thought police, I could post a link that makes all kinds of claims...doesn't make it true, nor does it speak for itself. What it does do however, it speaks volumes about you.
You have yet to respond to any of the simple logic and logistic questions posted to you...if this link speaks for itself, then by all means provide us with those answers.
blonde--I went to the link--followed some of the links in the link--noticed I was getting breathless and then I realized--I always get nervous and breathless when reading the rants of insane people. So, I backed up to your original post. I sat here for a few minutes and the world stopped spinning. I am not a drug user, so I can only assume that is what a "trip" is like. Wow! Not for me!
PS Between you and me--the snow in Australia is actually being dropped out of high altitude planes. It is a plot to undermine Dralgores theories of Global Warming, climate change. There is no such child as Kristen. I have to go now, one of the tinfoil strips on the wall is starting to peel off.
ThoughtPolice cannot even post a link properly. ThoughtPolice wants me to pay attention to him, but he still cannot post a link correctly. What a maroon. Hey, maybe when he can post a link correctly, I might give him credit for perhaps having 3 watts of brainpower, enough to read through half the first sentence of the site he cannot link correctly.
My gawd, link incompetence, but I'm supposed to think he made a good analysis of the non link he provided ?
Sorry, I just cannot do it. We're talking incompetence of presentation.
I'm sure he has some idiot excuse too. He'll blame it on his webbrowser or something.
Everyone criticized us at first for not having any credible people who were saying something was wrong with 9/11. Now that we have them, you are backing away from that?
Seems to me you don't really want to know the truth. You continue to ignore newly found evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, and go back to sticking your head in the sand. This isn't soooo old as these architects just formed this group and put up this site. What's old is that you will not look at the evidence. Honestly, I think you are scared out of your mind.
Amazingly, you, like every other idiot liberal in existance, count only the words of those who agree with you, as worth listening to. Take for example, this bastard of a Marine. He openly violates UCMJ, knows he does it, but doesn't care. If you read the retards that respond to him below, they all praise him, his actions, and his service. However, should that same person decry the "movement", and call you idiots what you are... you object to this, and ignore their input.
The same holds true with your "site". I have been there, and I researched 75% of the membership of that website. What I found, of the "members", is that most of them continue to espouse notions, that have already been debunked a thousand times over. You say we're "scared", yet the only people that are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, are morons like you ToiletPaper. You have to look as hard as you can, to find someone who can contradict Popular Mechanics, and a pethora of Architects, Engineers, Demolition experts, and the like, that show that what happened on 9-11, is exactly what everyone saw -- a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, by flying planes into targets. You're just entirely too stupid to come to grips with reality. Gage, the founder of your website, is based in San Francisco, and apparently, from doing just slight research on the internet, has funded and been funded by, extreme liberal groups. Amazingly, you think that it is some divine reason, that we all should listen to the lunatics? No... I don't think so.
Get your head out of your ass ToiletPaper -- the only people around here who are sheep, who cannot think for themselves, are yourself and WingNut -- you guys can't even hold coherent discussions without resorting to the nonsense that you spew -- even when you are proven wrong -- repeatedly. Moreover, you two idiots seem to be unable to debate a single thing... whatsoever. You simply find what someone says to debunk you, and you ignore it -- then restate the same thing you said before, or else wait for new marching orders from your retard groups.
Grow up you stupid jackass... I'm really fed up with you two morons and your bullsh*t.
You have yet to provide evidence of a single thing. You only provide the morons' opinion that "it could happen", not any definitive evidence of, "it did happen". Are you denying that the buildings were struck by planes that morning? Are you denying what your eyes actually saw -- the building collapsing from the top down? How stupid are you ToiletPaper? You seem to be pretty stupid. You cite from an idiot architect -- yes, idiot -- he claims that the first two towers were also controlled demolitions, that took the building down from the bottom. All evidence points to the contrary. You're all a bunch of absolute morons, who truly cannot think for yourselves. So, go sit in your basement some more, wait for your marching orders -- and most assuredly... when you talk to that Marine from that other retard website -- since I am sure you are a member (they [don't] think like you) -- you tell him, if I ever find his ass, I will kick it personally for disgracing the uniform and the country which it represents.
__________________________________________________________ If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
You prove Doctor Elders wrong--she thought it was healthy.The old wives tale has it that a certain solo act can damage your brain. You have proved it.
"As the first black US surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders did not shy away from ... after she said schools should consider teaching masturbation to students as ..."
Everyone criticized us at first for not having any credible people who were saying something was wrong with 9/11.
And nothing has changed.
TP - did you see the History channel recently? They had a show about Sherman, and how his troops used to melt railroad rails with wood! I wonder how well aviation fuel would have worked?
"Sherman's neckties were railway rails
destroyed by heating them until they were malleable and twisting them into loops resembling neckties, often around trees."
Apparently, you need to learn the definition of melt. If you don't understand the difference in melting vs. softening you have a lot to learn. With that said (and that is all that should be said), you are comparing low grade crap metal to an industrialized skyscraper of mammoth proportions. Nice try..
And apparently you need to learn that, using YOUR Rosie argument that fire doesn't melt steel, when steel (as in steel beams and structural supports) is heated until it is malleable, it tends to lose just a little bit of it's intended integrity. So, when steel is softened vs. melted, isn't it a teensie bit possible that said steel, SUPPORTING an industrialized skyscraper of mammoth proportions, could possibly COLLAPASE after hours of heating from tons of jet fuel? Not to mention the impact of untold tons of kinetic force from having an aircraft slamming into the structure, thereby weakening it even before subjecting it to the fire?
"after hours of heating from tons of jet fuel"...First of all, the south tower fell after 56 minutes and the north tower less than an hour and twenty minutes. Second of all, there may have been a lot of fuel on the plane, but what do you think those huge fireballs that flew out of the towers on impact were (i mean other than demo charges)? That would be the fuel my friend. Unless paper can explode into a giant fireball, thats the only explanation. Thus, most of the fuel was consumed upon impact, with very little spreading across the floors.
Therefore, buildings have burned with much, much more intensity for up to 24 hours and have not collapsed. This just doesn't make sense. And yes, I know, no other buildings have been hit by jets before, except each building was designed to take MULTIPLE airline strikes to a fully fueled 707, only slightly smaller than a 757.
You can't seriously say that "most of the fuel was consumed upon impact."
"Unless paper can explode into a giant fireball, thats the only explanation."
That's the only explanation if you don't know more about burning fuel and you deny any other reasonable possibilities.
Have you ever thrown a lit match into a bucket of fuel? (I don't recommend trying it at home or without the appropriate safety gear and legal clearances). There is immediately a violent burst and then a constant raging fire. (I've watched tin and aluminum cans melt from the top down to the fuel (gasoline or kerosene or white gas) level in the can until the fuel finally burns up completely only to leave a ring/slab of metal that used to be a can.) Fuel vapor or atomized fuel is what burns in a fuel fire. It is unreasonable to assume that all of the fuel on those jets instantly atomized upon impact and that most of it burned in the initial fireball. Yes some did explode upon impact, but with my experience/training with jet fuel it is unlikely that there was very little fuel remaining post-impact. Fuel would've still been trapped in slightly ruptured fuel cells, spilling out and feeding a constantly burning and growing fire, some fuel cells could've been ripped completely open and released a deluge of fuel into the offices thus feeding the fire and spreading fuel over larger areas resulting in more fuel vapor as the fuel evaporated and ignited.
24,000 US gallons of fuel (give or take) per aircraft would make a much, much bigger fireball if all (or most) of the fuel ignited upon impact.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
Note the intense fireball coming out the side of the building and not into it because of the angle of the plane crash. This is why I say that most of the fuel was burned off with the initial impact. I'm not sure the amount of total fuel in the planes, but they were no where near full. You must take into account the fuel used up during the flight (I've heard estimates of around 10-15k gallons total).
As for your gasoline tin/aluminum can experiment, I cannot comment. I have a feeling that the towers were a bit stronger than a coke can ;).
The two planes that hit the towers were loaded with enough fuel for a cross-country flight. They most assuredly were near capacity when they struck the towers. Flight 93(?), which went down in Pennsylvania, probably used by far the most fuel, as it made it to near mid-America before turning around. This would explain why there was not as much fire in the field and with the towers. It is absurd for you and anyone else to spread conspiracy theories about 9/11.
Besides, if President Bush and his staff are so stupid, as the left claims, how could they possibly pull this off? They certainly would get no help form the msm.
TP: I must challenge your assertion that the 707 is "only slightly smaller than a 757".
The weight alone of the 707 is 103,145 lbs. in comparison to the 757's weight of 255,000 lbs. I would assume that the amount of fuel each one carries also varies accordingly.
I would also challenge your assumption regarding the "huge fireballs". To say that because a "fireball" appeared "huge" in the video that this somehow proves that all the fuel would have to have been expended is a bit lacking in the way of scientific credibility. The planes were not completely obliterated upon impact.
Perhaps you should talk to some folks who were in the buildings and managed to survive. It seems that such first-hand accounts are conveniently missing from the archives of the conspiracy theorists.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Here is a pretty good link (and site) explaining the subtle differences between a 707 and 767-200 (the types of planes that hit both towers).
Just for example, the empty weight of a 707 is 137,562 lbs. That of the 767-200 is 179,080 lbs. Although the weight is slightly more, the cruising speed of a 707 is higher, thus the kinetic energy would actually be greater than that of the 767. (This is coming from the same site, I am not making this up myself). The fuel is the same.
With that said, the designers took into account a 707 hitting at cruising speed AND fully fueled.
Therefore, these buildings were able to take the impact of a 767-200.
As for eyewitnesses, you need to look no further than the head janitor for 20 years, William Rodriguez. His story of bombs in the basement has been happily added to the archives of the conspiracy theorists ;).
TP, it would not have been all the fuel that caused the fire ball, the fire ball would have come from the fumes released at impact. The fuel would have been spread around and burned for some time after.
If you can prove that "fumes" made this fireball (look at post above) I will believe what you say. However, until you do so, I will stick to my belief that it is the fuel itself.
Can you please verify that somehow? A link would be appreciated...
edit: Hmm, so I thoroughly answer all questions, then botg posts an unsubstatiated claim about fumes burning and I'm the one who shouldn't be listened to?
By all means, prove me wrong. If that fireball is caused by fumes, then those fumes had to come from the fuel, correct? So, wouldn't that mean fuel into fumes into fireball? If so, no more fuel...
You have an unsubstantiated claim that the fumes cause the fireball.
As I said before, if fuel is converted to fumes to burn off, that means that an equivalent amount of fuel is now gone, correct? Thus, if the fumes were the fireball, then the fuel (or liquid part) turned into fumes is no longer there. So where is your fuel going into the building?
Also, how many/much "fumes" would it take to ignite a fireball like that? Can you honestly say that the amount being converted by the plane at the time of impact was enought to create that type of explosion? You would have to believe that literally 75% of the fuel was somehow in fume form to get that explosion.
Please, all I ask is that you prove your point, no need for name calling or "hints" as to what YOU are talking about. If you need an example, a perfect one would be my posts above this.
They aren't hints. He's making you look more-and-more ignorant with every post you submit.
.
"I knew he was ignorant a long time ago. He knows nothing about what working in a Manhatten Office building is like. If he did, he would not expect us to believe that nobody would notice tons of explosive being brought into the twin towers." --Free Stinker
All i said was fumes burn, the fuel MUST be mixed with air, as fuel alone can not burn, try riching out your carburator. That's it; not going to link or even comment further. You posted the thread and don't have a clue to even this elementary point. Why should we educate you?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I have a few comments on this subject. I am an architect and I completely disagree with the idea that there could be "controlled demolition". First of all, anyone who knows/is an architect or engineer knows they don't have time to waste on nonsense like this unless they have no work (i.e. they are no good considering this economy).
Second, anyone who truly UNDERSTANDS physics and structures knows that steel is malleable at fairly low temperatures. All that is needed for failure is the connection to bend enough to rip out of the attachment to the wall/beam. With hundreds of tons of concrete being supported by this steel structure it wouldn't take long before the connection point becomes too weak to support the structure above. Once the first failure occurs the slab drops to the next floor which is more than the steel can hold and it SHEARS off at the weakest point. A domino effect happens all the way down.
The reason for the "explosions" below the falling slabs are simple. The forces generated by millions of pounds of concrete and steel are unbelievable (to conspiracy nuts). The forces are not just at the failure; They resonate all the way down the structure to a weak point where it "explodes" (fails in a violent manner).
To think that this was a conspiracy perpetrated by our government is an insult, not only to everyone who died or had family/friends die, but also to every American who believes in this country and our government.
I can not speak for building 7 as I have not seen any video of it collapsing.
The people on the referenced website are looking for publicity or are completely incompetent architects and engineers and should have their licenses stripped from them.
I think your politics are getting in the way. Your last few paragraphs give you away. Architect or not, if you don't look at the facts, you are doing yourself an injustice.
You need not prove your case to me (well, there wasn' tmuch of a case, more of a rant), but rather to ae911truth. Once they acknowledge that you are right, I will acknowledge the same. So, if you want to take your title of "architect" and dispute THEM, I say please do so.
Until you counter their points, your post means nothing. Yes, we all know that steel is malleable. The rest of your post is unsubstantiated. Where is your proof that a "domino effect will happen" once the building starts to collapse? NIST themselves did not even go so far, for to do so was show without a doubt that it would be impossible for global collapse.
I have no doubt as to your expertise, however, in this circumstance you would be wrong.
"Where is your proof that a "domino effect will happen" once the building starts to collapse?"
It was on TV for all to see!! We saw the buildings fall down!!
I wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, an lo an behold there it was for all to see. Whereas you, seem to not believe anything you see. C'mon man get a grip!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it."MM says...
Beowulf: Why is the simple truth, based on basic science, so difficult for the deniers to understand? A high school graduate who has attained a decent grade in physics class could understand what happened.
I guess I've answered my own question. ;)
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Thank you TP. You just publicly shot yourself in the head:
Please, if you need "truth based in science" feel free to ask. I am well versed in the art of 9/11 truth :).
So "9/11 truth" is now an accepted "science"?
And since I simply can't let it alone, in answer to your questions about fuel burning vs, fumes, try a little science of your own: Fill a bucket with gas (much more volatile - that means it burns easier - than jet fuel). Drop a lit match in. Guess what'll happen? THE MATCH WILL GO OUT.
Since the concept of an analogy seems foreign to some here, let's change "fill a bucket" to "pour some gas on the ground", making sure there is a slight breeze to dispel any lingering fumes. Then drop in a lit match :-o
The point is that fuel, in a liquid state, does not ignite nearly as readily as the fumes from that fuel. As an aircraft burns fuel, the space formerly occupied by liquid fuel is replaced by fumes. The initial explosion will be determined by the space occupied by the fumes and their pressure relative to that space (Boyle's Law) upon impact of the aircraft. This is not quantum physics. Hell, it's not even rocket science.
Let me put it as simply as possible - Generally speaking, fumes explode, liquid burns.
You Neo-cons need to review the truth and come up with some explanations. But of course you'll all pile on and whine about how you're too "right" to recognize you're wrong!!!!
Holy Smokes you've lost it! I just checked out your site and man are you on the wrong planet . You're trying to sell pork chops at the PETA convention here. You might as well pack up and go unless your just another fool trying to stir pots with silliness and vitriol.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
"You Neo-cons need to review the truth and come up with some
explanations. But of course you'll all pile on and whine about how
you're too "right" to recognize you're wrong!!!!"
Come up with explainations? The explainations are that the burning fuel (jet fuel, desks, papers, etc...) weakened the steel which caused it to fail and eventually collapse. What other explaination do you want to hear? That the Government flew remote control planes into the towers, allowed most of the people in the buildings to escape before finally blowing them up with controlled demolition? And of course you have evidence proving this fact. NO?! Just blurry photos and "sounds of explosions" and "eyewitness testimony"? I'm convinced. I never realized how great the TRUTH is. Thank you for opening my eyes to the TRUTH that is filled with real, tangible evidence. I now have to re-evaluate my entire life because what I thought was correct, wasn't.
Re-post, but I still chuckle at the [fruitless] efforts of the Truthers, who still by the way refuse to admit their aliance with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers..........
I'm not in the "know" on inside job stuff so I'm asking the experts. Which makes me wonder if they're so “in the know” with inside jobs, could it be they are part of the inside job circle and are merely using NB's as a means to discover who may be on to them? Anywho...
We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star
attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of
rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-
defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over,
and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a
massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely
obliterated that massive technological wonder.
Like many Americans, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But
as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it
seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into
the rabbit hole I went.
Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding
this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I
would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too
incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from
destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding
something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want
the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a
problem.
1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses
of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire
planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?
2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large
fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders
from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who,
and why?
3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star
reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its
destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several
individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?
4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth
Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in
fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?
5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally
pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord
Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was
also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that
had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the
highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to
fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know
something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?
6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust
port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to
fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot,
according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.”
Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired
the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly
firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these
discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?
7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids
who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by
none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by
the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be
Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to
one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many
years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the
conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to
be coincidences?
8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a
moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital
ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore,
analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show
numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding
completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed
explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
"Richard Gage, AIA is the founding member of ae911Truth.org. He has been a practicing Architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. He is employed with a San Francisco Bay Area architecture firm and has most recently performed Construction Administration services for a new $120M High School campus including a $10M steel-framed Gymnasium. Currently he is working on the Design Development for a very large mixed use urban project with 1.2M sq.ft. of retail and 320K sq.ft. of high-rise office space — altogether about 1,200 tons of steel framing. " - From the linked website
Ooh!!!! Very impressive credentials. NOT!!!
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Oddly enough, I can't find this guy on www.aia.org. I'm not saying he's not an architect or unlicensed... but, if he is unlicensed, it's illegal for him to put AIA after his name. He doesn't have his own firm as I've spent quite some time searching for him. This weakens his credibility quite a bit.
Also, what are "architectural professionals"? That is just a fancy word for someone working for an architect that has relatively no training. I'm glad they have so many draftsmen on their list of supporters.
One more thing, I could not find a single STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. A few Civil Engineers, who work on site conditions (i.e. drainage, paving, and general site conditions), Mechanical and Electrical engineers (Air Conditioning, plumbing and electrical supply to the building). I might take a second look at this if they actually got a structural engineer to back them.
I think the AIA is too smart to put out an 'official press statement' saying anything on this issue. It would hurt architects everywhere if they do, and that's not what they are about. I did a search but couldn't find anything :( Though I would like to see their stance on this.
DD, have you heard of Kevin Ryan? He worked for the company, underwriters laboratories, who certified the steel used in the WTC towers. Do a google video search for "kevin ryan" and watch the first video that pops up. He gives a great presentation on the whole situation including looking at FEMA and NIST and how they are skewing the results.
Comments Policy
thought police, I could pos
May 28, 2007 - 16:03 ET by Conservative Voicethought police, I could post a link that makes all kinds of claims...doesn't make it true, nor does it speak for itself. What it does do however, it speaks volumes about you.
You have yet to respond to any of the simple logic and logistic questions posted to you...if this link speaks for itself, then by all means provide us with those answers.
CV,Here's a cute link to moon
May 28, 2007 - 16:11 ET by BlondeCV,
Here's a cute link to moonbattery....a la "pods" on the plane that "prove" there were bombs when the airliners impacted the WTC's.
Ooops....there goes TP's theory, right down the loo.
Blonde When you scroll down a
May 28, 2007 - 16:14 ET byBlonde
When you scroll down at your link, the lady with the sign "Bush stole my Dentures" what a hoot!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Oh yeah, Bruce,I remember see
May 28, 2007 - 16:18 ET by BlondeOh yeah, Bruce,
I remember seeing that one too!
I read some of the milblogs....and many of the links to them, which are always informative.
Pinch rocks.
blonde--I went to the link--
May 28, 2007 - 17:39 ET by misterbillblonde--I went to the link--followed some of the links in the link--noticed I was getting breathless and then I realized--I always get nervous and breathless when reading the rants of insane people. So, I backed up to your original post. I sat here for a few minutes and the world stopped spinning. I am not a drug user, so I can only assume that is what a "trip" is like. Wow! Not for me!
PS Between you and me--the snow in Australia is actually being dropped out of high altitude planes. It is a plot to undermine Dralgores theories of Global Warming, climate change. There is no such child as Kristen. I have to go now, one of the tinfoil strips on the wall is starting to peel off.
ThoughtPolice cannot even post a link properly
June 7, 2007 - 15:43 ET by SportPoliticsThoughtPolice cannot even post a link properly. ThoughtPolice wants me to pay attention to him, but he still cannot post a link correctly. What a maroon. Hey, maybe when he can post a link correctly, I might give him credit for perhaps having 3 watts of brainpower, enough to read through half the first sentence of the site he cannot link correctly.
My gawd, link incompetence, but I'm supposed to think he made a good analysis of the non link he provided ?
Sorry, I just cannot do it. We're talking incompetence of presentation.
I'm sure he has some idiot excuse too. He'll blame it on his webbrowser or something.
My gawd, link incompeten
June 7, 2007 - 15:52 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsMy gawd, link incompetence
Is that anything like 'urinary incontinence'?
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
Check out this link that conf
May 28, 2007 - 16:11 ET byCheck out this link that confirms evolution!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Good Golly Miss Molly....Give
May 28, 2007 - 16:17 ET by bigtimerGood Golly Miss Molly....
Give it a rest for once Thought Police.
This is soooo old...you are going to convince NOBODY here unless it is a really really simple troll.
Real people all know what really happened on 9-11.
We watched it before our eyes.
Everyone criticized us at f
May 28, 2007 - 16:50 ET by ThoughtPoliceEveryone criticized us at first for not having any credible people who were saying something was wrong with 9/11. Now that we have them, you are backing away from that?
Seems to me you don't really want to know the truth. You continue to ignore newly found evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, and go back to sticking your head in the sand. This isn't soooo old as these architects just formed this group and put up this site. What's old is that you will not look at the evidence. Honestly, I think you are scared out of your mind.
Honestly, I think you are sca
May 28, 2007 - 16:57 ET by bigtimerHonestly, I think you are scared out of your mind.
I think you are just out of yours.
Give it a rest TP...
Especially today.
Men and women are dying ove
May 28, 2007 - 20:05 ET by ThoughtPoliceThe irony smacks me in the fa
May 28, 2007 - 20:10 ET by bigtimerThe irony smacks me in the face.
Evidently not hard enough to make you SNAP OUT OF IT!
Enough already...let someone else play with you for the night.
Right...
May 29, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Mr. BishopHrm... right...
Amazingly, you, like every other idiot liberal in existance, count only the words of those who agree with you, as worth listening to. Take for example, this bastard of a Marine. He openly violates UCMJ, knows he does it, but doesn't care. If you read the retards that respond to him below, they all praise him, his actions, and his service. However, should that same person decry the "movement", and call you idiots what you are... you object to this, and ignore their input.
The same holds true with your "site". I have been there, and I researched 75% of the membership of that website. What I found, of the "members", is that most of them continue to espouse notions, that have already been debunked a thousand times over. You say we're "scared", yet the only people that are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, are morons like you ToiletPaper. You have to look as hard as you can, to find someone who can contradict Popular Mechanics, and a pethora of Architects, Engineers, Demolition experts, and the like, that show that what happened on 9-11, is exactly what everyone saw -- a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, by flying planes into targets. You're just entirely too stupid to come to grips with reality. Gage, the founder of your website, is based in San Francisco, and apparently, from doing just slight research on the internet, has funded and been funded by, extreme liberal groups. Amazingly, you think that it is some divine reason, that we all should listen to the lunatics? No... I don't think so.
Get your head out of your ass ToiletPaper -- the only people around here who are sheep, who cannot think for themselves, are yourself and WingNut -- you guys can't even hold coherent discussions without resorting to the nonsense that you spew -- even when you are proven wrong -- repeatedly. Moreover, you two idiots seem to be unable to debate a single thing... whatsoever. You simply find what someone says to debunk you, and you ignore it -- then restate the same thing you said before, or else wait for new marching orders from your retard groups.
Grow up you stupid jackass... I'm really fed up with you two morons and your bullsh*t.
You have yet to provide evidence of a single thing. You only provide the morons' opinion that "it could happen", not any definitive evidence of, "it did happen". Are you denying that the buildings were struck by planes that morning? Are you denying what your eyes actually saw -- the building collapsing from the top down? How stupid are you ToiletPaper? You seem to be pretty stupid. You cite from an idiot architect -- yes, idiot -- he claims that the first two towers were also controlled demolitions, that took the building down from the bottom. All evidence points to the contrary. You're all a bunch of absolute morons, who truly cannot think for yourselves. So, go sit in your basement some more, wait for your marching orders -- and most assuredly... when you talk to that Marine from that other retard website -- since I am sure you are a member (they [don't] think like you) -- you tell him, if I ever find his ass, I will kick it personally for disgracing the uniform and the country which it represents.
__________________________________________________________
If homosexuality is genetic, then it must be a birth defect. If it is a birth defect, then stem cell research might provide a cure.
Sounds like someone didn't ge
May 29, 2007 - 12:45 ET by ThoughtPoliceSounds like someone didn't get any last night.
If you are so upset at the Patriot Johnny Wave, maybe you will take the time yourself to converse with him. Here is their website...
http://www.truthaction.org/
Be sure to let us know how it goes.
TP...You guys still holding B
May 29, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Clear thinkerTP...
You guys still holding Big Foot hostage in your flying saucer?
Help a wounded soldier here...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12877
TP - You prove Doctor Elders wrong--
June 1, 2007 - 23:12 ET by misterbillYou prove Doctor Elders wrong--she thought it was healthy.The old wives tale has it that a certain solo act can damage your brain. You have proved it.
"As the first black US surgeon general, Joycelyn Elders did not shy away from ... after she said schools should consider teaching masturbation to students as ..."
Everyone criticized us at f
June 1, 2007 - 23:05 ET by Free StinkerEveryone criticized us at first for not having any credible people who were saying something was wrong with 9/11.
And nothing has changed.
TP - did you see the History channel recently? They had a show about Sherman, and how his troops used to melt railroad rails with wood! I wonder how well aviation fuel would have worked?
"Sherman's neckties we
June 4, 2007 - 08:16 ET by ThoughtPolice"Sherman's neckties were railway rails
destroyed by heating them until they were malleable and twisting them into loops resembling
neckties, often around trees."
Apparently, you need to learn the definition of melt. If you don't understand the difference in melting vs. softening you have a lot to learn. With that said (and that is all that should be said), you are comparing low grade crap metal to an industrialized skyscraper of mammoth proportions. Nice try..
And apparently you need to l
June 4, 2007 - 13:54 ET by BeowulfAnd apparently you need to learn that, using YOUR Rosie argument that fire doesn't melt steel, when steel (as in steel beams and structural supports) is heated until it is malleable, it tends to lose just a little bit of it's intended integrity. So, when steel is softened vs. melted, isn't it a teensie bit possible that said steel, SUPPORTING an industrialized skyscraper of mammoth proportions, could possibly COLLAPASE after hours of heating from tons of jet fuel? Not to mention the impact of untold tons of kinetic force from having an aircraft slamming into the structure, thereby weakening it even before subjecting it to the fire?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
"after hours of heating
June 4, 2007 - 14:13 ET by ThoughtPolice"after hours of heating from tons of jet fuel"...First of all, the south tower fell after 56 minutes and the north tower less than an hour and twenty minutes. Second of all, there may have been a lot of fuel on the plane, but what do you think those huge fireballs that flew out of the towers on impact were (i mean other than demo charges)? That would be the fuel my friend. Unless paper can explode into a giant fireball, thats the only explanation. Thus, most of the fuel was consumed upon impact, with very little spreading across the floors.
Therefore, buildings have burned with much, much more intensity for up to 24 hours and have not collapsed. This just doesn't make sense. And yes, I know, no other buildings have been hit by jets before, except each building was designed to take MULTIPLE airline strikes to a fully fueled 707, only slightly smaller than a 757.
p.s. I never said that fire can't melt steel.
You can't seriously say that
June 4, 2007 - 16:05 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou can't seriously say that "most of the fuel was consumed upon impact."
"Unless paper can explode into a giant fireball, thats the only explanation."
That's the only explanation if you don't know more about burning fuel and you deny any other reasonable possibilities.
Have you ever thrown a lit match into a bucket of fuel? (I don't recommend trying it at home or without the appropriate safety gear and legal clearances). There is immediately a violent burst and then a constant raging fire. (I've watched tin and aluminum cans melt from the top down to the fuel (gasoline or kerosene or white gas) level in the can until the fuel finally burns up completely only to leave a ring/slab of metal that used to be a can.) Fuel vapor or atomized fuel is what burns in a fuel fire. It is unreasonable to assume that all of the fuel on those jets instantly atomized upon impact and that most of it burned in the initial fireball. Yes some did explode upon impact, but with my experience/training with jet fuel it is unlikely that there was very little fuel remaining post-impact. Fuel would've still been trapped in slightly ruptured fuel cells, spilling out and feeding a constantly burning and growing fire, some fuel cells could've been ripped completely open and released a deluge of fuel into the offices thus feeding the fire and spreading fuel over larger areas resulting in more fuel vapor as the fuel evaporated and ignited.
24,000 US gallons of fuel (give or take) per aircraft would make a much, much bigger fireball if all (or most) of the fuel ignited upon impact.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
I will reply to everyones
June 4, 2007 - 21:45 ET by ThoughtPoliceI will reply to everyones posts, but I may need a little time.
First, to Mean Gene:
I don't know how big of a fireball you want, but here is the image in case you forgot:
http://www.serendipi...
Note the intense fireball coming out the side of the building and not into it because of the angle of the plane crash. This is why I say that most of the fuel was burned off with the initial impact. I'm not sure the amount of total fuel in the planes, but they were no where near full. You must take into account the fuel used up during the flight (I've heard estimates of around 10-15k gallons total).
As for your gasoline tin/aluminum can experiment, I cannot comment. I have a feeling that the towers were a bit stronger than a coke can ;).
The two planes that hit the t
June 5, 2007 - 16:18 ET by RESTLESS 1The two planes that hit the towers were loaded with enough fuel for a cross-country flight. They most assuredly were near capacity when they struck the towers. Flight 93(?), which went down in Pennsylvania, probably used by far the most fuel, as it made it to near mid-America before turning around. This would explain why there was not as much fire in the field and with the towers. It is absurd for you and anyone else to spread conspiracy theories about 9/11.
Besides, if President Bush and his staff are so stupid, as the left claims, how could they possibly pull this off? They certainly would get no help form the msm.
TP: I must challenge your ass
June 4, 2007 - 16:25 ET by QueenMumTP: I must challenge your assertion that the 707 is "only slightly smaller than a 757".
The weight alone of the 707 is 103,145 lbs. in comparison to the 757's weight of 255,000 lbs. I would assume that the amount of fuel each one carries also varies accordingly.
I would also challenge your assumption regarding the "huge fireballs". To say that because a "fireball" appeared "huge" in the video that this somehow proves that all the fuel would have to have been expended is a bit lacking in the way of scientific credibility. The planes were not completely obliterated upon impact.
Perhaps you should talk to some folks who were in the buildings and managed to survive. It seems that such first-hand accounts are conveniently missing from the archives of the conspiracy theorists.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Please, I accept all chal
June 4, 2007 - 22:03 ET by ThoughtPolicePlease, I accept all challenges.
Here is a pretty good link (and site) explaining the subtle differences between a 707 and 767-200 (the types of planes that hit both towers).
Just for example, the empty weight of a 707 is 137,562 lbs. That of the 767-200 is 179,080 lbs. Although the weight is slightly more, the cruising speed of a 707 is higher, thus the kinetic energy would actually be greater than that of the 767. (This is coming from the same site, I am not making this up myself). The fuel is the same.
With that said, the designers took into account a 707 hitting at cruising speed AND fully fueled.
Therefore, these buildings were able to take the impact of a 767-200.
As for eyewitnesses, you need to look no further than the head janitor for 20 years, William Rodriguez. His story of bombs in the basement has been happily added to the archives of the conspiracy theorists ;).
TP, it would not have been al
June 4, 2007 - 16:38 ET by bassndudeTP, it would not have been all the fuel that caused the fire ball, the fire ball would have come from the fumes released at impact. The fuel would have been spread around and burned for some time after.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
If you can prove that "
June 4, 2007 - 22:06 ET by ThoughtPoliceIf you can prove that "fumes" made this fireball (look at post above) I will believe what you say. However, until you do so, I will stick to my belief that it is the fuel itself.
TPGas fumes burn, gas does no
June 4, 2007 - 22:18 ET byTP
Gas fumes burn, gas does not as there is not enough oxygen. It's why an empty gas can is more dangerous than a full one
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Why is everyone still wasting their time with uber-ignorant TP?
June 4, 2007 - 22:25 ET by Free StinkerHe doesn't even know that . . . :-\
Why is everyone still wasting their time with the uber-ignorant TP ?
(sorry botg, not trying to single you out. I do mean EVERYONE)
Oh yeah right, you just have
June 4, 2007 - 22:34 ET byOh yeah right, you just have it out for me { :^>
Check out his post under this he wants a link as to gas fumes burning and not gas! LMAO Next post I'll have to link to the sky appearing blue.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Can you please verify that
June 4, 2007 - 22:27 ET by ThoughtPoliceCan you please verify that somehow? A link would be appreciated...
edit: Hmm, so I thoroughly answer all questions, then botg posts an unsubstatiated claim about fumes burning and I'm the one who shouldn't be listened to?
By all means, prove me wrong. If that fireball is caused by fumes, then those fumes had to come from the fuel, correct? So, wouldn't that mean fuel into fumes into fireball? If so, no more fuel...
What does a carburator do? or
June 4, 2007 - 22:37 ET byWhat does a carburator do? or the fuel injectors? or a turbo? (hint something about fuel+oxygen)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
You have an unsubstantiated
June 4, 2007 - 22:49 ET by ThoughtPoliceYou have an unsubstantiated claim that the fumes cause the fireball.
As I said before, if fuel is converted to fumes to burn off, that means that an equivalent amount of fuel is now gone, correct? Thus, if the fumes were the fireball, then the fuel (or liquid part) turned into fumes is no longer there. So where is your fuel going into the building?
Also, how many/much "fumes" would it take to ignite a fireball like that? Can you honestly say that the amount being converted by the plane at the time of impact was enought to create that type of explosion? You would have to believe that literally 75% of the fuel was somehow in fume form to get that explosion.
Please, all I ask is that you prove your point, no need for name calling or "hints" as to what YOU are talking about. If you need an example, a perfect one would be my posts above this.
no need for name calling or
June 4, 2007 - 22:57 ET by Free Stinkerno need for name calling or "hints"
They aren't hints. He's making you look more-and-more ignorant with every post you submit.
.
"I knew he was ignorant a long time ago. He knows nothing about what working in a Manhatten Office building is like. If he did, he would not expect us to believe that nobody would notice tons of explosive being brought into the twin towers." --Free Stinker
I claimed what? about what?Al
June 4, 2007 - 23:01 ET byI claimed what? about what?
All i said was fumes burn, the fuel MUST be mixed with air, as fuel alone can not burn, try riching out your carburator. That's it; not going to link or even comment further. You posted the thread and don't have a clue to even this elementary point. Why should we educate you?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I have a few comments on th
June 5, 2007 - 15:10 ET by doubledown552I have a few comments on this subject. I am an architect and I completely disagree with the idea that there could be "controlled demolition". First of all, anyone who knows/is an architect or engineer knows they don't have time to waste on nonsense like this unless they have no work (i.e. they are no good considering this economy).
Second, anyone who truly UNDERSTANDS physics and structures knows that steel is malleable at fairly low temperatures. All that is needed for failure is the connection to bend enough to rip out of the attachment to the wall/beam. With hundreds of tons of concrete being supported by this steel structure it wouldn't take long before the connection point becomes too weak to support the structure above. Once the first failure occurs the slab drops to the next floor which is more than the steel can hold and it SHEARS off at the weakest point. A domino effect happens all the way down.
The reason for the "explosions" below the falling slabs are simple. The forces generated by millions of pounds of concrete and steel are unbelievable (to conspiracy nuts). The forces are not just at the failure; They resonate all the way down the structure to a weak point where it "explodes" (fails in a violent manner).
To think that this was a conspiracy perpetrated by our government is an insult, not only to everyone who died or had family/friends die, but also to every American who believes in this country and our government.
I can not speak for building 7 as I have not seen any video of it collapsing.
The people on the referenced website are looking for publicity or are completely incompetent architects and engineers and should have their licenses stripped from them.
thanks, double
June 5, 2007 - 15:48 ET by LionKingThanks for an enlightened response.
I think your politics are get
June 5, 2007 - 15:53 ET by ThoughtPoliceI think your politics are getting in the way. Your last few paragraphs give you away. Architect or not, if you don't look at the facts, you are doing yourself an injustice.
You need not prove your case to me (well, there wasn' tmuch of a case, more of a rant), but rather to ae911truth. Once they acknowledge that you are right, I will acknowledge the same. So, if you want to take your title of "architect" and dispute THEM, I say please do so.
Until you counter their points, your post means nothing. Yes, we all know that steel is malleable. The rest of your post is unsubstantiated. Where is your proof that a "domino effect will happen" once the building starts to collapse? NIST themselves did not even go so far, for to do so was show without a doubt that it would be impossible for global collapse.
I have no doubt as to your expertise, however, in this circumstance you would be wrong.
"Where is your proof t
June 5, 2007 - 16:01 ET by MightyMouth"Where is your proof that a "domino effect will happen" once the building starts to collapse?"
It was on TV for all to see!! We saw the buildings fall down!!
I wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, an lo an behold there it was for all to see. Whereas you, seem to not believe anything you see. C'mon man get a grip!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Beowulf: Why is the simple tr
June 4, 2007 - 16:43 ET by QueenMumBeowulf: Why is the simple truth, based on basic science, so difficult for the deniers to understand? A high school graduate who has attained a decent grade in physics class could understand what happened.
I guess I've answered my own question. ;)
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Please, if you need "tru
June 4, 2007 - 22:08 ET by ThoughtPolicePlease, if you need "truth based in science" feel free to ask. I am well versed in the art of 9/11 truth :).
Thank you TP. You just public
June 5, 2007 - 09:49 ET by BeowulfThank you TP. You just publicly shot yourself in the head:
Please, if you need "truth based in science" feel free to ask. I am well versed in the art of 9/11 truth :).
So "9/11 truth" is now an accepted "science"?
And since I simply can't let it alone, in answer to your questions about fuel burning vs, fumes, try a little science of your own: Fill a bucket with gas (much more volatile - that means it burns easier - than jet fuel). Drop a lit match in. Guess what'll happen? THE MATCH WILL GO OUT.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Kids, don't try this at home
June 5, 2007 - 09:52 ET by Cool ArrowI don't know if these are trained professionals or not, but it's hard to find a bucket of gas that isn't covered with a layer of vapor.
Since the concept of an analo
June 5, 2007 - 11:48 ET by BeowulfSince the concept of an analogy seems foreign to some here, let's change "fill a bucket" to "pour some gas on the ground", making sure there is a slight breeze to dispel any lingering fumes. Then drop in a lit match :-o
The point is that fuel, in a liquid state, does not ignite nearly as readily as the fumes from that fuel. As an aircraft burns fuel, the space formerly occupied by liquid fuel is replaced by fumes. The initial explosion will be determined by the space occupied by the fumes and their pressure relative to that space (Boyle's Law) upon impact of the aircraft. This is not quantum physics. Hell, it's not even rocket science.
Let me put it as simply as possible - Generally speaking, fumes explode, liquid burns.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Beowulf
June 5, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Cool ArrowFlood the field with Nitrogen and you can fully control the "analogy"
And then let's see how much m
June 5, 2007 - 12:05 ET by BeowulfAnd then let's see how much more tedious we can get about this simple concept.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
First off, this site is suppo
May 31, 2007 - 12:02 ET by BeowulfFirst off, this site is supported by a whopping 46 architects and engineers out of how many tens of thousands?
And does no one else find it strange that all but maybe 2 are from California?
Just because they can identify similarities between the collapse footage and controlled demolition, doesn't mean a thing.
I'm sure that the Popular Mechanics rebuttal to these conspiracy theories involved many more than 46 "professionals" (actually, the number was closer to 70). http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Maybe these lemmings could address these holes in 9-11 LIES
June 1, 2007 - 22:51 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewYou Neo-cons need to review the truth and come up with some explanations. But of course you'll all pile on and whine about how you're too "right" to recognize you're wrong!!!!
Watch this and weep!!!
Watch this and weep!!! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&pr=goog-sl
LOOK CHILDREN. IT'S A TROLL!
June 1, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Free StinkerLOOK CHILDREN. IT'S A TROLL!
COMPLETE WITH MATCHING MOONBAT VIDEO!
Didn't your mother teach you
June 1, 2007 - 22:59 ET by BlondeDidn't your mother teach you about being so ignorant as to start a sentence in that manner?
"You Neo-Cons".
That's a perfect way to guarantee no one will read whatever pathetic link you just posted.
Sorry, little troll. Try again.
That's no ruby slipper but it
June 1, 2007 - 23:03 ET by American Rhetoric ReviewThat's no ruby slipper but it fits well doesn't it!
Sorry, Cinderella.Try again.W
June 1, 2007 - 23:05 ET by BlondeSorry, Cinderella.
Try again.
We've seen a thousand little DKOS kids like you.
Keep it up.
Shall I show you where the woodshed is?
it fits well doesn't it!You
June 1, 2007 - 23:06 ET by Free Stinkerit fits well doesn't it!
You obviously have a lot of experience putting your foot in your mouth, don't you?
Who is collecting tolls at your bridge?
Well, Rhetoric,It seems as th
June 1, 2007 - 23:37 ET by BlondeWell, Rhetoric,
It seems as though you've cut and run. Or perhaps redeployed. Whatever. Oh, how surprised that makes me.
But, you should continue to hang around...on the night side. If you dare.
Welcome to the grown ups' world.
Sheesh...you DKos trolls are so predictable.
Holy Smokes you've lost it!
June 1, 2007 - 23:03 ET by The Wicked ConservativeHoly Smokes you've lost it! I just checked out your site and man are you on the wrong planet . You're trying to sell pork chops at the PETA convention here. You might as well pack up and go unless your just another fool trying to stir pots with silliness and vitriol.
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
"You Neo-cons need to
June 6, 2007 - 09:56 ET by doubledown552"You Neo-cons need to review the truth and come up with some
explanations. But of course you'll all pile on and whine about how
you're too "right" to recognize you're wrong!!!!"
Come up with explainations? The explainations are that the burning fuel (jet fuel, desks, papers, etc...) weakened the steel which caused it to fail and eventually collapse. What other explaination do you want to hear? That the Government flew remote control planes into the towers, allowed most of the people in the buildings to escape before finally blowing them up with controlled demolition? And of course you have evidence proving this fact. NO?! Just blurry photos and "sounds of explosions" and "eyewitness testimony"? I'm convinced. I never realized how great the TRUTH is. Thank you for opening my eyes to the TRUTH that is filled with real, tangible evidence. I now have to re-evaluate my entire life because what I thought was correct, wasn't.
Morals....? Who needs those?
Still Unanswered Questions...
June 4, 2007 - 08:51 ET by Sua Sponte 75Re-post, but I still chuckle at the [fruitless] efforts of the Truthers, who still by the way refuse to admit their aliance with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers..........
I'm not in the "know" on inside job stuff so I'm asking the experts. Which makes me wonder if they're so “in the know” with inside jobs, could it be they are part of the inside job circle and are merely using NB's as a means to discover who may be on to them? Anywho...
We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star
attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of
rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-
defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over,
and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a
massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely
obliterated that massive technological wonder.
Like many Americans, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But
as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it
seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into
the rabbit hole I went.
Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding
this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I
would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too
incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from
destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding
something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want
the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a
problem.
1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses
of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire
planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?
2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large
fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders
from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who,
and why?
3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star
reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its
destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several
individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?
4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth
Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in
fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?
5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally
pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord
Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was
also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that
had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the
highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to
fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know
something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?
6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust
port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to
fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot,
according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.”
Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired
the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly
firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these
discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?
7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids
who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by
none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by
the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be
Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to
one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many
years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the
conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to
be coincidences?
8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a
moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital
ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore,
analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show
numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding
completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed
explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
"Richard Gage, AIA is th
June 4, 2007 - 16:36 ET by QueenMum"Richard Gage, AIA is the founding member of ae911Truth.org. He has been a practicing Architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. He is employed with a San Francisco Bay Area architecture firm and has most recently performed Construction Administration services for a new $120M High School campus including a $10M steel-framed Gymnasium. Currently he is working on the Design Development for a very large mixed use urban project with 1.2M sq.ft. of retail and 320K sq.ft. of high-rise office space — altogether about 1,200 tons of steel framing. " - From the linked website
Ooh!!!! Very impressive credentials. NOT!!!
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
Oddly enough, I can't find th
June 6, 2007 - 10:35 ET by doubledown552Oddly enough, I can't find this guy on www.aia.org. I'm not saying he's not an architect or unlicensed... but, if he is unlicensed, it's illegal for him to put AIA after his name. He doesn't have his own firm as I've spent quite some time searching for him. This weakens his credibility quite a bit.
Also, what are "architectural professionals"? That is just a fancy word for someone working for an architect that has relatively no training. I'm glad they have so many draftsmen on their list of supporters.
One more thing, I could not find a single STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. A few Civil Engineers, who work on site conditions (i.e. drainage, paving, and general site conditions), Mechanical and Electrical engineers (Air Conditioning, plumbing and electrical supply to the building). I might take a second look at this if they actually got a structural engineer to back them.
Morals....? Who needs those?
AIA ???
June 6, 2007 - 10:51 ET by LionKingI wonder what the AIA's official position on 9-11 is?
I think the AIA is too smar
June 6, 2007 - 11:16 ET by doubledown552I think the AIA is too smart to put out an 'official press statement' saying anything on this issue. It would hurt architects everywhere if they do, and that's not what they are about. I did a search but couldn't find anything :( Though I would like to see their stance on this.
Morals....? Who needs those?
DD, have you heard of Kevin R
June 7, 2007 - 14:57 ET by ThoughtPoliceDD, have you heard of Kevin Ryan? He worked for the company, underwriters laboratories, who certified the steel used in the WTC towers. Do a google video search for "kevin ryan" and watch the first video that pops up. He gives a great presentation on the whole situation including looking at FEMA and NIST and how they are skewing the results.