more problematical for the President, the Pentagon vision of the new American role sharpens the debate within the Republican Party, where Patrick J. Buchanan lashed out today at the Pentagon prescription for the United States’ becoming the ultimate guarantor of world security.
“This is a formula for endless American intervention in quarrels and war when no vital interest of the United States is remotely engaged,” Mr. Buchanan told reporters on his way to Memphis, Tenn. “It’s virtually a blank check given to all of America’s friends and allies that we’ll go to war to defend their interests.”
[…]
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he agreed with some of the objectives stated in the policy draft, like combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The problem, he said, was that “the Pentagon vision reverts to an old notion of the United States as the world’s policeman – a notion that, not incidentally, will preserve a large defense budget.”
[…]
Today, Mr. Williams declined to say when the final policy document would be issued. But owing to its classification as a secret document, the public may not discover for some time how Mr. Cheney resolves the questions that have been raised about the draft.
http://911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=89
Senior U.S. Officials Assail Lone-Superpower Policy
New York Times
11 March 1992
One Administration official, familiar with the reaction of senior officials at the White House and State Department, characterized the document as a “dumb report” that “in no way or shape represents U.S. policy.”
http://911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=90
The Ties that Bind:
Arms Industry Influence in the
Bush Administration and Beyond
A World Policy Institute Special Report
October 2004
Executive Summary
As the presidential campaign moves into its final days, one industry that has done particularly well during the Bush administration has a strong interest in the outcome: the arms industry. A new report from the World Policy Institute tracks how this critical sector has exerted influence over administration policies, and how it is “voting with its dollars” in the 2004 campaign.
“These have been boom years for the arms industry, with contracts for the top ten weapons contractors up 75% in the first three years of the Bush administration alone,” notes William D. Hartung, the co-author of the study and the director of the Institute’s arms project.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/TiesThatBind.html
Cheney, energy and Iraq invasion
Supreme Court to rule on secrecy
March 21, 2004
Why has the administration gone to such lengths to avoid disclosing how it developed its new energy policy?
Significant evidence points to the possibility that much more could be revealed than mere corporate cronyism: The national energy policy proceedings could open a window onto the Bush administration’s decision-making process and motives for going to war on Iraq.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/21/ING0H5LTDA1.DTL
White House energy task forcepapers reveal Iraqi oil maps
Judicial Watch lawsuit also uncovers list of ‘foreign suitors’ for contracts
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642
Iraq’s Oil
September 27, 2004
There’s something almost obscene about a map that was studied by senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives meeting in secret in the spring of 2001. It doesn’t show the kind of detail normally shown on maps - cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq’s oil.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6314
Heavily Censored Energy Department Papers Show Industry is the Real Author of Administration’s Energy Task Force Report
“These documents show how the White House task force turned coal and oil company wish lists directly into national policy while ignoring proven technologies that can help us meet our energy needs cleanly and reliably,” explained Sharon Buccino, an NRDC senior attorney.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020327.asp
US says Halliburton Deal Includes Operating Iraq Oil Fields
May 7, 2003
WASHINGTON - The US Army has revealed for the first time that a subsidiary of Halliburton Co. has a contract encompassing the operation of Iraqi oil fields, a senior US lawmaker said.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0507-01.htm
War not realistic option before 9/11
USA Today
3/23/2004
Democrats and Republicans alike told a bipartisan commission Tuesday that neither U.S. nor world opinion would have stood for such aggression before the fall of 2001. It was only after the Sept. 11 attacks that public opinion here and abroad changed enough to make an invasion politically possible.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-war-analysis_x.htm
Cheney warns of ‘decades of war’
BBC
6 October 2005
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said that the US must be prepared to fight the war on terror for decades.
~FBI Director, Robert Mueller
~Douglas MacArthur
Yep, it’s all about the terrorists…
Spies Among Us
Despite a troubled history, police across the nation are keeping tabs on ordinary Americans
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060508/8homeland.htm
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This link constantly needs to be posted on these threads:
[/quote]
Yes, a completely objective article written and researched by none other than Michael Chertoff’s own cousin – just another one those wacky “coincidences”.
You have to keep posting it because that’s all you got.
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its “9/11 LIES” Straw Man
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
BTW the PHYSICAL evidence of 9/11 is actually the WEAKEST argument.
Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
"The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. To anyone familiar with elementary physics and the principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seems quite impossible if the towers were indeed “pancaking,” which is the official theory.
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in about 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy . There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum . I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground."
http://www.reopen911.org/heller.htm
Yes, it really is that simple…
[quote]Sepukku wrote:
ZEB, while you may have some valid points, you are ignoring this man’s questions only to insult him. [/quote]
First of all, he insults himself. Secondly, I don’t that this thing deserves anymore attention relative to its value than if someone said that space aliens were abducting people (some do believe that). However, it does have some of what I call “chuckle value.” When all of the chuckle value has been drained from the thread…I’ll stop posting.
[quote]If you think his opinion and/or questions are so pathetically stupid, don’t waste your time or energy on insulting him, it’s rude and unnecessary. Either give the man his proof or just ignore him.
[/quote]
I’ll continue to drain every bit of chuckle value that I can from the thread. if you don’t like it…well it’s a big site, just go somewhere else.
By the way, it’s YOU who sated the following:
Now why were you calling people “conspiracy nuts?” Don’t you know that’s rude?
LOL…you are just as goofy as you can be…and for that I thank you! You have raised the chuckle value of this thread. Now go hail the queen and have some tea or something…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This link constantly needs to be posted on these threads:
No…don’t post that yet, I wasn’t through dissing the nut balls…dang Boston…You just love to ruin things with your facts…
“JustTheFacts” is my favorite nut ball on this site. But there are others who are moving up fast.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“JustTheFacts” is my favorite nut ball on this site. But there are others who are moving up fast.[/quote]
…even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
[quote]
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”[/quote]
~1984
[quote]ZEB wrote:
“JustTheFacts” is my favorite nut ball on this site. But there are others who are moving up fast.[/quote]
…even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
[quote]
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”[/quote]
~1984
And the end all be all $20 million NIST study to put the all the wacky conspiracy theories to rest…
WTC investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualization.
World Trade Center investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
$20 million for a study that stops right after the point of initial failure…
NIST and the WTC:
“Science” at the Service of an Empire
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how – and if! – the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped.
If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse.
Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/nistcomm.htm
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
By Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
“To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality.”
[…]
Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. …(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
ZEB, while you may have some valid points, you are ignoring this man’s questions only to insult him.
First of all, he insults himself. Secondly, I don’t that this thing deserves anymore attention relative to its value than if someone said that space aliens were abducting people (some do believe that). However, it does have some of what I call “chuckle value.” When all of the chuckle value has been drained from the thread…I’ll stop posting.
If you think his opinion and/or questions are so pathetically stupid, don’t waste your time or energy on insulting him, it’s rude and unnecessary. Either give the man his proof or just ignore him.
I’ll continue to drain every bit of chuckle value that I can from the thread. if you don’t like it…well it’s a big site, just go somewhere else.
By the way, it’s YOU who sated the following:
It looks like it’s come to the point where even if the “Conspiracy Nuts” were irrefutably proven wrong, they would never accept it, for whatever reason.
Now why were you calling people “conspiracy nuts?” Don’t you know that’s rude?
LOL…you are just as goofy as you can be…and for that I thank you! You have raised the chuckle value of this thread. Now go hail the queen and have some tea or something…
[/quote]
I AM UNDECIDED DIPSHIT !!!
goddamn cant a person ask a question without being crazy?
you saw my honest question and immediatly put me into a category in order to make it easier to insult me.
if ANY theory is proven irrefutably wrong i accept it
dont assume that im some pothead wacked out kid
who believes in aliens and thinks the government is after me. YOU seem to be the one demonstating a closeminded attitude
i know this is amusing to you.
and before you tell me to relax. i AM
[quote]ZEB wrote:
zarathus wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I would like everyone to think about where these nutty conspiracy theories are coming from.
ZEB, if I don’t blame you for Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, David Duke, David Koresh, and any of the rest of your ideology’s fringe element, you don’t blame me for mine, or what you imagine to be mine? Deal?
First of all you are a bit confused (yea just a bit).
I do not share the same “ideology” as David Duke or David Koresh. That you could somehow determine that I do from my many posts on this site is a pretty nutty claim in and of itself!
The remaining two:
Ann Coulter has some very good points, she just says them in an inflammatory manner in order to attract attention…which sells books etc.
[/quote]
She does? I have yet to hear a “good point” Ann Coulter has made. And even if she were to make one, any good would be undone by the fact that her kind of poison is as bad as that of any of the unhinged Bush-haters. She writes polemics for stupid people, same as Michael Moore, Al Franken, Sean Hannity and the rest of the crowd. Headhunter I can understand, because he doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the shed, but you defend an idiot like her too? Come on ZEB.
“Good Christian man”? A “good Christian man” calls for the assassination of opposing heads of state? The same guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that America brought 9/11 on itself because of homosexuality, feminism, and the ACLU, that’s a “good Christian man” who just “says some inflammatory things at times”? Maybe I need to really reexamine the Gospels. Or maybe you and Pat Robertson do.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
"The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. To anyone familiar with elementary physics and the principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seems quite impossible if the towers were indeed “pancaking,” which is the official theory.
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in about 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy . There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum . I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground."
http://www.reopen911.org/heller.htm
Yes, it really is that simple…
[/quote]
George Bush put rockets on the roofs of the buildings to drive the collapse faster than gravity?
When I read crap like you just posted JTF it just confirms that no one with half a brain is on the side of the conspiracy nuts.
Go back under your rock.