|
pacman
-
[profile]
|
Tue Jun 14th 18:57 2005 / #1 |
It always takes a while for the people to come around and see that government in fact lied. The sinking of the maine, hitlers Reichstag, the assasination of jfk, operation northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor. ah yes history repeats itself. I firmly believe that in 30 years the idea that these building were in fact knocked down with high powered explosives will be just as widely accepted as those who believe there was more than one person who assasinated JFK. just wait, more informaiton will come forward, and the seeds of doubt and credibility of the official government story will come forward. Give it time. the people still aren't ready for this, just like always.
listen to mp3s of firemen, as well as the owner of the building saying that they are about to "pull" the buildings down
http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.htm l
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
but hey, michael jacksons innocent. now thats a story!!!:) |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Tue Jun 14th 21:44 2005 / #2 |
|
This has got to be one of the funniest things I've read in ages. It seems that Morgan Reynolds is suffering from some sort of collapse himself. Seriously funny. What's next wine out of water, the loaves and the fishes ???? |
|
Tribe
-
[profile]
|
Tue Jun 14th 23:02 2005 / #3 |
|
If this story is true, it would undermine every last bit of credibility that the US has and contradict that the US stands for a free society built on self-determination.
I hope it's not true...
Here is an article that argues against this and other theories:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 02:01 2005 / #4 |
yeah, the biggest article that argues against it. from popular mechanics mind you, now thats a great source of objective journalism. the only reason they produced that story was because they were in denial and needed a way out. I sense you are beginning to believe that something was up on that day, something a bit out of the ordinary, maybe something that the US gvt is hiding from. keep thinking that way. keeping questioning the reasons, and the actual facts at hand and try and argue against it here. with the facts that you put on the table. not some magazine. if you want you can quote your sources. its no problem.I can quote mine, and they range from the actual person that built the twin towers, to the ownder of the twin towers, to the eye witness acounts of firefighters that actually saw what happened that day. seriously, I d love for you to try and lay out your case but I believe you will go the same way most do, and just say. I can't believe that bush and company are really that evil, or not smart enough (your second favorite answer). its not possible, well, it is possible, and its already happened by previous governments for thousands of years.
seriously. tell me your case agaisnt this being a controlled demolition.
oh, you don't have time....well, that means that you really don't care enough to do anything other than pull up some ancient article from a childrens magazine. |
butthead
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 07:24 2005 / #5 |
Didn't you try this once before to no avail?
Also, one thing at a time.
Your crap about Pearl Harbor is ridiculous. |
|
butthead
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 07:29 2005 / #6 |
|
and please everybody, do a google search on Morgan Reynolds. |
dand
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 09:33 2005 / #7 |
Pacman, Usually the person with the whacky ideas, in this case you, is required to show 'proof', not the other way around.
"I firmly believe that in 30 years the idea that these building were in fact knocked down with high powered explosives will be just as widely accepted as those who believe there was more than one person who assasinated JFK"
You summed up your hollow argument in the above quote, Pacman. Those who believe in the conspiracy will continue to believe. Those that don't....well they don't. And you get your facts from.....let me guess... tum ta te tum...THE INTERNET.
You want to fight, go to Delroy's. He'll hook you up! |
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 10:16 2005 / #8 |
A lot of people live their lives quite nicely without ever second-guessing what an authority figure tells them. Galileo went nuts arguing with flat-earth Catholics. Really, everyone knew the world was flat.
The thing is, I'm glad he tried. The world is never made a better place by the mindless rabble, but by the people who aren't afraid to challenge the accepted memes. I'm not trying to defend every conspiracy theorist, but when a preponderance of the evidence points one way, and simply some (not all) administration officials and conventional wisdom point the other, you have to ask yourself if you're brave enough to trust your own judgment. You have a lot of choices during your lifetime, but one of the most important is, are you going to be a Galileo or a Pope Urban VIII?
Delroy is the best, by the way. |
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 11:16 2005 / #9 |
This is all coming back around and around. I've posted tons of tin hat "proof" and arguments, including statements from the man who led the building team, but it seems to all come down to a matter of faith/dogma. Some believe the government line because they believe everything the government says. Others believe it because it makes it easier to just carry on with their lives - especially in NYC. Others believe it because it allows them an excuse for venting their otherwise inappropriate frustrations in the form of racism and militant nuttiness.
I think it's important that people within the government are starting to realize what "keeping the nose to the grindstone" and not questioning anything has led to. More will step forward, although the people on the ground have probably long since been disappeared into Guantanamo or some other CIA prison. No one will probably ever know who held the smoking gun, but most people are beginning to realize that the official line is a house of cards built in a windstorm.
Bush and his people did this. To think that Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob from a fat intern just puts the whole menagerie into creepy perspective. Democracy my ass. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 11:47 2005 / #10 |
I don't believe everything I read. I simply question it. Do I believe that FDR had foreknowledge of the attacks on pearl harbor, maybe, do I think that more than person was involved in killing jfk, pretty sure, . I m not talking in absolutes here, I m merely questioning things based on history. Now we know and its widely accepted that the US blew up their own ship to get into a war with spain. in case you don't know the story, here s a brief synopsis.
In Cuba, the 1898 sinking of the battleship Maine brought the US into war with Spain. The people of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines were in revolt against the crumbling Spanish empire. Media baron William Randolph Hearst, the era's own fox news channel, wanted a war to sell papers and promote "jingo" power. He portrayed the Spaniards barbaric rapists and worse. In the name of democracy and freedom, Hearst and pro-war fanatics like Theodore Roosevelt demanded US intervention. They sent the battleship maine into the cuban waters, and guess what. it blew up. The phrase remember the maine became as commonplace as "support our troops" is today. now further analysis of the maine shows that it was blown up from the inside, and not from the outside. But the people did not know this, and followed their US military into a bloody war based on a lie.
"Remember the Maine"
then we have the case of ww1, again the people were very much opposed to going into this war. but this time we had a new ship, a new form of agression on a peaceful country. In ww1 it was the lusitania that was blown up by the germans. The germans said that the ship was carrying weapons so it was within their legal right to fire upon the ship. the us military and woodrow wilson insisted that this was an illegal act of agression on a peaceful ship that contained no weapons. the lusitania images were as common place as those planes hitting the towers. years later, divers investigated the remnants of the lusitania, and found, well, that it was full of explosives, and a legitimate target, as well as an illegal convoy. nonetheless, the lies of a greedy government lead an otherwise skeptical public into war.
remember the lusitania
ok, theres too much debate around Pearl Harbor to even go there. I ll give you that, but one good thing about pearl harbor was that there was an independent commision set up days after it took place to investigate what went wrong. In the case of 911, this took years of knuckle dragging, and obstacles. In the end neither Bush, nor cheney said anything on the record about what happened that day. they did hold a "candid conversation" but they both had to be in the room together, and no reporters were allowed in the room, and get this, nothing was allowed to be written down. feeling a bit skeptical yet???
now, lets go to the greatest debacle of US intervention in the last 50 years. Vietnam. While today it is pretty much widely accepted that the deaths of 50000 americans, and possibly half a million vietnamese didn't produce to many good things in the end. The us got their asses handed to them by a bunch of guerrilas fighting against what they saw as an invading imperialist force (sound familiar) in a war that seemed to have no end. but, forget that, let's talk once again about how the american public was sold the story about the reasons we were justified to go to war against the Vietnamese. the answer is
the gulf of tonkin.
And guess what! The Gulf of Tonkin incident probably never happened. According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Vietnamese may never actually have fired shots that may or may not have put a few bullet holes in one or two US ships. Even if they did, any such attack had zero military significance.
Like the Maine and Lusitania, the guns of Tonkin were nothing more than lies of war.
now lets go to something called "operation northwoods" now before you roll your eyes, and act as if i m some conspiracy nut, just remember that everything I ve laid out is a matter of public record. ok? now after reading this, go to google, and type in operation northwoods. ok, don't believe me, go and figure these things out for yourself. now, Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war. ok, now this is 100 percent undeniable that the us gvt had previously considered using fake terrorism in order to get a country to go into war. they ve done it before, and they considered doing it again.
now lets get to the current administration. years before they came into power most of Bushs cabinet, and his vice president were involved in a group called People for the new american century. The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: �The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.�
�Even should Saddam pass from the scene,� the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, �may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.�
A �core mission� for the transformed U.S. military is to �fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,� according to the PNAC.
The strategic �transformation� of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to �a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,� the PNAC plan said.
�The process of transformation,� the plan said, �is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.�
hmm pearl harbor, looks like they got their wish. remember the maine!!
now, just stay with me a second. And i m sorry you aren't going to get any theories about how a missile hit the pentagon, or how the planes were actually remote controlled.
We knew that Bush had prior knowledge of the september 11th attacks. This may have come in the form of a PDB given to him a month previous which was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack within United States" the PDB outlined several ways terrorists may try to attack the US, one of which was hijacking airplanes and running them into buildings. we knew that arab nationals that were most likely getting marching orders from bin Laden were learning to fly planes, but didn't want to land them. some of these people were under surveillance at the time and training at pensacola air force base. nonetheless, they were allowed to board the planes that day. why? hmmmmm. remember the maine. what better pretext than the "new pearl harbor" event to get a country into war that otherwise wouldn't be supported by the majority of the people. Bush and co. let it happen. so, now we've got these buildings that were hit by planes, and then we have the owner of the buildings as well as firemen on the scene saying that they made a decision to "pull" or demolish the buildings. and no, this isn't from some conspiracy website, this is from a documentary made for PBS, the public broadcasting service. and if you watch the video you will see these people on video plainly stating that they decided to demolish these buildings. now, we have the washington times, as well and former Bush aide saying that it is possible that these buildings may have been demolished. beginning to get at least a bit skeptical? on top of all this, we know the Bush administration has a pension for lying, now that the downing street minutes have come to surface, Bush simply lied and fabricated evidence to go to war in iraq. This administration is arrogant enough to believe that they can get away with the most unbelievable acts. they are arrogant, they are imperialists, and will do everything to continue their "wra on terror", they are not stupid, they are incredibly politically astute, and they have a complicit news force that they know will not question their intentions. Did Bush and co line the major support beams of the world trade center with explosives, and then detonate them after the planes hit. probably not, but well never know because all the evidence at the scene was immediately cleared away and secretly disposed of. now I have one question I dlike to see someone try and answer. no its not about a masonic conspiracy, or some bomb loaded to the bottom of the first plane that hit the tower.
what do you think the term "pull" a building means. and why do you think the owner of the towers (larry silverstein) said flatly in a PBS documentary.
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
and then these statements mirror exactly what firefighters were saying on that day in new york.
"we're gettin ready to pull building 6!, we have to be very careful about how we demolish building 6, we were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the walls, we wanted that building to fall within a certain area"
its your choice. but I d love for someone to try and explain what Silverstein and the firefighters meant by making the decision to "pull" the buildngs. |
|
butthead
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 12:41 2005 / #11 |
Look I'm not denying they are incompetent.
The idea they planted demolition charges in the buildings prior to 9/11 and detonated them killing all those police and fireman, is way too much to swallow.
Number one reason is this:
If the bastards were caught or discovered, There would be lynchings in Washington DC. Those assholes know that they'd never live through being caught.
The risk would be too great.
Setting all those explosives would be obvious! Someone would have seen them.
It's impossible to believe they could pull it off.
I will admit it's strange they didn't fall over sideways,. but stranger things happen everyday. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 13:18 2005 / #12 |
And just think that I used to think that the "Swift Boat" folk were looney... they look positively reliable and on the point compared to this.
This might be the opening shot of the 2008 election campaign where the Democrats screw up once more Big time from arrogance and misinformation handing the Repubs. yet another 4 more years. You heard it here first. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 13:22 2005 / #13 |
answer the question.
what do you think Silverstein (the owner of the towers, and building 7) and the Firemen meant when they said they decided to "pull" the buildings down. there is no denying that they said it, its on tape.
would you like a link to watch the video again? |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 13:43 2005 / #14 |
Point of clarification from Pacman's post:
"we're gettin ready to pull building 6!, we have to be very careful about how we demolish building 6, we were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the walls, we wanted that building to fall within a certain area"
"pull building 6" - that's singular not plural and is not ' to "pull" the buildings down" '; and is not WTC or bulding 7.
Building 6 survived September 11 and any "pulling down" but battered from debris from the WTC buldings. Indeed it was pulled down much later as part of the site clean-up. Guess Mr. Silverman was true to his words - but the words didn't include the WTC towers. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 14:25 2005 / #15 |
|
silverstein owned building 7, as well as held the lease for the two towers. when he made this quote (if you watch the context of the video) it is made to link silverstein and his connection to building 7. unless PBS is part of the "looney" conspiracy nuts, and blatantly trying to link a prior statement made by silverstein in connection with the destruction of building 7. I don't think this is possible. if you watch the entire documentary, it does not show any ideas other than the fact that terrorists hijacked planes, and drove them into buildings. Remember the official government report about building 7, is not that it was demolished, but instead that it collapsed due to their theory of steel melting, and causing the building to fall on itself. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 14:38 2005 / #16 |
"unless PBS is part of the "looney" conspiracy nuts," of course PBS is part of the plot, and NCCAP, and the American Bar Association, and the NRA, they are all in it together under the same ownership , don't you see. We are the only sane ones here. MmmmHhhhaaawwwwwwww.
And I'm not too sure about Don Rummie although he is starting to make sense compared to this lot. Frightening. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 14:39 2005 / #17 |
|
Hey Butthead, for 3 months previous to 9/11 a company was employed installing "additional fireproofing" on the main structural core of the buildings. Neat coincidence, huh? |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 15:01 2005 / #18 |
what a great strawman. keep going rapunzel, back to your own fairy tale world. you add nothing to this conversation at all, so I will ask you an even simpler question. Why does Silverstein, the owner of building 7, say that they made a decision to pull it, when this conflicts the official government report.
what can I expect from you. no facts. only more strawmen unrelated to the issue at hand. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 16:13 2005 / #19 |
Dear me, Pacman - take a look again at your posts - you nicely "explode" the whole story. You added "buildings" in #13; what Mr. Silverstein said according to your "quote" of him and of the firemen in #10 was "building" and "to pull building 6".
I was trying to point this out, but you may have missed it.
WTC Towers and Bulding 7 were not covered by these "statements" by Silverstein and the firefighters and thus the whole discussion of a plot with explosives to drop WTC and Building 7 is nonsense and as flaky as Morgan Reynolds.
Makes fascinating reading though ... almost as much as spinning gold and letting your hair down. These are the facts and must be right since you wrote them. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 16:20 2005 / #20 |
|
let me ask you one question. did you watch the video in the link that i posted ages ago. The section of the documentary (from what i m sure you believe is the communist run PBS)concerns the history of building 7. Silverstein is adressing the fact that they decided to pull building 7. this is quite clear, unless you have never actually watched the video to which I m referring. I ll admit that the firemen quote needed more context, but my point was to give a context for the word "pull" meaning to demolish a building, and then contrast it with silverstein's statements about "pulling" building 7. Why do you think that silverstein made these comments? and why do you think he would make comments about "pulling" building 6, a property he dosn't even own. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 17:48 2005 / #21 |
Point of clarification from Pacman's post:
"we're gettin ready to pull building 6!, we have to be very careful about how we demolish building 6, we were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the walls, we wanted that building to fall within a certain area"
"pull building 6" - that's singular not plural and is not ' to "pull" the buildings down" '; and is not WTC or bulding 7.
Building 6 survived September 11 and any "pulling down" but battered from debris from the WTC buldings. Indeed it was pulled down much later as part of the site clean-up. Guess Mr. Silverman was true to his words - but the words didn't include the WTC towers. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 18:21 2005 / #22 |
Do you understand that the official government position concerning Building 7 is that it collapsed the same way the towers did. melting steel falling on top of itself (strangely there was no jet fuel in building 7, but we can ignore that point for now). I hope we can at least agree there.
I have now accepted the fact that you will not watch the PBS documentary, or this section that details building 7. I got my information from this documentary. so now the fact is, either you believe the documentary, and what it presents, or you don't believe it. I don't know how many more times I am going to have to tell you. Silverstein was referencing the demolition of building 7, not building 6.
here's the link where you can watch the section of te video to which I am referring. If you want to see who is right or wrong on this issue, go to this website, and simply watch the video yourself.
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
its clearly about building 7, not building 6 which rapunzel claims it is. obviously she hasn't even watched it.
I brought up the quote about "pulling" building 6 as a way to inform people of its meaning. ok, trust me, I know that building 6 was demolished, and this is a matter of public record. now, according to the PBS documentary, Silverstein is referring to building 7, not 6. ok. in other news. The earth is round....jesus
watch the video for yourself, and see what an idiot rapunzel is for thinking that Silverstein is not making a reference to Building 7 here. I mean the first 10 words of this video are "world trade center 7 have always been considered the starting points for rebuilding" then it goes on to talk about how building 7 were damaged by flying debris, and burned until the late afternoon, the silverstein comes on and gives his famous "pull it" quote. ok. this making any sense to you yet.
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm
I m anxious to see your reply. maybe something along the lines of PBS being a left wing haven of Bush haters? yeah, that would work, and your brain can go back to the delusional reality in which it inhabits. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 19:51 2005 / #23 |
Hmmm,
Bomb factory in NYC --- Subway was running late -- Teddy Kennedy was in NYC on September 11 = Teddy blew up the WTC with 12 Quarter Pounder bombs using the Subway to transport them in a car driven by an illegal - Mohammed Fatah. Makes sense. Oh, and with a name like Silverman the Mossad definitely was pulling Teddy's chain and feeding him burgers unil he agreed to do it - can't wait for the movie - but it may be too plausible to sell. :-(((
Oh, Teddy confesses under Gitmo torture that he actually voted for Bush in '04, and he wears lady's undergarments in memory of Mary Jo K. - now we got a hook - sell it !!!!! Defintely make sense. |
|
Tribe
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jun 15th 23:40 2005 / #24 |
Plus, Osama DID reportedly admit to the bombings, albeit years later. Maybe he was like, "Hmm the whole world says I done it, so why not take the credit?"
Whether he did it or not, I wish I could turn him in and get the bounty. That would make my year :) |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 01:32 2005 / #25 |
you can pigeon hole me all you want. but you're not going to get any talk of masons, or underground bombs. I merely put forth evidence from a major mainstream source. proved that you were wrong in saying that silverstein was referencing the demolition of building 7. and all you have to say is another straw man. very good. keep it up. do you realise all I was saying was that silverstein said that he decided to "pull" building 7. and its on tape. its there, you can view and listen to it with your own eyes and ears, but no matter what evidence comes forward, even if its in the wall street journal, you'll still continue to believe what happened that day. must shake up your pretty little myth of the planet too much.
I m not going to let you off that easy. tell me, did you at least watch the video to which I am referencing? |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 07:07 2005 / #26 |
Pacman - this has nothing to do with you - it's about the kooks who are looking for publicity and maybe a movie/book deal.
National Enquirer is the proper medium for these "news snippets".
Silverstein's discussion and the firemen according to your quotes in your post was talking about building 6. Mr. Silverstein's words about "pulling" down a building were made after the building (Building 7) was a shell and within a few hours of its collapse Not before. -- hardly time for necessary charges to be designed, put in place and exploded all in front of the cameras. Or for the conspiracy to plan, excavate and plant bombs in WTC Towers 1&2 and Building 6 and Building 7 and........ months in advance.
Take a look at the web page of the source of this "information" - credible I don't think so. Alex Jones is possibly the only one "pulling" himself on this one.
Good story though for the Enquirer as a place holder for more staple fare such as Elvis is Alive, and Aliens impregnate Kansas Farmgirl.
Saying that - the whole world knows that Teddy Kennedy did it - and Don Rumsfeld provided the Burgers via the Halliburton commissary - Fact.
Hmmmm - "Rumsfeld" - a touch of Yiddish in that name don't you think - might explain a lot of things - No? Now that's a topic worthy of some solid investigative reporting, roll the tapes !!!! |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 12:20 2005 / #27 |
|
no matter what you think about alex jones, it dosn't matter. the source is not an alex jones documentary. its from a PBS documentary. And the article that started all of this is from UPI, also not exactly a bastion of conspiracy nuts. So you can keep believing what you see in the national review, and nothing else. That's just how you people are. completely blind to any new information |
|
dand
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 12:36 2005 / #28 |
Found this chronology and it must be correct as it was on the internet:
9/11 TIMELINE
D-360 days:
Mossad alerts key Zionists to move their businesses from the WTC.
D-1 day:
--Israeli Embassy alerts 4,000+ Israeli citizens (10% of WTC workforce) not to show up for work due to impending attack. Luckily not one reports this information to any gentile friends.
--Workers from CIA and FBI move several tons of explosives into the basement and walls of the WTC. Luckily no one notices.
--Other workers (ENRON?) secretly ready robot planes, magnetic can openers and missiles at secret bases (including the well known secret base at Montuk Pt.). Lady luck still in play as all is done without attracting attention.
--Skull and Crossbones Society alerts leaders to stay away from NYC.
D-Day
--Videotaping of phony school visit in Florida by Bush begins.
--CIA agents plant cars with incriminating evidence in parking lot of airports in Northeast US.
--Mossad moves key student spies into position.
--The secret CIA base in the WTC is evacuated.
--Robot control planes take off and head for NYC. Passengers are whisked into secret holding cell (Area 51).
--Phony cell phone calls are sent out from various communications commands.
--Robot planes slam into WTC.
--Missile or flying saucer (threads disagree on nature of this weapon) is launched from Flushing (or Mars) and slams into WTC at same time planes do.
--Explosives in basement are fired.
--Electron-magnetic can opener is fired at WTC from secret position.
--Explosives in walls are exploded.
--Through careful planning the explosions spell a face of Satan.
--FBI agent races through the chaos to drop �terrorist’ passport.
Meanwhile, in DC,
--Fake witnesses line up along the Shirley Highway.
--An American Airlines flight is whisked away secretly to a hidden location
--A series of phony cell phone calls are made to many people around the country pretending to be loved ones on this plane. A few deep cover operatives support this with outright fabrications.
--Explosives planted in the Pentagon fired.
--A truck/van races through the smoke to drop off pieces of plane parts that (amazingly, given all this flawless planning up to now) are not correct for the plane �they� are pretending to have crash.
Meanwhile over PA,
--Imaginary cell phone calls are made from yet another flight.
--AND either a USAF fighter shoots down this robot controlled plane or (again confusion here) or CIA operatives ignite fires near a bulldozed ditch in PA (ironically not bull dozed deep enough to fool the keen eyed IMC guys) to simulate a crash.
Later that Day:
--CNN releases fake video of Palestinians celebrating.
--The Mossad agents slip over the border and begin plans to blow up a disco in Bali.
--The remaining several thousand supporters of this plot blend back into their normal work.
Did I miss any plots? |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 12:54 2005 / #29 |
dand - please try to keep up - of course you missed the most important plot of all -- Teddy Kennedy did it - we all know that but what is not so well known is that Secretary Don the Rummie was "pulling" -- get it? the strings on Teddy through his ladies underwear and Quarter Pounders -- but OK that one ties in with your D-360 it was all a Zionist plot to discredit the Moslem Subway train Driver - Mohammed Fatah - the 20th Hijacker - who was scoping out the flying weather at the Towers from 100 feet under Boadway and reporting to the boys in the cockpit via the thrid rail so nice catch on that one, dand.
Shall I go over it again for you or do you want to read it next week's Nat. Enquirer at the Wal-Mart checkout ??? That is an unimpeachable source for the straight scoop. |
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogeryc...
-
[anonymous]
|
Thu Jun 16th 13:12 2005 / #30 |
|
rapunzel, you're a troll. |
|
dand
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 13:33 2005 / #31 |
|
llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogeryc... and you came on this thread to ONLY talk smack to Rapunzel*...so that makes you a.....??????? |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 14:22 2005 / #32 |
|
Dan, talk about building a strawman! Your "plot summary" is funny, but in a different way from the way the official line is "funny". The problem is, NO ONE knows what happened. The government's story has far too many holes in it, and one wonders why the government would feel the need to make up a cover story for this event, then destroy all the evidence before anyone could examine it. When I talk about holes in the story, I don't mean technical arguments about the melting point of steel. I'm talking about a terrorist passport that was magically "found" on the smoldering heap of rubble that was ground zero. I'm talking about 7 of the hijackers turning up, very much alive, in other countries. I’m talking about Korans, flight manuals and suicide notes being �found� in �hijacker’s� cars. I'm talking about a NORAD stand-down that lasted 1/2 an hour after a significant attack on American soil. I'm talking about plans to invade Iraq made months before the attacks and a vague report that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". Would an attack on America constitute a fact to be fixed around the policy of violent hegemony in the Middle East? Sure did the trick, anyway. In the end, all of the other conspiracy stories are no less ridiculous than the official version. That's unsettling, to say the least. Be skeptical, but when the rank and file of the Bush machine itself start coming out and expressing doubt, crying wolf by dragging out well-worn references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and pictures of Hitler just add fuel to the fire. Eventually, you’ll all be in the position of defending the indefensible, and the funny thing is that none of you stand to gain anything from letting the bullshit walk. |
|
m
-
[anonymous]
|
Thu Jun 16th 14:23 2005 / #33 |
dand --
what you said.... |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 15:08 2005 / #34 |
I find the most humorous thing here, is that dan and rapunzel keep quoting crazy websites, and absolutely making up their replies. and my sources were United Press International, a Public Broadcasting Service documentary on 9/11, and a key economist who was working for the Bush administration at the time. This strawman is the size of the big guy at the Burning Man festival. It looks like the only conspiracy theorists on this board are rapunzel and dan, quoting strange sources and concocting theories with absolutely nothing to back it up. I d like to see you challenge the facts that micah pointed out in his last post with information that rivals it. here's a good place to start
www.newrepublic.com |
|
dand
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 16:01 2005 / #35 |
|
Just call me Scarecrow. And your new Sigma Chi name will be....Abu AlMuqawama AlFilistinia. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 15:57 2005 / #36 |
LOL - so there is comedy at Prague.tv " keep quoting crazy websites, and absolutely making up their replies." -- Pacman this is what P.TV is all about for heaven sakes - read some threads almost all "references" are made up by the authors to suit the flow and their politics - almost nothing is real - that is the redeeming feature of the site -- our man Micah is the master of this - and to his credit he freely admits he makes up much of the stuff he quotes as references.
Well at least we won't call you Dorothy - dand - if you are good !
What a giggle !!!!! |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 16:09 2005 / #37 |
yeah, but the funny thing is that I am quoting mainstream sources, and actually people from the Bush administration. you are the only one on this thread that has referenced crazy conspiracy websites. my sources as I previously said. UPI, PBS, and a chief economist for the Bush administration. wouldn't doubt it if you are a paid troll.
your sources....
are for that matter, I don't know if you even know the official US gvt position on sept. 11th. just use that as your argument if you want to. but instead you present nothing. absolutely zip. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 16:12 2005 / #38 |
Huh? If I post a reference, it's not made up. If I don't reference something, it's my opinion. This I'll admit.
Abu AlMuqawama AlFilistina, or Cochise for short. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 16:18 2005 / #39 |
|
Right Micah we do remember some of your nuggets - like rape statistics on College campuses in the US - but again you were a man and admitted that you made it up in the end. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 16:43 2005 / #40 |
Oh, yeah. That wasn't EXACTLY how that went down, was it now? Actually, I stated a number and qualified it as something I remembered from volunteer work I'd done. It turned out that the actual number was higher, didn't it? I didn't "make up" a source, I took a number from memory that wasn't up to date. Although it was concerning a topic I think is at least as important as the twin towers, I have trouble seeing how that could affect my credibility in any way. The difference between the exact number and the one I remembered constitutes the difference between sickening and vomit-inducing.
This doesn't really address Pacman's post. I think he's right...
He and RacerX sourced:
1. The Washington Times
2. An undisputed voice recording
3. A PBS documentary
You've sourced:
...
Well, all you've done is tell him over and over again that his sources are National Enquirer stuff. |
|
colin the angry young man
-
[anonymous]
|
Thu Jun 16th 17:21 2005 / #41 |
Excuse a stupid parsing here...
I don't think blowing up the buildings necessarily = conspiracy to start The War Against Terruh (better known as TWAT).
I can easily imagine that there are explosive charges planted in big buildings in major urban areas precisely so that they can be brought down if there is a major fire or something which could lead to real devastation. Imagine if the damn thing had fallen over sideways.
I can also imagine that, for obvious reasons, this is the sort of thing that would be kept hush hush and not bandied about in the papers.
I don't believe these yahoos could have planned this. Too subtle. Too complex. Too much imagination. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 17:26 2005 / #42 |
|
Colin, that makes sense, until you consider that the much-touted brainpower of Al Qaeda has come up with what before or since? The most the disgruntled peoples of the earth have been able to manage has been a couple of suicide bombings and a car bomb or two. Not quite on the same stategy plane as the twin towers attacks. |
|
dand
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 17:43 2005 / #43 |
|
Are you positive that the Madrid bombing had NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda? I thought you didn't believe that it even existed. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 17:55 2005 / #44 |
|
talk about trying to divert the subject. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 18:05 2005 / #45 |
It logically follows that if a highly organized group of CIA-trained uber-terrorists existed, they would be doing some damage. No damage, no proof, no arrests, no trials ergo, no group. I use "Al Qaeda" to refer to this construct because everyone else does, and I'm a follower.
The Madrid bombing may or may not have had anything to do with Osama, but it was most certainly not an attack on a level with the towers. I'm talking strategy and execution here, not effect. Many people died, and that is never good, but it was nothing more complex than a suitcase packed with explosives on a busy commuter train. No disrespect to terrorists, Dan, but fucking Corky from the short bus could pull that off. What it did was to bring about a perceptible shift in the responsibility the Spanish people felt concerning their own elected government. It's horrible and pitiable, but that attack was a direct response to Spain's involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. The Spanish people, unlike Americans, were smart enough to realize that, short of locking up and gassing everyone you don't like, the best way to deal with a potentially hostile world is to try not to give the world good reason to be hostile. God forbid we all try to be constructive – who knows what WOULDN’T happen. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Thu Jun 16th 19:59 2005 / #46 |
Now, now... Micah.
What's to address in Pacman's post?
WTC buildings in NYC - Airliner plows into 1 building , big bang, fire, building falls down - witnessed by several hundred million people worldwide viewing different camera angles real time. Airliner plows into another building ditto result - several other buildings damaged another falls down.
That's the base line.
Then we have a guy with a story that he thinks that the airplane story is a crock - that "the government" planned and blew up the buildings and they all fell down. No proof offered, no eye witnesses or participants to the deeds in custody or even in anonymous letters, no well nothing.
Just some guy talking about "pulling" off - and no suggestion that he himself did it or caused to to happen.
Not much more needed is there, since the "other side" hasn't presented anythng concrete -- so we go with the airplanes until there is anything but a shrill whine of the "government did it".
Teddy Kennedy doing it at least has a plausible ring to it in comparison let alone Don Rumsfeld doing the Mossad's dirty on Teddy to keep him line. You know you love it.
And oh, yes the stats - that indeed wasn't exactly how you presented it at the time was it? |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 02:56 2005 / #47 |
|
wow, thanks for summing up my argument for me. I never said the planes did not hit those buildings that day. I never said that there wasn't a group of terrorists who wanted to inflect damage upon america. I did however present the fact that Bush received a PDB that said Bin Laden was planning to attack within the united states using commuter jets to fly into buildings. FACT. I did present the idea that many of these terrorists were under surveillance prior to the 9/11 attack. FACT. I did present the idea that previous governments (including the US gvt) has consistantly used a fake terror attack on america in order to justify a war. FACT. I did say that Silverstein was speaking about "pulling" building 7. FACT. (something you still will not admit to, even though its ov tape) I did say that the people in the Bush cabinet were actually writing about invading the middle east, and securing the oil fields as far back as 1997. FACT. I did say that the BUsh administration will consistantly lie, and "fix" evidence in order to invade an otherwise peaceful country. FACT. I never said that the towers were brought down by controlled explosives, all of my posts concerning controlled demolition related to building 7, not the towers. you can draw whatever paralells you want. in some peoples minds people would believe that if they lied about demolishing building 7, then the same would go for the towers. others will believe it is not possible. the rest is conjecture, I agree, but to me, the evidence against them is pretty damning. You can believe whatever you want to. But you have still offered no evidence to the contrary. here's a hint; if you want to debate this, go to google, and find out what the actual position of the US gvt. is. from what you have written you show that you know nothing more about it than what you see on cnn. And lastly Ted Kennedy had nothing to gain from a terrorist attack on america, Bush had everything to gain, and most of the members of his cabinet were PNAC people had been writing for years that they needed something on the scale of pearl harbor in order to sell the public an invasion on a country that was absolutely no threat to us at all. I m willing to say that I don't know exactly what happened that day. you, you just blindly follow whatever cnn tells you. and that "some guy" talking about pulling buildings on 9/11, well that guy happened to be the owner of them. believe him if you want. or just keep reading your own version of the national enquirier, or wait, I mean Fox news. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 08:27 2005 / #48 |
Fluff, fluff, fluff Pacman - stand by your posts don't try to re-invent them.
Bottom, bottom line is simple:
The idea, since it isn't a fact, that government planted explosive devices brought down any buildings on 9/11 at the WTC is nonsense and not worthy of burning millions of electrons. It is a figment of the imaginations of a bunch of loonies or malcontents looking for financial and/or political gratification. Here we can fill-in the names of Morgan Reynolds, Alex Jones
just for starters.
Final proof point that this is nonsense:
1) All can agree that to "pull" a building down requires a great deal of planning and skill as well as preparation. The architecture of the building has to be known and explosives calculated and placed precisely at many spots in the building as well as intentional significant structural weakening (i.e destruction) of structural elements of the building beforehand. While this might be possible over time it certainly was impossible to do on the day during the attacks and before the close of the day.(Mr. Silverstein)
2) All can agree that the WTC complex was surrounded by the world's television and journalist community- to say nothing of amateur photographers and Rescue services with real-time Video and Audio feeds non-stop and from every angle.
3) IF there were controlled or otherwise explosions in the buildings at WTC sufficient to cause their collapse - we would have had the noise of the explosions going off on a dozen or more audio/video feeds and tapes. There were no explosions recorded prior to the collapse of each building and therefore until such time as "Silent explosives" of the scale needed to drop major buildings in front of the world's press and television are developed, the "story" that the government engineered the collapse fo the WTC through controlled explosions is exactly that a "story" invented by polotical and financial wannabees.
That really puts to sleep all this nonsense about explosives, government super teams.. etc etc.
Of course Teddy Kenenedy had much to gain from promoting a terrorist attack on America -- it was simply a dress rehersal for controlling the media to cover his next planned murder. He was able to pull it off at least once before when he murdered Mary Jo K and had the media totally under control at that time. WTC was obviously a rehersal to see if he still had the goods. Just as plausible as the Quarter Pounders being used to "pull" the towers. But hey, there is also the very slightest possibility that Teddy used his supernatural powers to jamb all the audio/video equipment at WTC on that day, and block the hearing of the 1000's of people on the ground at WTC... then we may have something that stands-up !! Check the tapes.
Now we have the fairy tales out of the way, let's get a grip on the next ones - we got Geo. Bush; Israel; Zionist plots; the Evil Eye; - no shortage of them on these Boards. |
|
butthead
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 08:45 2005 / #49 |
wow, someone making sense!
Good job Rap!
(pssst all those cameras were secret government cameras designed to look like normal ones. The news anchors were all drugged and secret government agents took over the running of the networks for 48 hours!) |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 09:18 2005 / #50 |
Ehhhmmm Butthead, many of the folk at Prague.TV already know this to be true, got anything new we can get our teeth into ? :-))))))))
(pssst all those cameras were secret government cameras designed to look like normal ones. The news anchors were all drugged and secret government agents took over the running of the networks for 48 hours!) |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 11:42 2005 / #51 |
|
and building 7 fell because it got hit by chunks of flying debris. and the pbs documentary where he says he made the decision to pull building 7 is a fabrication of the secret communist plot to take over america. |
|
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 11:57 2005 / #52 |
|
I think you caught yourself, Rapunzel. "1) All can agree that to 'pull' a building down requires a great deal of planning and skill as well as preparation." So the question is, was it brought down by explosives put there in the three months preceding the event, or was it the official story: the heat of burning office furniture? Exactly. It's hard to take down a building. According to your own words, the official story is hooey. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 12:08 2005 / #53 |
|
Right you are Pacman - time to wrap this one up and head back to the sand box.... "all quiet in the desert except for the chirping of crickets and the swish of tumbleweed crossing the dunes" - not to fear there's plenty more out there. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 12:13 2005 / #54 |
|
Ahhh Racer - caught yourself again in a trap for young players. No question at all on this one, we are done - to quote the Sainted Bill Clinton who knew a "porky" when he saw one: "It's the big bang, Stupid". We ain't got the bangs, Racer, so no explosion without a bang. Got it now?? |
|
butthead
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 12:20 2005 / #55 |
office furniture?
That's a new one.
But really x
explosions do make noise. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 12:39 2005 / #56 |
Good God, Butthead.. don't tell me it was an Office Depot conspiracy to eliminate the excess furniture inventory that even Don "Izzy" Rumsfeld and the Industrial-Military Complex wouldn't buy at gold plated prices ??
Racer, Pacman and Micah - let's roll up our sleeves and get cracking, we got a deadline to meet. First drafts in by close of play today, thanks. And yes, Butthead, we give you first place in the byline. Great scoop. Stop the Presses !!!! Hello Morgan Reynolds, Hello Alex Jones............... This one really has legs. hmmm... clear cutting, global warming, sweatshop labor, Bush f**ks it up, Military uses old sandpaper - from a West bank quarry - I can see it all now. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 12:38 2005 / #57 |
|
yes, the official position of the US gvt is that burning office furniture (not jet fuel as widely believed) caused the towers to reach a temperature that melted steel at a flashpoint evenly displaced across an entire floor of the building in order to melt collumns at the same time at opposite sides of the building. this is why it fell on top of itself, and into its own footprint, and didn't collapse sideways (ie. falling like a tree on the side where the plane hit). this is the official story. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 12:49 2005 / #58 |
"the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."
The 9/11 comission report
more crackpots??? |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 13:03 2005 / #59 |
Rapunzel, that's pretty much how it went down, yes. I indicated a number, but didn't give a source. I then said that the source was my own memory. The number turned out to be pretty close to the current number. It was immaterial to the argument, actually, although it supported a qualitative assessment of the violence of American culture. Only a real moron would dispute the fact that the number of women raped in America is shameful and hideous. A couple of aforementioned morons (you, evidently included) latched on to this indiscretion of mine, imagining with your feeble logic that it somehow helps prove that I hate Jews or something. Get a grip. Here’s a map of your thinking:
Micah said x/y American girls are raped before their 18th birthday. Actually, n/y American girls are raped before their 18th birthday. Therefore, Micah is an anti-Semite. Case closed. Go outside and play.
1. Actually, Butthead, seismic "bangs" were recorded and the patterns are quite similar to a controlled demolition. Here they are: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
"Meaning of the Seismic Records
Seismic records of the Twin Tower collapses show a large signal for each collapse lasting just under 10 seconds. The durations of the large signals are widely equated with the durations of the collapses themselves. However, the signals may correspond to only parts of the collapse events, such as the rubble reaching the ground.
Consider the seismic records of the closest seismic recording station, at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL). They show a very similar pattern for the leveling of WTC 1 and 2. In both cases there is about five seconds of high-amplitude movement, followed by about three seconds of movement at less than half that amplitude, and then by about 15 seconds of much weaker movement. In addition there is some still weaker movement starting about 12 seconds before the onsets of the high-amplitude movement. The main difference is that for WTC 1 the initial high-amplitude phase builds in intensity to a much higher spike than any seen for WTC 2.
The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground. "
2. No one ever contested the fact that airplanes hit the towers. This is part of Rapunzel's fantasy argument. He wishes he could get into an argument he could win - just one - but you've got to play with the hand you're dealt, don't you buddy? Unless you're talking about Israel, in which case you can just say "Hitler" a bunch of times and pout.
3. Have you ever flown a plane, Rapunzel? Have you ever flown one at 450 mph? Have you ever flown a commercial airliner? For guys who reportedly were unable to control a Cessna, they sure managed to get a quick handle on a commercial jet, huh? I have about 45 hours on a Cessna myself (a little more than half of what the �terrorists� had in flight school), and I know there’s no fucking way I could fly an airliner into a building at 450 mph. It must have been all that last-minute cramming from the videotape?
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11?la nguage=printer |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 13:42 2005 / #60 |
"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
Rumsfeld
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/
Donald Rumsfeld
I think he knows a lot about terrorizing people in order to make them follow a plan to go to war with a country that posed no threat to america.
shot down the plane over pennsylvania?
�The process of transformation,� the plan said, �is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.�
PNAC report from 1997, signed by most of the members of Bush's cabinet
this is from the official PNAC website. read some of the other great ideas here. my favorite is called "a way to oust saddam"
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.ht m
"Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists."
pdb with the headline "Bin ladin determined to attack with united states" given to Bush one month prior to sept 11th
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
on the day of september 11th, at the time that the attacks took place. the air force was conducting training missions of... guess what?planes being used as weapons to attack the pentagon, and world trade center. hmmmm. weird
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.h tm
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Downing street minutes
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
more crackpot news organizations? all part of the communist plot to take over the planet. cnn, usa today, the times. and oh yeah, PBS fabricated that video of Silverstein saying that he made the decision to "pull" building 7 |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 13:53 2005 / #61 |
Oh Shit Pacman... we just spent the last couple of days being totally convinced by you and Racer that: "a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7....... the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling.".
So, NOW you tell us that the cause of the building collapse is unknown at this time".
I give up.. clearly the damn Towers are "pulling" a fast one on us...... I am going to be really depressed if Geo Bush is the only constant in the universe. :-(((((
By the way in answer to your earlier question: at 1.02 this afternoon the exchange rate was 1.2177 so clearly selling dollars wasn't a good idea at 1.23 on June 2.
Ahhh Micha -- you only "forgot" again to mention that you made a categorical statement using reference that was wrong as you are sometimes want to do. But I had the good manners to compliment you on eventually owning up to it when cornered and confronted with it.
We know your position on Israel, Zionists etc - your mapping is off.
1. Better to stay on topic Micah - "Seismic bangs" -- well let's not go down that one too far - or you really will start to disgrace yourself on Prague.TV
Take one WTC building (both were over 1300 feet high) - let it fall to earth -- you get a seismic record of the shock waves - not a bang.
Take the 3000 plus people who used to work in a WTC building onto the parking lot on command have them jump up and down on the spot together - you get a seismic record of the shock waves - not a bang.
2. Israel - Hitler ?? - have you got a role model in mind that is driving you , Micah?
3. Yes Micah. So your a shit pilot, so what? Back on topic - remember the Highjackers and THEIR pilots had Allah riding on their shoulders unlike you - smacking into a 1300 foot building after being flown there by a professional pilot before they cut his throat with box cutters. It was however, a damn good/lucky hit -- but then as we know shit happens and with Allah the Almighty anything is pssible..
Now I would like to be able to compliment you once again if you would only "be a man" again and pay the ferkin US $200.- with documentary evidence of the same that you owe. Welchers are not well looked at - aprticularly in the Arab world, where as Man's word is his bond and one of the few things that can be relied upon. But you know that already, Micah - why not give to the Red Crescent instead no problem with getting a receipt and I would imagine that would satisfy the debt of honor. Just a suggestion. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 13:54 2005 / #62 |
|
I challenge you to find where I said the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. I have been referring to the undeniable fact that Silverstein said something that contradicts the official US position, and that is that Building 7 was blown up. make your own parralells. and yes, at least I will admit, we don't know the whole truth. we have to draw our own conclusions based on the evidence at hand. You just seem to blindly follow the US gvts position, and I m not sure why. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 14:08 2005 / #63 |
Pacman...Pacman...Pacman .. you are right we don't know the whole truth about anything... but thank goodness we have eyes and EARS did I mention EARS, and brains to see nonsense written by seekers of financial and political gain.
No Bangs = no Explosions period. Not the official US position... not the loonies position, simply the current state of the art of science.
You posted an interesting post which had links to sites with nonsense on them. Fine... and it is appreciated... but there is no need to go on and on with rhetoric that is misplaced and wrong.
Pacman: "I challenge you to find where I said the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions"
Pacman #1: "I firmly believe that in 30 years the idea that these building were in fact knocked down with high powered explosives will be just as widely accepted as those who believe there was more than one person who assasinated JFK."
Next Question ???? No, on second thought we have already answered them all conclusively, haven't we ???? Cau.
Fish -- Barrel -- Shot gun |
|
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 14:12 2005 / #64 |
|
Ahhh... Rapunzel is flailing now. Personal attacks against Micah; that's new. No one's ever tried that method of arguing before. The 9/11 report doesn't back you up on Building 7, so I wouldn't get arrogant. We're raising questions here. I'm glad you're interested and bringing in points. But now that you've run out of arguments, you've lasped into personal attacks. (Micah can't raise valid points because he disagrees with Israeli policy?) Come on. Try to keep up. Actually answer Micah's arguments. Personally, I don't think you can. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 14:24 2005 / #65 |
|
Nothing is personal Racer- Just the facts. What's to argue ? |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 14:29 2005 / #66 |
Rapunzel, so you're XYZ as well? I'm waiting on him to tell me how he'd like his proof of payment, that's all. Cash is waiting. One good turn deserves another.
You wrote: "Ahhh Micha -- you only "forgot" again to mention that you made a categorical statement using reference that was wrong as you are sometimes want to do. But I had the good manners to compliment you on eventually owning up to it when cornered and confronted with it."
I didn't use a "reference", I just made a categorical statement based on information that was correct 5 years ago! You weren't bright enough to get the picture then, and you still can't quite digest it. Show me another instance of my having done this please.
Again, you've successfully posted another mess of blustery garbage that actually says nothing. "You posted an interesting post which had links to sites with nonsense on them." (there's an example of a well-composed argument if I've ever seen one!) We've posted links to reputable news organizations, official seismic records, DATA. We back up our arguments - even the most extreme of the lot. In some cases, we do it to play devil's advocate, to prove that there is something wrong with not knowing the truth. You don't back up anything, you just whine like a child. It's ok, you evidently have your "faith". Heil Bush! It's funny to watch you get all flustered when people slap you down though. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 14:41 2005 / #67 |
"so you're XYZ as well ?" - sorry Micah - not I -- never jump to conclusions - Rule #1 in Journalism.
Just pay it and send him a scanned copy of the receipt to the email address he PM'ed you on, that should do it. Go on, you know it will make you feel better and we will think better of you too. The Red Crescent is very worthy.
Ohhh - you are getting cranky now, Micah, a little bit too close to the bone for you, I guess, we've seen you react this way before.
Life is give and take Micah - you can't always be giving it and not expect a bit back when you mess up -- let's just finish up the Twin Towers with an old very succcessful slogan from the advertising world of hamburgers "Where's the Bang?" - I certainly wouldn't want to paint you, Micah, as "less filling"...... |
|
andy
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 15:08 2005 / #68 |
|
yes i think he's a troll too. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 15:21 2005 / #69 |
Still trollin' around the topic at hand!
For reasons discussed on the other thread, an emailed receipt isn't the smartest idea. Dan would be forced against his will to revert to CIA robot mode and send me to Gitmo. I’m a skinny little guy, I couldn’t handle the abuse. We weren't talking about the Red Crescent, big guy. You might have noticed the strange mark following my statement. It looks like this:
"?"
It is called a question mark, and is used to indicate that the statement preceding is a question. Actually, it was what �we in journalism� call a "rhetorical question". You could infer that I meant to say, "mind your own business." Rule #2 in journalism: Don’t be an idiot.
I didn't mess up, and if I did, it'd take someone a whole lot quicker than you to catch it. It's plenty easy for you to talk about "life's give and take". You haven't said anything of substance; you aren't even in the game.
Here's one last chance to play. A controlled demolition doesn't employ one "bomb". It involves a series of smaller charges intended to destroy the structural integrity of the building in such a way as to insure a collapse into its own footprint. I think this site is about your speed: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm
Question: Given the recorded evidence you've seen/heard and the plain fact that two of the world's tallest buildings collapsed neatly into their own footprint as a result of an incident they were engineered specifically to withstand, is it unreasonable to question the official story about the twins' collapse? A simple yes or no will do, Ted Kennedy and Israel don't enter into the equation. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 15:23 2005 / #70 |
good job on recovering my post about the twin towers. Do i believe personally that the towers were most likely blown up. maybe. Do I believe that more and more evidence is coming to surface that says building 7 was demolished. yes (you still seem not to acknowledge the fact that the owner of the building has conflicted the US gvt position that building 7 was in fact blown up) Does this evidence brings questions to light that one could draw parralells to the towers? yes. Now when I made the Jfk comparison, I was saying that so much evidence came out that made it look almost impossible that this was just a one person job. this has spread the skepticism. Now 30 years later, it is widely accepted that the government was hiding something (especially all the documents that will be released regarding JFK after all people involved are dead) I think the same will be true of the towers. will we ever know exactly what happened on that day. no. and that includes your own theory which seems to contradict the official US gvt one.
let me pose you one simple question. and lets see if you can answer it yet.
When Silverstein made the comments about pulling a building, do you believe he was referring to building 7? |
|
XYZ
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 15:26 2005 / #71 |
"Rapunzel, so you're XYZ as well? I'm waiting on him to tell me how he'd like his proof of payment, that's all. "
Just prove you actually have $200 and we'll call it day. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 15:36 2005 / #72 |
Come on, XYZ, that's no fun! I'm nowhere near as loaded as you are, but I can handle some charity. Besides, I'd never live it down. I was wrong to call you a liar, and god knows it will negate any further argument I might have on this board (in Rapunzel's journalistic eyes) unless I re-establish my integrity!
"The Mars Volta is going to be a good show? Yeah, right! Micah didn't send $200 to Hamas, so obviously the Mars Volta sucks!" |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:02 2005 / #73 |
Those funny looking ones are Canadian, but they're pretty much the same as money.
 |
|
dand
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:05 2005 / #74 |
|
Mars Volta? Did I miss something? Is that the code word for the start of the Universal Caliphate? |
|
dand
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:06 2005 / #75 |
|
Nice pic, Micah! Too funny! There's the proof. (hopefully) Case closed! |
|
XYZ
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:09 2005 / #76 |
|
Done AND done. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:16 2005 / #77 |
The Mars Volta plays on the 22nd at Roxy. They represent the caliphate of rock and roll against the zionist oppressor and their greedy capitalist zombie-soldiers. This will be their second coming. Everyone who goes will enjoy at least 72 virgins, if they don't get too loaded first.
Shit, now people will know who I am! Had to edit that picture folks, sorry. The Mossad and the CIA have been looking for me for years, and Rapunzel and XYZ nearly made me blow my cover! |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:33 2005 / #78 |
When Silverstein made the comments about pulling a building, do you believe he was referring to building 7?
Pacman post #10 - Silverstein: ' "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
and then these statements mirror exactly what firefighters were saying on that day in new york.
"we're gettin ready to pull building 6!, we have to be very careful about how we demolish building 6, we were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the walls, we wanted that building to fall within a certain area" '
its your choice. but I d love for someone to try and explain what Silverstein and the firefighters meant by making the decision to "pull" the buildngs. " - Uhhhhmmm, Pacman - shall we say that they were refering to Building 6. ????
Still no Big Bang ..........
Sly like a fox, Micah :-)))) Now if you can only get your hands to release the money - (a trait that thiose treacherous Jews have yet to master as you would say) and send it off to the Red Crescent with proof od delivery - US $ only thanks - we will know that you are real !!! Good luck. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:35 2005 / #79 |
|
But if XYZ feels that you've done the deed, that's all that needs to be said. Finito. |
Gretchen
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:45 2005 / #80 |
I am generally willing to believe any evil theory about W. If you want to tell me he drinks the blood of unbabtized babies, I'd probably agree, but this has gone too far.
I was living in Long Island during 9/11, close enough to see the smoke. Close enough that a number of the volunteers from the local FD never came back from the WTC. I had many friends who were down there, and there were no explosions. Something of that magnitude would been heard and felt, and if that was happening, they would not have stayed in those buildings trying to get out others. They would have spoken out, the people that managed to escape would have spoken out. Their anger and their pain and their experiences were well documented.
Sept 13th, when they had been working for 60 straight hours, FEMA came in and forced the firefighters and police to go home. They, instead, went to the bar I worked in, and after drinking their body weight in beer, all started crying and telling me everything that had happened and was too much for the news. I heard about the buckets for random body parts, how they cut off thumbs of crushed corpses to fingerprint, etc. And the one thing that I heard over and over again, was that they didn't understand how they could come down like that.
Yes, in the days following, building six was demolished, since uncontrolled debris would have endangered the rescue workers, but the towers were brought down from the fire/impact/whatever of the original impact. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 16:47 2005 / #81 |
What's with all your shit-talking about jews anyway? Talk about anti-semitic, your crap accusations cross the line and are just plain racist. I've never made a comment disparaging jews or jewish heritage, and I'm adult enough to realize the fundamental difference between a cultural and religious heritage, an ethnicity and the political dogma that preys upon both. Posts comparing me to Goebbels and other assholes of history I can deal with - they're just stupid provocations and I give as good as I get - but you're pushing the envelope here. Watch your step.
Also, can we get that yes or no answer from post #69?
Pacman can defend himself just fine, but it seems to me a little off that they could "pull" any building on a few hours' notice. Building up a demolition team and plan, installing the explosives and getting it done is a LONG process. Why was building 6, or any other building in the city of New York pre-rigged for demolition? Doesn't sound very safe to me... |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 17:08 2005 / #82 |
Sorry Gretchen, but all you (and the rest of America) have to do is believe. The emotional impact of having been there during the event is not likely to foster any sense of objectivity about the thing, I think you'll admit.
Look at the facts.
1. Members of Bush's cabinet penned and signed a document calling for a "new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize American opinion.
2. The US Army developed specific plans for destroying the towers with hijacked airplanes in the 1970's
3. A minutes of a high-level meeting with British policy makers and intel officers months before the attack reveals that Bush has planned to invade Iraq and was fixing and arranging intelligence to fit the plan.
4. No WMD, no terror connections, 100,000 dead Iraqis and 1600 dead Americans later, Iraq is a chaotic hell-hole, but the oil is still flowing and American forces are not likely to leave. Now they're eyeing Syria and Iran, with all of Central Asia about to collapse into chaos.
Will you believe anything about Bush but what the facts on the ground point to? Anything but the logical conclusion drawn from examining the PNAC manifestos? No doubt the firefighters were crying and distraught. They dealt with a real tragedy. Instead of finding who is responsible, we're standing by as our leaders rush off to create tragedies of a vastly larger and more lasting nature.
"And the one thing that I heard over and over again, was that they didn't understand how they could come down like that. " |
|
Gretchen
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 17:20 2005 / #83 |
Micah, I agree with all your points, but I also trust the opinion of the people who were actually there. There were no added explosions.
1. It was a tragedy, and it got turned into exactly what you are describing with the "new Pearl Harbor". As they knew of an impending attack, anything that happened would have been spun that way, twisting the death and suffering of many into a rallying point for war.
2. The US army also developed specific plans to lace Castro's cigars with LSD. So?
3. The minutes of the meeting with the British were in regards to Iraq. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, therefore we invaded Afganistan. the world actually supported us on that one. We had the chance to bomb the crap out of Iraq on Sept 12, and no one in the world would have thought twice. The devastation of 9/11 was too much for the world to forget about it, not want to punish those responsible, and so we had to go after the one the evidence pointed to, Osama.
4. No shit, I didn't ever disagree on that.
I still fail to see how any of your points prove that the US govt blew up their own buildings. Yes, they are corrupt and evil. Yes, they have little concern for the lives and wellbeing of their citizens and even less for the people of the Middle East. I fully believe that they knowingly ignored intelligence, fabricated/manipulated other intelligence, failed to react properly, but planting bombs in the towers is just a bit much. Honestly, they can't pull off a war without chaos breaking loose, how do you think they could manage to do all this without anyone noticing?? |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 17:45 2005 / #84 |
1. What is the difference between allowing it to happen and being complicit? It's a pretty thin line, I'd say. Besides, the evidence remaining suggests to me that this was not planned by Muslim extremists. It's too complex, and has no precedent. Nothing on this scale has happened before or since.
2. And they tried many such plans. We tend to hear more about the ones that fail.
3. There is NO CHANCE that we would have gone to war in Iraq were it not for 9/11. Although Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, 9/11 had everything to do with Iraq. What were the reasons we were given for going to war in Iraq? WMD for terrorists, support for terrorists, threat to America. All lies, all mercilessly preying on the tragedy of 9/11.
People are noticing. That's us. Saying that the Bush people are corrupt and evil doesn't say much - it's all subjective, right? What they do and how they do it is evil and corrupt. Allowing or helping to make 9/11 happen is one of those things. |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #85 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #86 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #87 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #88 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #89 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #90 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #91 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:07 2005 / #92 |
|
Gretchen do you really rely on PTV forums for your info about 9/11? Don't you have an inkling that things were not as they seem? |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:08 2005 / #93 |
Oops - "Watch your step" -- why did you shit on the floor again, Micah ?
Another of Micah's death threats and wishes for an untimely/unpleasant end on Prague TV coming up that you then deny and muuuch later have to (sort of) retract ??
Stay on topic please, but I doubt that you can -look at your reponses to Gretchen - pathetic - Pavlov's pooch could hardly have responded better -why not cut the crap and the cant - enjoy - and enter into serious debate ?
The lady made her points and made them well -- you on the other hand - just the same old, same old ..... like a broken record. Woof.
There is only one world and that is Micah's world it seems -- but as we see a lot of your stuff is tired doggeral that just doesn't stand up when trotted out - when challenged you either fold, runoff topic, or blather on with........
Not being judgmental but you really lay yourself wide open with the nonsense you often/usually spout. And you just can't resist to dig yourself deeper and deeper. A giggle really. Shame as you seem to be pretty bright kid - but sort of like the guy who claims to have 20 years experience at the job interview - but it was the same experience every year for 20 years. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:11 2005 / #94 |
|
Just advice, Rapunzel. You're just a troll, and you've actually stooped to a level of childish garbage that no one wants to read. Do yourself and us all a favor and piss off. |
|
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:15 2005 / #95 |
Gretchen/Rapunsel, did you watch the film 9/11? It was a documentary two Frenchmen were making about firefighters, and they happened to actually be at the WTC when it happened. In it, they are filming the rescue attempt when what can only be described as a large explosion occurs, the lights go out, followed by people screaming "it's going to come down" and the filmmakers left the building at that point. I think you can rent it.
I wish I could believe that American journalism would investigate things thoroughly enough that I would feel comfortable with the outcome of the investigations. The opposite is true. There were no serious investigations. Bush got off with an unrecorded 'chat'. Woodward and Bernstein are dead. Investigative journalism doesn't exist in America anymore. Instead you have people on chat boards seeming crazy, talking about how the Watergate break-in actually goes all the way to the top.
You're smart, Gretchen. Tell me you're not at least a little bothered by some of the facts. Tell me that, after the second tower was hit at 9:04, and people in Beijing were saying "hmmm... that's no accident", a full thirty minutes goes by and a plane flies past the White House, Capitol, and into the Pentagon. Thirty minutes and the US, whose defense budget comprises half of the world's defense budget, couldn't scramble a measly jet? One jet? In thirty minutes? Or just turn on the missile defense system? And you're calling us crazy for thinking it's strange? Maybe Nixon wasn't a crook either. But please look at the evidence first. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:22 2005 / #96 |
They would have spoken out, the people that managed to escape would have spoken out.
well somebody did speak out. and it wasn't some left wing looney. It was Silverstein. the owner of the towers, and building 7.
please, just watch the video. you can disregard some of the stuff on the website, but there aren't many places where can actually watch the documentary made by PBS. So it comes down to this, the PBS documentary clearly shows silverstein saying that they decide to pull building 7. If you believe the context in which Silverstein is presented, then you will believe that building 7 did not collapse due to fires scattered throughout the building (the official gvt position) but instead because there was a decision made to demolish it. Rapunzel dosn't believe the PBS documentary, and thats fine, because people make their own conclusions about media, and the undersining themes inherit in it. But I do believe the PBS documentary, and the context in which Silverstein is presented as saying that he made the decision to pull building 7. It s up to you to decide, but at least watch the video.
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:24 2005 / #97 |
What is wrong with you Micah?
Is it a complex that you have to be the only boy in playground with a shiny ball; able to tell all the other boys and girls what to do; what to think; and when to say Please Sir can I say something too ??
Pick your dummy up from the dirt, take a few deep breaths - use a brown paper bag if you must - and consider yourself given a detention. Bad, Micah, Bad. I can see the report card now "Micah, a boy with some ability but unable to interact with his peers or Adults".
Keep cool, 'tll after School - Micah. |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:25 2005 / #98 |
I already called out Rapunzel as a probable paid troll on another forum>> http://prague.tv/forum/viewpost.php?id=2901
good call, Micah |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:28 2005 / #99 |
|
PS. Sorry Gwetchen, I only meant to say it once, some kindof computer hiccup or somethin... |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:34 2005 / #100 |
LOL anonymous #98 -- Good reporting, you offering to pay or what - it seems that 200 in mixed US and Canadian bills will do it these days ???
Lighten up on the enter key will you.... its chewing up disk space. :-)) |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:39 2005 / #101 |
That video seems pretty clear to me. Silverstein talking about "pulling" building 7. Building 7 falls. Couldn't be much more clear, actually. Gretchen, did you watch it?
re: Rapunzel, if he's a paid troll, someone is wasting their money. He has no sense and couldn't write his way out of a cardboard box. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Fri Jun 17th 18:49 2005 / #102 |
|
For 200 smackers, I'll try to write better, Sir. Please, please.... and I'll be ever so good, really Sir and sit quietly while you tell all the other boys and girls what to do, and what to think........ darn Gretchen was always a hard case at school - never one to toe the party line. |
|
PatriotFact
-
[anonymous]
|
Sat Jun 18th 01:12 2005 / #103 |
If anybody still has any doubt that the WTC towers were brought down by explosions they should check out the film and book "Painful Deceptions".
a) The temperatures inside the towers were nowhere near high enough to melt steel. This is shown by 1) an infrared detector outside the building 2) the fact that some people were still alive on the floors which the planes hit and 3) the fact that hydrocarbons burning in air don't produce high enough temperatures to melt steel. The soot shows that there wasn't enough air to even reach their max. temps.
b) Building 7 wasn't even hit by a plane and it had just two small fires.
c) Firemen have said on camera (in the film) that they heard explosions.
d) The building collapsed at the same speed as it it would if it had been in free-fall. The explosions were timed this way. If the building had collapsed because the girders had melted there would have been resistance.
e) The lease-holder on the WTC, Larry Siverstein, said that he agreed for building 7 to be "pulled".
f) All the buildings shattered. This requires an explosion.
g)The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, took over the lease a few months before 9/11 and changed all the security people shortly afterwards. He claimed $7b compensation from his insurance company.
h) Pieces of the building were shot hundreds of metres into the air. This requires explosives.
i) A steel building has never collapsed because of fire.
j) The impact of the planes merely made the towers sway slightly. The fuel was largely burnt out when the buildings collapsed.
k) There are seismic records showing explosions coinciding with the moment of collapse.
l) Satellite records show temperatures *after* the collapse which could only have been achieved as a result of an explosion.
m) All the buildings collapsed in exactly the same way that buildings collapse following controlled explosions. |
|
XYZ
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 05:53 2005 / #104 |
|
Ugghh!!! Pfact, next to Mcah (just making a point) you look like a drooling idiot, which on planet earth is pretty tought to do. To suggest Larry Silverstein had anything to do with the destruction of the towers is complete idiocy. The 100 year lease on those towers was to be his crowning achievement in the New York real estate market. Do you really think an old man enjoys going to court over insurance settlements and covering up a major conspiracy at the same time? Not me. I was fairly close to the debt financing on WTC and can tell you that you're full of shit. If you doubt my credentials ask Micah, he's been peeking at my IP address for some time now! |
|
PatriotFact
-
[anonymous]
|
Sat Jun 18th 09:36 2005 / #105 |
Dear XYZ,
Is that the best you can come up with? Given that Silverstein said that he agreed to destroy his own building, and this is recorded on film...it is clearly not "complete idiocy" to say that he had a part in the destruction of the buildings. Your only evidence against this is that he was an old man and that he was pleased to have been awarded the lease.
And if it is "complete idiocy" how about trying to explain away all the other points I made? I am afraid that hurling insults is not a very good substitute for hurling facts. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 12:08 2005 / #106 |
rapunzel, let me make this as clear as possible. I am not referring to the fact that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. I am drawing a parallel between him contradicting the official government position by admitting to blow up building 7.
now either you believe the gvt position, or you believe silverstein. see, you can't believe both ok? thats really your options at this point.
(insert unconnecting strawman rant about ted kennedy here) |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 15:11 2005 / #107 |
Pacman -- you have indeed made it totally clear this time -- you've just said above "that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers." --
Here you again exaggerate and post false information in an attempt to prove something that did not happen. It can't get any clearer than this: silverstein did not and has not admitted to blowing up the towers in any of the "information" presented in this thread or in the the urls posted here.
What's next ??????
You are simply wrong and illustrate how the use of made up or incorrect information destroys any, did I say any, value in a post or argument.
At least Teddy was shown to have committed at least one murder -- and showed that he had the press and political apparatus totally under his control and that of his family and party. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 15:20 2005 / #108 |
do you know that building 7 was not one of the towers?
and why don't you copy and paste where in the above post I said that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. here I ll copy and paste what I see in the above post. maybe you see something different.
talk about twisting information, you didn't even quote my above post correctly.
"I am not referring to the fact that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. I am drawing a parallel between him contradicting the official government position by admitting to blow up building 7."
see the word "not" that precedes the statement. see. that makes it a negative statement. here's a better example that maybe you can follow more easily.
I do not have an apple.
I do have an apple.
the use of the word "not" makes it a negative. hopefully you're "not" an english teacher. that does not mean I hope you are an english teacher. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 15:54 2005 / #109 |
Pacman - you are very confused -- you refer in the post " to the fact that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers" He didn't and he didn't admit to blowing up Building 6 or 7 or any other building.
not or not makes no difference in this context in English from your post.
Why not make it easier -- take a good look at a video of a building being pulled down with audio -- you will quickly agree that the sounds of the many explosive charges needed to "pull" down a building of any size let alone the WTC buildings, that requires its major supports to be weakened before hand do not exist in any of the videos of the Twin towers or Building 6. If you can't find videos on this, perhaps I can assist.
And while you are at it - why not check who was the tenant of Building 7 floors 9&10 and those of floor 25 -- then map onto this "CIA New York City Control office" and you get an idea of the scale of this conspiracy and who Teddy Kennedy could have been visiting on September 11th - or NOT. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 16:05 2005 / #110 |
|
you got a little bit more. now repaste the entire sentence from my post. come on, you can do it. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 16:28 2005 / #111 |
"rapunzel, let me make this as clear as possible. I am not referring to the fact that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. "
Does this help???
Not your argument certainly - you' re saying that silvermain blew up the towers as being a fact , but OK there you are.
Do you include Building 7 in your statement above or only the towers that silverman "admitted blowing up" by the way? |
|
Gretchen
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 16:51 2005 / #112 |
I never said that I agreed with everything the govt said regarding 9/11. Just because I don't agree with every single word, or rather most of what, they say, doesn't mean I am going to automatically believe every extremist theory that disagrees with the official government stance. Why is this such a difficult position for you all to understand?
I firmly believe that W and his administration are criminally responsible for the events of 9/11. The willfully ignored valid intelligence, deliberately waited to act in the defense of the nation they had sworn to protect, opportunistically manipulated the media to justify illegal acts of war that were planned prior to the attacks. That, however, is a far strech from actually planning the attacks. Honestly, its the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder...paying someone to kill for you benefit or the negligence of ignoring an obvious danger that will inevitably lead to death and destruction.
Yes, I know that al Qaeda has never pulled off an attack anywhere close to that scale. They are able to scare the crap out of people by releasing a crappy home movie of Osama in his little cave. That attack took years of planning. It is only a matter of time, since disallowing tweezers and cigarette lighters on planes and color coding fear levels isn't exactly preventative measures.
I haven't been able to watch the video (I am having issues with my connection speed), but I did see the History Channel documentary and the one that was shot by the French men that day. I also saw a number of videos and pictures from friends of mine who were on the lower floors or nearby buildings at the time.
Why is it so wrong of me to trust the first hand accounts from people that I know and trust over a documentary? |
|
PatriotFact
-
[anonymous]
|
Sat Jun 18th 17:59 2005 / #113 |
Rapunzel, if you're such a smart-arse, can you explain how and why building 7 collapsed? It was not hit by a plane, had only a couple of small fires and was one of the strongest buildings on the planet (it strided an electricity sub-station and had girders many times thicker than normal).
Incidentally, you say:
Pacman - you are very confused -- you refer in the post " to the fact that silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers" He didn't and he didn't admit to blowing up Building 6 or 7 or any other building.
Yes he did. This is recorded on film: check the reference in my first post.
************
[Answer to another one of Rupunzel's posts]
Final proof point that this is nonsense:
1) All can agree that to "pull" a building down requires a great deal of planning and skill as well as preparation. The architecture of the building has to be known and explosives calculated and placed precisely at many spots in the building as well as intentional significant structural weakening (i.e destruction) of structural elements of the building beforehand. While this might be possible over time it certainly was impossible to do on the day during the attacks and before the close of the day.(Mr. Silverstein)
Agreed. Hence Mr Silverstein knew what was happening in advance and was one of the people responsible.
2) All can agree that the WTC complex was surrounded by the world's television and journalist community- to say nothing of amateur photographers and Rescue services with real-time Video and Audio feeds non-stop and from every angle.
Agreed. And if you look at the films taken at that time there is clear evidence of explosives [see my original post].
3) IF there were controlled or otherwise explosions in the buildings at WTC sufficient to cause their collapse - we would have had the noise of the explosions going off on a dozen or more audio/video feeds and tapes. There were no explosions recorded prior to the collapse of each building and therefore until such time as "Silent explosives" of the scale needed to drop major buildings in front of the world's press and television are developed, the "story" that the government engineered the collapse fo the WTC through controlled explosions is exactly that a "story" invented by polotical and financial wannabees.
This depends on how the explosive was planted. In any case, there was a series of explosions (as reported by the firemen who were inside the building). What sounds could have reached street level several blocks away is anyone's guess.
General point: Rupunzel - please try to address the facts rather than writing childing insults. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 18:28 2005 / #114 |
Please check again, Patriot - Silversein did not say that he blew up any building at WTC on 9/11.
"Agreed. Hence Mr Silverstein knew what was happening in advance and was one of the people responsible. -- Silverstein knew what was happening in advance "- you mean that Silverstein was the 20th hijacker?
C'mon Patriot this is getting way beyond the willing suspension of disbelief even for your crowd - but it would make an interesting scenario based on this - Mohammed Atta and his New York Jewish Controller !!!!
"Agreed. And if you look at the films taken at that time there is clear evidence of explosives [see my original post].
No Patriot , there is no clear evidence of explosions - that's the point and no one has reported, filmed or heard the many explosions all at low points of the building that are required to demolish it. That's what "explodes" this whole argument. No smoke, no gun.
"This depends on how the explosive was planted. In any case, there was a series of explosions (as reported by the firemen who were inside the building). What sounds could have reached street level several blocks away is anyone's guess."
The buildings cannot be brought down with an explosive. It requires many - i.e dozens of charges placed throughout the building with significant weakening of main structures to achieve this. The videos and eye-witnesses would have reported them as the could not be missed.
What brought down Building 7 is not what I am even suggesting -- the statements that explosions (caused by Mr. Silverstein and the Government) and not the aircraft and their after effects are the ones that were made here, and for which there is no basis in the urls or in this thread.
I tend to go with Gretchen points on this one as well as logic and the evidence provided by dozens of cameras. No one within a kilometer of WTC would have failed to hear the explosions if the buildings were demolished by anyone. Take a look of videos of actual buildings being demolished - all show numerous explosions around the base of the building and the are all very audible. None of this is visible in the WTC videos for any of the buildings. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 18:55 2005 / #115 |
ok, well I guess rapunzel got me on a semantic level. I should have said "I am not referring to the idea that Silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. I am drawing a parallel between him contradicting the official government position by admitting to blow up building 7." guess I let a little bit of my own speculation in where it was semantically challenged. ok, fair enough. but by the context of my post you could plainly see I was not referring to Silverstein blowing up the towers. I was referring to the PBS documentary, and the context in which he was placed where he says he made the decision to pull building 7. and how one could make parallels about what happened to the other buildings on that day. You don't believe this documentary, and that's ok. But if you don't believe it, just say, no I don't believe Silverstein was accurately portrayed in the PBS documentary. That's the big piece of evidence here. Silverstein said he made the decision to knock down a building, PBS put this with an image of building 7 falling in the section of the documentary that was entirely about building 7. If he was misrepresesnted I am sure there could of been some sort of libel/s;ander suit against the makers of the documentary. instead, there was nothing. so next question is.
Why don't you believe the PBS documentary, and the context in which Silverstein was presented?
to Gretchen, I understand your position, and I m happy that you have made your own conclusions about what happened that day. At least you acknowledge the FACT that Bush knew about the presence of Bin Laden opperatives training to fly airplanes into buildings. And then, these people were actually under surveillance on that day. many questions should e raised on this issue alone. Instead, there was virtually no media coverage of the fact that Bush was warned prior to 9/11. And then, against the wishes of the 9/11 widows, Bush stalled, and knuckle dragged about appointing an independent comission to investigate. the when he did, he actually had the balls to appoint Henry Kissinger (a war criminal and known liar) to be the head of the comission into the facts of what happened that day. to this day Bush and Cheney have made absolutely no interviews on record as to what happened that day. Nic, nada zippo. I think you understand what these people are capable of, and I m happy that you are courageous enough to believe that bush and co. intentionally ignored warnings, let them happen, and then used them as a pretext to figt a war that they wanted to fight for years. I ll admit that I don t know what happened that day, and according the 9/11 comission report, the gvt dosn't know what happened to building 7 either. Rapunzel has his own conspiracy theory that the building 7 collapsed because of scattered fires throughout the building. I have the theory (supported by a video of silverstein saying that he made the decision to "pull " a building) that maybe building 7 was in fact knowcked down. maybe, in concerns of whether or not these buildings were knocked down. I would say it is almost certain however that these thugs in charge let the attack take place. I think speaking with people who were there is the best source of information, however I could direct you to more videos of firefighters who said they did hear explosions, as well as dan rather saying that it looked as if the building was lined with dynamite. I think if you and I were in a bar talking about this issue you'd see that I m not some conspiracy nut who believes whatever is on the internet. I question things, and inaccuracies. Rapunzel seems to just blindly follow whatever the Gvt and Bush says. THat is what annoys me. I m fully capable of saying "we don't know what happened that day" and I m not trying to ram my ideology down your throat. I m glad that you don't tow the party line of the republicans, and I m happy to see that you at least question and make up your own mind. Rapunzel on the other hand is a sheep. baaaa baaaa |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Sat Jun 18th 20:48 2005 / #116 |
No, no Pacman not a sheep just tired of seeing "evidence" manufactured for political purposes and "rammed" down people's throats as reality when it is not. It doesn't make for debate or even discovery when it is twisted for political point making. I hear what your saying about being incorrect in your post - that is what I was attempting to point out. Fine and cudos to you for it. For what it is worth I have never voted for or contributed a dime to a Republican ticket in my life - not that that is of importance.
I too question things and inaccuracies - there have been a lot of them in this thread. There simply is no evidence to support here to support a government plot that brought down WTC.
Why don't you believe the PBS documentary, and the context in which Silverstein was presented?
The PBS documentary is fine - it reports an interview with Silverstein who talks about pulling down a building some time following the attack and when the buildings collapsed. This is quite different from Silverstein admitted blowing up the towers - even though we first heard it was the government who did it etc. etc.
It would be a very big stretch to believe that in the afternoon of September 11 after the attacks and before 5:00 pm even Silverstein "made a decision to "pull" a building (or the US government) could prepare, and execute the necessary preparation work, calculation, placement and detonation of the explosive charges necessary to achieve bringing down the buildings. To do so, usually required weeks of preparation. A few hours? No. All in front of 1000's of witnesses, real time audio and video by networks from many angles.
The multiple sequential explosions to bring down even one building would have been recorded and filmed - they weren't.
If there ws interest in the topic without the blatant political twisting then OK - this thread is all about making events fit an agenda and not done well.
We can get into all manner of nonsense and truths concerning 9/11 and have url's to spout it for similar political reasons.
Let's not confuse activity with results. |
|
PatriotFact
-
[anonymous]
|
Sat Jun 18th 23:57 2005 / #117 |
Rapunzel:
"It would be a very big stretch to believe that in the afternoon of September 11 after the attacks and before 5:00 pm even Silverstein "made a decision to "pull" a building (or the US government) could prepare, and execute the necessary preparation work, calculation, placement and detonation of the explosive charges necessary to achieve bringing down the buildings. To do so, usually required weeks of preparation. A few hours? No. All in front of 1000's of witnesses, real time audio and video by networks from many angles."
Yes, this proves it was planned way in advance and that he knew about this.
"The multiple sequential explosions to bring down even one building would have been recorded and filmed - they weren't. "
You have been watching the wrong film! All the films I have seen have shown exactly this. The incredibly strong steel structure is pulverized, and pieces of the building which weigh several tons are flung *horizontally* into the air. Where does this *horizontal* force come from? The building collapses for **no** apparent reason. It is *not* hot enough by far for steel to melt (see my post above); the building collapses under free fall so there is *no* resistance and firemen inside the building describe a series of explosions.
Instead of harping on about what Silverstein may or may not have been talking about when he said "pull the building' [seems pretty clear to me] how about explaining:
a) How building 7 collapsed
and
b) How the North and South Towers collapsed
if not by contolled explosions.
if not by explosives. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sun Jun 19th 02:14 2005 / #118 |
|
arab terrorists were trained in flight schools throughout america in order to fly planes into building. The were under surveillance, however the inadequate communication services, as well as a rivalry between the CIA and FBI prevented from the organizations from speaking to one another. Bush received a PDB saying that Bin laden was planning an attack on america using commercial jets to destroy buildings. this wasn't taken seriously because there are constantly many threats lodged against the US... terrorists board planes throughout the US, and overtake the cabins using smuggled box cutters. then, using their skills at their flying schools they turn the planes around from their course, and begin flying to major american landmarks. one plane hits the tower. NORAD is alerted, but does not have the ability to scramble jets in time to shoot down the remaining flights in the air. a second plane hits the tower. george bush sits in a classroom reading My Pet Goat. Cheney is taken into a secret location. The pentagon gets hit, and the a plane over PA is commondeered by militant passengers who drive the plane into the ground (or the terrorists drive it into the ground because they are scared that their mission may fail) office furniture burned to a temperature hot enough to melt through steel equally across an entire floor of the building, thus causing the steel beams to fall on top of themselves at opposite sides of the building. as one floor hit the next floor, the momentem from the floor on top of it had a force which could topple the next floor. this same domino effect was repeated over and over again, until the building fell right into its own footprint. debris from the falling building hit building 7, starting scattered fires throughout the building. building 7 collapses just as the towers did, right onto its own footprint because once again the office furniture in the building reached the temperature hot enough to melt steel across an entire floor of the building. |
|
elc.synergy-vs.cz
-
[profile]
|
Sun Jun 19th 02:30 2005 / #119 |
I think the Government covered something up, for sure.
I do not think the government orchestrated this. I think Gretchen and Rapunzel have won my allegience: because their arguments are more logical in my honest opinion.
If other arguments appear that are equally logical...I might change my mind.
Sorry for "poisoning" the forum. |
|
PatriotFact
-
[anonymous]
|
Sun Jun 19th 09:57 2005 / #120 |
Pacman - I am not sure if your explanation is supposed to be taking the piss.
"office furniture burned to a temperature hot enough to melt through steel
for the first time in recorded history
equally across an entire floor of the building,
contradicting the photographic evidence, showing fires on only one side of the South Tower
thus causing the steel beams to fall on top of themselves at opposite sides of the building. as one floor hit the next floor, the momentem from the floor on top of it had a force which could topple the next floor. this same domino effect was repeated over and over again, until the building fell right into its own footprint.
Except that the building was in free-fall, so there was *no* resistance.
debris from the falling building hit building 7,
starting scattered fires throughout the building.
Since when has *debris* started a fire? Pieces of concrete flying through the air don't normally start fires.
building 7 collapses just as the towers did, right onto its own footprint because once again the office furniture in the building reached the temperature hot enough to melt steel across an entire floor of the building."
Again, this would make sense if you knew nothing at all about the structure of building 7 and nothing at all about the properties of steel. In fact the girders were as thick as a man's waist. Do you *really* believe that burning desks could melt huge steel girders???? |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sun Jun 19th 12:08 2005 / #121 |
Do I believe it. no. but thats the official position. just trying to put things in perspective. the main problem in debating this issue is that most people don't really study september 1th. people that read the 9/11 comission report tend to be seen as a little bit whacky. people that go to websites detailing evidence that contradicts the official us position are seen as nuts. however the people generally arguing against you generally don't even know what the official position of the US gvt is. Rapunzel is a classic case of this. All that he has presented is, no thats not possible, or you are insane, or ted kennedy likes big macs. little evidence is presented. I m sure the next post he makes will be that me, and others presented no evidence at all. I mean he dosn't even believe that silverstein said he made the decision to pull building 7 even though its on videotape. that's how it generally goes in debating this issue. some people just won't believe anything other than the official position even though they don't know what the official position is.
in rapunzels words
"The PBS documentary is fine - it reports an interview with Silverstein who talks about pulling down a building some time following the attack and when the buildings collapsed. This is quite different from Silverstein admitted blowing up the towers -"
I never said silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. the problem is that if silverstein admitted to blowing up building 7, then that goes against the official US position. make up your own mind, but you need to be aware of the evidence that comes from mainstream sources, as well as what the official US position is. if you start there, you will already be able to see the inaccuracies inherit in the official US gvt position. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Sun Jun 19th 17:02 2005 / #122 |
Pacman - in the tapes Silverstein did not admit to blowing up building 7 - he talked about pulling it down - that is the difference as well as the impossibility of preparing the building to do this on the day.
As for preparing it all in advance as would be required - including gutting much of the building and severing many of the major structural elements -this too is not posible in a building with people entering it at all times of the day and night for the weeks and months that it would require to accomplish -- let alone the number of people/specialised equipment and contracts for the same with demolition specialists that it would require.
Then there is the insurance liability/lawsuit issues such actions would generate with the buildings with the purpose to destroy Silverstein's investment of several months - this is America after all. "I never said silverstein admitted to blowing up the towers. the problem is that if silverstein admitted to blowing up building 7, then that goes against the official US position."
So no.
If we want to get into the many conspiracy theories, of course, we could visit the fact that virtually all the Al Qaeda 9/11 planning and reconnaissance as well as the US Government's knowledge of these activites and files were compiled under President Clinton -- Did Clinton act on this information to protect the US and stop what turned out to be 9/11 only months after he left office, or did he chose to ignore it for other reasons such as Whitewater ?? Did the Clinton administration fully brief and bring to the highest attention of the Bush Administration taking over in January - the files and dangers to the US that Al Qaeda and the known planning for 9/11 represented - or did they simply bury it file it for some reason? What were the Democratic Party's highest officials involvement in supporting financially the Hijackers Flight Schools just before and during the time that the Hijackers were there and after and were they also being supported financially at the same time by Al Qaeda and by Drug cartels who were using the same schools?
As you can see and I must agree there are indeed many questions remaining about 9/11, and any number of conspiracies can be generated and supported by interviews and web-sites and "facts". But then, that is another story and different political spins and agendas - including Teddy Kennedy's gray shadow over the entire affair. :-)) |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Sun Jun 19th 17:12 2005 / #123 |
heres the quote in question
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Silverstein, owner of bulding 7, and the towers
now, I believe that since silverstein immediately followed the statement. we decided to pull building" with "and then we watched the building collapse" that would mean that they made a decision to destroy building 7, and then they watched it collapse. now, either Silverstein is lying, or the US gvt. is. Or another option that may suit you more is that PBS manufactured the footage in order to give bad press coverage to Silverstein.
In terms of what Clinton did during his years in office is a good point. Perhaps more could have been done to try and stop Al Qaeda, we will never know. It is known however that upon exiting the white house, Clinton said that Al Qaeda should be a top priority. If you want to go back to clinton, then we could go back to why George Bush Senior made the decision to train, and arm the Mujahadeen, which brought the taliban to power. Previous presidents responsiblity seems to be a shaky argument, and looks more like passing the buck. I think the buck has got to stop somewhere, and I think the PDB "Bin laden determined to attack within united states" where it outlined how Bin Laden operatives were training to possibly fly airplanes into buildings is a pretty damning thing to have on your record 1 month before Bin Laden operatives drove planes into buildings. especially when they were under surveillance at the time.
heres an excerpt from the 9/11 comission and how they felt about both the clinton administration as well as the bush one.
But the new reports by the commission's investigative staff portray the Bush administration as giving terrorism scant attention during its first eight months, noting that officials did not draw up concrete plans to confront al Qaeda and its Afghan protectors until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks.
The reports suggest that many of the Clinton administration's policies also were ineffectual, revealing significant new details about as many as four missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.
The reports also appear to confirm some of the key criticisms made by Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for Clinton and Bush. Clarke set off a political firestorm with allegations that the current administration neglected the al Qaeda threat in part because senior officials were obsessed with attacking Iraq, and accused both administrations of failing to act aggressively enough. He is scheduled to testify before the commission today, along with CIA Director George J. Tenet, Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage.
I think this is the most damning thing from the last paragraph, especially since now we have the Downing street mintues, which say, well, Bush was obsessed with attacking Iraq no matter if there was evidence or not, and British intelligence officials believed that the intelligence was being fixed.
"the current administration neglected the al Qaeda threat in part because senior officials were obsessed with attacking Iraq"
Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for Bush.
maybe they neglected the threat because they knew it would give them their new pearl harbor, and thus give them exactly the reason they ve been waiting for to take over, and occupy Iraq.
just a thought. |
|
Bobbo
-
[profile]
|
Sun Jun 19th 19:02 2005 / #124 |
|
Interesting thread - too bad it's so over-the-top snarky - I believe I'll go over to Bradvill for some substance... |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Sun Jun 19th 21:59 2005 / #125 |
|
Yes, it is interesting. Good points from both sides. It's a shame that someone like Rapunzel gets called a troll just because he happens to disagree with the Micah/Racer X mafia. Maybe I'm not up on my netiquette. |
|
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 08:25 2005 / #126 |
In netiquette, someone is called a troll only when they stop arguing based on facts like an adult and switch to childish tactics. I think she was called a troll because of posts like these:
Now if you can only get your hands to release the money - (a trait that thiose treacherous Jews have yet to master as you would say)
Oops - "Watch your step" -- why did you shit on the floor again, Micah ? |
|
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 08:45 2005 / #127 |
I just saw your post, Gretchen:
I haven't been able to watch the video (I am having issues with my connection speed), but I did see the History Channel documentary and the one that was shot by the French men that day. I also saw a number of videos and pictures from friends of mine who were on the lower floors or nearby buildings at the time.
Why is it so wrong of me to trust the first hand accounts from people that I know and trust over a documentary?
I would never say it's wrong. Please trust them and ignore the footage. But I don't have friends who were there, and the footage was just a camera turned on in the lobby, so it's a valid piece of evidence for me, and I think it's ok to add it the evidence exhibit list of things to consider.
By the way, what do you think about the half an hour between the second plane crash and the Pentagon crash? From my post above: Tell me that, after the second tower was hit at 9:04, and people in Beijing were saying "hmmm... that's no accident", a full thirty minutes goes by and a plane flies past the White House, Capitol, and into the Pentagon. Thirty minutes and the US, whose defense budget comprises half of the world's defense budget, couldn't scramble a measly jet? One jet? In thirty minutes? Or just turn on the missile defense system? What do you think? |
|
elc.synergy-vs.cz
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 08:58 2005 / #128 |
What is the nettiquette word for some one who constantly publishes their fantasies about their "opponents" meeting graphic and violent deaths, like Micah does? Psycho?
Or or the word for someone who calls someone who politically is on the exact same page as he is a "neo-con" because he doesn't like wearing a fringe leather jacket? Poseur?
Just wondering if I'm right or not. |
|
RacerX
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 10:00 2005 / #129 |
|
"Constantly publishes their fantasies about their 'opponents' meeting graphic and violent deaths"? What planet are you on? Does Micah get mad sometimes? Yeah. Does he have a right to get mad when he does? Yeah. Does he add content and insight? Always. Let's see you match that. |
|
elc.synergy-vs.cz
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 10:26 2005 / #130 |
|
Sure, he definitely adds content. And THIS isn't. However, IMO, the posts of this Rapunzel, while he did attack Micah, were not "troll-work." They were actually interesting and thought provoking. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 11:24 2005 / #131 |
Anonymous, Rapunzel is a troll because he doesn't present arguments - he destroys them. He makes personal attacks and disrupts conversations on purpose. No one knows why he does this, or what benefit he could possibly stand to gain from doing it. Read the beginning of the thread and you'll see it, unless you're convinced not to. Look at his profile, and you'll see that he has a history of doing this. In the past three months, he's made ONE substantive addition to the board - everything else is name-calling and flaming.
ELC, you're not right. Telling someone that I hope he gets what he deserves isn't psycho, as far as I'm concerned. Not nearly as psycho as bragging about making money on the deaths of innocent people. I'm amazed at the double standard some of you people constantly apply, without a hint of irony. Rapunzel, for example, is incapable of expressing a complete thought, but constantly berates his betters for not making points. XYZ thinks he’s won an argument, when in fact he’s only proved that he is proud of making money from stock in a company actively complicit in war crimes. Arguing with someone like that is something like trying to convince a 6 year-old that he's NOT Harry Potter. They’ve lost before they even begin, but they’re playing quidditch or something, and wheeeeeee!!! I’m Harry Potter!!!! In their fantasy land, they’re always right, no matter what.
The double standard is epitomized by the Bush/American response to 9/11 - 3000 American people died, which gives us free license to kill hundreds of thousands of non-Americans in cold blood for no good reason. Try asking Bush and Co. for a reason, and they can’t be bothered to explain, they’re off playing quidditch too. Perhaps coincidentally, we killed all of these people according to a plan concocted BEFORE the Americans were killed, by people who called specifically for a "New Pearl Harbor" (a galvanizing event involving an unprovoked attack on America). I don't think the neocons are stupid people. I think they know exactly what they want, and they seem to be getting most of it. Part of their m.o. is to flatten and polarize debate over ANYTHING in the public sphere. Every argument is either Terri Schiavo or JFK, and that’s the way they like it. To do this, they welcome the donated time and effort of weak-brained individuals to bind other kindred spirits together into influence groups - evangelical christians motivated by obscure "pro-life" issues who don't mind a dead arab or two (hundred thousand), lonely banker types who traded their youth for the security of a stock portfolio, without knowing the value of either.
Sum it up as bald racism, American style; it illustrates the ACTUAL value people like Rapunzel and XYZ place on human life. I might talk shit to make a point, but there's always a point to be made. That's the difference between me and my "opponents" (if you can call George Bush my opponent with a straight face) - I talk crazy sometimes, but they are crazy. My point is that many of the current problems preventing peace in the world today are the direct result of misguided American policies in the middle east and the Arab world in general. Rather than take our national charter to heart, we have opted to create a new enemy for ourselves in order to maintain an untenable status quo of militarism, industry and capital.
Gretchen, I'm not asking you to ignore first-hand accounts at all. It seemed like your first-hand accounts back up the explosion stories I've heard from other sources as well. Three people have clearly stated the case against the official government line without personal barbs or undue provocation. No one other than Gretchen has actually challenged any of this information with fact or experience. I'm not attacking Gretchen, I'm discussing, or arguing, with her. People do that. It used to be a big part of American political life. It's unbearable to people like Rapunzel, who aren't capable of contributing to it. So they become trolls instead. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 11:56 2005 / #132 |
Micah, you are talking through your hat, again.
But there is a treatment for it - consider taking it. |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Mon Jun 20th 12:04 2005 / #133 |
|
Lets see if we can guess who on this thread might be getting paid to disseminate disinformation. |
|
[ anonymous ]
-
[anonymous]
|
Mon Jun 20th 12:09 2005 / #134 |
Here is another thought. Go back and look at the tape of Bush reading to the kiddies in Fla. Card comes in and tells him what is going on, Bush looks panicked and then reaches for one of the two books next to him. Both with big yellow bookmarkers. Then watch his face as he reads the book. Watch his eyes. I don't know how intense the story of My Pet Goat is but Bush seems to be awfully absorbed in what he is reading. The change on his face is noticable as well.
Check it out. I am curious to hear what people think. |
|
trollcat
-
[anonymous]
|
Mon Jun 20th 12:27 2005 / #135 |
|
I have listened to many of Rapunzel's arguments on this thread. I may not agree with all of them, but is it fair to term them nonarguments just because you don't agree with them? That's just a cheap form of rhetoric, usually developed in the teens. Sure there's a bit of name-calling, idle threats -- uh, it's a web forum. Besides, you guys seem to have revulsion for the "trolls" -- but where would you be without them? There would be no sounding-board, your arguments would just float out quickly into the ether. The threads would quickly die and, as Louis de Bernieres famously said once, you'd just be "wanking each other off in the dark." The trolls are your friends, guys. You need them. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 13:09 2005 / #136 |
There's nothing to agree or disagree with in what he writes. He says there is no proof, we offer facts and he ignores them. I can disagree with Gretchen, if it's all right with you. I don't need trolls, they're boring. Look:
"What's next wine out of water, the loaves and the fishes ????"
"And just think that I used to think that the "Swift Boat" folk were looney... they look positively reliable and on the point compared to this."
"Ohhh - you are getting cranky now, Micah, a little bit too close to the bone for you, I guess, we've seen you react this way before."
"I too question things and inaccuracies - there have been a lot of them in this thread. There simply is no evidence to support here to support a government plot that brought down WTC." (EXCEPT FOR THE HEAPS OF IT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTING)
"Now if you can only get your hands to release the money - (a trait that thiose treacherous Jews have yet to master as you would say)"
" Micah, you are talking through your hat, again. But there is a treatment for it - consider taking it."
"Teddy Kennedy doing it at least has a plausible ring to it in comparison let alone Don Rumsfeld doing the Mossad's dirty on Teddy to keep him line. You know you love it." (ABSOLUTE NON SEQUITOR)
"LOL anonymous #98 -- Good reporting, you offering to pay or what - it seems that 200 in mixed US and Canadian bills will do it these days ??? "
"Bomb factory in NYC --- Subway was running late -- Teddy Kennedy was in NYC on September 11 = Teddy blew up the WTC with 12 Quarter Pounder bombs using the Subway to transport them in a car driven by an illegal - Mohammed Fatah."
Wasted space. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 13:41 2005 / #137 |
Yes Micah - you're right everyone else is wrong - there are no facts except Micah facts be they real, imagined, or made up - agreed. Makes for a pretty barren and wasted world, doesn't it?
Unless you get off on listening to yourself drone on and on without regard to either logic, discussion or facts. You might have some value in your posts except that everyone of them is the same - a one trick pony does come to mind.
As far as the WTC and it's end is concerned, this was predicted years earlier by the late Herve Villechaize when he said : "de plane de plane". Much of your conjectures here, which are very transparent as why you are doing so, would be right at home in Herve's world - Fantasy Island.
But then what do I know, I didn't agree with you and pointed it out. Shame on me. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 14:08 2005 / #138 |
|
Case in point. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 14:12 2005 / #139 |
|
Exactly. |
|
Micah
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 14:18 2005 / #140 |
|
So we agree. |
|
Rapunzel*
-
[profile]
|
Mon Jun 20th 14:22 2005 / #141 |
|
Exactly |
|
fireengineer
-
[profile]
|
Wed Jan 3rd 22:22 2007 / #142 |
|
I would like to address certain statements made by Pacman. But this thread is so old I don't want to contradict someone who won't or can't respond. Pacman, are you still out there? |
Accent Photography...
Aloha wave lounge
Retro Music Hall
Czech Language...
Apartment Italska
Charles Bridge Resi...
Auto Prùhonice - Volvo
PH2 Translations
Feedback Form