read the post carefully pleasuregays. sound it out if you have to...

You don't have to be a genius to see that most people on this forum are average joe-six-pack idiots who don't know shit about shit. While some are more educated than others, it is still a waste of time discussing things like this on here.

At least, if nothing else, a lot more people here know that some Danish chemist found nano-thermite in the WTC dust... lol... because it's not like they would have visited a website where important information like that is reported on their own.

I'm out, have fun arguing with idiots. Oh, but I would like to eventually see what Franck has to say about John Farmer's new book.

Just stop arguing with the idiots. If they were capable of learning we'd never be having this discussion.

you mean the book from the government guy who you don't not believe in? from the commission that can't be trusted... i mean the government you do believe in? i mean the government you say you don't believe in ... until you agree with them, then its ok.. its just those you don't agree with that are wrong?

your position is quite confusing

There's two things in this world I can't stand.
People who are intollerant of other cultures and the Dutch

I would've thought that wine with bottle caps would be on that list.

Seems Silverstein did ....

oh well, just skip over it ... np at all ... :1orglaugh

O'Bummers doing a really great job passing 20 acts on ya freedom - way to go O'Bummer owned by Wall Street,hes really scammed the black people into voting him in. We know hes controlled by the ILLUMINATI.

Get serious. Silverstein did in fact use the word "pull" but nobody other than Internet nut jobs have ever said they were talking about demolition.

The fire chief said they were talking about pulling back the fire crews. Silverstein clarified that was also what he was talking about. So the comment earlier that I was responding to about the fire chief admiting they "Pulled" the building and being called fact stands.

One word, this is over one word. Logically, it doesn't even make any sense that the Fire Chief was involved in any conspiracy. I mean, why did he send all those firemen to their deaths in the twin towers? Why would he answer to Silverstein who could then make the decision to demolish the building with explosives? It just doesn't make any sense and surely even you can see that.

for those of you who believe the towers were attacked by Al-Qaida, what was the motivation for the attack?

so now you're speaking for him and know what he meant? of course he's going to say he meant pull the fire crews out, especially when no firefighters were in the building in the first place. you saw the video of the building coming down, it was completely engulfed in flames.

dont ruin your credibility by denying you made a mistake, you said no one said pull and someone did say pull (you even said pull the building in any fashion, so now that you're saying it has nothing to do with demolition doesn't matter, you said never in any fashion)

The word terrorism comes to mind. It's what they like to do.

I'm not denying I made a mistake. Had I made one I would admit it.

Look, I posted the chief's exact statement here so I know exactly what they said. The original comment was it's fact that the fire chief was talking about "pulling" the building, when in fact the fire chief himself says they were talking about pulling back from the building.

This whole thing about "pull" is among the more stupid "evidence" you ding bats constantly bring up.

Fire chiefs are not building demolition experts nor is Silverstein. It's just stupid you guys hang on one word that's been clarified from the source over and over again all the while ignorning the mountains of evidence against. For example, why would the fire chief be involved in a covert demolition? Why would he be reporting to Silverstein? It makes no sense what so ever. A single word, that you've put in to an entirely different context is not evidence of any sort I'm afraid.

Seriously it takes A LOT of planning and expertise for demolition experts to get a building to fall straight down. Even after all that planning and expertise it often doesn't work out that well.

The idiots are the ones who are ignorant and closed minded. What happens if it does come out that it was a massive conspiracy?

Who's dick are you going to suck?

You really never know.



Alfred P Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma didn't fall straight down. It didn't even fall and It had the entire side blown off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-fema-1562.jpg

Flawless logic right up until the point when you started comparing buildings of completely different designs.

government fucks us, life as normal

???????

:error:1orglaugh

You know damn well what I meant. We're pretty full up on idiots in this thread so you can go apply your proofreading skills elsewhere.

What did i miss????!!!!

Did a mad Danish scientist blow up the towers using angel dust?!?!?!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lighted%29.jpg

Look at the position of Building #7 in relation to 1 and 2

It's sketchy. Admit it.

Did #6 fall? It's directly next to Building 1

I am getting dizzy ... with all that spin ...

So now, we should concentrate on what you meant ... not what you wrote ...

Please update us when this change .... :)

Bldg 7 was a completely different design than 1 & 2... and the damage was far less significant than 1 & 2.

Bldg's 1 & 2 were damaged at different levels and different areas of the bldgs...
yet they all three fell in the exact same manner..

None of the buildings located between 1,2 and 7 fell.. though 7 was supposedly badly damaged from the debris from 1 & 2.. why not as much, or more damage to the bldgs that were closer to 1 & 2?

I get it, you're having fun trolling.

Wow, do you really believe that? "It's what they like to do." lmao

Maybe, just maybe, this will help you to understand:

One person to consult if we want to understand those who wish us harm is Michael Scheuer, who was chief of the CIA's Osama Bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center in the late 1990's. Scheuer is a conservative and a pro-life voter who has never voted for a Democrat. And he refuses to buy the usual line that the attacks on America have nothing to do with what our government does in the Islamic world. "In fact," he says, those attacks have "everything to do with what we do."

Some people simply will not listen to this kind of argument, or will pretend to misunderstand it, trivializing this profoundly significant issue by alleging that Scheuer is "blaming America" for the attacks. To the contrary, Scheuer could not be any clearer in his writing that the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Americans should be pursued mercilessly for their acts of barbarism. His point is very simple: it is unreasonable, even utopian, not to expect people to grow resentful, and desirous of revenge, when your government bombs them, supports police states in their countries, and imposes murderous sanctions on them. That revenge, in its various forms, is what our CIA calls blowback --- the unintended consequences of military intervention.

Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer is asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism --- only a fool would place the moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves. The question he is asking is less doltish and more serious: given that a hyperinterventionist foreign policy is very likely to lead to this kind of blowback, are we still sure we want such a foreign policy? Is it really worth it to us? The main focus of his criticism, in other words, is that our government's foreign policy has put the American people in greater danger and made us more vulnerable to attack than we would otherwise have been.

The interventionist policies that have given rise to blowback have been bipartisan in their implementation. For instance, it was Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who said on 60 Minutes that half a million dead Iraqi children as a result of the sanctions on that country during the 1990s were "worth it." Who could be so utopian, so detached from reality, as to think a remark like that --- which was broadcast all over the Arab world, you can be sure --- and policies like these would not provoke a response? If Americans lost that many of their family members, friends, and fellow citizens, would they not seek to hunt down the perpetrators and be unsatisfied until they were apprehended? The question answers itself. So why wouldn't we expect people to try to take revenge for these policies?

This does not mean Americans are bad people, or that they are to blame for terrorism --- straw-man arguments that supporters of intervention raise in order to cloud the issue and demonize their opponents. It means only that actions cause reactions, and that Americans will need to prepare themselves for these reactions if their government is going to continue to intervene around the world.

To those who say that the attackers are motivated by a hatred of Western liberalism or the moral degeneracy of American culture, Scheuer points out that Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini tried in vain for a decade to instigate an anti-Western jihad on exactly that basis. It went nowhere. Bin Laden's message, on the other hand, has been so attractive to so many people because it is fundamentally defensive. Bin Laden, says Scheuer, has "spurned the Ayatollah's wholesale condemnation of Western society," focusing instead on "specific, bread-and-butter issues on which there is widespread agreement among Muslims."

What Bin Laden's sympathizers object to, as they have said again and again, is our government's propping up of unpopular regimes in the Middle East, the presence of American troops on the Arabian Peninsula, the American government's support for the activities of governments (like Russia) that are hostile to their Muslim populations, and what they believe to be an American bias toward Israel. The point is not that we need to agree with these arguments, but that we need to be aware of them if we want to understand what is motivating so many people to rally to Bin Laden's banner. Few people are moved to leave behind their worldly possessions and their families to carry out violence on behalf of a disembodied idelogy; it is practical grievances, perhaps combined with an underlying ideology, that motivate large numbers to action.

At a press conference at the National Press Club in May 2007, Scheuer told reporters: "About the only thing that can hold together the very loose coalition that Osama Bin Laden has assembled is a common Muslim hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy... They all agree they hate U.S. foreign policy. To the degree we change that policy in the interests of the United States, they become more and more focused on their local problems." That's not what a lot of our talking heads tell us on television every day, but few people are in a better position to understand Bin Laden's message than Scheuer, one of our country's foremost experts on the man.

There is much more to support this if you want me to go on...

really? so that's their motivation? the most successfull attack on US soil which would have taken years to plan and god knows how much money to execute and the only reason is "they like to do it"! and they only like doing it to us?

why not attack france? everyone hates the french!

Go back a page or 2 and you got your answer. At least read what i type before calling me out.

Retardboy, how exactly did you miss the part that a big ass plane flew into the towers or a 20 floor hole in tower 7? Why are you talking about just a fire took them down? Are you stupid? Yes you are.

Holy shit!

Ok, i'm totally convinced now. You are either 12 years old or simply a retard. I mean a real retard. Not a retard as i call other people just to make fun of them but a real retard. No sane person can be this stupid. It's impossible.

You people are crazy. Unbefuckinglievable.

I guess you are referring to the last 2 posts on page 3. So your answer would be that John Farmer is lying.

:2 cents: :(:(

I wonder why demolition teams put dynamite in every single beam and floor when taking down a house when just taking out a few floors of a building makes it go down the exact same way like a pancake.. as we saw stunning 3 times in row on the exact same day with 3 different buildings on 9/11..

People paying a million for months of pre-work to take down a building by a demolition team must feel quite cheated when it's clearly not necessary to weaken the whole structure in order to make it come down safely as a pancake.. and no, it wasnt a coincidence that it happen on 9/11 .. 3 times in a row isnt a coincidence.. especially not happening on the same day, the same place..

If it was bombed they were able to exactly detonate from the floors starting under the where the plane entered. And the plane didn't damage the bombs or wires which were obviously also on those levels because they didn't know exactly where the plane would enter.

Just adding all these things up it's simply impossible...

The people who believe in this shit are simply very, very simply minded. No other possible solution.

Why do you people keep using the word pancake as if thats some kind of evidence it were detonations. Once again how the fuck do you think the building wouldve gone down otherwise?

If buildings would always drop like a pancake (sorry) there's no reason for months of prep work for the demolition teams?

If everything isn't set up correctly demolitions can easily fail.. even with TONS of building trying to make the stuff below into dust :) Just aint happening

A few picks from the album..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IwNxbPybymM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UsePU...eature=related

I have no clue what you are trying to say, sorry.