All 9/11 ideas welcomed here [Archive]

gumboot

5th May 2007, 01:10 AM

israelside the standard proceedure is for you to repost your post here as the OP.

However since you're obviously incapable of doing that, I'll do it for you.

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/social/price.html CIA negotiated there

That is not about the CIA being used in the function of negotiators.

how about those secret prisons, negotiations with prisoners to release info? waterboarding? at gitmo? o wait, that's just torture lol...or is it?

Guantanamo Bay is a military prison, not a CIA prison. And no, torturing or otherwise interrogating people is not negotiation.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/10/981029-cia.htm mideast peace negotiations...shall i continue?

Is english your first language? I don't ask that to be mean. It's just you clearly don't understand the next of this document at all. This would be understandable if english is not your first language.

The above document is talking about the CIA's role in enforcing and monitoring aspects of anti-Terrorism actions in Palestine/Israel as per a peace negotiation. It does not say the CIA were involved in brokering the peace agreement.

bin laden small fry? leader of the worlds largest know terrorist organization supposidly?

I imagine the Muslim Brotherhood has larger membership. Granted, it's debatable whether the Brotherhood is actually a terrorist organisation (the officially don't support violence) however virtually every islamic terrorist group ever formed can trace its roots back to the Brotherhood.

everyone blamed him for 911 straight off the bat, unknown? small fry? or even...incapable of such attacks? So if he was how did he get so orchestrated on 9/11 with no help from a state sponsor?

The 9/11 attacks were rather quite simple. The conclusion that Osama Bin Laden carried it out was also quite obvious. When I say "small fry" I mean prior to 9/11, as I said in my previous post. There were other far more serious threats in the world, and still are. Relatively speaking, terrorists are always smallfry.

Prior to 911 many mid eastern nations recognized the Taliban even tho they held terrorists

That's categorically false. The only governments that ever recognised the Taliban were Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. They were quite explicitly not recognised by the United Nations. Indeed, the UN Security Council issued a number of resolutions against them.

they seemed more like a opium hungry batch of crazed fools who beat women and kids and whoever if they didnt follow their rules of islamic law...not exactly a global threat to civilization (ie a nuclear threat). I think russia, iraq, north korea, cuba would be more of a threat than the taliban.

Cuba? Why on earth would Cuba be a threat?

The Taliban banned the growing of opium. I agree that many other countries were more of a threat to global peace and security, however the fact remains that the UN did recognise them as a threat to global peace and security.

Numerous articles in the 911 timeline report of ISI / Al Queda drug smuggling, opium account for 70% of the world's opium, Al Queda's main goal had to be guarding those fields! You are just lying now dude!

At 6,100 tonnes, Afghanistan currently produces about 92% of the world's opium.

However under the Taliban (and remember, we're talking about the period under the Taliban at the moment) production was down to about 70 tonnes, which, assuming level production everywhere else (in truth it's likely production increased elsewhere, thus making Afghanistan's % even smaller), would account for a little over 1% of the world's supply during that time period.

Al Qaeda were guests of the Taliban. The Taliban strictly prevented poppy cultivation and opium smuggling. Do you honestly think Al Qaeda would so blatantly defy their hosts? Why? Al Qaeda had plenty of money.

Get me those funding sources that Al Queda had...or still has, I am interested!

Osama Bin Laden himself has a personal fortune in the millions. Al Qaeda also established (as MAK) a widespread fundraising network around the world (at least 30 offices in the USA, mainly located in Mosques).

Al Qaeda are quite popular in the Muslim world, and many Muslims have ample money. Furthermore Al Qaeda are quite capable of taking money from unwitting Muslims via fundraising fronts professing a different motive. As far as currently, I believe they probably have problems now. After 9/11 the USA carried out a blitz on companies and organisations in the USA with links to radical Islam. They also froze terrorist assets and closed down companies such as the Al Taqwa Bank.

Granted, not everyone should see classified documents, just MORE than just 2 should have seen this documents, what on earth do they have to hide?

National secrets obviously. The identities of sources, spies in foreign countries, double agents and moles in other organisations. The details of what information they have on their enemies and how they gathered it. All sorts.

Why more than 2? How many? 3? 4? 10? 100?

Does 1 say, secret society rules hidden govt faction...or Al Queda member actually is an alien from iraq who lived in the ancient sumarian tribe before foundations of civilization? lol, if 1 of the guys saw a article that would hurt his case big time...just leave it out right? Accountablity is what america is about, that's why we got 3 branches of govt!! You're not even an American lol...

What on earth are you on about?

no, most govt workers are just that...workers, the elite do the planning, some are black ops...or false flags, do you even know what those are? lol

You were talking about people "in office". People "in office" are not government workers. They are the government.

i was talking about the commission! it was underfunded, yet their story is considered biblical...everything else is just....another investigation! but i'm glad for them!

You are incorrect. The 9/11 Commission was an inquiry into one very specific aspect of the attacks - namely an investigation into the Government's performance leading up to it. The body of work that constitutes the 9/11 Investigation "Bible" was carried out by the FBI, FAA, NTSB, FEMA, NIST, and so forth. The 9/11 Commission Report was not underfunded.

You are illogical, i have spent time here refuting nearly everyone of your points!

You haven't even managed to support any of your points, let alone refute any of my rebuttals. None of the few articles you have linked to say what you think they say.

It's illogical to allow only a few people to have access to secret info...power in the hands of a few is dangerous, ask the jews.

Yes, it is dangerous. But giving secret information to lots of people is often even more dangerous. Which is why western democracies have numerous safeguards to prevent their government over-reaching their power.

In order to live in a structured governed society one must extend a certain degree of trust to the government. Otherwise it doesn't work.

We can't trust humans by nature, only those who are good deserve to know the secrets...right?

By electing certain peoples into government, a population is granting said peoples their trust to run their society for them. Thus is the way of society. It has worked for 10,000 years.

And who is good, christians....see you are not a christian so everything I am saying to you you don't understand!

I'm sorry but this doesn't grant your story any credibility whatsoever.

and WKJO, is based off real issues and the director talks on the radio as if his points are to be serious...not just fictional made up for a movie....he believe in them, just like the end of the movie says..."the director believes everything in this film is true" or to that degree

Good for him. It's a work of fiction.

-Gumboot

NeoRicen

5th May 2007, 02:09 AM

Nice work gumboot, you aren't going to get throught to him, he's clearly insane:
Does 1 say, secret society rules hidden govt faction...or Al Queda member actually is an alien from iraq who lived in the ancient sumarian tribe before foundations of civilization? lol, if 1 of the guys saw a article that would hurt his case big time...just leave it out right? Accountablity is what america is about, that's why we got 3 branches of govt!! You're not even an American lol...

The Doc

5th May 2007, 02:21 AM

Nice post Gumboot. :)

gumboot

5th May 2007, 11:22 PM

Well...?

Israelside?

Hello?

-Gumboot

NeoRicen

6th May 2007, 06:57 AM

He's probably gone to find more crap to ramble on about, it's highly unlikely should he return that he will address any of your points.

israelside

6th May 2007, 03:38 PM

israelside the standard proceedure is for you to repost your post here as the OP.

That is not about the CIA being used in the function of negotiators.

Guantanamo Bay is a military prison, not a CIA prison. And no, torturing or otherwise interrogating people is not negotiation.

False, the article does mention the CIA using negotiation tactics at times, i guess you don't read.

Is english your first language? I don't ask that to be mean. It's just you clearly don't understand the next of this document at all. This would be understandable if english is not your first language.

The above document is talking about the CIA's role in enforcing and monitoring aspects of anti-Terrorism actions in Palestine/Israel as per a peace negotiation. It does not say the CIA were involved in brokering the peace agreement.

yes english is my first language, what is "the next" of this document, i don't understand your usage of english either :)

The 9/11 attacks were rather quite simple. The conclusion that Osama Bin Laden carried it out was also quite obvious. When I say "small fry" I mean prior to 9/11, as I said in my previous post. There were other far more serious threats in the world, and still are. Relatively speaking, terrorists are always smallfry.

Simple? So if they were so easy, why can't anyone conjure up a plan to terrorize folks and cause nations to forever change their foreign policies! It had to require alot of thought and coordination. So Osama was considered small fry prior to 9/11 but his guilt in the attacks was obvious moments after the attack, even though he initially denied the attacks and then a fatter darker blurrier picture of his so called "confession tape" arose, odd. Terrorists arn't small fry anymore buddy, Mr. Bush's legacy will be defined by 9/11 and this war on terrorism...its the talk of the world for the past 4 years (since the war began in iraq for the most part) if not since 911. I dont understand how they can be considered small fry anymore, granted the real murderers are the elite establishment planners who fund and create these false wars and use the terrorists as patsies.

Cuba? Why on earth would Cuba be a threat?

Well they were going to be the brunt of operation northwoods, since the posed a threat against the US, but we all can forget about that right? ;)

At 6,100 tonnes, Afghanistan currently produces about 92% of the world's opium.

However under the Taliban (and remember, we're talking about the period under the Taliban at the moment) production was down to about 70 tonnes, which, assuming level production everywhere else (in truth it's likely production increased elsewhere, thus making Afghanistan's % even smaller), would account for a little over 1% of the world's supply during that time period.

Al Qaeda were guests of the Taliban. The Taliban strictly prevented poppy cultivation and opium smuggling. Do you honestly think Al Qaeda would so blatantly defy their hosts? Why? Al Qaeda had plenty of money.

So, if the Taliban produced so little opium, what was their profit from? If they produce 92% now, heaven help us...I say keep the fields dead, do you want your kids smoking that stuff? Replace an evil govt with a more evil one.

Look, everyone of the commissioners should have access to the classified documents. period. Because its the honest thing to do, we do it everywhere else, why not here?

The Sumarian tribe thing is very interesting, google it up, Iraw has some interesting history. Which would be very valuable to people in the west, or anyone.

The 9/11 Commission Report was not underfunded.
[/B]

Ok, it may have had a specific interest in mind to study, but events leading up to 911 included the ISI connection with the CIA and Al Qaeda...not an easy issue to simply sweep under the rug! Very complex!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html

only $11 million

"Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million." - David Griffin

I understand we extend trust to govt for a reason, hopefully for our benefit, of course there is always corruption. I guess that's as good as the world can be, I'm just looking at it from a christian stand point, where only the good people should be given authority...and only good people can elect other good people right? Otherwise just anyone has the right to vote, which is even more dangerous!

I have credability from Jesus, that's all i need bub, he is the one that should speak through us since he is the truth!

israelside

6th May 2007, 03:42 PM

He's probably gone to find more crap to ramble on about, it's highly unlikely should he return that he will address any of your points.

hey neo, you call me insane and my work crap, yet I haven't heard anything of importance from you? Why not? Please keep things orderly and civil, I am not insane and I am trying to learn here as well as say the things I know...if all you want to do is throw low blows, then go fight somewhere else!

thinkingaboutit

6th May 2007, 03:56 PM

mmmmmmmm opium

israelside

6th May 2007, 04:04 PM

Gumboot, here is the negotiations i have found by the CIA in that article and othere, I will repost...

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/social/price.html
On March 29, 1951 Johnson informed the Board that the "Proposal that Executive Secretary continue negotiations with the Central Intelligence Agency to arrange for compilation of a roster of Anthropologists

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/FightSmart18-11-2001.htm
granted this could have been any "US rep"
The book reveals that the FBI's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. With the strategic objective of securing access to oil and gas reserves in Central Asia one of the book's authors states: "At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs' ".

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030203-411370,00.html
Until about five years ago, it focused instead on gathering intelligence that could be used by other parts of the government. Before that, traditional CIA officers, often working under cover as U.S. diplomats, got most of their secrets from the embassy cocktail circuit or by bribing foreign officials. Most did not even have weapons training

the CIA might not outright "negotiate" with nations, that's obviously not their job, however, under the table deals and bribes of this sort have most assuredly happend throughout the years! I wonder what they bribe the prisoners at their secret prisons with for them to talk?

gumboot

6th May 2007, 04:11 PM

False, the article does mention the CIA using negotiation tactics at times, i guess you don't read.

Negotiation tactics?

israelside, what do you think "Negotiation" means?

yes english is my first language, what is "the next" of this document, i don't understand your usage of english either :)

Well spotted. "Text".

Simple? So if they were so easy, why can't anyone conjure up a plan to terrorize folks and cause nations to forever change their foreign policies!

They can.

It had to require alot of thought and coordination.

Basic piloting skills, some GPS coordinates, a handful of knives, an airline timetable, some wristwatches, and 19 soldiers willing to die for the cause.

That's all.

So Osama was considered small fry prior to 9/11 but his guilt in the attacks was obvious moments after the attack

I wouldn't say it was "obvious" but I would say he was the most likely suspect.

, even though he initially denied the attacks and then a fatter darker blurrier picture of his so called "confession tape" arose, odd.

Conspiracy Theorists pick out specific frames from a single poor quality video and say it isn't Osama Bin Laden. In other parts of the same video it is obvious it is Osama Bin Laden, and more importantly he has also claimed responsibility in later tapes of much higher quality where it is very clear it is him. There are also videos where he is depicted with some of the hijackers.

Terrorists arn't small fry anymore buddy,

I am not your buddy.

Mr. Bush's legacy will be defined by 9/11 and this war on terrorism...its the talk of the world for the past 4 years (since the war began in iraq for the most part) if not since 911.

Indeed it is.

I dont understand how they can be considered small fry anymore

Neither do I. But sadly some people don't consider them a serious threat, even after 9/11.

, granted the real murderers are the elite establishment planners who fund and create these false wars and use the terrorists as patsies.

Are you saying you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks?

Well they were going to be the brunt of operation northwoods, since the posed a threat against the US, but we all can forget about that right? ;)

Cuba was only a threat to the USA because the USSR was intended to put nuclear missiles on it.

So, if the Taliban produced so little opium, what was their profit from?

Their profit?

If they produce 92% now, heaven help us...I say keep the fields dead, do you want your kids smoking that stuff? Replace an evil govt with a more evil one.

Well I don't know what is happening elsewhere, but the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamyan Province have identified destruction of drug cultivation as one of their most important tasks.

Look, everyone of the commissioners should have access to the classified documents. period. Because its the honest thing to do, we do it everywhere else, why not here?

Who does what everywhere else?

The Sumarian tribe thing is very interesting, google it up, Iraw has some interesting history. Which would be very valuable to people in the west, or anyone.

Where on earth did this comment come from?

Ok, it may have had a specific interest in mind to study, but events leading up to 911 included the ISI connection with the CIA and Al Qaeda...not an easy issue to simply sweep under the rug! Very complex!

Not really. The ISI connection to Al Qaeda is well known and goes back a long way. There is no CIA connection to Al Qaeda.

only $11 million

"Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million." - David Griffin

David Griffin is not a very useful source for 9/11 research. He presents copious misleading and often entirely false claims.

As I have previously said, the 9/11 Commission Report was not the primary investigation into the September 11 Attacks. Literally dozens and dozens of Federal and State departments were involved, each operating under their own budgets.

The criminal investigation into the September 11 Attacks is the largest ever undertaken by the FBI, and quite possibly the largest criminal investigation in history.

I understand we extend trust to govt for a reason, hopefully for our benefit, of course there is always corruption.

Of course. The idea is to minimalise it.

I guess that's as good as the world can be, I'm just looking at it from a christian stand point, where only the good people should be given authority...and only good people can elect other good people right? Otherwise just anyone has the right to vote, which is even more dangerous!

No, I think your idea is much more dangerous. Who decides who is a "good" person?

I have credability from Jesus, that's all i need bub, he is the one that should speak through us since he is the truth!

I'm afraid if your only credibility comes from Jesus, you don't have much credibility regarding 9/11. Jesus was hardly involved at all.

And I'm not your "bub" any more than I am your "buddy". If you need to address me by name, call me gumboot.

-Gumboot

gumboot

6th May 2007, 04:24 PM

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/social/price.html
On March 29, 1951 Johnson informed the Board that the "Proposal that Executive Secretary continue negotiations with the Central Intelligence Agency to arrange for compilation of a roster of Anthropologists

No doubt CIA agents negotiate their contracts and the Director of the CIA negotiates his department budget as well. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the CIA negotiating with the Taliban.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/FightSmart18-11-2001.htm
granted this could have been any "US rep"
The book reveals that the FBI's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. With the strategic objective of securing access to oil and gas reserves in Central Asia one of the book's authors states: "At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs' ".

David Griffin entirely misrepresents this meeting.

It was organised by the United Nations, not the USA, and the US representatives were retired diplomats, not members of the government, and not CIA agents. The allegations of these threats were made by one person - Niaz Naik from Pakistan. No one else mentions this threat, and indeed others present have explicitly denied it.

Even Naik has explicitly stated that the pipeline was not discussed at the meeting.

the CIA might not outright "negotiate" with nations, that's obviously not their job, however, under the table deals and bribes of this sort have most assuredly happend throughout the years!

Of course that sort of thing occured. That's not negotiation, and certainly not in the manner we were discussing.

You remind me of Bruce Willis' character in The Fifth Element. "Anyone else want to negotiate?"

Let's stick to a more specific definition.

I wonder what they bribe the prisoners at their secret prisons with for them to talk?

Again, I very much doubt there's any negotiation going on in those places. It seems pretty clear what's going on there is illegal torture.

-Gumboot

israelside

6th May 2007, 04:46 PM

israelside, what do you think "Negotiation" means?

to come up with a deal that benefits both sides!

Conspiracy Theorists pick out specific frames from a single poor quality video and say it isn't Osama Bin Laden. In other parts of the same video it is obvious it is Osama Bin Laden, and more importantly he has also claimed responsibility in later tapes of much higher quality where it is very clear it is him. There are also videos where he is depicted with some of the hijackers.

Are you saying you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks?

Cuba was only a threat to the USA because the USSR was intended to put nuclear missiles on it.

Where on earth did this comment come from?

Not really. The ISI connection to Al Qaeda is well known and goes back a long way. There is no CIA connection to Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is a pasty group, used by the elite to carry out false flags events that create their beloved NWO goals!

operation northwoods was a plan to create an attack on america, blame it on cuba so we could invade cuba, can't you just admit it, it never happend thankfully!

sumarian tribe is associated with IRAQ, and it could be a very crucial motivation for the invasion of iraq by america!

cia used al qaeda and bin laden from the onset, how did rj abbas know the towers were going to come down? he was an ISI agent, you know about OP diamondback?

I'm afraid if your only credibility comes from Jesus, you don't have much credibility regarding 9/11. Jesus was hardly involved at all.

And I'm not your "bub" any more than I am your "buddy". If you need to address me by name, call me gumboot.

-Gumboot

david griffin is a well respected investigator, i have to consider what he says. Chill out gummy, i know you're not my buddy, its a phrase we just use, deal with it!

what do you think about this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00.html

or this one
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_20141.html

gumboot

6th May 2007, 05:08 PM

Al Qaeda is a pasty group, used by the elite to carry out false flags events that create their beloved NWO goals!

They don't seem overly cooperative for a patsy group.

operation northwoods was a plan to create an attack on america, blame it on cuba so we could invade cuba, can't you just admit it, it never happend thankfully!

No, it never happened because it was rejected by the administration. How does this relate to anything?

sumarian tribe is associated with IRAQ, and it could be a very crucial motivation for the invasion of iraq by america!

I'm assuming you mean the Ancient civilization of Sumer. Perhaps you can explain what Sumer has to do with anything?

cia used al qaeda and bin laden from the onset

Actually, it was the other way around. Al Qaeda used the CIA (and FBI) from the outset.

, how did rj abbas know the towers were going to come down? he was an ISI agent, you know about OP diamondback?

Yes, I do. The meetings were regarding weapons deals to Egypt. We have only Randy Glass' word that the WTC was mentioned. Needless to say, Randy Glass is a conman and diamond thief.

As previously commented, the connections between the ISI and Al Qaeda are well known.

david griffin is a well respected investigator, i have to consider what he says.

David Ray Griffin is an ignorant moron who knows less about 9/11 than my left foot.

what do you think about this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00.html

or this one
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_20141.html

Not a lot.

I'm not sure why anyone finds it the least bit odd that a Jewish reporter ended up dead after attempting to investigate the world's most dangerous Radical Islamic Terrorist network in a predominantly Muslim country where Osama Bin Laden is regarded by many as a hero.

Especially given he was investigating links between Al Qaeda and the ISI - a highly corrupt organisation that practically runs Pakistan.

-Gumboot

PhantomWolf

6th May 2007, 08:59 PM

I wouldn't say that OBL was smallfry pre-9/11. He was well known to the US Govt because of his actions against them. Don't forget that less that a year eariler AQ had bombed the USS Cole and that was just one attack in a number of attacks of the previous ten years. In fact as of 9/11 he would have been the number one suspect in any attacks on the US.

It's also wrong to say that everyone instantly jumped to the conclusion that OBL was behind it. Bush wanted and tried in vain, for several days to have it pushed onto Saddam, but the evidence just wasn't there, it all pointed at OBL.

israelside

7th May 2007, 08:40 PM

israelside

7th May 2007, 08:46 PM

Even after no WMD's were found in iraq, and horrible failures have been admitted by our own govt and military in this war, and also known lies by our govt to pursuade naysayers into a war for oil, money, and global control! Alot of folks still refuse to accept the fact that a govt (or media lap dog) could possibly hold a grand conspiracy to fool the public and brain wash them for their own control and power! Gumboot has already admitted the media is a business and mainly just cares about getting money (not covering really important stories to keep govt, businesses accountable for the most part)! But, we still need evidence for any conspiracy theory, I think we have a great case to atleast keep these theories on the front burner of investigation! Only because evil exists, we know who is to blame, know we must know who is acting it out in this world! :)

PhantomWolf

7th May 2007, 08:52 PM

israelside, you need to get hold of and read Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 09:05 PM

I'm still left wondering what in the Hades the ancient Sumerians have to do with anything.

Gravy

7th May 2007, 09:14 PM

Al Qaeda is a pasty groupهذا غير صحيح They are mostly swarthy. Óglaigh na hÉireann: now there was a pasty lot.

Gravy

7th May 2007, 09:18 PM

I'm still left wondering what in the Hades the ancient Sumerians have to do with anything.
You'll need to ask Uruk.

Gravy

7th May 2007, 09:22 PM

هذا غير صحيح They are mostly swarthy. Óglaigh na hÉireann: now there was a pasty lot.Correction: there is a pasty lot. Who knew they were still active? :boxedin:

israelside

7th May 2007, 09:39 PM

israelside, you need to get hold of and read Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

Are you just trying to be a joker or are you being serious? What are some of the biggest things they say in the book?

israelside

7th May 2007, 09:43 PM

I'm still left wondering what in the Hades the ancient Sumerians have to do with anything.

Have you been researching about them? Well Slay, they could have everything to do with Iraq given their history and advancements in math, science and the world! Study who they were, and how some think aliens taught them how to live this way. Alot of unknown things are still buried in Iraq about the sumerian tribe, possible some "reverse technological" procedures would need to be done, meaning they are so far advanced over our current tech level! I had a very good article about them, I will try to find it and send it to you!

gumboot

7th May 2007, 09:43 PM

As previously commented, the connections between the ISI and Al Qaeda are well known - gumboot

So, if the ISI has strong connections with AQ, why not investigate possible funding sources from the ISI to AQ....in 911. It's not that wild to think that some funds the CIA provided the ISI in the soviet afghan war to fund the islamic militants would be totally abolished regarding any future events.

It's not like this operation was expensive. The Commission estimated it cost about $400,000. That sort of money can go missing in a government organisation in moments.

If some random ISI agent happens to support Al Qaeda, and slips them $100,000 from his operating budget, how is anyone supposed to work this out? Do you honestly think the CIA knows the identity of all 150,000 ISI employees?

They must have developed a close relationship with the ISI and watch most of their actions

Okay, obviously you think they do.

The CIA do not have a close relationship with the ISI okay? They had a brief alliance of convenience during the Soviet-Afghan War because they both had an interest in the Soviets being beaten. That's it.

, if they have had or still do have close connnections with AQ, then bring the high ranking members to trial for cooperation with a terrorist organization?

You're assuming that association was official. When I say "the connections between Al Qaeda and the ISI were well known" I mean it was well known that individual members of the ISI were friendly to and supported Al Qaeda. Not that the organisation officially did.

It does seem logical though, on the other hand to "brush under the rug" any off color actions (drug smuggling, illegal weapons trades etc) in order to work with this group to fulfill a larger goal.

Never heard the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

Why do you think the Soviets were on our side in WW2? Or China?

History is full of countries working with coalition partners they don't like/trust because their goals coincide, and neither can achieve them alone.

They did it once, to covertly fund radical islamic militants, why couldn't they do it again in order to use these "islamic radicals" to create a false enemy

If you think either the ISI or CIA has any control over the former Afghan Mujhideen (let alone Al Qaeda) you are sadly mistaken.

so that the US and global power could futher create a global govt, global econmy and the nwo goals could continue.....why is that soooooo hard to atleast agree is plausible?

Well, mainly because the USA's actions post-9/11 have done about as much damage to "global government" (the United Nations) as is possible.

Even if you have proof these govt people did nothing wrong, why not atleast think it could be their goal, given their corrupt history and lives??

Which Government people? The ISI?

-Gumboot

thaiboxerken

7th May 2007, 09:44 PM

ALL 9/11 ideas are welcome here? Ok.

I think the WTC events were the result of MY plan to rule the planet. Yep, I employed elves to plant tiny magic, explosive mushrooms around the globe that made everyone see what I wanted them to see. While everyone was in this trance, the dwarves I employ destroyed the WTC. The pentagon was destroyed by the undead necromancers. All of the truthers are just brainwashed minions of my clerics.

I rule.

WildCat

7th May 2007, 09:45 PM

israelside

7th May 2007, 09:46 PM

Correction: there is a pasty lot. Who knew they were still active? :boxedin:

What are you talking about "pasty lot"? Like a lot of cars to choose from? lol, if so when has bribery gone away? Joe, you want to make some dough? Go kill so and so for me...etc, examples like that. Hitmen, patsies for the true criminals behind the scenes! Everyone behind it is guilty though, including the patsies!

gumboot

7th May 2007, 09:48 PM

What are you talking about "pasty lot"? Like a lot of cars to choose from? lol, if so when has bribery gone away? Joe, you want to make some dough? Go kill so and so for me...etc, examples like that. Hitmen, patsies for the true criminals behind the scenes! Everyone behind it is guilty though, including the patsies!

That's not what a patsy is.

-Gumboot

Hokulele

7th May 2007, 09:54 PM

That's not what a patsy is.

-Gumboot

Go Pats (http://www.patriots.com/)!

(Sorry, I'll head back to R&P now.)

israelside

7th May 2007, 09:55 PM

I am tired of copying and pasting your quotes gumboot, lets just deal with sources of information we can read about and prove....you saying something and then me disagreeing is pointless, solves nothing....obviously your world outlook is naive. Give me some articles to prove your points, and by the way the ISI chief gave the 100 K to sheik who gave it to atta...not just some isi agent, and the ISI is a well known powerful ruler of pakistan a close ally with america in one of the most volatile regions in the world your telling me the CIA DOESN'T have a close relationship with the ISI? Either you're a liar or the CIA is full of fools! You live in New Zealand? How do you know so much about America? Tell me your occupation, age and such, I want to know your background...sorry if you said it before.

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 09:56 PM

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 09:57 PM

israelside

7th May 2007, 10:07 PM

My, my. Aren't you testy when your little fantasies get challenged.

What are you talking about, I have been responding to gumboot's replies for the past 4 or 5 days, its not proving anything so we need sources. Other than that I am not testy at all. You obviously have no courage to resort to calling me David Koresh, you should be banned for saying that. After everything I have been saying, most of which makes sense, some of which doesn't, but how many things have you said were wrong or you take back?? 0 thats a true sign of pride and ignorance! Please leave or speak something of importance!

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 10:14 PM

What are you talking about, I have been responding to gumboot's replies for the past 4 or 5 days, its not proving anything so we need sources. Other than that I am not testy at all. You obviously have no courage to resort to calling me David Koresh, you should be banned for saying that. After everything I have been saying, most of which makes sense, some of which doesn't, but how many things have you said were wrong or you take back?? 0 thats a true sign of pride and ignorance! Please leave or speak something of importance!

At least you admit some of what you're saying doesn't make any sense. I hope you include your claim that a Bronze Age ancient near eastern civilization had space age technology among what doesn't make any sense. Please tell me you do. I still have a little hope for your sanity.

Gravy

7th May 2007, 10:18 PM

israelside

7th May 2007, 10:22 PM

At least you admit some of what you're saying doesn't make any sense. I hope you include your claim that a Bronze Age ancient near eastern civilization had space age technology among what doesn't make any sense. Please tell me you do. I still have a little hope for your sanity.

I havn't had the time to study it well enough, but I really don't care if you think I am insane, nor do I care if anyone does. I realize some things seem out there, but the sumerians can't be ignore. How much have you studied about them? How many articles have you read from supporters of the theory of aliens visiting them? How many hours have you spent studying it slay? Probably 0. I have heard about it from my friend who works in the state dept and from articles i have read, but I cant prove it 100%...WHY DOES THAT MAKE ME INSANE?? I'm tired of your crap, if you don't listen to what I say I can't help you! I do not ignore things that I presume to not exist like aliens, ghosts or Spiritual things. If you do please say so...I don't and I am perfectly sane, thanks!

gumboot

7th May 2007, 10:27 PM

israelside

7th May 2007, 10:31 PM

Oh. Buh-bye.

"He said aliens, he must be a nut"....haha, well we can take someone serious who puts his picture inside of a butterfly! There is some evidence for aliens, not alot, but enough to keep my curiosity! The question is though, what would it take for you to believe in aliens, ghosts or anything unseen? Ya that's right, to see it...who can't do that though? That's easy! Isn't the hard thing to believe in something you can't see! You might say thats the stupid thing to do, but just remember...it takes no courage to hop on board a ship that's already floating, but to bend down and built your own ship, to believe in a nation when no one else did (America), to fight for a war when no one else see winning in sight (I'm not talking about Iraq), THATS doing the hard thing! That's believing something will happen GOOD when you are at your darkest point! I am from America and my forefathers believed like this, I hold up their spirit in this world of chaos and doubt! Victory will be with people like this!

israelside

7th May 2007, 10:35 PM

I'm sorry, I won't be giving you any of my personal information.

I like your idea of providing sources. Tell you what, you're the one who started making claims. You provide some sources, and we'll go from there.

-Gumboot

Granted, I do have alot of finals this week in school so I won't have alot of time to research stuff, but I will get back to you on this....alot of the things I reference are in the complete 911 timeline, but of course not everything. If you read the ISI part you will understand my view on the situation atleast on that area! Don't let me stop you though! I'm still waiting to know some more of your background gumboot, reread my other post if you would (at the end)!

Hokulele

7th May 2007, 10:36 PM

"He said aliens, he must be a nut"....haha, well we can take someone serious who puts his picture inside of a butterfly! There is some evidence for aliens, not alot, but enough to keep my curiosity! The question is though, what would it take for you to believe in aliens, ghosts or anything unseen? Ya that's right, to see it...who can't do that though? That's easy! Isn't the hard thing to believe in something you can't see! You might say thats the stupid thing to do, but just remember...it takes no courage to hop on board a ship that's already floating, but to bend down and built your own ship, to believe in a nation when no one else did (America), to fight for a war when no one else see winning in sight (I'm not talking about Iraq), THATS doing the hard thing! That's believing something will happen GOOD when you are at your darkest point! I am from America and my forefathers believed like this, I hold up their spirit in this world of chaos and doubt! Victory will be with people like this!

General Skepticism and the Paranormal is thataway ^.

If you would like to discuss Sumerian culture and the influences upon it, there are many well-read people in that forum who could address your concerns.

CurtC

7th May 2007, 10:39 PM

It's time to bring out the big guns...

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/P1010409.jpg

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 10:46 PM

I havn't had the time to study it well enough, but I really don't care if you think I am insane, nor do I care if anyone does. I realize some things seem out there, but the sumerians can't be ignore. How much have you studied about them? How many articles have you read from supporters of the theory of aliens visiting them? How many hours have you spent studying it slay? Probably 0. I have heard about it from my friend who works in the state dept and from articles i have read, but I cant prove it 100%...WHY DOES THAT MAKE ME INSANE?? I'm tired of your crap, if you don't listen to what I say I can't help you! I do not ignore things that I presume to not exist like aliens, ghosts or Spiritual things. If you do please say so...I don't and I am perfectly sane, thanks!

And all hope is now fleeting. Tragic. :(

Let me ask you, had you even heard of ancient Sumer before this "friend" in the "State Department" told you about it? I admit I have not studied it in depth, but I can remember covering it in a Western Civilization class I took a couple years ago. Plus I've seen specials on it (along with other ANE Civs) from time to time on educational television shows and such. I know enough to recognize that no serious ANE studies scholar would take the advanced technology claims seriously.

I wonder if you simply tend to repeat ridiculous claims unskeptically that you hear from some friend or other because they sound exciting to you. Are you sure this friend actually does work in the State Department? What's his position? I highly suspect he's just pulling your leg. Pranksters do tend to target credulous people like you.

Oliver

7th May 2007, 10:48 PM

...it takes no courage to hop on board a ship that's already floating, but to bend down and built your own ship, to believe in a nation when no one else did (America), to fight for a war when no one else see winning in sight (I'm not talking about Iraq), THATS doing the hard thing! That's believing something will happen GOOD when you are at your darkest point! I am from America and my forefathers believed like this, I hold up their spirit in this world of chaos and doubt! Victory will be with people like this!

Well, even if I think that slaughtering most of the native americans
and kidnapping, enslaving and exploiting africans to build up a country
is not part of your glorious story, I wonder how UFO's are related to
the whole issue. :confused:

beachnut

7th May 2007, 10:49 PM

Have you been researching about them? Well Slay, they could have everything to do with Iraq given their history and advancements in math, science and the world! Study who they were, and how some think aliens taught them how to live this way. Alot of unknown things are still buried in Iraq about the sumerian tribe, possible some "reverse technological" procedures would need to be done, meaning they are so far advanced over our current tech level! I had a very good article about them, I will try to find it and send it to you!
What does this have to do with 9/11?

Iraq must be taking a break from being the leaders in math and science. When exactly was that, and what happen to them? So where are the space ships and stuff?

And I was in school, one of my professors was co-inventor of the IC. Are you saying the Iraq tribe had ICs back in the day? Guess my professor was a liar and had nothing to do at Bell Labs but dig up the Iraq desert to invent the Integrated Circuit. So where does on go to school to dig up this junk and does it make it easier to believe lies of 9/11 if you have crazy ideas about aliens? Or are you just gullible about 9/11 and your alien stuff is just independent of your crazy 9/11 ideas?

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 10:50 PM

"He said aliens, he must be a nut"....haha, well we can take someone serious who puts his picture inside of a butterfly! There is some evidence for aliens, not alot, but enough to keep my curiosity! The question is though, what would it take for you to believe in aliens, ghosts or anything unseen? Ya that's right, to see it...who can't do that though? That's easy! Isn't the hard thing to believe in something you can't see! You might say thats the stupid thing to do, but just remember...it takes no courage to hop on board a ship that's already floating, but to bend down and built your own ship, to believe in a nation when no one else did (America), to fight for a war when no one else see winning in sight (I'm not talking about Iraq), THATS doing the hard thing! That's believing something will happen GOOD when you are at your darkest point! I am from America and my forefathers believed like this, I hold up their spirit in this world of chaos and doubt! Victory will be with people like this!

No, it's: "He believes that a couple of cranks and frauds making extraordinary claims are more credible than the entire body of researchers and historians in any given field, because the cranks and frauds tell him things that sound strange and exciting. Therefore he must be a nut."

beachnut

7th May 2007, 11:26 PM

Well, even if I think that slaughtering most of the native americans
and kidnapping, enslaving and exploiting africans to build up a country
is not part of your glorious story, I wonder how UFO's are related to
the whole issue. :confused:
It would be better if the Thread Author could find one fact on 9/11 and some evidence to support him.

thaiboxerken

7th May 2007, 11:37 PM

Israelside said that all ideas are welcome, yet he ignored mine. Imagine that.

TBK, please keep in mind that your membership agreement contains a requirement to remain civil toward other members - and keep in mind that the CT sub-forum is currently under a stricter regimen at the moment. I have removed the offending sentence.

beachnut

7th May 2007, 11:44 PM

It would save some time if he just posted all his 9/11 ideas in one summary statement. I bet he has nothing new.

Why would he want to see your ideas? Did you really think a possible truther minded person would want to look at other ideas based on facts?

gumboot

7th May 2007, 11:47 PM

Granted, I do have alot of finals this week in school so I won't have alot of time to research stuff, but I will get back to you on this....alot of the things I reference are in the complete 911 timeline, but of course not everything. If you read the ISI part you will understand my view on the situation atleast on that area! Don't let me stop you though! I'm still waiting to know some more of your background gumboot, reread my other post if you would (at the end)!

I've read the entire 9/11 Timeline and find it less than compelling.

I will wait until you provide a source for some of your claims. I can only reiterate that I will not be sharing any personal information regarding myself. This will not change.

-Gumboot

Slayhamlet

7th May 2007, 11:47 PM

What does this have to do with 9/11?

Iraq must be taking a break from being the leaders in math and science. When exactly was that, and what happen to them? So where are the space ships and stuff?

And I was in school, one of my professors was co-inventor of the IC. Are you saying the Iraq tribe had ICs back in the day? Guess my professor was a liar and had nothing to do at Bell Labs but dig up the Iraq desert to invent the Integrated Circuit. So where does on go to school to dig up this junk and does it make it easier to believe lies of 9/11 if you have crazy ideas about aliens? Or are you just gullible about 9/11 and your alien stuff is just independent of your crazy 9/11 ideas?

Well, I believe Baghdad around the 9th Century was the major center of scholarship worldwide, including in the mathematics (the modern notion of empirically based science didn't quite exist yet, though). This lasted till about the time when it was sacked by the Mongols a couple hundred years later. Of course, this was well over 3000 years after the ancient Sumerians decided to stop flying around in their gravity-defying saucers and began destroying the evidence of their advanced civilization, replacing it all with deceptively planted Bronze Age artifacts.

CptColumbo

8th May 2007, 12:10 AM

david griffin is a well respected investigator, i have to consider what he says.
I don't, since I looked into a few articles and found bad sources, and in some cases outright lies, I pay very little attention to anything he writes. He's only respected in a very small community of people who don't know how to perform investigations on their own, outside of the internet. Outside of that group he is really not well-known. If he actually produced any objective evidence to back up his "facts," he might gain the attention of the public at-large.

JimBenArm

8th May 2007, 05:49 AM

I havn't had the time to study it well enough, but I really don't care if you think I am insane, nor do I care if anyone does. I realize some things seem out there, but the sumerians can't be ignore. How much have you studied about them? How many articles have you read from supporters of the theory of aliens visiting them? How many hours have you spent studying it slay? Probably 0. I have heard about it from my friend who works in the state dept and from articles i have read, but I cant prove it 100%...WHY DOES THAT MAKE ME INSANE?? I'm tired of your crap, if you don't listen to what I say I can't help you! I do not ignore things that I presume to not exist like aliens, ghosts or Spiritual things. If you do please say so...I don't and I am perfectly sane, thanks!
You see, there's your problem. You haven't studied it, yet you feel perfectly comfortable coming here and pontificating on subjects you know nothing about. You have a friend in the State Department? I have dozens of friends in the Defense Department. You can't prove anything even 1%, yet you seem to think we should listen to your rantings.

Edited and infracted for violation of (stringently applied in the CT sub-forum at this time) membership rules regarding civility. Do not attack the person, attack the argument.

JimBenArm

8th May 2007, 09:38 AM

Edited and infracted for violation of (stringently applied in the CT sub-forum at this time) membership rules regarding civility. Do not attack the person, attack the argument.

So I guess this goes on my permanent record, and I can forget about the position in the new administration?

JonnyFive

8th May 2007, 10:19 AM

jmercer

8th May 2007, 12:39 PM

So I guess this goes on my permanent record, and I can forget about the position in the new administration?

According to your avatar, you're going to lead the NWO, no? ;)

Don't worry about it; just don't make a habit of it. :)

kittynh

8th May 2007, 12:41 PM

hmmm, having read history and "understanding" does not win or lose wars.

You got your Patton, but unless it is tempered with a sense of what the situation is... then forget it. The Bradley will win the day.

That said, how many Middle Eastern nations have you been in?

How many families do you have over for dinner? I mean, America is a sort of green salad mix, not a melting pot.

beachnut

8th May 2007, 12:54 PM

david griffin is a well respected investigator, i have to consider what he says.
David Ray Griffin is a hearsay only investigator. He talks to people and presents what they say to support his ideas which he never seems to make clear. He lets you connect the hearsay to the lies he wants you to believe. You can find this out by looking at reviews of his work, you do not even have to buy his junk. But buying his junk reveals in a few seconds he only has hearsay for his evidence. Pure junk for 9/11 is what David Griffin is feeding you.

israelside

8th May 2007, 07:46 PM

And all hope is now fleeting. Tragic. :(

Let me ask you, had you even heard of ancient Sumer before this "friend" in the "State Department" told you about it? I admit I have not studied it in depth, but I can remember covering it in a Western Civilization class I took a couple years ago. Plus I've seen specials on it (along with other ANE Civs) from time to time on educational television shows and such. I know enough to recognize that no serious ANE studies scholar would take the advanced technology claims seriously.

I wonder if you simply tend to repeat ridiculous claims unskeptically that you hear from some friend or other because they sound exciting to you. Are you sure this friend actually does work in the State Department? What's his position? I highly suspect he's just pulling your leg. Pranksters do tend to target credulous people like you.

I'm not saying I can say with 100% certainty that these sumerian people had advanced knowledge due to aliens or anyone else, but it is interesting....and yes my friend does work in the state dept, he lives in dc, and is an IT dept worker in the state dept with a security clearance. I have talked with him for over 6 years now! I trust him a great deal. Ha, thanks for thinking of me as a naive fool who believes every conspiracy on the planet. The things I say have a good deal of credibility behind them thank you! Maybe we should question your credibility as a result? Funny, how people on here judge folks before knowing much about them at all!

Brainache

8th May 2007, 07:55 PM

So the ancient Sumerians you are talking about are the guys who invented agriculture and writing etc? Maybe also the guys who made those big old batteries out of clay jars, copper and lemon juice or something?

Had to be Alien technology, because there's no way Humans could ever dream up that stuff by themselves.:rolleyes:

israelside

8th May 2007, 07:59 PM

You see, there's your problem. You haven't studied it, yet you feel perfectly comfortable coming here and pontificating on subjects you know nothing about. You have a friend in the State Department? I have dozens of friends in the Defense Department. You can't prove anything even 1%, yet you seem to think we should listen to your rantings.

Not at all Jim, you don't have to listen to anything I am saying, yet you continue to respond because you obviously like to debate. We should always throw out theories on the table, and if we enough evidence to consider it trash then let it be, but has anyone come out to prove 100% that the sumerians DID not have advanced knowledge? from aliens? Doesn't mean they did, but why ignore it?

This issue could be tied to 911 in a great way, being a motive behind the war with iraq and the war on terror, granted it's just 1 piece in a huge puzzle, but it could be a motive. Everyone here likes to destroy people, why can't one person atleast see it from my point of view?

israelside

8th May 2007, 08:13 PM

That said, how many Middle Eastern nations have you been in?

How many families do you have over for dinner? I mean, America is a sort of green salad mix, not a melting pot.

0 middle eastern nations

Our next door neighbors are middle easter, ya wearing the robes and all. They are nice for the most part, even giving us christmas gifts before we thought of giving one to them (assuming they are muslims). Ya, America is about to be completely run over with mexicans, the border is out of control! Houston has more mexicans than it does whites...America is more of a melting pot than you think! Thankfully this trans texas cooridor is being held up for 2 years, the global coorporations would love nothing better than to create a pan american union! Yep, you love your rights slowly being stripped away and your daughters being forced to take a vaccine that is a known cancer virus that might kill 4 strains of the HPV, out of 100's of known strains? O sorry, that's just Texas...but we are suppose to sit by and believe nothing bad is happening to us! America has been lost to a tyranical global order of destruction!

israelside

8th May 2007, 08:17 PM

I've read the entire 9/11 Timeline and find it less than compelling.

I will wait until you provide a source for some of your claims. I can only reiterate that I will not be sharing any personal information regarding myself. This will not change.

-Gumboot

You've read the entire timeline, compared all the stories with their sources, investigated other sites to confirm stories and it took you a few days lol...it would take you atleast a few months if you were a really good reader! Yet, nothing sparked your concern? I don't believe you've read much of it at all!

PhantomWolf

8th May 2007, 08:21 PM

Are you just trying to be a joker or are you being serious? What are some of the biggest things they say in the book?

I'm being serious, it's written by a guy that was there working in the media, who has sources and connections through the region and has written a deffinative account of what happened in Afghanistan from the mid 80's through to 2001. Perhaps the problem here is that you believe that anything not on a website can't be true? Perhaps actually getting a real well reseached and written book and learning some history will do you good.

WildCat

8th May 2007, 08:27 PM

0 middle eastern nations

Our next door neighbors are middle easter, ya wearing the robes and all. They are nice for the most part, even giving us christmas gifts before we thought of giving one to them (assuming they are muslims). Ya, America is about to be completely run over with mexicans, the border is out of control! Houston has more mexicans than it does whites...America is more of a melting pot than you think! Thankfully this trans texas cooridor is being held up for 2 years, the global coorporations would love nothing better than to create a pan american union! Yep, you love your rights slowly being stripped away and your daughters being forced to take a vaccine that is a known cancer virus that might kill 4 strains of the HPV, out of 100's of known strains? O sorry, that's just Texas...but we are suppose to sit by and believe nothing bad is happening to us! America has been lost to a tyranical global order of destruction!
Wow! I guess when you're paranoid conspiracy theories are like potato chips... you can't eat just one, you have to go for the whole bag.

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 08:28 PM

I'm not saying I can say with 100% certainty that these sumerian people had advanced knowledge due to aliens or anyone else, but it is interesting....and yes my friend does work in the state dept, he lives in dc, and is an IT dept worker in the state dept with a security clearance. I have talked with him for over 6 years now! I trust him a great deal. Ha, thanks for thinking of me as a naive fool who believes every conspiracy on the planet. The things I say have a good deal of credibility behind them thank you! Maybe we should question your credibility as a result? Funny, how people on here judge folks before knowing much about them at all!

The IT department, huh? So you're saying that this friend, with his low-level clearance as an IT techie, has been privy to top secret documents which discuss the US Gov's interest in excavating Sumerian ruins in the hopes of gaining advanced alien technologies which it will then use to dominate the world? Or maybe he's just blathering about something he saw on some TV show dealing with the paranormal about cryptoarchaeology.

israelside

8th May 2007, 08:28 PM

I'm being serious, it's written by a guy that was there working in the media, who has sources and connections through the region and has written a deffinative account of what happened in Afghanistan from the mid 80's through to 2001. Perhaps the problem here is that you believe that anything not on a website can't be true? Perhaps actually getting a real well reseached and written book and learning some history will do you good.

I read books all the time, I am in school. I dont have alot of time to read other books, but I would like to, websites are good because they can contain a tremedous more volume of material than a book, but are often times more sloppy. Books are good because the authors spend more time to confirm their reports and are older people (given they arn't computer savy) for the most part. Both should be used, but your're right I should get that book and read it, maybe you should read the complete 911 timeline aswell if you haven't ;)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 08:31 PM

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 08:53 PM

I read books all the time, I am in school. I dont have alot of time to read other books, but I would like to, websites are good because they can contain a tremedous more volume of material than a book, but are often times more sloppy. Books are good because the authors spend more time to confirm their reports and are older people (given they arn't computer savy) for the most part. Both should be used, but your're right I should get that book and read it, maybe you should read the complete 911 timeline aswell if you haven't ;)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Any idiot can write a book about something he knows nothing about. In fact, idiots do this all the time. They think that by getting their crazy, uninformed theories into the printed medium they are somehow validated and conferred with authority. They are wrong, but unfortunately many otherwise intelligent people fall for it and think that because it is in a book it must be well-researched. Rather, you should trust the kind of books that are written by experts in whatever field it is that the book deals with. You know, the kind of authors who have spent their entire lives studying the subject matter and subjecting their own research and conclusions to the scrutiny of others respected in the field. If the study has any validity at all, those who study it will have some sort of consensus on the most basic concepts of the field.

Oh, but that's right, professionalism is bad. Sorry, I forgot.

PhantomWolf

8th May 2007, 09:23 PM

maybe you should read the complete 911 timeline aswell if you haven't

I have, it does have some interesting things, but it also has a lot of speculation, erroroneous reporting, debunked myths and irrelevancies, some of which have been jammed in with a tire iron to make them fit. Just because they can do one better than most CT sites on the web and link they events to news stories, doesn't make them all that much more accurate as their news links are sometimes unsupported or refuted, such as those dealing with OBL's supposed kidney problems, or simply biased to look bad, such as the changing of people in govt positions in Jan-Feb 2001. That is standard practice whenever there is a change from a Democratic to a Republican administration, and often projects, especially risky ones, get shut down because of it (aka Apollo in 1968-1970.) Other stories are biased to look bad because of actions that in hindsight seem "strange" but really are a matter of the law of the US at that point. The US has very liberal laws, spying on people inside the country was a no no. Several laws have been changed to allow it now, and people started crying out about oppression. You can't have it both ways, either the Law enforcement agencies can't spy and share information and have to keep each other in the dark, or they are allowed to do it and breach people's privacy. Pre-9/11 the second was illegal. Regardless to what you belive though, the timeline does show one thing, that if it really was known or purportrated by "The Government" it was well underway before Bush come into office in Jan 2001, so perhaps it was a Democratic Party plot to totally discredit the Republicains and storm into power in 2008 because everyone would end up hating Bush and thinking he was behind it.

israelside

8th May 2007, 09:24 PM

Any idiot can write a book about something he knows nothing about. In fact, idiots do this all the time. They think that by getting their crazy, uninformed theories into the printed medium they are somehow validated and conferred with authority. They are wrong, but unfortunately many otherwise intelligent people fall for it and think that because it is in a book it must be well-researched. Rather, you should trust the kind of books that are written by experts in whatever field it is that the book deals with. You know, the kind of authors who have spent their entire lives studying the subject matter and subjecting their own research and conclusions to the scrutiny of others respected in the field. If the study has any validity at all, those who study it will have some sort of consensus on the most basic concepts of the field.

Oh, but that's right, professionalism is bad. Sorry, I forgot.

Ya, I agree with you and think the same way, but that is not professionalism. That's doing your job your whole life, well, and having the guts to have it criticed. Professionalism, to me, is the act of being a fake...that is, living a double life, just doing what you need to do to get paid, get promoted, get whatever you want, but really it's not who you ARE as a person...understand? Maybe it's not the right word, but that is often times how i hear it. It's like....we are "professional" at our law firm, as if they are the kings of knowledge and giving people the fair shake in their case? Most of the time when they say that, I see it as they intend their work to be "business" or "what we gotta do (even if it's fake) to do our job". I guess the bottom line is, if it's fake it's wrong, if it's real it's good, whatever term you want to use! But there is no reason to be a jerk about it Slay, I am being "civil and polite", I guess most people can see that ;)

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 09:27 PM

Oh, and by the way, contrary to israelside's assertion, the ancient Sumerians are most certainly not being ignored (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~nelc/akkadian.html).

More here (http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/iraq/index.html). And especially #15 here (http://www.sumerian.org/sumerfaq.htm#s15).

israelside

8th May 2007, 09:36 PM

I have, it does have some interesting things, but it also has a lot of speculation, erroroneous reporting, debunked myths and irrelevancies, some of which have been jammed in with a tire iron to make them fit. Just because they can do one better than most CT sites on the web and link they events to news stories, doesn't make them all that much more accurate as their news links are sometimes unsupported or refuted, such as those dealing with OBL's supposed kidney problems, or simply biased to look bad, such as the changing of people in govt positions in Jan-Feb 2001. That is standard practice whenever there is a change from a Democratic to a Republican administration, and often projects, especially risky ones, get shut down because of it (aka Apollo in 1968-1970.) Other stories are biased to look bad because of actions that in hindsight seem "strange" but really are a matter of the law of the US at that point. The US has very liberal laws, spying on people inside the country was a no no. Several laws have been changed to allow it now, and people started crying out about oppression. You can't have it both ways, either the Law enforcement agencies can't spy and share information and have to keep each other in the dark, or they are allowed to do it and breach people's privacy. Pre-9/11 the second was illegal. Regardless to what you belive though, the timeline does show one thing, that if it really was known or purportrated by "The Government" it was well underway before Bush come into office in Jan 2001, so perhaps it was a Democratic Party plot to totally discredit the Republicains and storm into power in 2008 because everyone would end up hating Bush and thinking he was behind it.

I'm just saying, look at the articles, if huge agencies like the london guardian dont retract articles that seem suspicious don't we have a right to question the official story if it contradicts it atleast to some degree? Granted some of the articles seem forced in, but given that there is usually tons of articles mentioning just about every viewpoint of the story....we can't really call the authors biased one way, or atleast for most of the sections!

There are plenty of good ways for agencies to collect info without spying on people! It's called news reporting, and doing investigations that are legal, with warrants and such! Wiretapping is the problem, since this is a violation of civil liberties...why wiretape phones when mexicans are riding in truck loads over the border? I see it as, do the obvious things first, after all those measures are set, then and only then should we resort to more drastic measures if the problems persist!

No, 911 was not democratic or republican it is the global elite, do you understand how this world works? Money, greed and power...left, right...it doesn't matter. It's money, and the people with it control the media, govt, industry etc...and as a result manipulate people's viewpoints (often times away from themselves)!! Meaning, away from any wrong doing the people with money have! This topic is very deep, but we can discuss parts as time goes on...

israelside

8th May 2007, 09:38 PM

israelside

8th May 2007, 10:52 PM

I have a challenge to all the experts in building destruction or building design or anyone very familiar with the wtc7 collapse.

If wtc7 fell due to structural weakening, as a result a crucial beam bent and the entire building collapsed into its own footprint how would the building look if it were wired with demolitions and brought down? How much different would it look, and how much more could the building have fallen into its own footprint?

Corsair 115

8th May 2007, 10:59 PM

If wtc7 fell due to structural weakening, as a result a crucial beam bent and the entire building collapsed into its own footprint how would the building look if it were wired with demolitions and brought down? How much different would it look, and how much more could the building have fallen into its own footprint?There are far more knowledgeable folks here on that subject, and I'm sure they'll post their responses. But in the interim, I can offer two quick points:

1) How much different would it have looked as compared to an actual controlled demolition? Well, all you've got to do there is find some videos of actual controlled demolitions and make careful notes as to what you see and hear. The big thing missing from the WTC7 collapse, which are quite noticeable in videos or films of controlled demolitions using explosives, are a) the flashes of light from the detonation of the charges used to sever the support columns, and b) the sounds of said charges going off (they're really, really loud).

2) WTC 7 did NOT fall in its own footprint. And there is ample photographic evidence to prove it.

israelside

8th May 2007, 11:08 PM

There are far more knowledgeable folks here on that subject, and I'm sure they'll post their responses. But in the interim, I can offer two quick points:

1) How much different would it have looked as compared to an actual controlled demolition? Well, all you've got to do there is find some videos of actual controlled demolitions and make careful notes as to what you see and hear. The big thing missing from the WTC7 collapse, which are quite noticeable in videos or films of controlled demolitions using explosives, are a) the flashes of light from the detonation of the charges used to sever the support columns, and b) the sounds of said charges going off (they're really, really loud).

2) WTC 7 did NOT fall in its own footprint. And there is ample photographic evidence to prove it.

ok, well as a response to 1.
Could have any other form of explosives have been used that were quiet, and or didn't emit so much light? Such as thermite? And if it or something similar was used, could it have been used in certain locations to render beams weak enough to collapse the whole thing?

2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact, i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint. If a building falls to one side or another then it DOESN'T fall into its own footprint right? Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down

R.Mackey

8th May 2007, 11:13 PM

ok, well as a response to 1.
Could have any other form of explosives have been used that were quiet, and or didn't emit so much light? Such as thermite? And if it or something similar was used, could it have been used in certain locations to render beams weak enough to collapse the whole thing?

Explosives are called explosives because they explode, or technically detonate. Detonation means that the substance undergoes a state change that propagates faster than the speed of sound.

Do you know what that means? That's right, a shock wave.

Did you know that shock waves are loud?

Therefore, there is no such thing as a "quiet" explosive. Contradiction in terms. The only way to quiet an explosive is to insulate it from your ears.

2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact, i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint. If a building falls to one side or another then it DOESN'T fall into its own footprint right? Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down

I believe you mean "fairly" intact.

Just like it fell "fairly" straight down. Obviously it wouldn't have smashed nearby buildings if it had fallen straight down.

Gradualism.

You've got nothing.

Corsair 115

8th May 2007, 11:20 PM

2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact... Uh, I would say a rubble pile which looks fairly intact is something of a contradiction in terms...

i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint. Because it didn't. Again, there have been photographs posted on this very forum attesting to that fact. You can run a search if you want to find the relevant threads, or perhaps someone will direct you to the threads.

Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight downNo, it apparently fell straight down depending on which angle you viewed the collapse from. The commonly seen view shown on CNN is from an angle which makes it look like it fell straight down. Photographs of the debris pile show, however, that it most assuredly did not fall straight down.

israelside

8th May 2007, 11:20 PM

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!

Corsair 115

8th May 2007, 11:22 PM

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 11:23 PM

I remember seeing a huge aerial photograph of the WTC compound and the surrounding buildings after both collapses, which showed just how much of the towers fell outside of their own "footprints". Does anyone have that picture handy?

NeoRicen

8th May 2007, 11:23 PM

If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!
One side of the building collapsed before the other side, it can't be seen well in most footage because in the footage is shot from the side that fell last. A member on these forums made a video about it not that long ago.

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 11:29 PM

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!

Is that the Windsor Tower in Madrid? It had a reinforced concrete core, something the WTC did not have, and if I'm remembering correctly its steel frame actually did collapse, but the core was left intact.

Corsair 115

8th May 2007, 11:33 PM

Is that the Windsor Tower in Madrid? It had a reinforced concrete core, something the WTC did not have, and if I'm remembering correctly its steel frame actually did collapse, but the core was left intact.That's correct. There were photographs posted on these very forums showing the collapsed portions of the steel frame.

R.Mackey

8th May 2007, 11:34 PM

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite? and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

I'm not an expert in CD's, but I don't have to be. I do, however, know how to apply the Rankine-Hugoniot equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine-Hugoniot_equation).

It really doesn't take much to dispel your scattered and incoherent theories.

What about thermite? How about you tell me? This ought to be good.

If it was a CD you would think the people would have hit it over to make it look like it fell over to one side or another to make it out to look natural, which leads me to another points, whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!

Nope. Whether or not a building falls over or down is largely a function of its height. WTC 7 was pretty darn tall. Lower than the Twin Towers, sure, but it would be a monster in just about any other town.

Progressive collapse in a structure is a sign of good structural design. It means the building remains standing, using whatever margin exists in redundant elements, until the very last.

Talk to a real expert rather than trying to guess from ignorance.

israelside

8th May 2007, 11:35 PM

Corsair 115

8th May 2007, 11:39 PM

check this out, tell me how it's wrong
http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_pile.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile.html&h=400&w=440&sz=41&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=ryNbSRutvIFQRM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc7%2Brubble%2Bpile%26svnum%3D10%26u m%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26sa%3 DNSearch these forums. Much better photos than those in your links have been posted here. The degree to which the debris was not in its own footprint was considerable.

I'd hook you up with a direct link to the relevant thread(s), but I don't have the desire to go on a hunt at the moment...

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 11:43 PM

ok, i am really looking for experts here not just speculators, so please if you havn't studied it extremely well please hold your judgments.

check this out, tell me how it's wrong
http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_pile.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile.html&h=400&w=440&sz=41&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=ryNbSRutvIFQRM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc7%2Brubble%2Bpile%26svnum%3D10%26u m%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26sa%3 DN

That's all you're doing, speculating, and relying on the "research" of non-experts that you found on some conspiracy site somewhere. You obviously haven't studied it "extremely well", so why do you demand that from us before we are allowed to make a judgement? Hypocrite much?

As it happens, many here have been been studying 9/11 for a long time and extremely well. I'm not one of those, but Mackey surely is. So are a lot of people here who aren't on call 24/7 just to entertain your foolish questions and innuendo.

israelside

8th May 2007, 11:44 PM

shouldn't these images be widely popular on google and video's of it on youtube? I see none of the such...maybe the guy made it up?

israelside

8th May 2007, 11:50 PM

That's all you're doing, speculating, and relying on the "research" of non-experts that you found on some conspiracy site somewhere. You obviously haven't studied it "extremely well", so why do you demand that from us before we are allowed to make a judgement? Hypocrite much?

As it happens, many here have been been studying 9/11 for a long time and extremely well. I'm not one of those, but Mackey surely is. So are a lot of people here who aren't on call 24/7 just to entertain your foolish questions and innuendo.

Please go take a bath or something, I am tired of your foolish talk...I will not stoop to your lows of character bashing just to make your point. I calmly asked for an expert to give me his opinion.....whenever he/she might come on...I am learning, if you don't know enough dont give me your opinion. I have studied the material available for the most part...I guess this hidden portion of the building falling or the rubble pile being totally out of the footprint is not worth most sites reporting on it, since it's not on the most popular sites out there! IF you have it post it...but dont give me your opinion just give me FACTS!! That's why I am asking an EXPERT! I am tired of your comments Slay, please stop your foolishness or you will get reported!

Slayhamlet

8th May 2007, 11:58 PM

shouldn't these images be widely popular on google and video's of it on youtube? I see none of the such...maybe the guy made it up?

That's because the internet, and Youtube in particular, is flooded with conspiracist morons, all of whom refer to each other and only present the pictorial evidence (just as with the other evidence) that misleadingly suits their agenda, leaving the rest buried in the garbage. Do you really think the amount of conspiracist sites that turn up from a search made through a popular websearcher like google must mean that the conspiracists are right?

It shows a lot about your ethics as a "researcher" that you consider anything which you have to actually do some serious digging and actual research to find must have been faked.

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 12:06 AM

Please go take a bath or something, I am tired of your foolish talk...I will not stoop to your lows of character bashing just to make your point. I calmly asked for an expert to give me his opinion.....whenever he/she might come on...I am learning, if you don't know enough dont give me your opinion. I have studied the material available for the most part...I guess this hidden portion of the building falling or the rubble pile being totally out of the footprint is not worth most sites reporting on it, since it's not on the most popular sites out there! IF you have it post it...but dont give me your opinion just give me FACTS!! That's why I am asking an EXPERT! I am tired of your comments Slay, please stop your foolishness or you will get reported!

Please report me if you have a problem with what I'm saying and think I am breaking the rules, rather than just threatening to do so. (Isn't that against the rules itself?)

If you continue to persist in your ignorance and do so arrogantly, including acting like a hypocrite, I will call you on it. If you can't handle criticism, tough. I will continue to say it whether you like it or not.

R.Mackey

9th May 2007, 12:09 AM

I guess this hidden portion of the building falling or the rubble pile being totally out of the footprint is not worth most sites reporting on it, since it's not on the most popular sites out there!

Argumentum ad populum... Don't look at "popular" sites, look at legitimate ones. The best resource is, perhaps, the FEMA WTC 7 report, at least until NIST finishes theirs. You have to contact FEMA for a hard copy since they no longer host the document on the Net, and it's difficult to find one that hasn't been vandalized by idiots. However, you can find a pristine edition here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11391/FEMA-WTC-7-REPORT).

Look at Figure 5-12 for a schematic of the debris field after WTC 7 collapsed. Note how it leans against the Verizon building and extends across Barclay Street, to hit 30 West Broadway. Figure 5-26 gives an aerial photograph confirming the schematic and showing the spread of rubble in those directions, as well as towards the Post Office.

IF you have it post it...but dont give me your opinion just give me FACTS!! That's why I am asking an EXPERT! I am tired of your comments Slay, please stop your foolishness or you will get reported!

If you don't believe FEMA, there are several residents of NYC on this forum who can corroborate these observations. I therefore state these as facts.

Thus, no collapsing "into its own footprint." Not a single thing about the collapse suggests explosives or deliberate sabotage of any kind.

The experts have spoken.

gumboot

9th May 2007, 12:15 AM

You've read the entire timeline, compared all the stories with their sources, investigated other sites to confirm stories and it took you a few days lol...it would take you atleast a few months if you were a really good reader! Yet, nothing sparked your concern? I don't believe you've read much of it at all!

No, it didn't take me "a few days". It took me about six months. I started reading it in January last year, and didn't join these forums until after I finished it.

I didn't read every news article it linked to, partly because a lot of the links didn't work, and partly because there was no real need to.

I've been studying 9/11 ever since, and still have a lot more to study regarding the attacks.

The only thing in the entire 9/11 story that especially concerns me is that I wish to know what the reasoning was behind keeping Bush in the school, and who made that decision.

I have a pretty good grasp on everything else (although there's always details to learn).

-Gumboot

gumboot

9th May 2007, 12:27 AM

I'm just saying, look at the articles, if huge agencies like the london guardian dont retract articles that seem suspicious don't we have a right to question the official story if it contradicts it atleast to some degree?

News agency very rarely issue retractions, and when they do they make them as small as possible.

Granted some of the articles seem forced in, but given that there is usually tons of articles mentioning just about every viewpoint of the story....we can't really call the authors biased one way, or at least for most of the sections!

I totally disagree. Paul Thompson is grossly biased. He's a fraud and a manipulator. He is not a researcher at all. He makes no effort to cross reference or determine the validity of the articles he cites, and he makes grossly stupid speculative conclusions based on these articles. He seldom offers more than one or two articles on a given point, and they often come from a common original source.

There are plenty of good ways for agencies to collect info without spying on people! It's called news reporting, and doing investigations that are legal, with warrants and such!

Did you actually read what was written?

They followed the letter of the law before 9/11 at it failed.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticising the new laws such as the PAtriot Act, while simultaneously criticising the FBI and CIA for failing to stop the plot pre-9/11? You cannot have both.

-Gumboot

PhantomWolf

9th May 2007, 12:29 AM

I believe that WTC 7 fell so well within its own footprint that one of the nearby buildings it didn't hit, wasn't demolitioned due to the serious damage it didn't sustain during the perfect collapse. Or something like that.

gumboot

9th May 2007, 12:31 AM

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite?

Thermite is not an explosive and is not used in building demolitions.

and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

It fell on 30 West Broadway (which was on the opposite side of a 4-lane street).

whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!

Not really... I don't think anyone would suggest that it collapsed due to a single beam failure. Don't forget the building had severe structural damage.

-Gumboot

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 12:32 AM

israelside

9th May 2007, 12:41 AM

Argumentum ad populum... Don't look at "popular" sites, look at legitimate ones. The best resource is, perhaps, the FEMA WTC 7 report, at least until NIST finishes theirs. You have to contact FEMA for a hard copy since they no longer host the document on the Net, and it's difficult to find one that hasn't been vandalized by idiots. However, you can find a pristine edition here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11391/FEMA-WTC-7-REPORT).

Look at Figure 5-12 for a schematic of the debris field after WTC 7 collapsed. Note how it leans against the Verizon building and extends across Barclay Street, to hit 30 West Broadway. Figure 5-26 gives an aerial photograph confirming the schematic and showing the spread of rubble in those directions, as well as towards the Post Office.

If you don't believe FEMA, there are several residents of NYC on this forum who can corroborate these observations. I therefore state these as facts.

Thus, no collapsing "into its own footprint." Not a single thing about the collapse suggests explosives or deliberate sabotage of any kind.

The experts have spoken.

that fema report is nice, but the images don't show anything new to me...the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact, but it's not the rubble pile we should worry about, it's the building falling. Do you have any more video clips of the building collapsing, other than the ones on youtube, cbs and the street one?
Ok, once again, when a 47 foot steel frame skyscraper falls some debris will fly as far as fig 5-12 suggests, and the outer facing will fall into the street next to it (fig 5-26) but MOST of the building fell in the footprint, which is what is expected for a CD (if it was one)! I mean we cant see the video at the end of the collapse. We can't tell if some of the debris skidded off in the street, but that doesn't matter. The building fell straight down, with a kink, and the odds of that happening under burning conditions is completely RARE, you are blind if you fail to see this sir....if you have vide of portions of the building falling off (not the penthouse on top) into the street prior the collapse i would like to see it....also remember, a chuck of the towers supposidly created a huge gash 20 stores high in wtc 7 the rubble near wtc 6 is caused by that i imagine....as for rubble near 30 west broadway, it nicked the side of the building, it could have been a couple beams on the way down...this is ignorance talk now, you have to be an idiot to think this building didnt fall down into its own footprint (for the most part), if a CD expert saw this wreckage, he probably would be happy with it, if he destroyed wtc 7.

gumboot

9th May 2007, 12:44 AM

that fema report is nice, but the images don't show anything new to me...the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact, but it's not the rubble pile we should worry about, it's the building falling. Do you have any more video clips of the building collapsing, other than the ones on youtube, cbs and the street one?
Ok, once again, when a 47 foot steel frame skyscraper falls some debris will fly as far as fig 5-12 suggests, and the outer facing will fall into the street next to it (fig 5-26) but MOST of the building fell in the footprint, which is what is expected for a CD (if it was one)! I mean we cant see the video at the end of the collapse. We can't tell if some of the debris skidded off in the street, but that doesn't matter. The building fell straight down, with a kink, and the odds of that happening under burning conditions is completely RARE, you are blind if you fail to see this sir....if you have vide of portions of the building falling off (not the penthouse on top) into the street prior the collapse i would like to see it....also remember, a chuck of the towers supposidly created a huge gash 20 stores high in wtc 7 the rubble near wtc 6 is caused by that i imagine....as for rubble near 30 west broadway, it nicked the side of the building, it could have been a couple beams on the way down...this is ignorance talk now, you have to be an idiot to think this building didnt fall down into its own footprint (for the most part), if a CD expert saw this wreckage, he probably would be happy with it, if he destroyed wtc 7.

STOP LYING.

WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint. It fell across Barclay Street, which is FOUR LANES WIDE, and also damaged surrounding buildings, including 30 West Broadway which was on the opposite side of Barclay Street, and was so badly damaged it too had to be torn down.

Got it?

Not in footprint.

-Gumboot

R.Mackey

9th May 2007, 12:50 AM

israelside

9th May 2007, 12:50 AM

Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticising the new laws such as the PAtriot Act, while simultaneously criticising the FBI and CIA for failing to stop the plot pre-9/11? You cannot have both.

-Gumboot

No, the patriot act goes far beyond any constitutional given rights and infringes on the publics affairs, the agencies DID NOT DO THEIR JOB (they said "we failed you"), not because they didn't have enough resources but because they just didn't get it done! The CIA has technology 10 years in advanced, even before 911....they had everything they needed to stop any attack, even a huge one like on 9/11, they did nothing, the articles prove it on the timeline....the patriot act is an act of helplessness, "give the fools more power because they failed the first time", not because they lacked resources but because they didn't do their job, or possibly because someone told them not to?? haha, we might not ever know! I think the agencies could be given greater access to each others documents without the sweeping measures the patriot act took upon the public!

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:00 AM

Israelside, why must you impute your shortcomings onto others? I mean in particular your refusal to do your own research, while at the same time unjustifiably accusing others of not doing theirs. It is most unbecoming.

I am always researching, I am not done, but the things I have studied I can speak about, the things you havn't studied I can point out. What's unbecoming is your lack of answers, can anyone answer the question i originally posted? A true CD expert or a true building designer...that's all, or a link to a site that has the answers by one. Another question I have, has anyone done or seen someone do an actual reenactment of the collapse of the towers? Not computer simulation, but an actual on camera, accurate reenactment of the towers collapse? That would be cool to see, if I had money and time I would do it myself..

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 01:02 AM

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:03 AM

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

Tbone

9th May 2007, 01:04 AM

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

Well, I'm convinced.

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:05 AM

The CIA does not have technology tens year in advance of everyone else. Stop spouting baloney and start backing up what you say with some evidence.

I have heard they do from friends in govt offices and just rumors, I will admit I dont know 100%, but do you know 100% that they don't?? If so how? Answer it!

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 01:10 AM

I am always researching, I am not done, but the things I have studied I can speak about, the things you havn't studied I can point out. What's unbecoming is your lack of answers, can anyone answer the question i originally posted? A true CD expert or a true building designer...that's all, or a link to a site that has the answers by one. Another question I have, has anyone done or seen someone do an actual reenactment of the collapse of the towers? Not computer simulation, but an actual on camera, accurate reenactment of the towers collapse? That would be cool to see, if I had money and time I would do it myself..

No, of course a re-enactment hasn't been done. A truly accurate re-enactment would have to be done exactly to scale, as most of the natural phenomena present in the World Trade Center leading up to the collapse cannot not be reproduced on a small scale. A full-scale re-enactment would entail rebuilding the entire WTC and smashing planes into it just to see the whole thing collapse again. It would cost more than the entire WTC and the planes involved together. Billions in other words. Does that sound like a reasonable proposition to you?

You are a like little child in a grownup's world.

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 01:11 AM

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

How old are you? No, really.

Mobyseven

9th May 2007, 01:12 AM

israelside:

Thermite. Is. Not. An. Explosive.

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 01:13 AM

I have heard they do from friends in govt offices and just rumors, I will admit I dont know 100%, but do you know 100% that they don't?? If so how? Answer it!

I'm not entirely sure your friends aren't imaginary.

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:21 AM

No, of course a re-enactment hasn't been done. A truly accurate re-enactment would have to be done exactly to scale, as most of the natural phenomena present in the World Trade Center leading up to the collapse cannot not be reproduced on a small scale. A full-scale re-enactment would entail rebuilding the entire WTC and smashing planes into it just to see the whole thing collapse again. It would cost more than the entire WTC and the planes involved together. Billions in other words. Does that sound like a reasonable proposition to you?

You are a like little child in a grownup's world.

I am 23, i go to baylor and as for your post. A small scale could be done, why not? Assure the beams were correct and the structure....then hit em with model planes or something to make the holes, if that fell then it would be plausible for the towers to come down normally. It would be cool to see thats all. Do you ever laugh? Heaven forbid I act like someone who enjoys themselves, my philosophies are not immature or ignorant like you want to portray...you should be banned from ever posting to forums again, you give nothing!!

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:23 AM

How old are you? No, really.

I responded....kids don't do that, they don't listen to people. Wait, you never responded to my question, how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?

jsiv

9th May 2007, 01:28 AM

Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they do?

Not even in secret military projects is the technology really "10 years in advance."

It's a nice out though.. If you can't explain something, just claim that it's some top secret futuristic technology.

Dog Town

9th May 2007, 01:29 AM

It would be cool to see thats all. !!

For your "reasoning" alone...you should be ashamed! You said it all, about your ideas, and movement! Sad really. Is this the result, of poor public-school education, or video games? Both perhaps!
No village?

gumboot

9th May 2007, 01:31 AM

I have heard they do from friends in govt offices and just rumors, I will admit I dont know 100%, but do you know 100% that they don't?? If so how? Answer it!

You don't even know 1%. You're just making stuff up.

You have not supplied a single scrap of evidence to support any of your claims. Not one. I was good enough to offer to address some of the concerns you had about 9/11. Rather than accept my explanations - which are based on substantial knowledge and were supported by extensive evidence - you simply ignore them and make additional accusations.

You clearly have no interested whatsoever in learning anything. Good day to you, sir.

-Gumboot

Mobyseven

9th May 2007, 01:31 AM

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 01:34 AM

I am 23, i go to baylor and as for your post. A small scale could be done, why not? Assure the beams were correct and the structure....then hit em with model planes or something to make the holes, if that fell then it would be plausible for the towers to come down normally. It would be cool to see thats all. Do you ever laugh? Heaven forbid I act like someone who enjoys themselves, my philosophies are not immature or ignorant like you want to portray...you should be banned from ever posting to forums again, you give nothing!!

Well, for one thing the heat of a small fire burning in a replica will not reach the temperatures of the inferno present in the real WTC on 9/11. Yet the melting point of steel remains the same no matter what size the steel beams are made to be. A reduction in scale does not produce an equivalent reduction in many of the natural forces at work.

There's all sorts of complications like that, and even my example is simplistic. There's much more to it than that even.

Oh, and quit being a troll.

Brainache

9th May 2007, 01:34 AM

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 01:36 AM

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:37 AM

You don't even know 1%. You're just making stuff up.

You have not supplied a single scrap of evidence to support any of your claims. Not one. I was good enough to offer to address some of the concerns you had about 9/11. Rather than accept my explanations - which are based on substantial knowledge and were supported by extensive evidence - you simply ignore them and make additional accusations.

You clearly have no interested whatsoever in learning anything. Good day to you, sir.

-Gumboot

hold up gumby, dont bend away from this one...I have been posting in here tonight on wtc 7. I will address more issues in the days to come I hope. I am not saying I have the answers, really I am just questioning the official story still...it just doesn't seem like wtc 7 came down natually...period. You people assume quite a bit!

jsiv

9th May 2007, 01:40 AM

You're right though, it didn't come down "naturally."

It was caused by man-made objects.

What is the "official story" anyway? The NIST report isn't out yet.

gumboot

9th May 2007, 01:44 AM

hold up gumby, dont bend away from this one...I have been posting in here tonight on wtc 7. I will address more issues in the days to come I hope. I am not saying I have the answers, really I am just questioning the official story still...it just doesn't seem like wtc 7 came down natually...period. You people assume quite a bit!

Until you begin to provide some actual evidence for your claims, and demonstrate you have actually read what people here have provided to you, I will not respond any further in this thread. You're wasting my time.

-Gumboot

israelside

9th May 2007, 01:51 AM

Does Mr Israelside really not understand the difficulty of building scale model towers that behave the same way the real ones did?

Try taking two scale model cars and crashing them into each other. Does it look like a real car crash? What would you make the scale model cars out of to make it look real? Tinfoil and Jello?

Well, they don't make real cars the same way they make toy cars lol. If they did they would be broke in minutes...plastic compared to glass, but if you take one of those modle cars (paintable and such) that you put together, and ram them together at high speeds it might be close, but still they arn't made the same. Scale models should work for the most part, if everything else is scaled...mythbusters do it, it works for them....true some things can't be scalable, but the towers might be.....why not atleast do something where you think it would collapse the same way? Then you could understand more about it....

Dog Town

9th May 2007, 01:56 AM

.....why not atleast do something where you think it would collapse the same way? Then you could understand more about it....

Got NIST?

gumboot

9th May 2007, 02:02 AM

Brainache

9th May 2007, 02:14 AM

Well, they don't make real cars the same way they make toy cars lol. If they did they would be broke in minutes...plastic compared to glass, but if you take one of those modle cars (paintable and such) that you put together, and ram them together at high speeds it might be close, but still they arn't made the same. Scale models should work for the most part, if everything else is scaled...mythbusters do it, it works for them....true some things can't be scalable, but the towers might be.....why not atleast do something where you think it would collapse the same way? Then you could understand more about it....

OK so make two six foot towers out of quarter inch lengths of thin, brittle wire joined together by microscopic bolts of similar wire. make each of the 110 storeys out of plaster and even thinner, more brittle wire. On each floor place hundreds of desks, teeny tiny computers and miles of itsy bitsy electrical wiring and plumbing.

Then punch a hole in one side of each, spraying in fuel and damaging the outer collumns and the core collumns. Set it alight and wait to see what happens.

It won't look like the WTC on 9/11 for reasons stated by others above.

e^n

9th May 2007, 02:31 AM

..mythbusters do it, it works for them....true some things can't be scalable, but the towers might be.....why not atleast do something where you think it would collapse the same way? Then you could understand more about it....

Mythbusters do not do 'scientific testing' in the classic sense, there is an element of science to what they do but they would be the first to admit that scale testing is seriously flawed.

Making an accurate scale model of the WTC is impossible, especially so insofar things like welds can't be scaled.

Zep

9th May 2007, 03:22 AM

I am 23, i go to baylor...Liar. What a load of bovine excrement. No-one who wanted to attend Baylor would have been admitted if they had such poor grammar and expression skills as you have exhibited here. Even less so given the dogged avoidance of basic research skills. Not to mention (and I mean: NOT to mention) your cognitive skills, and your abilities to construct and defend arguments.

If you are at Baylor, show us a scan of your student ID.

Dave Rogers

9th May 2007, 03:53 AM

Scale models should work for the most part, if everything else is scaled...mythbusters do it, it works for them....true some things can't be scalable, but the towers might be.....why not atleast do something where you think it would collapse the same way? Then you could understand more about it....

Although other people have answered this, I thought I'd have a go at doing so clearly and simply with a brief example. A good example would be making a scale model, say, of WTC2, and making it 16 feet 2 inches tall - in other words, 1/100th scale. Quite a big model, but feasible.

Let's look at the weight first. If we scale everything perfectly - every beam, truss, girder, bolt, concrete slab, right down to 1/100 scale desks -the model weighs 1/(100^3) or 1/1,000,000th of the weight of the real WTC2, because weight scales with volume. Next, though, there's the gravitational potential energy in the structure, which scales as weight multiplied by height above the ground, so that's 1/100,000,000th of the GPE of WTC2. If we want the structure to collapse, we need to input the required fracture energy into the structure, which varies as the cross-sectional area of the columns, so that's 1/10,000th of the fracture energy required in the real WTC2. Straight away we have a problem; the GPE is 10,000 times too small compared to the fracture energy. Now let's look at the stiffness of the beams, which varies as area divided by length; that comes to 1/100th of the value for the real WTC2. So our beams are 1,000,000 times too stiff. If we weaken the beams by making their area smaller, then the weight of the structure scales similarly (because the smaller beams are lighter), as does the GPE. Aside from that, we're now modelling, not the actual WTC2 structure, but one that we think will react the same way; in truther speak this translates to "You tweaked the model to ensure collapse". The same is true of using different materials to get the proportions right.

I don't really need to go any further. The problem of reproducing the collapse using scale models is so intractable it's hardly worth even discussing, let alone attempting.

Dave

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 07:34 AM

The CIA has technology 10 years in advanced, even before 911....they had everything they needed to stop any attack, even a huge one like on 9/11, they did nothing, the articles prove it on the timeline....

I think you should consider taking a upper-level course in terrorism/counter-terrorism or something similar at Baylor, if they offer such a course. It might give you some insight into how difficult it really is to figure out what is going to happen, before it happens.

Although it is tempting to say, post hoc, that everyone should have predicted and prevent 9/11 (and, correspondingly, their failure to do so indicates something odd), it doesn't match up with reality. In real life, the act of preventing terrorism is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Terrorists tend to operate on the fringes in small groups, lacking the kind of infrastructure that can be readily observed by intelligence agencies in order to get a clear picture of what's going on.

As a result, there is a very high noise-to-signal ratio in the world of counter-terrorist intel. That includes 9/11. There were a few leads that ended up being significant, but a study of the environment at the time from an intelligence perspective shows that there was a lot of cruft flying around at the same time, and there always is. It's difficult to pick out the significant stuff unless you get lucky and have good intel.

I haven't studied the Al-Qaeda group as much as some others, but I did do a lot of research into the IRA a couple years back. They were incredibly hard to pin down by British intelligence and law enforcement, even when some of the major players were known (as with Al-Qaeda). These guys are very adept at splitting their operations into little cells, running, and hiding.

Your statements about the technology and the "they could have stopped it" confidence indicate a kind of naive confidence in what our intelligence community can actually do. Yes, the US has very accomplished, highly skilled intelligence professionals. But no, they aren't magic. They can't predict something without reliable information, and terrorists often operate under the radar.

9/11 may have been big, but it really wasn't that complex. It exploited several major weaknesses in the US system, which is something many terrorists are painfully good at. After the fact, it's easy to say "yeah, we probably should've detained this guy" and all, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.

As far as your statement about the technology goes, that's a fantasy that exists only in the world of the movies. Even if it were true, it still doesn't solve the problems inherently present in intelligence gathering and analysis.

Unless you're going to claim the CIA has mind reading technology or working remote viewing.

Disbelief

9th May 2007, 08:02 AM

Belz...

9th May 2007, 08:04 AM

I guess that's as good as the world can be, I'm just looking at it from a christian stand point, where only the good people should be given authority...and only good people can elect other good people right? Otherwise just anyone has the right to vote, which is even more dangerous!

Ah! A fellow elitist. The difference is, I realised a while ago that this position was untenable.

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 08:10 AM

Liar. What a load of bovine excrement. No-one who wanted to attend Baylor would have been admitted if they had such poor grammar and expression skills as you have exhibited here. Even less so given the dogged avoidance of basic research skills. Not to mention (and I mean: NOT to mention) your cognitive skills, and your abilities to construct and defend arguments.

If you are at Baylor, show us a scan of your student ID.

Baylor isn't that prestigious, is it? Standards for many colleges are significantly lower than what they once were.

Belz...

9th May 2007, 08:10 AM

Al Qaeda is a pasty group, used by the elite to carry out false flags events that create their beloved NWO goals!

Evidence ? Or is this an argument from personal belief ? You seem very strong in the belief department, which in my book is a huge flaw.

sumarian tribe is associated with IRAQ, and it could be a very crucial motivation for the invasion of iraq by america!

???

Even after no WMD's were found in iraq, and horrible failures have been admitted by our own govt and military in this war, and also known lies by our govt to pursuade naysayers into a war for oil, money, and global control!

And yet no one died. ASSUMING they lied, of course.

Are you just trying to be a joker or are you being serious?

He's asking you to read. Does that frighten you ?

Study who they were, and how some think aliens taught them how to live this way.

See, this is not very comforting. Are you well ?

Belz...

9th May 2007, 08:13 AM

You've read the entire timeline, compared all the stories with their sources, investigated other sites to confirm stories and it took you a few days lol...it would take you atleast a few months if you were a really good reader!

Not if he read at average speed.

Books are good because the authors spend more time to confirm their reports and are older people (given they arn't computer savy)

Ridiculous.

The Doc

9th May 2007, 08:18 AM

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 08:22 AM

Ah! A fellow elitist. The difference is, I realised a while ago that this position was untenable.

I shudder at the thought of what israelside's considerations for determining whether a person is good or bad might be.

sackett

9th May 2007, 08:27 AM

...farley intact...

Farley N. Tact. What a beaut of a handle. Why couldn't I have thought of that? Ooooh, you're good, israelside.

sackett

9th May 2007, 08:42 AM

...if you take one of those modle cars (paintable and such) that you put together, and ram them together at high speeds....

Shame on you for treating your toys that way. Your mom and dad paid good money for those, and you just break them to pieces.

No dessert for you, mister.

Architect

9th May 2007, 09:12 AM

[quote=JonnyFive;2587420

I haven't studied the Al-Qaeda group as much as some others, but I did do a lot of research into the IRA a couple years back. They were incredibly hard to pin down by British intelligence and law enforcement, even when some of the major players were known (as with Al-Qaeda). These guys are very adept at splitting their operations into little cells, running, and hiding.
.[/quote]

I'd like to draw that comparison out a little further.

The Provisional IRA were essentially a highly motivated, but nevertheless amateur operation. Yet for something approaching 30 years they waged a highly effective terrorist campaign against the UK. In particular they had a number of spectaculars including the Brighton Hotel Bombing (where they almost took out the PM) and the Manchester bombing.

Yet this small organisation had been targetted by UK intellegence almost from the outset. It now transpires that we had a significant number of informers at all levels of the organisation. We had thousands - yes, thousands - of soldiers on the streets of Ulster. Money and time was thrown at the problem.

Now, Israelside mon ami, if the UK can have such limited results despite a proportionately greater emphasis than the USA had on Al-Q pre-911, where does that put your "all-seeing eye" theory?

Incidentally, before you claim us Brits couldn't organise our way out a paper bag, you might want to remember that we actually beat the communist insurgents in the bits of Indo-China which we ran.......

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 09:42 AM

The Provisional IRA were essentially a highly motivated, but nevertheless amateur operation. Yet for something approaching 30 years they waged a highly effective terrorist campaign against the UK. In particular they had a number of spectaculars including the Brighton Hotel Bombing (where they almost took out the PM) and the Manchester bombing.

Yet this small organisation had been targetted by UK intellegence almost from the outset. It now transpires that we had a significant number of informers at all levels of the organisation. We had thousands - yes, thousands - of soldiers on the streets of Ulster. Money and time was thrown at the problem.

One of the IRA's biggest strengths was their ability to fragment, splinter, dissolve, and reform without losing their central purpose (consider that they've been doing so for approximately 80 years, if you don't count the original Republican Army or the Irish Republican Brotherhood they are somewhat descended from... in which case you're talking like 150). They weren't held together by organization so much as by ideology, which made them very difficult to destroy, even when infiltrated.

Planning and operations were carried out by small cells without contact (or with only limited contact) with each other, who didn't have a central leader. Although there were various key figures in the IRA, their existence wasn't essential to the IRA's mission. So, if one major cell was destroyed, the other cells would keep working, independent of the cell that was gone.

This type of organization has been adopted by several other terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda. Numerous operations can be carried out simultaneously with very limited contact, or no contact.

The best way to combat this kind of organization is to use a distributed network of law enforcement, intelligence personnel, and even civilians to look for evidence of operations before they are completed, basically fighting the terrorist tactics with a similarly distributed intelligence structure. The idea that the CIA can simply stop everything is silly.

Most problematic is the fact that there isn't some monolithic group that can be killed off or captured to end everything. Again, look at the IRA: even when various elements of it decided to become legitimate politcal groups or stop fighting, other splinters decided they'd rather keep fighting. Al-Qaeda and other organizations provide some structure in terms of financing and training, but they are by no means essential to the fanatics plotting in small groups to kill people.

thaiboxerken

9th May 2007, 09:53 AM

how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?

How do you know that I'm not your god? Drop and give me 20 pushups or I'll send you to hell for eternity.

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 10:00 AM

How do you know that I'm not your god? Drop and give me 20 pushups or I'll send you to hell for eternity.

I'm sure he'll post a reply once he's done doing pushups.

Belz...

9th May 2007, 10:02 AM

I'm just saying, look at the articles, if huge agencies like the london guardian dont retract articles that seem suspicious don't we have a right to question the official story if it contradicts it atleast to some degree?

I would say so.

What exactly is contradictory ?

No, 911 was not democratic or republican it is the global elite, do you understand how this world works? Money, greed and power...left, right...it doesn't matter. It's money, and the people with it control the media, govt, industry etc...and as a result manipulate people's viewpoints (often times away from themselves)!! Meaning, away from any wrong doing the people with money have! This topic is very deep, but we can discuss parts as time goes on...

"Greed" is a vague accusation. What you are saying is not that you have actual evidence that this happened, but that similar things have happened before, and that there is a motive. That proves nothing except that government involvement is a bare possibility.

Belz...

9th May 2007, 10:12 AM

ok, well as a response to 1.
Could have any other form of explosives have been used that were quiet, and or didn't emit so much light?

Quite explosives ?

Could, should, might. Speculation.

Such as thermite?

Thermite is NOT an explosive, and it isn't used in controlled demolitioons for a very good reason.

And if it or something similar was used, could it have been used in certain locations to render beams weak enough to collapse the whole thing?

And how exactly would they have done this in concert with the debris damage and fires ?

2. the building fell straight down, the rubble pile looks farley intact, i dont understand how you cant say it fell into its own footprint.

Easy: it didn't. It damaged nearby buildings. If it fell within its own footprint, no other building would've been damaged as they cannot, by definition, share the same footprint.

Maybe we need to dedfine our words because it did fall straight down

It did not fall straight down. It was leaning.

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture

Don't let pictures fool you. The guy's NASA. Chances are a single one of his synapses knows more than I do.

ok, i am really looking for experts here not just speculators

Then you should refrain from talking.

the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact,

Did you get the part where this is an oxymoron ?

The building fell straight down, with a kink, and the odds of that happening under burning conditions is completely RARE

How can you say that ? Are you an expert in building collapses ? I am really looking for experts here not just speculators.

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

Your claim, junior.

Belz...

9th May 2007, 10:15 AM

I am 23, i go to baylor and as for your post. A small scale could be done, why not?

Because the smaller the scale, the less the way the various elements of the building will behave like in the full-scale event. That's why computer simulations are preferable; and cheaper.

Do you ever laugh? Heaven forbid I act like someone who enjoys themselves

Considering we are talking about the cold-blooded murder of 3000 people, you better not be enjoying it too much.

my philosophies are not immature or ignorant like you want to portray...you should be banned from ever posting to forums again, you give nothing!!

And this is why people like you don't understand how things work. Since when do we silence people who disagree with us or bring nothing new to a debate ? Is that the israelside version of democracy ?

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 10:19 AM

How do you know that I'm not your god? Drop and give me 20 pushups or I'll send you to hell for eternity.

This isn't going to go over well. He goes guano-insane if you even mention the name Jesus.

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th May 2007, 10:20 AM

I'm noticing some definite parallels between some of the arguments put forth in this thread and the behavior described in the following post
Yes, evidence is very important. However, it is important to START with the evidence and allow it to lead you where it will. If you START with a pre-conceived notion (such as "explosives were used in the WTC") then the evidence could lead you astray.

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

See the problem here? I am so focused on my pre-conceived belief about what is happening, I fail to consider other, more mundane explanations.

That is why falsifiability is so important. If the purple salamander hypothesis were wrong, how would I know? Certainly not by watching the newspapers and finding that, in fact, the neighbors themselves are picking them up and taking them into their houses. I could simply say, "They beat the purple salamander to it", or "the purple salamander was sick today".
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530

Belz...

9th May 2007, 10:33 AM

I'm noticing some definite parallels between some of the arguments put forth in this thread and the behavior described in the following post
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530

How the hell did you pull that out of 1 year ago ???

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th May 2007, 10:54 AM

How the hell did you pull that out of 1 year ago ???
I really liked that post when I first read it, so I added a direct link in my favorites. :)

Slayhamlet

9th May 2007, 11:20 AM

I responded....kids don't do that, they don't listen to people. Wait, you never responded to my question, how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?

Because the claim is ridiculous on its face, and only a very silly person would entertain it. For one thing it's extremely vague and not even falsifiable. How can you say they have technology 10 years in advance when you don't even know what technology will be like 10 years down the road? And which kinds of technologies are speaking of, exactly? Surely you can't mean all of them. And 10 years in advance of whom? The rest of the civilized world? This is demonstrably false in many cases.

With the advances in digital information storage, for example, even the very best data storage devices the CIA had 10 years ago were not anywhere near the physically compressed size of similar devices with the same storage capacity being used by the general public today (think iPods). I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples. The CIA is really not that far ahead of the curve in terms of most technologies.

slyjoe

9th May 2007, 11:37 AM

rwguinn

9th May 2007, 11:57 AM

Because the claim is ridiculous on its face, and only a very silly person would entertain it. For one thing it's extremely vague and not even falsifiable. How can you say they have technology 10 years in advance when you don't even know what technology will be like 10 years down the road? And which kinds of technologies are speaking of, exactly? Surely you can't mean all of them. And 10 years in advance of whom? The rest of the civilized world? This is demonstrably false in many cases.

With the advances in digital information storage, for example, even the very best data storage devices the CIA had 10 years ago were not anywhere near the physically compressed size of similar devices with the same storage capacity being used by the general public today (think iPods). I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples. The CIA is really not that far ahead of the curve in terms of most technologies.
[pedant mode] It is impossible for the CIA, or anyone els, for that matter, to have "technology 10 years in advance ".
The logic behind that is that they actually have it. So it cannot be 10 years advanced from what they actually have, since they actually have it now.
Even if they had a time machine, and went 10 years ahead and stole the technology from then, theey would, indeed, have it now, not then, therefore, it would be today's technology, not 10 years from now's technology[/pedant mode]:boggled: :confused: :p

JimBenArm

9th May 2007, 12:16 PM

In fact, in my experience, most government agencies are BEHIND the technology due to how they procure stuff and the contract requirements. Have you ever taken a look at the computers on the shuttle? Not exactly what one would call up to date.
This mimics my experience in the "Nuclear Navy". You would think that an "advanced technology" such as that would have all kinds of exotic things attached to it. There were some alloys and things that you might not see elsewhere, but for the most part it was stuff that was old technology, like magnetic amplifiers, regular old steam plant equipment, stuff like that. A boiler technician from the Titanic would have been right at home in the engine room of a nuclear submarine.
Ten years ahead? It is to laugh!

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 12:19 PM

Ten years ahead? It is to laugh!

Maybe he wrote "ahead" instead of "behind" by mistake.

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th May 2007, 12:21 PM

Look, it's quite simple. The NWO prevents anyone outside of themselves from developing any technology that is w/in 10 years of what the NWO currently has. Ergo, the NWO is current, everyone else is 10 years behind.

negativ

9th May 2007, 01:01 PM

Liar. What a load of bovine excrement. No-one who wanted to attend Baylor would have been admitted if they had such poor grammar and expression skills as you have exhibited here. Even less so given the dogged avoidance of basic research skills. Not to mention (and I mean: NOT to mention) your cognitive skills, and your abilities to construct and defend arguments.

If you are at Baylor, show us a scan of your student ID.

To be fair, when I lived in Waco (shudder) I knew some profoundly stereotypical "dumb blond" types who attended Baylor. I'm talking about "Australia is part of Europe because they speak English but aren't Americans" levels of dingy ignorance.

Belz...

9th May 2007, 01:11 PM

I really liked that post when I first read it, so I added a direct link in my favorites. :)

Wow... You must really have liked it.

We should have a forum feature for that.

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 01:12 PM

To be fair, when I lived in Waco (shudder) I knew some profoundly stereotypical "dumb blond" types who attended Baylor. I'm talking about "Australia is part of Europe because they speak English but aren't Americans" levels of dingy ignorance.

When I was in my second semester of university, I took a basic course on policing/criminal justice. The first day of class, when the professor announced the course name to make sure everyone was in the right room, some moron stood up and yelled out "I ain't here to be no cop."

Indeed.

Considering the courses were designed to basically teach the students how to research and understand law enforcement topics and not make the them into police officers, his comment simply seemed all the more bone-headed.

negativ

9th May 2007, 01:21 PM

I responded....kids don't do that, they don't listen to people. Wait, you never responded to my question, how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?

Because it would be in wide use in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

If the CIA had magic L. Ron Hubbard technology, what good would it be if it wasn't used? Maybe they just prefer to sit around and think about it?

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 01:23 PM

Because it would be in wide use in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

If the CIA had magic L. Ron Hubbard technology, what good would it be if it wasn't used? Maybe they just prefer to sit around and think about it?

Maybe they used it and then used other technology to make it look like they never used it.

Oh wait, that doesn't really prove anything and I might as well argue everyone but me is an evil space alien.

Get your damn alien hands off me!

slyjoe

9th May 2007, 01:44 PM

Maybe they used it and then used other technology to make it look like they never used it.

...snip

The other technology would be the 20 years ahead technology. Then, to cover that up...;)

Disbelief

9th May 2007, 01:49 PM

If the CIA has technology that is ten years advanced from what is current, why would the government want to get thousands of years old Sumerian technology from earlier in the thread?

JonnyFive

9th May 2007, 01:52 PM

If the CIA has technology that is ten years advanced from what is current, why would the government want to get thousands of years old Sumerian technology from earlier in the thread?

Because time is circular! Wooo wooo wooo!

Mr. Skinny

9th May 2007, 02:32 PM

I work with technologies that are 10 years advanced from what is current.

Trouble is, it'll be 10 years before the technology is in a form that is useful to anyone.

gumboot

9th May 2007, 05:30 PM

The 10 years in advance argument is nonsense.

Consider the most advanced, sophisticated aircraft in the USAF.

The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit was introduced in 1997. Its maiden flight was in 1989. It's unknown when the B-2 projected started precisely, but it was in the early to mid 1980's.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor was introduced in 2005. Its maiden flight was in 1990. The project for the Y-22 started in 1986.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II project was started in 1996, with its maiden flight only 6 months ago. It is scheduled to become operational in 2011.

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey project started in 1980's. Maiden flight was 1989, and it was introduced in 2005.

These aircraft are at the absolute cutting edge of modern technology. As you can see, the technology is at least 10 years old by the time it is actually used operationally.

-Gumboot

Rich M

9th May 2007, 05:39 PM

f'give me if this has already been mentioned, but my eyes totally glazed over halfway through the thread, but the whole woo-military-ten-years-ahead-of-us thing was pretty much launched around the time of the Bob Lazar area 51 tale. Reversed engineered alien tech, innit. Obviously. Either that or it was the Behold a Pale Horse book, or John Lear blahblahblah. Those pesky grey space-jews have been helping to pimp our airforce since whenever, basically.

gumboot

9th May 2007, 06:33 PM

What I don't understand is how this information is supposed to help the CIA.

If the law limits what they can do, it limits what they can do, advanced technology or not. Or did I miss the subsection of the law that said "No spying on peeps in teh USA unless you're using teh sooper sekrit alienz technolog0r LOLZ!11!!!!!1!!!OMG!!@@#!#@

-Gumboot

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:01 AM

I think you should consider taking a upper-level course in terrorism/counter-terrorism or something similar at Baylor, if they offer such a course. It might give you some insight into how difficult it really is to figure out what is going to happen, before it happens.

Although it is tempting to say, post hoc, that everyone should have predicted and prevent 9/11 (and, correspondingly, their failure to do so indicates something odd), it doesn't match up with reality. In real life, the act of preventing terrorism is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Terrorists tend to operate on the fringes in small groups, lacking the kind of infrastructure that can be readily observed by intelligence agencies in order to get a clear picture of what's going on.

It's difficult to pick out the significant stuff unless you get lucky and have good intel.

9/11 may have been big, but it really wasn't that complex. It exploited several major weaknesses in the US system, which is something many terrorists are painfully good at. After the fact, it's easy to say "yeah, we probably should've detained this guy" and all, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.

I am not saying the CIA or anyone else needs magic or mind readers to disolve future terrorist attack, but based on numerous articles and intel the agencies likely had prior to 911, the attacks should have been predicted within a few months...alex jones even predicted it in july...or he hinted at a possible event. Does problem, reaction, solution ring bells with any of you "sophisticated" minds in here? How about false flag operations? Could it ever be possible that our govt "allowed" or "orchestrated" such actions in order to fulfill their own goals....remember, "we can use these attacks for a nwo". I believe a power trip is what these people want (the ones in power), and they will stop at nothing to get it...sometimes the ties to events in the world are wrongly associated with the elite, but the big events usually are correctly tied to them!

I will get more evidence of the 10 yr advanced technology by our govt....any currect workers can speak up now ;)

So, by one of your comments, in order for us to prevent most attacks we must get lucky and have good intel? gee thanks, but you are right in the fact that if someone really wants to hurt you, you can't do much (if anything) about it, I aint that dumb.

I guess my feeling is, where do we draw the line and say, Frank you're fired for not getting the correct intel and capturing that guy before he blew up the nuclear plant? Do we hire people into intel communities to give them a free pass? If they get it right (lucky like you say often times) then they get a raise or just a high five, but if they get it wrong do we just pat them on the back and say you'll get 'em next time ole chap? Where is the line drawn? I guess you can't tell if an intel agent really ISN'T doing his job unless you know something that he should, and then you see him screw up at it? How do we know if the guy is failing at his job, or just not getting enough info to do his job? People should always be held accountable, and more people should take actions for the correct thing!

Corsair 115

10th May 2007, 01:06 AM

I am not saying the CIA or anyone else needs magic or mind readers to disolve future terrorist attack, but based on numerous articles and intel the agencies likely had prior to 911, the attacks should have been predicted within a few months...The key thing here is not predicting attacks, but rather predicting what kinds of attacks, carried out when, and by what methods.

Without these latter elements, the prediction isn't all that helpful in stopping an attack. Unless one believe just general heightened security would be enough to thwart things...

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:09 AM

I've seen 15 year olds outsmart 50 year olds israelside, and I've also seen 50 year olds who are far more computer savy than their 15 year old kids. Age has nothing to do with anything unless you are using an ad hominem style of argument.

You are using an argument that doesn't say the whole truth...i did, if you won't take my comment out of text. I said, older people FOR THE MOST PART arn't as computer savy as younger folks...i didn't say ALL ARE NOT. Looking to refute me anyway you can, I am beginning to think this forum is only for 1 sided thinkers...no one in here has stood up on my side, I am not whining, I am just speaking the truth! How would you like going into a forum and no one agreeing with you much, or atleast giving you credit for the things you are correct at? I have more guts than most of you all put together!!

gumboot

10th May 2007, 01:14 AM

I am not saying the CIA or anyone else needs magic or mind readers to disolve future terrorist attack, but based on numerous articles and intel the agencies likely had prior to 911, the attacks should have been predicted within a few months...alex jones even predicted it in july...or he hinted at a possible event.

Um... Alex Jones did nothing of the sort. Alex Jones said IF a terrorist attack occurred he would blame it on the government.

As to your other point... As to the other matter, you seem to be having some trouble grasping the concept of "actionable intelligence". It is not enough to know "someone wants to attack us". You have to have verifiable specific information about a very specific attack, otherwise there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

So, by one of your comments, in order for us to prevent most attacks we must get lucky and have good intel? gee thanks, but you are right in the fact that if someone really wants to hurt you, you can't do much (if anything) about it, I aint that dumb.

That's pretty much the reality. National Security and counter terrorism is not like taking a car to the mechanic to get it fixed. Sometimes you stop them, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you end up chasing dead ends. Such is the shady world of intelligence.

I guess my feeling is, where do we draw the line and say, Frank you're fired for not getting the correct intel and capturing that guy before he blew up the nuclear plant? Do we hire people into intel communities to give them a free pass? If they get it right (lucky like you say often times) then they get a raise or just a high five, but if they get it wrong do we just pat them on the back and say you'll get 'em next time ole chap?

You know, they used to use the methodology you propose in the military. Soldiers who failed to achieve objectives would get shot. It doesn't work very well. You end up shooting more and more soldiers, and morale plummets.

As I said, this is not like fixing a car. If your mechanic screws up fixing your car, sure, he should get in trouble for that.

Counterterrorism is a very difficult and chaotic, uncontrolled environment. You simply cannot expect intelligence agencies to prevent every attack. What you're proposing would be like firing a detective every time a murder was committed.

Why is it you cannot accept that the FBI and CIA did everything they could to prevent a terrorist attack, given the laws and resources that had to work with, and it simply wasn't enough? Why does someone have to be blamed?

If you want to blame someone, blame the terrorists.

They are the ones that made the decision to bring mass murder to your doorstep. Take up the issue with them.

All you will achieve by attacking the people trying to protect you is drive them from their jobs, leaving you open to more attacks.

-Gumboot

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:22 AM

Easy: it didn't. It damaged nearby buildings. If it fell within its own footprint, no other building would've been damaged as they cannot, by definition, share the same footprint.

It did not fall straight down. It was leaning.

How can you say that ? Are you an expert in building collapses ? I am really looking for experts here not just speculators.

wtc 7, from video evidence (4 angles that I know of) show the building falling in a pretty much straight down fashion, some of the siding could have struct nearby buildings, but at no measure can anyone say it was a total lopsided collapse, because the bulk of the rubble is on top of itself (in it's own footprint). I am no expert, but I have eyes and sense of a smart person, to some degree atleast!

Anyone, get me detailed pictures of the rubble pile (little smoke or none) and video of the building collapse that shows it leaning to one side...I can not find it anywhere! Obviously, everyone of you know it leaned on one side, so you must have the evidence somewhere, bookmarked or whatnot!

Corsair 115

10th May 2007, 01:24 AM

wtc 7, from video evidence (4 angles that I know of) show the building falling in a pretty much straight down fashion, some of the siding could have struct nearby buildings, but at no measure can anyone say it was a total lopsided collapse, because the bulk of the rubble is on top of itself (in it's own footprint). I am no expert, but I have eyes and sense of a smart person, to some degree atleast! Search these forums. The photos demonstrating that the building did not fall neatly into its own footpring are around here, I remember seeing them not all that long ago.

Anyone, get me detailed pictures of the rubble pile (little smoke or none) and video of the building collapse that shows it leaning to one side...I can not find it anywhere! Obviously, everyone of you know it leaned on one side, so you must have the evidence somewhere, bookmarked or whatnot!See above.

stateofgrace

10th May 2007, 01:34 AM

I guess my feeling is, where do we draw the line and say, Frank you're fired for not getting the correct intel and capturing that guy before he blew up the nuclear plant? Do we hire people into intel communities to give them a free pass? If they get it right (lucky like you say often times) then they get a raise or just a high five, but if they get it wrong do we just pat them on the back and say you'll get 'em next time ole chap? Where is the line drawn? I guess you can't tell if an intel agent really ISN'T doing his job unless you know something that he should, and then you see him screw up at it? How do we know if the guy is failing at his job, or just not getting enough info to do his job? People should always be held accountable, and more people should take actions for the correct thing!

You are asking the impossible of the security services, that being they provide you with 100% security night and day. That they arrest the bad guy before he commits whatever act of violence he is planning and they do so knowing they will get the right bad guy and not some innocent bystander.

You do realize what an impossible request you are making of these people. On one hand you would be the first to moan and groan that your civil liberties are being removed because of new laws designed specifically to target would be terrorists and on the other hand you demand to know why the counter terrorist organizations are unable to stop every single terrorist action. They cannot offer you 100% protection 24/7, they cannot get the bad guy every time, it is impossible. If it was possible then there would never be another single terrorist action again.

Maybe, just maybe you should stop and ask yourself a few soul searching questions before your continue to run down those who try to protect you.

Would you prefer they were not there? Would you prefer that every time they missed something, or got it wrong, those they employed were jailed?

It is very easy to criticize those whose job it is to counter the threat of terrorism, it is oh so easy to get on ones moral high horse and call for blood when they get it wrong. Hey why not even accuses them of being part of it while you are at it?

You ask where the line is drawn; it is drawn between providing you and your family with an adequate level of security without encroaching onto your civil liberties. You cannot expect to be protected from terrorist actions unless you provide those who do the protecting with power to protect you. It is this simple and it is you call.

You either give the counter terrorist organizations the strength and power to do their jobs, free of fear of reprisals and blame if they get it wrong or you remove their powers and say ¨Hey who needs you guys, after all you didn’t stop every single terrorist action ¨. Again your call.

gumboot

10th May 2007, 01:38 AM

wtc 7, from video evidence (4 angles that I know of) show the building falling in a pretty much straight down fashion, some of the siding could have struct nearby buildings, but at no measure can anyone say it was a total lopsided collapse, because the bulk of the rubble is on top of itself (in it's own footprint). I am no expert, but I have eyes and sense of a smart person, to some degree atleast!

How many times must you be told this is false before it finally registers? WTC7 fell across a four lane road and hit 30 West Broadway severely enough that it had to be demolished. That is not "straight down" by any measure I am aware of.

Are you aware that a number of demolition experts were on site at Ground Zero from 3pm onwards, and witnessed WTC7 collapse? Are you aware that they state they knew the building was going to collapse, and that they deny seeing any evidence whatsoever of an explosive demolition?

You said yourself that you're not an expert. These people ARE experts, and moreso, THEY WERE THERE.

-Gumboot

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:39 AM

Um... Alex Jones did nothing of the sort. Alex Jones said IF a terrorist attack occurred he would blame it on the government.

As to your other point... As to the other matter, you seem to be having some trouble grasping the concept of "actionable intelligence". It is not enough to know "someone wants to attack us". You have to have verifiable specific information about a very specific attack, otherwise there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

That's pretty much the reality. National Security and counter terrorism is not like taking a car to the mechanic to get it fixed. Sometimes you stop them, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you end up chasing dead ends. Such is the shady world of intelligence.

Counterterrorism is a very difficult and chaotic, uncontrolled environment. You simply cannot expect intelligence agencies to prevent every attack. What you're proposing would be like firing a detective every time a murder was committed.

Why is it you cannot accept that the FBI and CIA did everything they could to prevent a terrorist attack, given the laws and resources that had to work with, and it simply wasn't enough? Why does someone have to be blamed?

If you want to blame someone, blame the terrorists.
They are the ones that made the decision to bring mass murder to your doorstep. Take up the issue with them.

All you will achieve by attacking the people trying to protect you is drive them from their jobs, leaving you open to more attacks.

-Gumboot

there was alot of general threats, but how much do we not know of that is classified, that's the thing...we hear about the broad range issues, no details for the public remember...taking that into account what did the agencies know prior 911? No one really knows, not even you gumboot...heaven forbid!

I realize, counterterroism is a hit in miss game sometimes, i never said it wasn't, but my point was...when do you draw the line and say, ok enough, you had your chance, you're fired??

We shouldn't fire a detective after a murder, we fire a detective because after he gathered all the evidence, he missed a crucial piece that could have solved the case! Often times he still isn't fired...but when would you fire him in that case then? After he messed up 10 times, 20, 100? It often times is a judgement call that is tough to make....I think in those cases, it is a sign of consistent bad behavior and not being able to do the most basic duties.

The terrorists are the global elite, the ones who pull the strings in this world, the ones who did 911...that's who is to blame, and I will always believe that!
Local agencies are not at fault often times, they are just used just like the terrorists (on the large scale attacks), not to say OBL is a good guy, he should be arrested of course, he is just being used.

gumboot

10th May 2007, 01:40 AM

You are asking the impossible of the security services, that being they provide you with 100% security night and day. That they arrest the bad guy before he commits whatever act of violence he is planning and they do so knowing they will get the right bad guy and not some innocent bystander.

You do realize what an impossible request you are making of these people. On one hand you would be the first to moan and groan that your civil liberties are being removed because of new laws designed specifically to target would be terrorists and on the other hand you demand to know why the counter terrorist organizations are unable to stop every single terrorist action. They cannot offer you 100% protection 24/7, they cannot get the bad guy every time, it is impossible. If it was possible then there would never be another single terrorist action again.

Maybe, just maybe you should stop and ask yourself a few soul searching questions before your continue to run down those who try to protect you.

Would you prefer they were not there? Would you prefer that every time they missed something, or got it wrong, those they employed were jailed?

It is very easy to criticize those whose job it is to counter the threat of terrorism, it is oh so easy to get on ones moral high horse and call for blood when they get it wrong. Hey why not even accuses them of being part of it while you are at it?

You ask where the line is drawn; it is drawn between providing you and your family with an adequate level of security without encroaching onto your civil liberties. You cannot expect to be protected from terrorist actions unless you provide those who do the protecting with power to protect you. It is this simple and it is you call.

You either give the counter terrorist organizations the strength and power to do their jobs, free of fear of reprisals and blame if they get it wrong or you remove their powers and say ¨Hey who needs you guys, after all you didn’t stop every single terrorist action ¨. Again your call.

In my experience the best way to destroy this argument is to point out that Nazi Germany had no problem with terrorists once they took power.

Likewise, China, North Korea, and Iran don't have terrorism problems.

Something to think about.

-Gumboot

gumboot

10th May 2007, 01:42 AM

The terrorists are the global elite, the ones who pull the strings in this world, the ones who did 911...that's who is to blame, and I will always believe that!

Simple question.

What would it take to convince you that you were wrong?

-Gumboot

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:46 AM

You are asking the impossible of the security services, that being they provide you with 100% security night and day. That they arrest the bad guy before he commits whatever act of violence he is planning and they do so knowing they will get the right bad guy and not some innocent bystander.

You do realize what an impossible request you are making of these people. On one hand you would be the first to moan and groan that your civil liberties are being removed because of new laws designed specifically to target would be terrorists and on the other hand you demand to know why the counter terrorist organizations are unable to stop every single terrorist action. They cannot offer you 100% protection 24/7, they cannot get the bad guy every time, it is impossible. If it was possible then there would never be another single terrorist action again.

Maybe, just maybe you should stop and ask yourself a few soul searching questions before your continue to run down those who try to protect you.

Would you prefer they were not there? Would you prefer that every time they missed something, or got it wrong, those they employed were jailed?

It is very easy to criticize those whose job it is to counter the threat of terrorism, it is oh so easy to get on ones moral high horse and call for blood when they get it wrong. Hey why not even accuses them of being part of it while you are at it?

You ask where the line is drawn; it is drawn between providing you and your family with an adequate level of security without encroaching onto your civil liberties. You cannot expect to be protected from terrorist actions unless you provide those who do the protecting with power to protect you. It is this simple and it is you call.

You either give the counter terrorist organizations the strength and power to do their jobs, free of fear of reprisals and blame if they get it wrong or you remove their powers and say ¨Hey who needs you guys, after all you didn’t stop every single terrorist action ¨. Again your call.

State, you did not address one point in my post, I never said that i expect 100% security, nor a perfect system, nor was I talking about the line being draw between civil liberties and protection under the law...THE TOPIC WAS, where do we draw the line on a specific intel agent...where do we say, Ok enough of your actions sir...now you are fired for not getting the bad guy? Does it take another 911? Does it take multiple mishaps? Stop spewing that evil neo con garbage out, that stinks!

gumboot

10th May 2007, 01:47 AM

How old did you say you were?

-Gumboot

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:52 AM

How many times must you be told this is false before it finally registers? WTC7 fell across a four lane road and hit 30 West Broadway severely enough that it had to be demolished. That is not "straight down" by any measure I am aware of.

Are you aware that a number of demolition experts were on site at Ground Zero from 3pm onwards, and witnessed WTC7 collapse? Are you aware that they state they knew the building was going to collapse, and that they deny seeing any evidence whatsoever of an explosive demolition?

You said yourself that you're not an expert. These people ARE experts, and moreso, THEY WERE THERE.

-Gumboot

Ya, well there are so called "experts" everywhere, some prove it was a CD, some prove is wasn't...some swear nothing happend, other swear it was a CD...As far as I know, NIST is doing the most research on it, I havn't read all their work, but I plan on it. It's really pointless arguing these issues because we don't have overwhelming evidence to prove it one way or another, that's why we get these wild conspiracy theories...obviously because we don't know enough about the situation! Why don't any of you mention these things? Could it be because you yourself don't have enough information? From the images i see, 30 west broadway's corner was hit and some debris in in the street, but the entire building was not destroyed by the building leaning over onto it!

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:54 AM

Simple question.

What would it take to convince you that you were wrong?

-Gumboot

more evidence, conclusive evidence, unbiased 100% proof!!!!...are you toto's friend? lol

I have told toto this multiple times, problem is he doesn't accept it as a good answer, because it's the only answer that's right!

israelside

10th May 2007, 01:56 AM

How old did you say you were?

-Gumboot

Why? So you can cut me down to more without facing more real issues? I have told you numerous times my info, look it up...why don't you tell us yours? Chicken?

gumboot

10th May 2007, 01:57 AM

Ya, well there are so called "experts" everywhere, some prove it was a CD, some prove is wasn't...some swear nothing happend, other swear it was a CD...As far as I know, NIST is doing the most research on it, I havn't read all their work, but I plan on it. It's really pointless arguing these issues because we don't have overwhelming evidence to prove it one way or another, that's why we get these wild conspiracy theories...obviously because we don't know enough about the situation! Why don't any of you mention these things? Could it be because you yourself don't have enough information? From the images i see, 30 west broadway's corner was hit and some debris in in the street, but the entire building was not destroyed by the building leaning over onto it!

From the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/WTC/demolish_deconstruct/30wbroadway.htm):

The building at 30 West Broadway, known as Fiterman Hall, was used as a classroom building by the City University of New York (CUNY) Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC) classroom building prior to September 11, 2001. The building was undergoing a gut-rehab that was nearly complete on September 11, 2001. It is a 1950s-era 370,000 square foot, fifteen story steel and concrete structure. The building is currently vacant.

It is the intent of CUNY and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York to first abate and decontaminate the building and then demolish it.

The page has a number of pdfs relating to the planned work, including a work plan for decontaminating the building and pulling it down.

-Gumboot

gumboot

10th May 2007, 02:02 AM

more evidence, conclusive evidence, unbiased 100% proof!!!!...are you toto's friend? lol

I have told toto this multiple times, problem is he doesn't accept it as a good answer, because it's the only answer that's right!

So nothing, basically? Your beliefs are unfalsifiable.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

-Gumboot

CptColumbo

10th May 2007, 02:02 AM

more evidence, conclusive evidence, unbiased 100% proof!!!!...are you toto's friend? lol

I have told toto this multiple times, problem is he doesn't accept it as a good answer, because it's the only answer that's right!
As a point of philosophy, there are only two things that you can be 100% sure of. That you exist and that you have senses. Everything else is based on past experiences.

Will the sun rise tomorrow? You only now it will because it always has in the past, but tomorrow may be different.

So I find your desire for "100% proof" to be unreasonable, especially since those who don't believe the generally accepted account have yet to make me doubt the GAA.

If you wish to continue the philosophical end of this, I suggest you make your way to the Religion and Philosophy sub-forum.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4

israelside

10th May 2007, 02:05 AM

From the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/WTC/demolish_deconstruct/30wbroadway.htm):

The page has a number of pdfs relating to the planned work, including a work plan for decontaminating the building and pulling it down.

-Gumboot

Well the building was next to wtc 7, alot of aspestos or whatnot probably got in it and it was hit on the corner and likely it was hit in other places that left it vulnerable. Where does it say how much of a direct impact it took from the wtc 7 collapse itself and not just debris from the towers? You got that handy?

stateofgrace

10th May 2007, 02:06 AM

State, you did not address one point in my post, I never said that i expect 100% security, nor a perfect system, nor was I talking about the line being draw between civil liberties and protection under the law...THE TOPIC WAS, where do we draw the line on a specific intel agent...where do we say, Ok enough of your actions sir...now you are fired for not getting the bad guy? Does it take another 911? Does it take multiple mishaps? Stop spewing that evil neo con garbage out, that stinks!

What on earth are you talking about? Evil neocon garbage?

It’s actually called reality my friend, reality being there really are people who have answered the calling of Al Qaeda and really do subscribe to this ideology. Something you appear unwilling or unable to grasp. You seem it be living in a twilight world where Al Qaeda is a black op with UBL as the puppet head of the said black op.

You are completely and utterly wrong.

You may not have noticed but your country is at war with this ideology, whether you agree with this war or not is irrelevant, but you had better get you head around the fact that it is very real and very dangerous. Or maybe it is better to stick you fingers in your ears and sing as loudly as possible LALALAL, I’m not listening

israelside

10th May 2007, 02:08 AM

thanks columbo, but not today...maybe 100% evidence is too high, but atleast overwhelming evidence...why didn't you mention this?

gumboot

10th May 2007, 02:09 AM

Well the building was next to wtc 7, alot of aspestos or whatnot probably got in it and it was hit on the corner and likely it was hit in other places that left it vulnerable. Where does it say how much of a direct impact it took from the wtc 7 collapse itself and not just debris from the towers? You got that handy?

:hb:

There's a four lane road between WTC7 and 30 West Broadway. As I have told you repeatedly. Answer me honestly, do you ever read any of the replies people provide you with?

-Gumboot

CptColumbo

10th May 2007, 02:11 AM

Well the building was next to wtc 7, alot of aspestos or whatnot probably got in it and it was hit on the corner and likely it was hit in other places that left it vulnerable. Where does it say how much of a direct impact it took from the wtc 7 collapse itself and not just debris from the towers? You got that handy?You're being pretty demanding for someone who uses the term "aspestos and whatnot." Do a little research first, before you dispute a claim. You'll find "aspestos" listed under asbestos.

israelside

10th May 2007, 02:12 AM

black op's are real and A-Q's involvement in world affairs could be one, We are at war with nothing. Nick Rockefeller said the war on terrorism is a hoax, I will believe him over you anyday!

israelside

10th May 2007, 02:22 AM

:hb:

There's a four lane road between WTC7 and 30 West Broadway. As I have told you repeatedly. Answer me honestly, do you ever read any of the replies people provide you with?

-Gumboot

ok, I do read all the replies, but no one replies to me. I keep saying that I want to see a video of the building falling over to 1 side (30 w broadway), but it is entirely plausible for the building to have been a CD, brought straight down, and then the building layed over a tad towards 30 w broad....this was a 47 story building remember, the biggest chunk of siding i see in broadway is 10-15 stories tall and most of it looks twisted up as if it fell in on itself lol....are you blind? What portion of the building leaned? What was the highest portion that leaned? Where is it located? But even this isn't good enough because once the material fell onto itself no telling where it could have slid off to! I hope this is clear...

stateofgrace

10th May 2007, 02:25 AM

black op's are real and A-Q's involvement in world affairs could be one, We are at war with nothing. Nick Rockefeller said the war on terrorism is a hoax, I will believe him over you anyday!

Do yourself a favor, get off the net, go to a book shop or a library and go to the section marked history. Find a book, a well written, well researched book on the war in Afghanistan. Please read it.

All your questions will be answered in it. If you cannot find a book shop or library or even a book on the subject I will gladly recommend a few that can be bought on line.

Stop trying to gain knowledge off conspiracy web sites, read an independent history book and grow up.

gumboot

10th May 2007, 02:26 AM

ok, I do read all the replies, but no one replies to me. I keep saying that I want to see a video of the building falling over to 1 side (30 w broadway), but it is entirely plausible for the building to have been a CD, brought straight down, and then the building layed over a tad towards 30 w broad....this was a 47 story building remember, the biggest chunk of siding i see in broadway is 10-15 stories tall and most of it looks twisted up as if it fell in on itself lol....are you blind? What portion of the building leaned? What was the highest portion that leaned? Where is it located? But even this isn't good enough because once the material fell onto itself no telling where it could have slid off to! I hope this is clear...

What's clear is you have no interest whatsoever in uncovering truth, but only in reinforcing your blind convictions, which you cling to like a limpet.

Read this (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf) entire PDF, all 18 pages.

It is a professional assessment from the best Demolition experts in the entire United States. They categorically state that an explosive demolition of WTC7 under the conditions found at Ground Zero on 9/11 was impossible.

-Gumboot

gumboot

10th May 2007, 02:33 AM

listen foolish glasses wearing dumb looking dog person

You might want to refrain from personal attacks.

-Gumboot

stateofgrace

10th May 2007, 02:40 AM

You might want to refrain from personal attacks.

-Gumboot

I think it was in reference to my avatar actually( That is not a picture of me israelside ). I take you will not be taking my advice and reading a book then israelside?

Oh well best of luck in your future life of lies and distortions, continually trying to make it all fit together. Oh but those pesky facts just get in the way all the time.

gumboot

10th May 2007, 02:42 AM

I think it was in reference to my avatar actually.

I'm sure it was. But it was also quite obviously intended as an insult. A pretty lame one, but hey.

-Gumboot

Foolmewunz

10th May 2007, 04:01 AM

I think we're dealing with a direct offspring of this guy.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Sacher-Masoch

Israelside, you're like one of those inflatable clowns with the sand in the bottom that no matter how many times you hit them, they bounce back up into position so you can boink 'em on the nose again. I have to give a gruding admiration to someone who can keep coming back and totally ignore the fact that he's getting the living crap beat out of himself, and yet offer nothing in the way of counter-argument in six pages, other than a lot of "I know you are but what am I".

I'm curious as to just where you take this back to like our other twoofer buddies to claim victory? You're getting your butt handed to you, son. The only thing I can think is you go back to some S&M site and giggle 'cuz you got everyone to stomp all over you. (Mods: Metaphor Alert! Metaphor Alert! Poetic License! I'm not actually making accusations, here!)

I can really see no other explanation for your behaviour.

You need to take a break, get some rest, organize your thoughts into a coherent whole (or several coherent parts) and decide just what it is you're debating. Thus far, you're like a runaway train crossed with a loose cannon on deck and a bull in a chinashop.

Foolmewunz

10th May 2007, 04:04 AM

I think it was in reference to my avatar actually( That is not a picture of me israelside ). I take you will not be taking my advice and reading a book then israelside?

Oh well best of luck in your future life of lies and distortions, continually trying to make it all fit together. Oh but those pesky facts just get in the way all the time.

Israelside,
Don't you believe him, son! That's really stateofgrace! I know, 'cuz David Griffin checked with our Sumerian Overlords and they confirmed it.

Disbelief

10th May 2007, 07:35 AM

I have read history books and all sorts of books, maybe more than you, but from your replies we can tell you ignore alot of the issues I have talked about inturn for your rude attacks on my maturity...listen foolish glasses wearing dumb looking dog person, the only person that is immature is the one who is stupid on the issues and speaks as if they know alot about it, I ask more questions than I give...but the things i DO know, I DO speak...unlike youself!

So, you KNOW that WTC7 was a CD? How did they do it? How much time did it take to wire? Where were the signs of explosives? How much talller was WTC7 than the world record CD? How did they get to the structural columns to plant the explosives?

twinstead

10th May 2007, 07:56 AM

I have read history books and all sorts of books, maybe more than you, but from your replies we can tell you ignore alot of the issues I have talked about inturn for your rude attacks on my maturity...listen foolish glasses wearing dumb looking dog person, the only person that is immature is the one who is stupid on the issues and speaks as if they know alot about it, I ask more questions than I give...but the things i DO know, I DO speak...unlike youself!

Spoken with the rock-solid, unshakable conviction that only a true ideologue could have.

bob_kark

10th May 2007, 07:58 AM

black op's are real and A-Q's involvement in world affairs could be one, We are at war with nothing. Nick Rockefeller said the war on terrorism is a hoax, I will believe him over you anyday!

Good morning israelside. I'm curious, what do you find compelling about Nicholas Rockefeller's claims? Also, why do you believe him to be a credible source?

JimBenArm

10th May 2007, 07:58 AM

Spoken with the rock-solid, unshakable conviction that only a true ideologue could have.
But he's read more books than we have! That's counting pop-up and coloring books, but it's way more!

Belz...

10th May 2007, 08:13 AM

wtc 7, from video evidence (4 angles that I know of) show the building falling in a pretty much straight down fashion

Then you admit it wasn't straight down ?

, some of the siding could have struct nearby buildings, but at no measure can anyone say it was a total lopsided collapse, because the bulk of the rubble is on top of itself (in it's own footprint).

The bulk, yes, like most collapses, controlled or otherwise.

I am no expert, but I have eyes and sense of a smart person, to some degree atleast!

That is irrelevant. The fact that you have no knowledge of how these things work leads you to believe things based on your ignorance. That can't ever be good.

there was alot of general threats, but how much do we not know of that is classified, that's the thing...we hear about the broad range issues, no details for the public remember...taking that into account what did the agencies know prior 911? No one really knows, not even you gumboot...heaven forbid!

Ignorance is not evidence.

The terrorists are the global elite, the ones who pull the strings in this world, the ones who did 911...that's who is to blame,

You have no evidence, only speculation. Tell me, when you see a doctor, do you want to be treated on a hunch ? Me neither.

and I will always believe that!

Are you saying that no amount of reality will dislodge your fantasy ? That is a dangerous mode of thinking.

more evidence, conclusive evidence, unbiased 100% proof!!!!...

That is unreasonable, because it is so vague you could always claim not to have it, no matter what. What, precisely, would convince you ?

black op's are real

Ham sandwitches are real, too; but it doesn't mean I'm eating one right now.

Nick Rockefeller said the war on terrorism is a hoax, I will believe him over you anyday!

Again, how does this relate to 9/11 ?

The Doc

10th May 2007, 08:15 AM

Israelside,

Just a hint. Drop the constant use of exclamation marks dude.

JimBenArm

10th May 2007, 08:21 AM

Israelside,

Just a hint. Drop the constant use of exclamation marks dude.
Lots of exclamation marks make it true. If it doesn't have one, it's a lie.

gumboot

10th May 2007, 09:45 AM

Lots of exclamation marks make it true. If it doesn't have one, it's a lie.

Liar!

-Gumboot!

JonnyFive

10th May 2007, 10:01 AM

Liar!

-Gumboot!

That's funny, your name strikes me as being more true than usual!

Belz...

10th May 2007, 10:26 AM

That "usual!" seems true to me, Jonny!

JonnyFive

10th May 2007, 10:46 AM

That "usual!" seems true to me, Jonny!

Everything! I! say! is! true!, I! don!'t! like! to! lie!!!!

9!/11! was! caused! by! rabbits!!!

JimBenArm

10th May 2007, 10:49 AM

Everything! I! say! is! true!, I! don!'t! like! to! lie!!!!

9!/11! was! caused! by! rabbits!!!
Aha! The slash between 9 and 11 is a lie! You liar!

JonnyFive

10th May 2007, 10:50 AM

Aha! The slash between 9 and 11 is a lie! You liar!

Also, my comma was a lie. A complete and utter lie.

You fools, the rabbits will eat you all!

Belz...

10th May 2007, 10:52 AM

All! ?

Corsair 115

10th May 2007, 11:38 AM

You fools, the rabbits will eat you all!Not if we hit it with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch...

JonnyFive

10th May 2007, 12:05 PM

Not if we hit it with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch...

Who said anything about "it?" We're talking millions upon millions of rabbits. Why do you think the towers collapsed? Massive structural damage and fire? Hah! Everyone knows that steel can't be melted by fire, and buildings defy gravity.

It was rabbits. Millions of 'em.

PhantomWolf

10th May 2007, 08:44 PM

thanks columbo, but not today...maybe 100% evidence is too high, but atleast overwhelming evidence...why didn't you mention this?

black op's are real and A-Q's involvement in world affairs could be one, We are at war with nothing. Nick Rockefeller said the war on terrorism is a hoax, I will believe him over you anyday!

Sooooo... On one hand you won't accept OBL saying that his organisation was behind it as enough evidence, but on the other you will accept a claim that someone else claims that Nick Rockefeller said something as total proof? Anyone else see the problem here?

Slayhamlet

10th May 2007, 08:57 PM

This thread is a stundie-rich environment.

Foolmewunz

11th May 2007, 12:25 AM

I hate it when our woos keep irregular hours. By yon clock on the wall, we're well into the normal Israelside bedtime story hour.

Oh, well, keep an eye out for him, okay? I hope he's not riding around in the dark on his BMX without reflective clothing.

tsig

11th May 2007, 01:34 AM

(snip)I have credability from Jesus, that's all i need bub, he is the one that should speak through us since he is the truth!

does jesus speak thru you all the time?

tsig

11th May 2007, 01:56 AM

tsig

11th May 2007, 02:00 AM

[QUOTE=israelside;2586735![/QUOTE]

fire burning a bean

For the foods sake turn down the heat.

beachnut

11th May 2007, 02:38 AM

So Osama was considered small fry prior to 9/11...

Well they were going to be the brunt of operation northwoods, since the posed a threat against the US, but we all can forget about that right? ;)

The Sumarian tribe thing is very interesting, google it up,...
[/b]

"Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million." - David Griffin

I'm just looking at it from a christian stand point, where only the good people should be given authority...

I have credability from Jesus, that's all i need bub, he is the one that should speak through us since he is the truth!
UBL was wanted before 9/11 and after 9/11. You do not have much credibility on this.

Northwoods, was not done because idiot ideas, just like 9/11 truth ideas, are stupid and not done. Only truthers would be dumb enough to do an operation as dumb as Northwoods.

Google? Get real, google it up? Your use of google is showing in your lack of facts on 9/11.

David Ray Griffin makes up the most ridiculous junk, what does the shuttle have to do with 9/11?

A Christian would not be a truther.

As I said, Christ knows the truth and Christians are not in the 9/11 truth movement of lies. Since Christ was a Jew, he knows he did not do it, therefore, Christians can not be truthers since truthers blame the Jews, Christ is a Jew, Christian (you know those people who follow the teachings of Jesus, Christ) can not be truthers. Simple logic and true since Christ would never blame others, how can truthers blame Jews, since Jesus was a Jew.

Therefore, if you are a truther or have truther ideas you can not be a Christian. Well are you a Christian or a truther?

The Doc

11th May 2007, 02:41 AM

When questioned what Operation Northwoods has to do with 9/11, I am often told by conspiracists that "it shows how the government thinks". Yes! It does!

The governemt fired the guy who wrote it up!

stateofgrace

11th May 2007, 02:42 AM

Israelside,
Don't you believe him, son! That's really stateofgrace! I know, 'cuz David Griffin checked with our Sumerian Overlords and they confirmed it.

OK !! OK !! I Lied !! OK !!? Yes Isrealside !!! That really is a picture of me!!!

In fact it was scanned off my passport, I forgot to shave that morning and was feeling dog rough after a few glasses of wine the pervious night.

Ps, I am maybe not sort of telling lies this time !!!

gumboot

11th May 2007, 02:46 AM

When questioned what Operation Northwoods has to do with 9/11, I am often told by conspiracists that "it shows how the government thinks". Yes! It does!

The governemt fired the guy who wrote it up!

That's a common misconception...:boxedin:

He wasn't fired. Some time after the event he was posted to a new position (Supreme Commander for Allied Forces Europe, I think), which was entirely normal and expected.

I think this demonstrates evidence that governments plan (sometimes in details) all sorts of crazy operations that are never implemented, and often never expected to be implemented. For example the USA had very detailed plans for an invasion of Great Britain for most of the first half of the 20th Century.

-Gumboot

JonnyFive

11th May 2007, 07:57 AM

For example the USA had very detailed plans for an invasion of Great Britain for most of the first half of the 20th Century.

You never know when you might need something like that. Those Brits are a crafty lot.

Elizabeth I

11th May 2007, 04:26 PM

Granted, I do have alot of finals this week in school so I won't have alot of time to research stuff, but I will get back to you on this....alot of the things I reference are in the complete 911 timeline, but of course not everything. If you read the ISI part you will understand my view on the situation atleast on that area! Don't let me stop you though! I'm still waiting to know some more of your background gumboot, reread my other post if you would (at the end)!

If one of your finals is in English, you will need to know that "a lot" (as in "a great many" or "a large quantity") is TWO WORDS, not one. You have "a lot" of finals this week.

There is a word "allot," but it has TWO Ls, not one, and it means to apportion or share out.

israelside

21st May 2007, 12:58 PM

Good morning israelside. I'm curious, what do you find compelling about Nicholas Rockefeller's claims? Also, why do you believe him to be a credible source?

Afternoon bob, Nick Rockefeller has quite a deal of authority in his field and so do many of the Rockefeller's as a whole. The family is a deep seeded illuminati family and have quite a bit of money (which if you don't notice moves things in this world). I'm not saying Nick's statements prove anything necessarily but he does seem like a credible source given his tremendous authority and family ties...do you know if he has spoken anymore on this subject? I might be wrong, but the odds are when someone like that speaks with such determination and conviction how can you really ignore it right?

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st May 2007, 01:03 PM

Afternoon bob, Nick Rockefeller has quite a deal of authority in his field and so do many of the Rockefeller's as a whole. The family is a deep seeded illuminati family and have quite a bit of money (which if you don't notice moves things in this world). I'm not saying Nick's statements prove anything necessarily but he does seem like a credible source given his tremendous authority and family ties...do you know if he has spoken anymore on this subject? I might be wrong, but the odds are when someone like that speaks with such determination and conviction how can you really ignore it right?
Begging the question (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#begging_the_question).

israelside

21st May 2007, 01:05 PM

Sooooo... On one hand you won't accept OBL saying that his organisation was behind it as enough evidence, but on the other you will accept a claim that someone else claims that Nick Rockefeller said something as total proof? Anyone else see the problem here?

It is not the same, OBL may have been behind it (but he did initially deny involvement) but I think we can take a Rockefeller's statement about world affairs much more serious. Has anyone found out more about what Rockefeller said?

sackett

21st May 2007, 01:06 PM

"Deep seeded" is not bad. It has a dark, mysterious sound, more evocative than worn-down old deep-seated.

"Where there is illiteracy, there also is wit." Who said that? Mark Twain?

defaultdotxbe

21st May 2007, 01:12 PM

the nick rockefeller business seems to come second hand from aaron russo, anyone got a firsthand source for it? this was all i cna find

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/290107_rockefeller_microchipped.html

israelside

21st May 2007, 01:20 PM

Begging the question (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#begging_the_question).

Look Arkan, I am not proving evidence based on an argument I have predetermined, I am simply asking questions based on a theory (that's how theories are proved)! My conclusion about this is by no means set in stone, just not enough evidence to believe 911 happend the way the mainstream media says it did!

and by the way hot shot...this quote "Theft is illegal because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be against the law." is foolish...theft is illegal because we created laws to defeat a morally offensive act as taking something somone else has without their consent! True though, if theft was legal then it wouldn't be against the law to do it ;) You don't even know my position on things...strawman! I am not saying Rockefeller's statement are CT driven because 911 was an inside job. I'm saying if he had motivations behind 911 (or other big wigs) then it would prove the theory, but don't be saying that you blindly collect evidence and base your opinion based on that evidence without atleast theorizing first...we all do and so do great scientists! Evolution is a theory and people look at apes to try and prove it...or creationists try to point out God's hand in the world to prove their theory...that is not a fallacy, it is proving your theory (based no little evidence) by collecting more evidence! But we should not be blind to contrary evidence either (contrary to our theory)!

JonnyFive

21st May 2007, 01:32 PM

the nick rockefeller business seems to come second hand from aaron russo, anyone got a firsthand source for it? this was all i cna find

This was my biggest problem with the whole thing when this was first brought up here. I was unable to pull up any kind of first-hand sources for what Nick Rockefeller actually said. All we get is Russo's word that yes, Rockefeller said all this.

Then it's back to the usual plop about the Federal Reserve system.

israelside

21st May 2007, 01:35 PM

[COLOR=black]As I said, Christ knows the truth and Christians are not in the 9/11 truth movement of lies. Since Christ was a Jew, he knows he did not do it, therefore, Christians can not be truthers since truthers blame the Jews, Christ is a Jew, Christian (you know those people who follow the teachings of Jesus, Christ) can not be truthers. Simple logic and true since Christ would never blame others, how can truthers blame Jews, since Jesus was a Jew.

I disagree, the truth movement is full of smart people that theorize about 911 and its aftermath based off world history, former terrorist attacks and current evidence (as much as we have). I think a Christian is somone who looks at all evidence from all angles and makes a decision based off overwhelming evidence in one way or another....we don't have that with 911 and it's hard to confirm any theory because of that. Not all truthers blame the "Jews", I don't atleast! Christ was a Jew but also God...so we could get very deep in this but its pointless. Christ blamed the pharasee's for making the temple into a "den of theves"...he blamed people for persecuting him, and us for standing fast in our faith. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Shows he put blame on someone atleast! Your argument is truly illogical for one you say that all "truthers" blame the Jews and that all "truthers" comment are lies...which in itself is a lie...enough said

Arkan_Wolfshade

21st May 2007, 01:44 PM

Look Arkan, I am not proving evidence based on an argument I have predetermined, I am simply asking questions based on a theory (that's how theories are proved)! My conclusion about this is by no means set in stone, just not enough evidence to believe 911 happend the way the mainstream media says it did!
Your statement of, "family is a deep seeded illuminati family," makes it a case of begging the question.

and by the way hot shot...this quote "Theft is illegal because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be against the law." is foolish...theft is illegal because we created laws to defeat a morally offensive act as taking something somone else has without their consent! True though, if theft was legal then it wouldn't be against the law to do it ;)
The example provided is a simplified statement to show how begging the question is logically fallacious. Focus on the meat rather than ridiculing a simple example:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Petitio%20principii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/rational-argument-glossary.html

You don't even know my position on things...strawman!
I did not make any statement as to what your positions are, neither did I use any such statements to debunk your position; ergo, I could not have made a strawman fallacy.

I am not saying Rockefeller's statement are CT driven because 911 was an inside job. I'm saying if he had motivations behind 911 (or other big wigs) then it would prove the theory,
Go read the links above.

but don't be saying that you blindly collect evidence and base your opinion based on that evidence without atleast theorizing first...we all do and so do great scientists!
No, you make a prediction, gather evidence, and test the prediction.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000
http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html or http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1663530#post1663530
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2320446#post2320446

Evolution is a theory and people look at apes to try and prove it...or creationists try to point out God's hand in the world to prove their theory...that is not a fallacy, it is proving your theory (based no little evidence) by collecting more evidence! But we should not be blind to contrary evidence either (contrary to our theory)!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml