TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 [63] 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
Trolls know more than an engineer or other similar professional.
They never offer objective rhetoric. Only inane babble and ad hominem attacks with a little character assassination thrown in for good measure.
But they know what they talk about because Langley says they do.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X and you say this just two posts after you said, but whatever, no biggie. |
| quote: |
There's a wonderful thing I found that's called a search engine. You should use it sometime http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/ar...eID=1&sk=&date= |
| quote: |
Well, mainly because that's one of the only rational explanations behind how or why the towers could have collapsed at nearly freefall speed. Since I doubt that they defied the laws of physics, I'd say it would have to be either that or some sort of directed energy weapon. The FBI initially stated that they thought that there was an explosives filled van which was detonated in the basement - but that's a whole another story. I think I'll stick to arguing about demolition charges for now. |
| quote: |
These guys were both known and watched by several intelligence agencies both here and abroad. If you had followed the story from the beginning you probably would have known that. It doesn't take rocket science to figure it out http://www.breakfornews.com/Mohammed-Atta.htm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11358484 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/.../29/12430.shtml I thought that you said you researched this? |
| quote: |
LMAO! The REALLY funny thing is, you seem to use misinformation even when you assert that you can't put the anomalies together. The plane parts at the Pentagon didn't even match the 737 that allegedly hit it and I had never even heard that the circling C-130 had dumped anything. Are you making that up or did you actually read that? |
| quote: |
Who gives a fuk if they are licensed or not? |
| quote: |
I bet they still know what they are talking about and some even have much more experience then other engineers with licenses who are fresh out of school. |
| quote: |
| because if theyre not registered you cannot possibly verify the veracity of their qualifications. meaning they are just random names on a page. you believe they know what they are talking about, whereas colonel and i would prefer a little proof. hey, like a paper written by them and reviewed by their peers! lol. i dont understand the logic of someone that would defend a list of names that (as far as we know) haven't produced any articles on the subject, if you can't even verify their qualifications at the same time? that's just dumb. |
| quote: |
| excuse me if your "bet" isn't good enough for the rest of us. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut I get it, you believe that just because the majority of people who down right oppose the official story are wrong because a much smaller circle of people with a piece of paper say the opposite? I think you are the dumb one. |
first one i checked......
Robert Tamaki
| quote: |
| Municipal/Urban/Town Planning, None, 2637 Grant St., Vancouver, BC, CANADA |
thanks for that colonel. as suspected, the list of structural engineers is (more or less) a farce. this is why no papers have been presented for review i'd guess. ghosts dont write papers! 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thanks for that colonel. as suspected, the list of structural engineers is (more or less) a farce. this is why no papers have been presented for review i'd guess. ghosts dont write papers! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp unfourtunatly this is going to do very little to convince them that all these "reports" and "studies" that support explosives / space lasers / missiless etc are a crock of shit..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN true, but i love pointing it out anyway ive just looked at their site some more, these "engineers and architects" have all the same nonsense available on the other CT sites. including the most damning evidence of all: the BBC report of WTC7 coming down before it did! oh my god! thank christ we have these architects to do this research for us! |
| quote: |
| dont even get me started on architects........ i was going to tear into them in my previous post, but i didnt want to come accross as biased...... they have no practical knowledge of anything and im pretty sure they need assistance to wipe their own arse..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut LOL!!! Exactly why I do not take anything you say seriously, way to full of yourself. To say that architects have no practical knowledge of anything must be absolutely the most ignorant thing ever posted in this thread if not the whole forum, they design buildings you moron! Might be just me (highly doubtful) but I think both PKC and Colonel are trying real hard to convince themselves that the lies they believe in are actually the truth. It comes across as very pathetic in their posts. It must suck grasping to the twisted so called truth in their minds and trying to sway others on these forums that their mindset is the correct and only way to look at things. Horrible. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp dont even get me started on architects........ i was going to tear into them in my previous post, but i didnt want to come accross as biased...... they have no practical knowledge of anything and im pretty sure they need assistance to wipe their own arse..... the city just hired an architect to design a bridge........ it was a great looking thing and a nice design.... except i had to add 6 more supports for it to not fall down....... apparently in architect land they have 500 MPa concrete..... funny.... the strongest concrete you can get commercially from Lafarge or Esroc is 85 MPa..... and you pay out the ASS for it.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut LOL!!! Exactly why I do not take anything you say seriously, way to full of yourself. To say that architects have no practical knowledge of anything must be absolutely the most ignorant thing ever posted in this thread if not the whole forum, they design buildings you moron! |
| quote: |
Might be just me (highly doubtful) but I think both PKC and Colonel are trying real hard to convince themselves that the lies they believe in are actually the truth. It comes across as very pathetic in their posts. |
| quote: |
It must suck grasping to the twisted so called truth in their minds and trying to sway others on these forums that their mindset is the correct and only way to look at things. |
| quote: |
| you do realize that architects don't do any structural design. they merely design the shape and function of buildings..... the concept if you will. structural engineering firms then take this "concept" and design each individual member and connection to make the concept work. architects are great at drawing pictures and building cardboard models, but they know dick all about structural engineering |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Let me guess you know the credentials and backgrounds of every architect on the planet? |
Here is an idea.
Why don't both you and Colonel setup a live debate with Richard Gage (the architect who runs www.ae911truth.org) and has countless seminars at prestige universities across North America and tape it.
Then post it here so we can have a good chuckle as he hands the both of you your asses.
You are both failing very badly at convincing the voters in this poll so at least think about taking a new direction with your nonsense. People are not so easily convinced at government and "official" accounts anymore and being on the short end of the stick it's up to you to prove to the people otherwise.
The more you guys stick around here the more you are going to lose in the numbers game. Judging by the way the poll numbers have moved lately you are both on the incorrect path.
It seems the majority sees right through the "official" story and the both of you.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Here is an idea. Why don't both you and Colonel setup a live debate with Richard Gage (the architect who runs www.ae911truth.org) and has countless seminars at prestige universities across North America and tape it. Then post it here so we can have a good chuckle as he hands the both of you your asses. |
| quote: |
You are both failing very badly at convincing the voters in this poll so at least think about taking a new direction with your nonsense. People are not so easily convinced at government and "official" accounts anymore and being on the short end of the stick it's up to you to prove to the people otherwise. The more you guys stick around here the more you are going to lose in the numbers game. Judging by the way the poll numbers have moved lately you are both on the incorrect path. It seems the majority sees right through the "official" story and the both of you. |
Excellent article, hit the link below to view it in it's entirety with pictures.
The Seventh Tower
Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information, on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription). Images have been added below to support the text.
How, not why, did World War Three start?
We are not talking about conspiracy theories, absolutely not. We are talking about elementary physics and chemical processes, Newton's laws, gravity, the melting point of steel, and the like.
The World Trade Center was a complex made up of several buildings. The best-known, of course, were the two towers, WTC1 and WTC2. Together with five other smaller buildings � numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 � they formed a perimeter around a central plaza. On the far side of building 6, over 100 metres from the North Tower (WTC1), was building seven (WTC7). It was a very large 47-storey office building.
The two towers collapsed on 11 September 2001, after each was struck by an airplane. Everyone on the globe who had access to a television set has seen the dramatic and tragic images. However, to this day, only very few people are aware of the existence of WTC7 or its fate. This building was not hit by any airplane, but still collapsed seven hours after the towers. This feature article is about that event.
http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Excellent article, hit the link below to view it in it's entirety with pictures. The Seventh Tower Niels Harrit has been Associate Professor at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, for 37 years. This is a translation of a feature article printed in the Danish Newspaper, Information, on 31 March 2007 (requires subscription). Images have been added below to support the text. How, not why, did World War Three start? We are not talking about conspiracy theories, absolutely not. We are talking about elementary physics and chemical processes, Newton's laws, gravity, the melting point of steel, and the like. The World Trade Center was a complex made up of several buildings. The best-known, of course, were the two towers, WTC1 and WTC2. Together with five other smaller buildings � numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 � they formed a perimeter around a central plaza. On the far side of building 6, over 100 metres from the North Tower (WTC1), was building seven (WTC7). It was a very large 47-storey office building. The two towers collapsed on 11 September 2001, after each was struck by an airplane. Everyone on the globe who had access to a television set has seen the dramatic and tragic images. However, to this day, only very few people are aware of the existence of WTC7 or its fate. This building was not hit by any airplane, but still collapsed seven hours after the towers. This feature article is about that event. http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_Harrit.htm |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut Let me guess you know the credentials and backgrounds of every architect on the planet? Ignorance. Stop talking, you are hurting yourself really. LOL |
| quote: |
Originally posted by ogvh5150   |
^^ big fucking deal.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 |
Lads, arguing with conspiracy theorists is pointless, don't waste your time unless you're amused by this fruitless discussion:
| quote: |
| Rejecting conspiracy thinking keeps it alive and well IVOR TOSSELL The problem with deriding conspiracy theories is that it really does leave your columnist feeling like he's just playing his part in the International Bankers' plan for one-world government. Yet the topic asserts itself this week, despite my years-long attempt to ignore it. A two-hour movie, slickly produced and wrapped in an air of appealing mystery, has been making the rounds, propelled by recommendations from bloggers whose eyes were opened and lives changed. The reputable A-list websites are starting to acknowledge it. People in the offline world have asked me about it. The thing is called Zeitgeist and can be found via Google Video. It's a online video set against a black backdrop, with no clue as to its creators' identities. It assembles archival footage, animations, and breathless narration into a kind of primer on conspiracies. The movie comes in three parts. The first makes the case that Jesus is a mythological figure built from parts of earlier mythological figures. Christianity, say the filmmakers, is a concoction, just a form of social control. So far, nothing ground-breaking. But now the movie jumps to 9/11, and things really get moving. The middle segment steps us through the orthodoxy of 9/11 conspiracy thinking. The twin towers weren't destroyed by jetliners; they were intentionally demolished with explosives. Something fishy happened to Flight 93, which the banker-controlled media will tell you crashed in Pennsylvania. The Air Force, we're told, deliberately failed to intercept any of the planes. Meanwhile, the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airliner, but by something more like a missile. All of this leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, staged by elements of the U.S. government to provide a pretext for invading Iraq and curtailing civil liberties. To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. They arranged for the Lusitania to be torpedoed, dragging the U.S. into the First World War. They manipulated FDR into essentially staging Pearl Harbour, starting The Second World War. (That was the start of The Second World War, right?) Ditto Vietnam, ditto 9/11. Their ultimate goal? A one-world government whose citizens all carry implanted microchip IDs. And all the while, the hidden powers are using the consolidated mass media, the church, and the educational establishment to create a complacent zeitgeist � a spirit of the times � that leaves us dumb as sheep. The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular. (In 2006, one poll suggested that a full third of Americans thought their government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.) It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when it suits it. It ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort. The funny thing about this stuff is that it's all been thoroughly debunked for years. Everyone from Scientific American to Popular Mechanics have produced reports puncturing the central claims of the 9/11 theory, and when you look gullible next to Popular Mechanics, you know you're in trouble. Evidently, debunking isn't the issue. You can't argue aliens with someone who has an "I want to believe" poster on his or her office wall. Nor can you cite the findings of the professional, journalistic, and academic consensus to someone who's decided that having credibility means being under the sway of shadowy forces. To that line of thinking, an expert who is rejected by his peers � say, for lunatic conspiracy thinking � gains credibility just for being ostracized. What troubles me the most is that, for all the talk of skepticism, conspiracy counterculture is really an anti-intellectual, populist movement � much like Intelligent Design. For all their absurdity, conspiracy theorists try to drag everything back to the level of common sense. Just look at the video evidence, they say! Did the collapsing buildings on 9/11 look like they were being demolished? Then they must have been demolished. Did the 757 that hit the Pentagon's blast-proof walls fail to make a plane-shaped hole? Then it must have been something else. Are there unexplained quirks in the official story? Then it must be the work of a higher power. That's the thing: Conspiracy theorists want to see a guiding force, a malevolent design, behind events. The notion that calamity might be the unintended consequence of subtler causes doesn't hold the same appeal. Evil, whatever its other uses, drives a great narrative. Complexity, not so much. The Internet bred the 9/11 conspiracy movement, and thanks to films like Zeitgeist, it's alive and well. Now riddle me this: I look at what's happening, and I see people using the Internet to gain widespread currency by rejecting social institutions in favour of an amateur-accessible common-sense approach. I see people who are highly selective about facts, and who are ready to write off opposing views as the bile of powers that be. I see them using the Web's echo-chamber to create a place where they're right, and everyone else is wrong. Does this sound familiar? If I told you that I look around the Internet, and am troubled to see this pattern everywhere, would you accuse me of seeing a conspiracy? |
In other words, don't think for yourselves. You have no right to do so.
Let Big Brother decide for you what is right and what is wrong.
He know's better than you!
Can't you tell by the way that he's handled all of our wars in such an efficient and benevolent manner?
"Reason obeys itself; Ignorance submits to what is dictated to it."
- Thomas Paine
| quote: |
| Originally posted by colonelcrisp and CNN is a reliable news source.........rrrrrrright.... actually i saw the same kind of poll on CNN before except it was % of CNN viewers who thought JFK and Elvis were still alive........ |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.