Anouncing a new web site: The Science of 9/11
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
Human Check
At least I found your post, Eagle doesn't even know it was a reply to a quote from you, lol. "Did the hijackers need cells?" brought this responce "EVERY SINGLE 911 topic agrees that it was not the hi-jackers that were doing the out-calls." It could be considered blunt or even a bit rude but just what muddled about the response?
Having you two agree back and forth is not something I am going to take as being proof of anything, let alone something like 911. You could give me something that would be acceptable to a jury of 12, that I would have to accept as being the 'way it was'.
The rest of the post was an example of the dribble you two put our, empty endless words. Oh well, I'm seeing some new vids and articles on a subject that I have read about over the last few years, that's my reason for being on the thread, yours seems to be the endless parroting on it's true because the Gov said so. The same ones who have spent unlimited amounts of taxpayer money, all the while not being accountable to the taxpayers because things they do can be classified as being a secret. lol And a lot of people cheer that sort of action. Would everybody suddenly die if all government doors were opened to the taxpayer, (no more closed meetings) and the 'elected people' could be closely monitored by those same tax-payers? That is the alternative, the ones in power now will never let something like that happen.
The main product is an endless war, I just can't help but think if another route had been taken the same amount of money could have been spent , Iran and Iraq and places like them could all be as developed as Kuwait if that is the route they wanted to go. Saudi is a true monarchy, a few live high on the hog and the rest are kept in poverty. How is a hidden government any different than that? That is what I see you two cheering for, a true sheeple if ever there was one. lol
It is thoughts like the above that is most likely the reason I appear muddled, or you have an ego problem. It doesn't even matter because it is of little or no importance to me.
So? Most of what you've offered has been nothing but supposition and conjecture. You haven't put together a reasonable tale of what actually happened yet. So the gov't version has one up on you, so far. You just seem to see a piece of the jigsaw, grab it and throw it on the table expecting the pieces to miraculously fit themselves together. Sorry, but all you have posted so far is a jumble of unaligned facts (some) and guesses. It doesn't look like a picture, it looks like a heap of jigsaw pieces.
Quit being a mental runt. I saw at least 2 posts where Anna succinctly said she doesn't swallow the gov't version. But she's not swallowing your tinfoil hat version either and neither are other people.
Have another toke, or bottle, or snort, or whatever it is that you use.
Last edited:
In the link to 'Secrecy', all that happened. I don't have to put anything together for you or anybody else. The links I reference tell a story that is either fact or fiction. If they can be shown to be factual then you have to fit in in with what you see as being the big picture. So that 'heap' has to be put in place by you not me, of course you have to see the point as being valid first and to do that you have to consider it be true and what changes would that mean in the big picture.
The subject is 8 years old, just how gigantic a post would you like? At Anna's defense again eh, oh well. That is true, what was missing was any detail at all about that point. I'm not selling 'my version' to anybody, that's why it is my version, doh. All I'm doing is showing you a few parts that I considered before I had a version I could call mine. lol
That would be a 4-pak of triple-blacks (7%)on the days I work. During that time I read what the 'very regulars' have to say on the threads I visit. Then I start a reply and since that is a long process the whole 4 are gone before I hit send. If I add a hoot to that I don't hit the send till I have done the final edit just before heading to work.
Need any other details?
Even on days off when I don't treat myself stupid statements still piss me off enough that I (stupidly) respond to them. lol Like this part of a few posts over the last few months. The rest of you are just naturally addled I take it. lol
Last edited:
Anything you have posted as far as an alternate story goes has been full of holes and yet you insist on thinking that I or anyone else says the official story is the reality of the issue. Sorry, you are wrong. I don't think the official story is a good one, but I do think its a better one than you've come up with. So you just keep sticking to your silly story in spite of being shown that its full of holes. Pathetic. Chew another psilocybin.
Again you forgot to say what parts of the official story you disagree with. So far your posts still pin it on somebody from Afghanistan (reason for invasion) and that would also seem to appear to be the same for Saddam, he was part of it so invade that country also. That is part of the official story also. And you think remote control is impossible so I am labled as being 'silly' when a vid shows they could do that back in '84 and send television quality back at the same time unless you think the cameras survived the fireball.
You can't even get my party habits down right when it one post above. Great observational skills, not. lol
How much more pathetic is that than posting a link that gives a accurate flight-path for all the hi-jacked flights.
Since you and Eagle are no longer contributing any useful information shouldn't you two drop out of the thread. You have reduced your posts to nothing but an opinion piece about me, that isn't what the thread is about, perhaps it is some sort of web-addiction, keep talking long after your useful information has all been given.
Here is a spin-off from 911.
Army chief says defeat in Afghanistan unthinkable
(AFP) – 19 hours ago
LONDON — The new head of the army warned of the "terrifying prospect" of defeat for international forces in Afghanistan and supported calls for more troops, in a newspaper interview Sunday.
General David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph the risks to the West would be "enormous" if NATO failed to stabilise the violence-torn country.
He said defeat for the international coalition would have an "intoxicating effect" on Islamic militants everywhere.
"If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us -- what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan?" he said.
"Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state, and that is a terrifying prospect.
"Even if only a few of those weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them.
"The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."
Richards said that sending reinforcements to Afghanistan would enable the NATO coalition to start winning the "psychological battle" while reducing casualty levels.
The British general said he was making his comments because he feared the British public and the government had not "woken up" to the "enormous risks" if the war were lost.
"Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world," he said.
"So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."
A British soldier was killed on patrol in Afghanistan on Friday, bringing the total number of British troops who have died since operations against Taliban extremists began in 2001 to 219.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved
That war doesn't seem to be going all that well for the international forces who have unlimited funding against cave-dwellers who are not allowed any funding.
You can't even get my party habits down right when it one post above. Great observational skills, not. lol
How much more pathetic is that than posting a link that gives a accurate flight-path for all the hi-jacked flights.
Since you and Eagle are no longer contributing any useful information shouldn't you two drop out of the thread. You have reduced your posts to nothing but an opinion piece about me, that isn't what the thread is about, perhaps it is some sort of web-addiction, keep talking long after your useful information has all been given.
Here is a spin-off from 911.
Army chief says defeat in Afghanistan unthinkable
(AFP) – 19 hours ago
LONDON — The new head of the army warned of the "terrifying prospect" of defeat for international forces in Afghanistan and supported calls for more troops, in a newspaper interview Sunday.
General David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph the risks to the West would be "enormous" if NATO failed to stabilise the violence-torn country.
He said defeat for the international coalition would have an "intoxicating effect" on Islamic militants everywhere.
"If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us -- what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan?" he said.
"Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state, and that is a terrifying prospect.
"Even if only a few of those weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them.
"The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."
Richards said that sending reinforcements to Afghanistan would enable the NATO coalition to start winning the "psychological battle" while reducing casualty levels.
The British general said he was making his comments because he feared the British public and the government had not "woken up" to the "enormous risks" if the war were lost.
"Failure would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world," he said.
"So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."
A British soldier was killed on patrol in Afghanistan on Friday, bringing the total number of British troops who have died since operations against Taliban extremists began in 2001 to 219.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved
That war doesn't seem to be going all that well for the international forces who have unlimited funding against cave-dwellers who are not allowed any funding.
Yawn....so what parts about that do you disagree with since both those points are part of the 'official version'.
So those planes didn't take those routes? What was their flightpath then, a link would be more helpful rather than a 'because I say so' type of reply.
If already wanted why didn't the CIA arest him when they saw him in July '01?
That is how you poke holes in my version, saying I'm silly is skating around the issue of why he was allowed to remain free. Do you even consider little points like that? I'm beginning to think things like that just bounce off you.
So those planes didn't take those routes? What was their flightpath then, a link would be more helpful rather than a 'because I say so' type of reply.
If already wanted why didn't the CIA arest him when they saw him in July '01?
That is how you poke holes in my version, saying I'm silly is skating around the issue of why he was allowed to remain free. Do you even consider little points like that? I'm beginning to think things like that just bounce off you.
Oh...poor Mhz... can't put together a logical story of his version of events so now he has to resort to idiocy.
Tell me... was that really worth an "lol"?
You have failed and another truther has been outed because he cannot put down what really happen. He can only babble on...
"Fire can't melt steel"
"It was explosives"
"Hijackers are still alive"
Blah, blah, blah.
What happened oh Bright One?
Scroll back you lazy lout. You said steel won't bend under that low of heat and I showed that was a wrong assumption. You said there shouldn't have been lots of smoke if it was a hot fire and I showed where plastics smoke like crazy even if the fire is hot. And so on & so forth.
I have no idea what you are babbling about here. I never said anything about plane routes, the CIA, arresting someone, etc. And you say I'm addled? roflmao
isn't lol the lowest reply that indicates a state of laughter? Certainly more like a quiet chuckle that the lol in all caps, (or some of it's relations) which supposidly denotes some sort of authority, often in imagination only.
See how getting away from the facts just adds confusion to the actual topic? Your last post on that was some ways back.
I'll back just because it's you. Someday you should, those are events that surround 911, the more you know the better chance you have it right. You also never said anything about Iraq that was in post #428.
Just where did you show me a structure built just as the core was (both steel and concrete) would buckle and crumple with low temp fires.
Are you saying the jet fuel had burned up and the black smoke from later on was from (melted) plastics. No doubt other articles in the offices initially hit also held flammable materials, many of which gave off large volumes of smoke.
Why would I? I am not trying to get some story right. For the umpteenth time, I am simply poking holes in whatever stories I hear or read. I am not an engineer, airline pilot, architect, firefighter, etc. I am a bystander and wait till the people that know about this stuff come up with a plausible scenario. I am not the one leaping from ASSumption to conjecture to guess to supposition, you are.
wow It's a fact that structural steel can start to warp in temperatures as low as oven temperature, especially under stress. The stress would be that various parts of the structural steel would be at different temperatures (differences in expansion/contraction) and another stress would be 15 floors of mass on top of weakened steel.
I am saying that the jet fuel started plastics and whatever else was in the building to start burning. That you can also get lots of black smoke from fires with plastics and other things as fuels. Your ASSumption was that it was as a result of a low temperature fire. IOW, the smoke is not a good indicator of fire temperature when there are lots of variables in what types of fuel there is.
Perhaps you should take a course in reading comprehension. You seem to be wrongly ASSuming an awful lot about what I say.
Last edited:
Obviously. You really think a low temp fire can damage something as strong as the core. Look at all the cross bracing, that would have to be the first thing to fail, it is barely under any load.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/ndocs/wtc1_core.jpg
Who cut the column, this was moments after the crash, no salvage work had started yet?
http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtcCutColumnLarge.jpg
You ASSumptions also means we are done, go get you little digs in with somebody else twit. Do you comprehend that? No reply expected or needed.