Reply With Quote
they didn't want to kill any more people than nescessary, to achieve their imperial goals. I've already explained this before. Do my words go in one ear and out the other, pray tell?
Why wouldn't it be?
they didn't want to kill any more people than nescessary, to achieve their imperial goals. I've already explained this before. Do my words go in one ear and out the other, pray tell?
False flags go back to the Roman Empire.
Before the Empire gobled up another province, they always claimed some legions were jumped by a band of aggressive barbarians. It was a pretext.
Nah, I don't read every post. More is always better. This is America.
To follow your "logic" it would have been better to not bring all the buildings of the trade center down and ruin the infrastructure of lower Manhattan and a major financial center, not hit the Pentagon at all and completely leave out the fourth plane.
Except this wasn't one. This bunch of guys couldn't have pulled it off in the first place and wouldn't have pulled it off this way if they could.
Yes. And in one year he sucked (especially in the playoffs). Could not hit a ing shot when it counted.
But don't let me distract you.
Continue waxing loony's ass.
It's entertaining . . .
Like Horry his first season....
Too easy, really.But don't let me distract you.
Continue waxing loony's ass.
It's entertaining . . .
Go watch the game, goddammitt!
You're not following my logic. A false flag military operation will kill people. But 9/11 was clean with low casualties and good results.
They wanted the WTC totally destoyed, though.
The 4th plane was shot down, it might have been a up. Something was supposed to hit WTC 7, you know.
But it could have been FL23 or another hijacked plane that was supposed to do that.
According to the FAA, at least 11 other planes were hijacked on 9/11.
Cleaner than what? Low casualties compared to what?
Why?
Source?
No, I don't know...please source this claim.
Do tell.
According to the FAA, things were pretty confusing for awhile and all but the four flights that crashed were eventually identified as not being hijacked.
There is no logic to follow.
A plan never executed, and wasn't going to have any casualties either.
Those of us in this forum and others over the years have heard of it. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Your opinions don't count because you never back it up with any credible evidence.
It's simple.
You can say it as many times as you like. We don't believe you without good evidence.
No, we don't know. Most of us believe Flight 93's objective was another target in DC. The White House, or Capitol.
You keep bringing up Flight 23. Which one was that? Any evidence?
As I recall, several plans were unaccounted for when the facts of the four hijackings starting being known. That number may have been 11, but that doesn't mean they were hijacked. My understanding is all flights ended up being accounted for, with only the four hijackings.
Again, evidence?
That is not evidence. It's opinions and hearsay.
... Number of individuals on the FBI’s “Terrorist Watch List” as of 11:48 Pacific Time this morning. According to the ACLU, the watch list includes fourteen 9/11 hijackers who are known to be dead
There were 22 electrical substations in each building, if memory serves.
A skyscraper uses a massive amount of electricity and transformers will explode if shorted.
There are also the snapping sounds involved in any collapse that also "sound" like explosions.
None of this actually involves explosives.
I doubt your average, panicked office worker or emergency responder has heard enough or, for that matter, COULD hear enough explosions to be able to tell between a transformer blowing and a stick of dynamite.
I have no doubt whatsoever that people heard explosions during the collapse of two massive skyscrapers. That is relatively easy to prove with eyewitness accounts.
What CANNOT be proven is that any of those sounds actually involved explosives.
I have actually personally witnessed a controlled demolition from about a block away. It was ING LOUD, and it was simply a half-finished 4 story structure.
The problem for the twoofers, is that if two 110 story skyscrapers were demolished using explosives, the sharp reports of the explosives required would have carried for miles. We're not talking about the dull rumble of a gravity collapse, we're talking about TONS of explosives.
The other problem is that for any demolition, the ejection speed of debris involved would have been THOUSANDS of feet per second. The very thing that "proves" that explosives must have been used, i.e. the sturdiness of the core columns, works against them here. Any explosive required to cut through those "really strong" support columns would have had to eject debris such as broken glass over an area of about 10 square miles.
The twoofers own "scientific" papers also can't find this debris, and point out to "squibs" ejecting things at about 160 meters per second (if memory serves), about what one would expect from simple air compression as debris fell down elevator shafts, and increased to overpressure at the bottom of those shafts. Recall that the bulidings required a lot of elevators, some of which were "local" and had bottom points well up above ground.
Yet another problem with the "explosives" theory, is that no one has ever been able to plausibly explain how the explosives at the impact point 1) survived the collision of the jets, and 2) didn't go off immediately or burn off during the fires.
Explosives do not react well to be exposed to 500-900 degree fires.
Twoofers like to say that the collapse of the towers "looked like" a controlled demolition, but that is because they don't know what controlled demolitions really look like, and they are simply using what they have seen in movies as a point of reference.
WOW
To be able to prove this statement you must have read the operations plan for the whole thing.
Can I see it?
...unless of course you are talking out your ass again.
I have never said that there couldn't be explosives. Find a quote from me that says this.
If the explosives, or most of them, were below the impact points, then why did the collapse of both buildings start at the impact points?
You still haven't disproven my math, math-boy. Feel free.
It's simple algebra.
Have you ever read the criminal codes on conspiracies? Its not relevant whether they are ever carried out. To be guilty, you must plan the conspiracy, as the courts have ruled.
What is your point on Operation Northwoods?
Eyewitness testimony is evidence and is admissible in court.
The only real problem you have with the explosives theory, is that you don't believe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would kill people.
I fully believe they would kill people. I also fully believe they are not competant enough to pull it off. I mean, really, Rumsfeld a master evil genius?
The problem I have with the explosives theory is that the available evidence indicates a simple gravity-fed collapse due to fire and damage.
The whole controlled demolition theory can't answer a lot of questions. When I ask honest questions and point out logical flaws, just as would happen in any good trial, people like you simply go "you know they did it" and wave their arms.
What is admissable:
"I heard something that sounded like an explosion" (statement of fact)
What is not admissable:
"I heard a bomb." (statement of opinion, unless you physically saw an explosive device)
There is a difference that you seem not to grasp.
All this is evidence. The witness would say "I heard what sounded like a bomb", which is what many witnesses said. Then you can cross-examine.
There are about 300 witnesses to explosions on the record.
Many of the witnesses do have expertise regarding bombs, for example, firemen and police officers.
Facts are
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions