Wrong? When have you ever brought ANYTHING to a discussion? You've been ducking answering Chump's question for three or four posts. You change your position to whatever gives you an advantage, and change the subject before anyone can pin you down. You have 20/20 hindsight and throw partisan hate around without listening to anything anyone else says. You basically rely on posting from other people to make statements you lack the ability to back up. Your first instinct upon reading this post is to reply to none of it, claiming victory. You may well do it anyway, since you lack the brainpower required for much past reflex.
Your record definitely speaks for itself.
Well Yoni this guy is calling you out as well!!
So, you know what you know and we'll know what you know when you want us to know what you know?
Curiously, I still don't see any hint of a concrete answer.
I suppose that vagueness provides a wonderful mechanism to contend that one was never wrong in hindsight; Of course, it also means that one was never right.
What a tremendous amount of bull . You are getting what you deserve, Dan.
I looked at the section requested.
What I see is a rapidly compressed air column blowing out windows.
The thing that really gets me about this is the people who say "why did it collapse so fast, it was in free fall?"
Take a strong man who lifts a lot of weight.
He can support me easily on a platform above his head.
Now drop me from a 3 story window on that platform. My speed when I hit the ground will be so close to the speed at which I would have had I not hit the platform that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
There was a HUGE amount of kinetic energy that would have had to have been absorbed that simply was beyond the structures ability to hold.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-17-2006 at 01:52 PM. Reason: typo
Particularly a structure whose vertical support was already seriously compromised by a hole in its side the size of a large jetliner.
It's convenient to say things like: the buildings were engineered to with stand an airliner's impact; and no similar structure has ever met an end like those buildings did. But the truth is that almost no buildings in the world have ever had to deal with the sort of impact and long-burning inferno that those buildings did. The buildings that have suffered similar impacts or concussions (such as from a significant bomb) have encountered structural failure almost immediately. The buildings that have dealt with long-burning fires haven't had the sort of catostrophic structural damage that WTC 1 and 2 suffered. It's hardly remarkable that those factors, combined with an impact from a jet that was far larger and travelling at far greater speeds than any engineer had ever anticipated, might cause a first of its kind collapse.
When the trusses at the impact site failed and caused the floors at that point of the building to fall down on the floors below, which were losing their support simultaneously, it was just a matter of time before the building lost its structural integrity on a floor-by-floor basis, accelerating with each failing floor. I don't understand why people find it so curious that a building that was designed with vertical external columns and little or no internal vertical support (beyond the core) would pancake down as those buildings did. That seems to make perfect sense given even a rudimentary understanding of physics.
In my mind, in many ways, its miraculous -- and a testament to their fantastic engineering -- that those buildings were able to stand for as long as they did.
Someone would be interested in paying you to write a book?
Oh, I know. You pay someone for a private publishing of your book.
Yeah, that's it.
Getting what I deserve? All I am saying is you can't solve an tough equation like 911 without knowing more of the variables in the equation. I do know somethings..
1. It was a American Airlines plane that hit the Pentagon - anyone who says different is full of .
2. If 1 is true, it is, then you can pretty much conclude it was commercial airliners that hit Towers 1 and 2.
3. There is much more to the Muhammed Atta story than is being currently told. His life-style while in Venice, Florida ran in direct contrast to what you would think a radical islamists would live if he is trying to not attract to much attention.
4. It's inconclusive whether controlled demolition brought down tower 1, 2 or 7 of the world trade center complex. Chemical analysis of beams from the buildings is inconclusive and the FEDS have gotten rid of so much of the evidence, so quickly, that it will take a much more costly analysis to prove or disprove this theory.
5. Foreign intelligence services knew more about 911 than we are currently being told. Was it state-sponsored terrorism? When you find out the truth you'll throw up.
Targeting Israel, aren't you?
No, not neccessarily.
Lets hear the truth Dan. Or is it super secret and you'll be killed if you tell us what you (think) know.
If you know the truth and are so certain that it will cause upset, then why not just reveal it? Why be coy about it?
There are already a number of books out there that tie all the strings together, so I'm not sure how sticking my neck out there would be beneficial, or original. Do some reading and follow the money.
Why are you sticking your neck out there if you believe it? I don't care if you just agree with someone who wrote a book -- just say what you believe.
Yet you have no issue with insinuating that there is some truth that none of us are aware of and that when we become as enlightened as you are, we'll be sickened by what we'll learn. Besides, if someone else has written it, how on Earth are you "sticking your neck out there?" Since when has originality mattered to most of your posts in this forum, anyway?
It seems to me that the least you could do is cite us to the books that you find so persuasive and so chock-full of the truth that you're unwilling to share. Otherwise, it strikes me as terribly fair for people to label you as they do.
Since Dan isn't willing to stick his neck out, I'll communicate the conspiracy theory.
All hypothetical, of course.
The theory is that there is a rogue element in the United States government that operates almost as a parallel state. This rogue element is controlled by a select number of plutocrats in finance, oil, and defense. By 2000, these plutocrats allegedly had taken enough of a stranglehold over the Republican Party under the cover of wedge issues to nominate their own administration led by a patsy, i.e. George W. Bush.
These people theoretically sought only to enrich themselves by any means. In order to do so through the government, they had to control the populace. In order to control the populace, they had to make us believe we were at war.
So they recruited a bunch of Arab patsies to be "terrorists," and conspired with rogue elements in the U.S. military and intelligence establishments to carry out the 9/11 attacks. The events of the last five years were meant to raise the price of oil, increase defense spending, and allow those who knew what was going to happen to make a killing in the markets.
The eventual goal is to loot the riches of the United States of America, and as much of the rest of the world as possible, for themselves, and retain power indefinitely.
The conspiracy theory names Cheney as the criminal mastermind.
So basically, Dan won't come out and say it, but he thinks Cheney and the neocons carried out 9/11, that Osama bin Laden works/worked for them, that all other terror attacks are being carried out by agents of the same cabal in other countries, and that Islamic terrorism does not actually exist.
Well, that's a nice theory, and it does fall quite nicely in line with what someone like, Extra Stout probably thinks most tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists think happened in 911, it's just not likely to be the truth.
This thread can't be for real. Please tell me that Dan is just a troll and couldn't possibly be this stupid.
Still waiting . . . .
Yes, it was forum trolls like you that said Saddam had active links to Al-Queda and was harboring active, known terrais't in early 2003, now we know how wrong that turned out to be.
I can't help but think you have to be a 13 year old kid getting a big kick out of throwing out conspiracy concepts and saying things like "the truth is out there" and then when asked what the truth is you don't reply because you honestly believe the government is waiting to swoop in and take you away because you figured them out.
Everyone is laughing at you for being an idiot. Look at this little face,he's even laughing at you too.
No, I actually went to Amazon.com looking for 9/11 conspiracy books, and that was the general gist of the more popular and highly-rated ones.
You said "books" had "tied the strings together." There are thousands of obscure books that have been written with all sorts of theories. That tells us nothing. You're being so impossibly vague that pretty much any revelation that emerges at any point in the future, if any, you'll claim you "knew" about and that you were "right." So far, you have provided all the insight of a daily horoscope.
So either you are just jacking with everyone, or you are completely full of .
Oooh, oooh, I'll take the second one, the full of one.
Recommended reading:
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Third Edition (Paperback)
Aftermath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11 (2003)
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (Paperback)
Anti-Americanism (Hardcover)
Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander (Hardcover)
The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11--and America's Response (Paperback)
What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat (Hardcover)
The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (Hardcover)
The One Percent Doctrine (Hardcover)
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Paperback)
Those are just the ones off the top of my head, I'm sure I can ammend this list later.
Alright, clearly this guy is full of . "Those are just the ones off the top of my head".........dude, you're a lying, jackass that wants so much to believe that something other then terrorists flew planes into the WTC because your mind is to feeble to accept the fact that there are indeed people that are willing to do this. My advice, for what it's worth, to the rest of the people in this forum is to either put this jackass on ignore or pretend you never read this thread because you are getting dumber reading the thoughts of perhaps the largest idiot to ever post in this forum............ Serenity now!
I have talked to a few that believe this as 100% gospel. I use the word gospel intentionally, as it is akin to something of a religion with these folks.
It is easier to believe that a massive, multigenerational conspiracy is afoot than to believe in chaos and randomness.
I would simply point out that multigenerational conspiracies have no historical precedent. Consider a model of generational power structures is something like a monarchy, and how monarchies tend to disintegrate over time as all it really takes is one incompetant king to bring the whole thing down.
Human enterprises don't function well on the familial dynasty model, and conpiracies by "the Rothchilds" etc. have as much validity.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
