Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wtc

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Wtc

    Just to confirm that the gov was being dishonest at the VERY LEAST.

    We all agree that the administration had the EPA release false information claiming that the dust was not harmful. Yes, we all agree that occured? Despite the EPAs initial concern, the white house pressed that the danger be mitigated in the minds of the public. Now hundreds are developing cancer thanks to the lack of precautions deliberately instilled by a false safe message. Probably thousands --- but astoundingly, hundreds have developed it in a matter of just a few years. I'm sure many many more people will suffer with the effects in the years to come.

    So yes -- hook line and sinker -- we caught them lying to us. It happened. Can't be refuted. Baby steps --- they lied about a minor detail that only exposed more people to fatal danger than the number that died on the day the towers fell.
    |TG|Switch

    Better known as:
    That noob who crashed the chopper.
    That noob who ran over the mine.
    That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
    That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Wtc

      I call straw man to that Switch... what does this have to do with the Tower conspiracy???? I am sure that the evidence of the dust from the towers was inconclusive. The government is also in charge of not creating panic amongst its citizens. Isn't it horrible enough that the dust has caused many people cancer? Do you think that the rescuers would have done anything different? I can guarantee you not.
      "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Gen. George Patton

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Wtc

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in567489.shtml
        http://www.villagevoice.com/news/053...i,67520,5.html
        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/ny...erland&emc=rss

        Why are you sure that the evidence was inconclusive?
        The evidence said there was a danger, and it was intentionally suppressed against the EPAs better judgment.
        There was nothing whatsoever inconclusive about the danger of the dust from the tower implosions. It was a standing fact that the towers were inundated with asbestos. Add all the other chemicals from the burning electronics and destroyed lighting and the simple respiratory danger of particulate matter and no tests are require to come to the assumption that it is not safe. Tests were done, however, and the EPA immediately advised respiratory precautions. Before such precautions were released, the EPA was ordered to minimize the sense of danger.

        This 'straw man' is here to show people who are die hard pro gov. that there are clear intentional lies produced by the administration. Some people really think the government only has concern for each and every citizens well being. In this case they were caught lying in order to get the economic infrastructure back on track at the expense of individuals in nyc. Red handed, caught. Done.

        Once people can accept this 'minor deception' they may be willing to consider worse events.

        This just a side note really, when considering the larger event.

        At no point did you negate anything I said ferris. You tried, and I think you believe you did, but your arguments were not cogent and they did not take the legs out of what I said. As far as personal insults -- I didn't start that. I tried very hard not to -- but when you say something along the lines of ' the towers didn't fall straight down, there was debris flying off the sides' it becomes very difficult to take you seriously.
        |TG|Switch

        Better known as:
        That noob who crashed the chopper.
        That noob who ran over the mine.
        That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
        That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Wtc

          It is equally hard to take you seriously when you allege that our government, known to be incompetent by most measures, unable to keep Covert CIA Black ops from being broadcast in the media to our enemies, has managed to orchestrate a conspiracy involving thousands of government workers aimed at intentionally killing thousands of civilians, and after 6 years no one has leaked a thing!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Wtc

            Originally posted by Kerostasis View Post
            It is equally hard to take you seriously when you allege that our government, known to be incompetent by most measures, unable to keep Covert CIA Black ops from being broadcast in the media to our enemies, has managed to orchestrate a conspiracy involving thousands of government workers aimed at intentionally killing thousands of civilians, and after 6 years no one has leaked a thing!
            Just because a government is incompetent it doesn't mean that there aren't highly competent individuals in it. If you have a suitably devious person in a position of authority where they can utilise the right professionals, they can achieve terrible results.
            BFCL TF2 league admin

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Wtc

              the problem is anyone can make up any evidence they want say they are an expert have a phd but it doesn't make it correct

              unless someone was to try to recreate the disaster many times under controlled circumstances, called an experiment, then we won't know really what happened

              correct me if i'm wrong but a jetliner has been crashed into buildingds how many times? 2 confirmed and allegedly a third

              i disagree with the pentagon due to the lack of damage done to it - imo a plane that size with that much force would due major damage to it plus the fire if hot enough to collapse two towers would destroy the pentagon

              now, a few questions i have:
              1. if there was fuel in wtc7, wtf was it there? who stores that much fuel in a building in the middle of the most populous city in the US?
              2. just because the bush government is incompetent in most aspects, do you think perhaps there are ppl in the government who are smart enough, powerful enough and motivated enough to do something like that?
              3. call me crazy but what's the difference between a few thousand ppl dying in a single incident and a few thousand ppl dying overseas in a war to line the pockets of bush's cronies?


              even if bush or his administration didn't destory the towers by their explicit actions, their implicit actions led to the death of thousands of civilians, police, and firefighters at ground zero
              also, their explicit actions in denying medical care to the survivors and their conduct in the wars in afghanistan and iraq have led to the deaths of thousands more - hundreds of thousands if you count iraqi civs but i doubt they rate to most here
              EDITED
              Last edited by CingularDuality; 05-27-2007, 12:58 PM. Reason: Completely inappropriate language.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Wtc

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZpXvCqjemI
                Found video of the pentagon impact.

                The only visible detail of the plane is in a single frame. The refresh rate was too slow on the security camera. Anyway, what is visible is a very long, narrow nose cone/tip. Compare that to the large dome tip of the plane type declared to have made the hit and it becomes arguably clear that it was not a 757.

                Beyond casual argument is math.
                Consider the distance from the camera to the tip of the projectile and to where the projectile meets the maximum width of the cameras field of view.
                Throw in some simple geometry and you can determine exactly how much was visible, according to width.

                see my silly paint drawing to see what I mean. Very basic. http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ashmathso9.png

                I didn't dig this crazy theory up on anyone else's site. I was just watching the footage and came up with this myself. Don't go saying its not scientifically valid. Geometry is geometry whether or not I have a phd. This test would make a solid determination of how much nose should be visible in the footage. Once thats set, you can look at a 757 and say, "hey -- at x meters back we should be able to see the cockpit windows. I don't see it in this video -- odd."

                Don't blow up about the drawing -- this is a very simple point that isn't geared to prove either way, it'll just provide solid data that could determine either way. Woot for bipartizanship.
                |TG|Switch

                Better known as:
                That noob who crashed the chopper.
                That noob who ran over the mine.
                That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
                That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Wtc

                  Originally posted by deathknight View Post
                  the problem is anyone can make up any evidence they want say they are an expert have a phd but it doesn't make it correct

                  unless someone was to try to recreate the disaster many times under controlled circumstances, called an experiment, then we won't know really what happened
                  Correct, regardless of the incident in question.

                  Originally posted by deathknight View Post
                  3. call me crazy but what's the difference between a few thousand ppl dying in a single incident and a few thousand ppl dying overseas in a war to line the pockets of bush's cronies?

                  even if bush or his administration didn't destory the towers by their explicit actions, their implicit actions led to the death of thousands of civilians, police, and firefighters at ground zero
                  also, their explicit actions in denying medical care to the survivors and their conduct in the wars in afghanistan and iraq have led to the deaths of thousands more - hundreds of thousands if you count iraqi civs but i doubt they rate to most here

                  so bush = mass murderer so hopefully he gets gonorrhea and dies that f**kin worthless piece of s**t
                  It's worth noting that the events which led to 9/11 started on Clintons watch. If you think 9/11 didn't happen iif a dem had beaten Bush, you're nuts. Likewise if you think Haliburton wouldn't have benefited from the "war" on terror.

                  Your last paragraph really REALLY isn't appropriate conduct. That's the sort of thing that will get a sandbox thread shut down. If you want to spout opinion (which is what most of us are doing here), at least keep it clean and respectful.
                  BFCL TF2 league admin

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Wtc

                    sorry didn't mean to be out of line

                    but i disagree with your statement that 9/11 would have happened either way ... there is no way to know what would have happened had someone else been in power whether rep or dem

                    but we do know that there was ample warning that there would be an attack and nothing was done - had another rep or a dem been in power they may have acted and stopped it, we don't know

                    and to blame clinton is pure idiocy he was out of office for over 7 months when the attack happened which is more than enough time for bush to be responsible for the things that happen

                    i'm not saying clinton is perfect, he screwed up alot but to blame him for 9/11, bin laden, iraq, afghanistan is fallacious in my book

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Wtc

                      Originally posted by deathknight View Post
                      sorry didn't mean to be out of line

                      but i disagree with your statement that 9/11 would have happened either way ... there is no way to know what would have happened had someone else been in power whether rep or dem

                      but we do know that there was ample warning that there would be an attack and nothing was done - had another rep or a dem been in power they may have acted and stopped it, we don't know

                      and to blame clinton is pure idiocy he was out of office for over 7 months when the attack happened which is more than enough time for bush to be responsible for the things that happen

                      i'm not saying clinton is perfect, he screwed up alot but to blame him for 9/11, bin laden, iraq, afghanistan is fallacious in my book

                      Would have happened anyway and in fact the WTC was attacked under clinton too.

                      Lucky Shot

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Wtc

                        i know wtc was attacked under clinton but i don't see how you can say it would have happened

                        by that logic you are saying that it doesn't matter who is in government the exact same decisions are going to be made?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Wtc

                          Originally posted by 7ShadesOSin View Post
                          True. But according to the laws of entropy, a 48-storey building collapsing due to weakened supports would go sideways - like any other failing upright structure.
                          Um, what are these laws of entropy you talk about? Do you mean the laws of thermodynamics? They don't tell us how 48 story buildings fall down.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Wtc

                            There isn't that much difference between the parties and it happened to a Republican and a Democrat both. Help me figure out how it wouldn't have happened in a 3rd hypothetical.

                            Lucky Shot

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Wtc

                              i'm not saying it would have happened or it wouldn't have happened

                              what i'm saying is i don't think it's logical or a sound arguement to say that it would have happened

                              i do agree that both democrats and republicans are very similar nowadays but don't think that every politician is that similar that they would make exactly the same decisions

                              i think logically we can only look at what happened under president bush and you could argue what different pols would have done but those are only hypothetical situations

                              i think any politician who either a) didn't see any political gain, or enough political gain by allowing the 4 planes to be highjacked, or b) was human enough to see that the planes should have been stopped from being highjacked would have stopped it if they paid any creedence to the intelligence

                              now bush and his advisors may have thought the intelligence flawed but the ppl whose job it was to give him that info except for rice thought the info was credible and he didn't seem to have a problem believing the intelligence on saddam hussein having wmd's

                              imo this is bush's mess and i think he deserves the blame for it ... that comes with being president

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Wtc

                                Originally posted by deathknight View Post
                                by that logic you are saying that it doesn't matter who is in government the exact same decisions are going to be made?
                                Precisely. Al Qaeda doesn't discriminate. They just hate us period. I would imagine they'd prefer a Dem, though, because they might feel safer from retaliation. Plus a Dem in charge would be more willing to talk about their feelings, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. But that's beside the point. Terrorists don't like a lefty any more than a righty. Remember the thread earlier about how similar Americans are despite our political differences? That's how they see us, too. Just like with animals, there are brown dogs and white dogs. They're different, but the same. So in a nutshell, terrorists just quite simply think we're infidel dogs. Why is that such a hard concept to understand?
                                "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X