«

[Microprose Veteran]

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Jun 30 2005, 07:13 PM
Because remember kids - if you read it on the internet it must be true.

Prejudicesucks, could you please make a more productive post than the one you just made? What does your post contribute to the discussion, other than you can't always believe what's written, whether it's on paper or on the internet?

You disappoint me. I thought you would be better than making a typical comment 'wouldn't believe it' post.

My same reply as to Fruit Pie Jones: I wish you would be half as sceptical of official news reports as you are of my posts.

Did you not find it a bit strange that both the WTC towers collapsed perfectly onto itself, when it takes professional demolition teams weeks, even months, to succesfully rig buildings with explosives to make them 'implode?'

You're not even trying to contribute to this discussion. All you do is insinuate that I'm so gullible I'll believe anything that's on the internet.

>>A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now.">>

[link]

>>The Washington Times internet page. Either their website was hijacked by the terrorists, or they are with the terrorists! "A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11." Right... what does an economist know about 9/11 anyway, huh?>>

[link]

>>LOL, this whackjob claims he is a "former MI5 agent" Evidently, his crazy, outrageous lies and distortions cannot be believed by any law-abiding, decent citizen.>>

[link]

[Microprose Veteran]

Originally posted by MadMarius@Jun 30 2005, 07:14 PM
`I've just started to read 1984 wich is totaly grat...
inspirating..."PEACE IS WAR"
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!" [correction]
THAT is so true!
i realy enjoy reading that book because it is just so like me...sadic...lonely...between good and evil.. :w00t:

Glad you've started reading "1984," MadMarius.

It makes a lot more impact on me now that I know more of the big bad world.

Frequently, I will laugh out loud when reading something that wasn't even intended as humour! Or perhaps it was, as very black humour...

[omg]

actually it is odd the way they collapsed on themselfs. i 2 had a similar thought when seeing the footage. i try to be really cautios with conspiracy theories though. becuse it is hard to trust what you read on the net as if you think about it a lot of the conspiracy theories are going to be put out there by the conspiritors to draw attention away from what they r really up 2.

[Microprose Veteran]

Thanks for the reply, OMG.

And yes, you're correct. Disinformation is a powerful tool.

However, if you look up my previous post, I've linked to two well-publicized news reports (mainstream media) where two prominent ex-government people voice their doubts that the official '9/11' story is bogus.

All I can say is: use your own intelligence and rationale. Remember: the second plane that struck the WTC arrived 15 minutes after the first one struck. What the hell was the Airforce doing that they could not intercept this second plane?

Video: Larry Silverstein, leaseholder, WTC, remarks they "decided to pull WTC 7..." If you look it up, you will find that "to pull" is demolition slang for demolishing a building. Anyway, watch the WTC owner tell his story (which he later denied). The official story still holds that WTC 7, like the two highest towers, collapsed due to fires.

[omg]

the third link doesnt work.
@microprose
i really hate thinking about this. as in really really really hate it becuse you are right. there is a lot of nasty possibilities lurking under the surface of this. and if just 1/4 of these conspiracy theories are true then we live in a world where people will manufacture the slaughter of innocents to make money. we would be better off living in brave new world, at least the world controllers in that had a benevolent edge.
bush the figurehead is not the one we should be looking at, the man can hardly speak the english language altho his family concerns have a lot to gain with the increase in the world oil price. i doubt he has the brains to have masterminded this. as for 1984 it gets more true evry day, the only thing where i differ from the general opinion is about cctv.
i dont think the avarage person has anything to fear from it. it is just a tool to prevent crime. nothing more, nothing less. i actually know of a guy who only advoided prison becuse the cctv showed him trying to advoid a fight, making placating gestures ect, and it was only when they charged him that he started fighting. what the thugs didnt realise is the guy is blackbelt. if it hadnt have been for the cctv records he would have lost his karate licence and maybe done some prison time becuse they forced him to properly hurt them

[Microprose Veteran]

Well, I won't comment on cctv as I don't know that much about it, unfortunately. Sure, it's just a tool and it can be used for good. And bad.

Regarding the official story on "9/11:" like the JFK assassination, we are told to believe the official story without any doubt. If we even express the tiniest of doubts, we are immediately attacked for: conspiracy wackjob. Unamerican. Thought criminal.

It seems as if we should turn off our own intelligence and just accept whatever the government tells us to believe. The government may not be perfect, but unconditionally accepting whatever they dictate must be better than what our own intelligence and rationale tell us, I suspect.

Wanna see something truly crazy? Here. Don't look at it for too long, you will go insane! LOL

[omg]

why did i follow that link microprose? my skin is crawling dude. yuk yuk yuk.
here is a quote

It's hard for Americans to appreciate just how out-of-touch the establishment (and it really is a single establishment) of Paris, Berlin, the Hague, and Brussels is. Its arrogance almost beyond belief

agggh. so bush is the man with the plan for the world isit? i need a shower now.

[Microprose Veteran]

No, it's just Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and a dozen of others, including Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle(!).

Later!..

[omg]

laters chap

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Fruit Pie Jones, the evidence/reports are on the internet if you just look for them.

I don't feel like I should have to tell you this, but there's a lot of stuff on the internet. Putting something on a website doesn't make it true.

And please, stop calling me whack-job or nutcase since we're at least pretending to be in a civil debate, okay?

I believe I implied that you were getting your information from a nutcase, not that you are one yourself. Inaccurate information can cause the sanest individuals to draw the wrong conclusions - surely we can agree on that.

First, I've seen enough rigged demolitions of tall buildings on television to be at least visually familiar with them.

That may be true, but how many unplanned building collapses have you seen? I'd say that's more relevant to this case. Have you seen enough to be able to differentiate between the two with absolute certainty? Because it sounds like you've pretty well made up your mind about this one. Also, if you've seen documentaries of large building implosions, you no doubt know that a great deal of preparation is required to achieve the desired result - as you said, demolish the intended building with as little damage to surrounding structures as possible. Structural supports all over the building must be weakened to the point where relatively small charges will cause them to fail in a predictable manner. Recalling that 9/11/2001 was a Tuesday, don't you think that at least one of the thousands of people who worked in the WTC towers would have noticed that this was going on? If you worked in one of the world's tallest buildings, would it not strike you as odd to walk in one morning and see people going to town on the building's support structures with sledgehammers, rock saws, and cutting torches?

With buildings as tall as the WTC towers the expected picture would be that of an assymmetrical collapse, spreading debris over a wide area and causing extensive damage to nearby buildings.

You mean like WTC buildings 3, 4, 6, and 7; World Financial Center buildings 4, 5, 6, 7, and the Winter Garden; 90 West St; 130 Cedar St; the Bankers Trust Building; the Verizon Building; and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church?

Also, we were told that temperatures in the WTC buildings were so high, they caused the steel structure to melt. How come then, that survivors were able to stand in the holes in the WTC and wave to people on the ground and to helicopters, trying to be noticed and rescued?

I agree that the temperatures inside the burning towers never reached the melting point of steel, or even close to it. But so what? They didn't have to. There were many factors that contributed to the collapse of the towers, not least of which was that they were hit by large, fast-moving objects. The planes sheared clean through some structural supports and damaged others. This obviously didn't bring the towers down, as neither of them collapsed immediately after impact, but some damage was certainly done. The subsequent explosion and fire, while it never got hot enough to melt steel, did get hot enough to weaken and distort significant structural elements to the point of failure. This failure meant that other elements were stressed beyond their capacity, causing them to fail in turn, and a chain reaction was set in motion that brought the towers down. See here for one explanation for which there is ample evidence.

Remember that Bush had received security reports in the months before 9/11 titled: "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike in USA."

That's about as useful in terms of intelligence as someone telling you, "You're going to die someday." It's a correct statement, of course, but how are you supposed to act upon it? Are you saying that massive, widespread security measures should be put in place every time an intelligence report indicates that there may be a vague, indefinable threat to someone somewhere at some indeterminate point in the future?

Consequently, if they cannot detect airliners from being hijacked (in case of hijacking, pilots only need to press a button to alert ground control) and cannot even track 4 large 757-size airliners over their own (US) territory (for almost an hour), you must agree that NORAD failed big time on 9/11.

No, I do not have to agree with that. NORAD's own website states the following:

Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace.

In other words, it wasn't their job to track US airliners flying over US territory. Regardless of that, though, what if they had known that the airliners had been hijacked? Had anyone ever hijacked an airliner and crashed it into a skyscraper before? No. Most cases of airline hijacking involve the hijackers demanding that they be flown to a particular destination, where they will demand the release of political prisoners or some such thing. In those cases, it is common for most if not all of the passengers to survive, provided the plane lands safely. Airliners had not been used as weapons prior to 9/11, so what would you have expected the government to do? Order the Air Force to shoot down the hijacked planes, ensuring that nobody on board would survive? Seriously, what would you have done in that case, knowing only what you could have known at the time?