[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
I’m not getting involved in the arguments here, but I just wanted to say that that lady on the first page of this thread is pretty hot for her age! I’d hit it
Watching that YouTube video - so the firemen definitely said there was a bomb in the building, and there were reports of a secondary device. The question is, who planted that bomb if it was there?
I want to know how the firefighter could possibly know there was a bomb? What was he basing his statement on?[/quote]
Rumor, chaos, and explosions. That’s the firefighter I mentioned earlier. Every other fire fighter reports hearing “explosions.” I’m sure some of those explosions, such as jet fuel pouring down the elevator shaft, transformers blowing up, or simply tons of debris slaming into floors below (before the global collapse), is what he actually heard/saw. You have to remember the previous bombing of the WTC, as it would have been very much on the mind of these firefighters.
Yes, I remember hearing the radio announcers saying that there were a possibility of bombs when the towers actually fell on 9-11. They did not say this was a fact because they were getting the story as it was happening.
They also thought there was a terrorist on a plane with a bomb at the Cleveland Airport. That plane crossed paths with 93 and landed in Cleveland. They proved there was no bomb or terrorist aboard and everyone got off safely.
So I’m sitting here in the airport in phoenix, AZ watching Wolf Blitzer analyze the upcoming presidential election and I can’t find any evidence of facism. Ms Wolf is like Anne Coulter, she publishes crazy shit to sell books. The beauty is that she can cry fascism all she wants in this country. She would already be in jail in Venezuela.
I agree with Johnny Blaze, she is nuts but I’d hit it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
I’m not getting involved in the arguments here, but I just wanted to say that that lady on the first page of this thread is pretty hot for her age! I’d hit it
Watching that YouTube video - so the firemen definitely said there was a bomb in the building, and there were reports of a secondary device. The question is, who planted that bomb if it was there?
I want to know how the firefighter could possibly know there was a bomb? What was he basing his statement on?
Rumor, chaos, and explosions. That’s the firefighter I mentioned earlier. Every other fire fighter reports hearing “explosions.” I’m sure some of those explosions, such as jet fuel pouring down the elevator shaft, transformers blowing up, or simply tons of debris slaming into floors below (before the global collapse), is what he actually heard/saw. You have to remember the previous bombing of the WTC, as it would have been very much on the mind of these firefighters. [/quote]
[quote]BH6 wrote:
So I’m sitting here in the airport in phoenix, AZ watching Wolf Blitzer analyze the upcoming presidential election and I can’t find any evidence of facism. Ms Wolf is like Anne Coulter, she publishes crazy shit to sell books. The beauty is that she can cry fascism all she wants in this country. She would already be in jail in Venezuela.
I agree with Johnny Blaze, she is nuts but I’d hit it. [/quote]
You watch Wolf Blitzer and hope to see evidence of something?
Are we all clear on the definition of fascism; that it doesn’t require holocausts, gestapos, slave labor, etc.? The term used to be used almost synonymously with ‘corporatism’ before Hitler came along and sullied its good name. Displaying elements of a fascist system doesn’t necessarily make you as bad as Nazi Germany, and nobody claims as much.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Are we all clear on the definition of fascism; that it doesn’t require holocausts, gestapos, slave labor, etc.? The term used to be used almost synonymously with ‘corporatism’ before Hitler came along and sullied its good name. Displaying elements of a fascist system doesn’t necessarily make you as bad as Nazi Germany, and nobody claims as much. [/quote]
Ok, I can go along with that reasoning. Maybe 9-11 caused US corporations to become more fascist-like by using it as a catalyst to screw over workers on a scale unprecidented, lay off workers, take away benefits, 401k’s, and ship jobs to China and Mexico.
It seems like the middle class is melting away. While Stalin did it with guns, no one is being killed today, but it is slowly happening.
Well, if we are going facist then the USA is going to be the most kick ass facist country in the world!! We are going to totally rock as facists. I’m in the military so I’ll point a gun at whoever the government says is the bad guy, as long as I get paid. I’ll be rounding you un-patriotic bastards up one day.
I’m cool with the facism. (I’m totally going to make general with this attitude)
I bet those democrats are going to get elected in 2008 and screw everything up.
Ok, I can go along with that reasoning. Maybe 9-11 caused US corporations to become more fascist-like by using it as a catalyst to screw over workers on a scale unprecidented, lay off workers, take away benefits, 401k’s, and ship jobs to China and Mexico.
It seems like the middle class is melting away. While Stalin did it with guns, no one is being killed today, but it is slowly happening.
That’s what I see.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right about the class warfare. I hadn’t considered 9/11 as a catalyst for that kind of corporate behavior before, but it certainly catalyzed a series of ongoing distractions from what they’ve been up to.
As far as the corporate control of government (part of fascism/ corporatism by definition), that’s been going on for a long time. Just take the Federal Reserve. The government has to plan its policy based on the interest rates set at the discretion of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a corporation that’s about as “Federal” as Federal Express or the World Wrestling Federation (I know its WWE now but that name wouldn’t work).
[quote]
The Mage wrote:
Here is one thing I find interesting. We didn’t find Weapons of Mass Destruction over there. Just all the components to make them. This is like walking into Taco Bell, seeing the shells, the lettuce, cheese, and meat, then saying, “Nope, no tacos in there.”
lixy wrote:
Who are you? The thought police?[/quote]
What??? There is something seriously wrong with you.[quote]
lixy wrote:
Just about every country where there are universities with semi-decent chemistry and biology departments has the means to make Weapons of Mass Destruction.[/quote]
They do? They have missiles, and other delivery systems? I did not know that.
Anyway these were not found in Universities.[quote]
lixy wrote:
And to quote the chief US weapons inspector in charge of the issue: The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003[/quote]
That is not a quote, that is a paraphrase, and it is interesting you stop at 2003. in 2004 Kay (Whom you paraphrased,) said this:
“We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”
Regardless everyone seems to have the idea that it was only Bush who said Iraq had WMDs. But what did the UN have to say about that before the war?
“U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”
(And because it is from Fox News, and nobody on the left believes anything from them, this is not an article, but a pdf copy of a declassified memo.)
Plus you are ignoring the other things Kay said in his report, findings that were disturbing. Like research into brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin.
“Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.”
There were 17 violations of the UN resolution listed by Kay that was sufficient cause, legally or otherwise, to support an attack on Iraq.
[quote]lixy wrote:
That said, I understand your position…[/quote]
No you don’t, not in the slightest.[quote]
I’ll be pretty pissed if thousands and thousands of people died and millions became refugees in my name and with my dime.[/quote]
And here is the BS argument. So we killed thousands and thousands of terrorists, and “insurgents”. (i.e. Bathist party members who lost all their power.) What else do you expect to happen in a war?
You act like you know what is going on, but all I am getting from you are anti-American propaganda. Half truths you seem to have fell for.
People like you are not actually against the war. You are against America. And because of that, it does not matter, nor will it ever matter what we do. In your eyes it will always be bad. If we didn’t go in you would be complaining about us abandoning them.
You have yet to actually give a real argument. What you give is simply excuses for your anti-Americanism. (And yes I fully expect you to twist this statement around.)
[quote]BH6 wrote:
Well, if we are going facist then the USA is going to be the most kick ass facist country in the world!! We are going to totally rock as facists. I’m in the military so I’ll point a gun at whoever the government says is the bad guy, as long as I get paid. I’ll be rounding you un-patriotic bastards up one day.
I’m cool with the facism. (I’m totally going to make general with this attitude)
I bet those democrats are going to get elected in 2008 and screw everything up.
[/quote]
Happy I could help you realize your fascist destiny. Try to remember that when I’m in your cross-hairs, or infrared targeting system, or whatever.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
I’m in the military so I’ll point a gun at whoever the government says is the bad guy, as long as I get paid. I’ll be rounding you un-patriotic bastards up one day.
[/quote]
You’re probably right.
I sincerely hope that you are never ordered to round up any of your friends and family.
Funny, the oath I took was, “I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
It’s been a few years, but I can’t recall anything in there about rounding up unpatriotic bastards.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
BH6 wrote:
So I’m sitting here in the airport in phoenix, AZ watching Wolf Blitzer analyze the upcoming presidential election and I can’t find any evidence of facism. Ms Wolf is like Anne Coulter, she publishes crazy shit to sell books. The beauty is that she can cry fascism all she wants in this country. She would already be in jail in Venezuela.
I agree with Johnny Blaze, she is nuts but I’d hit it.
You watch Wolf Blitzer and hope to see evidence of something?
Are we all clear on the definition of fascism; that it doesn’t require holocausts, gestapos, slave labor, etc.? The term used to be used almost synonymously with ‘corporatism’ before Hitler came along and sullied its good name. Displaying elements of a fascist system doesn’t necessarily make you as bad as Nazi Germany, and nobody claims as much. [/quote]
Fascism and Corporatism is when Big Government and Big Business dance together.
Fascism means the government leads, corporatism the businesses lead.
No there isn’t. There is a bunch of bullshit the other way. It has been discredited over and over and over and over.
The only people that still believe it and repeat it are idiots or are insane.
[/quote]
It hasn’t been discredited AT ALL – not by NIST, NTSB nor the 9/11 Whitewash Commission – and NOBODY has addressed WTC 7 yet.
The fact that your an “engineer” who thinks a passenger jet turns like a motorcycle, its easy to see why you accept half-ass studies with logical gaps, impossible hypotheticals and 3D computer models of the WTC pushed well beyond realistic limits to initiate a single floor failure as “proof positive”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Funny, the oath I took was, “I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
It’s been a few years, but I can’t recall anything in there about rounding up unpatriotic bastards.[/quote]
Then you got the point of my post, and took it to its logical end. The Constitution of the United States is still intact, until that day we aren’t facist, just poorly managed at the executive branch level.
No there isn’t. There is a bunch of bullshit the other way. It has been discredited over and over and over and over.
The only people that still believe it and repeat it are idiots or are insane.
It hasn’t been discredited AT ALL – not by NIST, NTSB nor the 9/11 Whitewash Commission – and NOBODY has addressed WTC 7 yet.
The fact that your an “engineer” who thinks a passenger jet turns like a motorcycle, its easy to see why you accept half-ass studies with logical gaps, impossible hypotheticals and 3D computer models of the WTC pushed well beyond realistic limits to initiate a single floor failure as “proof positive”.
No there isn’t. There is a bunch of bullshit the other way. It has been discredited over and over and over and over.
The only people that still believe it and repeat it are idiots or are insane.
It hasn’t been discredited AT ALL – not by NIST, NTSB nor the 9/11 Whitewash Commission – and NOBODY has addressed WTC 7 yet.
The fact that your an “engineer” who thinks a passenger jet turns like a motorcycle, its easy to see why you accept half-ass studies with logical gaps, impossible hypotheticals and 3D computer models of the WTC pushed well beyond realistic limits to initiate a single floor failure as “proof positive”.
If these guys are “idiots or insane”, count me in
Its pretty hard to argue with a group like the link provides. Thanks, JTF!!
A website of “270” architects and engineers. So the 270 includes all types of engineers, from around the globe, and architects. Talk about a superminority. Which independent, peer-reviewed, journal have they published their demolition paper in?
Some comments from a blog devoted to Civil and Structural engineers and the WTC, about this Architects and Engineers conspiracy site.
[i]"I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won’t find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don’t believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.
Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don’t seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?[/i]
A pre-emptive strike on WTC 7. You’ll hear that there was little damage done to WTC 7, therefore, it shouldn’t have collapsed. This is usually followed by photographs selectively chosen, and omission of fire fighter radio traffic and post 9-11 interviews.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
[i]Boyle: …on the north and east side of 7 it didn�??t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�??t look good.[
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�??ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.[/i] http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
…Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
Fire chief Daniel Nigro The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
[i]…also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�??clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�??clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�??s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�??t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.[/i] http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
Fire Fighter on scene commenting on WTC 7: “You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It’s definitely coming down. There’s no way to stop it.”