For those who support the war on terror

iblazethatkush · Nov 28, 2007

ViRedd said:
Hey, Blaze ...

I would be interested in reading any data you may have on Building #7. Keep in mind though, if you're getting it off of the Internet, anyone, anywhere ... and at anytime, can post anything they want to post on the Internet. The fact that you can find conspiratorial theories on the Internet doesn't make it true. So ... show me some real scientific truths. Thanks ...

Vi

Cool, I'm glad you're interested, VI. I'll be doing some research on this and I'll post a thread containing my findings. I'm a college student so I don't have as much time during the week(in fact I got a class in an hour). But, I'll try to put it up during the weekend. I'll also include some things you can't find on the internet but I have thought of personally that don't add up. Such as, how did the hijackers get the cockpit doors open with boxcutters? I've never heard this mentioned and I don't see how it could be possible.

ViRedd · Nov 28, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
Cool, I'm glad you're interested, VI. I'll be doing some research on this and I'll post a thread containing my findings. I'm a college student so I don't have as much time during the week(in fact I got a class in an hour). But, I'll try to put it up during the weekend. I'll also include some things you can't find on the internet but I have thought of personally that don't add up. Such as, how did the hijackers get the cockpit doors open with boxcutters? I've never heard this mentioned and I don't see how it could be possible.

Ok, thanks Blaze ... I'm looking forward to your reply.

On the "cockpit door" thing: Prior to 9-11, the access doors to the cockpits were really flimsy. A couple of hard kicks would get them open. Precautions have been taken since though. The doors have been greatly beefed up as a result of 9-11.

By the way, if you don't mind my asking ... what's your major?

Vi

iblazethatkush · Nov 28, 2007

Undecided as of now. Probably going to be business, though. It's a tough decision.

may · Nov 28, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
How do you explain WTC #7 falling? It was never hit by a plane.

It was hit by burning debris and started to burn when the towers fell. being empty and a shortage firemen it was left to burn and 7 hours later it collapsed. But why would anyone care? Thats like being in a auto wreck that kills your whole family and someone wants to talk about an empty coke can that was ran over at the end of the wreck. Why was this coke can #7 ran over? How did it git in the way. Dumb if you ask me.

iblazethatkush said:
Oh right, fire caused them to fall, the first three buildings in the history of our planet.

You must be a true dummy.

iblazethatkush said:
If it was fire than how come the tower that got hit last fell first?

It was hit lower so it had more weight to support so it fell first.

iblazethatkush said:
Also, why did the towers fall at slower than free-fall speed?

It had to crush its way down through the lower floors.

iblazethatkush said:
If you can answer any of these questions I'll take you more seriously. There's plenty more, but try to find a rational answer for these to start.

Its not just rational but its simple. I wonder if you can understand eather.

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

You know what, VI, I changed my mind about the 9/11 thread. I don't feel like getting ridiculed. I respect you as an obviously intelligent person and skilled debater. But, I feel you and many others on here are very naive when it comes to what you think this regime is capable of. I don't know if you think the Bush regime couldn't have planned this b/c they 'care' too much to sacrifice their own ppl or what. But after reading quotes like this: They frequent all the conspiracy sites on the net and actually believe that crap. Oh yes, George Bush, the president of the United States, not only was personally responsible for the attacks on 9-11 but he actually FAKED the attacks and had demolition teams bore thousands of holes in the buildings while no body was looking and pressed the detonator lever himself while wearing a Nazi uniform. Therefore, the "controlled" explosions. These are the very same people to rail against a government that they see "shredding" the Constitution, but want to give our entire medical system over to the "shredders" to run. Idiots!

Vi
as well as others by other members. I no longer feel it is worth my time to bother. My hope was to convince others of my believes with strong factual evidence. But, it is clear to me after reading stuff like this, that that will not happen no matter what evidence I can produce. :peace:

Chrisuperfly · Nov 29, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
You know what, VI, I changed my mind about the 9/11 thread. I don't feel like getting ridiculed. I respect you as an obviously intelligent person and skilled debater. But, I feel you and many others on here are very naive when it comes to what you think this regime is capable of. I don't know if you think the Bush regime couldn't have planned this b/c they 'care' too much to sacrifice their own ppl or what. But after reading quotes like this: They frequent all the conspiracy sites on the net and actually believe that crap. Oh yes, George Bush, the president of the United States, not only was personally responsible for the attacks on 9-11 but he actually FAKED the attacks and had demolition teams bore thousands of holes in the buildings while no body was looking and pressed the detonator lever himself while wearing a Nazi uniform. Therefore, the "controlled" explosions. These are the very same people to rail against a government that they see "shredding" the Constitution, but want to give our entire medical system over to the "shredders" to run. Idiots!

Vi
as well as others by other members. I no longer feel it is worth my time to bother. My hope was to convince others of my believes with strong factual evidence. But, it is clear to me after reading stuff like this, that that will not happen no matter what evidence I can produce.

Please produce your evidence, don't cop out now. I want to see some no bullshit evidence that took time to put together not just a bunch of bullet points with heresay attached to it and not a cut and paste off a conspiracy website. Come on man. :blsmoke:

Wavels · Nov 29, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
My hope was to convince others of my believes with strong factual evidence. But, it is clear to me after reading stuff like this, that that will not happen no matter what evidence I can produce.

Wow, this thread has taken an unexpected twist or two...
A modicum of humility becomes you blaze! Good Post! :joint:

I suspect the dearth of hard evidence supporting these conspiracy theories is because there isn't any that can withstand objective scrutiny!

Did you see the Popular Mechanics article a couple of years ago regarding 9/11?

medicineman · Nov 29, 2007

Wavels said:
Wow, this thread has taken an unexpected twist or two...
A modicum of humility becomes you blaze! Good Post!
I suspect the dearth of hard evidence supporting these conspiracy theories is because there isn't any that can withstand objective scrutiny!

Did you see the Popular Mechanics article a couple of years ago regarding 9/11?

The 911 conspiracy come down to this: there's those that will consider believing, and those that will not. Just like the Kennedy assasination, People like me believe a conspiracy, and a lot don't. Untill someone on the inside confesses or blatant proof is supplied there will always be that element of doubt. Could it have happened in either case, I believe it could, as the government knows no bounds in achieving their goals.

may · Nov 29, 2007

medicineman said:
Do I look like the CIA? Is this a college assignment? I don't think so. Fuck your proof. there is as much proof for the case as against it.

What you are saying is you have no proof at all and therefore there is as much for as against, is that not right med.

Proving a negative is hard don't you think?

You were the one stating bullshit as fact.

Do you not stand behind what you say and want to prove it so that others will understand also?

medicineman said:
I am not your google rat. If you like proof so much, prove me wrong.

Proving you wrong is very easy as is evidenced by you proving yourself wrong so often. Though you seem not to note this.

medicineman said:
You right wingers continue to drink the Bush koolaid without even asking questions. This is the epitomy of stupid.

Thinking that i'm a right winger is the epitomy of stupid.
I questioned what you said and it seemed to piss you off that I had the nerve to question what you say, so you think we/I should drink your koolaid without even asking questions?
Sorry but I don't even drink koolaid.

medicineman said:
You think the CIA didn't supply arms to the taliban, Prove me wrong.

Prove that I haven't already proved you wrong..

medicineman said:
You think they didn't give them stinger missles to bring down Russian helicopters, prove me wrong.

The stingers were to be used bring down airplanes, jets mostly. As for helicopters they can be brought down with RPGs at far less cost and they are easier to use. See how easy it is to prove you wrong. You just make it to easy.

medicineman said:
I saw the tape of a Taliban shooting down a russian Helo with a stinger on TV. That's pretty conclusive,

How do you know that it was a taliban?
How do you know that it was a russian chopper?
how do you know that it was a stinger?

I saw captain Kirk down a man with a phaser set to stun on TV thats pretty conclusive also is it not?

medicineman said:
where do you think those hundreds of thousands of AKs came from?

They didn't come from me.

What AKs? Do you have any proof they are any AKs? I haven't seen the AKs of which you speak, What makes you say that there were any AKs. Did someone tell you this?

medicineman=375109 said:
BTW that tape was made years ago when the Russians had invaded Afghanistan. The CIA agents made the tape. I'm sure it is long gone by now.

How do you know that the CIA made such a tape? Are you sure that it wasn't on film? What movie was this in?
I think did see Stalone bring down a chopper with a LAW
in afghanistan. I bet thats what you saw, he may have looked like an afghan at the time, but I don't think this was filmed by the CIA.

You put just too much faith in the CIA.

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

Chrisuperfly said:
Please produce your evidence, don't cop out now. I want to see some no bullshit evidence that took time to put together not just a bunch of bullet points with heresay attached to it and not a cut and paste off a conspiracy website. Come on man.

There's more evidence that supports my views than evidence of the official story but assholes like you won't believe it. So :peace:

out.

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

Besides there has already been threads about this and the poster got flamed. Not sure I'm looking forward to that. It's just that I've never heard WTC #7 brought up in here and I wanted to explore that particularly further. Do you Chrissuperfly, Wavels, or May think that it's possible for a building to implode upon itself by getting hit by flying debris?

Wavels · Nov 29, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
think that it's possible for a building to implode upon itself by getting hit by flying debris?

Well....

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
excerpt below

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

:joint:

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

You sheeple actually believe those NIST reports? The gov't had to approve those b4 they would let them be released. Of course, it's not going to contain anything to the contrary.
By your logic WTC #4 and #5 should of fell as well. You know the two buildings that actually took structural damage from flying debris. They were actually on fire and didn't fall. If you watch the video #7 was fine one minute and fell the next.

Chrisuperfly · Nov 29, 2007

iblazethatkush said:
Do you Chrissuperfly, Wavels, or May think that it's possible for a building to implode upon itself by getting hit by flying debris?

Its easy to throw this question out there. And if someone asked me casually on a street the question you posed above I would say yes its possible. Details my man, details. I have gone over the NIST reports with co-workers of mine who are structural engineers, I am an electrical so its not my field, and they agree with the findings.

The big question here is;

Everyday I see people posting how stupid or unintelligent George W Bush is, and everyday I see all of oyu agree with the fact that Bush is stupid. Now you hoist him up on an intelligence platform with the ability to mastermind "the biggest cover-up in American History". See what I am getting at? He is stupid Monday through Saturday but on Sunday he is a maniacal genious?

Also its easy to be sucked into conspiracy theories when you have not a clue as to what you are reading in those NIST reports. You said your in college, great I am happy for you, you said your undecided, ok fine a lot of friends of mine that went to college were undecided their first year or so. How does this make you qualified to either A. Support engineering claims made in baseless webposts by people with a similiar background to your own or B. Refute evidence made by experts in the field of structural engineering that have been doing this type of thing before your father's father?

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

Chrisuperfly said:
Its easy to throw this question out there. And if someone asked me casually on a street the question you posed above I would say yes its possible. Details my man, details. I have gone over the NIST reports with co-workers of mine who are structural engineers, I am an electrical so its not my field, and they agree with the findings.

The big question here is;

Everyday I see people posting how stupid or unintelligent George W Bush is, and everyday I see all of oyu agree with the fact that Bush is stupid. Now you hoist him up on an intelligence platform with the ability to mastermind "the biggest cover-up in American History". See what I am getting at? He is stupid Monday through Saturday but on Sunday he is a maniacal genious?

Also its easy to be sucked into conspiracy theories when you have not a clue as to what you are reading in those NIST reports. You said your in college, great I am happy for you, you said your undecided, ok fine a lot of friends of mine that went to college were undecided their first year or so. How does this make you qualified to either A. Support engineering claims made in baseless webposts by people with a similiar background to your own or B. Refute evidence made by experts in the field of structural engineering that have been doing this type of thing before your father's father?

I suppose I am not qualified which is another reason I'm not going to make a thread about this LoL. To your point about Bush being a maniacal genious. Obviously, I don't think he solely planned and executed this. This goes way beyond Bush, if you believe it was planned. There is just so many things in the official explanation that don't add up. What do your colleagues have to say about #4 and #5 not falling when they received more structural damage than #7? The architect of the WTC said in an interview after the WTC was built that they were strong enough to withstand a jumbo-jet plane crashing into them. If that's the case, I find hard to believe #7 could fall from "flying debris" hitting it.

Wavels · Nov 29, 2007

Chrisuperfly makes some excellent points above.

Iblaze, you feel free to dismiss the findings of Popular Mechanics quite blithely and cavalierly, and yet you seriously believe that your sources are more reputable and credible???
I am not aware of Popular Mechanics lack of objectivity...can you exercise any specificity???

You Sir, I humbly submit, are suffering from full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome. :mrgreen:

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

Read my post above. #4 and 5 took structural damage and were on fire and did not fall. No other building in history has fell because of fire. It has nothing to do with Bush, he's just a puppet.

medicineman · Nov 29, 2007

may said:
What you are saying is you have no proof at all and therefore there is as much for as against, is that not right med.

Proving a negative is hard don't you think?

You were the one stating bullshit as fact.

Do you not stand behind what you say and want to prove it so that others will understand also?

Proving you wrong is very easy as is evidenced by you proving yourself wrong so often. Though you seem not to note this.

Thinking that i'm a right winger is the epitomy of stupid.
I questioned what you said and it seemed to piss you off that I had the nerve to question what you say, so you think we/I should drink your koolaid without even asking questions?
Sorry but I don't even drink koolaid.

Prove that I haven't already proved you wrong..

The stingers were to be used bring down airplanes, jets mostly. As for helicopters they can be brought down with RPGs at far less cost and they are easier to use. See how easy it is to prove you wrong. You just make it to easy.

How do you know that it was a taliban?
How do you know that it was a russian chopper?
how do you know that it was a stinger?

I saw captain Kirk down a man with a phaser set to stun on TV thats pretty conclusive also is it not?

They didn't come from me.

What AKs? Do you have any proof they are any AKs? I haven't seen the AKs of which you speak, What makes you say that there were any AKs. Did someone tell you this?

How do you know that the CIA made such a tape? Are you sure that it wasn't on film? What movie was this in?
I think did see Stalone bring down a chopper with a LAW
in afghanistan. I bet thats what you saw, he may have looked like an afghan at the time, but I don't think this was filmed by the CIA.

You put just too much faith in the CIA.

%THis may be your most rediculous post yet, Capt Kirk,~LOL~. I suppose you think the moon landings were faked also. I really don't care if you believe my posts or not, Anyway who said that there had to be proof to any of this. Isn't this an opinion forum, Politics is all bullshit anyway. Either you agree with me or you don't, I don't care. If you disagree with such disdain, Maybe you should supply the proof. I believe the CIA is capabale of all sorts of inhuman things, they have been doing those things for years. If you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you. How do you expect me to uncover those clandestine records anyway, freedom of information act? Believe me, they hide their most heinous crimes against humanity.

may · Nov 29, 2007

In your earler post you said #7 imploded upon itself and your use of imploded is incorrect, falling within its own footprint or falling in upon itself would be correct for what you are trying to say. But the truth is that didn't happen eather, just say that it fell when the weakened part of the stucture could no longer support the weight above it and collapsed.

iblazethatkush said:
I suppose I am not qualified which is another reason I'm not going to make a thread about this LoL. To your point about Bush being a maniacal genious. Obviously, I don't think he solely planned and executed this. This goes way beyond Bush, if you believe it was planned. There is just so many things in the official explanation that don't add up.

As you said your not qualified to make this calculation, and shouldn't expect things to add up for you.

iblazethatkush said:
What do your colleagues have to say about #4 and #5 not falling when they received more structural damage than #7? The architect of the WTC said in an interview after the WTC was built that they were strong enough to withstand a jumbo-jet plane crashing into them.

The twin towers DID withstand such and there was time to evacuate, but with the fuel and time it was going to happen.
#4 and #5 had nothing to do with what the architect said he was speaking of the towers. Fire was what brought down all three. You see when you can't get your facts straight their just not going to add up.

iblazethatkush379784 said:
If that's the case, I find hard to believe #7 could fall from "flying debris" hitting it.

You just can't seem to ever get things straight, the debris set fire to #7 and THAT was what caused it to fall.

Try real hard to understand, if you can't then give it up, and move on to your next conspiracy.

iblazethatkush · Nov 29, 2007

may said:
In your earler post you said #7 imploded upon itself and your use of imploded is incorrect, falling within its own footprint or falling in upon itself would be correct for what you are trying to say. But the truth is that didn't happen eather, just say that it fell when the weakened part of the stucture could no longer support the weight above it and collapsed.

As you said your not qualified to make this calculation, and shouldn't expect things to add up for you.

The twin towers DID withstand such and there was time to evacuate, but with the fuel and time it was going to happen.
#4 and #5 had nothing to do with what the architect said he was speaking of the towers. Fire was what brought down all three. You see when you can't get your facts straight their just not going to add up.

You just can't seem to ever get things straight, the debris set fire to #7 and THAT was what caused it to fall.

Try real hard to understand, if you can't then give it up, and move on to your next conspiracy.

Haven't you noticed I've been ignoring all your posts? I don't mind debating, but I can't debate with an idiot. I didn't read any of what you just wrote, step aside and let VI or Wavels or somebody argue your point.

For those who support the war on terror

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member