Obama
- Thread starter Damian B
- Start date
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
Actually, Obama could probably win the Blabbermouth voters if he put that up there LOL.
Sidenote: I wish there was some way to create a giant wrestling ring and teleport all the Islamic fundementalists there and pit them against all the US Christian Right folks. Last one standing wins, know what I mean?
Sidenote: I wish there was some way to create a giant wrestling ring and teleport all the Islamic fundementalists there and pit them against all the US Christian Right folks. Last one standing wins, know what I mean?
Alex Jones can get a lil bit nutty but he has Americas best intentions at heart, and is scary accurate with most of the info he reports. And if anyone veiws the footage of the twin tower collapse and building 7 and does not see something strange about them falling at near free fall speed into their own footprint as a bit odd....well then go ahead and turn it back to American Idol.
McBush in 08
McBush in 08
Altitudes
Stay Frosty
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
That conspiracy theory always made sense politically but seemed far-fetched realistically. As bad as the Elite in the USA are, they still have moral standards, and there's no way they'd orchestrate something like that.
Well, I'm no longer so sure that is the case. Look at all these things that were taken for granted at one point:
1. "Ya man, I really don't want Saddam to have nuclear weapons, it makes sense to go to war with Iraq, especially since they are harboring terrorists."
2. "Come on, the President wouldn't destroy someone's career just get back at her husband just because the husband spoke out against the President. Even if the President did do it, there's no WAY he'd get away with it."
3. "Oil prices have been going up because of demand, there's no hidden agenda to sucker Americans into drilling at new sites off the American coastlines."
Kings and Pawns, ladies and gents, and unfortunately there aren't many kings.
garry666
Member
- Oct 17, 2007
- 388
- 0
- 16
i dono man you can go all conspiracy thoery if you want but the truth is you live in a prety fair soceity granted its not perfect but you can either accept that theres crazy shit goin and that isnt gona change or you can go all crazy trying to figure out the truth behind the events that go on in the world today, im not saying be oblivious just say fuck it all their probally lying but theres really nothin i can do about it.
Bloody hell, get a clue. He's shockingly off-key so often that his listeners forgot what facts sound like.
The towers did NOT fall at free-fall speed. It would be understandable if they approached free-fall speed near the bottom, but they did not. This is just a very common misunderstanding of free-fall speed and basic physics.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.html
As for the 'into their own footprint' thing... a lot of debris went all over the place. Another thing to keep in mind is that the buildings are DESIGNED to NOT FLY FUCKING EVERYWHERE. Believe it or not, people who build things often know how to control their structure in ways that can determine how they stay up - or, in the case of skyscrapers, how they fall down. It's kinda handy not to have buildings that big not flop over to the side, so they were built with that in mind.
So you've looked into your 'facts' about as well as American Idol viewers search for intellectual engagement. You've attributed to evil what is most clearly extreme stupidity. You fail. Go back to school and learn what 'skepticism' means - sometimes it means disbelieving those who claim to be 'skeptical', sometimes it means understanding basic physics, but it almost always means making sure you're nobody's tool - including Alex Jones and those other shitstains on the reputation of Americans.
You can try to actually engage me on this, and you won't do too well.
Jeff
Aaron Smith
Envisage Audio
100% agreed with JBroll on the north and south towers thing. As for building 7 though (which is neither of the north or south towers), I've seen some of the videos, and it absolutely does look like a controlled demolition. Check out this video:
[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw[/ame]
Does this amount to unshakable evidence that there was government conspiracy involved with taking down building 7? In my opninion, absolutely not.
The one narrator guy taken from the PBS segment, openly reveals that the decision was made to "pull" that building, because the fire department didn't feel that they would be able to contain the fires going in that building. Makes sense, right? If they don't have the manpower to go into building 7 and fight the fires there (because what manpower they DO have, they want searching for people in the existing wreckage of the north and south towers), then they obviously don't want to let the fires burn freely and spread throughout a 47-story building...so they decide to just demolish it, since it is already damaged and there isn't a better alternative.
Here's where I think the video gets the most retarded- the closing narrator asks how it could be conceivable that in all the chaos of the day, that a demolition crew could go in there and destroy the building...normally, controlled demolitions take several days or weeks to set up for. So this is evidence that the building was already all rigged up ahead of time for demolition, right!? Wrong. I really don't think it's far-fetched at all to think that a demolition crew went in there and set up something relatively quickly (a few hours perhaps) to bring that building down. I can think of two obvious factors that would support a faster setup time in the demolition of building 7:
-The shape of the building: Building 7 is basically box-shaped, and therefore structurally is probably very simple (compared to other buildings that are not strictly box-shaped). When the guy talks about how demolitions generally take much longer to prepare for, he is making a very broad statement that lacks a lot of necessary detail. In demolishing a big casino for example, which might be much more structurally and architecturally extravagant, I could see it taking a while to ensure on paper that the explosives are planted in all the right places and discharged at precisely the right sequence to bring the building down as planned...but with a box-shaped building, it seems to obvious to me that there would be much less thinking involved with planting explosives.
-Much less need to worry about causing residual damage to other nearby buildings: I'm not saying that a demolition team would just say "Well, the whole area is already a mess, so if we destroy other nearby buildings in the process of destroying building 7, who cares!"...but what I AM saying, is that if a bit of flying debris from building 7 were to cause a little bit of damage to an already damaged building nearby, is it really a big deal? No. Demolition crews are good enough to bring down a box-shaped building and have a high-degree of certainty that it will fall straight down as it should. In a "normal" setting, where a building needs to be taken down but nothing nearby can be damaged, I can see much more time being invested into the planning and execution of a demolition (such as pre-conditioning the building to reduce flying debris risks from it), but in the case of building 7, this does not matter.
Anyway, sorry for contributing to the hijacking of the Obama thread
[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw[/ame]
Does this amount to unshakable evidence that there was government conspiracy involved with taking down building 7? In my opninion, absolutely not.
The one narrator guy taken from the PBS segment, openly reveals that the decision was made to "pull" that building, because the fire department didn't feel that they would be able to contain the fires going in that building. Makes sense, right? If they don't have the manpower to go into building 7 and fight the fires there (because what manpower they DO have, they want searching for people in the existing wreckage of the north and south towers), then they obviously don't want to let the fires burn freely and spread throughout a 47-story building...so they decide to just demolish it, since it is already damaged and there isn't a better alternative.
Here's where I think the video gets the most retarded- the closing narrator asks how it could be conceivable that in all the chaos of the day, that a demolition crew could go in there and destroy the building...normally, controlled demolitions take several days or weeks to set up for. So this is evidence that the building was already all rigged up ahead of time for demolition, right!? Wrong. I really don't think it's far-fetched at all to think that a demolition crew went in there and set up something relatively quickly (a few hours perhaps) to bring that building down. I can think of two obvious factors that would support a faster setup time in the demolition of building 7:
-The shape of the building: Building 7 is basically box-shaped, and therefore structurally is probably very simple (compared to other buildings that are not strictly box-shaped). When the guy talks about how demolitions generally take much longer to prepare for, he is making a very broad statement that lacks a lot of necessary detail. In demolishing a big casino for example, which might be much more structurally and architecturally extravagant, I could see it taking a while to ensure on paper that the explosives are planted in all the right places and discharged at precisely the right sequence to bring the building down as planned...but with a box-shaped building, it seems to obvious to me that there would be much less thinking involved with planting explosives.
-Much less need to worry about causing residual damage to other nearby buildings: I'm not saying that a demolition team would just say "Well, the whole area is already a mess, so if we destroy other nearby buildings in the process of destroying building 7, who cares!"...but what I AM saying, is that if a bit of flying debris from building 7 were to cause a little bit of damage to an already damaged building nearby, is it really a big deal? No. Demolition crews are good enough to bring down a box-shaped building and have a high-degree of certainty that it will fall straight down as it should. In a "normal" setting, where a building needs to be taken down but nothing nearby can be damaged, I can see much more time being invested into the planning and execution of a demolition (such as pre-conditioning the building to reduce flying debris risks from it), but in the case of building 7, this does not matter.
Anyway, sorry for contributing to the hijacking of the Obama thread
Headof75
Somewhere in Brum
- Jun 16, 2008
- 238
- 2
- 18
Umm..yeah...thing is, did these ever seem clear and straightforward to you? None of these are exactly hidden agendas or indeed anything new.
1. As soon as McBush and Co. (still chuckling about that btw) issued the ultimatum about 'decapitating the leadership' in Iraq, it was clear that weapons of terror or indeed terrorism were no longer the issues. Lots has already been said about this so I won't go any further.
2. I don't really know what you're specifically referring to here, but the simple fact is presidents/prime ministers will do ANYTHING to protect their own careers. The key word here is career. If you pay someone a lot of money to do a powerful job that immediately becomes an attractive thing, there will be competition, and the people concerned will do anything and everything in their power to further their own causes. You should consider that to be president you ALREADY have to be ten times more of an asshole than everyone else even to get to the nomination stage!
3. Oil prices have been going up due to demand, or mor accurately, lack of supply. Politicians in the States may use this to further their own agendas, but it's a global trend, not just limited to the US. Here in the UK prices at the pump have gone up 33% in eighteen months.
Ultimately I have to agree with garry666 on this one. Short of instigating a full-scale social revolution, for which you will end up in Guantanamo Bay long before you achieve anything, there is little that any of us can do to change the status quo, so you just have to laugh about it, and try to find your own way out.
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
The link to the site Jeff put up (I have read in it's entirety some time ago) suggest there was absolutely no demolition concerning WTC 7.
If I remember right, it makes no mention of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#September_11.2C_2001_attacks
I'm pretty sure anyways.
The battle of Physics:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=0
I believe NEU-FONZE is Dr. Frank Greening, David B. Benson & ScottS is there too. Which contributed to the http://www.debunking911.com/ site.
I'm still in the grey area about all this. Something smells bad but morality & faith are blinding.
100% agreed with JBroll on the north and south towers thing. As for building 7 though (which is neither of the north or south towers), I've seen some of the videos, and it absolutely does look like a controlled demolition. Check out this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw
Does this amount to unshakable evidence that there was government conspiracy involved with taking down building 7? In my opninion, absolutely not.
The one narrator guy taken from the PBS segment, openly reveals that the decision was made to "pull" that building, because the fire department didn't feel that they would be able to contain the fires going in that building. Makes sense, right? If they don't have the manpower to go into building 7 and fight the fires there (because what manpower they DO have, they want searching for people in the existing wreckage of the north and south towers), then they obviously don't want to let the fires burn freely and spread throughout a 47-story building...so they decide to just demolish it, since it is already damaged and there isn't a better alternative.
Here's where I think the video gets the most retarded- the closing narrator asks how it could be conceivable that in all the chaos of the day, that a demolition crew could go in there and destroy the building...normally, controlled demolitions take several days or weeks to set up for. So this is evidence that the building was already all rigged up ahead of time for demolition, right!? Wrong. I really don't think it's far-fetched at all to think that a demolition crew went in there and set up something relatively quickly (a few hours perhaps) to bring that building down. I can think of two obvious factors that would support a faster setup time in the demolition of building 7:
-The shape of the building: Building 7 is basically box-shaped, and therefore structurally is probably very simple (compared to other buildings that are not strictly box-shaped). When the guy talks about how demolitions generally take much longer to prepare for, he is making a very broad statement that lacks a lot of necessary detail. In demolishing a big casino for example, which might be much more structurally and architecturally extravagant, I could see it taking a while to ensure on paper that the explosives are planted in all the right places and discharged at precisely the right sequence to bring the building down as planned...but with a box-shaped building, it seems to obvious to me that there would be much less thinking involved with planting explosives.
-Much less need to worry about causing residual damage to other nearby buildings: I'm not saying that a demolition team would just say "Well, the whole area is already a mess, so if we destroy other nearby buildings in the process of destroying building 7, who cares!"...but what I AM saying, is that if a bit of flying debris from building 7 were to cause a little bit of damage to an already damaged building nearby, is it really a big deal? No. Demolition crews are good enough to bring down a box-shaped building and have a high-degree of certainty that it will fall straight down as it should. In a "normal" setting, where a building needs to be taken down but nothing nearby can be damaged, I can see much more time being invested into the planning and execution of a demolition (such as pre-conditioning the building to reduce flying debris risks from it), but in the case of building 7, this does not matter.
Anyway, sorry for contributing to the hijacking of the Obama thread
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Jeff
do a google on "northwood"
the government was plotting to commit acts of terrorism and murder against its own people over 40 years ago in order to further pursue their own selfish interests, and i doubt the joint chiefs of staff are any more "moral" today than they were then
scorpio01169
Member
Are you kidding? This is a political discussion on a forum! We can't substantiate our claims!
Jeff
Jeff
Manicompression
doing it for the kids
this video doesnt exist, the Obama camp lauched some website to try to defect some of the rumors from growing out of control, about 6 months too late in my opinion as 006 is far from the only one who heard, believed and repeated this. I think the pattern you can expect to see from the Republican party for the rest of the election cycle will be FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, as its one of the only angles they have to play.
Similar threads
