Page 6 of 8
Posted: 07 Nov 2006, 20:38
by Zoombie
I remember the attacks, seeing them on TV. It certinly looked like the top fell inwards, then collapsed down. But I could be mistaken. Need to watch the footage again.
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 00:22
by pintle
Numerous other similarly official looking engineering reports contradict the one posted here, cba to get them.
I never claimed their was a controlled demo.
STOP USING CAPS TO ADD EMPHASIS
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 01:20
by Candleman
So you're saying that you have evidence, you just don't feel like defending it?
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 02:00
by pintle
I'm saying that i have seen as many engineering oriented explanations to support one side of the argument, and i cba to do you google searching for you.
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 02:22
by Decimator
pintle wrote:Please keep this thread to a rational discussion with statements backed up by evidence.
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 06:10
by FoeOfTheBee
pintle wrote:
[snip]
Somebody has a different opinion to you, deal with it; If you feel the need, contradict them with reasong debate. Just don't patronise me by falling back onto totally unrelated "conspiracy nut-job" cliches.
[snip]
Those "conspiracy nut-job cliches" hardly seem unrelated to your assertions.
I suggest that if being patronized and called a nut job bothers you, you could always stop espousing nutty positions.
Not all assertions deserve a reasoned response.
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 07:43
by Neuralize
I'll take an interesting medium that I don't believe has been presented here.
In the days after 9/11 I had seen PBS documentry after PBS documentry about exactly how the towers fell ('Why the towers fell' was the name) and I felt that it was quite valid due the analysis and that all destruction happened as a direct result of the two planes crashing into two buildings.
I really wish I had links to lay this all out, but I don't, so I'll just say what I blindly believe.. anyway.
If you read about the guy who was basically the head of "homeland security" before the official homeland security actually existed, he made repeated attempts to meet with Bush and discuss distressing signs that a terror plot might occur. I could probably find the guys name if I sifted through some books, but he was left over from the previous administration, thus the Bush administration really felt that anything he said was bullshit because he was a liberal.
That said, I believe that the president was expecting a terrorist attack of some kind, I don't think he knew how or when it would happen, or even expected it to be as big as 9/11 was.
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 16:04
by pheldens
A critical thinker would be reserved and take no stance at all. Since this case stinks at every angle. It's really hard to view this continued with an open mind, after so much has been said about it already.
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 16:24
by SpikedHelmet
Given the amount of information that the US had about the attacks prior to 9/11 I can't imagine that the President didn't fully understand the severity of what was to come. Afterall, 50,000 people worked in the WTC towers. Frankly I am astonished that several tens of thousands weren't killed.
(Astonished, or disappointed? You be the judge. Hehehehehe)
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 16:56
by pheldens
consider this movie:
Feel free to filter out emo and percieved spin, it has interesting excerpts regardless.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1483512003
Posted: 08 Nov 2006, 20:17
by Min3mat
emo? *watches*
e: meh watched for a minute or two and didn't see nor hear anything emo :<
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 04:45
by SpikedHelmet
More liberal bullshit. Just goes to show they will do and say anything, lie, cheat, steal, to try to make republicans look bad, so that they can sell our country out to terrorists and communists. Pretty soon every gas station will be "Exxon al Arabiya al Allah" and every McDonalds will be "Mik Chin Fo Yung Fast Food Take-Out" and you're all going to speaking Chinese and reading the Koran and when you think back on how we tried to defend this country and think about how you betrayed your country you're going to say "Gee, maybe they were right, and I was just too stupid and weak-minded to realize it" and it'll be too late.
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 04:51
by Snipawolf
Hmmm...
I love the way Spiked thinks...
An extremely proud Republican Patriot, that he is!
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 05:03
by SpikedHelmet
Nice to see there are still young kids who recognize the truth when they see it. This isn't any god-damned game. People are trying to wipe us off the face of the earth and people like those fucking democrats are trying to convince us that we did it to ourselves? What a bunch of morons.
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 05:18
by Zoombie
Spiked, I think if anyone tries to invade our country, they are going to have a fight on their hands. I may be liberal. I may be a coward. But that don't mean that I'm not going to take no invasion lying down no how!
But this is of course assuming anyone invades. If the terrosits had the manpower to mount a conventinal invasion of a country...they wouldn't be using underhand sneak tactics like terroisim. Also I don't think the rest of the world would sit back and sip tea if America takes an invasion. I'd think most of Europe would want to do something...
Buuuuut...thats assuming anyone invades. Which I highly doubt.
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 05:35
by SpikedHelmet
I never said they'd invade with conventional standing armies. They are quite capable of invading with hundreds, maybe thousands, of potential suicide bombers and other very nasty people who can do a lot, and I mean a LOT of harm to the American people. Thousands who will simply "assimilate" into society rather than fight openly, because the democrats are soft when it comes to security and would rather all of our borders be wide open for anyone and everyone to come in. I only hope to god that if they hit the White House and kill the President, at the very least I hope a few democrats will be taken out too. Atleast then it wouldn't be a total disastrous loss.
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 05:43
by Zoombie
Thats alarmist, to say the least. But you know what i think, right? If the ENTIRE country was a bunch of tough as nails, xenophobic Reb-ublicans who are willing to defend us from everything and anything (including ourselves, homosexuals and atheists) then...well that'd suck. But if the entire country was a bunch of sissy, creative, tree hugging, whiny demo-cracks who want everyone and anything to do anything and everyone...well that's suck just as much, if not more, then the other extreme.
But if we have a mix of both and everyone in between...then...well it won't be perfect, but at least it works. Or it has worked for the past...four hundred or so years.
NOTE: Just so no one gets offended, the two extremes I've mentioned only really manifest in two people. Ann Colter and Michal Moor (both of whom should be locked in a box before they hurt themselves or others).
NOTE: If you haven't noticed, I'm a semi-liberal conservative neutral party member, or a SLCNPM.
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 06:16
by Decimator
Zoombie, these people invade by immigrating and not assimilating. They don't even learn the language. It is a silent invasion until they start rioting. It is happening in Europe, and even some of their liberals are calling for people to wake up to the growing threat, the one that immediately comes to mind is Bruce Bawer, a gay man who speaks of the muslim ghettos ringing European cities. Eh, I'll just quote the review:
While Europe Slept:
Having recently published an indictment of Christian fundamentalist intolerance in the U.S. (Stealing Jesus), New York native Bawer relocated to Europe with his Norwegian partner in 1998 and found an even more dangerous strain of religious and cultural bigotry ensnaring Western Europe. A swarming menace called radical Islam, he writes, rings Europe's cities in smoldering Muslim ghettos, provoking everything from so-called honor killings and political assassinations to the Madrid subway bombings and the massacre of school children in Beslan. Worse, the Taliban-like theocracy Bawer sees looming inside backward immigrant populations resistant to integration flourishes under the protective wing of Western Europe's America-bashing, multicultural, liberal establishment. The latter correspond to the appeasers of Nazi Germany, in Bawer's view, since he believes that radical Islamism is every bit the threat to Western civilization that Nazism was. He scoffs at talk of "understanding" or "dialogue," indeed, at any but the most muscular response hitching Europe ever tighter to the U.S. war on terror.
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 06:18
by Zoombie
Is it just me or is a large portion of the world wide muslim community living in the 1100's?
Posted: 09 Nov 2006, 06:30
by bwansy
Sadly, racism is impossible to be diminished. As humans interact with each other more and more frequently, racism only grows stronger than ever.
