Guest steggyD Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 I thought everyone knew that the Irish did it... [url="http://911myths.com/html/the_irish_did_it___or_did_they.html"]http://911myths.com/html/the_irish_did_it___or_did_they.html[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 [quote name='steggyD' post='289679' date='Jul 1 2006, 10:00 PM']I thought everyone knew that the Irish did it... [url="http://911myths.com/html/the_irish_did_it___or_did_they.html"]http://911myths.com/html/the_irish_did_it___or_did_they.html[/url] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Those planes had to take off with actual pilots...and jets have a manual override against autopilot....so how could they have been remote controlled? Did they have the inflatable co-pilot from "Airplane" at the helm? Or pilots willing to concede to the US govt's plot? BULLSHIT! [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/33.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Bunghole has a point. I've always questioned the validity of reading too much and relying upon other humans to provide you with "the facts". Say, for instance, I lived in the 1400's and ready many science books, specifically astronomy. And from these books, I deduced that the universe revolved around Earth. According to my books, I would be smart, and there would be no way that I could view myself as ignorant. But, as time passes by, we found out that... You know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 [quote name='steggyD' post='289688' date='Jul 1 2006, 10:31 PM']Bunghole has a point. I've always questioned the validity of reading too much and relying upon other humans to provide you with "the facts". Say, for instance, I lived in the 1400's and ready many science books, specifically astronomy. And from these books, I deduced that the universe revolved around Earth. According to my books, I would be smart, and there would be no way that I could view myself as ignorant. But, as time passes by, we found out that... You know the answer.[/quote] You've put your finger on the problem. Now, figure out what the limits of deduction are, how Copernicus conceived of his revolution, and why the conclusions of Aristarchos of Samos were not passed down through history. What is the essence of creativity? Make that question the subject of an inquiry and you'll discover what it means to be human in the most sublime connotation of the term. Or, as the last stanza of Keats [url="http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html"]"Ode on a Grecian Urn"[/url] suggests: O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede Of marble men and maidens overwrought, With forest branches and the trodden weed; Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral! When old age shall this generation waste, Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st, 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,â€â€that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coy Bacon Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='289327' date='Jun 30 2006, 04:50 PM']think about that for a moment... the world trade center's width was 208 feet wide... that is 2/3's of a football field... i bet that if you put me up there in a plane, said "you dont' have to land or take off... just hit that building that is 2/3rd's teh size of a football field w/ this plane..." i bet i could do it too... i have heard both sides of the cell phone, but in my research, i found this article on cnn, and this should pretty much prove it: [url="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/03/03/phones.mail/index.html"]click here[/url] [i] I have on recent flights noticed more and more people neglect rules on cellphone usage during flight time. I find it disturbing that people put others peoples safety at risk just to make a call. I hope the airline industry will enforce their rules more in the future. Jan Henriksen, Denmark I'm a former airline pilot, and I have never seen a reproducible case of cell phone induced interference. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I think there is insufficient data to make any conclusions yet. One point I feel has been omitted from the few studies that have been done: why have there been no repeatable cases of interference on aircraft flying at low altitude (i.e. on approach to landing) from ground-based radios? More research needs to be done. But until then, quit fanning the flames. I'm opposed to cell phone use in flight for other reasons -- namely that I don't want to sit between two people yakking on their phones. Christian, Seattle, Washington. [/i] there are many other stories like this... i'd say that for people to annoy them on a plane, the phone would have to work... unless their just talking to their selves... also, there have been countless reports of them flying lower than normal, so normal flight rules wouldn't matter anyways... this one i give you... it doesn't look like him... we went through all of these facts one by one in another thread... about the bombs... think about it... there was jet fuel running throughout elevators and all through the building... there was intense pressure on the lower levels... that noise could be coming from a few places... what people heard doesn't cut if for me... also, it wasn't hot enough to melt the towers.. you are right.. but who says you have to melt them? all you have to do is make it lose enough stabilitiy and once one level loses enough stability, the whole thing will fall like a domino... also, an implosion would look like this: [img]http://www.implosionworld.com/img/bftp/stfabian.jpg[/img]where it falls from the bottom and crumbles into the ground... [url="http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_collapse1.wmv"]click here for video of towers falling[/url] - this video shows clearly that the building fell down, and did not implode... no time for the rest of your stuff right now, but i can pretty much disprove every "theory" there is out there... its much easier to disprove other peoples stories, than it is to prove your own [/quote] I don't have time right now to go into all of this in depth, but some questions I would pose are: If the building collapse is explained by the jet fuel running throughout the elevators and all through the building, why did the building hit last and least directly, with most of the fireball on impact exploding outside the building, collapse first? (This makes more sense in the context of preserving for the public the plausibility of the fires as causation than in the context of the fires actually causing the collapse.) Is the almost free-fall speed at which the towers collapsed consistent with the "pancaking" theory? Would it be appropriate for a responsible investigator or juror reviewing the case to dismiss the fact that the structural steel from the WTC was whisked away and sold for scrap before any analysis could be conducted? This is something that a prominent fire safety engineers journal decried, and it is of particular significance in light of the fact that the collapse of steel-framed buildings of this type due to fire is highly unusual and the buildings were designed to withstand situations similar to what happened on 9/11. Any of the issues surrounding 9/11 may prove to be consistent with the official story when scrutinized, and any number of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the event may prove to be mere coincident, but how many of these issues can you have and still adamantly and blanketly insist that they are indeed coincidence and the official story is to be implicitly believed? This is a particular problem in light of the fact that administration officials have given misleading statements and there are undeniable ulterior motives served by people with at least some ability to influence these event. Then, the administration clearly attempted to prevent any kind of investigation as to what actually happened, and once it yielded to pressure from survivors, it set up a commission with conflicts of interest among its membership ranging from at least minor to severe, cooperated half-heartedly at best, and the commission itself prejudicially assumed the validity of the official story in conducting its review and produced a report that has some glaring inconsistencies, especially with regard to NORAD procedure. Some of the discrepancies that skeptics pose my be false discrepancies, but there are far too many that are much less arguable to accept as coincidence with the certainty that some true-believers profess. When you throw in the more arguable ones, caution may lead one not to claim certainty that there was at least some collusion on the part of establishment players, but good sense would lead one not to claim with certainty that there wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 [quote name='Coy Bacon' post='289733' date='Jul 2 2006, 09:48 AM']I don't have time right now to go into all of this in depth, but some questions I would pose are: If the building collapse is explained by the jet fuel running throughout the elevators and all through the building, why did the building hit last and least directly, with most of the fireball on impact exploding outside the building, collapse first? (This makes more sense in the context of preserving for the public the plausibility of the fires as causation than in the context of the fires actually causing the collapse.) Is the almost free-fall speed at which the towers collapsed consistent with the "pancaking" theory?[/quote] imo, the jet fuel doesn't really matter as far the building collapsing... that could explain explosions and things like that, but the jet fuel probably only sped up the process a little... if you see the video of the towers falling i posted above, you will see that the starting point of the collapse was where the fire happened... that is why the top part of the building was also somewhat in place too... in a controlled demolition, the bottom is where the collapse takes place, b/c there is tnt there... w/ the buildings collapsing, it is very obvious that the buildings collapsed at the point where the planes hit... [quote]Would it be appropriate for a responsible investigator or juror reviewing the case to dismiss the fact that the structural steel from the WTC was whisked away and sold for scrap before any analysis could be conducted? This is something that a prominent fire safety engineers journal decried, and it is of particular significance in light of the fact that the collapse of steel-framed buildings of this type due to fire is highly unusual and the buildings were designed to withstand situations similar to what happened on 9/11.[/quote] this is honestly the first i have heard of this... got a link? [quote]Any of the issues surrounding 9/11 may prove to be consistent with the official story when scrutinized, and any number of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the event may prove to be mere coincident, but how many of these issues can you have and still adamantly and blanketly insist that they are indeed coincidence and the official story is to be implicitly believed? This is a particular problem in light of the fact that administration officials have given misleading statements and there are undeniable ulterior motives served by people with at least some ability to influence these event. Then, the administration clearly attempted to prevent any kind of investigation as to what actually happened, and once it yielded to pressure from survivors, it set up a commission with conflicts of interest among its membership ranging from at least minor to severe, cooperated half-heartedly at best, and the commission itself prejudicially assumed the validity of the official story in conducting its review and produced a report that has some glaring inconsistencies, especially with regard to NORAD procedure. Some of the discrepancies that skeptics pose my be false discrepancies, but there are far too many that are much less arguable to accept as coincidence with the certainty that some true-believers profess. When you throw in the more arguable ones, caution may lead one not to claim certainty that there was at least some collusion on the part of establishment players, but good sense would lead one not to claim with certainty that there wasn't.[/quote] i don't think the administration tried to stop the investigation at all... i think that our intel was so bad, that they got some of the names wrong... and if we start w/ the wrong people, the story is going to be off no matter what... i am all for getting the story right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.