S
somebigguy
Guest
Hey, did Chuck Norris ever get to bang Christie Brinkley during those exercise videos they did together?PhilosophyGenius said:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which Arguments Should Be Used When Talking About 9/11?
- Thread starter Gold9472
- Start date
T
ThotPolice
Guest
In that documentary "Loose change" they say Jeb Bush was in charge of the WTC prior to it's attack and that 2 weeks before 911 the military was running security tests in the building where they where closing whole sections down at a time. They say to plant the explosives.
How true is all that?
How true is all that?
S
somebigguy
Guest
Actually it was Marvin Bush, and supposedly there were a lot of 'drills' where the towers were evacuated in the weeks leading up to the attacks. This is something that Scott Forbes talked about here:ThotPolice said:In that documentary "Loose change" they say Jeb Bush was in charge of the WTC prior to it's attack and that 2 weeks before 911 the military was running security tests in the building where they where closing whole sections down at a time. They say to plant the explosives.
How true is all that?
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html
P
PhilosophyGenius
Guest
somebigguy said:Hey, did Chuck Norris ever get to bang Christie Brinkley during those exercise videos they did together?
To answer your question:
"When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it is not because he is gay, but because he has run out of women."
Meaning yes.
S
somebigguy
Guest
Excellent!!!PhilosophyGenius said:To answer your question:
"When Chuck Norris has sex with a man, it is not because he is gay, but because he has run out of women."
Meaning yes.
J
jetsetlemming
Guest
...wait. Then what would be the point in destroying them? If there were anything about them "secret", that part'd be denied, with the non-threatening part's destruction or dissapearance explained through some official story. Lots of badly covered up stuff gets away in America. The people that believe it, no matter how much evidence they have, are labeled paranoid conspiracy freaks, and largely ignored except by the sci fi channel.somebigguy said:It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.
S
somebigguy
Guest
The documents were known to exist in those buildings, they were evidence in court cases, and now they've been destroyed. Kinda like when a witness is killed before they get to testify. Nobody doubts that the witness existed, however, he can no longer testify in court.jetsetlemming said:...wait. Then what would be the point in destroying them? If there were anything about them "secret", that part'd be denied, with the non-threatening part's destruction or dissapearance explained through some official story. Lots of badly covered up stuff gets away in America. The people that believe it, no matter how much evidence they have, are labeled paranoid conspiracy freaks, and largely ignored except by the sci fi channel.
Anyway, the evidence was stored in that building. Whether or not the destruction of this evidence was part of the plan is anybody's guess.
J
jetsetlemming
Guest
What was it evidence of, anyway?
S
somebigguy
Guest
Enron documents among others...jetsetlemming said:What was it evidence of, anyway?
E
EminemsRevenge
Guest
WHAT do you call the space you shtupp when a girl has a hairy cunt shaved in the shape of a Star of David...Gold is gonna kill me for that one:bruce_h4hjetsetlemming said:Pentagon hole?
P
PhilosophyGenius
Guest
In that documentary "Loose change" they say Jeb Bush was in charge of the WTC prior to it's attack and that 2 weeks before 911 the military was running security tests in the building where they where closing whole sections down at a time. They say to plant the explosives.
How true is all that?
Actually it was Marvin Bush, and supposedly there were a lot of 'drills' where the towers were evacuated in the weeks leading up to the attacks. This is something that Scott Forbes talked about here:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/i...ott-forbes.html
No shit?!?!?!?!?! I don't know how I missed that, but damn that explains a lot right there. It all makes sense now.
G
Goatfish
Guest
Rebuttal to the rebuttal
Even if the gas tank did explode, WTC7 fell from the very TOP and descended down. If the gas tank were responsible, the building would have fallen starting towards the bottom.
If you'll notice, at the top of WTC7 was an extra little piece of building, a kind of rectangular lip. This little piece is the first to start falling apart, meaning it was at the opposite end from where the gas tank was.
Finally, all three buildings fell UNNATURALLY, meaning perfectly into themselves which only occurrs through controlled demolition. Anything other than controlled demolition would cause the building to fall apart in pieces, and perhaps in intermittent intervals (meaning not the whole building falling in 5 or 6 seconds).
What is easiest to point out to people is that for those buildings to fall they way they did, this means that every floor symetrically crumbled simultaneously. What are the odds that one side of the building (say the side the plane actually crashed into) was just as destroyed as the other side (which did not suffer nearly as much damage)?
PhilosophyGenius said:Yeah WTC7 also. But the rebuttal to that is that a gas tank exploded in the lower level causing it to collapse. And the rebuttal to the lack of air respone
is that it was too hard to coordinate multiple hijackings and that the war games confused everyone.
There is no rebuttal to the Pentagon hole.
Even if the gas tank did explode, WTC7 fell from the very TOP and descended down. If the gas tank were responsible, the building would have fallen starting towards the bottom.
If you'll notice, at the top of WTC7 was an extra little piece of building, a kind of rectangular lip. This little piece is the first to start falling apart, meaning it was at the opposite end from where the gas tank was.
Finally, all three buildings fell UNNATURALLY, meaning perfectly into themselves which only occurrs through controlled demolition. Anything other than controlled demolition would cause the building to fall apart in pieces, and perhaps in intermittent intervals (meaning not the whole building falling in 5 or 6 seconds).
What is easiest to point out to people is that for those buildings to fall they way they did, this means that every floor symetrically crumbled simultaneously. What are the odds that one side of the building (say the side the plane actually crashed into) was just as destroyed as the other side (which did not suffer nearly as much damage)?
G
Goatfish
Guest
Actually..
WTC7 was a unique creature. It was very fortified with bulletproof glass and other such kewl stuffs. Of course it is absolutely ABSURD to even think to place an emergency bunker in probably the most likely location to suffer an emergency event like a major terrorist attack (it'd be like building a bunker atop the Eiffel Tower).
I have read in this book speculation that this bunker was actually the staging ground for the attack. That is, there might have been people in there who coordinated the explosions in the towers. They would have had the best view (they'd be staring straight at both towers and could be able to immediately see what bombs they should trigger off next).
This would also provide a good explanation for destroying WTC7: getting rid of the evidence of this staging ground.
The author of the above mentioned book also speculated that there was a homing beacon in WTC7, which the planes used to get to their targets. This could also explain why the planes hit the buildings at the angles that they did: WTC1 was directly in line with WTC7 (and so the plane hit it dead on), while the plane that hit WTC2 hit at a bent angle (because it was attempting to fly towards WTC7).
Again, this would provide a great reason for downing WTC7 (aside from stuffing Silverstein's pockets with more crooked cash). And this is not even taking into account the building's tenants, which included many intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, etc.)
somebigguy said:The existence of Diesel fuel is irrelevant. No building has ever fallen in that fashion for any reason other than controlled demo. Explosions do not cause buildings to disintegrate.
Furthermore, WTC7 was built above a power substation (or something like that) meaning it was built even stronger than a normal building. Plus Guliani had a bunker in that building somewhere with its own air and water supply. Are they gonna build a bunker in a building that can disintegrate after a little fire?
WTC7 was a unique creature. It was very fortified with bulletproof glass and other such kewl stuffs. Of course it is absolutely ABSURD to even think to place an emergency bunker in probably the most likely location to suffer an emergency event like a major terrorist attack (it'd be like building a bunker atop the Eiffel Tower).
I have read in this book speculation that this bunker was actually the staging ground for the attack. That is, there might have been people in there who coordinated the explosions in the towers. They would have had the best view (they'd be staring straight at both towers and could be able to immediately see what bombs they should trigger off next).
This would also provide a good explanation for destroying WTC7: getting rid of the evidence of this staging ground.
The author of the above mentioned book also speculated that there was a homing beacon in WTC7, which the planes used to get to their targets. This could also explain why the planes hit the buildings at the angles that they did: WTC1 was directly in line with WTC7 (and so the plane hit it dead on), while the plane that hit WTC2 hit at a bent angle (because it was attempting to fly towards WTC7).
Again, this would provide a great reason for downing WTC7 (aside from stuffing Silverstein's pockets with more crooked cash). And this is not even taking into account the building's tenants, which included many intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, etc.)
G
Goatfish
Guest
C'mon dude!!
Not cost effective? This coming from a goverment that WASTES shitloads of taxpayer money on total nonsense (like building a bridge to nowhere)? Remember, anything the government does, ultimately, YOU and I pay for!
The main point of blowing up the buildings was shock value: they wanted the whole world standing in frozen terrified disbelief. Imagine if the firefighters got to the fires, put them all out, and the buildings wound up remaining standing.
Nobody would even mention the incident anymore. It would have seemed soooooo much less devastating.
And also, another reason is they (the 9/11 sponsors) wanted to destroy all those computers which were crunching all those illegal transactions (the shorting of AA and UA stocks, aside from whatever else). Why risk setting a fire and having a few machines left over to incriminate you? Better to blow up the whole thing to be sure.
Funny thing is, some of the hard drives of those computers DID survive, and a German company was hired to cull the data off of them. But would you believe it, the company got bought out and the effort to find out what data was on the drives was ended.
STILL to this day, the SEC has not conducted a thorough investigation into what was obviously profiting through foreknowledge. They went after Martha Stewart but found nothing fishy about this. What a fucking joke, and also another 9/11 zinger one could bring up to show apparent inside involvement in 9/11..
jetsetlemming said:You don't blow up a building to get rid of evidence, you steal it or destroy it or as a last resort set a fire on that floor. You don't blow up a whole building. It's not cost effective. If they can get in to plant bombs, they can get in to steal the evidence and destroy it.
Not cost effective? This coming from a goverment that WASTES shitloads of taxpayer money on total nonsense (like building a bridge to nowhere)? Remember, anything the government does, ultimately, YOU and I pay for!
The main point of blowing up the buildings was shock value: they wanted the whole world standing in frozen terrified disbelief. Imagine if the firefighters got to the fires, put them all out, and the buildings wound up remaining standing.
Nobody would even mention the incident anymore. It would have seemed soooooo much less devastating.
And also, another reason is they (the 9/11 sponsors) wanted to destroy all those computers which were crunching all those illegal transactions (the shorting of AA and UA stocks, aside from whatever else). Why risk setting a fire and having a few machines left over to incriminate you? Better to blow up the whole thing to be sure.
Funny thing is, some of the hard drives of those computers DID survive, and a German company was hired to cull the data off of them. But would you believe it, the company got bought out and the effort to find out what data was on the drives was ended.
STILL to this day, the SEC has not conducted a thorough investigation into what was obviously profiting through foreknowledge. They went after Martha Stewart but found nothing fishy about this. What a fucking joke, and also another 9/11 zinger one could bring up to show apparent inside involvement in 9/11..
G
Goatfish
Guest
Nah
Cheney should just take Osama out for a little lawye..ummm, duck hunting!!
jetsetlemming said:lol. I'm sure Chuck Norris could steal those Enron Documents without anyone knowing. He could probably blow up the buildings without needing planes, and find and kill Osama bin Laden, too.
Cheney should just take Osama out for a little lawye..ummm, duck hunting!!
G
Goatfish
Guest
That link is dead
So I figured I'd provide a few extra:
Here
Here
Here
somebigguy said:Actually it was Marvin Bush, and supposedly there were a lot of 'drills' where the towers were evacuated in the weeks leading up to the attacks. This is something that Scott Forbes talked about here:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html
So I figured I'd provide a few extra:
Here
Here
Here
G
Goatfish
Guest
Hey guys, here's a few good ones!!!
It's funny, but I thought of this a while back and I've still never seen it mentioned by anyone.
We all saw people jumping to their deaths from the WTC towers. It took what seemed like from 4 to 6 seconds for their bodies to hit the ground. WTC1 fell in 8 seconds, WTC2 in 10 seconds. See the problem?............
Contrast the two: in one case we have an object (sad to say, a human body) free falling facing ZERO resistance. And we have two 110 story steel framed structures (most of which was still fully intact) having to barrel through HUNDREDS OF TONS OF POUNDS in weight resisting its fall. How can those buildings have taken NOT EVEN FIVE SECONDS longer to hit the ground???
You'd think, considering how much resistance the top parts of the towers faced, that it would've taken at least 30 seconds to perhaps a minute or so longer, no?
It took the two towers, facing massive resistance, about 3 to 4 seconds longer to hit the ground over a human body facing no resistance. Needless to say, this is totally SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Another juicy one which I haven't seen mentioned: once the "hijackers" (and I quote it because I don't think there even were any hijackers on board!) took over the plane and were flying over Boston..how the hell did they know HOW to find their way to New York??? And not just New York, but Manhattan. And not just Manhattan, but were able to pinpoint the towers from a long off distance and perfectly position the planes so they hit (of course having never even flown commercial aircraft before).
It's amazing that there is still any American out there that is sucking on the feds' lemon..
It's funny, but I thought of this a while back and I've still never seen it mentioned by anyone.
We all saw people jumping to their deaths from the WTC towers. It took what seemed like from 4 to 6 seconds for their bodies to hit the ground. WTC1 fell in 8 seconds, WTC2 in 10 seconds. See the problem?............
Contrast the two: in one case we have an object (sad to say, a human body) free falling facing ZERO resistance. And we have two 110 story steel framed structures (most of which was still fully intact) having to barrel through HUNDREDS OF TONS OF POUNDS in weight resisting its fall. How can those buildings have taken NOT EVEN FIVE SECONDS longer to hit the ground???
You'd think, considering how much resistance the top parts of the towers faced, that it would've taken at least 30 seconds to perhaps a minute or so longer, no?
It took the two towers, facing massive resistance, about 3 to 4 seconds longer to hit the ground over a human body facing no resistance. Needless to say, this is totally SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Another juicy one which I haven't seen mentioned: once the "hijackers" (and I quote it because I don't think there even were any hijackers on board!) took over the plane and were flying over Boston..how the hell did they know HOW to find their way to New York??? And not just New York, but Manhattan. And not just Manhattan, but were able to pinpoint the towers from a long off distance and perfectly position the planes so they hit (of course having never even flown commercial aircraft before).
It's amazing that there is still any American out there that is sucking on the feds' lemon..
P
PhilosophyGenius
Guest
Goatfish said:Even if the gas tank did explode, WTC7 fell from the very TOP and descended down. If the gas tank were responsible, the building would have fallen starting towards the bottom.
If you'll notice, at the top of WTC7 was an extra little piece of building, a kind of rectangular lip. This little piece is the first to start falling apart, meaning it was at the opposite end from where the gas tank was.
Finally, all three buildings fell UNNATURALLY, meaning perfectly into themselves which only occurrs through controlled demolition. Anything other than controlled demolition would cause the building to fall apart in pieces, and perhaps in intermittent intervals (meaning not the whole building falling in 5 or 6 seconds).
What is easiest to point out to people is that for those buildings to fall they way they did, this means that every floor symetrically crumbled simultaneously. What are the odds that one side of the building (say the side the plane actually crashed into) was just as destroyed as the other side (which did not suffer nearly as much damage)?
Of Course! I was just pointing out the fact that it could be rebuttled where as no plane wreckage in the Pentagon cannot.
J
jetsetlemming
Guest
Alright, since you want to get to the basics, I'll ask you the questions Gold himself can't answer: 1) If the neo-con's goal was a war, why would they choose the country's principal centers of Finance and Military? 2) If their goal was Iraq, why'd they pick a pasty in Afghanistan? 3) Why are "It's never happened before"s and "I don't think it can happen without controlled explosives, so it couldn't"s enough to convince you? Gold himself on this site has said that, despite lacking %100 of evidence, is %100 sure Bush did it.Goatfish said:Not cost effective? This coming from a goverment that WASTES shitloads of taxpayer money on total nonsense (like building a bridge to nowhere)? Remember, anything the government does, ultimately, YOU and I pay for!
The main point of blowing up the buildings was shock value: they wanted the whole world standing in frozen terrified disbelief. Imagine if the firefighters got to the fires, put them all out, and the buildings wound up remaining standing.
Nobody would even mention the incident anymore. It would have seemed soooooo much less devastating.
And also, another reason is they (the 9/11 sponsors) wanted to destroy all those computers which were crunching all those illegal transactions (the shorting of AA and UA stocks, aside from whatever else). Why risk setting a fire and having a few machines left over to incriminate you? Better to blow up the whole thing to be sure.
Funny thing is, some of the hard drives of those computers DID survive, and a German company was hired to cull the data off of them. But would you believe it, the company got bought out and the effort to find out what data was on the drives was ended.
STILL to this day, the SEC has not conducted a thorough investigation into what was obviously profiting through foreknowledge. They went after Martha Stewart but found nothing fishy about this. What a fucking joke, and also another 9/11 zinger one could bring up to show apparent inside involvement in 9/11..
P
PhilosophyGenius
Guest
jetsetlemming said:Alright, since you want to get to the basics, I'll ask you the questions Gold himself can't answer: 1) If the neo-con's goal was a war, why would they choose the country's principal centers of Finance and Military? 2) If their goal was Iraq, why'd they pick a pasty in Afghanistan? 3) Why are "It's never happened before"s and "I don't think it can happen without controlled explosives, so it couldn't"s enough to convince you? Gold himself on this site has said that, despite lacking %100 of evidence, is %100 sure Bush did it.
1) The WTC was hit before so it makes sense that it would get hit again. And I'm not too sure you can call the WTC America's "principal centers of Finance" because they were destroyed and the economy recovered withing months. If anybody wants to destroy our economy they would hit Wall Street or something, the economic devestation would be far worse.
The Pentagon which was hit was under construction-so there was not a huge loss of life and no one important died when it was attacked.
2) bin Laden set up the bases in Afghanistan in the mid 90's because that was his only choice for a safe haven. Also Afghanistan is loaded with oil and drugs.
3) Exlosives in the WTC is only a fraction of the 9/11 Truth argument. Ruppert's book which proves the govnt was behind 9/11 is 500 pages, and only a small paragraph of that book talks about the possibility of explosives in the WTC.