Screw Loose Change!

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
lame comeback. what kind of angle made his nose that big lol

i know he said it because he was on tv saying it laughing

find it.

''we made the decision to pull the building''

what else can that mean?

the video is shit. pull the building CAN mean to demolish it. and seeing as there was little damage to the building then its HIGhLY PROBABLE that it was bought down by controlled demolition This is on the video, if you watched it, you'd know that.

It is stupid to assume Larry would destroy his own building.

Larry got 4.6 billion dollars insurance money. The rebuildings cost 6.3 billion dollars. Someone had to pay that 1.7 billion. Larry also had to pay $120M per month on the lease just so he had the right to rebuild it.

The Firefighters knew it was going to collapse.

Firefighter Butch Brandies heard noises and told everyone to not go in there. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a buldge in the south west corner of the building between the 10th and 13th floors. Captain Chris Boyle says "There was a hole 20 stories tall in the soth side of the building, with fire on several floors." Dan Nigro says "There was heavy fire on many floors, I ordered the evacuation and got people far away so we wouldn't lose any more people." Chief Cruthers says "Early on, there was concern that WTC7 had both been impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse."

Physical Evidence

Demolitions have lots of visible evidence to suggest it is so, and any demolitions expert will confirm that. In order of first happening to last:
Loud simultanious bangs -- Building 7 had none
Flashing lights coming from the bottom to the top -- Building 7 had none
Squibs before the collapse -- Building 7 had none
Another set of bangs and flashing lights -- Building 7 had none
Bottom explodes and collapse -- Building 7's did not
Flashes whilst the building falls and gaps between floors -- Building 7 had none
Explosives left in the debris -- Building 7 had none

Just because it fell at a downwards motion DOESN'T mean it was a controlled demolition. And even so, that DOESN'T prove it was an inside job, maybe the terrorists demolished the buildings.

Not a single demolition firm agrees the WTC buildings were demolished.

And now to answer your question about what pulling the building means.

First, why would the firefighters be a part of this scandel and how would they have the authority to do this? Second, "Pull it" doesn't mean demolish the building. In my opinion, "Pull it" is like "Give up" or "evacuate". Third, Brent Blanchard says he has never heard the term "Pull it" as a demoliton term, and neither has any blast term he's spoken with. The term is to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto it's side for further dismantlement.
Silverstein was refering to the firefighters having to be pulled.

Screw Loose Change video 17:50 -- 24:00

References and more information are in the video.

Spartan005

lord xyz

Originally posted by Spartan005
Deano obviosly knows best. He was there; no amount of picture evidence could unravel his bulletproof theory. Well, he doesn't know that when someone smiles, like Osama in the video is doing, your nose in affect, widens. Try it, place your finger tips on the tip of your nose then smile as big as you can, feel your nostrils stretch.

You could argue that Osama in the other picture is smiling, but is it as big, as expressive, enough to narrow his eyes? No. The other pictures smile is no more than a grin. Whereas Osama's smilie in the first photo is a big smile.

Deano

larry silverstein had massive insurance policy put out on the buildings only a few months earlier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats why he woudnt care if his buildings were destroyed. duh

i seriously pissed myself laughing at that comment. are you being serious? oh my good lord. i hope my nose doesnt get that big when i smile

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
i seriously pissed myself laughing at that comment. are you being serious? oh my good lord. i hope my nose doesnt get that big when i smile

One of your main arguments is that the man must be fake because he has an abnormally large nose?

Considering the imaging effects of multiple angles, different lighting, and the very poor quality of the video I'd say that was a rather poor argument of yours.

J-Beowulf

Originally posted by lord xyz
This is on the video, if you watched it, you'd know that.

It is stupid to assume Larry would destroy his own building.

Larry got 4.6 billion dollars insurance money. The rebuildings cost 6.3 billion dollars. Someone had to pay that 1.7 billion. Larry also had to pay $120M per month on the lease just so he had the right to rebuild it.

The Firefighters knew it was going to collapse.

Firefighter Butch Brandies heard noises and told everyone to not go in there. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a buldge in the south west corner of the building between the 10th and 13th floors. Captain Chris Boyle says "There was a hole 20 stories tall in the soth side of the building, with fire on several floors." Dan Nigro says "There was heavy fire on many floors, I ordered the evacuation and got people far away so we wouldn't lose any more people." Chief Cruthers says "Early on, there was concern that WTC7 had both been impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse."

Physical Evidence

Demolitions have lots of visible evidence to suggest it is so, and any demolitions expert will confirm that. In order of first happening to last:
Loud simultanious bangs -- Building 7 had none
Flashing lights coming from the bottom to the top -- Building 7 had none
Squibs before the collapse -- Building 7 had none
Another set of bangs and flashing lights -- Building 7 had none
Bottom explodes and collapse -- Building 7's did not
Flashes whilst the building falls and gaps between floors -- Building 7 had none
Explosives left in the debris -- Building 7 had none

Just because it fell at a downwards motion DOESN'T mean it was a controlled demolition. And even so, that DOESN'T prove it was an inside job, maybe the terrorists demolished the buildings.

Not a single demolition firm agrees the WTC buildings were demolished.

And now to answer your question about what pulling the building means.

First, why would the firefighters be a part of this scandel and how would they have the authority to do this? Second, "Pull it" doesn't mean demolish the building. In my opinion, "Pull it" is like "Give up" or "evacuate". Third, Brent Blanchard says he has never heard the term "Pull it" as a demoliton term, and neither has any blast term he's spoken with. The term is to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto it's side for further dismantlement.
Silverstein was refering to the firefighters having to be pulled.

Screw Loose Change video 17:50 -- 24:00

References and more information are in the video.

Why even post this? This rebuttal is far too intelligent and logical to warrant a reply by Deano; he will simply ignore it, claim it is "bullshit," and call you ignorant.

DarkC

Sadly that does seem to be the case most times.

Blaxican

YOU'RE ALL BLIND SHEEP! DO YOU KNOW THAT!? BLIND! SHEEP! EVEN YOU DEANO ARE A BLIND SHEEP! THE ATTACK ON THE WTC WAS NOT BY TERRORISTS OR OUR GOERNMENT, BUT THE COVANENT! THAT'S NOT OSAMA IN THAT PICTURE, THATS A GRUNT IN DISGUISE!

Deano

fools. the buildings did have squibs. watch the videos yourself. i cant believe you are defending building 7 when it was hit by minimal damage. ive already explained why silverstein wouldnt care if the buildings were bought down.

building 7 must of been made of wood, thats all i can say laughing

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
watch the building collapse here. you can see them.

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squib4.jpg

so DONT post bullshit on here and think its fact when you have no idea. just because you have your little baby friends come and back you up doesnt change the fact that the 9/11 story is a fraud and more and more people are waking up to this.

cant believe you called lord xyz's post intelligent hahahah. idiots. nice try children. you lost

but why am i bothering arguing with people who think the two osama photos above are the same people. PATHETIC

another interesting video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=building+7+bbc

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
watch the building collapse here. you can see them.
First of all, if they were in fact the result of packages of C-4 planted in the upper girders of building 7 and were intended to bring the building down, why did they go off after the building started to collapse? And why did it target the top, rather than the foundations that held building seven up? What was the point of placing explosives where they wouldn't affect structural integrity as much?

You're telling me that the people who did this were somehow smart enough to smuggle plastique or dynamite all the way into the top of the building, yet were stupid enough not to know how structural integrity works. That doesn't make sense.

The collapse itself was from local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers. The so-called explosives targeted nowhere near the critical column of WTC-7,a s shown from your "squib" video. And besides, you used a highly biased source.

First of all, we're not his stupid little "baby" friends. Don't force me to drive that through your dangerously swollen head. We're on the opposite side of the hill, not his tagalogs. Get it straight. And I thought you were intelligent.

Second, it's extremely unwise to assume that "people" are simply "waking" up to something. It reeks of bias. It's an idea, not a truth. That's all. Stop pretending like it's truth.

Oh, the irony. It's sad that the only person who acts like an illiterate snob kid is you.

Because you either can't think of a decent argument or are too lazy to? Oh dear! And you call us pathetic. Ridiculous.

Make sure your videos actually work from now on if you want to use them as a point.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
larry silverstein had massive insurance policy put out on the buildings only a few months earlier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats why he woudnt care if his buildings were destroyed. duh

i seriously pissed myself laughing at that comment. are you being serious? oh my good lord. i hope my nose doesnt get that big when i smile

I've already proved that Silverstein's insurance money WASN'T enough to rebuild the building in the first place.

Did you take up my challenge?

I think you should post this to everyone arguing against Deano.

Deano

Originally posted by DarkC
First of all, if they were in fact the result of packages of C-4 planted in the upper girders of building 7 and were intended to bring the building down, why did they go off after the building started to collapse? And why did it target the top, rather than the foundations that held building seven up? What was the point of placing explosives where they wouldn't affect structural integrity as much?

You're telling me that the people who did this were somehow smart enough to smuggle plastique or dynamite all the way into the top of the building, yet were stupid enough not to know how structural integrity works. That doesn't make sense.

Because you don't just need explosives just at the bottom, you need them planted throughout the building to make sure they collapse approprietly

It is not biased. You are now trying to tell me that small fires made the buildng collapse. I wont buy into it. Sorry.

You all come in here and post rubbish. You all post rubbish together and you feel all high and mighty because you can back each other up.

You thought i was intelligent? Well thanks but i never said that i was and i dont care if you think i am or not.

Yes people are waking up. That is why there is a 9/11 truth movement now.

Illiterate? HAHAHAHA. I'm now going to post 'properly' to show what an idiotic statement that is. But then again, why should i keep explaining that i post quickly and therefore there will be mistakes. I don't have to make the effort to correct minor little errors. So wise up and stop making irrelevant comments. Thank you.

I can think of an argument but i ask myself '' Jeez, why would i argue with people who can't tell the difference between two photographs. The Bin Laden photograph proves that people are really blind to whats going on. I'm sorry but i am not the lazy one.

The video DID work. Someone has taken it down. I'll post it again if i can find it.

Deano

here is what the video was implying...

'The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...ustanything.htm

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
here is what the video was implying...

'The fiasco of a BBC journalist reporting in advance that Building 7 had collapsed as it loomed large behind her strikes at the very root of how the media were complicit in acting as facilitators for the official myth that was manufactured on 9/11. After this debacle, how can we trust anything we were told about September 11?'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...ustanything.htm Not Found
The requested URL /article...ustanything.htm was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Deano

seems like somebody wants to get rid of that video big grin

i know my paranoia is setting in. but twice in one night? surely a conspiracy

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
Because you don't just need explosives just at the bottom, you need them planted throughout the building to make sure they collapse approprietly
Wrong. Your "bogeys" showed their faces near the very top of the building almost near an out of the way corner, and WTC-7 didn't even collapse in favour of the positioning; notice how the building tilts to the opposite side. If the explosives were planted to make that section of the building then the roof would buckle and tilt to its side. It didn't exactly have a great effect.

And if they were planted uniformly throughout the building, were there any other "squibs" seen in the building or just that one?

You're also missing one other thing. A set of demolition explosives is linked up in a network as to go off at the same time to cause structural failure and activated from a remote device. There's a big ambiguity here:

See, if a set of explosives indeed were wired to demolish WTC-7 it would be a single network. However, this set goes off after the building started collapsing, a noticable time lapse included. This is not electronic delay. If they did go off after, then they would have been linked up to a separate remote detonator. Why detonate them if the building was already collapsing?

Yes, in fact it is biased. The site you posted with the video was PrisonPlanet and from what I understand, they're rather suspicious of the government and favour left-hand politics. Credibility of their so called "evidence"? Low. Find things that are from an unbiased source, I'm talking about a news website like BBC.

"Small" fires didn't make the building collapse. Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris from the main towers did, according to the NBC report. Underground oil fires are extremely tough to put out even with the best of the NYC Fire Department's efforts. And they can reach high temperatures along the lines of 2000 Celsius. This is enough to melt iron and weaken stainless steel; ground tremors probably did the rest.

You're posting videos that don't even work and articles written by biased sources. I'd say it was you who was posting more rubbish, Deano. Begging the question, really.

Not once have you provided an argument that wasn't negated.

A lot of people are on the same side of the hill, as I said. What the hell do you expect them to do, ignore each other's statements when they agree with each other and can augment each other's arguments?

If you really did, you wouldn't have even bothered to acknowledge it.

This "truth" movement that you speak of is nothing but a cacaphony of bogus logic, suspicion and self-contradiction. It gives a chance for every single left-wing supporter and every single Bush-hater to find an excuse to bash him whatsoever. They find any shred of supporting detail, they capitalize on it. It is an idea. Nothing more. It's extremely condescending and arrogant to assume that the people who do think it's a conspiracy are "awake" and the people who aren't are still "asleep".

You have done absolutely nothing except to show that you can type properly. What have you done exactly to prove that I am an idiot? Nothing. Oh, I'm really quaking in my boots here.

Irrelevant comments? Once again you're putting your foot into your mouth. You're posting "Bullshit", calling people names, and you're accusing me of being irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but you're a hypocrite.

Once again, laziness on your part.

That's no excuse. You're avoiding points left and right like a veteran capoeirista as though they were never posted. If you have such a great argument, why haven't you stomped us down with it, hmm?

Oh, I forgot. You're too damn lazy to do it. Beats the hell out of me why you're beating a dead horse with me at the moment rather than owning us all with said argument.

Deano

Originally posted by DarkC
Wrong. Your "bogeys" showed their faces near the very top of the building almost near an out of the way corner, and WTC-7 didn't even collapse in favour of the positioning; notice how the building tilts to the opposite side. If the explosives were planted to make that section of the building then the roof would buckle and tilt to its side. It didn't exactly have a great effect.

And if they were planted uniformly throughout the building, were there any other "squibs" seen in the building or just that one?

You're also missing one other thing. A set of demolition explosives is linked up in a network as to go off at the same time to cause structural failure and activated from a remote device. There's a big ambiguity here:

See, if a set of explosives indeed were wired to demolish WTC-7 it would be a single network. However, this set goes off after the building started collapsing, a noticable time lapse included. This is not electronic delay. If they did go off after, then they would have been linked up to a separate remote detonator. Why detonate them if the building was already collapsing?

No just stop it now. Stop posting lines of crap. Small fires can't bring down modern buildings. Not even large fires can, not in an hour anyway. Neither did Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris. BULLSHIT. Save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead.

Thats not the only site i can make reference to is it? Most people are bias in there opinions. Liek you for example. Not many people gives fair reference to either side of the story. Its either one way or the other. Dont act like conspiracy sites are the only culprits.

Accordin to NBC report? And you say prisonplanet is bias? Laughable. Mainstream news is a tool for the government. Nothing more.

Your're answers defy or logic.

the buildng tidily collapsed down. strange behavior for a steel framed skyscraper building designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and god knows what else.

No, listen to me carefully as im only going to say it once more. when i posted the video last night, it was working perfectly fine. And again, please dont mention bias, and then mention the mainstream news in the same sentence. Its nor funny.

Bullcrap again. you are in denial. simple as. im comfortable with what i believe. you are clutching at thin straws.

no its because people can see through the tyranny now. and so what you are saying is that we shoudl all keep our head down and never question events. evern if they offical version they give us is completly bullshit and makes no sense whatsoever? i pity you sorcerer.

you support bush? your're an idiot then. sorry but i have to say it. i cant believe what im hearing from you. i dont hate bush, i dont hate anyone. he is just a puppet for the new world order. you really think he is power dont you? laughing

seriosuly if you post any more stupidity, i wont reply to you at all. i feel disgusted,honestly. PATHETIC, BLIND, IGNORANT.COWARDICE.

what have i dont to prove you are an idiot? see above.

irrelevent yes you are sir. point proven

no im not. you are not using logic and common sense. you have already proved that in this thread. And id advise you to not continue.

Oh, I forgot. You're too damn lazy to do it. Beats the hell out of me why you're beating a dead horse with me at the moment rather than owning us all with said argument./QUOTE]

keep babbling on. you can support bush if you want, you can continue to believe the lies. your choice. but that choice will cost dearly my friend.

check your cv below dark c

1.Comfort.

Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.

2. Complacency.

Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.

3. Cowardice

Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
No just stop it now. Stop posting lines of crap. Small fires can't bring down modern buildings. Not even large fires can, not in an hour anyway. Neither did Ground tremors, oil fires and falling debris. BULLSHIT. Save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead.
You're doing it again. What, may I ask? You're not getting the point, straddling fences like a common household cat. Don't avoid my arguments. I take it from a physics point of view.

Your defense: "BULLSHIT, save yourself the energy and quit while your ahead".

And you have absolutely no authority over what I write, so stop trying to order me around like a common lackey. Not even large fires, what the hell? I told you that oil fires can reach two grand celsius, and that is more than enough to melt iron and weaken internal superstructure. The critical column supports the most weight, and if it goes down, then the whole damn building goes down.

No, it's rather silly how you go to biased government-hounding sites, take their written articles and theories and think that on your behalf, it is "irrefutable and undeniable evidence" which you believe stomps out everything else we say and establishes it all as bullshit? You're an all-original Webster's dictionary example of the word "arrogant".

Obviously you can reference other sites, but none of them so far I've seen as reasonably credible and has a non-biased writer/source. I'm talking non-US-government related, non-US conspiracy related.

Yes, they are culprits, they're taking evidence, twisting it on their behalf and presenting their view of events, not just facts. Notice how a lot of articles on their have adjectives suggesting their thoughts on it? None of it is truly expository.

Wrong. In both Canada and the United States we have what we call "independent media". Ask any journalist here what their first priority as a newscaster is and nine out of ten times they'll automatically say "To keep the government in place". Don't be premature. It wasn't just NBC either who was spouting this so called "bullshit" out. Every single station loves to get the dirt on government, and it's not just the US either. As Canadians, we're rather proud of putting our closest neighbours to shame.

If indeed that they're corrupt as well, think of all the news stations that would have to be silenced as well. Look at the numbers here, Bush is in the trillions of dollars of debt. Would he have had the money to pay all of them off when he's spent every single penny of it on the war?

Oh, I'm sorry. Will saying that your points are bullshit and that you're ignorant count as logic then?

I thought so.

Yes, it did. There's no visible evidence for your "demolition" charges other than the mystery squibs that were out of place and out of sequence, and didn't make sense whatsoever.

It says that WTC-7 fell straight down. Well thanks, Mr. Obvious. If a critical column was taking down then there's nothing left to support the weight of the superstructure now, is there?

It says that WTC-7 fell at a rate approaching gravitational acceleration.
How the bloody hell would they have measured that? From a distance like such in the video, there is no accurate representation and from an eyewitness's point of view it would have been too shocking for them to realise how fast it fell.

It says that WTC-7 showed all the properties of a classic demolition. Interestingly enough, there are those experts who say that and there are those demolition companies who disagree? Who's telling the truth here?

I've already said that this building was taken down by a Class B fire caused by tremors. Were they expecting an uncontrolled underground oil fire to gnaw away at their load bearing column? Were they expecting the WTC's to get attacked, collapse entirely, and rain chunks of debris down and shaking downtown New York like a plastic spoon being flicked? No, they weren't. This was no small fire either, wood nor metal nor paper makes that kind of smoke.

It does not change the fact that you're posting "evidence" from highly biased sources. Don't try to point the finger at me.

You have an argument that was constantly ruled out and has gaping holes in it. I have provided my statements, you have utterly regarded them as complete waffle and didn't make an effort to prove me otherwise.

And now you accuse me of clutching at thin straws(I do believe the correct phrase is "clutching at straws" or "clutching at thin air" anyways). This is simply nonsense.

Wrong. What tyranny? What hard evidence is there of actual tyranny committed by Bush? None, nada. There's no such thing as an "official" version until it is proven or disproven, stop referring to things as such.

Because we simply find that it's too ridiculous for George W. Bush to commit betrayal to his own country means we're blind? Oh, whoops. He's stupid, yes, but he wouldn't do such a thing like take down his own WTC towers where there about a billion risks involved when he has almost no allies.

Oh, and I am not Shang Tsung. Thank you.

Hahahahahaha!

You are pulling completely nonsensical and irrelevant topics out of your ass here and resulting to calling me pathetic, blind, ignorany, and a coward. More name calling. Let's face it, you couldn't debate to save your life. Honestly.

I have never called you a Bush hater, so why the hell are you labelling me a supporter? I believe I said earlier that the conspiracy sites were created by a bunch of left-handers and Bushwhackers, it doesn't imply you're a Bushwhacker. I personally defy you here for you to go find in any of my statements where I directly said you hated him.

"Coward" for believing what appears to me the truth? Wow, that's moronic on several levels.

Cry more n00b.

Sorry mate, all I see is you looking extremely desperate.

No, you're diverting this argument left and right to completely unexpected areas. Look at your nonsense "NWO" thing and calling me pathetic and a coward. Is it fact or argument? No, it's some petty namecalling by our infamous Deano because he feels like an elitist.

You're running in circles here.

I'm apparently not using logic and common sense, yet I'm not the one simply calling people "ignorant", their points "bullshit", and accusing them of "cowardice" because I don't believe in a "New World Order".

Digging your own grave, really.

Babbling on?

I am providing arguments and statements at my own leisure, not at anyone elses. And I do not support Bush. I said he was too much of an idiot to pull this all off. Labells me as a 'supporter' for some reason. Another one of your idiosyncrasies, Deano?

Cowardice - What the hell am I afraid of again?
Comfort - Why? It doesn't affect me as a Canadian if the "truth" does come out or it doesn't.
Complacency - What, creating an uproar against the US government is considered the right thing to do? Ridiculous.

lord xyz

Point one: "Squibs" happen before the collapse
Point two: No loud bangs, flashing lights or anything else that normal demolitions had
Point three: No explosives found in debris
Point four: No eye witnesses say they heard explosions or anything that people here from a demolition.
Point five: Who the **** would demolish Building 7 in the first place?

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
yes and many physic proffessorshave came out and said that the towers shouldnt of collapsed like they did e.g steven jones. research it.
The twin towers were made to withstand such things like fire and natural distaster, but you're saying that they can't collapse from an explosion caused by a 100-ton plane at 73 km/h smashing up high and expelling about 14 tonnes of burning fuel? Absolutely ridiculous. These "professors" who did say that are wrong. The plane crash entirely took out a storey or two, making those sections buckle. Having did it only midway up, the rest of the building from that section up becomes dead weight and starts crashing downwards.

No, it isn't. You have not done a single thing to prove it otherwise, if it's so lacking then why haven't you proved it? Give me the facts, you're sticking with bogus theories here that are lacking major holes. You've expelled more shit in this thread than an elephant plied with laxative.

First of all, I'll post if I want and of my own free will. It isn't up to you to decide whether it's a waste of time to debate. I don't really care and don't judge whether or not you're wasting your time here but from an outsider's point of view you're buckling. You still have yet to supply a single good argument, advising me to stop is only going to make you look worse.

No steel frame skyscraper could have collapsed due to fire alone, I know that. Once again, thanks, Mr. Obvious. However, an oil fire and a simple fire is different, they're unchecked and reach higher temperatures, easily being able to soften steel. And it was also other influences causing the actual collapse. Stop twisting what I say for your own benefit.

Have you ever tried sticking a few steel bars into a particularly mean blast furnace? It isn't bullshit, you're claiming that it was demolished only from a few words from several biased references and the only thing that you've used so far is "fire cant destroy a steel frame" (Which was just negated, again) and the squibs (Which had an assload of uncertainties regarding it.). Get some real evidence next time.

That's one story out of what, ten? Again, wherever the key load bearing column is for WTC-7 is where it's going to be weakened as a result. It does seem that one side collapses a split second before crashing down from the video you posted. It doesn't take much after a building becomes dead weight on its weakened support to crash down.

There doesn't seem to be footage from the south side of WTC-7 so that must mean that the government was lying to us, right? Wrong. That wasn't wisdom, that was paranoia. Even if someone had captured footage of the south side, they wouldn't know its significance at the time of collapse. They either keep it or sell their footage to a local news company. If they had decided to release it to the internet, trying to stop it is like catching water in your hands, there is absolutely no way in hell you can stop that kind of a wildfire.

No no no, you're sugar coating your own bias. Let's face it here, you're no longer simply "questioning" the government. You're too fond of this ridiculous "truth" moment for that, so don't fool me with that particular facade. You're riding their back like an overburdened mule here. No longer a matter of simply "questioning". Everyone questions the government, EVERYONE. You're extremist.

I'm "ignorant" because I choose not to believe in a "truth" movement that has no concrete evidence, no credibility, and no real common sense. Extremely stupid accusation there, Deano.

No, you're wrong. I just told you what I considered to be reasonable reference and suddenly for some off-the-wall reason you're accusing me of believing that none of them are credible. In truth, they aren't, because almost all of the links you've posted to come from PrisonPlanet, who we know are disturbingly suspicious of government.

Wrong. If evidence is "twisted" then it no longer becomes evidence, it's now a politcal weapon to use. Your site has so many half-truths it's really quite unbelievable. Two half-truths does not constitute a whole truth.

Absolutely wrong. What hard evidence do you, or any other Conspiracy bandwagon jumpers, have against him? There's no evidecne, there's only speculations. If there were he would be in jail or in court by now.

No, they have no moral or legal obligation whatsoever to follow what the government does. Government attempts to pay them to stay quiet, it's their deathwish. The news and truth of the conspiracy will leak out so fast and so furious Bush will be flat on his ass out in the snow if something like that happened. Has it? No.

Read above, they have no obligation to do as government wishes. There are no facts out yet, there's only pure speculation by the conspiracists and leftwingers, with almost no basis in cold fact. Without hard evidence they're absolutely powerless to do anything, even without prompts from government.

Indeed it is, and more's the pity considering that what passes as your logic is utterly incompetent.

Your single poorest argument.
Yes, it can, I've told you the scientific point of view. You're just uselessly denying it. Come back when you can actually prove me otherwise.

I'm hanging onto it because there are far too many holes in youur explanation to make it whole and understandable. Until you answer my questions with something more reasonable and intelligent than "fire cant bring it down", then I will continue to press it on you.

Sorry Deano, but "pretty sure" doesn't cut it. You've seen the quality of the videos and their distance away from it. It's impossible to measure that kind of acceleration of the entire building as accurate as to be able to compare it to the gravitational constant. 9.81 m/s/s is too accurate for that.

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
your right,because he is just a puppet. and there is an offical version of what happened, provided by the governement who told the media who then told the people therefore the official story of 9/11 got accepted as factual.
That's their version of the "truth". It's up to whoever to believe it to whatever extent they wish. It isn't official until proven. They call it official, yet is it? No.

What makes you think he'll commit such atrocity against America, then? It doesn't matter what kind of blood he has, he doesn't answer to the monarchy, he answers to the public. Votes are foolproof, he's in power for four more years, just triumphing over a President that was even stupider than he was.

America ran away from Britain, they're a republic and take no orders or cues whatsoever from the Queen. Canada's a constitutional monarchy, but the Queen's just a figurehead. Point? They're both independent of the UK.

No, he doesn't know how to rule a country. It's as implied, the branches of the United States government are designed as to limit the president's power. This is why he has Condoleeza Rice, or however the hell you spell her name, she's got two and a half times the brains of Bush. She basically gives him the cues.

Divide and rule, ridiculous. It was already happening of its own accord, the Afghani and Iraqi governments were sitting in its own crap, why the bloody hell would he blow up towers to speed up the time? Again, assumptions with no basis in fact. Nothing credible.

Because you keep going over the same shit, using the same excuses and age-old repetitive arguments with zero credibility. If what I'm saying is 'nonsense' then what you're saying is full-blown out shit on a stick.

Absolute nonsense. Because I don't believe that he orchestrated 9/11 does not translate to, by any means, that I support him. He's dumb and a joke of a president even before he was a lame duck. However, he couldn't have organized this without failing to let the biggest 'secret' of the century out. No one has those kind of claws, not even the old families.

It doesn't add up, yeah; how the hell could something like trashing the WTC towers add up? Simply put, it doesn't. Even considering it is folly. Obviously it's going to look suspicious. I'm the moderate here, you're the reactionist, and you're telling me to be careful of conspiracy.

What a load of baloney.

That's still the most useless thing you've thrown at me. "Cowardice" to ignore obvious things that aren't even obvious and proven yet, it's just stupid. I'm sorry, but it is stupid.

What do they plan on fuelling it with, hopes and dreams? That's the current state of NWO at the moment. Blowing up two towers is going to achieve absolutely nothing.

Unless they've stated so and think it'll be for the good of the world it's still pure speculation. Have you proven otherwise? No.

Wrong, NWO technically is still "on the assembly line". It doesn't exist yet, it's still an idea that's politically rampant and filled with speculation and theory. Has it shown its face and been exposed to the open? No? Then it doesn't exist. Because you're politically incorrect in this doesn't give you leeway to call me blind and ignorant, yet again.
Originally posted by Deano
you are providing nothing but lies. yes bush is an idiot. but then why is he in power? simple. because he was chosen. not by the people, but by bloodline.
No, I'm providing my opinion. Lies to a reactionist like you? Of course it'd look like lies. Get over it.

Bloodline, my ass. That's nothing but socialogist speculation. That other nut job of a president was far worse, that is why Bush won as the better choice of two poor ones.. Who would you have voted for, having put into a US citizen's position?

I thought so.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
seems like somebody wants to get rid of that video big grin

i know my paranoia is setting in. but twice in one night? surely a conspiracy No, you typed in a url with "..." in the middle because you are retarded. Incase you didn't know, url's don't have "..." in the middle of them.

Kinneary

SQUIBS -
Squibs in demolition occur on every floor, and precede the collapse of the building (obviously, since the explosives that cause the squibs are what brings the building down to begin with). Now, if the WTC was brought down by these explosives, why do we see no squibs before the fall of the tower? The explosions we see while the tower is collapsing cannot possibly have been squibs, since, if you watch the video, the explosions follow the falling of the building. That is, the explosions aren't limited to one floor, they fall as the building falls. That's because those explosions outward are compressed air being forced out of the building as it falls in on itself.

WTC 7 -
The southern side was on fire, and there was a chunk of the southern foundation missing. That part of the building also fell first, which brought the rest of the building down with it, as it couldn't stand without it.

WTCs -
No, fire alone could not have brought down the WTC. What brought it down was the destruction of several support towers when the plane impacted. That alone, also, could not have brought the building down. The fires also raged at temperatures high enough to weaken steel, not melt it. The temp of the fire alone, also, could not have brought down the building. But when we combine the fact that that each building was missing several secondary support struts, along with the fact that the planes impacted and subsequently weakened the primary support struts in the center, along with the fact that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the steel primary supports, we see why it collapsed.

You are absolutely right, Deano. Individually, none of these things could have caused the collapse of the WTC. But combined, they can.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Kinneary
SQUIBS -
Squibs in demolition occur on every floor, and precede the collapse of the building (obviously, since the explosives that cause the squibs are what brings the building down to begin with). Now, if the WTC was brought down by these explosives, why do we see no squibs before the fall of the tower? The explosions we see while the tower is collapsing cannot possibly have been squibs, since, if you watch the video, the explosions follow the falling of the building. That is, the explosions aren't limited to one floor, they fall as the building falls. That's because those explosions outward are compressed air being forced out of the building as it falls in on itself.

WTC 7 -
The southern side was on fire, and there was a chunk of the southern foundation missing. That part of the building also fell first, which brought the rest of the building down with it, as it couldn't stand without it.

WTCs -
No, fire alone could not have brought down the WTC. What brought it down was the destruction of several support towers when the plane impacted. That alone, also, could not have brought the building down. The fires also raged at temperatures high enough to weaken steel, not melt it. The temp of the fire alone, also, could not have brought down the building. But when we combine the fact that that each building was missing several secondary support struts, along with the fact that the planes impacted and subsequently weakened the primary support struts in the center, along with the fact that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the steel primary supports, we see why it collapsed.

You are absolutely right, Deano. Individually, none of these things could have caused the collapse of the WTC. But combined, they can. You beat me to it.

Emperor Ashtar

The september 11 thread answered most of these questions, I wonder why they are being brought up again?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The september 11 thread answered most of these questions, I wonder why they are being brought up again? Which questions?

Emperor Ashtar

Originally posted by lord xyz
Which questions?

Questions pertaining to 9/11, the september 11th thread is not 60 pages for nothing.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Questions pertaining to 9/11, the september 11th thread is not 60 pages for nothing. Yes but I felt the need to make a new thread for this video.

Emperor Ashtar

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes but I felt the need to make a new thread for this video. Oh, ok

Deano

Originally posted by DarkC
The twin towers were made to withstand such things like fire and natural distaster, but you're saying that they can't collapse from an explosion caused by a 100-ton plane at 73 km/h smashing up high and expelling about 14 tonnes of burning fuel? Absolutely ridiculous. These "professors" who did say that are wrong. The plane crash entirely took out a storey or two, making those sections buckle. Having did it only midway up, the rest of the building from that section up becomes dead weight and starts crashing downwards.

yes i understand your arguments for the first two buildings but ive been through those questions a 100 times and wont do so again. building 7 wasnt hit by a plane. and saying oil fires did it doesnt cut it

yeh you always say prove it. the proof is there if you look. ask the government to prove there version of events before you start pointing the finger at me.

lol from an outsider view im buckling. i assure you im not. i advised you to stop because you are sending us in circles.

absolute rubbish. more proof that you will believe anything.

the evidence is real. the towers fell too neat and too quickly. im not going over this again. i see you obviously have the time.

more rubbish. your flogging a dead horse now. someones in denial.

sure.i dont think you understand. bless.

im not bias. i want answers. you obviously dont question the government. im sure you will say that you do. what do you question them about exactly? im excited to hear

you are ignorant .you cant see the two differences of people in photographs. you argue everything because of ignorance. because you cant face what it will mean. waste of space you are

yeh ok. prison planet is the only website out there. id be suspicious of a government when all the evidence points towards them being the culprits. have you heard about 'operation northwoods'? or the 'project for the new american century'? read it.

twisted in your opinion because you want to believe otherwise. therefore the info i post must be twisted. sure

no he woudnt be in jail. god you just dont get it at all do you?

next

wrong again. it wont leak out fast at all. not if they dont want it too and they control the people at the top of the pyramids. you are clueless of how the system works.

what hard evidence doyou have to prove otherwise? see?

dotn talk to me about logic

no it cant, NOT IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. oh wait..sorry, it was oil fires..how stupid of me. i can sleep at night now.

theres holes in everything. we have to read until we make up our own minds about what is happening in the world. you can press all you want, and as long as you keep saying ''fire can bring down a modern building within a coupleof hours'' then i will continue to ignore it has best i can as i would ignore a child making silly statements.

open you eyes and measure the speed of the drop. you are not blind are you? oh wait..

Kinneary

Deano

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, you typed in a url with "..." in the middle because you are retarded. Incase you didn't know, url's don't have "..." in the middle of them.

no i didnt you idiot. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by DarkC
That's their version of the "truth". It's up to whoever to believe it to whatever extent they wish. It isn't official until proven. They call it official, yet is it? No.

when you ask the average person in the street what happened on 9/11 then they will tell you what the government preaches. thats what is called the official version.

votes are bulletproof? idiotic statement of the day. presidents are not elected, its an illusion to fool the people that they actually have free choice. they dont. presidents are selected. the farce that was bush and kerry...both were related,(bloodline) and both members of skull and bones. surprise surprise. there are a few hundred initiates of the skull and bones society alive at any one time and some 295 million Americans; but somehow this secret society managed to supply both candidates at a 'free' election. The illuminati couldn't lose. whatever the result they would have had their guy in the white House, and bush and kerry would have simply pursued the same course using different rhetoric to kid the people that they did have a choice. terms like republican and democrat, labour and conservative etc, are masks on the same face. ITS A FUKIN CON. WAKE UP.

''The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.' - Joseph Stalin

if people still think it is worth voting in todays rigged system (I dont), then let us vote for what we believe is right and not only for what we believe is right for us materially, in the short term.

maybe you should look at this before you waste any more of my time.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/how-to-steal-an-election-with-a-diebold-machine-200693.php

''The machines were provided by Bush-supporting corporations that also counted the votes! Among them was Diebold Inc. of North Canton, Ohio.
Its chief executive, Walden O'Dell, was a top fundraiser for the Bush campaign who wrote a year earlier that he was 'committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president... 'It must have been entirely a coincidence that somehow Ohio managed to record 90,000 more votes than it has registered voters!''

yes thats what appears to be true on the outside! look deeper. britain left the bloodline in place over in america. thats why 35 out of the 42 presidents are related to british and other european kings and such. britain appeared to give indepence back toamerica and these other countrys but what really happened is they left the power in place and they can continue to pull the strings secretly behind the scenes. investigate further dark c. you are parroting official nonsense.

so if he doesnt know how to run a country..why is he in power? surely they can select someone to act better? because thats all these presidents d..they act. if you dont follow orders you get eliminated. like when kennedy said no to operation northwoods( document created by usa stating they should bomb there own county and blame it on forign enemys..cuba at the time) sound familiar? im not saying thats the only reason he got eliminated because there is obviosuly more to it

there is no loveinthe world. only hate. the world is full of prejudice.

People are conditioned to be prejudiced against other members and groups within each culture and society, and these different forms of prejudice are used to divide and rule the herd. The prejudice may be racial, religious or political, or based on background, income, job or lifestyle. Either way you have different aspects of society conditioned to instinctively ridicule, oppdse and condemn the views and life experiences of each other. And the prejudice is rarely only one way. Those who see themselves as victims of prejudice are so often prejudiced themselves against other people, lifestyles and groups. This allows the manipulation of the mass consciousness to flourish and yet if we stopped seeking to impose our version of right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral upon each other, we would remove the means for such global manipulation. We need to let go of all prejudice

precisely right..the controllers dont want a peaceful world as you can see. they want one where there is constant strife. is it a mere coincidence that huge figures such as ghandi, MLK, john lennon, who all spreadmessages of love and peace, wud get killed? they had huge followers and they was very influential. but that cant do can it. no they must go. the peaceful must die and the wicked must reign. open you eyes friend. as we are all in this together.
they must divide and rule the masses into dogmas and factions - the Elite know that is where the real power lies.

sure

yeh he is dumb and a joke so the best thing to do obviosuly is voth him in again. that tells me that either the majority of people in america are idiots, or that the voting was rigged. or still both.

yeh because a few cia created caveman can hit all there targets within a hour and norad does absolutly nothing to stop it. yeh theres obviosuly nothing fish going on. oh i know why norad stood down, they were having similar drills at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME. they were confused is all. you dont think that was the plan right from the start do you? to confuse them?

hold on..drills at exactly the same time..that sounds familiar..didnt the same thing happen at oklahoma and london? what are the odds ay. ..lots of numbers..lets put it that way.

of course its stupid. we get it

fukin bullshit. blowin up two towers has set the nwo in full swing. its got them into wars for gods sake. its got the pissants in power saying' oh we need to take your freedoms away because the ''terrorists ''might get you..we need to put more camera's up..we might need to microchip you in the future hmm hmm. oh dark c..if you knew of the upcoming wars with iran and china..the reaction will be..''oh mr president sir..how can we stop such wars happening again!!? please do something mr president sir!'' then comes the reply..' ok i wont blow up any more buildi...err i mean the best thing would be for a world government, world bank, world army underpinned by a microchip population so we can control everyones move..its for your benefiit!..

and it will happen i guarentee unless people pull there heads out of there ass's and wake up

they wont state so openly untili ts time. one more big manipulated war should do it..you might understand one day

Deano

right it doesnt exist YET. give it time. its more than an idea my friend..they are pushing it harder than you could ever imagine

i respect your opinion..but i dont agree with it.

dont talk to me about voting.

bloodline your ass? so you have research the geneology of the rulers of the world then? thought not. come talk to me when you do.

take care

Deano

Originally posted by Kinneary
That's for you, Deano.

and building 7?

the tremendous force exploded the walls and entire structure out horizontally.

The buildings came down in about the same time as a free fall - there was no friction of a collapse.

The buildings were exploded into fine dust, not collapsed pieces. "Where does the energy come from to turn all this reinforced concrete into dust?"

The planes are not the commercial flights the propaganda claims:

the size and shape of the impact hole does not correspond to a Boeing 767.

The plane that strikes the second tower has a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. cylinder underneath: see Wtc 2 Plane Pod.
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml

Steven E. Jones
A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11:
Reason, Publicity, and Reaction

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

J-Beowulf

It seems that every conspiracy theorist forgets that a Boeing 767 Jet Airliner smashed into each tower at around 550 miles per hour.

The impact, combined with the subsequent burning of the jet fuel inside the towers (at around 1800 degrees f) for approximately forty minutes would surely compromise the structural integrity of the towers.

Sure, the towers were built well, but there isn't a skyscraper on earth that could withstand an impact of that force.

J-Beowulf

Originally posted by Deano

the tremendous force exploded the walls and entire structure out horizontally.

That would be the force of millions of tons of steel and concrete pancaking onto other floors. It's as if you expected no debris at all.

So, what are you proposing? That the bottom part of the towers simply disappeared, allowing the top floors to come crashing down at free-fall speed?

First of all, there were huge chunks of steel and concrete at ground zero; fine dust is a huge exaggeration, to say the least.

There was, however, an abundance of relatively (emphasis on relatively) small pieces of debris. To explain this, we must take into account the location where the collapse began. Each tower was hit on a relatively high floor; As the collapse began, we see that these top floors sandwiched the floors below, exerting huge amounts of pressure on the lower floors as it collapsed. Millions of tons of steel and concrete falling hundreds of feet will surely break up... what did you expect, an entire portion of the building intact? Millions of tons of materials fell hundreds of feet, crushing other debris as it landed on top of it.

Here, Deano, you've blatantly contradicted yourself. You said before the buildings were smashed to "fine dust," yet there was obviously big enough pieces of debris to allow the analysis of an impact hole.

Also, the idea that an impact hole would survive a fall of hundreds of feet under dozens of floors above it is very hard to believe. Did you expect a perfect outline of a 767 in the side of a huge piece of steel, laying conveniently on the ground for easy observation?

Those pictures are of such low quality, that the "pod" could be anything; it could be light reflecting off the belly of the plane, a discrepancy in the lens of the camera; it could be anything. And, if the dimensions you provide are in fact true for this alleged "pod," what secret could the big bad U.S. government contain in a 60 foot long, one and a half foot wide steel pod, hidden in plain sight under the belly of the plane? Those pictures can hardly be used as evidence.

The plane in that picture certainly looks like a Boeing 767 to me, what plane do you think it was Deano?

I haven't seen the video, and I won't sit here for two hours watching it. I'll let someone who has seen the video comment on it.

And finally, I'm done posting in this thread. People have differing opinions; no amount of e-arguing will change one's opinion, so I will not be posting any more in this thread.

Besides, the entire topic depresses the hell out of me.

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
when you ask the average person in the street what happened on 9/11 then they will tell you what the government preaches. thats what is called the official version.
Once again, it is neither up to you or any government to decide what is "official" and what is not. It's what individuals believe from what the government says. Some believe your so-called "official" version, some believe it with twists, and some, like you...not at all. Up to the individual.

First of all, there is a thing called 'democracy'.

Here's a test. Which country is more democratic, the US of A or Canada? Correct answer: Canada. In our government here, it's our Prime Minister that has far too much power, especially if he gets a majority vote in Parliament. Brian Malroney and the GST law, for example, he basically rammed it down our throats.

On the other hand, George Dubya is sitting in a crossfire. He's what as commonly known as a "lame duck" president, he can't do any of his shit right now because the other branches of the US government will be pretty pissed off. If your 'bloodline' nonsense did have the extent of espionage and internal power roots that you just described, he'd have been able to pass whatever and whenever at the moment. Has he? No. He's flat on his ass right now as the president of the US.

Let's suppose for a moment that you're right about the bloodline theory. If indeed royalty in the genes than anything decided the outcome of this election, then it would be Kerry, not Bush, sitting in the Oval Office right now. Kerry, not Bush, who would be voting to continue the War on Terrorism, and Kerry, not Bush, making and passing the laws in the United States.

Last time I checked, George was still in office. Your theory? Down the drain.

You're assuming again, forming wild and unchecked theories relating to groups that even if they exist, are far too secret to let some kind of plan of theirs out especially to the everyday conspiracists like you. Everything you're spouting right now is just theory, and theories can be disproven.

Let's look at the situation. The States have had Bush in office for quite a while now, he's done his thing and trashed his own World Trade Center towers, giving him an excuse to start a war. He has familial ties that trace back, although faintly, to the Crown. However, along comes Kerry, he's actually more intricately weaved into the bloodline and is even more of a puppet than Bush is. Technically, he would serve the Skulls and Bones/Illuminati (Which is it?) better as in terms of their goal to establish a totalitarian government to *maniacal voice* take over ze WORLD.

See, the thing is, the Illuminati has always had power in the fictions. If they had this kind of power it would have been beyond easy to seat Kerry, who happens to lack intelligence in the field of politics even more than Bush, in the Oval Office.

''The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.' - Joseph Stalin

Another 'patriot' spout of false zeal. Sorry, but I am unconvinced and unmoved.

1.) You can either reply or don't reply, so if it seems like a waste of your time then that's your own business, not mine.

2.) Every piece of evidence of how the election actually went reflects the "wrong" result. And, after the election is over, the vote stealing software can delete itself. There's no evidence left that the vote has been conducted incorrectly.
From a technical standpoint, it is undeniably possible to tilt the elections during the time this article was written. However, if they were 'hacked', and so 'easily', it would mean that every single person who helped tally the votes would have to be patted down and had polygraph tests.

The Diebold voting systems are a closed source, meaning that it is impossible to establish integrity, either good or nonexistant, simply by looking at the tallies.

Quite interesting that you are informed of how to dupe a machine as an insider, yet fail to acknowledge the fact that it can be just as easy from an outsider's standpoint.

I've studied American History, thank you very much. Were you not aware that there was a bloody and violent war because America, like the slackers they are, ran away from Britain without getting permission like his kid brother Canada did.

Are you aware of how ridiculous-sounding that statement is? Of course the presidents would have some ties to some King or Queen or other in ancient history. A whopping 60% of the US population with British roots, sixty, are related distantly in some way to British royalty. Let's face it, there's been a huge, huge extended family of that. Absolutely massive. Thanks again, Mr. Obvious.

DarkC

No, they're still bound under law and penalty to stay the hell out of North America's business. You're still spouting theory, I'm asking for HARD FACTS. Not just some half-baked reasoning. PROVEN FACTS.

If I'm parroting nonsense then you're spouting fetid water left, right, center, and straight up.

Kerry was the better choice, or 'actor' for the sake of argument.

Why isn't he in office?

That doesn't make sense. The government of the States is situated in such a way that they can actually veto the President's veto, in this case Operation Northwoods. And I'm pretty sure an underground group would have the brains to insert more than just a president in the US government.

Another thing that doesn't add up was that the information was released by a government corporation, and in 1997, a scant four years before 9/11. Smart thing to do there if they're trying to cook up a conspiracy plan.

Spoken like a true emo. Duly noted.

Yes, it is more of a coincedence, you're naming three of about a million. And most of those people are still alive. You are just far too paranoid.

The suggestion that every single one of them was murdered just for promoting peace is a slice I can't swallow. More assumptions, more theory.

You say that now when you've been preaching a NWO. How ironic. More self-contradiction by the one and only Deano.

No, he was the best out of a very poor choice. He was stupid. Kerry's policies were even stupider. Ask any Canadian who's caught up in current events in America and they would have said "Bush." I personally went "FOUR MORE YEARS?!"

And my friend shook his head and asked me, "Do you even know what Kerry was suggesting?"

What the f*cking hell makes you think that NORAD, in its infant stages and under everyday bug and glitch repairs and gives seventeen minutes notice, not just 'under an hour', SEVENTEEN BLOODY MINUTES, to counter something like, oh I dunno, four airliner jets going separate directions?

At least a few people who were manning it were screaming "OMFG!", tearing their hair out, because there isn't exactly too much they can do. They have seventeen minutes, that's about enough to roll a FC-18 out onto the tarmac, start down the runway, and OOPS! Too f***ing late!

Bombings aren't exactly done the same way as crashing planes into the WTC towers, are they? Bullshit claims.

"Full swing", it was already gradual and would have happened within a decade. NATO, UN, even the World Health Organization, all those pretty much were at the State's feet before this 9/11 mess happened. A self-caused 9/11 wouldn't have helped, it would have actually made it worse. Where's your common sense?

Why? It gives an excuse for conspiracists to start sowing their ideas, wild as they want, accusatory as they want, like wildfire in summer. Not a smart thing to do. Conspiracists weren't nearly to the surface as they are now. They can't curb this tide, it's like trying to fight off an ocean with a broom.

Can you please back up your statements, for the love of all that is HOLY....

Rick Mercer's view of events...duly noted, thank you.

More "join the movement" crap.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
no i didnt you idiot. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Then prove me wrong. Go ahead, I dare you, no I triple dare you. Quote the post and show me that the url is what you say it is, and not what I say it is. If you are right, I'll shut up!

Deano

i posted that...fool

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=building+7+bbc

Originally posted by Deano

another interesting video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1471985581749234824&q=building+7+bbc

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
i posted that...fool

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=building+7+bbc no expression

A: you posted what I said
B: Not the post I was refering to.

Deano

speak sense please

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
speak sense please I did.

Mr Parker

once again Deano you have done a great job of taking these people to school and educating them.well done. thumb up

sad that they still live in denail and accept all those lies and BS from the government though and dont want to learn the truth.really pitiful.

Mr Parker

Originally posted by Deano
complete bullshit. it wasnt that damaged. you had witnesses at the time telling people to getback because it is going to fall. larry silverstien even admitted they pulled the building

but maybe im wrong. even bin laden admitted on tape he did it

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8536/190207fatnosedc9.jpg
http://www.davidickeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46563

it sure is complete bullshit,again people really need to stop living in denial here.the videos clearly show the building was never damaged by any debris.boy some people here really need glasses they cant see the obvious on how those photos of Bin Laden are so obviously fake from the real Bin Laden.Plus the guy who used popular mechanics as its source with their myths they published debunking 9-11 threorys,thats what their magazie is is theorys that dont counter anything.popular mechanics is a horrible source to use because its ALWAYS been a propaganda magazine for the government,that magazine has gone to great lengths to try and discredit the roswell UFO crash that happened in 1947 where witnesses claimed they saw aliens in a crashed UFO site.Popular mechanics then went to extremes to say that it was first a weather ballon full of dummies,THEN saying that it was some japanese people going for a joyride and thats why people mistaked them for being aliens.I mean come on,japenese peoples eyes arent THAT much different than americans to mistake them for aliens.people here really need to stop falling for the lies and propaganda the government is succesfully shoving down their throats and accepting thier explanations no matter how absurd they are and stop living in denial that it was an inside job.

Mr Parker

Originally posted by Deano
lame comeback. what kind of angle made his nose that big lol

i know he said it because he was on tv saying it laughing

yeah they really need to find these things so they would know this stuff.I know he said it alos because like you said,he was on tv saying it. and for the people that are clueless about the pulling it commment that silverstein saud,demolition experts have said PULL IT means to bring it down. amazing how people wont do any research around here outside the lies and propaganda by the government.yep the fact that there was LITTLE damage to the building,its obvious it was brought down by controlled demolition.

Mr Parker

very good point about Larry Silverstein I also pissed myself laughing over that hysterical comment by LORD XYZ ,I cant believe he was actually serious.

yeah I hope my nose doesnt get that big either when i smile. laughing

lord xyz

Originally posted by Mr Parker
once again Deano you have done a great job of taking these people to school and educating them.well done. thumb up

sad that they still live in denail and accept all those lies and BS from the government though and dont want to learn the truth.really pitiful. Jsut because we disagree with you doesn't mean we accept the government. BIG DIFFERENCE!

lord xyz

Originally posted by Mr Parker
very good point about Larry Silverstein I also pissed myself laughing over that hysterical comment by LORD XYZ ,I cant believe he was actually serious.

yeah I hope my nose doesnt get that big either when i smile. laughing

How do you know I was serious though?

KharmaDog

Originally posted by lord xyz
Jsut because we disagree with you doesn't mean we accept the government. BIG DIFFERENCE!

An unfortunate constant when it comes to Deano and Parker.

lord xyz

Originally posted by KharmaDog
An unfortunate constant when it comes to Deano and Parker. It really gives conspiracy theorists a bad name. but there are more whack jobs than actual credible people. However, whenever I search in google for some real information, there are more people like these who say a lot of pointless crap, which can get frustrating. sad

Black Dalek

Your all stupid. It wasn't the terrorist or George Bush, it was simply Criss Angels practicing his magic. He used his 'Mind Freak' power to guide all the plans into their doom. He WAS going to destroy the white house but hes mind freak powers were quite draining and failed. Stupid sheeps!

lord xyz

Originally posted by Black Dalek
Your all stupid. It wasn't the terrorist or George Bush, it was simply Criss Angels practicing his magic. He used his 'Mind Freak' power to guide all the plans into their doom. He WAS going to destroy the white house but hes mind freak powers were quite draining and failed. Stupid sheeps! No, it was lizards from another planet obviously. They built the pyramids, but when the greeks formed democracy, they had to start the illuminati, and one day, destroy the human race.

Black Dalek

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, it was lizards from another planet obviously. They built the pyramids, but when the greeks formed democracy, they had to start the illuminati, and one day, destroy the human race.

Oh-Em-Gee! Should we build bunkers for the fight of the human race?!?! I'll get the cements!

lord xyz

Originally posted by Black Dalek
Oh-Em-Gee! Should we build bunkers for the fight of the human race?!?! I'll get the cements! That won't help you. We need to stand up and annoy people and twist people's words. That's the standard procedure anyway.

Black Dalek

Originally posted by lord xyz
That won't help you. We need to stand up and annoy people and twist people's words. That's the standard procedure anyway.

How is that going to help us fend off the lizards? It'll eat our pilot's head and crash into various buildings! God help us all!

lord xyz

Originally posted by Black Dalek
How is that going to help us fend off the lizards? It'll eat our pilot's head and crash into various buildings! God help us all! Okay, I got a better idea. We write a book!

Black Dalek

Originally posted by lord xyz
Okay, I got a better idea. We write a book!

Yes! We write a book: "Truth Of 9/11: The Lizards". It's gonna star Deano and Parker as the pilots whose gonna get their head bit off. And Nuclear Winter...hes just gonna be the one wets his pants. This will show people the truth!

lord xyz

Originally posted by Black Dalek
Yes! We write a book: "Truth Of 9/11: The Lizards". It's gonna star Deano and Parker as the pilots whose gonna get their head bit off. And Nuclear Winter...hes just gonna be the one wets his pants. This will show people the truth! Nah. First it will open up with Deano talking til he dies. Then it shall be Parker and say stuff that will contradict everything it possibly can and he'll die, then end with Nuclear Winter and kill everyone else through boredom. So NuclearWinter survives. But at what cost? Well, I lol'd.

Black Dalek

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nah. First it will open up with Deano talking til he dies. Then it shall be Parker and say stuff that will contradict everything it possibly can and he'll die, then end with Nuclear Winter and kill everyone else through boredom. So NuclearWinter survives. But at what cost? Well, I lol'd.

NuclearWinter killing people with HIS boredom ? That will have more effect than the FatMan and the LittleBoy!

Deano

thought you said you wasnt a troll xyz?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
thought you said you wasnt a troll xyz? I'm not. Although I am being a bit of a dick here. ermm

Mr Parker

Originally posted by Blaxican
YOU'RE ALL BLIND SHEEP! DO YOU KNOW THAT!? BLIND! SHEEP! EVEN YOU DEANO ARE A BLIND SHEEP! THE ATTACK ON THE WTC WAS NOT BY TERRORISTS OR OUR GOERNMENT, BUT THE COVANENT! THAT'S NOT OSAMA IN THAT PICTURE, THATS A GRUNT IN DISGUISE!

Blaxican almost hit the nail right on the head here.Everything he said in this post is 95% accurate.If not for the part on Deano being a blind sheep,this post would have been 100% accurate.Well said Blaxican.

Mr Parker

Originally posted by Deano
thought you said you wasnt a troll xyz?

another one of his lies.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Mr Parker
another one of his lies. Do you have a life? Really. Do you?

Deano

Prominent 9/11 Truth Debunker Admits Smear Tactics

'A prominent debunker of skeptics of the official 9/11 story has broken ranks and confessed that he used underhand tactics, including fallacious attribution of holocaust denial, to smear the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever".'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307smeartactics.htm

J-Beowulf

Originally posted by Deano
Prominent 9/11 Truth Debunker Admits Smear Tactics

'A prominent debunker of skeptics of the official 9/11 story has broken ranks and confessed that he used underhand tactics, including fallacious attribution of holocaust denial, to smear the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever".'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307smeartactics.htm

Is that story covered anywhere other than "www.prisonplanet.com"?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
Prominent 9/11 Truth Debunker Admits Smear Tactics

'A prominent debunker of skeptics of the official 9/11 story has broken ranks and confessed that he used underhand tactics, including fallacious attribution of holocaust denial, to smear the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.

Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever".'

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307smeartactics.htm What are you saying? Because prisonplanet says one is biased, all of them are? If I had the name of that debunker, I just wouldn't trust him specifically. That's the way it goes.

DarkC

Originally posted by Deano
yes i understand your arguments for the first two buildings but ive been through those questions a 100 times and wont do so again. building 7 wasnt hit by a plane. and saying oil fires did it doesnt cut it
Oil fires played a huge part of it. Please prove me otherwise from a scientific/physics point of view, not taint it and dismiss it with utter indifference. It couldn't have done it by itself, it only weakens it, other factors come into play.

Yes, I always say prove it. Why? Unless you can make a point and prove yourself right, getting into a major debate is simply useless. I'm pointing the finger at you because you're presenting an extremely lopsided version of events, from which certain questions and ambiguities need to be answered.

I don't need the government's or your version of events. I watch the videos, I read the analytical damage reports, I find the pictures of the collapse and from there I make my point. It just so happens to be that my version of events seems to be quite similar to the government's. What happens to me then, I get called a coward for not believing something fishy is going on. Hooray.

A little ironic, isn't it, not from only a single standpoint.

A.) I have consistently provided points that prove that there is a reasonable doubt in your explanation and in PrisonPlanet's view of events. Your answer is to completely avoid them. And yet you tell me to remain on topic.

B.)This thread is mainly based on whether or not Building Seven was taken down by demo or whether it collapsed on its own. You drag the NWO into this. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING SEVEN and BUILDING SEVEN ONLY. And yet you tell me to remain on topic.

Please prove factually that I am wrong and that my explanation is rubbish. And please explain to me scientifically why my explanation is rubbish.

Your evidence consists of so far, unexplained squibs and the fact that the "towers" fell too neat and too quickly. (Do you think a few tons of weakened steel girder can withstand impact from several thousand tons of concrete, glass, and metal?)

If the primary support column of the building buckles, it's like a body without a skeleton. It would collapse like a jellyfish on dry land. There is simply no refuting it.

Please come back to me when you have irrefutable evidence that building seven in fact was taken down by demolition and kindly refrain from nonsensical and unnecessary comments intended for filler.

Yes, you are biased. Simply by wanting to "find out the truth" is assuming that the government is already in the wrong. I don't question the government's reason for collapse because it scientifically makes sense from the actual hard evidence and excluding all other 'versions' of events, unlike your rambling.

And oh, you assume that I do. Wrong.

Wrong again. I can see differences between the faces in those photographs.

However, unlike you, I do not stupidly presume instantly that they are different people. I accept the fact that elements can come into play to make people look very different on camera. I believe it is you who is acting ignorant in this case.

There is no "evidence", there is only speculation. Don't try to change the subject.

It is cold fact that they are biased, remarkably so. There is no denying that whatsoever. They have already twisted evidence and statements in the past, so yes, there is a good chance that any info you're taking from there is highly blemished.

You are making false statements. Even if the 'top of the pyramid' was indeed under control, there are still an absolute massive amount of people, MILLIONS, that would be glad to take the chance to spread shit about the government. Even MORE are unaware and neutral on the subjectIt would spread and MASSIVELY. Denying something like this is simply against common sense. It only takes one flame from a lighter to cause a forest fire.

You're begging the question and running around in circles. I seem to remember saying that I was never trying to find a solution, only trying to show you that you are wrong about building seven and offering my take on the situation.

Don't talk to me about ignorancy.

Oil fires aren't ordinary. They go to about 2000-3000 Celsius depending on the type of fuel alight.

Steel starts to melt at about 1700.

Do the math.

Get it right, it's a class B blaze. Read above. Please provide reasonable, if not irrefutable proof that I am wrong. Saying "Fire can't bring down a building within a coupla hours" isn't going to do anything.

Right, right. I'M the child making silly statements, yet you have not once proved me wrong. Another "Deano Idiosyncracy"?

How original.

It does look like it is falling fast, but is it free fall? Is it? Your 'experts' at PrisonPlanet have claimed that it is matching gravitational acceleration.

Tell me, with the extremely poor quality of the video, the distance at which it was shot, the suddenness of the drop, the angle of the walls...do you really think it is possible to measure gravitational acceleration of a falling wall to the point of accuracy at 9.81m/s/s?

J-Beowulf

Bump.

First reason: To bump this video.

Second reason: Showing how Deano completely ignores arguments.

Have a nice day.

Deano

this video sucks. Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever."

and ive not ignored anything. im not starting this crap again arguing with ignorant people. dark c can have the last word if it makes him happy.

the idiots can stay idiots.

J-Beowulf

Deano

well they want to censor the internet.

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/freespeechdees.jpg

J-Beowulf

Originally posted by Deano
well they want to censor the internet.

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/freespeechdees.jpg

Right, they're shackling free speech alright, which is why conspiracy theorists are free to say what they will, and Avery can make his movie? That's why all you have to do is type in "sex" in google and you're linked to millions of pornographic sites? That's why you can search any anti-government topic and have thousands of websites pop up, all unobstructed by the government? Why thousands rally in front of the White House, protesting against the government?

If they wanted to censor the internet that video would have been down before 10 people could have seen it. Give me a break. Free speech is alive and well.

Deano

they are trying i said. its not in full operation yet and i hope it never will be.

J-Beowulf

Originally posted by Deano
they are trying i said. its not in full operation yet and i hope it never will be.

They are? Do you have any examples?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Deano
this video sucks. Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever."

and ive not ignored anything. im not starting this crap again arguing with ignorant people. dark c can have the last word if it makes him happy.

the idiots can stay idiots. So? Just because the guy is determined to test a conspiracy theory for truth, the video "sucks"? The video accurately represents how gullible and stupid conspiracy conspiracy theorists can be, and that we shouldn't rush into everything. I at first, alreasdy knew Loose Change was a crap video with lies and flaws in it. It being bad makes conspiracies look bad, which I don't want. You don't agree with Screw Loose Change because it has debunked conspiracy claims like the Osama Bin Laden fake and the pentagon being hit by a missle and the WTC being demolished. I admit, I used to believe it was n't Osama either, but looking at the evidence, I have decided and admitted I was wrong to think that -- which is what a fair debator does.

You might hate the video, but you know it's true. You just won't admit it. And what's this about the two individuals? The only name I saw was Mike Iradian.