heres some shit....

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Oops. I apologize for my mistake there. I admit I had you confused with span. What a stretch that is, huh.

Heheh... Span. What a guy. I miss him.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by schmooky007

true, being in the middle is a good thing. but you know what? most liberals tend to think that their viewpoint is the only one that counts. bring up something that isn't on the same track and bam you're a nazi.

BAM. U'RE A NAZI....

one of the 2005 types.

Do you really want to kill all the Pals? Or just the ones that won't suck up.

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

BTW, Malvachat, I really enjoy your style of writing

First chance I have had to reply.
Thanks for your kind words.
I respect Albed for his views,he's entitled.
He might even be right.
Who really knows the truth?
My thing is he won't even open his mind to consider
he might be wrong.
You find that with extremists on both sides.
The left can be very nasty in some of it's attacks.
The right,well what can you say except
"Bomb the bastards"
"Kill the motherf..kers"
Get the idea.
Years ago I canvassed on the doorstep,
one of the first lessons to learn is,
People of a certain mentality are pointless
talking too.
They will not never even look at new thoughts.
I doubt Albed even used the link.
Seems wrong somehow,he might be able to explain
some of the things there.
Then again what's the point of him looking he
already knows the answers.

[floydian slip]

anyone notice this pic of the jet that skidded off of the runway
notice the wings and the holes in the wall the wings made.

yes, its not the pentagon made of superduper bombproof/blastproof brick but...

and if the flames were so hot in the pentagon and incinerated the plane and its wings, then wouldn't the DNA they usee to determine identities have burned up too? hmmmmm




btw albed, i took you off of ignore, it just felt dirty trying to be a censor nazi, eewwwww, but anyway, how have you been? have you cheered the fuck up any?

[albed]

Yeah, I was so upset when you did that I almost stopped posting altogether, but I'll get better now.

[floydian slip]

I am here for you now.

Group hug!

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by floydian slip

anyone notice this pic of the jet that skidded off of the runway
notice the wings and the holes in the wall the wings made.

yes, its not the pentagon made of superduper bombproof/blastproof brick but...

and if the flames were so hot in the pentagon and incinerated the plane and its wings, then wouldn't the DNA they usee to determine identities have burned up too? hmmmmm

btw albed, i took you off of ignore, it just felt dirty trying to be a censor nazi, eewwwww, but anyway, how have you been? have you cheered the fuck up any?

You are quite right Floyd, if such a small aircraft built in Montreal can punch through a single brickwall, imagine what a superjet could do to the pentagon...Oh wait, atleast every soul on this small aircraft survived, the only seriously injured person was in his car before the plane riped off his cartop. Guess those peeps who actually witness the plane flying over the highway prior to hitting it's target (pentagon) were lucky sob's. BTW, I reckon that the survivors inside the building were also a bunch of lucky sob's, come on, what are the odds that those 'terrorists' would crash the plane in the exact spot where the P renovations were almost done if not finished.

Just googled up the search words "Flight path of flight 77". Strangely enough, it took me to what some ppl over here would call it conspiracy sites. Now why would this flight make such a drastic turn and crash into the most protected section of the pentagon? One can clearly see that the white house is very close to flight 77 path, so why did flight 77 didn't crash into the great WH and let it's chances pass by while waiting for flight 93 (caugh) to finish the WH off? Those 'terrorists' on flight 77 had a real chance to strike the heart of america, but yet, they didn't. Instead, they chose to ram 6 concrete wall in a newly renovated wing of the pentagon. see pic below.


Floyd, as to the matter of the imp, real malva post and yours and decided to maybe give the imp a chance... read the post i've missed while he was on my ignore list. Decided to put him back there as soon as I was done.

Malvachat

Yes everyone have a right to their opinion, that's why I enjoy this political asylum. Decided to put albed on the ignore list because of his total lack of respect towards other members, not because of his opinions.

[albed]

What kind of respect did you show Spart when you bitched him out for quoting a link, in bold even, because you didn't agree with it. That was hilarious.

Originally Posted by miss_silver

You know damn well that these are not my wiews on the subject. What you posted are the "official" views/truth according to the mainstream media. As to why you needed to post what I do not think in bold letters, only you, have the answer.

Poor Spart.

[miss_silver]

Ahhh Pure bliss Floydian Slip

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Let me fill you in Ms. Silver. Albed said that he can't stop thinking about you and was only acting like he thought you were stupid in that "dip your pigtails in the inkwell" way that shy little boys so often do to girls they really like.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Let me fill you in Ms. Silver. Albed said that he can't stop thinking about you and was only acting like he thought you were stupid in that "dip your pigtails in the inkwell" way that shy little boys so often do to girls they really like.

ACK RAS

Please retract this comment or it will give me nightmares for a whole month!

[Ramona_A_Stone]

lol

[albed]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

ACK RAS

Please retract this comment or it will give me wet panties for a whole month!

Inkwells? Maybe a "snap the bra-strap" thing.

Inkwells haven't been around since your schooldays Ramona.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

And don't you forget it, punk.







































Back in my day, women didn't have no fangled brassieres, they had to carry their own damned breasts, sometimes uphill, in the snow... barefoot... with chillun on they hip and water on they heads... for days...

[Belle~]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Let me fill you in Ms. Silver. Albed said that he can't stop thinking about you and was only acting like he thought you were stupid in that "dip your pigtails in the inkwell" way that shy little boys so often do to girls they really like.

Albed loves Edith Ann

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Oops. I apologize for my mistake there. I admit I had you confused with span. What a stretch that is, huh.

So maybe you do support gay marriage. Maybe you're gay. I can assure you it wouldn't be possible for me to care any less, but feel free to make a case about how pro-gay you are if you'd like.

I hardly think the point of my post hinged on that argument, but it's certainly convenient for you to act like it did.

What does gay marriage have to do with this thread? Well over half the people in North America are apposed to gay marriage, Republicans, Democrats, and un-decided voters. The constitution defines marriage as being between a Man and Woman. You know how hard it is to get an Amendment to the Constitution? There have been over a 1000 new Amendments brought up since 1776 and I think only 27 have passed. Two examples would be the end of slavery which took a civil war to get changed and giving women the right to vote which took over a 100 years of protests and rallies to pass. There may be an Amendment to the Constitution to allow Gay’s to marry but give it at least another 50 years minimum to happen.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with this thread, but then I didn't think slavery or women's rights or anyone claiming "democracy is going to have to change" was going to have anything to do with this thread either. As a matter of fact, it's kind of surprising to me that the whole "liberal vs. conservative" issue was made an intrinsic part of the thread from the very outset. Apparently the implication is that only liberals would dare distrust the version of reality that's filtered through the media and government agencies, while "conservatives" seem to have a significant need to see that version as complete, whole gospel truth. Either that, or couching it in those typically pointlessly polarized terms makes them feel better about it somehow.

I thought questioning authority was good for everyone, regardless of political persuasions, but I guess questioning authority is strictly out of fashion in some camps. C'est la vie.

By the way Sinner, where do you get your information about how many "undecided voters" oppose gay marriage? Seems like you'd have to be pretty much a psychic to get those kinds of statistics.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

I thought questioning authority was good for everyone, regardless of political persuasions, but I guess questioning authority is strictly out of fashion in some camps. C'est la vie.

Of course this "questioning authority" means lapping up the bullshit spouted by the likes of Alex Jones and Michael Moore and parroting it to other pea-brained gossips without the mental capacity to realize how ridiculous it is or even to defend their newfound viewpoint with any demonstration of knowledge or rationality of their own.

What is your opinion on the thread subject anyway Ramona. It seems you take a little of each side just for your own amusement and mix in a whole lot of unrelated blabbering.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

As a matter of fact, it's kind of surprising to me that the whole "liberal vs. conservative" issue was made an intrinsic part of the thread from the very outset. Apparently the implication is that only liberals would dare distrust the version of reality that's filtered through the media and government agencies, while "conservatives" seem to have a significant need to see that version as complete, whole gospel truth. Either that, or couching it in those typically pointlessly polarized terms makes them feel better about it somehow.

I thought questioning authority was good for everyone, regardless of political persuasions, but I guess questioning authority is strictly out of fashion in some camps. C'est la vie.

Is that what people are doing in this thread? Questioning Authority, because I don't see it that way, if this was a thread about what the government knew before the 9/11 attackes or how the responed to it would make sense to me, but to say Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon is insane. So because CNN and ABC, etc say a plane hit the pentagon means it never happened? The 100's of witnesses which saw an American airline fly over them or near them before the explosion are all lairs. What do they have to gain? So because there is no hole were the wings hit makes the 100's of witnesses lairs? I can see if two people say they saw a jet but over 100, unlikely. The whole quote you made above is BS.

By the way Sinner, where do you get your information about how many "undecided voters" oppose gay marriage? Seems like you'd have to be pretty much a psychic to get those kinds of statistics.

The undecided voter is the person who has not yet settled on a preference for the presidential election. The identification of these individuals depends on the kinds of questions asked in the public opinion poll. So, now that you know what an undecided voter is you can clearly see I don't have to be psychic. Every poll I have seen, in Canada and the USA, the mass population is against Gay Marriage. Marriage is between Man and Woman. It is God's Law according to the Bible and it is Man's Law according to the Constitution. For the record - I am not Religious or a Homophobe, which George Weinbert who defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." It grew to mean a general "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual behavior."

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Jesus....Ok....


From your link which you say is not mainstream media...




You sure are proving this. Thats 4sure..


I am out of here, I am going to Las Vegas for the UFC on saturday and watch the Superbowl on Sunday---well I am leaving Thursday, I may be back soon.

Welcome Back!

This web site is not mainstream media and if you would have looked closer instead of taking what you want to hear or think, you might have discovered that it is indeed not mainstream media. Those are the witnesses account and IMO, they are doubtfull.

Here's some other memorable articles from this site

The Fires
The Twin Towers' Fires and Their Possible Effects

Much was made of the severity of the fires in the Twin Towers, since fires were invoked to explain failures they had never before caused. Some reports compared the heat produced by the fires to that of nuclear power plants. In fact the fires were not as severe as many other highrise fires, none of which caused the buildings to collapse. Furthermore, the fires became less severe over time, at least in the South Tower, whose smoke became thin and nearly black by the time it collapsed.

Fire-induced column failure collapse theories assume scenarios in which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at temperatures of over 800º C. There are several problems with such scenarios.

* 800º C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air. Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.

* Widespread fires reaching 700º C would have caused extensive window breakage and would have made the steel glow red-hot. No such events were observed. 1

* Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls and of the core structures were well coupled thermally. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the 100,000 tons of steel in each building to draw away the heat. In fact the fires did not even consume entire floors of either tower.

* Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.

* Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.

* As the jet fuel burned off and the fires became less severe, the columns would have cooled and regained most strength lost to elevated temperatures.

Even if such hot and widespread fires existed, they would still be unlikely to cause failures of the columns in either of the towers.

The incompatibility of any fire-triggered column-failure scenario with the observed characteristics of the fires created the need for the truss theory.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...res/index.html

Collapsing Skyscrapers
9-11 "Changed Everything", Including the Laws of Physics

When WTC 2 disintegrated into an exploding cloud of dust, obliterating 1000 vertical feet of intact structure from top to bottom as quickly as a rock would fall the distance, the news anchors were ready with a word to describe the phenomenon: collapse. To wit -- the towers fell down and crushed themselves. Never mind that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever totally collapsed of its own weight due to any cause or combination of causes -- be they bombings, severe fires, earthquakes, or hurricanes -- other than controlled demolition. Never mind that the precipitous, explosive, and symmetric disintegration of the tower didn't look anything like such a building would look if it could collapse due to collision- and fire-induced structural failure. The shock of the novelty of the attack itself could be relied on to suspend the disbelief of nearly everyone watching. The CBS anchor describing the South Tower collapse footage recorded just a few minutes earlier seems incredulous at the speed and completeness of the collapse but unquestioningly blames gravity for the destruction.

"I mean when you look at it the building has collapsed, that tower just came down."

By the time WTC 1 disintegrated, 27 minutes after WTC 2 did, the collapse of skyscrapers hit by planes had become inevitable. This was reinforced by the repeated reference to the 767-200s as "jumbo jets" -- even though they are less than half the size of a 747 -- and repeated assertions that no one had ever anticipated fuel-laden jets crashing into buildings -- when in fact the building designers had contemplated just that scenario.

Later that day not even plane impacts were necessary to level skyscrapers -- as simply being in the vicinity of the World Trade Center was sufficient to level Building 7.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...collapses.html

Changed the laws of physics eh?

The Fires' Impact
How the Towers' Fires Affected the Structural Steel

As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses. The following passage is from Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500-1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

At temperatures above 800º C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. 1 Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

* Highrise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.

* If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse remains localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.

* The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. But it will not crumble into pieces.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...res/steel.html

Clueless Super-Pilot
Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Flunky Who Never Flew a Jet

None of the hijackers were good pilots. None had ever flown jets, let alone large commercial jetliners. Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course."1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."

It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 270-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...badpilots.html

Now, that's what I ment about super, duper precision flying!

Missing Pentagon Evidence
The Suppression of Decisive Pentagon Attack Evidence

Secrecy has surrounded the aftermath of the September 11th attack of the Pentagon. The lack of evidence that a jetliner hit the building has not been questioned by the mainstream media. Immediately following the attack, actions by officials reveal a concerted program to mop up what evidence there was of the attack.
Aircraft Remains

As photographs immediately following the attack show, the punctures in the west wall of the Pentagon were far smaller than the profile of a Boeing 757-200, and the lawn was nearly immaculate, free of any large aircraft debris. The few scraps captured by photographs taken by passers-by appear to be too thin and light to be part of such an aircraft, with one conspicuous exception. Photographs show curious activities by apparent Pentagon employees at the crash site before the arrival of rescue and recovery workers.

A good deal of evidence of such activities is presented and analyzed in the documentary Painful Deceptions. A video taken from a helicopter shows a row of dozens of men in white shirts and ties walking across the lawn in front of the crash site, looking at the ground as if to scour the grass for any telltale evidence. A photo shows about a dozen similarly dressed individuals carrying away a large crate covered with a tarp. Another shows a few such men carrying away small pieces of wreckage. This was all happening around the time firefighters were arriving on the scene.
Footage of the Attack

As of September, 2003, the only video footage of the Pentagon crash that has been released to the public is a set of five frames from a Pentagon security camera north of the crash site. The first frame in this set shows an apparent aircraft, obscured by a parking lot structure, approaching the Pentagon; and the remaining four frames show an explosion.

The five frames raise a number of questions about the attack. The first frame shows a vapor trail of the kind made by missiles, not jetliners, and the mostly obscured plane is much too small to be a 757. The second frame shows an explosion whose white color indicates the detonation of an explosive rather than the combustion of jet fuel. The unreleased video frames between the first two of these frames would show the object that approached the Pentagon, and would show how rapidly the explosion expanded. The fact that the military refuses to release those frames suggests that they contradict the official story. But even more damning are the facts that no frames from the numerous other security cameras ringing the Pentagon have been released, and that the FBI confiscated video from surrounding businesses.

Wonder who those white shirts are and why are they picking up debris?

Disinformation
Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions

Ensuring the success of the official story of 9/11/01 despite the long sequence of highly improbable events it supposes required that people not pay too much attention to the details. This would be ensured by the "shock and awe" of the attack itself combined with an intense propaganda campaign to sell the official story. Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events. The idea that the entire attack was an inside job was simply too unthinkable for most Americans to consider.

The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the "meme" -- an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people's desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of "9/11 skeptics" in order to distract and discredit them.

The Official Story of September 11, and Its Apologists

On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that are remarkable given the assertions by high-ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within two days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case.

Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was nowhere to be found.

The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why is there no footage of an airliner striking the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia.

The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9-11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and "homeland security" got the attention.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

And why not take the time to listen to those guys who were actually on duty when 9/11 happened. Would those firefighters lie?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid..._firehouse.mpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ed_to_dust.mpg

Controlled Explosions?

Originally Posted by Sinner

You sure are proving this. Thats 4sure..

I just did See you on Monday Sinner

BTW, nice link Malvachat.