Rights in the US / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Rights in the US

first previous 2 3 4 5 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Inducktion

Fri Dec 02 2011, 11:38PM

Registered Member #3637 Joined: Fri Jan 21 2011, 11:07PM
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1068

People, please, calm down. I knew this would spark discussion but I had no idea it was going to be so radical.

Just, speak your mind, but don't get hissy about it. People are entitled to their opinions and hopefully it will stay that way for years to come.

Turkey9

Fri Dec 02 2011, 11:53PM

Registered Member #1451 Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:48AM
Location: Boulder, Co
Posts: 661

jpsmith123 wrote ...

Unlike your bare assertions, I've backed up everything I've said. Why, I even linked to a video where you can see with your own two eyes what is obviously the result of cutter charges, demolishing the North tower of the WTC complex. If that's not enough evidence for you, then please kindly give some examples of the types of evidence you would accept.

I can offer a counter explanation to the jets of smoke. They actually are smoke ejections caused by the building falling and the rising pressure inside as the upper floors come crashing down. The mass ejection of smoke and debris from everywhere else at that level in the building shows that there was a tremendous pressure build up. The smoke alone does not prove that there were cutter charges any more than proving that there weren't.

The claim that the support beam is exactly at the height of the smoke and thus cut by charges also has no validity. I believe the beam broke at that point because, due to physics, it could no longer support the weight above it.

The very fact there cutter charges would be placed on the corners doesn't add up either. The main support for the entire building wasn't on the corners, it was on the center support where the elevators were. In order to carry out this insanely well orchestrated conspiracy, everything would need to be hidden as much as possible. Why place unnecessary charges complicating everything? Also, how were they able to perfectly place the charges exactly where it is logical the building would fail? With a plane large enough to span a couple floors, the tollerances for predicting the perfect spot are too large. If the charges were there and you think the plane was expertly piloted to the exact spot, do you think that a terrorist that did not have experience flying passenger jets like that could hit a single floor on the side of a building that has no distinguishing marks? At such high speeds?

When one thinks about the complexity of the conspiracy, the logical conclusion is that it didn't exist. With any situation like this one, it is just as easy to present evidence for each case. The evidence, in my opinion, that there was no conspiracy even outweighs the opposing side. If there were mountains of proof that the attack was set up by the government and only fringe shreds to the contrary, I would believe just as jpsmith does. I just thought that jpsmith needed to have one of his intentionally rhetoric questions answered. Sorry that this post is so far off topic admins!

jpsmith123

Sat Dec 03 2011, 01:34AM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

Your "explanation" is ludicrous. Firstly, how do explain the fact that all four corners of the building begin to drop with perfect simultaneity? You would really expect random, asymmetrical damage to somehow cause all structural support across the whole cross section to fail at precisely the same instant?

Second, why should the box column flop lazily outward if "it could no longer support the weight above it"? It's not behaving as if it buckled under an irresistable load.

Third, it's quite clear that the jet occured at the same spot where the edge of the severed box colum appeared. (And if you look closely at the left side of the building, you can see a severed end of a box column appear over there too, at about 0.17 into the video, and it appears synchronously with the jet on the right hand side, and it is clearly at the exact same height as the jet on the right).

Lastly, you're studiously ignoring what is perhaps the most damning thing: the fact that the column just hangs there in space, until such time as a similar energetic plume - part of a series of well-ordered ejecta which can be seen to progress down the side of the building - apparently severs the other end of the column? Is that just another one of those fantastic 9/11 coincidences?

But the whole thing is academic anyway since Sayanim Hyman Brown (the cartoonish imposter) gave the whole thing away.

IamSmooth

Sat Dec 03 2011, 01:43AM

Registered Member #190 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 12:00AM
Location:
Posts: 1567

jpsmith123 wrote ...

Then, please explain what we're seeing in this video, if it's not what the author says it is:

I just wasted 4:06 minutes watching this video. In slow motion I see dust and material ejected out from the collapse of the building. When I watched the news that day I saw a jumbo jet laiden with fuel crash into the building flown by extremists who CLAIMED responsibility. The pilots and those who payed for their training claimed responsibility for this.

I go back to my previous suggestion to medicate. I will make it simple for you: Seroquel 25 mg, taken twice a day.
You can combine it with lithium or Depakote. Do see a doctor for this. I also suggest you stop any alcohol or other hallucinogens you may be on as these can lead to unwanted side effects.

You can also send your rants to Cartoon Networks Adult Swim. They have a few spots for this stuff after 12 midnight.

jpsmith123

Sat Dec 03 2011, 02:09AM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the government has never proffered any evidence whatsoever that "Arab/Moslem extremists" were even on any of the planes in the first place, let alone at the controls.

Moreover, the last second flight maneuvers of Flt. 175, for example, at almost 600 mph, in an 11 to 22 mph crosswind, rule out control by a human pilot, let alone by someone on their very first time at the controls. That plane was obviously being electronically guided to its target.

Lastly, there has never been any legitimate claim of responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

IamSmooth wrote ...

jpsmith123 wrote ...

Then, please explain what we're seeing in this video, if it's not what the author says it is:

AndrewM

Sat Dec 03 2011, 02:13AM

Registered Member #49 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 04:05AM
Location: Bigass Pile of Penguins
Posts: 362

MORE MORE!!!

IamSmooth

Sat Dec 03 2011, 02:18AM

Registered Member #190 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 12:00AM
Location:
Posts: 1567

jpsmith123 wrote ...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the government has never proffered any evidence whatsoever that "Arab/Moslem extremists" were even on any of the planes in the first place, let alone at the controls.

IamSmooth wrote ...

jpsmith123 wrote ...

Then, please explain what we're seeing in this video, if it's not what the author says it is:

Are you getting your information from Marvel Comics or DC Comics? The planes came in straight, and the target was huge. A monkey could have flown them. However, the passangers who only took flying lessons on how to fly, but not take off or land were on the passanger manifest. Also, don't discount the medical advice.

IamSmooth

Sat Dec 03 2011, 02:27AM

Registered Member #190 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 12:00AM
Location:
Posts: 1567

jpsmith123 wrote ...

Lastly, there has never been any legitimate claim of responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

From the press:
Assigning responsibilityFor several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks for the primary responsibility fell upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility behind at explaining why they had carried the attacks out. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks.[20] On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden,[21] as did German intelligence agencies.[22] This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.[23]

Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate in Afghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.[24]

The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, also by accessing material in their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesdayâ€™s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesdayâ€™s attacks."[25] The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesdayâ€™s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] al-Suqami and [Ahmed] al-Ghamdi, noted the pairâ€™s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."[26]

Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.[27] Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden had since claimed full responsibility.

Author Laurie Mylroie writing in the conservative political magazine The American Spectator in 2006 argued that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his family are the primary architects of 9/11 and similar attacks, and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's association with Osama bin Laden is secondary and that Al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the attack is after the fact and opportunistic.[28] In an opposing point of view, former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing in Time magazine in 2007, asserted that George W. Bush Administration's publicizing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims of responsibility for 9/11 and numerous other acts was a mendacious attempt to claim that all of the significant actors in 9/11 had been caught.[29]

^ "NBC News (9:00 â€“ 10:00 a.m.)". NBC / Internet Archive. September 11, 2001.

^ Blackhurst, Chris, and Paul Lashmar (September 30, 2001). "Piece by Piece, The Jigsaw of Terror Revealed". Independent on Sunday (London).

^ Tagliabue, John, and Raymond Bonner (September 29, 2001). "A NATION CHALLENGED: GERMAN INTELLIGENCE; German Data Led US to Search For More Suicide Hijacker

Of course, I expect you to say "Don't believe what is out in print". This, of course, would be coming from someone who quotes half-baked websites himself.

jpsmith123

Sat Dec 03 2011, 02:36AM

Registered Member #1321 Joined: Sat Feb 16 2008, 03:22AM
Location:
Posts: 843

I'm sorry, but in keeping with tradition, you're wrong again.
At about 2.5 seconds before impact, Flt 175 made a banking turn to the left of about 18 degrees, which was estimated to bring the impact point about 19 feet closer to the center of the building. The plane would've hit anyway, but that kind of a gamble is something a machine would do, but likely not a human, under the circumstances.

But keep trying, who knows, maybe you'll get lucky on something.

IamSmooth

Sat Dec 03 2011, 02:42AM

Registered Member #190 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 12:00AM
Location:
Posts: 1567

jpsmith123 wrote ...

I'm sorry, but in keeping with tradition, you're wrong again.
At about 2.5 seconds before impact, Flt 175 made a banking turn to the left of about 18 degrees, which was estimated to bring the impact point about 19 feet closer to the center of the building. The plane would've hit anyway, but that kind of a gamble is something a machine would do, but likely not a human, under the circumstances.

But keep trying, who knows, maybe you'll get lucky on something.

And how come a human could not do this? YOu also did not answer the claim for responsibility for the act.

first previous 2 3 4 5 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob