|
Australia4515 Posts
On September 01 2003 07:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote: hopefully i made a half decent point that the government had the information necessary to prevent 9-11, and also, that the government had the physical ability to stop it. now i would like to discuss the actually WTC towers. the "official story" says that the fuel from the planes, melted the steal, which caused the collapse. well, the evidence suggests otherwise. do the mathbasicly, the fuel could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel. Steel did not play roll in collapsewhat i am hinting at here, is that there is a science to destroying a building. buildings must be destroyed, and it must be a _controlled demolition_. were the WTC towers a controlled demolotion? well, the "official story", is a lie, the steal could not have melted, and did not play a roll in the collapse. there were seismic spikes right before the WTC collapsed. seismic spikesthese spikes are 20x as strong as the actual towers collapsing. further suggesting that there was something else involved in the collapse. there are also witnesses that say that they heard explosions, including fireman on the scene, who were filmed saying that it looked like an explosion. witness reportsfireman reportsphotos taken in restricted areas, after 9-11, also suggest a controlled collapse. pics of ground zeronotice the signes, air conditionoers, plants, all in perfect condition, and only a block away from ground zero. for a good summary, and some video: summaryWTC7 FEMA reporti sugest people watch the towers collapse several times, in slow motion, back and forth. there are several things that happen that do not agree with what u would expect if the towers were falling freely. even looking at pictures u can tell that most of the fuel was burned up on impact, hence the large explosions coming out of the building. for a more detailed look at the evidence, go here: serendipity
i feel so much stupidier for actually paying attention to any of this.
On September 01 2003 01:12 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
this is the reason why i posted. tell me what u think is biased and skewed.
just go to the main page of the links you post and you can see how blatantly biased it all is.
|
legionnaire you haven't said one word to refut anything that is on those pages (some of those points are actually facts you know...)
|
Australia4515 Posts
On September 01 2003 20:11 Kobayashi wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 19:30 BlackJack wrote:
Saddam isn't allowed to have WMD and if he has them, it is grounds to start a war with iraq. If he didn't have them, he must be very stupid for acting so guilty. north korea has wmd...no one cares
there was a great article about this a fair while ago, a good read i'll see if i can find it.
okay google owns, i found a copy of it
http://www.rhinotimes.com/charlotte/archives/010903/osc2.html
|
Australia4515 Posts
On September 01 2003 20:15 Kobayashi wrote:
legionnaire you haven't said one word to refut anything that is on those pages (some of those points are actually facts you know...)
they are not facts, and will not be unless i am provided with actual news articles about it being so.
hang on, goto "www.petersrealtruths.com" its a great news site and talks about how aliens really do exist. then the tech guy can link off it and claim it as facts.
|
On September 01 2003 20:20 Legionnaire wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 20:15 Kobayashi wrote:
legionnaire you haven't said one word to refut anything that is on those pages (some of those points are actually facts you know...) they are not facts, and will not be unless i am provided with actual news articles about it being so. hang on, goto "www.petersrealtruths.com" its a great news site and talks about how aliens really do exist. then the tech guy can link off it and claim it as facts.
that's a real bad attitude...so thing don't actually happen until the new york times says it does, read the article some points are not refutable (and others are very farfetched...)
|
Australia4515 Posts
how can you say news articles providing facts are true comming from (and in order here)
http://www.uscrusade.com/
http://www.serendipity.li/
http://www.rense.com/ (our good buddy REAL! alien photograph site)
rense again
pics which show nothing "pics of ground zero
notice the signes, air conditionoers, plants, all in perfect condition, and only a block away from ground zero. for a good summary, and some video: " i have 3 rectangular logs, set up in a row, i set the first on fire, the 2nd will have some singes on it, the third might have some but unlikely to have nay on the furtherest side" wow! no singe marks AMAZING i'll take a photo of that and claim it as proof.
x2 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ "the history the government doesn't want you to learn"
Some peoples stupidity amazes me, well actually no, in some cases here i dont think it does. My hope is one day stupid people will feel the same pain when they talk, as the pain the rest of us feel when we hear them.
|
Australia4515 Posts
On September 01 2003 20:25 Kobayashi wrote:
that's a real bad attitude...so thing don't actually happen until the new york times says it does, read the article some points are not refutable (and others are very farfetched...)
no lots of things happen thats not reported but when your trying to do a conspiracy theory made up with a lot ... reliable.. sources.
and how is that a bad attitude, its exactly what they are doing? tell me 3 things that are not refutable, and give me 10 mins to tear 2 of them to shreds.
|
On September 01 2003 20:28 Legionnaire wrote: how can you say news articles providing facts are true comming from http://www.uscrusade.com/http://www.serendipity.li/http://www.rense.com/ (our good buddy REAL! alien photograph site) rense again pics which show nothing "pics of ground zero notice the signes, air conditionoers, plants, all in perfect condition, and only a block away from ground zero. for a good summary, and some video: " i have 3 rectangular logs, set up in a row, i set the first on fire, the 2nd will have some singes on it, the third might have some but unlikely to have nay on the furtherest side" wow! no singe marks AMAZING i'll take a photo of that and claim it as proof. x2 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ "the history the government doesn't want you to learn" Some peoples stupidity amazes me, well actually no, in some cases here i dont think it does. My hope is one day stupid people will feel the same pain when they talk, as the pain the rest of us feel when we hear them.
...I'l repeat myself:
there are facts on that article ...and then there's the sensacionalism in some points
|
Just like Pearl Harbor, we ignored what we should've paid attention to. When you are the most powerful country in the world, you ignore things that you should pay attention to. The warning signs of Pearl Harbor before we emerged as the superpower during WW2, and the warning signs of the World Trade Center... thanks to horrible Airport security and warning signs from friendly countries. The US should never compromise serious security issues like that... and we paid for it.
If your saying the leader of the free world, wanted to take down a 100 story building... in the #1 business city in the world, put millions of Americans out of work, by putting bombs under the WTC after 2 jumbo jet planes loaded with jet feul were hot enough to melt steal down, you have problems.
Your uncredible sources are laughable. And yeah, I highly doubt two jet linars headed cross country that just took off had all of there feul just burn up.
|
On September 01 2003 20:30 Legionnaire wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 20:25 Kobayashi wrote:
that's a real bad attitude...so thing don't actually happen until the new york times says it does, read the article some points are not refutable (and others are very farfetched...) no lots of things happen thats not reported but when your trying to do a conspiracy theory made up with a lot ... reliable.. sources. and how is that a bad attitude, its exactly what they are doing? tell me 3 things that are not refutable, and give me 10 mins to tear 2 of them to shreds.
read the article
|
Australia4515 Posts
... i'll repeat myself:
tell me 3 things that are not refutable, and give me 10 mins to tear 2 of them to shreds.
things often seem like facts which point in one direction because it leaves out information that PROVES it can point in another (not saying theres not more facts pointing to the real truth)
comeon... any 3 things.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
On September 01 2003 20:11 Kobayashi wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 19:30 BlackJack wrote:
Saddam isn't allowed to have WMD and if he has them, it is grounds to start a war with iraq. If he didn't have them, he must be very stupid for acting so guilty. north korea has wmd...no one cares
What do you want us to do about it? We can't just attack a country because they ahve WMD... Unless of course they went to war in the past.. say around 10 years ago... and lost the war.. and signed a treaty that said they could not make WMD. _Iraq_
|
Australia4515 Posts
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
legionaire, 3 things that are not refutable:
1) before 9-11, cheney released a energy resource plan. this plan was kept completely confidential. it was ordered released.
release of plan
this plan INCLUDED iraqi oil fields. this was before 9-11. before bush public strated to talk abuot war.
here is the plan, look at section one, see the maps for your self
cheney energy plan
2) cheney is a member of the project for new american century, along with rumsfield, wolfoqitz, pearle, and several others in the administration. the PNAC website is here:
PNAC
this is an organization that has publicly stated they believe in using the military to secure america as a world super power, a word short of emperilism.
here is a letter writtin to clinton by the PNAC:
letter to clinton, urging him to act on iraq
3)the bush family, the saudi family, and the osama family, have similiar financial interests in natural resources, and in the military industry.
bush/bechtel
cheney/haliburton
the caryle group
bush/carlyle
and, a MUST SEE video(first minute not in eng. )
carlyel groupe video
|
btw, the idea that the WTC collapse was controlled, really does not effect the idea that there was domesitic fould play involved, which is really my point. even if they wereny controlled(i think they were) the point remains the same. u can knick pick, do the math(go ahead.. it is above my level, but check the facts), but the fact remains that there are many other issues to this. y did norad stand down for instace?
|
On September 01 2003 18:53 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 18:52 Kobayashi wrote: On September 01 2003 18:49 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
As for Iraq, it was a horrible regime of oppression, hated, and violence, which had sought WMD in the past, had used them (gassing of the Kurds), and has possible ties to terrorism. and oil, you forgot that point, iraq has lots of oil  we aren't stealing their oil. We are using they money made from it to rebuild their country.
You are using their oil to break the opec(wich means cheap oil for america) and restore the dollar to its dominant position.
And when thinking in terms of profit, dont narrow your view to americas economy.
|
Australia4515 Posts
my comment to refute was on the things i had commented on, and you gave me 3 points when you told me to argue about the info not pick at the links themselves, and i did 2 on it... but anway
can't see the plans as its in pdf, though the website likes to talk about itself
PNAC is a group of republicans that have made up lots of plans, they wanted george bush senior to finish off iraq back when he was in power, but he didn't it would have been a lot easier if he had done it then yes? no need to blow up the wtc just to get the oil, they had it sitting there... big deal? your giving me points that are seperate.
3rd one watching atm. its 4am watched 5 mins 40 to go.. i think i'll miss it for today.
its like OJ simpson case throw in enough irrelivent information and noone knows whats going on.
and please get some real sources and not junk ones.
|
Osaka27179 Posts
we aren't stealing their oil. We are using they money made from it to rebuild their country.
Just remember BlackJack, that it has been 4 months since the "war" in Iraq was "ended", and the US engineers over there have still not been able to turn on the power in Bagdad. The only people with electricity are those who have enough money for gasoline. In addition, the US was supposed to rebuild Afghanistan as well, but as usual, they have left the work to the International community, and the American populous heres nothing about Afghanistan in the news any more. Rebuilding sounds nice, but it isnt in the manner in which you believe.
|
Legionnaire do you really think that the main stream media, with the billions of corporate dollars invested in it is unbiased, that they actually report everything that happened, that people like Bush and company have no invested interest in all the prominent news sources in the states, and yes this does include news papers. I do agree that some of Psylo's sources are rather sketchy, however, they are no more biased then your avg newspaper, especially in the US. I already mentioned one source that reinstates much of what psylo said (besides the demolition of the tower themselves). Although the alien link is kinda fishy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
