US air force colonel speaks

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by Mcloud, Mar 28, 2009.

  1. Mcloud

    Mcloud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,445
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  2. Saxon

    Saxon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7
  3. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Wellsir;

    He's not the first one. He won't be the last one.

    The evidence is in plain view and mostly still accessible.

    People are going to believe what they want.

    And then again...so many people like peanut butter too....

    ;)

    BTW: If you like Dennis Hopper movies you should check-out these two:

    Der Amerikanische Freund. (1997) by Wim Wenders.

    Riders of the Storm (1986) by Maurice Phillips.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2009
  4. Mcloud

    Mcloud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,445
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Hi Uncles. Oops! I mean Saxon. Stay off my threads you retard, I have more respect for Roland Garros and Gandhi. At least those guys would rather die than lick thermate man's balls. My posts are directed towards people who are not in denial.

    A.K. Dewdney's books are quite interesting. If you check out his website and resume you will see he is quite normal. (actually, you might not see that).

    Here is an article from his website. It is not the ramblings of a "loon" but rather, the observations of a highly intelligent person, and also one who is not in denial.

    ?Terrorists? Everywhere by A.K. Dewdney

    In November of 2001, I gave the keynote address to a large gathering of the American Mathematical Association of Two-year Colleges at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto. At our dinner table, a young teacher wondered out loud. ?But why do they hate us?? She was referring to the disasters of September 11 2001, a day still fresh in our memories. I chimed in with ?They don?t hate us at all,? much to the surprise of everyone at the table.

    I too had watched the TV on that fateful morning. The anchorwoman had been interviewing a well-known spy novelist when word of the plane crash into the WTC north tower came in. Before long, she got a feed that ?Muslim terrorists? were involved. She invited the novelist?s comment. ?That?s strange,? said the novelist. ?Suicide is forbidden in Islam.? The anchorwoman got that deer-in-the-headlights look and quickly moved on to a new topic.

    The remark about suicide caught my attention. As a Muslim of some 35 years I knew that not only was suicide (in any form) completely forbidden at the highest level (the Qur?an) but so was harming innocent civilian populations! What possible motive could the ?terrorists? have to do such a deed? The word from Washington was first that the suicide pilots expected the reward of paradise.

    In a pigs eye! Such acts would earn them a one-way trip to a place not noted for its air-conditioning. Well, then, said Washington, ?They?re jealous of our freedom and democracy.? Has there ever been a case of someone so jealous that they would not only kill themselves to strike a fatal blow but willingly go the Hell? That?s what I call jealous!

    Ironically, the attacks gave George Bush and his handlers the excuse they needed to begin the systematic gutting of the US Constitution, removing the very rights and freedoms that the ?terrorists? were so ?jealous? of.

    The suicide aspect of the event completely failed to make any sense. In the following weeks I searched news sources on the web to get more background on the attacks. I saw early claims that the WTC towers had been brought down by a form of controlled demolition, but discounted that as too complicated. I therefore began to wonder whether the aircraft could have been under remote control, the system being pre-installed in the aircraft in question. In the end (a year later) I scrapped that idea when, thanks to French researcher Thierry Meyssan (L?Imposture Effroyable), I realized that there was no significant aircraft debris at the Pentagon crash site. Indeed, there was no possibility whatever that the Pentagon damage was done by an aircraft as large as a Boeing 757.

    In the summer of 2003, a local gossip columnist by the name of Ian Gillespie interviewed me by telephone about my work on 9/11. Although most people already knew I was Muslim, he apparently hadn?t known until recently. I confirmed this for him on the telephone and tried to point out that it was ?irrelevant -- as indeed it was. But Gillespie, who is not strong on technical issues, decided in his column (after comparing our research to the search for UFOs, Sasquatches and what have you) that my whole motivation lay in what he called ?seeking solace,? as though I were merely in denial. Of course he didn?t check that ?fact,? just as he never actually read any of the details of the investigations, then ongoing.

    In the years since that curious piece of off-centre journalism, I have come to realize that the media are resisting alternate scenarios as though the ?war on terror? depended on it-- as indeed it does. I began a website called Physics911 to publish the research findings that had accumulated up to 2003. Soon I was being joined by aerospace engineers, physicists, intelligence officers, physicians, high-ranking military officers, and other professionals all of whom shared my basic motivation of wanting to get to the bottom of 9/11. Some of the members of our research organization contributed articles to the website, while others searched for useful material. All wanted to be listed on site. They were ?standing up to be counted,? in effect.

    There are now literally hundreds of 9/11 websites. most by individuals or groups wanting to make a contribution. Among these sites is one where ?standing up to be counted? is the main function. The website called Patriots Question 9/11 now features over 1000 professionals, complete with photographs and brief statements of understanding regarding 9/11. The professionals include scientists of every kind (many well-recognized in their fields), engineers, airline pilots, high-ranking military personnel, intelligence officers, experts in forensics and explosives, experts in Islam, scholars, highly placed (former) government officials, and others. Every week the site gathers another dozen or so such individuals. In fact the rate of growth is itself growing, as more and more people examine the evidence and realize that things are not at all the way they thought they were. This all takes place against a background revealed by reputable polls; about half of US citizens now regard 9/11 (and subsequent ?terrorist? attacks) with deep suspicion. Some think that Bush allowed the attacks to happen, others (like the mainstream at the Patriots site) understand them as a false flag operation.

    One thing I never thought I would be doing at my present age is to have regular contacts with the intelligence community. It is something of an eye-opener to be told that in the upper echelons of most agencies, from the CIA to Pakistan?s ISI, it?s an ?open secret? that 9/11 was an inside job. Al Qaeda is essentially an intelligence operation that entraps young Muslims into buying explosives or attending training camps, joining organizations that they are not told will later be identified as Al Qaeda operations, and so on. Upper level operatives leave trails of false clues for lower level operatives (frequently called ?counterterrorism experts?) to follow. Fascinating as it is, I would prefer not to know all of this. It points to a widespread psychopathy wherein those who set the agenda have created a deadly game of hide-and-seek to promote the ?War on Terror? and to give legs to the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and (soon) Iran.

    Before I leave the subject of 9/11 itself, I will provide a thumbnail summary of physical and other facts relating to the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. This usually kick-starts the thinking-for-yourself process.

    1. WTC Building 7 was deliberately demolished by the admission of its owner. (on videotape)

    2. Steel melts at 1350 degrees C.

    3. Steel reaches its critical point at 850 degrees C.

    4. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at 800 degrees centigrade.

    5. No inert material can reach a temperature higher than the flame it is exposed to.

    6. According to the 9/11 NIST report, the fuel fires lasted no more than 7 minutes.

    The ?critical point? of steel is the temperature at which steel loses exactly 40 percent of its bearing strength. The World Trade Center towers, like most modern structural steel buildings were overbuilt to the point of retaining its load-bearing capacity even at the critical point. Molten steel, moreover. was seen (and photographed) pouring from the sides of the towers and formed a vast pool in the basement levels for days after the collapses. It is highly doubtful that in a mere 7 minutes the massive core columns of the towers could have reached temperatures that were even half way to the critical point, let alone the melting point. Another, rather exotic heat source was apparently involved. Physicist Steven Jones recently found significant traces of thermate in debris and dust resulting from explosions in the towers. Thermate is a high-temperasture incendiary used to cut steel.


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
  5. Saxon

    Saxon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    I don't deny that Dewdney is intelligent, but this doesn't omit him from being a "loon".

    I happened to live a few miles from New York City on 9/11; but I'm no American. I saw the smoke of the towers, and knew of five people who died. I heard the stories of people who were there, and visited 'ground zero'. Don't give me your poorly researched conspiracy theories, that amount to little more than anti-American propaganda.

    cheers,
    Saxon

    You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
     
  6. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    So let's see here:

    You are claiming that you are an expert because you lived near enough to New York City to see smoke from the towers. Humm... thick black smoke was it?

    That means low temperature and incomplete combustion. But I suppose you knew that.

    Let's see; you're not American. Well that must mean you are very unbaised of course.

    That you knew of five people that died there. So what?

    You visited ground zero. Also so what? Lots of people did only after they were allowed to visit. What research did you carry-out? You went there for the emotional experience?

    What do you mean; "Anti-American" ?

    You heard stories. Why don't you repeat some of them?

    You say that the writer has poorly researched his report, yet you offer no reason, no counter information, no counter argument.

    As you are not an American, Let me tell you, one of the great things about being American (so far ) is that we are free to express any opinions we wish. We are free to question all things done by the government for here in America the people are above the governemt and the government was formed and created to serve the people.
    if and when this government ever fails to do so, it is the right and the responsibility to change that government or to fire that government. We have the rights and the power to do so.
    Anything. ANYTHING, that prevents or attempts to limit those powers of the people; American citizens, is considered TREASON and an enemy of the people.
    That is why every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the people of the Untied States of America and The Constitution and to protect it against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
    That ALL military personell must obey the direct orders of their superior officers up to the point of being Constitutional and legal.

    So this person is acting exactly as a true and loyal American.


    You want to present an argument against what the report says, go right ahead. You're free and welcome to do so.

    But please don't blather with emotional responses totally devoid of facts and insult people for being "Un-American".

    Oh and by the way, I do hope you are a legal American resident.
    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Saxon

    Saxon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    No, never made that claim. Show me where.

    Never made that claim.

    :rose: :rose:

    :rose: :rose:

    :rose: :rose:

    :rose: :rose:

    :rose: :rose:


    I took my children there. I wanted them to see it, not for the emotional experience, for the history lesson.

    Are you saying you don?t know what ?anti-Americanism? is?

    If that?s what you are saying, then it?s possible that:
    A. You have only ever lived in America
    B. You are in denial that such a thing exists

    I don?t care to.

    Why should I? Where are the rules written that I have to provide proof to refute such drivel? Is this a court case? I wouldn?t lend it credibility by actually debating the topic.
    Instead, I felt free to express my opinion.

    Are we not free to express any opinions we wish?

    Who are we talking about here? My original post was about Dewdney, who is Canadian. But regardless of who you?re talking about, I haven?t questioned anyone?s patriotism.

    Why can?t I respond as I see fit? Or is freedom of speech only for Americans?

    Where have I called anyone ?Un-American??

    I don?t care to. This ?conspiracy theory? reminds me of ?holocaust denial?.
    If anyone wants to know the truth, the can easily do the research. A truly open mind will find the truth:

    Sorry to disappoint you, but:

    9/11 was caused by Islamic extremists

    I assure you that all my papers are in order.


    regards,
    Saxon

    You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.
     
  8. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Your last statement seems to be the only true statement you have ever made.

    If anyone is in denial it is you.

    You are insinuating that anyone who presents facts that the conspiracy of 9/11 was far more than just an extremist Arabic plot is "Anti-American".
    You insinuated that by living near New York somehow that brings you closer to the truth.
    You insinuate that somehow 9/11 denial of the Bush Administration's official statements is the same as Holocaust Denial.

    You are making emotional statements without any reasoning nor logic nor facts.

    If anyone is making un American statements it is you, Sir.


    Oh BTW, should you ever be interested in history, you may want to see what Prescott Bush was doing just before and during WW2.
    Some say he was employed by Tyssen Family to monitor the output production of the Auschwitz concentration camp.
    Oh yes, my friend's father was a survivor there.
    It was real alright, he got to see his wife and children die at the hands of the Nazis.
     
  9. Mcloud

    Mcloud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,445
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
  10. rudeboy

    rudeboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,786
    Location:
    Tower of power.
    Scapegoats: Jews, tobacco users, pedofiles, gay men the next time, and YOU the year after that.
    If you don't like ciggarettes, maybe you avoid being gassed in The Camps? Sure, but then comes the next propoganda torrent, it will be crystal meth users or autistic boys.

    No, I don't mean YOU, whoever that is. I mean people.
     
  11. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
  12. gandhi

    gandhi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,613
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
  13. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    If you guys want your ill informed and dubiously expertised experts' stories to be accepted as genuine fact, then you'll also have to at least consider what someone else is saying. I've heard the story of jet fuel burnings etc from 1000 different people, maybe 5 of them were engineers, and amazingly, none of them were structural engineers with any idea of how the WTC was a peculiar and weak setup.

    Even then, nice chip on your shoulders for the ad hominem stuff, IMHO he never claimed anything, nor insulted anyone, he just said "anti-American propaganda". If you're really going to be debating an issue like this, where you accuse the American government, the whole body pretty much, because covering something like this up means high treason in the highest circuit, you should understand people consider things to be anti-American.

    Then again, I also think the whole patriotism and anti-American thing is thrown around much too easily by the wrong people and for the wrong reasons. Which isn't to say it never goes without merit.

    I guess that leaves me in the middle. Though I still believe the theory has not been researched sufficiently, still has holes in it the size mount Olympos and in general is the fruit of a whole bunch of people with phD's in irrelevant domains.

    -Z
     
  14. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Ill informed? And you are well informed?

    How and where do you get the information that the WTC towers were so marginally built?

    Yes, everyone knows the temp pf jet fuel, the maximum quantity of jet fuel carried by a those jets. Everyone knows what temperature steel melts and what temperature black smoke signifies. There are countless recordings and eye witnesses of firemen and policemen who heard explosions at regular intervals before the colapse.

    It seems to be that you are one of those "ill infomed" and who cannot think for your self.

    I heard that it was the Bush Administration covering-up and having some participation in the conspiracy NO ONE that I see is blaming the WHOLE US government.

    I would like to read all the arguments pro and con of how far the conspiracy was.

    What I fail to understand is how so many people here fail to read for themselves and discover the truth and just keep following whatever an administration that had so much to gain for such a tragedy, an administration that was so much linked to those special interests.

    Not even in New Zealand have I seen so many sheep...

    :D

    Don't believe me or anyone else, Get off your asses and start reading everything you can.

    The game is going to Hell anyway.....:rolleyes:
     
  15. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    How can you be so high up in your ivory tower if you don't even know this single thing? If you're the world's tallest building for a long time, you better know structural engineers will be scrutinizing you. Guess what, they did.

    Lol, and there are countless people who saw UFO's too.

    Of course, the ad hominem. I discredit your source and suddenly I'm the ill informed :) So, I can't think for myself because I genuinely believe the theories that someone else thought up, that you consider to be the holy bible of truth, is bullshit? That makes me someone who can't think for himself? I'd frankly think the opposite. The way these general discussions go very much proves this.

    You will always quote this or that, but never ever will you quote yourself, or any information you have found yourself. Never ever will you measure it by the tried and true facts you have gotten in your, whatever education, you may have gotten.

    Whenever someone disputes you, you fall back to the same source. I guess you've never had to write a thesis, or had to write any form of a paper worth a damn? Then again, I better brace myself for the wall of recommendations and experience you will now be claiming to have :rolleyes:

    Yes, the conspiracy where all jews accidentically didn't show up for work somehow? The conspiracy where a governmental body, high treason conspiracy kills thousands of its citizens? Right.

    Some people have things to do besides being conspiracy theorists.

    Indeed, it amazes me too. This seems like a regular cult of conspiracy believers. Nice going with the trademark smiley btw.

    Isn't this what you always say? Read this, read that. Judging from all the books you've read, you must be a well read man, close to confucius apparently even.

    -Z
     
  16. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    Too bad the reputation system is gone. That post was truly worth +10.
     
  17. Mcloud

    Mcloud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,445
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

    Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"

    Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

    Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
    "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

    Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
    "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

    Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
    "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

    Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
    "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

    David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
    "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."

    Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
    "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. ?If? you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and ?if? you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

    Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames?just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

    Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, ?if? the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side?much like the topping of a tall redwood tree?not a concentric, vertical collapse.

    For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."

    Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
    "We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

    We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

    The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy be coming from?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2009
  18. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028
    Oh yes, or course, THEY DID. That's some great piece of resource material you're quoting there, Z.


    You are equating UFO sightings with several daytime nationwide and state wide television live camera reporters and live at the moment interviews with eye witnesses such a police, fire and ETM personell.


    Look who is with the ad hominem. You discredit MY sources? How? By just saying "it's not true"? At least I am quoting something.
    What is your "Holy Bible of truth"? Because you are obviously quoting from your belief structure.
    Yes, it is my belief that you are ill informed and ill mannered as well.

    And you of course have never quoted anything at all. Yes, I quote from websites and share that information. What do you share but general discredit and personal attacks?


    ALL Jews didn't show up for work? I don't think so.


    You mean other things like play online flight games and respond to anything that you do not agree with negative criticism and insults and never provide any quotation or sources of different opinion or evidence, for the sake of argument. Some people cannot be bothered.

    I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. The terrible event of 9/11 was in fact a conspiracy. There is no question about that.
    The only question is who are the conspirators and how far did this conspiracy go.


    Well I am getting far less amazed these days. I have to recall that there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

    Yes, that smiley face of the roll eyes, it reminds me of how silly this whole thing is here at the Forum.
    Actually, my first choice was a large letter "Z" , but as it was taken already, I selected something the most absurd.

    No. That is not what I always say. Yes, I have read many books. Yes, most likely I have read more books and in more languages than Confucius. So have you, I'll bet.
    No. I am not close to Confucius. Not at all. How close are you?
     
  19. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Surprisingly enough your conspiracy theory isn't as unanymously believed as you like to think.

    And you're focusing on UFO's as spaceships from different planets, rather than exactly that, unidentified flying objects. What the hell can you see on a camera? Will you explain to me exactly which scientific evidence to support your claim this brings? All it does is show a timeline, and show what things looked like. It is in no way a stress test, a thermometer, or anything else you'd need to sufficiently measure data.


    Oh? Where was I with the ad hominem? Feel free to point out. Ill informed, I'd beg to differ, I have had a neat ammount of stress mechanics courses etc.

    Ill mannered, what leads you to that conclusion? Hmm? Is it because I disagree? But, nice attempt to make a point by not making any :)

    Why would I quote anything? The internet is full with websites that say this, and others that say the contrary. Since the coming of the internet Wikipedia and all the likes have turned everyone into an expert, and all the experts are suddenly just average Joes. The opportunity to read up on the afterlying subjects, and form a scientifically well-backed view, is out there. I wouldn't want to fall in your trap of only having someone else think for me :rolleyes:

    No? Isn't that one of the key points of Loose Change?

    Oh, did my words hurt your bones? Believe you me, I've never done anything but hold back, but you're just always trying to be friends with everyone, always trying to look the scholar, the master, the genius, or whatever. You're a slippery eel, a social chameleon, a phoney. And yes, that is the first insult I've made against you.

    Then what do you care so much if someone simply does not believe your claims?

    You used the ":D" smiley. Not the :rolleyes: one. You can take the letter Z though, it's not mine, it's just the first letter in my nickname, but if you want, I'll change my signature, just for you. I guess it really must burn holes in your eyes reading it everytime. Must've been quite the road of suffering composing that post here of yours, adding the -Z at every quote. Feel free to continue the trend, I like it, it has a certain "je ne sais quoi" to it, panache if you will.

    Don't you know? I am confucius.

    -Z
     
  20. looseleaf

    looseleaf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,028

    No. It does not surprise me at all. There is sufficient damage control being done and may people are presenting opposing view points and there are a lot of misleading and misdirections going on.


    Firstly, what claim are you claiming I made? You really believe that those first two building collapsed they way they did, straight down within their own walls just like every film of every controlled demolition every seen by just an airplane smashing into it on the upper floors? And yet the third building also collapsing without any major fire or structural damage so neatly? Even when the owner of the building is quoted as saying "we decided to pull it down". You say you studied structures? Physics?



    OK. I am not going back to the other post but you said something about my never writing a thesis or term paper and not presenting a proper argument therefore I am some one inferior so therefore my words are instantly discounted as I am not an equal to you.
    That is an insult. Rather than address what I presented, you attack the messenger.


    Exactly, why should you even bother to present something, anything opposing or as counter evidence when all you have to do is say something without any reference at all like "They did."

    Fall into my trap? You seem to have fallen very well into your own. Your own actions have shown me that you are only a believer, you have failed even to think.




    No. There are many key points. The ones I like the best are: there was talk of building being hit by hijacked planes as far back as August in San Jose, California at a briefing by the FBI to the San Jose police.
    The details of the buildings collapsing and the live interviews of reporters on location of explosions at regular intervals and that firemen withdrew from climbing higher because of the explosions inside the building. All the details and evidence of high explosives charges going off and molten steel being broken-off at angles that seemed to steer the falling mass directly down. The so little damage to the Pentagon from a rather large plane and the Secretary of Defense very clearing saying there was a missile attack and they were preparing for a possible second missile attack. There are many others but i do not have the time.


    No. Your comments nor your insults "hurt me" actually I was expecting more from someone who claims to be so educated.
    But then again people from Belgium are not too well known for being polite, well mannered or educated ...what is the usual word for Belgian in most of Europe?
    BLOCKHEAD, I think it was. No?
    There, you have my first insult for you! Touche' .

    Also I really don't care if you agree or not, or even if you think what I cut and pasted from the internet is true, false, mostly or all just all full of shit.

    phoney? Ha ha ha. maybe I am trying to be too extra nice here:

    How about this: I think you are a pompous spineless ass. just sit back and insult anything you don't like here.
    Just like some other little pigs here, just sitting back and criticizing everything that comes across the Forum. Just like some dog behind a fence. BARK BARK. I having no power and no ability, I live in this cyberspace of the internet and I am a cyber fighter pilot and raconteur and BARK BARK BARK if I hear of anyone who has a more real life or wants to share experiences. Jealous little spineless worms.

    I really don't care what you think, what you believe, who you are. Feel free to say that you don't like what I posted and you do not agree with what I posted. That's fine.
    But if you have to insult who I am or what I am or not,
    THEN YOU CAN GO FUCK YOURSELF.

    Hope that's clear enough for you.

    and yes as a matter of fact I am not the most educated, but I did study, yes a little boy from the slums, who carried guns and shot people in the streets,who made it and now is an old man who had expensive sports cars and traveled to five continents and flew real airplanes and knows how to blow things up and did, and has seen what small and medium caliber fire arms can do to flesh and bone and has seen things and people get blown to pieces and die violently in front of my face. SO FUCKING WHAT?

    Keep your little Z, you obviously need it more than me,
    Thank you for the offer anyway.

    It's getting too boring responding to little idiots like you.

    Let's see that should be insult #3.


    Oh, wait, Number 4:

    Yes, well I did not know you are Confucius but you do talk like an old Chinese man hundreds of years out of date.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2009