I thought this was funny
lol
ROFL!!
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Well at the end of the day Osama now has his 72 virgins in Heaven… I’m sure he’s chuckling the last laugh away as we speak.[/quote]
Let him have his 72 virgins. I would rather have 4 whores that know what they are doing.[/quote]
For sure!
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.
Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]
Lol I think the workers just got lazy and didn’t build it as strongly as it is supposed to be.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.
Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]
Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.[/quote]
Why does a building have to fall just because it is damaged? It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. There is no scientific reason why the building would have collapsed solely due to the plane hitting it. Not to mention it collapsed at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint, with a large amount of it ending in a fine powder spread across the city.
Or should I ask about building 7?[/quote]
No, you’re absolutely right, a building with several floors taken out, then having all floors above pancake the rest of the building, that defies physics.
Fucking twat. There IS a scientific reason for why they came down, don’t come in here with your idiotic conspiracies.[/quote]
Haha, ‘pancake theory’ can be seen to be ridiculous by simple physics and common sense. Assuming that the top floors would start to fall, why did the completely undamaged lower floors offer no resistance and allow the building to collapse at near free fall speed?
Would you care to share this scientific reason to debunk my idiotic conspiracy?[/quote]
Taken from Wikipedia, and verified by, oh I don’t know… every law of physics.
The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called “the most infamous paradigm” of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building’s footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.
A building can be designed to withstand a minor impact from a commercial jet, but NO BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE KIND OF STRESS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXPERIENCED ON 9/11.
And before it comes up, a controlled demolition is possibly the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. Anyone here who has ever been involved in bringing down a multi story building will know exactly why.[/quote]
hypothetically speaking if someone were ughh… want to fly a hypothetical Jet plane in another building what would be the building to do it in to cause as much damage as possible.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
So, in conclusion: GO FUCK YOURSELF AND YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! [/quote]
That tiger is a lucky cat.
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.
Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]
There would have to be literally hundreds of people involved if it were an inside job.
Number of people who have come forward and admitted what they “did”: 0
Number of people exposed by the current administration (from the rival political party): 0
There’s nothing intelligent about thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Occam’s razor applies here.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.
Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]
There would have to be literally hundreds of people involved if it were an inside job.
Number of people who have come forward and admitted what they “did”: 0
There’s nothing intelligent about thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Occam’s razor applies here.[/quote]
Occam’s fucking razor? For Christ’s sake! I can’t believe people are even responding to these whackos let alone discussing philosophical and physical reasons that support the ‘theory’ that Jihadists flew commercial airliners into the world trade centre. It’s a FACT. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a moron/nutjob/Jihadist or some combination thereof. No debates, no lessons in physics, no replies, just fuck off!
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
So, in conclusion: GO FUCK YOURSELF AND YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! [/quote]
That tiger is a lucky cat.[/quote]
Thanx! I’ll be sure to let him know!
I can see that you are going to ignore most of my points if I post too many at once, so how about explaining a couple like:
Molten metal flowing from a window before collapse
The size of the hole in the pentagon
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
WikiLeaks has some work to do.[/quote]
Wikileakwankers have a point to understand:
Releasing classified government secrets of an allied state to the general public in the midst of a worldwide war is NOT a good idea.[/quote]
Whynot? serious question.
It has all been stuff that makes Your Gov’s foreign policy look under handed and self serving…which it mostly is…so while it’s embarassing for governments to get caught with their pants down (not just yours) there was nothing in the leaks about tactical information or anything else that would compromise your troops’ actions or America’s sovereignty directly.
They basically have just exposed what a nasty buisness war and politics is.
*Edit. I have made a large assumption that you are American I apologise if you are not but the point still stands.
[/quote]
Your assumption is incorrect. I happen to be a citizen of Australia at the moment. Where Assange was charged and convicted of computer hacking.
To answer your question, Assange doesn’t edit or even read most of what he releases. Some of his ‘wikileaks’ contained the full names and details of scores of sources(people in Pakistan/Afghanistan etc who help us) and the Taliban announced it is using his leaks to ‘investigate collaborators’ in Afghanistan.
Also, if you are in favour of defeating AQ and the Taliban, ‘embarrassing’ America and undermining the war effort is not a good idea. In addition, sovereign nation states have the right to have privileged communications with other states. It’s part of what’s called ‘diplomacy’. They also have a right, nay duty, to withhold certain information from the general public.
Lastly, Assange’s leaks may contain anything(strategic/tactical plans, plans of military bases, troop numbers etc). He has admitted he just releases everything. He wouldn’t even have time to read most of his leaks, i.e. the 250,000+ Whitehouse communications for example.
I hope this clears things up for you neighbour(not neighbor).[/quote]
Good answer, I will do some more digging into to this.
Howvever, what passes for “diplomacy” is sometimes just “skullduggery” and the duty to withhold certain things gets abused as they withhold certain other things that should not be.
This is an extract from Assange’s interveiw with Germanny’s Das Speigel.
They were never unedited. It was first, supposedly, edited at the source, it was again supposed to be edited by WikiLeaks accoring to Assange:
SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren’t you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?
Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.
SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?
Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.
Maybe you could do some more digging too.
Cheers 
[/quote]
Kudos on finding that quote. But he has also said the opposite. I will do my best to find where. In the meantime, here are some revealing quotes:
“Leaking is inherently an anti-authoritarian act. It is inherently an anarchist act”
- So you’re an anarchist Jules?
“We specialise in getting the full material out to the public”
- No shit. That’s the problem.
“These megaleaks… They’re an important phenomenon, and they’re only going to increase.”
- So you had time to read the 400,000+ documents in the Iraq War diaries and the 250,000+ Whitehouse communications and edit them? Good thing we have a convicted computer hacker/anarchist to decide what’s safe to release and what’s not.
“True information does good.” - Always. If only we could’ve released the D-Day plans to the general public prior to June 1944.
“Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behaviour”
- Exactly. But only the intelligence agencies of Western democracies. They’re the bad ones. It’s not like they want to protect sources/agents and act in the best interests of their own country or anything.
“We have a way of dealing with information that has sort of personal (pause) personally identifying information in it. But there are legitimate secrets - you know, your records with your doctor; that’s a legitimate secret”
- Right, but the CIA/NSA don’t have ‘legitimate secrets’? And Sarah Palin’s email account contents comprise illegitimate secrets that the public needs to know about? What about the membership list of BNP party members in Britain? Illegitimate secrets right? No political bias involved here either. ‘Free and fair press’ right?
“WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical”
-
So you’re a quasi-Communist/Socialist now Jules?
-
One more thing Julie boy: Why did you entitle that video ‘Collateral Murder’ when it clearly shows a mistaken killing as opposed to ‘murder’? Are you unable to make the moral distinction between accidently killing people you think are armed terrorists and deliberately murdering innocent civilians?
Sorry for addressing my posts to Assange. I wanted to reserve my hatred and hostility for him not you.[/quote]
Yep I think we could both find plenty of evidence to support our points of view and I must say the jury is still out on the whole thing for me as I
can see ethical dilemmas with each side.
I must admit I have a deeply uneasy dstrust about Governments and primate politics in general and the more I find out about what they really do in the name of “duty” or for the “general good” the more disgusted I am.
The funny thing is what really goes on is so bad that no one really needs to invent stupid conspiracy theories.
Appreciate the dissussion. cheers.
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
I can see that you are going to ignore most of my points if I post too many at once, so how about explaining a couple like:
Molten metal flowing from a window before collapse
The size of the hole in the pentagon[/quote]
The fires were really fucking hot?
Plane wings weren’t designed to stay affixed perpendicular to the plane after going through a fucking wall?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The mods should put a question mark at the end of this thread title.[/quote]
The way the discussion is going now? They may as well change it to “Osama Bin Laden Caused 9/11?”
[quote]postholedigger wrote:
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
I can see that you are going to ignore most of my points if I post too many at once, so how about explaining a couple like:
Molten metal flowing from a window before collapse
The size of the hole in the pentagon[/quote]
The fires were really fucking hot?
Plane wings weren’t designed to stay affixed perpendicular to the plane after going through a fucking wall?[/quote]
The fires were hot, and it was mostly molten office equipment (which for some wacky reason, has metal components that melt).
Also, it was powdered aluminium and gypsum, not thermite, before it comes up again.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.
Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]
There would have to be literally hundreds of people involved if it were an inside job.
Number of people who have come forward and admitted what they “did”: 0
There’s nothing intelligent about thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Occam’s razor applies here.[/quote]
Occam’s fucking razor? For Christ’s sake! I can’t believe people are even responding to these whackos let alone discussing philosophical and physical reasons that support the ‘theory’ that Jihadists flew commercial airliners into the world trade centre. It’s a FACT. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a moron/nutjob/Jihadist or some combination thereof. No debates, no lessons in physics, no replies, just fuck off![/quote]
Because someone might actually listen to the retard and take silence as acceptance of his stupidity.
i found this comment on youtube, it was pretty funny:
“So according to the conspiracy theorists, the hijackers were fake & the 757 debris was fake & the passenger phone calls were fake & the DNA testing was fake & the flight controller tracking was fake & the hundreds of eyewitnesses were fake & the crash site investigation was fake & everything was fake & everyone is lying. Sure. Makes perfect sense.”
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
i found this comment on youtube, it was pretty funny:
“So according to the conspiracy theorists, the hijackers were fake & the 757 debris was fake & the passenger phone calls were fake & the DNA testing was fake & the flight controller tracking was fake & the hundreds of eyewitnesses were fake & the crash site investigation was fake & everything was fake & everyone is lying. Sure. Makes perfect sense.”[/quote]
No, no…The WTC towers are actually still standing. You just can’t see them because the government recruited David Copperfield.
You guys will like this
http://www.12thblog.com/best-obama-memes-from-the-osama-drama/
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
i found this comment on youtube, it was pretty funny:
“So according to the conspiracy theorists, the hijackers were fake & the 757 debris was fake & the passenger phone calls were fake & the DNA testing was fake & the flight controller tracking was fake & the hundreds of eyewitnesses were fake & the crash site investigation was fake & everything was fake & everyone is lying. Sure. Makes perfect sense.”[/quote]
uh exactly what do you fail to realise?