seriously america!?

[CD5Passion]

And on Monday, North Korea's state-run media accused the United States of harassing it and vowed to respond to any pre-emptive attack "with a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent." (Watch why North Korea is talking about annihilating the U.S. -- 2:04)

The White House has dismissed that threat as "hypothetical." (

isn't it funny to anyone else that we had warning of 9/11 but the government ignored those warnings?

now korea has threatened us and our commander in chief and crew consider a nuclear threat from a capable country "hypothetical"???

Jim Walsh, a national security analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the intent of the test appeared to be aimed at drawing attention back to North Korean demands in the six-party talks. But Walsh said the tests "do not represent an immediate military threat to the United States."

"It's very difficult technology. They very clearly have not mastered it," he said. "Most estimates are they will not master it for another 10 years."

ok so let's wait 10 years until they actually nuke us then we will do soemthing about it right?

At the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said he was "urgently consulting" with other members of the 15-nation Security Council.

President Bush met with Hadley, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the tests were going on, a senior administration official said. But Bush will go ahead with plans to watch Independence Day fireworks and hold a gathering at the White House for his 60th birthday, the official said.

fuck you bush:moon:



full story here
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/



so someone please tell me why we are in the middle east and not in North Korea?...oh yeah i forgot the middle east has oil...silly me

[AzCivic]

we're IN south korea, not exactly far from north korea. Besides if there was a decision to invade there would be even more bush haters with their panties in a bunch.

[thermal]

I cant wait to hear what Steve and Wren has to say about this....

[Robert]

Honestly, I dont think it wise if the US was to invade another country. Wait until they're done with Iraq and look to them to move to Iran and then North Korea.

[GT40FIED]

we're IN south korea, not exactly far from north korea. Besides if there was a decision to invade there would be even more bush haters with their panties in a bunch.

Whether we're there or not doesn't matter. If we push into North Korea, the first thing they'll do is attack South Korea. And I'm not really sure it's possible for more people to hate Bush. Anyone who looks at the job he's done up until now and thinks it's even remotely helped is kidding themselves. The people who still support him are just too damn stupid to admit that they fucked up.

Honestly, I dont think it wise if the US was to invade another country. Wait until they're done with Iraq and look to them to move to Iran and then North Korea.

I gotta say I agree with Rob here...at least superficially. Iraq was a mistake. I don't care if we got the guy we went after...there are far worse people in this world. All you need to do is look at people who actually have the technological means to harm us as they see fit. Oh wait...that's nobody. Scratch that. Since we've been in Iraq we've not only stretched our armed forces to the breaking point but we've used up whatever political clout we had in the world making a second invasion virtually impossible. Look at Israel and Lebanon. Israel is essentially committing genocide but everyone here is just sucking their thumb and pretending it's not happening. Anyone here old enough to remember what happened when Iraq pushed into Kuwait? It was a matter of days before we sent their asses packing. Now with everyone tied up in Iraq, we have literally no one to spare so we don't have much of a choice but to sit back and watch Israel pull it's bullshit. We'll...we could pull troops out of Iraq and send them to where the real problems are, but to do that we'd have to admit we're wrong, and that shit just ain't happening. Ever.

[Wren57]

isn't it funny to anyone else that we had warning of 9/11 but the government ignored those warnings?

Proof?

now korea has threatened us and our commander in chief and crew consider a nuclear threat from a capable country "hypothetical"???


yes its hypothetical; they won't launch an aggressive attack because the ENTIRE WORLD would destroy them... that + the fact they don't have missiles that can get here, and by the time that they do we'll have anti-missile technology mastered.



ok so let's wait 10 years until they actually nuke us then we will do soemthing about it right?

You want to attack tomorrow? Go sign up for the military and maybe you'll change your mind. You never launch an offensive unless the enemy poses a deliberate and *capable* threat of attacking you in the near future. NK can't and won't.

fuck you bush:moon:


Nice display of mature discussion.


full story here
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/



so someone please tell me why we are in the middle east and not in North Korea?...oh yeah i forgot the middle east has oil...silly me

NK has done nothing but talk... mainly because they don't have the capability to do anything to us except for talk. NK wants to drag us into starting a conflict so they can shell the shit outta Seoul (do you have ANY idea how much artillery NK has pointed at Seoul less than 30mi away) and get away with it in the court of world opinion. It would also probably bring china and maybe russia on their side and we'd be f'd. Do you really want to play into the hands of a short-man-complex communist leader? Glad you aren't running the country...


*EDIT*
That is a July5 article... apparently you are a bit behind on the news. Don't you think that someone that is nearly 4 weeks behind on the news is a bit uninformed of the entire situation and probably doesn't know what the hell they're actually talking about.

[GT40FIED]

You know what I find at least mildly amusing? A lot of people insist the folks in Pyeongyang don't pose a deliberate or capable threat to us, yet they were just fine with attacking Iraq. North Korea may be a few years off from being capable of launching any sort of ICBM, but Iraq had to be at least a couple DECADES away from such technology. Hell...Iran is MUCH more of a threat than Iraq ever was, but we're treating them with kid gloves. Sounds perfectly logical to me. Can you imagine what the world would be like now if Bush had been president during the Cuban Missle Crisis? His "don't mess with Texas" mentality and bravado would've gotten millions of people killed.

And Wren...there's plenty of proof that the government had knowledge of 9/11 beforehand. After all...they planned and excecuted it (or at the very least sat back and allowed it to happen) as leverage to trick the nation into an illegal war that no one sane supported. Now this is where everyone calls me some crazy conspiracy theorist because it makes them feel better. Whatever. If you REALLY looked into some of the discrepancies and evidence found in contradiction of the government's official story, maybe you'd be a little better informed.

I was having a conversation with my friend who's home on leave from Iraq last week and we came to the conclusion that if we (America) didn't have American Idol and other bullshit, we'd all go insane. America has completely lost touch with reality.

[Racing Rice]

America has completely lost touch with reality.

You mean American Idol, Survivor, and Big Brother aren't reality after all?!?! Agh! What the fuck are we to do now?!?! :hmmm:

[KwikR6]

You mean American Idol, Survivor, and Big Brother aren't reality after all?!?! Agh! What the fuck are we to do now?!?! :hmmm:
Yeah cause that's all i know of America. I'm a retarded canadian :flick:

[CD5Passion]

You know what I find at least mildly amusing? A lot of people insist the folks in Pyeongyang don't pose a deliberate or capable threat to us, yet they were just fine with attacking Iraq. North Korea may be a few years off from being capable of launching any sort of ICBM, but Iraq had to be at least a couple DECADES away from such technology. Hell...Iran is MUCH more of a threat than Iraq ever was, but we're treating them with kid gloves. Sounds perfectly logical to me. Can you imagine what the world would be like now if Bush had been president during the Cuban Missle Crisis? His "don't mess with Texas" mentality and bravado would've gotten millions of people killed.

And Wren...there's plenty of proof that the government had knowledge of 9/11 beforehand. After all...they planned and excecuted it (or at the very least sat back and allowed it to happen) as leverage to trick the nation into an illegal war that no one sane supported. Now this is where everyone calls me some crazy conspiracy theorist because it makes them feel better. Whatever. If you REALLY looked into some of the discrepancies and evidence found in contradiction of the government's official story, maybe you'd be a little better informed.

I was having a conversation with my friend who's home on leave from Iraq last week and we came to the conclusion that if we (America) didn't have American Idol and other bullshit, we'd all go insane. America has completely lost touch with reality.


like steve said they did have the knowledge, they admitted to it. Also the fact the day of 9/11 the airforce rerouted all of their defenses to the other side of the country of something so there were around or less than 10 jets within range to protect the eastern united states doesn't exactly help me beleive they didn't know it was going to happen, or that they didn't have involvement.

Pyschological warfare is a nasty reality.

hell the owner of the trade center took out some retardedly huge insurance policy ont he towers a week or so before 9/11.
Gold was removed from the towers before 9/11 and was found abandoned in a tunnel.
bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the trade centers a few days prior to 9/11 (september 6th to be precise)
Marvin bush (guess whos brother) was a "principle" of a security company that worked fro WTC, Dulles airport, and United Airlines. a few days prior to 9/11 he transferred to another company.
Workers of WTC were not allowed to enter certain parts of the buildings a few days prior to 9/11.

and Wren, you haven't always been maturity embodied in the past:hmmm:

[AzCivic]

little known 9/11 fact: exactly 4 days prior to the attack monkeys flew out of my butt. Don't believe me? Here's a pic of one http://www.bigwood2littlewood.com/wiz/monkeysigned.jpg

he was even nice enough to autograph the pic, we still chat now and then, usually about that fateful day that I like to call "9/omg it hurts!!"

but really if someone wanted to go to war for whatever reason there are far easier ways to do it then killing numerous innocent civilians with jet liners. And if they were that devious why wouldn't they just plant whatever they were looking for in Iraq? Really, use some common sense.

anyways, thought we already had this debate?

[CD5Passion]

little known 9/11 fact: exactly 4 days prior to the attack monkeys flew out of my butt. Don't believe me? Here's a pic of one http://www.bigwood2littlewood.com/wiz/monkeysigned.jpg

he was even nice enough to autograph the pic, we still chat now and then, usually about that fateful day that I like to call "9/omg it hurts!!"

but really if someone wanted to go to war for whatever reason there are far easier ways to do it then killing numerous innocent civilians with jet liners. And if they were that devious why wouldn't they just plant whatever they were looking for in Iraq? Really, use some common sense.

anyways, thought we already had this debate?

yeah probably and I'm not really gonna argue because it really is pointless. there are no facts in what happened.

why did almost half of the alledged hijackers turn up alive?

and remember how they identified one "hijacker"? they said a passport flew out of the hijackers pocket upon impact with one of the WTC and into the streets....um...how come no blackboxes from either of the planes were found?...its hard for me to beleive that a piece a paper survived and a black box made out of some of the most technologically advanced and hardest metals known to mankind didn't.

it'll never end and we will never know the truth, until the government can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt I will not beleive what they say about it.

[GT40FIED]

but really if someone wanted to go to war for whatever reason there are far easier ways to do it then killing numerous innocent civilians with jet liners. And if they were that devious why wouldn't they just plant whatever they were looking for in Iraq? Really, use some common sense.

anyways, thought we already had this debate?

That may be true, but we already had a plan on the books for that sort of thing. Back in Macnamara-era Washington, the government drafted Operation Northwoods. Essentially it was a plan to detonate an empty passenger plane full of "college students" (in reality they'd be mannequins) over Cuban airspace, blame the "tragedy" on the Cubans, and use it as a pretext for going to war with Cuba. I mean really...you don't let a plan like that just go to waste.

There may be easier ways of going to war, but few involve the kind of thunderous support that 9/11 invoked from the public at large. At least until people started finding out that the story was bullshit. Hell, one survey showed that 85% of the military in Iraq still think that the official reason they're there is to get revenge for 9/11. As for why we didn't just plant shit in Iraq, we didn't have to. What's the point? Once we're there and stubborn as shit not to leave, why go to all the trouble of planting evidence? All the had to do was come out and say "oops...we messed up, but we're still gonna fight this thing out" and the majority of America just sat back and went "oh...well...that seems reasonable".

And we've had this discussion before, but it's never a real debate. Myself and a few others present facts and the response I get is always "Nope...the government said this and I believe them because I have apparently had a frontal labotomy and am incapable of independent thought. Plus why would the government lie about anything ever? LOLZ!" without any real solid evidence to the contradict anything.

[AzCivic]

what "facts" have been presented? if there was some consipiracy why would these government masterminds let the "owner of the twin towers" know about it so he could suspiciously take out a "really huge insurance policy".

You don't know what happened, I'm not God so I don't know exactly what happened, except I side with common sense and you side with conspiracy nonsense that you love to cling to as long as it makes the gov't (conservative leadership?) look baaaaaad.

"And I'm not really sure it's possible for more people to hate Bush" "and the majority of America just sat back and went "oh...well...that seems reasonable" If this whole conspiracy was to allow Bush to do what he wants why not go a little further and come out looking like a hero with Iraq? It'd be quite simple to plant whatever the hell they wanted too. Because he didn't have to? You just said everyone hates him.

And I'm completely capable of using my own mind to draw my own conclusions. Just because I refuse to feel like a helpless victim that the gov't and big business is out to get, doesn't mean my opinions are any less valid than yours.

[GT40FIED]

what "facts" have been presented? if there was some consipiracy why would these government masterminds let the "owner of the twin towers" know about it so he could suspiciously take out a "really huge insurance policy".

You don't know what happened, I'm not God so I don't know exactly what happened, except I side with common sense and you side with conspiracy nonsense that you love to cling to as long as it makes the gov't (conservative leadership?) look baaaaaad.

"And I'm not really sure it's possible for more people to hate Bush" "and the majority of America just sat back and went "oh...well...that seems reasonable" If this whole conspiracy was to allow Bush to do what he wants why not go a little further and come out looking like a hero with Iraq? It'd be quite simple to plant whatever the hell they wanted too. Because he didn't have to? You just said everyone hates him.

And I'm completely capable of using my own mind to draw my own conclusions. Just because I refuse to feel like a helpless victim that the gov't and big business is out to get, doesn't mean my opinions are any less valid than yours.

I really don't think you want me to lay the whole thing out...it'd be a long post...but I can if you'd like me to. As far as what happened with Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, a lot of the questions lie with him so it's no surprise that he would've had prior knowledge.

You say you stick to the side of common sense, but how in the world is that possible if you ignore potentially damning facts. You've completely closed your mind off to the very idea that it wasn't those pesky terrorists. Even though that means ignoring things like the fact that commercial planes have software to prevent high G manuevers like those pulled off on 9/11 that could not have possibly been disabled by any terrorist element (especially an element with dogshit flight experience) while in the air. But I get it. Psychologically it's hard to accept the idea that the people charged with your safety would fuck you like that without even so much as a reach around.

You're also forgetting the timing of WMD not-finding and public opinion turning massively against Bush. Around the WMD search (or failure thereof) people were still gripped by fear and many still are. They didn't need a lot of pesky logic to justify revenge. All they "knew" was that we were attacked by outside forces and that we had to bomb the shit out of anyone who even looked at us wrong. It's a miracle that France still exists to this day (and that's a pretty shitty miracle). It wasn't until Iraq became a complete and utter mess that people woke up and said "wait...this guy has the leadership skills of a gopher".

Who said anything about feeling like some helpless victim? No one did anything to me (yet). That may change with each evolution of the PATRIOT Act, but for now I'm good. And really, you may be using your own mind, but you're apparently drawing someone else's conclusions.

[AzCivic]

thats one of your best "facts"; software to prevent high G manuevers?? yeah because there's no way for pilots to advert a potential disaster that would require a "high G manuever" right? they got the pilots to give up the plane but getting them to over ride a program is just way too farfetched for you? I'm gonna take a guess and say that if there is such a thing, its not that complicated to override because for some reason if a commercial plane full of people is for some reason on a collision path with another aircraft, the designers aren't going to make it some long complicated procedure to let them veer the plane out of harms way.

do you not realize how rediculous that "fact" sounds?

What does timing have to do with anything? They went in with the excuse of possible wmd, why not plant some wmd!? oh they (the gov't) will kill thousands of innocent civilians to sway the countries' opinion but not plant some weapons out in the middle of a desert to gain even more support from their country AND THE WORLD. That just sounds retarded.

I think you watch too many movies.

[GT40FIED]

thats one of your best "facts"; software to prevent high G manuevers?? yeah because there's no way for pilots to advert a potential disaster that would require a "high G manuever" right? they got the pilots to give up the plane but getting them to over ride a program is just way too farfetched for you? I'm gonna take a guess and say that if there is such a thing, its not that complicated to override because for some reason if a commercial plane full of people is for some reason on a collision path with another aircraft, the designers aren't going to make it some long complicated procedure to let them veer the plane out of harms way.

do you not realize how rediculous that "fact" sounds?

What does timing have to do with anything? They went in with the excuse of possible wmd, why not plant some wmd!? oh they (the gov't) will kill thousands of innocent civilians to sway the countries' opinion but not plant some weapons out in the middle of a desert to gain even more support from their country AND THE WORLD. That just sounds retarded.

I think you watch too many movies.

You have to realize something Rob....these are commercial planes. It's not an F-16. They have to have safety measures put in place so, in the the event a pilot gets carried away, he doesn't break granny's neck doing something stupid and give cause for enormous amounts of liability lawsuits. And really...how do overpowering pilots and tampering with software have anything to do with each other? One qould require rather extensive knowledge of the plane and the software (if it were even possible to disable...it's not). The other is just brute force. There are other measures to combat thing like mid air collisions like...oh what's it called...RADAR. I guess it might sound a bit ridiculous if you're not even willing to entertain the notion and are completely and utterly uninformed.

How about this...Galileo's law of falling bodies calculates the time an object will take to hit the ground in complete freefall. In it, distance equals 16.08 x seconds squared. The south tower was 1,362ft tall. So 1362 = 16.08 x 84.7...or 9.2 seconds. It took barely longer than 10 seconds for the building to come down, which means it was in almost complete freefall. When buildings collapse in a natural fashion they do not a) tend to fall straight down into a relatively neat little pile and b) enter a freefall-like state...they generally put up some resistance. That is, of course, unless they've been otherwise tampered with.

Now do I get to hear "that's ridiculous. It's just physics!"?

As for the whole planting evidence thing...you're still not hearing me. I'm merely saying we didn't HAVE to do anything. It's become blatantly obvious that this government does not care how it's viewed on the world stage, so why go to the trouble to plant weapons around Iraq? I mean it's not like we have any similar weapons that are nearly as primitive as what Iraqis would have, so you'd have to go to the trouble to fabricate evidence to plant it. We could have if we'd wanted to. Hell...it's probably even a good idea. But what's the point? "We" got what "we" wanted and no one remembers what WMD stands for anymore.

[dabouncerx24]

What does timing have to do with anything? They went in with the excuse of possible wmd, why not plant some wmd!? oh they (the gov't) will kill thousands of innocent civilians to sway the countries' opinion but not plant some weapons out in the middle of a desert to gain even more support from their country AND THE WORLD. That just sounds retarded.

I think you watch too many movies.

I usually don't get into heated arguments involving GT...but...

Dude, you actually think that planting weapons is more persuasive than a few thousand lives? Oh...wait...most of the world hate Americans, nevermind.

[AzCivic]

Gt: you're arguments are very weak. Yup radar huh, there are NEVER any mid air collisions right? do a search on google I bet you'll find some. And there's NO other reason a pilot would have to make a drastic manuever right? Maybe to avoid a flock of geese or a hot air balloon some other flying thing that might not show up on an supposed infallible radar.

-aircraft engineers are sitting around designing safety measures: "hey lets make it impossible to avoid small aircraft that might not show up on radar or (insert some other reason to make a sharp turn) so someone doesn't get hurt if the pilot decides to play a joke on passengers by yanking the plane for no reason"- sounds perfectly plausible.

I always like how the conspiracy theorists like to break hugely complex situations down into some simple little kiddie problem and then shout "Look my highschool physics shows such and such is impossible, the gov't is out to get us!!" yup, rediculous.

What's the point?? Hmm maybe to ensure a sweeping victory of their party the next election perhaps? To get more allies on our side so we can go off and invade anyone else? For shits and giggles? Like you said everyone now hates bush, wouldn't it be nice for him to say "I TOLD you so!" and america will rejoice and he can bask in the glow of approval. Nah, planting some primitive weapons is too difficult.

dabouncer: huh? there's no argument about which method is more persuasive so whats your point?

[GT40FIED]

I always like how the conspiracy theorists like to break hugely complex situations down into some simple little kiddie problem and then shout "Look my highschool physics shows such and such is impossible, the gov't is out to get us!!" yup, rediculous.

Holy shit...I would like to thank you for thoroughly proving the point I made earlier. You don't have anything that remotely resembles a rebutle so you have to resort to "conspiracy theorists are crazy!! LOLZ!!11!". Then again, it's physics which, on this planet anyway, are universal and more or less impossible to screw with. Seriously...if you don't have an answer for something either admit it or don't talk about it.

And really, just admit you don't have a clue about what software goes into commercial airliners. Your entire argument is based on suspicion and doubt, not fact, and my argument is weak? Either educate yourself and get back to me or just drop it.

If you're as wise and all knowing as you'd like me to to think you are, riddle me this. On a PBS 9/11 documentary, Larry Silverstein (owner of the WTC plaza) admitted that he made the decision to "pull" WTC 7...one of the much smaller buildings adjacent to WTC 1 & 2 (the main towers). In this case, to "pull" a bulding is a demolition industry term for demolishing a building via strategically placed explosives. Before Silverstein said this, the government's "official" explanation was that the building collapsed due to fire damage (regardless of the facts that it sustained little damage from falling debris and that no bulding made of steel reinforced concrete has ever collapsed due to fire damage alone). So clearly someone's lying, and I don't immediately see why Silverstein would have any reason to. It's also interesting to note that controlled demolitions aren't something that can be setup overnight. It takes a good amount of time to survey the building and place the explosives. So why were they there to begin with? Oh...and a member of the secret service died when that building was imploded so why hasn't anyone been charged with capital murder?

[Wren57]

AZ, all Steve really wants is you to admit theres a *possibility that the gov't is out to get you... then the fall down the rabbit hole starts until you turn out just as looney as he.

<- not debating this topic again, done dozens of times on this and other forums

[GT40FIED]

AZ, all Steve really wants is you to admit theres a *possibility that the gov't is out to get you... then the fall down the rabbit hole starts until you turn out just as looney as he.

<- not debating this topic again, done dozens of times on this and other forums

You know what Wren...I feel that I've had enough alcohol to conclusively state that you may just be a retarded fuck up who's only gotten where he is in life by virtue of his parent's money. You can't provide a scrap of evidence that I'm wrong so you'll just call me "looney". Fuck you and all of your young republican friends. If it makes you feel safe to ignore evidence, good for you. You can just sit by while the country you sycophantically claim to love so much goes to hell. You're a fucking puppet and I know it scares the shit out of you to know that.

Earlier in this thread you provoked Darin to "do something about it", by which you meant joining the armed forces, if he didn't like the way things were. I challenge you to do the same. I know you "plan on" military service, but why wait? Leave college today. The war is here and now. I know you and all of you ROTC buddies sit around and talk about those who won't sign up like they're second class while you stand no chance of any danger. The sad fact is that while your parents pay for your college and most likely your rent, car (well, ok...I know they paid for your car), and miscellaneous other things, many of the people currently serving in REAL combat situations NEED the government to pay up for the luxury that your parents bought you into. They don't have rich mommies and daddies to bail them out of REAL service.

See...you claim that all I want Rob to claim that there's a possiblity that the government is fucked up and corrupt as shit and from there it's a proverbial slippery slope downhill. How about you claiming that you're nothing but a sheep with no real ideas of your own? Both premises have about as much merit. All I really want is for people to look at the evidence for themselves. If they do and they still come to the same conclusion that they did before, that's fine. They can provide evidence to the contrary (although no one ever does). It's one thing to be educated on an issue, but it's quite another to dismiss just because your feeble brain can't comprehend it.

So, in closing, prove me wrong, or shut the fuck up. Unlike many of the other people you claim to have discussed this with on other message boards, I'm smarter than you and you can't win this one (on this topic at the very least), so get bent.

[Wren57]

Wonderful attacking and arrogant response, Steve. Drunk at 9:45AM? Model citizen, you are... THANK GOD we have people like you that know how to run the country better than our leaders, else we'd be fucked... oh, wait, apparently you aren't in office so maybe you don't?

As far as me joining the military, I met with a Navy recruiter yesterday to discuss my options of flight school or law school. I scored perfect on every Navy math test and near perfect on every Navy logic test, so these are my two best-fitting options. These are slots filled by officers, and being an officer requires a college degree, so no, I won't leave for an enlisted rank when I have the ability to become an officer in just one more year. Think I'm kidding, call LCDR O'loghlin @ Milton Navy Air Field in Florida. And don't give me any of this "real service" bullshit... you haven't served, so STFU. Just because I'm not going through ROTC on contract doesn't mean I won't serve just the same as they will after college. Please tell me the difference between "real service" and what I'm doing. Is the only difference that I don't NEED the gov't? That makes me a bad person? Well damn, I guess I don't NEED the gov'ts help but I'm going to fight for this country anyway instead of running one of the family businesses, yeah, thats right... I'm giving up an oppurtunity to be CEO right out of college to fight for my country, so if you give me any more of this bullshit I'll make sure to drop a laser-bomb on your retarded Kansas ass first chance I get.

I DO derive my own conclusions about things, and I do NOT agree with your ideas. It is not I that have to prove you wrong, for your opinion is the one of dissent... the burden of proof rests upon you, and you have come up with nothing other than conspiracies and things you've read on the internet. Yeah, thats much more informative than reading 2 newspapers a day and watching the news regularly... have I mentioned my roomates include a hippie and a liberal law-school student, and that my best friend is also a law-school student? I don't hang out with republicans hardly at all.

I really wish I could continue this now, but unlike some I'm not "privledged" enough to drink at 11am and must get back to work on some databasing issues...

[AzCivic]

Holy shit...I would like to thank you for thoroughly proving the point I made earlier. You don't have anything that remotely resembles a rebutle so you have to resort to "conspiracy theorists are crazy!! LOLZ!!11!". Then again, it's physics which, on this planet anyway, are universal and more or less impossible to screw with. Seriously...if you don't have an answer for something either admit it or don't talk about it.

And really, just admit you don't have a clue about what software goes into commercial airliners. Your entire argument is based on suspicion and doubt, not fact, and my argument is weak? Either educate yourself and get back to me or just drop it.



where the HELL are your "facts" you just copied some retarded rant about software that, like everyother stupid little consipiracy theory, is all over the internet. YOU ARE NOT A PILOT AND YOU ARE NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER nothing you say is a fact and copying it off another retarded website doesn't make anything you spout true. YOU HAVE NO PROOF. I at least have some common sense on my side. Common sense says that a pilot has the final say when it comes to what his aircraft will do incase he has to take drastic measures to save everyone on boards damn life.

YES YOUR ARGUMENT IS WEAK with nothing to support it. Maybe if you take some advanced physics/math classes you'll begin to understand a little about complex structures and that how they behave under extreme situations can't be summed up in a kids math book.

Educate myself? What conspiracy wack job websites do you recommend? Certainly thats where all your "facts" come from.

[AzCivic]

And GT since you can just throw something out like its conclusive evidence that you're right I'll throw out this quote I found in another thread about this same retarded topic of high g software crap:

"The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."

[Wren57]

The world is going to end in 1999!!!! I read it on teh intranets.
http://noumenal.net/exiles/darkfuture.html

No? Well, maybe 2012.
http://survive2012.com/why_2012.php

If we keep guessing at times that the world will end, much like conspiracy theories, we might eventually be right due to probability finally catching up...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4204/untitledoq0.jpg

Even maddox thinks 9/11 conspiracy theorists are foolish:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons#FURTHER_READING

Loose Change rebuttle:
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

And another, by Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

And last but not least, the forum I frequent most:
http://www.my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=207803&highlight=9%2F11+conspiracy

[GT40FIED]

Wonderful attacking and arrogant response, Steve. Drunk at 9:45AM? Model citizen, you are... THANK GOD we have people like you that know how to run the country better than our leaders, else we'd be fucked... oh, wait, apparently you aren't in office so maybe you don't?

As far as me joining the military, I met with a Navy recruiter yesterday to discuss my options of flight school or law school. I scored perfect on every Navy math test and near perfect on every Navy logic test, so these are my two best-fitting options. These are slots filled by officers, and being an officer requires a college degree, so no, I won't leave for an enlisted rank when I have the ability to become an officer in just one more year. Think I'm kidding, call LCDR O'loghlin @ Milton Navy Air Field in Florida. And don't give me any of this "real service" bullshit... you haven't served, so STFU. Just because I'm not going through ROTC on contract doesn't mean I won't serve just the same as they will after college. Please tell me the difference between "real service" and what I'm doing. Is the only difference that I don't NEED the gov't? That makes me a bad person? Well damn, I guess I don't NEED the gov'ts help but I'm going to fight for this country anyway instead of running one of the family businesses, yeah, thats right... I'm giving up an oppurtunity to be CEO right out of college to fight for my country, so if you give me any more of this bullshit I'll make sure to drop a laser-bomb on your retarded Kansas ass first chance I get.

I DO derive my own conclusions about things, and I do NOT agree with your ideas. It is not I that have to prove you wrong, for your opinion is the one of dissent... the burden of proof rests upon you, and you have come up with nothing other than conspiracies and things you've read on the internet. Yeah, thats much more informative than reading 2 newspapers a day and watching the news regularly... have I mentioned my roomates include a hippie and a liberal law-school student, and that my best friend is also a law-school student? I don't hang out with republicans hardly at all.

I really wish I could continue this now, but unlike some I'm not "privledged" enough to drink at 11am and must get back to work on some databasing issues...

Really? You're going to drop a laser bomb on Kansas? Hmmm...I'm not sure that such an attitude embodies the kind of nobility the Navy aspires for. That...and it would pretty much make you a terrorist as well. I'm not really sure where you drew the conclusion that all I did was copy and paste stuff from online, but I assure you thaty ou and Rob are dead wrong. And even if I had, does that make them any less true than something in a newpaper? "0h n0z! Nothing on the internet can possibly be true...evAr!". Did I feel as stupid typing that as you did thinking it? And bravo on watching a bunch of bullshit-laden biased news programs. No...really...cheers. I'm also pretty sure that you being a CEO straight out of college back up my point whether you're "giving it up" or not (trust me...it'll still be there when you get out of the Navy). That should really prepare you for the world of politics...a high level position that you didn't have to work for. Everything's coming up roses.

Oh...and just a quick note...I'm sure you'd like to think I woke up and started drinking today, but let's just say I had a long night. You're right...I was drunk at 9:45 this morning...but I wasn't drinking then. Besides, no class and no work today. Who cares?

where the HELL are your "facts" you just copied some retarded rant about software that, like everyother stupid little consipiracy theory, is all over the internet. YOU ARE NOT A PILOT AND YOU ARE NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER nothing you say is a fact and copying it off another retarded website doesn't make anything you spout true. YOU HAVE NO PROOF. I at least have some common sense on my side. Common sense says that a pilot has the final say when it comes to what his aircraft will do incase he has to take drastic measures to save everyone on boards damn life.

YES YOUR ARGUMENT IS WEAK with nothing to support it. Maybe if you take some advanced physics/math classes you'll begin to understand a little about complex structures and that how they behave under extreme situations can't be summed up in a kids math book.

Educate myself? What conspiracy wack job websites do you recommend? Certainly thats where all your "facts" come from.

Think I already covered the copy and paste bullshit. I honestly will look into the thing you posted there however, I do see a flaw. If a pilot can choose to override the system and maneuvers that would require them to need to override the system would have to be sudden and swift, what's the point? I'm not saying it's not possible, but by the time it could be disabled, wouldn't you already have hit whatever you were trying to avoid? Anyway, I digress.

Moving right along, I really don't see you disagreeing with anything besides the flight software thing. The arguments aren't weak, you just don't like them. And while I doubt that Galileo's law of falling bodies is in any kids math book, you haven't offered any substance to the contrary. You know what...I'll even stop using the word "facts" just to make you happy. Offer up evidence of another theory that can refute anything I've typed (aside from the software thing which was good...I'll look into it).

[GT40FIED]

Two quick things I forgot -

First of all....Wren...I'd just like to remind you that they guy you voted for for president was EXACTLY the kind of guy who was drunk at 10am long after he was my age, so there's hope for me yet. Then again...I'm getting better grades than he did.

And Rob...go check out http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ . It's members include such "crazies" as a former deputy attorney general, former director of the "Star Wars" defense program, and one guy whose resume includes "Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years". Surely these people are all certifiable. Not to mention the countless other professors, lawyers, and experts in their field listed as founding members.

[AzCivic]

steve, have you studied alot of large skyscrapers that have been hit by large fuel heavy commercial jets? if not, then how do you know how long it would take one to fall in the way it did? plus you give on time for free fall and say the building took longer, thus it wasn't in complete free fall.

[GT40FIED]

Well...think about it from a physics standpoint. First of all, the building was hit relatively high up on one side. Even if the jet fuel was hot enough to melt the steel (it wasn't) and even if the vast majority of the fuel hadn't exploded outside the bulding (it did), an object damaged on one side tends to topple to that side, not straight down. You can take an aluminum can and dimple it on one side...doesn't the top lean towards that dimpled side? It would've been a lot more likely that the top floors fell off on their own, but even that would have been unlikely since both towers were built to withstand an impact from a plane the size of a commercial airliner. Hell...years ago a B-52 crashed into the Empire State Building. It's still there, isn't it? And that building wasn't built to the same specs as either tower at WTC plaza.

And yes, I did say it was in ALMOST complete freefall according to the little equation I did. When buildings collapse other floors that remain intact will offer resistance before letting go, if they let go at all (remember, both towers only burned across 4 floors...out of over 100). Thus you'd expect the time to be substantially longer than if it were in an almost total freefall. Now, think about the video you saw of the towers coming down and ask yourself why everything came down in such an orderly fashion. Not just one building, but both buildings...regardless of the fact that both buildings were not hit in the exact same manner. Shit...even reporters covering the story live were remarking at how much it looked like a controlled demolition. What are the chances of both buildings collapsing in an almost precisely similar fashion after burning for an average of about an hour? I don't know the chances, but they have to be astronomically small.

I'm not necessarily out to make you believe what I do...I'm just trying to make you and others look at the alternative possibility for themselves. As far as I can tell there is not a single piece of the government's official story that is ironclad. Everything is suspect. If thinking me a crazy person makes you feel better, go nuts. Honestly, it doesn't bother me. But if you can dismiss mountains of evidence that stand in stark contrast to what you think really happened then...well...that's kind of sad. But then again if you're religious, you're probably used to it. :D

[AzCivic]

If gov't masterminds orchestrated this whole thing don't you think they'd consult experts in this field on how the building would fall and plant their explosives or what not to make it fall that way? nah they'd just not pay attention to any details and leave things to question by people with absolutely no expertise in the area.

steel doesn't have to completely melt to lose its strength.

"mountains of evidence"...yeah sure whatever you say...

[GT40FIED]

Do you really think an entity as massive as the federal government doesn't have experts in strictural engineering and similar fields? Ever heard of the Army Corps Of Engineers? Seems like they might know a thing or two about...oh, I dunno...engineering.

[Wren57]

Yeah, since its really easy to involve the military arm of a gov't in a domestic conspiracy without anyone talking... :rolleyes:

[GT40FIED]

And no one in the military has ever done anything covert or corrupt. Nope...never.

[AzCivic]

Do you really think an entity as massive as the federal government doesn't have experts in strictural engineering and similar fields? Ever heard of the Army Corps Of Engineers? Seems like they might know a thing or two about...oh, I dunno...engineering.


huh?? I stated that if the intent of the gov't was to make a building collapse w/ controlled demolition while having it look like the result of a terrorist attack, wouldn't they talk to those experts and find out how the building should fall? So then they could plant their explosives or whatever appropriately.

but no according to you and others whom I'm sure have no solid background in the area think they left that part of the plan out and just blew it up. since you're saying (with your all your expertise) that the building should've fallen another way.

now that i think about it when there's a controlled demolition w/ explosives, the building doesn't fall the exact INSTANT the explosives are set off which is what you're saying must have happened or else it'd be pretty damn obvious. furthermore when I listened to the 911 recordings I didn't hear any explosives going off just the rumble of a building begining to collapse and the screaming voices of those about to die.

[GT40FIED]

You've obviously never heard the numerous 911 calls and firefighter radio tapes where several people report hearing secondary explosions just before the buildings came down. And believe me...firefighters are not the type to mistake the sound of an explosion.

[AzCivic]

You've obviously never heard the numerous 911 calls and firefighter radio tapes where several people report hearing secondary explosions just before the buildings came down. And believe me...firefighters are not the type to mistake the sound of an explosion.

no I heard the damn building going down myself.

but just ignore the other stuff I said.

[GT40FIED]

Well...as for the rest of it, the government goes out of it's way to try and recruit some of the smartest people it can find for anything but upper level positions. Upper level positions go to morons or a friend-of-a-friend kinda thing. Is it really so hard to imagine that the government could have gotten it done without going outside for help? I mean...really?

You keep saying you have "common sense" (which apparently does away with the need for logic), but how could anything be more common sense than saying that two given structures struck in different manners will fall in different ways? Or to say that such a collapse will look significantly different than a controlled demolition?

[AzCivic]

how do explosives make a certain section of a building collapse at the EXACT INSTANT they are set off?

"secondary explosion" there would not be one secondary explosion there would be as many explosions as there are floors on each building or at least close to it. unless you're trying to say they all went off at once but somehow showed no evidence of it on video tape.

logic and common sense go hand-in-hand, just like conspiracy theories and tin foil hats.

[GT40FIED]

Well...actually...there are several photos and short video clips of what look an aweful lot like cutter charges nowhere near an effected part of the buildings right before the buildings came down. You know...the kind of charge it would take to bring down a large building. There were also reports from WTC employees of both buildings being closed on certain floors over either the weekend before the attacks or the weekend before that (I can't remember exactly...I think it was like the 9th, though) where only certain people who didn't work there normally were being let in. Since I can't independently verify any of those accounts...I'm not a reporter...I won't claim that as proof or evidence of any kind, but if it's true it would certainly explain some things.

[AzCivic]

any links to these clips? when I was watching what happened I didn't notice a series of explosions running down the building before it collapsed but I'd like to see what you're talking about.

[GT40FIED]

Can do... but please note that some of these sites are ones I do not frequent. Google is your friend, but it can take you to weird places.

http://prisonplanet.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_wtc7andbombs.html
Videos towards the bottom

http://mouv4x8.club.fr/11Sept01/A0069_Tower_collapse_something_curious.html
Still shot of what looks like a cutter charge as the building collapses

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/images/WTCwindowpeoplevictimsmed.jpg
Clearly the heat was hot enough to melt steel...but not people.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.7.coming.down.soon.wmv
Firemen acknowledging that WTC 7 is about to come down

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Paper from a physics professor at BYU asserting there was thermate in the building. Clearly, he is also a kook.

I know I've seen better pictures than these, but I just did 5 minutes of searching. I'm sure I'll find the ones I saw before sometime tomorrow.

[AzCivic]

looking at this vid: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

you see this moment: http://img283.imageshack.us/img283/623/conspiracy1ry5.jpg

showing obviously that the collapse began at the exact point of the fire. Those are some spectacular explosives that can go off and have the building collapse intantaneously AND survive however long in a hot ass fire. The more I look into this the more I convince myself this conspiracy is retarded.

[AzCivic]

oh and these explosives are so good they can go off and not be heard on phones in the same building they go off in. amazing.

[GT40FIED]

The more I look into this the more I convince myself this conspiracy is retarded.

I suppose that's why cognitive dissonance is such a wonderful thing.

And I really don't know what you're refering to about the explosions not being heard in the building. There are numerous videos and sounds clips where their easily heard out on the street.

[AzCivic]

face it. you're wrong, why is that so hard for you to understand? you're sitting here saying that the building was rigged with explosives that didn't go off when impacted by a boeing jet or being submitted to a long hot fire.

don't know what I'm talking about!? THIS!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbssOdruPQ

yeah they're real easy to hear, lol.

[GT40FIED]

Why would the explosives have gone off if they weren't near the crash site? All of the pictures of what appear to be cutter charges are all on floors beneath the effected areas. And even if they were located near the point of impact, I can think of quite a few scenarios where they could still have survived to be set off later.

As for that tape, I don't know about you, but right near the end of it I hear something that doesn't belong. Besides, put in front of that video it lacks significant context. No one has any idea when that tape was made and it's based purely on the assumption that it was the second that the tower came down. While that's a pretty fair assumption, it's not exactly definitive. Hell...for all I know the sound you hear in the background IS explosives going off and not the tower collapsing at all. I guess without any frame of reference, we'll never know.

[Wren57]

All of the pictures of what appear to be cutter charges are all on floors beneath the effected areas.

When structural integrity of a building is compromised, the first part of the building to crumble is usually the interior, as the exterior is extremely rigid for obvious reasons. The windows blowing out are resultant upon the interior floors falling onto each other and causing high-pressure situations... so the pressure escapes through the windows.

If this is a massive conspiracy and there were planted charges, don't you think someone would be smart enough to NOT place charges where they would obviously be blowing out windows and shit? Don't you think they'd, oh, I dunno, put the charges on weight-supporting beams on the interior instead of just in exterior rooms. It doesn't add up.

[AzCivic]

Why would the explosives have gone off if they weren't near the crash site? All of the pictures of what appear to be cutter charges are all on floors beneath the effected areas. And even if they were located near the point of impact, I can think of quite a few scenarios where they could still have survived to be set off later.

As for that tape, I don't know about you, but right near the end of it I hear something that doesn't belong. Besides, put in front of that video it lacks significant context. No one has any idea when that tape was made and it's based purely on the assumption that it was the second that the tower came down. While that's a pretty fair assumption, it's not exactly definitive. Hell...for all I know the sound you hear in the background IS explosives going off and not the tower collapsing at all. I guess without any frame of reference, we'll never know.

oh god give it up. you're just talking out your ass now.

[GT40FIED]

When structural integrity of a building is compromised, the first part of the building to crumble is usually the interior, as the exterior is extremely rigid for obvious reasons. The windows blowing out are resultant upon the interior floors falling onto each other and causing high-pressure situations... so the pressure escapes through the windows.

If this is a massive conspiracy and there were planted charges, don't you think someone would be smart enough to NOT place charges where they would obviously be blowing out windows and shit? Don't you think they'd, oh, I dunno, put the charges on weight-supporting beams on the interior instead of just in exterior rooms. It doesn't add up.

Ok...so you just said that explosions cause high pressure zones that would escape through the windows...but they wouldn't obviously blow the windows out? Don't you think the size of an explosion strong enough to take out a supporting beam the size of those used in either tower would have to be rather large? Large enough to...say...escape an interior area that isn't reenforced at least enough to blow the windows out? And none of this explains the prescence of thermate in the building.

And good rebutle Rob. No really...I've totally changed my mind now. Excellent work.

[AzCivic]

And good rebutle Rob. No really...I've totally changed my mind now. Excellent work.

here's a new conspiracy: The wtc still stands! Using sophisticated cloaking, hologram, and teleportation technology the gov't was able to make everyone think the towers were attacked. All the people (and the buildings themselves) who were on the planes and in the buildings are safely living out their lives on an island along with elvis, JFK, Tupac, and Kurt cobain! Belive me, I sit on the internet searching for anything that goes against what the gov't (or common sense) says, and we all KNOW the internet DOES NOT LIE! Still don't believe me? Let me go find a pic real quick and show you a minute detail that doesn't prove a damn thing, brb.

[GT40FIED]

I'm not sure why, but I hadn't expected such an asinine response. That sounded like a mix of science fitction, L. Ron Hubbard, and a dose of World Weekly News thrown in for good measure. As much as I love all arguments childish, that was pretty sad. "0h n0z! I d0n't b3liEve it s0 It mu$t b3 teh f@ls0rz!". Seriously...if you had an argument you would've presented it. Your "common sense" approach doesn't fly because it lacks sense and you obviously can't counter anything I've posted with anything truely concrete. Holy shit man...at least Wren tried.

[AzCivic]

sorry, it just amazes me that someone who can sound so smart can be swayed into believing anything as long as it shows the gov't is out to get us.

I've presented arguments but you pretty much just ignore them...tell me how explosives can survive being crashed into by a jumbo jet and sit in an inferno without going off? They had to have been on that floor, that pic/vid I posted shows the collapse beginning at that exact point. The pic also shows that the top part of the tower did lean as it fell, but not enough for you I guess. So not only did these explosives survive a plane crash and subsuquent fire, but they also were able to go off and bring the building down at exactly the same time, AND they went off starting at the impact point in order to make the top part of the tower lean as it fell.

And I guess 911 call centers have no idea what time they receive a call? The first time I heard it it was just audio, I had to do a search real quick and found it w/ that video, sorry if that somehow makes it hard for you to hear the building collapsing with out explosives going off first.

Your open mindedness seems to go out the windw when the issue of the gov't not being out to get you is at hand.

[AzCivic]

here are a couple of websites that you might enjoy, read up on "free falling buildings" and "pull" and whatever other conspiracy about 9/11.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/index.html

[ChrisCantSkate]

i liked that one with the math to back what the argument was, showing how the laws of physics can explane it, not what someone thinks they might know about how skyscrapers collapse with a jet full of fuel burning inside of it. i didnt read the second site cause im lazy and i dont believe there was a huge conspiracy against the american people from the gov't. that was a good point you made however about the plane not setting off explosives from the impact. yeah c4 is inert to fire, but there was alot of everything going on real fast in the building where a spark or shock could have easily done it in. and initial collapse being in the same area, like we should expect with a plane hitting it makes me not beleive conspiracy was to blame. it would be near impossible to pick the floor you want to hit with the plane, sine they came in very fast in a big jet

[GT40FIED]

sorry, it just amazes me that someone who can sound so smart can be swayed into believing anything as long as it shows the gov't is out to get us.

I've presented arguments but you pretty much just ignore them...tell me how explosives can survive being crashed into by a jumbo jet and sit in an inferno without going off? They had to have been on that floor, that pic/vid I posted shows the collapse beginning at that exact point. The pic also shows that the top part of the tower did lean as it fell, but not enough for you I guess. So not only did these explosives survive a plane crash and subsuquent fire, but they also were able to go off and bring the building down at exactly the same time, AND they went off starting at the impact point in order to make the top part of the tower lean as it fell.

And I guess 911 call centers have no idea what time they receive a call? The first time I heard it it was just audio, I had to do a search real quick and found it w/ that video, sorry if that somehow makes it hard for you to hear the building collapsing with out explosives going off first.

Your open mindedness seems to go out the windw when the issue of the gov't not being out to get you is at hand.

You know Rob...I really think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. It doesn't have anything to do with the government being "out to get us". That's ridiculous because without the people, what would they govern. I do, however, think that this administration wants a lot more power than it has and has gone to some amazing lengths to get it (see: PATRIOT Act). There's a big difference between not trusting the government and thinking they're out to get little 'ole me. It just so happens that, in this instance, that distrust doesn't make it hard for me to believe that they're capable of terrible things.

As for your explosives at crash sight theory, what doesn't make sense there? As Chris pointed out, certain explosives are inert in fire. And even if they weren't, if you went ahead and planned that far in advance, how hard would it be to put some insulation around the shit?

And I think you missed my point about that call. Without any hard data to back it up, it loses any context. I mean...if you listen to the audio only, it's much easier to draw your own conclusions. However, if you put the audio over a video and time it just right so that everything happens the way YOU think it should then it takes on a whole new meaning. I'm not saying that it didn't happen that way...I'm saying that without proper conext the audio is useless.

Oh...and I'm still waiting on an explanation for the prescence of thermate.

[AzCivic]

well thank goodness you don't think they're out to get you, just the thousands who died in the towers..

so not only do they resist fire they also resist the impact of a boeing jet?

presence of thermite or the by products of thermite? did you know all the ingredients for a thermite reaction were already in the wtc, like aluminum from the aircraft, rust, gypsum, and concrete? so yes there might've been thermite reactions.

so which is it? were explosives used to take down the building or were strategically placed packages of thermite used?

oh and it was a B25 that hit the empire state building (not a B52) which is around 1/10th the weight of a boeing 767, and with about a tenth the fuel as well and a speed of probably half that of the boeing jets. 1/10th the weight, 1/10 the fuel and half the speed probably means much less damage.

[GT40FIED]

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? "Well...the ingredients were there, so that explains that". That's like saying "well...there's a huge mess is my kitchen, but I had baking soda and vinegar and they could react together so that must have been it". That's not even to mention that to create a proper reaction between the components of thermite or thermate all of the ingredients have to be extremely finely ground. Merely having chunks of the ingredients around won't work.

And does it really matter what kind of plane hit the Empire State building? Whether it was a B25 or a B52, you're talking about a large plane that crashed into a building built in the 1930s and not at all built to withstand such an impact. Both towers were over-engineered to withstand a hit from an extremely large commercial airliner. Not only is the Empire State building still standing, but you'd never know it was hit by anything, let alone a large military plane.

You know it just occured to me that I've gone through all of this and haven't even mentioned the Pentagon. Haha. I could do this forever.

[AzCivic]

no its like saying if I took a few ingredients in my kitchen and emptied them on the floor and 2 of them happened to be baking soda and vinegar would i get a reaction...probably. chunks? molten aluminum is a liquid, and thats enough. but keep your mind shut to this though, there are many more conspiracies for you to go fill it with.

lets see, YES it does matter, one is a small plane relative to the other and boeing commercial jets. Oh because you say it doesn't (with your EXTENSIVE knowledge on the subject) then you must be right.

Don't you have some conspiracy forums to go spend time on? Your lame, I'm right cause I say so, arguments are getting annoying.

EDIT: oh looky here : * Molten metal in contact with water/moisture or other metal oxides (e.g., rust). Moisture entrapped by molten metal can be explosive. Contact of molten aluminum with other metal oxides can initiate a thermite reaction.

from here(which has nothing to do with 9/11): http://www.alcoa.com/alcoahomes/objects/Docs/MSDS/MSDS1028.pdf

hmm, rust...nope NONE of that in a building made of metal.

[AzCivic]

then last but not least. WHY go through all the trouble and the possible detection to bring the towers down? the 4 planes crashing, 2 into the wtc, 1 into the pentagon, and 1 in a field just isn't enough for the gov't, and isn't enough for americans to get royally pissed. nope making sure those 2 towers fell was key. so where was the plane that crashed in a field going? we should scour its propable targets for either explosives or thermite devices.

why stop with the buildings falling? why not add in some biological or nuclear mess to REALLY get the point across. hell then we could go to war with anyone we wanted. nah, lets keep it low key and get those mother f'ers in afghanistan.

[GT40FIED]

Well you and I had better hope there wasn't a bunch of rust just sitting around in those buildings. I'm sure you know what happens when a load bearing structure starts to rust. Then again...that's why UL grade steel is resistant to such things.

As for the second post, I'll refer you back to your question about planting WMDs just to make things look better. Why did we make it worse? Did we need to? It was the only thing on TV for 3 solid days...literally. It galvanized people together into fighting a war that didn't need to be fought in a way the world had never seen before and will hopefully never see again. It had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan because, if you'll remember back to the start of all of this (which may take a few days and possibly require some napping), Afghanistan was just a precursor to Iraq. That's when we found "links" between Al Qaeda and Iraq that, for lack of a better term, didn't exist. To borrow a line from a movie, the buildings are symbols, as is the act of destroying them. You don't need to make it all fancy with the bells and whistles and whatnot. Plus, if you take into account the sheep factor that is so rampant in this country, it's a no brainer.

[AzCivic]

lol, did you see the wreckage of the wtc? you didn't see ANY rusted metal?

oh ok, thanks for that explanation, you said it, it must be right...

[Wren57]

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:

http://www.modellflug.ch/igwarbird/fotos/aigle02/pics/b25-2.jpg

flying at 200mph and carrying maybe 300 gallons of fuel

equals

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/images/737_nl_landing_250.jpg

this, flying at 450-500mph loaded down with tons of jet fuel for a cross-country flight

Oh, but the picture of the 737 is smaller, so surely that means the gov't is up to something... :rolleyes:

[Wren57]

737:
~145,000lbs, 530mph cruising speed
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_600tech.html

B25:
33,510 lb, 230mph cruising speed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25

Now, if I remember correctly...

Momentum = mass * velocity

So for the b25, momentum = 7707300

For the 737, momentum = 76850000

Thats just about 10x the momentum of a b25, not to mention the larger size and larger load of jetfuel onboard. Your facts didn't add up yesterday, don't today, and won't tomorrow. Sorry, welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.

[GT40FIED]

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:

Actually, I'm pretty sure I touched on the techincal issues. Even if I didn't touch on them to the extent that would've shut you up, quite a few posts back I linked to a paper written by a physics professor at BYU who is, I'm sorry to say, largely better equipped to draw a conclusion than any of you or myself for that matter.

I'm also pretty sure I never insisted that explosives were placed at the level of the impact. Actually, if you'd read more carefully, you'd notice that was the argument Rob was making. I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. I really need to find the first photos I saw of cutter charges...they were a lot better than what I found in a 5 minute google search since they're very clear and nowhere near the impact zone.

And again Wren...reading comprehension. The only reason I touched back on motive is because...you guessed it...it was a direct reply to what Rob posted. We can all talk motive, means, and opportunity until we're blue in the face. I can think of half a dozen viable motives off the topof my head, but that doesn't really matter.

What I find ridiculously amusing about all of this is that you're both so hell bent on proving me wrong (which you can't because these are just theories and no member of the public will ever really know one way or another) that you're scowering the internet for sites with points that counterpoint what I've posted. That in and of itself is sort of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory. Ironic, huh? "0h n0z! What we're posting is logical!!1! LOLZ!" Wrong...you're just as "crazy" as me. :nana: That, and the fact that you constantly (and mockingly) chanted "if it's on the internet it must be true". Yet all of the information posted is from INTERNET sites just as biased in opinion as anything I could pull up. That's some wicked circular logic right there. It must be bullshit...unless it supports your views, huh? Way to be a hypocrit. Oh...and please, don't ever reference Wikipedia. You know they fail people in college if they site Wikipedia as a source of information on a paper? If that doesn't tell you something about the reputation the site has in the academic community, I don't know what does.

[AzCivic]

actually that professor helped a project on cold fusion, his partners were labeled as frauds. whats the saying about the company you keep? never mind ALL the other scientists that worked on the invesitgation, nope this guy got some sample sent to him by john and jane doe who have no idea how to handle evidence. one sample was supposedly just pulled out of the dirt at the memorial but thats not really important i guess, he's a professor!

his own colleagues down the hall from him don't even agree with him:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering"

again you ignore the fact that a small thermite reaction could've taken place, I even show proof that molten aluminum could react with rust. nah there's absolutely no rust on the metal of the wtc in wreckage photos right?

so the building begins collapsing at the point of impact buy you don't think the explosives weren't on that level? and wow, you think they had it down so good that they knew what FLOORS they were gonna hit/cause damage to and knew not to put explosives there.

and then yet again, you ramble on and on about nothing that has to do with the facts...

wikipedia out, conspiracy websites a O.K! gotcha, i'll keep that in mind from now on.

[AzCivic]

you said the towers were designed to take the impact. Now i have to go check the vids but they did! how long did they stand afterward? an hour or so, maybe more for one of them.

sounds like they did take the impact, its the hit combined with the huge ass fireball thats a bitch though. can you show me the study of the effects of an inferno on the structure of a building that has been hit with a commercial jet? and then show me how engineers took those findings and applied extra safety measures to the wtc to handle that situation? I'd like to see it.

EDIT: where are the explosions!!!!!!!!!!???????? it obvious the building just collapses. watch closely now at the point it collapses, don't just play it and say "hey its pretty loud when the building is falling, it must be explosions"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

[AzCivic]

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


I must admit I'm getting quite bored with the whole argument. but now its obvious what's far more likely based on the info presented. steve can't even stay with one conspiracy (thermite or explosives) let alone provide facts to back it up.

[KwikR6]

The more I look into this the more I convince myself this conspiracy is retarded.
I agree with you. In fire fighting school, we learned about the construction of the buildings and what those airplanes did to the structural stability of them once they hit the buildings and what the air plain fuel does to metal.

[GT40FIED]

you said the towers were designed to take the impact. Now i have to go check the vids but they did! how long did they stand afterward? an hour or so, maybe more for one of them.

sounds like they did take the impact, its the hit combined with the huge ass fireball thats a bitch though. can you show me the study of the effects of an inferno on the structure of a building that has been hit with a commercial jet? and then show me how engineers took those findings and applied extra safety measures to the wtc to handle that situation? I'd like to see it.

EDIT: where are the explosions!!!!!!!!!!???????? it obvious the building just collapses. watch closely now at the point it collapses, don't just play it and say "hey its pretty loud when the building is falling, it must be explosions"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

Sweet jesus man...try and contain it all in one post. I can't reply to three posts in one (or rather I won't simply because you lack the skill to make a cohesive statement). No...I said they were built to withstand an airliner hit. Withstand meaning to SURVIVE a hit from an airliner...not just to hang around for a while and then collapse. But hey...if you don't wanna believe the guys who built the damn thing, that's your call. You can't seriously think that the fire had much of anything to do with it. Even if it had been some huge inferno fueled by tons of jet fuel (it wasn't...the vast majority of the fuel exploded on the outside), that steel is built to withstand 2,000 degree temps for 6 hours without softening with a melting point much higher than that. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene...it burns at 1,800 degrees. But the buildings came down in about an hour followed a few hours later by a building that had sustained little to no damage at all. Seems like simple math to me. I'm also not sure why the two ideas I've presented can't be synonymous. But no...it has to be either/or, can't be both.

And lemme tell you...that's one interesting video. Here's a few others.

Clearly, CNN is crazy, too (oh...and "coup de grace" means a blow of mercy...a killing stroke. There's your language/culture lesson for the day)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.jeffrey.beatty.wmv

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv

A split screen view. Notice the inset camera (a stationary one) get slightly jilted about 5 second before smoke appears at the BASE of the building (WTC 1) in the main shot

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.lobby.big.explosion.wmv

This woman, an eyewitness survivor, is also clearly insane. Explosions in the lobby? The hell you say!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv

These firefighters (who happen to be eyewitnesses)...also clearly insane

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.carol.marin.wmv

This bitch is also obviously coo-coo bananas (listen to what she says about the "fireball" about 13 seconds in)

I think you get the idea.

[ChrisCantSkate]

this is an experiment not easly reconstructed in lab situations to test it. so its real hard to say that despite the fact there was the needed ingredients for thermite and in the random chaos from the crash that it couldnt happen. thermite isnt hard to make, any fool at home could do it, and the mixing of melted metal that melt at lower temps, int he range we're initially dealing with.... along with the needed ingredients its very possible. we have no idea what structure dmg the plane did. whos to say their rating was right? theres 5000 different possibilities of what happened maybe a beam was dented, had unnatural stress not in line with how its supposta take a load, then it snaped.. made a bang and fell. maybe probobly not but maybe. i'd believe that over thermite explosives in the building. and while we're on the subject, even if there is a huge thermite wtc conspiracy thermite dosnt explode, making that "earthquake" reading a variable you can spin to make it seem like an explosion, when in truth either way, the noise was probobly the sound of either beams snapping the first bit of building collapse or anything... i could thing of quite a few ways the building would send a sesmic wave moments before it started falling that dont involve a explosion. but then again, we're gonna think whatever we want for our own argument, right?

[GT40FIED]

this is an experiment not easly reconstructed in lab situations to test it. so its real hard to say that despite the fact there was the needed ingredients for thermite and in the random chaos from the crash that it couldnt happen. thermite isnt hard to make, any fool at home could do it, and the mixing of melted metal that melt at lower temps, int he range we're initially dealing with.... along with the needed ingredients its very possible. we have no idea what structure dmg the plane did. whos to say their rating was right? theres 5000 different possibilities of what happened maybe a beam was dented, had unnatural stress not in line with how its supposta take a load, then it snaped.. made a bang and fell. maybe probobly not but maybe. i'd believe that over thermite explosives in the building. and while we're on the subject, even if there is a huge thermite wtc conspiracy thermite dosnt explode, making that "earthquake" reading a variable you can spin to make it seem like an explosion, when in truth either way, the noise was probobly the sound of either beams snapping the first bit of building collapse or anything... i could thing of quite a few ways the building would send a sesmic wave moments before it started falling that dont involve a explosion. but then again, we're gonna think whatever we want for our own argument, right?

Well...it's true that different factors could've triggered whatever jiggled that camera, what would account for the smoke seen at the base of the building. I suppose it could've been falling debris, but I don't see anything falling at all...let alone anything big enough to cause that kind of smoke. Also, that camera appears to be some distance away from the tower. I doubt something as simple as falling debris (which was minimal at that point) would've been enougn to jar it around like that. Plus most of those eyewitness reports are talking about an explosion at street level or lower (i.e. a "fireball" going up rather than coming down).

So the conclusion I would draw from that is under the circumstances you have a building that would have survived a plane crash that is essentially brought down from the inside out. You take a building whose structure has been weakened by an impact, but is still intact, and destroy it's main support columns at a foundation level (and likely elsewhere along the way up) and it just can't hold itself up anymore.

[AzCivic]

steve, why do you keep showing the weakest evidence there could possibly be for an argument? really, you are trying so hard, but failing so bad.

steves new conspiracy: thermite devices AND explosives just for good measure (inaudible on camera yet eye witnesses explain loud shit crashing as explosions so there must be bombs!)

Sweet jesus man...try and contain it all in one post. I can't reply to three posts in one (or rather I won't simply because you lack the skill to make a cohesive statement). No...I said they were built to withstand an airliner hit. Withstand meaning to SURVIVE a hit from an airliner...not just to hang around for a while and then collapse.

i'm so sorry, it just seems like I keep finding more and more shit to post proving you have no clue what you're talking about. I suppose I'll just edit the post to help you out from now on.

it did survive the hit.

what was the bridge (or bridges) designed to survive the wind, but swayed and fell anyway?? do you get it? you can design something to do what you think it will, and then in reality it doesn't quite go as planned.

cohesive statement? because I don't rattle on and on with bullshit not really pertaining to the facts I lack some kind of skill. stfu.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Well...it's true that different factors could've triggered whatever jiggled that camera, what would account for the smoke seen at the base of the building. I suppose it could've been falling debris, but I don't see anything falling at all...let alone anything big enough to cause that kind of smoke. Also, that camera appears to be some distance away from the tower. I doubt something as simple as falling debris (which was minimal at that point) would've been enougn to jar it around like that. Plus most of those eyewitness reports are talking about an explosion at street level or lower (i.e. a "fireball" going up rather than coming down).

So the conclusion I would draw from that is under the circumstances you have a building that would have survived a plane crash that is essentially brought down from the inside out. You take a building whose structure has been weakened by an impact, but is still intact, and destroy it's main support columns at a foundation level (and likely elsewhere along the way up) and it just can't hold itself up anymore.

i thought these booms and shakings were documented on sesmographs, not what some camera pointing at the towers saw. the buildings are under hundreds of thousdays of pounds of force and when it initially gives way all that energy is released. you cant just have it destroyed, it has to be released as something. steve your in left feild now think about what your really arguing. not everything is behind the same smoke screen

[CD5Passion]

steve, why do you keep showing the weakest evidence there could possibly be for an argument? really, you are trying so hard, but failing so bad.

steves new conspiracy: thermite devices AND explosives just for good measure (inaudible on camera yet eye witnesses explain loud shit crashing as explosions so there must be bombs!)



i'm so sorry, it just seems like I keep finding more and more shit to post proving you have no clue what you're talking about. I suppose I'll just edit the post to help you out from now on.

it did survive the hit.

what was the bridge (or bridges) designed to survive the wind, but swayed and fell anyway?? do you get it? you can design something to do what you think it will, and then in reality it doesn't quite go as planned.

that isn't steves new conspiracy theory that is a theory that has been circulating our country and probably every other country..there were a lot of factors that don't ake sense and don't add up. if you can ever find it watch a film called "loose change" it's a great watch and explains many key discreptencies dealing with 9/11.

and intersting factoid.
in the Bin laden confession tape look at the details
bin laden is seen writing a note using his right hand and is wearing a gold ring

Osama Bin Laden was left handed and in islamic law it is illegal for one to wear such jewelry. dont beleive me? go watch the bin laden confession tape..plus the Osama Bin Laden in that confession tape looks absolutly nothing like Bin Laden

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

ABCD - All osama Bin Laden
E -....not Osama Bin Laden..looks nothing like osama Bin laden

Notice the real Bin ladens face is long and has very prominent cheek bones...where are those features on the Confession Bin Laden?...not there..and not Bin laden...so if it wasn't Bin Laden...then who confessed?....could it be?!...GASP...someone paid off to do it?

you can only refuse to beleive so much, there is a point where you can become ignorant and naive

[ChrisCantSkate]

oh and the smoke... same idea as a car on dirt road. you have an object moving through the air and the current it creates spirals up the loose debree. well the WTCs had store basement parking garages from what i recall, thts 70 feet of BUILDING falling, broken concrete is very dusty when its being pulverized by millions of tons of force.

[Wren57]

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

[CD5Passion]

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

funny you say that, I just finished catching up.

so instead of insulting me, did you read the facts? yes i mean facts about the bin laden confession tapes because I saw them and common sense tells me it is a hoax.

beleive it or not I have much more important things on my mind (like preparing because my girlfriend is most probably pregnant with my child), so I beleive that me reading all of this has anything to do with my integrity.

[AzCivic]

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

this is where steve rambles on and on about how it HAD to be like this, more wasn't necessary and less wouldn't have been enough because he knows these things. supposedly all just so we could go into Iraq.

[AzCivic]

beleive it or not I have much more important things on my mind (like preparing because my girlfriend is most probably pregnant with my child), so I beleive that me reading all of this has anything to do with my integrity.

I suggest you worry about that, cause this argument is over. the evidence has been put out, now the 7 or so people who will view this thread can make an informed decision.

[GT40FIED]

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

Why not do that? Do you really think we could've sold the public on the idea that a small group of terrorists would have the strategic and engineering knowledge to bring either building down? Hell...they're having a hard time selling this mess of bullshit they've come up with so far.

And actually, when I say sheep, I'm refering to you, Wren. People like you and Rob who just kind of went "well George Bush goes to muh church so I surely do believe him" and then claimed it's all common sense. You know...like there's anything common or any sense involved with bringing down 3 very large buildings.. You both claim that I'm close minded, but instead of taking anything I've said with even a grain of salt, you immediately had to search for something to counter the idea...something that fit into what you believe is reality. You keep saying my arguments are weak and whatnot, but anything you've posted is just as speculatory. If anyone had any real concrete facts, no one would have any grounds to argue any of this.

And you're right Rob...the evidence has been put out...on the towers. The pentagon is a whole other story.

[Wren57]

Nice assumptions about mine and Rob's character, Steve. For the record, I haven't been to church in 5-6 years and don't really think Bush is doing that great of a job. 9/11 has nothing to do with whether or not you support Bush, it has to do with members of an organization that hate us and have repeatedly called for jihad against America and Americans hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I do look at every argument you present, and when it doesn't fit together with your other arguments, I find online *factual* websites and post *statistics* proving your discrepencies, no whatreallyhappened.com websites and obvious propoganda bullshit. I look at the *facts* of who hijacked the plane, what they did with it, the effectiveness of the plane as a weapon, and the result. I don't know how that could be any more concrete. From that I draw my conclusions.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe that terrorists hijacked the plane and brought down the towers? Would you like non-stop video footage of the people shaking hands with bin Laden, coming into the US, going through flight-school, going through airport security, hijacking the plane and flying it into the buildings... then you'd need a camera on every weight-bearing beam in the WTC to ensure they crumpled under the hundreds of tons of weight after being weaked by a giant airplane crashing into them and the jet-fuel burn afterwards. Please answer this question with a real answer and not a "Bush is bad, bad man" answer.

[GT40FIED]

Nice assumptions about mine and Rob's character, Steve. For the record, I haven't been to church in 5-6 years and don't really think Bush is doing that great of a job. 9/11 has nothing to do with whether or not you support Bush, it has to do with members of an organization that hate us and have repeatedly called for jihad against America and Americans hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I do look at every argument you present, and when it doesn't fit together with your other arguments, I find online *factual* websites and post *statistics* proving your discrepencies, no whatreallyhappened.com websites and obvious propoganda bullshit. I look at the *facts* of who hijacked the plane, what they did with it, the effectiveness of the plane as a weapon, and the result. I don't know how that could be any more concrete. From that I draw my conclusions.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe that terrorists hijacked the plane and brought down the towers? Would you like non-stop video footage of the people shaking hands with bin Laden, coming into the US, going through flight-school, going through airport security, hijacking the plane and flying it into the buildings... then you'd need a camera on every weight-bearing beam in the WTC to ensure they crumpled under the hundreds of tons of weight after being weaked by a giant airplane crashing into them and the jet-fuel burn afterwards. Please answer this question with a real answer and not a "Bush is bad, bad man" answer.

Ask and ye shall receive. Let me start by saying that although Al Qaeda claims to want to declare a jihad on America, they simply don't have the means to pull off an effective attack. The media constantly reported that some dipshit wanna-be pilot crashed an airliner into the pentagon in manuevers that most top gun pilots couldn't pull off (500mph, just feet from the ground).

Actually, the websites you look at are just as suspect as anything I could provide. Face it...everyone has an agenda and they will bend facts to meet their agenda. Any site you could pull a "fact" off of (including government website) is nol ess "propoganda bullshit" thatn anything I could site. You know why facts don't matter here? Because there are no facts readily available to the public...it's ALL speculation. You can accuse me of not knowing the ins and outs of structural engineering (I'll readily admit I'm not a scholar in the subject), but you claim to know better than me. You don't. My guess is that you're a business major which would include nothing in the fields of structural engineering or architecture. No one in the public really knows what brought those buildings down. Not me, not you...no one. So my speculation as to why they came down is as much "common sense" as yours. The reason I asked that no one include Wikipedia is that any poor dumb son of a bitch can add an entry there. There's no filter on what goes up and what doesn't. Sure...if you submit bogus shit it will get deleted...eventually. Until then it's open for anyone to see. If you don't like whatreallyhappened.com (a site I have actually never really looked at aside from those videos), I can find a miriad of others.

What would it take for me to believe the government's account of 9/11? Nothing short of a miracle. Dimes to dollars even if they aren't lying about the official cause (which is virtually implausible), you just know they're lying about something. You know all of that bitching people did about the pantagon attacks? All the government would've had to do is release a few surveillance tapes. At the very least, 3 cameras should have caught the event, but all tapes were confiscated and we were given 5 (count 'em...5) frames of footage that are so distorted it could be anything. Shit...I could chuck a cardboard box at the pentagon and acheive the same results. Somebody somewhere is lying about something and the entire administration is sticking with the lie because if they don't then they all go down.

You don't have to listen to me...just look at some things collected by some people with a LOT more free time than I have:

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/ess911.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

[Wren57]

What would it take for me to believe the government's account of 9/11? Nothing short of a miracle... you just know they're lying about something.

Nope, I don't "just know they're lying about something." The sequence of events dating back to the creating of Israel makes perfect logical chronological sense... to me, at least. Another question to you: what war did we start in reaction to 9/11? If you say Afghanistan, I'm going to ask what we have to gain by being in Afghanistan. If you say Iraq, I'm going to point you to a UN resolution that could have been upheld using force regardless of the existance of 9/11. Oh, it was just used to get popular support for a war? Well, it was NEVER a popular war; even before entering Iraq the country was split on whether we should go or not. So, since we can't see eye to eye on the physical evidence, I guess the motive argument can now be addressed.

The only possible motive I can see is that it has led to an expansion of federal and executive powers, but that also is not popular and could've happened without 9/11 due to the SCOTUS being loaded with federalists. Here is where you say "No it couldn't have happened" like you know for sure... well, legally speaking, it still could have happened. If anything, there is going to be a huge backlash against federal power because of all of this... and you don't think that if this is a long-plotted conspiracy, that these conspiracy plotters would think long-term about the political and social consequences?

[AzCivic]

why can't the conspircy theorists agree on what their conspiracy is? if this was all put together by the gov't why did they crash the 4th plane in a field? just to make us scratch our heads?

why question what crashed into the pentagon? if the gov't had control of 3 planes why couldn't they have control of another to crash into the pentagon?

I like how steve likes to belittle those who are religous, yet his famous professor is a mormon who's greatest work is "Proof that Christ visited central america".

[GT40FIED]

Nope, I don't "just know they're lying about something." The sequence of events dating back to the creating of Israel makes perfect logical chronological sense... to me, at least. Another question to you: what war did we start in reaction to 9/11? If you say Afghanistan, I'm going to ask what we have to gain by being in Afghanistan. If you say Iraq, I'm going to point you to a UN resolution that could have been upheld using force regardless of the existance of 9/11. Oh, it was just used to get popular support for a war? Well, it was NEVER a popular war; even before entering Iraq the country was split on whether we should go or not. So, since we can't see eye to eye on the physical evidence, I guess the motive argument can now be addressed.

The only possible motive I can see is that it has led to an expansion of federal and executive powers, but that also is not popular and could've happened without 9/11 due to the SCOTUS being loaded with federalists. Here is where you say "No it couldn't have happened" like you know for sure... well, legally speaking, it still could have happened. If anything, there is going to be a huge backlash against federal power because of all of this... and you don't think that if this is a long-plotted conspiracy, that these conspiracy plotters would think long-term about the political and social consequences?

To your first question, I actually think of Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. I look at one as build up to the other. I think we were promised both would be quick and clean..."shock and awe" and whatnot...and both turned out to be miserable. People have pretty much forgotten about Afghanistan these days, but a friend of mine stationed in Iraq said you couldn't pay him enough to transfer to Afghanistan. Yeah, we could have gone into either country without everything that happened...but who would our allies be? I don't even think England would've back us if all we had was a U.N. resolution. I also think both events just fueled the bias and, in many cases, hatred of islam as a whole in this country. I'm not one of those people who go against racial profiling...I mean in the hypothetical if 19 guys hijack planes and do nasty shit with them and they all happen to be arab, I think it's fair to lean on arabs a bit. But people have used islam to justify a lot of things and they've perverted the religion to suit they're needs. Sure, there are people who'll go crazy with religion, but that's true of just about any religion (and that goes double for this country).

As for motive, if it's not war then it's, as you pointed out, expantion of powers or the suspension of civilian rights. True, we could have done it without any fireworks, but it's amazing how compliable people become with a good dose of fear and an even bigger dose of ethnocentrism and nationalism. Suddenly people looked at the PATRIOT Act...arguably the most unpatriotic document ever written...and just accepted it. Hell...some people even supported it and still do, all in the name of the "greater good". Do you really think this would've flown without the fear of terrorism? You think Jonh Q. Dipshit would think it's ok to suspend habeus corpus and tap people's phones without court orders or the presentation of any evidence? I mean essentially it makes the constitution null and void. I honestly don't think any of that could've been accomplished without a severe catalyst.

And Rob...I'm not exactly sure what you have issue with. Are you asking me why different people have different ideas? That's really beyond me. I know you're not used to people having differing opinions, but it really does happen. And yes...I do enjoy belittling religion because it breeds this sort of sheep-like following where "if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it".

[AzCivic]

And Rob...I'm not exactly sure what you have issue with. Are you asking me why different people have different ideas? That's really beyond me. I know you're not used to people having differing opinions, but it really does happen. And yes...I do enjoy belittling religion because it breeds this sort of sheep-like following where "if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it".

I have issue with this supposed conspiracy that not even the conspiracy theorists themselves can agree on. How can you present an argument to what the gov't says happened if you don't even know what you are trying to say. We get that they(you) think the gov't had something to do with it, but if you're going to provide an alternative at least agree on what the hell that alternative is.

"if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it"

LOL says the one who, with no proof of his own and very weak evidence provided by others, is arguing that the gov't killed thousands of its own people just to get a little more power and get a couple of allies to help us (as if we need it) attack Iraq.

way to dodge the questions, and make up replies to something that wasn't even asked.

[Gone]

I'm not getting into this argument but I just wanted to state that GT was almost completely correct saying that it'd be rare for a building as tall as that to come crashing down in a perfect line.

Yet, I'm not saying it is impossible. Almost everything is possible just give it time, but in a physics calculation that building might as well have been made of wood to not put up with that resistance (besides the fact that wood wouldn't hold shit, just something weaker than metal to say).

You also have to think about the strength of the plane's initial impact on the building. That first connection with a steel beam could make the entire building structurely unsound, depending on the level of engineering each floor was put into mind.

I'm not sure how the building was crafted so I leave no remark on it. Maybe those "terrorists" knew where it's weak points were (from some anonymous person(s)). Everything has it's possibilities until proven otherwise.

[AzCivic]

I'm not getting into this argument but I just wanted to state that GT was almost completely correct saying that it'd be rare for a building as tall as that to come crashing down in a perfect line.


first off it didn't fall completely straight, the portion above the crash did tilt. so the crash obviously messed something up. secondly what do you expect, it to just lean over like the leaning tower of pisa and then fall? its not a jenga game, i'm sure it had an extremely strong base to prevent it from just tipping over.

[AzCivic]

you know what's funny? if the gov't would've said not only did terrorists crash into the towers with planes they also planted explosives and thermite devices, Steve would be arguing some other crack pot point of view, like the gov't used a ground shaking device to bring the buildings down. "you know how much explosives and thermite it'd take to take down a couple of buildings like that!?" he'd ask, and then explain how it'd be impossible to follow through with such a plan w/ out being found out. Its not the evidence to the contrary that made up his mind, its the fact that the gov't told him it happened a certain way so he just can't accept it.

[GT40FIED]

you know what's funny? if the gov't would've said not only did terrorists crash into the towers with planes they also planted explosives and thermite devices, Steve would be arguing some other crack pot point of view, like the gov't used a ground shaking device to bring the buildings down. "you know how much explosives and thermite it'd take to take down a couple of buildings like that!?" he'd ask, and then explain how it'd be impossible to follow through with such a plan w/ out being found out. Its not the evidence to the contrary that made up his mind, its the fact that the gov't told him it happened a certain way so he just can't accept it.

Actually, what's really funny is that you've really begun talking way out of your ass in a (once again) complete lack of a cohesive thought process. If the government could take a serious and unbiased look at everything that happened, I'd shut my mouth. They had that dog and pony show that they called the 9/11 Commission, but there are no less than 115 pieces of evidence either omitted or ignored. Most of this evidence is well documented and not anywhere close to the conspiracy fringe (although some of it is admittedly suspect). Much like the joke that was the Warren Commission (you know people run out of ideas when they turn to magic), the government pretended to search for the truth but ended up feeding the public the most feeble explanation they could come up with. Every time I see a "commission" being formed, I just have this sneaking suspicion I'm about to be fed a load of bullshit. Now that I think about it, all the government would've had to do to shut people up is say "yeah, they put those explosives there before hand". Since they haven't and it would have significantly bolstered their case, I'm guessing they don't have any answer for it.

And to quickly touch on your reply to Gone, if the top of the tower (all floors above the effected area) toppled over sideways, where's the impetus for the rest of the building to fall straight down? I mean...the effected area should either pull the whole building over with it or it would relieve structural pressure on the lower floors leaving them intact. What you're talking about is a building essentially falling vertically in an almost upside down "L" shape. I'm no structural engineer, but I really don't see that happening.

As I said back on the first page of this thread, this is exactly why it's so hard to have any reasonable discussion on this topic or any subject like it. I could provide you with independently verified video of Bush with his finger on the button and you'd still call me a "crack pot" or whatever colorful yet useless euphamism about me being crazy simply because I question what I've been told. If you can live with what you've been told, plot holes and spelling errors included, that's cool. I can't. It doesn't make me or anyone else crazy. It makes me curious and inquisitive. And really, for every "weak" piece of evidence I've presented, you've come back with something equally as inconclusive...so why the hell am I still getting this "weak argument" bullshit? Face it...you can't prove your end of it any more than I can prove mine.

[Gone]

I don't stick my head into public issues since I hardly care, so I was not informed of how the buildling fell. I was just stating that from what was said in this thread. Don't mind me.

[CD5Passion]

If you can live with what you've been told, plot holes and spelling errors included, that's cool. I can't. It doesn't make me or anyone else crazy. It makes me curious and inquisitive. And really, for every "weak" piece of evidence I've presented, you've come back with something equally as inconclusive...so why the hell am I still getting this "weak argument" bullshit? Face it...you can't prove your end of it any more than I can prove mine.

with that said I think this thread is pretty much done for. I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place...haha wait didn't this thread start with a focus on NorKor?....interesting..

but like steve said you people can't prove your side anymore than we can prove ours.

[AzCivic]

our pesky gov't is at it again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_re_eu/terror_plot_the_big_one_8

quick steve scour the internet and write a big huge post whining about how whatever we're being told is a lie!

[Wren57]

This was clearly orchestrated by the government to remind the people why they should be afraid and why they should trade their liberty for security. Duh.

[AzCivic]

For reals! Didn't you see V for Vendetta?

[GT40FIED]

our pesky gov't is at it again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_re_eu/terror_plot_the_big_one_8

quick steve scour the internet and write a big huge post whining about how whatever we're being told is a lie!

Why the hell would I do that? That's a much more plausible course of events given the capabilities of a bunch of limey brits. Besides, since those flights would've blown up over the ocean going from the UK to the US, sounds like it was aimed more at UK citizens. Let that puppet Blair deal with it.

[AzCivic]

I just hope I don't get the rubber glove treatment before I board my plane this saturday...

"Sir, you do know this generic hair gel is against the rules and in bad taste right?"

"Sorry I forgot, what do you mean bad taste?"

"Spread 'em"

[GT40FIED]

What if you're already wearing the hair gel? Theoretically you could just blow your head up mid flight, couldn't you? I'd like to know a little more about what these people were carrying exactly. All the news said was that it was in liquid form.

[CD5Passion]

What if you're already wearing the hair gel? Theoretically you could just blow your head up mid flight, couldn't you? I'd like to know a little more about what these people were carrying exactly. All the news said was that it was in liquid form.

yeah really, haha they had nitroglycerin..thatd be insane O_O