911 Loose Change-- ? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

MediaGuy · 07-26-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Thats the problem with simpletons like you. You get your "facts" from clowns just like you.

"All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength."

You are a fucking retard. Sorry, i cant say it in a more polite way.

Thanks for apologizing for your inability to respond in a more civil way.

"The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

[Therefore not hot enough to melt steel or at the time of exposre recorded to soften it significantly]

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius [1,832.00 Farenheity] , it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. "

What they omit is that, if it were to be "expected" the steel should have been exposed at DOUBLE the temperature for the 3 to 6 hour period required for steel to soften; when, in fact, it was "exposed" for less than an hour, at lower temperatures. So the fire explanation is bullshit.

:D

MediaGuy · 07-26-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

So even though there is evidence to support otherwise, countless logical explanations, we're going to just believe your support-less claim because you said face it?

Despite your belief, there isn't evidence to support that this was an organic, natural or gravity -driven collapse.

People like you think there is.

But with a little effort you'll find there isn't.

stickyfingerz · 07-26-2008, 03:51 PM

Planes hit the tower, the buildings fell down. There were NO rigged explosives, or any of that bullshit. </end thread>

cykoe6 · 07-26-2008, 03:55 PM

I believe most troofers can broken down into the following two categories:

Paranoid/Delusional - This kind of troofer is so terrified of reality that they must construct some kind of outlandish counter reality that they find more comforting. Perhaps the fact that deep down inside they know their artificially constructed reality is false is comforting, while at the same time allowing them to ignore the uncomfortable reality that they cannot face. It is essentially the equivalent of reading a comic book and pretending it is the news because the real news is too horrible to comprehend.

Marxist/Propagandist – This kind of troofer knows that their theories are all lies but feel that the lies serve the greater good of “waking up” capitalist society to its supposed “evils.” They are using the classic Marxist/Leninist technique of the “big lie” to try and undermine capitalist society. They know that people will never turn against their comfortable lifestyles willingly so they need to manufacture shadowy conspiracies which will make the average citizen believe that they have somehow been “duped” and are being “oppressed” despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is the type of troofer that publishes most of the troofer propaganda that the paranoid/delusional troofers spout hypnotically.

Obviously there are many varieties of both these types and some people are likely a little bit in each camp, but I believe it is a decent summary of the troofer movement.

moeloubani · 07-26-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Despite your belief, there isn't evidence to support that this was an organic, natural or gravity -driven collapse.

People like you think there is.

But with a little effort you'll find there isn't.

You mean other than this study here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That disproves everything you say?

Steel starts weakening at 300 degrees, it doesn't just begin to soften at 1000 degrees then melt at 1500. That's not steel. So, I'm not sure why you think you can draw numbers out of thin air and expect others to believe them, when there are actual facts that prove you wrong. Time and time again.

If you want to look at it in your conspiracy theory kind of way then think of it like this:

If the goal was to create as big of an explosion as possible, then why not knock the building over into some other buildings? Why wait until after the fires have been burning for a while to knock the building down? Why even bother sending planes if you can just blow it up and then say it was a terrorist. And most importantly, why bother blowing the whole building up? It made no difference that the whole thing crashed, the point was that two planes just hit two skyscrapers, it was the beginning of that war either way. So why would the government go out of their way and let tons of other demolition experts in on their little game when they could have just crashed planes into the building?

Any way you look at it, you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and it's become clear by you making figures up that you're just making your last attempts at trying to even sound like you could know anything, when in reality, its obvious that you've lost.

Sorry dude!

stickyfingerz · 07-26-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

You mean other than this study here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That disproves everything you say?

Steel starts weakening at 300 degrees, it doesn't just begin to soften at 1000 degrees then melt at 1500. That's not steel. So, I'm not sure why you think you can draw numbers out of thin air and expect others to believe them, when there are actual facts that prove you wrong. Time and time again.

If you want to look at it in your conspiracy theory kind of way then think of it like this:

If the goal was to create as big of an explosion as possible, then why not knock the building over into some other buildings? Why wait until after the fires have been burning for a while to knock the building down? Why even bother sending planes if you can just blow it up and then say it was a terrorist. And most importantly, why bother blowing the whole building up? It made no difference that the whole thing crashed, the point was that two planes just hit two skyscrapers, it was the beginning of that war either way. So why would the government go out of their way and let tons of other demolition experts in on their little game when they could have just crashed planes into the building?

Any way you look at it, you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and it's become clear by you making figures up that you're just making your last attempts at trying to even sound like you could know anything, when in reality, its obvious that you've lost.

Sorry dude!

Yup the beginning of malleability doesn't wait till it hits 1000 degrees to start deterioating the strength of the metal.

Xplicit · 07-26-2008, 08:18 PM

I don't trust Loose Change or the government.

The people bashing the conspiracy theorists are just as ignorant as the conspiracy theorists themselves - NEITHER SIDE HAS PROVEN THEIR CASE.

So anyone claiming to believe either side is a gullable idiot. The only honest answer to what really happened on 9/11 is "I don't know".

Its really quite sad how this has been shaped into a black and white issue. You can't even ask questions without people thinking you're siding with the 9/11 truthers. However the governments story has so many gaps, anyone who believes it at face value is a fucking moron.

Pretty screwed up situation

Xplicit · 07-26-2008, 08:30 PM

To follow up that last post let me be more specific.

From what ive seen i'm the only fair minded person in this entire thread, believing neither the truthers or the government - I still have unanswered questions.

- Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history... whats never been explained is how and when that relationship officially ended. The fact is we had a close relationship with the man who is now supposidly our biggest enemy, but the details of that relationship are vastly unexplained.

- Why was Pakistani intelligence chief Ahmad (who wired the 9/11 hijackers $100,000) in Washington DC meeting with US officials on the morning of 9/11? Why did the 9/11 comission not include this in their investigation? Why was he allowed back to Pakistan, then retired and disappeared without any followup???

- Why did members of the 9/11 comission claim "There were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." citing lack of cooperation from the white house. On this same note why would Bush only speak to them if it was off the record, together with Cheney, and he wasnt under oath?

- WHO THE HELL WARNED OAKLAND MAYOR WILLIE BROWN NOT TO FLY? This is from the goddamn SF Chronicle and has since been burried with no explination. ( SF Chronicle Sept 12th )

Now I am open to the idea that there are innocent explinations for all of the above. But no matter where you think you stand - all of America must admit the 'investigation' was sloppy to say the least.

It's that sloppyness that leads to 'truthers' jumping to dramatic conclusion, and the equally disgusting anti-truthers who pretend their gap-filled story makes sense.

NEITHER "SIDE" HAS A DAMN CLUE WHAT HAPPENED. SO STOP TAKING SIDES!

Stop fooling yourselves, all of you are pathetic in your attempts to avoid admitting the only truth, which is that you don't know jack shit.

MediaGuy · 07-26-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Planes hit the tower, the buildings fell down. There were NO rigged explosives, or any of that bullshit. </end thread>

Just you saying so don't make it so.

According to facts, buildings shouldn't have fallen.

If there weren't explosives, what made the buildings fall as if there were?

I'm not a tinfoil hat spaceray freak.

I would love to know why all warnings prior to 9/11 were relegated to the garbage can.

I would love to know how those buildings fell so fast.

Planes, fires and total structural failure don't explain the speed of descent.

World Trade Center 7 or the Salomon Brothers Building wasn't even hit by a plane.

CheeseFrog · 07-26-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

But still, as a gambler, what would you say are the odds all three of those buildings could fall the same way on the same day, being also that they were the first in known history to do so?

Al'Qaeda already claimed responsibility for the attack. Since we're doing the "when in known history", when in known history has Al'Qaeda claimed responsibility for something they DIDN'T do? No conspiracy theorist has EVER been able to answer that question.

CheeseFrog · 07-26-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

If there weren't explosives, what made the buildings fall as if there were?

World Trade Center 7 or the Salomon Brothers Building wasn't even hit by a plane.

If there were explosives, why was there no explosives residue ever found? Building 7 was intentionally brought down for safety concerns. Not even sure why you're bringing B7 up since this has been gone over time and time again.

Malicious Biz · 07-26-2008, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Just you saying so don't make it so.

According to facts, buildings shouldn't have fallen.

If there weren't explosives, what made the buildings fall as if there were?

I'm not a tinfoil hat spaceray freak.

I would love to know why all warnings prior to 9/11 were relegated to the garbage can.

I would love to know how those buildings fell so fast.

Planes, fires and total structural failure don't explain the speed of descent.

World Trade Center 7 or the Salomon Brothers Building wasn't even hit by a plane.

If someone cut your feet off you'd swear they were still there. if someone slapped you in the face you'd deny it ever happened. if someone told you the sky was blue you'd say it just isn't so.

All that shit has been explained in great detail by many qualified people yet you claim "there is no proof"

you're ridiculous.

2MuchMark · 07-27-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Thanks for apologizing for your inability to respond in a more civil way.

"The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

[Therefore not hot enough to melt steel or at the time of exposre recorded to soften it significantly]

:D

Gregory sir, what you are assuming is that the heat in these area only got as hot as the fuel might burn at. You are ignoring alot of other factors such as all of the other material that made up the offices and the building itself, the increased amount of airflow thanks to air intake (Heat rises and sucks up air from the hundreds of now blown-out windows), and most importantly, the flash point of all of the gasses generated by the burning items including evaporated but not yet burned jet fuel. These gases rise with heat and collect at the tops of the room. They continue to be heated by the fuel below until the the gases themselves, catch fire. This raises the tempurate way beyon 2000 degrees (Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology).

Thousands of degrees of heat, +
Damage by a 20 ton plane at 400 miles per hour, +
Thousands of tons of pressure..

yeah... those buildings feel down all by themselves... no controlled demolition needed.

2MuchMark · 07-27-2008, 12:14 AM

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's ?happened before?.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

hershie · 07-27-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Gregory sir, what you are assuming is that the heat in these area only got as hot as the fuel might burn at. You are ignoring alot of other factors such as all of the other material that made up the offices and the building itself, the increased amount of airflow thanks to air intake (Heat rises and sucks up air from the hundreds of now blown-out windows), and most importantly, the flash point of all of the gasses generated by the burning items including evaporated but not yet burned jet fuel. These gases rise with heat and collect at the tops of the room. They continue to be heated by the fuel below until the the gases themselves, catch fire. This raises the tempurate way beyon 2000 degrees (Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology).

Thousands of degrees of heat, +
Damage by a 20 ton plane at 400 miles per hour, +
Thousands of tons of pressure..

yeah... those buildings feel down all by themselves... no controlled demolition needed.

Also, the planes knocked the fireproofing material off of the steel columns.

Dirty F · 07-27-2008, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Just you saying so don't make it so.

According to facts, buildings shouldn't have fallen.

The facts you got from loose change and shit like that arent facts you retard boy. Just like your steel temp. bullshit. Fucking mentally challenged idiot.

Dirty F · 07-27-2008, 03:44 AM

Also retardboy, you are telling us that every level of the building had explosives ready to go off...you have any fucking idea what a massive job with tons of people involved that would be? In the most public tower in NYC...yeah right.
Also when the plane crashed the explosives didnt go off? Then after a while someone pushed the button and the explosives started to go off starting at the first level below the plane crash area? And the levels above the explosives didnt go off? Dude think about it...youre fucking nuts.

Dirty F · 07-27-2008, 09:26 AM

Bump...

I want to see with what bs you will come up with regarding my last post.

2MuchMark · 07-27-2008, 09:47 AM

DirtyF, can you lay off the name calling? This is an interesting discussion with lots of varrying opinions. The only people who I would call completely nuts would be the ones who believe UFO's had anything to do with this... all other opinions though are fair game.

Cheers!

Dirty F · 07-27-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

DirtyF, can you lay off the name calling?

No sorry. If someone is a retard you should call him that.

2MuchMark · 07-27-2008, 11:43 AM

Uh huh....

Xplicit · 07-27-2008, 02:46 PM

ROFL, I completely owned the truthers and non-truthers in this thread.

What do both sides do when you point out why they're idiots? Ignore you!

I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest. The rest of you PORN WEBMASTERS can keep debating physics and steel manufacturing.

si101 · 07-27-2008, 02:50 PM

My 2 cents...

No other way for those buildings to come down besides Controlled Demolition...

For those that believe the media establishment: don't call truthers conspiracy nuts when you are the ones promoting a conspiracy... most truthers simply see that the official story is full of shit and just ask questions... so if any one is a conspiracy nut, its you!

Dirty F · 07-27-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Uh huh....

You shouldnt worry that i call morons morons because when i call morons morons it means they are morons. You i dont call a moron because i dont think youre a moron. Thats all you have to worry about

Malicious Biz · 07-27-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplicit

ROFL, I completely owned the truthers and non-truthers in this thread.

What do both sides do when you point out why they're idiots? Ignore you!

I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest. The rest of you PORN WEBMASTERS can keep debating physics and steel manufacturing.

You "owned" nothing. We didn't ignore you because you're right, we ignored you because you're ridiculous.

Now go "Own" somewhere else.

The sheer amount of evidence avalible on the subject is more than enough for anyone with half a brain cell to form a pretty god damn rock solid conlusion as to what happed on 9/11. To say "nobody knows shit" is laughable at best.

si101 · 07-27-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

All that shit has been explained in great detail by many qualified people yet you claim "there is no proof"

You may want to double check your facts...

Just about every effort to combat truthers talks about how these conspiracy nuts are... I haven't seen one yet that actually goes through the questions being raised and answers them... and unlike you, I've spent a fair amount of time searching.

If you're going to be so opinionated, perhaps you should try actually researching these beliefs that you have... and for gods sake man, turn off your god-damn tv.

Malicious Biz · 07-27-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by si101

You may want to double check your facts...

I haven't seen one yet that actually goes through the questions being raised and answers them...

There has been hundreds.. if not thousands, of people who answered and provided reasonable explainations the bat shit insane theories go completely ignored and pretended they don't exsist. Nice research you've done. maybe you should look to more research other than some guy with a truther blog ran out of his moms basement.

moeloubani · 07-27-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplicit

ROFL, I completely owned the truthers and non-truthers in this thread.

What do both sides do when you point out why they're idiots? Ignore you!

I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest. The rest of you PORN WEBMASTERS can keep debating physics and steel manufacturing.

Right now it's 6:45pm here.

You have 2 hours to post this exactly:

'I am the dumbest and biggest crock of shit on this board. I apologize for saying anything bad about webmasters, and from now on, I'll keep my mouth shut and I won't post my dumb claims and write dumb things.'

Before I come back on here and totally crush you.

moeloubani · 07-27-2008, 05:16 PM

30 mins left to say sorry! after that theres no holding me back

and after i post THAT, ill not post for around a week so I can use my #1000 for something useful.

Time is ticking!

bronco67 · 07-27-2008, 05:44 PM

I love how all of the building pancaking experts come out of the woodwork once these discussions start.

Anyone who thinks twin towers were brought down by controlled demo is an idiot, and has not bothered to do any research on the subject.

moeloubani · 07-27-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplicit

ROFL, I completely owned the truthers and non-truthers in this thread.

What do both sides do when you point out why they're idiots? Ignore you!

I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest. The rest of you PORN WEBMASTERS can keep debating physics and steel manufacturing.

Well, can't say I didn't give you an out.

Here comes the crush.

First point:

"Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history... whats never been explained is how and when that relationship officially ended. The fact is we had a close relationship with the man who is now supposidly our biggest enemy, but the details of that relationship are vastly unexplained."

The reality:

The U.S. government officials and a number of other parties maintain that the U.S. supported only the indigenous Afghan mujahideen. They deny that the CIA or other American officials had contact with the Afghan Arabs (foreign mujahideen) or Bin Laden, let alone armed, trained, coached or indoctrinated them. They argue that with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land; that with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds; that Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of them to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan[12]; that the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even when they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.

Second point:

"Why was Pakistani intelligence chief Ahmad (who wired the 9/11 hijackers $100,000) in Washington DC meeting with US officials on the morning of 9/11? Why did the 9/11 comission not include this in their investigation? Why was he allowed back to Pakistan, then retired and disappeared without any followup???"

The reality is that this guy didn't retire then just disappear, he had a trial and was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Urdu: احمد عمر سعید شیخ) (sometimes known as Umar Sheikh, Sheikh Omar[1], Sheik Syed[2], or by the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad"[3]) (b. December 23, 1973) is a British-born militant of Pakistani descent with alleged links to various Islamic-based organisations, including Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al-Qaeda, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Taliban.

He was arrested and served time in prison for the 1994 abduction of several British nationals in India, an act which he acknowledges, he was released from captivity in 1999 and provided safe passage into Pakistan, apparently with the support of Pakistan and the Taliban (the hijackers were Pakistanis) in an Indian Airlines plane hijacking. He is most well-known for his alleged role in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh Omar Saeed was arrested by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002, in Lahore, in conjunction with the Pearl kidnapping,[4] and was sentenced to death on July 15, 2002[5] for killing Pearl. His judicial appeal has not yet been heard. The delay has been alleged to be due to his reported links with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.[6]

Third point:

"Why did members of the 9/11 comission claim "There were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." citing lack of cooperation from the white house. On this same note why would Bush only speak to them if it was off the record, together with Cheney, and he wasnt under oath?"

Actually what happened is that members of the 9/11 commission didn't say that, however one member did write it in a book. This is what he says about why he though they wanted them to fail):

We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don?t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.

Fourth Point:

"WHO THE HELL WARNED OAKLAND MAYOR WILLIE BROWN NOT TO FLY? This is from the goddamn SF Chronicle and has since been burried with no explination. ( SF Chronicle Sept 12th )"

The reality:

"It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful."

So because this guy got a call the day before 9/11, a call he gets all the time, it means he was warned about 9/11? My dick hurt that morning, must mean my dick is a danger alarm.

For a guy who claims to be posting honest things ('I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest.') You sure are full of alot of shit.

And you have the nerve to post this?

"It's that sloppyness that leads to 'truthers' jumping to dramatic conclusion, and the equally disgusting anti-truthers who pretend their gap-filled story makes sense."

So what do you have to say now? Now that you were proven to be a LIAR on each point you made? Still think you posted something even remotely honest?

In this I'm Mugatu, and you're Todd.

Malicious Biz · 07-27-2008, 06:59 PM

moeloubani, wow, great post. kudos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by si101

... and unlike you, I've spent a fair amount of time searching.

Then, while on your exstensive research into the subject you've surely came across:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://debunking911.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...42.html?page=1

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...reducation.uk1

and most importantly:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

donkevlar · 07-27-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Here we go again..the fire theory. A plane crashed into it you fucking dumb fucking moron! Fucking amazing how dumb you people can get. Talking about experts. You leave out the fucking plane and blame a fire. Dumb imbecile.

What about building 7? It came down and it was only hit with debris. No plane, no jet fuel.

donkevlar · 07-27-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Bump...

I want to see with what bs you will come up with regarding my last post.

Martin · 07-27-2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donkevlar

What about building 7? It came down and it was only hit with debris. No plane, no jet fuel.

They have no answer for building 7. Building 7 never happened.

donkevlar · 07-27-2008, 10:12 PM

That would be a great band name.. "Building Seven"

Xplicit · 07-27-2008, 10:50 PM

moeloubani you are a CLASSIC CASE of exactly what I said before. Here's whats so funny, YOU ARE A 'TRUTHER" IN THE EXACT WAY YOU CRITICIZEM THEM - For pretending you're an expert when you are not.

- You do not have insight into the CIA, you're a porn webmaster. Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war.

- I asked why General Ahmad was not included in the 'official' investigation, not "where is he now?" somehow you just gave me a bunch of random data as if it would make me forget you didn't address the question.

- I asked who warned Oakland Mayor Willie Browne not to fly, and once again completely ignoring the question you give a quote from another article basically saying Willie claims to get those warnings often. Uhhh... I don't know if you can read (but you sure can type!) but I asked WHO.... not how often.

Once again, I find people like you very odd. You flood me with random data and no answers yet I think you REALLY believe your reply was intelligent.

The people with your exact personality type are also the hardcore truthers. You're ability to convince yourself you're much smarter then you really are is somewhat disturbing.

My case stands: You truthers AND anti-truthers are ALL full of shit! There is a valid list of mysteries surrounding 9/11, those who can say with any condifence that their THEORY is a perfect reflection of the truth is lying - truthers and anti-truthers alike.

2MuchMark · 07-27-2008, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

You shouldnt worry that i call morons morons because when i call morons morons it means they are morons. You i dont call a moron because i dont think youre a moron. Thats all you have to worry about

Sure DirtyF, from now on, we will regard whatever you say as gospel.

moeloubani · 07-27-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xplicit

moeloubani you are a CLASSIC CASE of exactly what I said before. Here's whats so funny, YOU ARE A 'TRUTHER" IN THE EXACT WAY YOU CRITICIZEM THEM - For pretending you're an expert when you are not.

- You do not have insight into the CIA, you're a porn webmaster. Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war.

- I asked why General Ahmad was not included in the 'official' investigation, not "where is he now?" somehow you just gave me a bunch of random data as if it would make me forget you didn't address the question.

- I asked who warned Oakland Mayor Willie Browne not to fly, and once again completely ignoring the question you give a quote from another article basically saying Willie claims to get those warnings often. Uhhh... I don't know if you can read (but you sure can type!) but I asked WHO.... not how often.

Once again, I find people like you very odd. You flood me with random data and no answers yet I think you REALLY believe your reply was intelligent.

The people with your exact personality type are also the hardcore truthers. You're ability to convince yourself you're much smarter then you really are is somewhat disturbing.

My case stands: You truthers AND anti-truthers are ALL full of shit! There is a valid list of mysteries surrounding 9/11, those who can say with any condifence that their THEORY is a perfect reflection of the truth is lying - truthers and anti-truthers alike.

No, I don't have insight into the CIA, but that info was from the CIA, and they DO have insight into the CIA.

As to the next point, you said he disappeared, which was a flat out lie.

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. [1]

So, he was included in the official investigation. Again, another lie.

And the quote from that article (not from another article, from the article YOU linked to) said exactly who warned him.

"Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport."

The call came from his security at the airport. I'm not sure why he would give exact names, but he said who warned him.

I don't pretend I'm an expert, I give proof backed up from official sources, then I discuss them. You are the one who pretends to be an expert.

Come on dude, admit defeat, don't try to go on with your statements with zero proof, especially if the statements are all flat out lies and little remarks with no back up.

moeloubani · 07-28-2008, 12:01 AM

And just to top it all off, let me show you how confused you are. In your first post you wrote:

Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history

Then just now you wrote:

Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war.

Busted!

xmas13 · 07-28-2008, 12:28 AM

I'm not sure Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11 had something to do with fate and destiny.

xmas13 · 07-28-2008, 12:30 AM

I'm also not sure that irrational trust is "better" than rational mistrust.

xmas13 · 07-28-2008, 12:35 AM

"Why are you so paranoid, Mulder?"
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I find it hard to trust anybody."
- Scully & Mulder

http://www.donath.org/Quotes/Paranoia/

Marialovesporn · 07-28-2008, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

great pic

MediaGuy · 07-29-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Yup the beginning of malleability doesn't wait till it hits 1000 degrees to start deterioating the strength of the metal.

Yep that`s right. it `starts` deteriorating the strength of the metal. The metal has to be exposed for hours though, not for 30 to 60 minutes.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...estResults.pdf

MediaGuy · 07-29-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

So even though there is evidence to support otherwise, countless logical explanations, we're going to just believe your support-less claim because you said face it?

Actually I was talking to Mark, whose logical mind and reason have generally stood up to reason in the face of proof.

The 9/11 Commission and NIST did not come up with proof. The first ignored building 7 enitrely, the second said they couldn't explain the ease and speed and utter collapse of building 7.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...estResults.pdf

The report states that temperatures couldn't have reached higher than 650 degrees celsius for longer than 20 minutes. They tested it much longer than that, and at higher temperatures.

MediaGuy · 07-29-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Thats the problem with simpletons like you. You get your "facts" from clowns just like you.

"All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength."

You are a fucking retard. Sorry, i cant say it in a more polite way.

So how long in a smelter does steel have to be exposed (consistently) to these temperatures in order to initiate the beginings of malleability?

Then there's melted and eaten away steal which they can't explainl; documented:
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...#a1201eutectic

Shit wouldn't happen in a fire.

MediaGuy · 07-29-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Dude, like Dirty F said, planes hit the building man. Planes! That's crazy dude, and no matter what kind of structural engineer you are, you can't build a building that can withstand a direct hit from a missile that big (yes, a plane loaded with fuel traveling that fast might as well have been a missile.)

"The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners,"

-Frank A. DeMartini, construction manager of the Trade Center

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

What do you expect the buildings to do? Just sit there? If they wanted to use the controlled demolition thing then why not just do what happened at the first WTC attack and set off a bomb at the base of the building, where damaging enough supports is guaranteed to lead to a collapse. Furthermore, why even bother with a straight up and down demolition if you're trying to fool people. Wouldn't it make more logic to have the collapse act the same as your everyday collapse?

I don't know what the plan was. When I first saw the buildings blow up live on TV I thought that they'd build the things with explosives in them to avoid a tilted collapse, all the life and collateral destruction that would cause.

But when they started talking about pankcakes, then changed the story to fuel fires softening the metal in such a short time, I was... freaked. You'd expect gravity driven collapses to topple, create huge amounts of shattered concrete affixed to steel beams, but there was none of that.

hershie · 07-29-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually I was talking to Mark, whose logical mind and reason have generally stood up to reason in the face of proof.

The 9/11 Commission and NIST did not come up with proof. The first ignored building 7 enitrely, the second said they couldn't explain the ease and speed and utter collapse of building 7.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...estResults.pdf

The report states that temperatures couldn't have reached higher than 650 degrees celsius for longer than 20 minutes. They tested it much longer than that, and at higher temperatures.

Why does your mind make you ignore obvious evidence about what really happened to Building 7 and harp on the fire angle. Is that being honest and objective. I mean just look under the collapse section of this wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center - and all the footnotes provided. Yet you still blather about fire.

hershie · 07-29-2008, 11:07 PM

MediaGuy, what, no love or time to look at this obvious and rational explanation for building 7 - http://debunking911.com/pull.htm - or are you too busy cherry-picking what to talk about that supports your cause.

07-26-2008, 03:55 PM	#104
cykoe6 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,499	I believe most troofers can broken down into the following two categories: Paranoid/Delusional - This kind of troofer is so terrified of reality that they must construct some kind of outlandish counter reality that they find more comforting. Perhaps the fact that deep down inside they know their artificially constructed reality is false is comforting, while at the same time allowing them to ignore the uncomfortable reality that they cannot face. It is essentially the equivalent of reading a comic book and pretending it is the news because the real news is too horrible to comprehend. Marxist/Propagandist – This kind of troofer knows that their theories are all lies but feel that the lies serve the greater good of “waking up” capitalist society to its supposed “evils.” They are using the classic Marxist/Leninist technique of the “big lie” to try and undermine capitalist society. They know that people will never turn against their comfortable lifestyles willingly so they need to manufacture shadowy conspiracies which will make the average citizen believe that they have somehow been “duped” and are being “oppressed” despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is the type of troofer that publishes most of the troofer propaganda that the paranoid/delusional troofers spout hypnotically. Obviously there are many varieties of both these types and some people are likely a little bit in each camp, but I believe it is a decent summary of the troofer movement. __________________ бабки, шлюхи, сила

07-26-2008, 08:18 PM	#107
Xplicit Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: █◄►█ Posts: 3,558	I don't trust Loose Change or the government. The people bashing the conspiracy theorists are just as ignorant as the conspiracy theorists themselves - NEITHER SIDE HAS PROVEN THEIR CASE. So anyone claiming to believe either side is a gullable idiot. The only honest answer to what really happened on 9/11 is "I don't know". Its really quite sad how this has been shaped into a black and white issue. You can't even ask questions without people thinking you're siding with the 9/11 truthers. However the governments story has so many gaps, anyone who believes it at face value is a fucking moron. Pretty screwed up situation Last edited by Xplicit; 07-26-2008 at 08:19 PM..

07-26-2008, 08:30 PM	#108
Xplicit Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: █◄►█ Posts: 3,558	To follow up that last post let me be more specific. From what ive seen i'm the only fair minded person in this entire thread, believing neither the truthers or the government - I still have unanswered questions. - Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history... whats never been explained is how and when that relationship officially ended. The fact is we had a close relationship with the man who is now supposidly our biggest enemy, but the details of that relationship are vastly unexplained. - Why was Pakistani intelligence chief Ahmad (who wired the 9/11 hijackers $100,000) in Washington DC meeting with US officials on the morning of 9/11? Why did the 9/11 comission not include this in their investigation? Why was he allowed back to Pakistan, then retired and disappeared without any followup??? - Why did members of the 9/11 comission claim "There were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." citing lack of cooperation from the white house. On this same note why would Bush only speak to them if it was off the record, together with Cheney, and he wasnt under oath? - WHO THE HELL WARNED OAKLAND MAYOR WILLIE BROWN NOT TO FLY? This is from the goddamn SF Chronicle and has since been burried with no explination. ( SF Chronicle Sept 12th ) Now I am open to the idea that there are innocent explinations for all of the above. But no matter where you think you stand - all of America must admit the 'investigation' was sloppy to say the least. It's that sloppyness that leads to 'truthers' jumping to dramatic conclusion, and the equally disgusting anti-truthers who pretend their gap-filled story makes sense. NEITHER "SIDE" HAS A DAMN CLUE WHAT HAPPENED. SO STOP TAKING SIDES! Stop fooling yourselves, all of you are pathetic in your attempts to avoid admitting the only truth, which is that you don't know jack shit. Last edited by Xplicit; 07-26-2008 at 08:32 PM..

07-27-2008, 12:14 AM	#114
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,038	10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists A useful guide by Donna Ferentes 1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc. 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length. 3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make. 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. 5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account. 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's ?happened before?.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. 10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

07-27-2008, 09:47 AM	#119
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,038	DirtyF, can you lay off the name calling? This is an interesting discussion with lots of varrying opinions. The only people who I would call completely nuts would be the ones who believe UFO's had anything to do with this... all other opinions though are fair game. Cheers! __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

07-26-2008, 03:51 PM	#103
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	Planes hit the tower, the buildings fell down. There were NO rigged explosives, or any of that bullshit. </end thread>

07-27-2008, 03:44 AM	#117
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Also retardboy, you are telling us that every level of the building had explosives ready to go off...you have any fucking idea what a massive job with tons of people involved that would be? In the most public tower in NYC...yeah right. Also when the plane crashed the explosives didnt go off? Then after a while someone pushed the button and the explosives started to go off starting at the first level below the plane crash area? And the levels above the explosives didnt go off? Dude think about it...youre fucking nuts.

07-27-2008, 09:26 AM	#118
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Bump... I want to see with what bs you will come up with regarding my last post.

07-27-2008, 11:43 AM	#121
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,038	Uh huh.... __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

07-27-2008, 02:46 PM	#122
Xplicit Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: █◄►█ Posts: 3,558	ROFL, I completely owned the truthers and non-truthers in this thread. What do both sides do when you point out why they're idiots? Ignore you! I'm the only one in this entire thread who posted anything remotely honest. The rest of you PORN WEBMASTERS can keep debating physics and steel manufacturing.

07-27-2008, 02:50 PM	#123
si101 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12	My 2 cents... No other way for those buildings to come down besides Controlled Demolition... For those that believe the media establishment: don't call truthers conspiracy nuts when you are the ones promoting a conspiracy... most truthers simply see that the official story is full of shit and just ask questions... so if any one is a conspiracy nut, its you! __________________ SexInfo101.com - Your resource for Sex Tips and Dating Advice. ICQ: 379-611-053

07-27-2008, 05:16 PM	#129
moeloubani Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ontario Posts: 4,235	30 mins left to say sorry! after that theres no holding me back and after i post THAT, ill not post for around a week so I can use my #1000 for something useful. Time is ticking!

07-27-2008, 05:44 PM	#130
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,032	I love how all of the building pancaking experts come out of the woodwork once these discussions start. Anyone who thinks twin towers were brought down by controlled demo is an idiot, and has not bothered to do any research on the subject.

07-27-2008, 10:12 PM	#136
donkevlar Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,325	That would be a great band name.. "Building Seven" __________________ [email protected]

07-27-2008, 10:50 PM	#137
Xplicit Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: █◄►█ Posts: 3,558	moeloubani you are a CLASSIC CASE of exactly what I said before. Here's whats so funny, YOU ARE A 'TRUTHER" IN THE EXACT WAY YOU CRITICIZEM THEM - For pretending you're an expert when you are not. - You do not have insight into the CIA, you're a porn webmaster. Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war. - I asked why General Ahmad was not included in the 'official' investigation, not "where is he now?" somehow you just gave me a bunch of random data as if it would make me forget you didn't address the question. - I asked who warned Oakland Mayor Willie Browne not to fly, and once again completely ignoring the question you give a quote from another article basically saying Willie claims to get those warnings often. Uhhh... I don't know if you can read (but you sure can type!) but I asked WHO.... not how often. Once again, I find people like you very odd. You flood me with random data and no answers yet I think you REALLY believe your reply was intelligent. The people with your exact personality type are also the hardcore truthers. You're ability to convince yourself you're much smarter then you really are is somewhat disturbing. My case stands: You truthers AND anti-truthers are ALL full of shit! There is a valid list of mysteries surrounding 9/11, those who can say with any condifence that their THEORY is a perfect reflection of the truth is lying - truthers and anti-truthers alike. Last edited by Xplicit; 07-27-2008 at 10:52 PM..

07-28-2008, 12:01 AM	#140
moeloubani Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ontario Posts: 4,235	And just to top it all off, let me show you how confused you are. In your first post you wrote: Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history Then just now you wrote: Please do not tell me you know exact details of off-the record relationships built during the cold war. Busted!

07-28-2008, 12:28 AM	#141
xmas13 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: GFY Posts: 5,176	I'm not sure Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and 9/11 had something to do with fate and destiny. __________________ ICQ 557504926

07-28-2008, 12:30 AM	#142
xmas13 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: GFY Posts: 5,176	I'm also not sure that irrational trust is "better" than rational mistrust. __________________ ICQ 557504926

07-28-2008, 12:35 AM	#143
xmas13 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: GFY Posts: 5,176	"Why are you so paranoid, Mulder?" "Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because I find it hard to trust anybody." - Scully & Mulder http://www.donath.org/Quotes/Paranoia/ __________________ ICQ 557504926 Last edited by xmas13; 07-28-2008 at 12:36 AM..

07-29-2008, 11:07 PM	#150
hershie Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,642	MediaGuy, what, no love or time to look at this obvious and rational explanation for building 7 - http://debunking911.com/pull.htm - or are you too busy cherry-picking what to talk about that supports your cause.