Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

darkbeaver said:
the caracal kid said:
Strangely, what is overlooked in the whole terrorist discussion is who and what created the terrorists?


Do you know that imperialists are paid to engage in internet disscussions?

$25 AN HOUR

$50 AN HOUR IF YOU ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORIES (IT'S BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO DO)

$500 BONUS FOR EVERYONE YOU CONVERT TO THE CAUSE. THAT'S INCREASED BY 25% DURING WAR TIME.

Makes for a good income.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
Re: RE: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

I think not said:
[

$25 AN HOUR

$50 AN HOUR IF YOU ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORIES (IT'S BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO DO)

$500 BONUS FOR EVERYONE YOU CONVERT TO THE CAUSE. THAT'S INCREASED BY 25% DURING WAR TIME.

Makes for a good income.

Now get back to verrrrk. It's not your brrrreak!
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
The biggest problem,

I see is bldg 7. That building had a half dozen small fires spaced widely apart, on different floors, yet it came down like the best preofessional implosion job. The other thing that bothers me is that on bldg 7, the rooftop mechanical room collapsed first and there was no fire anywhere near there. No one can explain this.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
#juan said:
The biggest problem,

I see is bldg 7. That building had a half dozen small fires spaced widely apart, on different floors, yet it came down like the best preofessional implosion job. The other thing that bothers me is that on bldg 7, the rooftop mechanical room collapsed first and there was no fire anywhere near there. No one can explain this.


Normal, the owner of building 7 which is larry sylverstein, admitted on pbs, that they controlled demolition the building, here is the clip.


video


So now, how and when they planted the explosive??, the only thing we know, it takes several days of preparation to make this happen.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
aeon said:
#juan said:
The biggest problem,

I see is bldg 7. That building had a half dozen small fires spaced widely apart, on different floors, yet it came down like the best preofessional implosion job. The other thing that bothers me is that on bldg 7, the rooftop mechanical room collapsed first and there was no fire anywhere near there. No one can explain this.


video

I am no engineer, but I know a thing or two about a thing or two.............I think.

Okay......heat rises. In the rooftop mechanical room are boilers, cushion tanks, HEAVY equipment.

If the tower acted as a chimney, and the heat rose through the tower, or for that matter was conducted up the steel beams, thus lessening their strength, would it not make sense that the floor with a lot of very heavy equipment would collapse first?

Complete conjecture on my part, as I have not even seen (or don't remember seeing) video showing the mechanical room falling first.
 

Toro

Senate Member
Re: RE: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

I think not said:
$25 AN HOUR

$50 AN HOUR IF YOU ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORIES (IT'S BECAUSE IT IS SO HARD TO DO)

$500 BONUS FOR EVERYONE YOU CONVERT TO THE CAUSE. THAT'S INCREASED BY 25% DURING WAR TIME.

Makes for a good income.

Man, you better come join the Neoconservatives Internet Monitoring Union, Local #001. I get paid way more than that.
 

thulin

Electoral Member
Jan 30, 2006
147
0
16
Virtual Burlesque said:
At the beginning, it was a known fact
Was it? Were is the evidence?

You realise this sentence is what makes up your entire story?

Everything that has been shown here is circumstantial and that way you can also claim Elvis is alive (working at McDonalds in Wyoming) and that Bush runs a giant clan of hoodlums stationed at the moon, just waiting to come down and overthrov the world into republican dictatorship.

Don´t tell me... There are evidence, but locked up at Area 51?

NUTS!
 

thulin

Electoral Member
Jan 30, 2006
147
0
16
Re: RE: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

the caracal kid said:
Strangely, what is overlooked in the whole terrorist discussion is who and what created the terrorists?
I have my theories, out of my head, not claiming to be true or even likely - here we go:

One is the borders of former colonies, this is very clear in North America and Africa - but also occured in Asia. Now in North America few people lived when colonized, and most of them were killed or "neutralized" (that is another topic). In Africa (and somewhat Asia) however, tribes, etnical groups and nations saw their land beeing divided into different countries (often with a ruler on a map). This way, etnical, tribal and national feelings were not "unanimous" which lead to centuries of grumble, argue, combat - and etnical clensing (no rich welfare society can be built under such circumstances).

Part two of my theory is about what happens when you use a poor, uneducated third world person/group/nation (see above), given no political context whatsoever, in your "cold war" and afterwards dump them in their missery, only to be used by your opponent some decade later.

Now, in order to turn bitter feelings against former oppressors and superficial allies, you would need unity within - and unity against one common foe (not dozens).
Africa is made up by dozens, and dozens of languages, religions tribes and etnical groups and thereby (see first part of theory) still argues with one another (no unity, no unified enemy).
The middle east however is etnical, linguistic and religious united, (compared to Africa that is).
 

thulin

Electoral Member
Jan 30, 2006
147
0
16
Re: RE: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

darkbeaver said:
Do you know that imperialists are paid to engage in internet disscussions?
No, do you?!

What is an "imperialist" now a days though? What do you mean with it? Paid? By who, why?
 

JoeyB

Electoral Member
Feb 2, 2006
253
0
16
Australia
Re: RE: Experts Claim Officia

Toro said:
thulin said:
I have just written a paper on "the media demimond" and how fame is produced by media,

For example



That is not only incredibly accurate, it is most hilarious.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Colpy said:
I am no engineer, but I know a thing or two about a thing or two.............I think.

Okay......heat rises. In the rooftop mechanical room are boilers, cushion tanks, HEAVY equipment.

If the tower acted as a chimney, and the heat rose through the tower, or for that matter was conducted up the steel beams, thus lessening their strength, would it not make sense that the floor with a lot of very heavy equipment would collapse first?

Complete conjecture on my part, as I have not even seen (or don't remember seeing) video showing the mechanical room falling first.


You can say whatever you want, but the video of the owner of building 7 proved that the building was brought down with explosives.


Video[/url]
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
aeon said:
Colpy said:
I am no engineer, but I know a thing or two about a thing or two.............I think.

Okay......heat rises. In the rooftop mechanical room are boilers, cushion tanks, HEAVY equipment.

If the tower acted as a chimney, and the heat rose through the tower, or for that matter was conducted up the steel beams, thus lessening their strength, would it not make sense that the floor with a lot of very heavy equipment would collapse first?

Complete conjecture on my part, as I have not even seen (or don't remember seeing) video showing the mechanical room falling first.


You can say whatever you want, but the video of the owner of building 7 proved that the building was brought down with explosives.


Video[/url]

YOU can say whatever YOU want, but this guy is NOT THE OWNER, he is a leaseholder. You seem to have a reading problem. So you're factually wrong there. And furthermore, it is plain as day that his reference to "pull it" refers to the fire crews being pulled out; finally, it is also plain as day that the audio was edited, and his comment about "and we watched it collapse" was not directly following his "pull it" comments...

So other than the fact that you're completely misguided and wrong, I guess you're right.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
TenPenny said:
YOU can say whatever YOU want, but this guy is NOT THE OWNER, he is a leaseholder. You seem to have a reading problem. So you're factually wrong there. And furthermore, it is plain as day that his reference to "pull it" refers to the fire crews being pulled out; finally, it is also plain as day that the audio was edited, and his comment about "and we watched it collapse" was not directly following his "pull it" comments...

So other than the fact that you're completely misguided and wrong, I guess you're right.

Well thankx to have make this point clear about the leaseholder, but what does it change anyway???

I was waiting for the comment about "pull it", here is the proof that ""pull it "" means demolition.


video proving what pull means




also, try to find the documentary ""america rebuild"" which has been air on pbs,and you will see that nothing has been edited on this clip, do your own search on it.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Colpy said:
Ah, Aeon, that video proves nothing, suggests nothing, is irrelevant.


The video proves that the building was brought down with explosives, supported by physical evidence.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
FAIR Logo Top Spacer
|
February 5, 2006 | FAIR Store | Search Our Site:


30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War


Media Beat (7/27/94)

By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf — a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."

An exhaustive new book, The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. In an interview, author Tom Wells told us that American media "described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely `tit for tat' — when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North."

Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"

Daniel Hallin's classic book The "Uncensored War" observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account [of Tonkin Gulf events]; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."

What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."

In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam — sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

The rest is tragic history.

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

There is precedent for U.S. Administrative deceit, we all know the
price that Johnson and company were willing to pay, I do not doubt that the lives of three thousand people would be considered not excessive by the present Administration.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
aeon said:
TenPenny said:
YOU can say whatever YOU want, but this guy is NOT THE OWNER, he is a leaseholder. You seem to have a reading problem. So you're factually wrong there. And furthermore, it is plain as day that his reference to "pull it" refers to the fire crews being pulled out; finally, it is also plain as day that the audio was edited, and his comment about "and we watched it collapse" was not directly following his "pull it" comments...

So other than the fact that you're completely misguided and wrong, I guess you're right.

Well thankx to have make this point clear about the leaseholder, but what does it change anyway???

I was waiting for the comment about "pull it", here is the proof that ""pull it "" means demolition.


video proving what pull means




also, try to find the documentary ""america rebuild"" which has been air on pbs,and you will see that nothing has been edited on this clip, do your own search on it.

What does your inability to understand the difference between "owner" and "leaseholder" make? Well, it shows that you can't read and don't understand English, so it makes everything else you write suspect.

The video clip PROVES nothing at all, unless you have already decided the meaning.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
aeon said:
Well thankx to have make this point clear about the leaseholder, but what does it change anyway???

An owner, owns the property, a leaseholder, rents the property for a certain amount of time. Since the leaseholder doesn't own the property, it stands to reason he has no authority to take down a building in the manner you suggest.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
TenPenny said:
What does your inability to understand the difference between "owner" and "leaseholder" make? Well, it shows that you can't read and don't understand English, so it makes everything else you write suspect.

The video clip PROVES nothing at all, unless you have already decided the meaning.


Trying to discredit my claim, for a name called, which is completly irrelevent to the discussion,is quite lame and stupid.i am french and i understand english, cause canada is in theory bylingual.The fact that he is a leaseholder or the owner, doesnt change that he was there when 9-11 happen, he was in contack with the firefighter department, and was choosen to talk in a documentary which is full pro-american.


The video clips proved that the building was brought down with explosives,"pull it" is a term used in demolition world which means demolition, it is well shown and explain in the clips, especially in the second one, and more importantly it is supported by physical evidence(like the way it fell), just like juan explained above.

Try to find the documentary "" america rebuild"" and come back to talk to me, otherwise you loose your time.