Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wtc

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

  • Re: Wtc

    Originally posted by deathknight View Post
    I just can't understand how ppl can take these statements at face value from our government who hasn't been straight with us on one issue during the bush presidency?

    You can find all the evidence you want, but unless I can talk to the person being quoted and ask them some questions myself, how can I be sure the person even exists? That they aren't just making up sources like that one reporter for the New York Times?

    I just don't have any credibility in the evidence I'm seeing. If a plane flying into a steel building like the WTC could do the damage it did, I don't see how the Pentagon wasn't obliterated by the force of the plane and the fire?
    Think about all the footage that came from the initial attack on Baghdad where hundreds of cruise missiles carrying high explosives scored direct hits to buildings of various sizes, yet many of the buildings were still standing. How can you assert that one passenger jet carrying human cargo and jet fuel could obliterate a 29 acre hardened military headquarters? The building stands on 41,000 concrete support columns, one side of the Pentagon is over 900 feet long and it is the largest office complex in the world!

    Regarding the government not being straight with you, what or whom is your standard? Or does it depend on what my definition of the word "is" is? :)

    Comment


    • Re: Wtc

      Originally posted by Kerostasis View Post
      Alright then, that leaves, I think, 7Shades and Switch as the only ones claiming that our government intentionally killed 3000 of its own people. I apologize for blaming you for their beliefs, I got slightly confused on who was saying what.
      I haven't been in this thread for some time, I have some catching up to do. Hope I haven't missed anything too important.

      Kerostasis: You need to re-read the original post. I didn't make a claim, I merely asked what people's points of view were.

      It (the OP) also didn't have anything to do with the fact that the "Government killed 3,000 of it's own people", it was alluding as to why WTC7 fell down, given all of the evidence against it doing so.

      I was neither on one side of the fence or another, merely trying to stimulate interest and debate in an area which seems to be gathering steam, and garnering attention from some very smart people.

      These claims have been getting bandied around for the last several years, but only now people are sitting up and paying attention. That interests me.

      I see the point you made earlier - about "the Government were either responsible or they were not", and it's very valid. I don't think everything in this world is so black an white.

      Thanks,
      7Shades

      How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
      And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
      - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

      Comment


      • Re: Wtc

        True, you never specifically made the claim that the government engineered 9/11. You did, however, spend the first page trying to explain how WTC7 couldn't possibly have collapsed due to the jet-liner attack. Since it did, obviously, collapse somehow, I can only assume you suspected some other form of attack, which was intentionally concealed by the government to prevent public knowledge, and successfully concealed even from Congress and all of the investigators who would have a personal political stake in revealing such information--which strongly suggests government complicity in conducting the operation.

        In short, your logic left few alternatives, yet you were unwilling to actually state the end result of your logic. So I stated it for you. If you have since come to the conclusion that line of logic is incorrect, I applaud you for the decision.

        On the other hand, if you still hold that general line of logic, but came to a slightly different end result than mine, I'd be interested to hear it.

        Comment


        • Re: Wtc

          True, you never specifically made the claim that the government engineered 9/11. You did, however, spend the first page trying to explain how WTC7 couldn't possibly have collapsed due to the jet-liner attack.
          No, I didn't "try to explain" it. I repeated claims made by experts in their respected fields. Claims which to me, are very interesting, and could use some answers.

          Since it did, obviously, collapse somehow, I can only assume you suspected some other form of attack, which was intentionally concealed by the government to prevent public knowledge, and successfully concealed even from Congress and all of the investigators who would have a personal political stake in revealing such information--which strongly suggests government complicity in conducting the operation.
          I feel you've jumped to a bit of a conclusion there...I like playing Devil's advocate, I like stimulating debate, and hearing everyone's opinion (provided they can keep it at an intelligent level). I sit with a thoroughly open mind though.

          For instance, I hear that in the video of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon (I've never taken the time to study it), the flag hangs straight down, implying that it was filmed (faked) under the gravity of earth. I might wonder (and please, let's not jump to the conclusion that I am wondering) if it was faked and why it would be faked. It doesn't mean I believe it was faked.

          But it's interesting to me that people think it may be faked. And it makes me wonder why they think it was faked. That was the intention of this thread. To hear from the people who think that there was something staged about the collapse of WTC7, and how that ties in with the rest of 9/11. I just want to hear opinions.

          In short, your logic left few alternatives, yet you were unwilling to actually state the end result of your logic. So I stated it for you.
          Herein lies the problem...

          If you have since come to the conclusion that line of logic is incorrect, I applaud you for the decision.
          Which line of logic? The one which was stated for me?

          On the other hand, if you still hold that general line of logic, but came to a slightly different end result than mine, I'd be interested to hear it.
          I have not as yet come to an end result. I thankyou for your shared brain cycles, but they are not as yet required. I'm still thinking with an open mind, and I would be grateful if you could do the same.

          If you really want to hear my opinion, here it is:
          I don't believe that the Government would be capable of keeping such a massive job secret, considering how many resources it would have taken to complete.
          I do believe that the Government would be willing and capable of bringing these towers down in a controlled fashion, if they knew about 9/11 in advance, with the intention of letting the atrocity happen whilst also keeping casualties to a minimum (a relative term) - this plan being put in place so that they could stage their "War on Terrorism", to achieve all of the political agendas which some believe they are trying to. I belive that they are willing and capable - whether or not I believe they actually did isn't really up for discussion, I have no real conclusion either way, but I know such atrocities have been commited in the past for similar gains.

          For example: During WWII, a Finnish submarine spotted Japanese submarines on the way to Pearl Harbour. British commandos sunk that Finnish ship (under Winston Churchill's orders) with all hands on board (around 300 if I recall), so that the Japanese attack would go ahead and America would be drawn into the war. You can read Cristopher Creighton's OpJB for details - not exactly on-topic, but it makes my point that Governments will do anything if their reasons are enough.

          With respect and sincerity,
          Last edited by 7ShadesOSin; 06-15-2007, 06:39 AM.
          7Shades

          How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
          And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
          - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

          Comment


          • Re: Wtc

            Originally posted by 7ShadesOSin View Post
            For example: During WWII, a Finnish submarine spotted Japanese submarines on the way to Pearl Harbour. British commandos sunk that Finnish ship (under Winston Churchill's orders) with all hands on board (around 300 if I recall), so that the Japanese attack would go ahead and America would be drawn into the war. You can read Cristopher Creighton's OpJB for details - not exactly on-topic, but it makes my point that Governments will do anything if their reasons are enough.
            A Finnish submarine in the south Pacific? Are you serious? Please enlighten us on that claim, as well as any of the other "government atrocities" you cite - aside from the tyrants that we have been ridding the world of for the past 100 or so years of course (Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin etc.).

            Comment


            • Re: Wtc

              My apologies, it is a quirk of mine that when I am presented with statements with implied conclusions attached I cannot ever consider the statements in isolation--I always consider the statements and the implied conclusions as a package. I should understand that most people do not do that--although may I recommend it as a very mind-expanding tactic to try out?

              Comment


              • Re: Wtc

                There really is no way to judge this though.. Politics is a b**ch. I look at it this way... It doesnt matter who our president is.. Whether he / she is republican or democratic... This is my reason for saying this..

                Politician Party A ( Rebulican ) wants to pass a bill / law, or do something in general that will benefit the US in general...

                Politician Party B ( Democratic ) denies the bills / laws / or anything in that nature that will make the Republican party look good due to the fact that they are always thinking about the next election...

                And Vise Versa..

                See if one party does something that benefits us... It makes them look good... Therefore people will want to reelect them..

                I hate politics... hence the reason I got out of the Army after 8 years...
                QUOTE : "Icsist has a little shameless behavior in the past"
                Nice remark guys.

                Comment


                • Re: Wtc

                  http://www.break.com/index/loose_cha...mechanics.html

                  This pretty much sums up the two different sides pretty well. I'll let this video speak for itself.
                  "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wtc

                    Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
                    I'm curious if anyone has seen the film "9/11 Press for Truth". I saw it mentioned here:

                    http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=74

                    This appears to be not about some government conspiracy, but rather it's opposite, a massive chain of incompetence without accountability.
                    DDC is now hosting a copy of the video:

                    http://action.downsizedc.org/media.php?cid=74
                    Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                    snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                    Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wtc

                      Originally posted by Judge_Leo View Post
                      A Finnish submarine in the south Pacific? Are you serious? Please enlighten us on that claim, as well as any of the other "government atrocities" you cite - aside from the tyrants that we have been ridding the world of for the past 100 or so years of course (Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin etc.).
                      My mistake. It was Dutch.

                      I gave you the name of the book and author in which the claim is made (you would have to read the book to ascertain whether or not his credentials and story are true).

                      I don't know which other Government atrocities you're speaking of, because I haven't cited any, as far as I can recall.

                      @Kerostasis:
                      My apologies, it is a quirk of mine that when I am presented with statements with implied conclusions attached I cannot ever consider the statements in isolation--I always consider the statements and the implied conclusions as a package. I should understand that most people do not do that--although may I recommend it as a very mind-expanding tactic to try out?
                      Quite the opposite. If you assume conclusions to always be implied, then you are limiting your mind, rather than expanding it, because you are only capable of seeing one outcome. You also make yourself incapable of looking at something completely objectively, without letting your opinion get in the way.

                      And opinion is what it is. You can't just label it "implied conclusion" and then say "Ergo, I'm correct". It's only your conclusion.

                      Implying Government involvement allows for a multitude of outcomes (I already gave one, above).

                      If you want to speak about mind-expanding - you need to keep an open mind.

                      Regards,
                      7Shades

                      How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
                      And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
                      - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wtc

                        Originally posted by 7ShadesOSin View Post
                        @Kerostasis:


                        Quite the opposite. If you assume conclusions to always be implied, then you are limiting your mind, rather than expanding it, because you are only capable of seeing one outcome. You also make yourself incapable of looking at something completely objectively, without letting your opinion get in the way.

                        And opinion is what it is. You can't just label it "implied conclusion" and then say "Ergo, I'm correct". It's only your conclusion.

                        Implying Government involvement allows for a multitude of outcomes (I already gave one, above).

                        If you want to speak about mind-expanding - you need to keep an open mind.

                        Regards,
                        Quite the contrary, I do not assume conclusions to be always implied: it is perfectly possible to make statements that do not have implied conclusions attached. However, when people make statements that do have implied conclusions attached, and the truth of the statement is in question, the quality of the attached conclusion can be an extremely useful tool in evaluating the likelihood of the original statement. Conveniently, people have a noticeable tendency to make those types of statement when engaged in online debates, as it allows you to slip your own conclusion into an argument without most people noticing. Identifying these types of stealth statements is not a way of injecting my own opinion into an argument--it actually allows for more objectivity rather than less, because it allows examination of all relevant facts.

                        The issue obviously becomes more complicated when a statement can lead to a multitude of outcomes, but often all of those potential outcomes will be very similar or share some defining feature that can still be analysed. For example, your "alternate" suggestion for the conclusions of your statement still involves government mass murder of its own citizens, since the towers collapse killed many more people than the initial impact. And their ability to pull off such an operation successfully and covertly definitely has to be taken into consideration when proposing that the towers were demolished.

                        For example, could demolitions experts have predicted in advance which floors would be struck by planes being flown by amateurs? It would be impossible to selectively prepare only the area around the impact because the area of impact would be unknown until after the planes had already hit. And the collapse pattern from failure at a single point would look drastically different than a collapse pattern from failure at multiple floors caused by explosives.

                        Far more glaringly, our government has proven incapable of concealing even the most insignificant details of their operations so long as there is someone who stands to benefit by revealing them. Do you have any idea how many people would benefit from exposing such an operation? It is virtually inconceivable that such a thing would remain in secrecy for so long after the fact. If there was even the slightest hint of such a thing, Democratic ambitions of total defeat of the republican party could be made true in an instant.

                        You cannot simply suggest that the WTC was destroyed by an insider, and then ignore the question of how an insider would accomplish such a thing, or who it would be.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wtc

                          I can't believe this thread is still active.
                          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~
                          I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~
                          Feel free to quote me. ~

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wtc

                            heh, neither can I. but just to throw something else into the equation

                            the Airplanes that hit the world trade centers are;

                            Boeing 767-200ER American Airlines
                            Boeing 757-222 United Airlines

                            now, the Boeing 767-200 is an airplane used for International flights, it routinely crosses the atlantic on flights from for example. Munich germany to Chicago illinois the airplanes 3 fuel tanks carry a total that's just over 152,000 pounds of Jet-A1 fuel, a set grade of kerosene that meets very specific standards to be sold. the burning propertys of the fuel are such that in a liquid state fire will not ignite it =D, however once it reaches its flash temperature of 38*c becomes highly explosive to a point where it makes gasoline looks un-eficient. surely once the airplane hit the towers this fuel evaporated and all went up, as for how much of this 160,000 pounds of fuel

                            on a quick estimate the 767's engines burn around 5.2 thousand pounds of fuel an hour. each assuming they had a good tail wind and the airplane was running for 45 minutes before its demize

                            10.4x5.5(around a five and a half hour flight from Boston to LA)
                            57,2x1000(57 thousand pounds base fuel
                            plus fuel to the alternate=extra 4000
                            plus the contingency of .6% enroute= roughly 3,000
                            and give them a good tail wind considering their direction i can remove that contingency making their total loaded fuel at the gate in boston 61,200 pounds of fuel convert this back to gallons 9,622 gallons. they probably burned around 8,000 pounds inflight making the total 8364 gallons. thats a LOT of fricking fuel. take it from an aviation geek. dont have time to go over the 757 calculations right now. but it would probably be around 1500 gallons less then the 767

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wtc

                              and the conspiracy that makes me laugh the most :P

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io

                              when clearly United airlines has a weird paint job for the bellys of their planes
                              http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1226943/L/
                              see those grey missiles on the bottom lol

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wtc

                                jewsdidwtc.com

                                yeah.

                                (not at all serious, I dont find it funny)
                                Last edited by Skud; 06-27-2007, 08:46 PM.
                                Skud


                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X