|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Proof that WTC7 was "pulled" BBC reports it 20 minutes before it happened.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Frankly |
Fates......................you crack us ALL UP!
You are hilarious, you mad MAN, you.
(now back to your nap). Have some more Kool-Aid first, and please wear you tinFoil hat with pride. |
|
|
| spankysxxx |
| I know in Los Angeles during the earthquake ('94) that there were several medical buildings in the area where I am that were reported to be "coming down" for days before it happened. They had begun to list ever so slightly until the toppling began or a crane had to pull it/ knock it down because it was unfixable. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
well you sure showed me. |
I see you don't touch my questions. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I see you don't touch my questions. |
YEAH, another ego driven statement that only deflects from your inability to answer everyone else's questions.
Looks like more people don't buy your shit ,...........................AGAIN! |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
YEAH, another ego driven statement that only deflects from your inability to answer everyone else's questions.
Looks like more people don't buy your shit ,...........................AGAIN! |
Well, I'd ask you to take a crack at it, but it would require researching, which is beyong your capability. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Well, I'd ask you to take a crack at it, but it would require researching, which is beyong your capability. |
Typical response from you. You brought the subject up...now defend it and explain it. Anyone else's participation is secondary to your thesis and its defense.
Now explain the math or shut the fuck up!
You can't do it! |
|
|
| Stickman |
| You don't even know what you're babbling about. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
You don't even know what you're babbling about. |
I am babbling about the fact that I pointed out an error in your assumptions. (You know the one's you posted as proof of something - but that you can't seem to back up) That you still don't seem to know what a calculation is. That I have posted the equations you need to get started. And your only response has been a comment about a calculator and a douchebag.
And you claim, I am not addressing the questions. Boy you are a piece of work stick. |
|
|
| Stickman |
| i was talking to Billy, TT. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
i was talking to Billy, TT. |
well that should get you out of addressing my posts. |
|
|
| Stickman |
| Call it the Law of Proceeding Posts. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
I am babbling about the fact that I pointed out an error in your assumptions. (You know the one's you posted as proof of something - but that you can't seem to back up) That you still don't seem to know what a calculation is. That I have posted the equations you need to get started. And your only response has been a comment about a calculator and a douchebag.
And you claim, I am not addressing the questions. Boy you are a piece of work stick. |
It doesn't matter who he is addressing TT. He can't answer the questions in a responsible manner.
He can use me all he wants to deflect from the real issue of his inadequacy as a faux scientist.
Nice try stickman..........you are still just jerking off. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
He can't answer the questions in a responsible manner.
Nice try stickman..........you are still just jerking off. |
How responsible of you. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
How responsible of you. |
Thats about all you can say since you have no qualified defense for your nonsense! |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I see you don't touch my questions. |
Um, you made statements and I am addressing them. It is you that doesn't seem to want to play. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Um, you made statements and I am addressing them. It is you that doesn't seem to want to play. |
Post #791 asks some specific questions. You didn't go near them. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Post #791 asks some specific questions. You didn't go near them. |
Yes, because those points were an attempt to change the subject. In posts before that you made claims and either cannot or will not back them up. Changing the subject just shows that you do not have the ability to back up your earlier claims. I even pointed out an obvious error in your "calculation" that you have not addressed. Why don't you try backing up your shit before you change the subject.
Don't you realise that your inability (or unwillingness) to back up your statements make what arguments you do have appear weak. |
|
|
| Stickman |
So you get to choose what I have to answer and how I have to answer it, but you don't have to address anything I ask because it would be changing the subject?
You really don't see how lame that makes you look, do you? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
So you get to choose what I have to answer and how I have to answer it, but you don't have to address anything I ask because it would be changing the subject?
You really don't see how lame that makes you look, do you? |
You are the one that brought up "Conservation of Momentum" and your "formula". YOU. I am trying to address it, but you change the subject when asked questions. And you think that makes me look lame? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
So you get to choose what I have to answer and how I have to answer it, but you don't have to address anything I ask because it would be changing the subject?
You really don't see how lame that makes you look, do you? |
How fucking lame is this explanation. The use of pretzel logic certainly confirms the fact you are not equipped to defend your theory with anything more than nonsense! |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
You are the one that brought up "Conservation of Momentum" and your "formula". YOU. I am trying to address it, but you change the subject when asked questions. And you think that makes me look lame? |
Do you think for some reason that on 9/11 that immutable law was suspended? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Always with the question for an answer style. Its too ambiguous for critical debate and a cornerstone of your inability to explain anything. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Do you think for some reason that on 9/11 that immutable law was suspended? |
Ok look, I'll try one last time. You claim to know math and physics for your "job". I am trying very hard to discuss "that immutable law" and it's relation to information you posted.
If you have any interest in a rational debate of this issue then please, either address my comments (ON YOUR POINTS), or admit that you can't and move on to something you can address. I suspect I know your answer and it has something to do with me being a douche. I would love for you to surprise me with an honest answer. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Ok look, I'll try one last time. You claim to know math and physics for your "job". I am trying very hard to discuss "that immutable law" and it's relation to information you posted.
If you have any interest in a rational debate of this issue then please, either address my comments (ON YOUR POINTS), or admit that you can't and move on to something you can address. I suspect I know your answer and it has something to do with me being a douche. I would love for you to surprise me with an honest answer. |
Here, I'll try one last time. Why don't you either ask me a specific question or provide a better analysis than the one I provided, complete with calculations that explain how the energy was created to send the mass of the upper tower through the central core of the building without affording for resistance.
No two collapses can possibly be alike, so please provide the analysis that explains how this happened for each of the three towers that collapsed that day. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Dr. Steven Jones on "The Law of Conservation of Momentum" and WTC 7:
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists
( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/ana...ofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very (Journal of 9/11 Studies 28 September 2006/Volume 3) rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/ana...ofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2).
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum –
one of the foundational Laws of Physics? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
So again you are full of shit... a parroted line from the noted wacko Dr Jones.
You always have to modify or change the subject instead of answering it directly.
It just compounds your lack of credibility. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
So again you are full of shit... a parroted line from the noted wacko Dr Jones.
You always have to modify or change the subject instead of answering it directly.
It just compounds your lack of credibility. |
Listen you litte weasel. All you do is chime in with ridiculous comments that offer nothing. You don't know the official story, you don't know the alternative theories, you don't know who Dr. Jones is.
Go ahead and explain why Dr. Jones is a wacko. Better yet, explain why his question, which is the same as my question, is not legitimate.
Try doing that without exclamation points or juvenile douchiness. You are a total loser on this board and any head to head debate between you and me would be a very embarassing situation for you. You pussied out on several of my challenges already. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
[QUOTE=Stickman][B]Listen you litte weasel.
Now you have to deflect from your inability to explain a math problem by calling me names? That is really pathetic. Let me ask you this direct question. HOW many people have criticized me for what I say, versus how many have criticized you?
Big difference in numbers, EH PARROTHEAD!
So run along and google some more nonsense tough guy and just keep confirming what is wide spread knowledge. You can't explain shit!
. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Here, I'll try one last time. Why don't you either ask me a specific question or provide a better analysis than the one I provided, complete with calculations that explain how the energy was created to send the mass of the upper tower through the central core of the building without affording for resistance.
No two collapses can possibly be alike, so please provide the analysis that explains how this happened for each of the three towers that collapsed that day. |
Your just too much stick. THERE WAS NO FUCKING CALCULATION IN WHAT YOU POSTED!!! Your continued assertion do not make it so (again most calculations have an = sign in them somewhere). And I pointed out a specific error in your list of numbers and referred back to it several times. YOU HAVE NEVER ADDRESSED IT. So much for your specific questions. Also tried to walk through the calculations with you, going as far as posting some of the base equations to see if we could agree on terms. Your only answer to repeated specific questions on this topic has been name calling.
You claim lots of things but back up nothing - resorting to name calling and diversions. It doesn't fool any of us. Does it fool you? |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Your just too much stick. THERE WAS NO FUCKING CALCULATION IN WHAT YOU POSTED!!! Your continued assertion do not make it so (again most calculations have an = sign in them somewhere). And I pointed out a specific error in your list of numbers and referred back to it several times. YOU HAVE NEVER ADDRESSED IT. So much for your specific questions. Also tried to walk through the calculations with you, going as far as posting some of the base equations to see if we could agree on terms. Your only answer to repeated specific questions on this topic has been name calling.
You claim lots of things but back up nothing - resorting to name calling and diversions. It doesn't fool any of us. Does it fool you? |
Your post smells of desperation. Now post the calculation that explains how core columns were severed when they didn't suffer heat past 250C. Explain how core columns collapsed at the same time as exterior columns. Now explain how this happened three times.
Good luck on that and stop whining like a bitch. |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Your post smells of desperation. Now post the calculation that explains how core columns were severed when they didn't suffer heat past 250C. Explain how core columns collapsed at the same time as exterior columns. Now explain how this happened three times.
Good luck on that and stop whining like a bitch. |
I was wondering when your accusation of someone being desperate was going to come out. This is one of your dumber tricks when you're looking like an idiot. The old stickwad I'm getting slapped around reverse psychology tactic....good job. Isn't it about time to take an emergency workers words out of context. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Your post smells of desperation. . |
Yes I desperately want you to quit trying to move the goal posts and try to back up some of the stupid shit you post. If you can't why not stop looking like a fool and admit it. You would gain a lot more respect that way. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Seriously, you guys bitch and moan that I don't back up what I say, but I've posted objective, multiple choice tests on 9/11, that you faggots wouldn't even take. If you did take them, you'd find out how little you know about the official story.
I've never seen any of you post an analysis of the collapse, an analysis of the Shanksville site, the Pentagon site, nothing. I know more about the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission Report, Popular Mechanics bullshit, than you guys do. You don't even know the story you are supporting.
So stop going round and around on this. Ask a simple question, post some articles, or a fact, anything, but you guys really need to change your fucking pad and do some research. You're being had. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Seriously, you guys bitch and moan that I don't back up what I say, but I've posted objective, multiple choice tests on 9/11, that you faggots wouldn't even take. |
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
you guys bitch and moan that I don't back up what I say, but I've posted objective, multiple choice tests on 9/11
That is one of the funniest things you have ever said. |
|
|
| Stickman |
It's true, and I posted the footnotes for every question too.
What's so funny about that? |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
I posted an independant scientific poll and you refused to answer, so I guess that means there was no conspiracy.
Your test was pretty stupid and filled with leading questions that had nothing to do with the silly story your were telling. No one should have played along with that transparent game. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
I posted an independant scientific poll and you refused to answer, so I guess that means there was no conspiracy.
Your test was pretty stupid and filled with leading questions that had nothing to do with the silly story your were telling. No one should have played along with that transparent game. |
Really?
Like how many World Trade Center buildings were destroyed? |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
I've never seen any of you post an analysis of the collapse, an analysis of the Shanksville site, the Pentagon site, nothing. I know more about the NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission Report, Popular Mechanics bullshit, than you guys do. You don't even know the story you are supporting.
. |
Conspiracy tactic number 2.... Pretend evidence by realists was never presented OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. This is my favorite one, it shows how narrow minded you are. Details have been provided in multiple threads that it just get's old repeating them....what the hell is the point, it's not like you read anything that's not printed by a like minded loon. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Conspiracy tactic number 2.... Pretend evidence by realists was never presented OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. This is my favorite one, it shows how narrow minded you are. Details have been provided in multiple threads that it just get's old repeating them....what the hell is the point, it's not like you read anything that's not printed by a like minded loon. |
Thanks for illustrating my point. |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Really?
Like how many World Trade Center buildings were destroyed? |
Including Deutche Bank.... Either way, how is this irrrelevent considering planes crashed into 2 110 story buildings causing a collapse. All the bulidings in the immediate complex below were obviously destroyed. One bulding on the outside edge (the one that received a direct him from a crumbling 110 story buidling) collapsed, and one that was essentially after the damage it suffered was so unstable that it was never occupied again....regardless, pointless question that proves nothing. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Including Deutche Bank.... regardless, pointless question that proves nothing. |
It proves that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Deutsche Bank bldg was not part of the World Trade Center. I would expect someone familiar with Manhattan to know that.
Boy it didn't take long to prove my point. You don't know your shit. Come back and yell and scream at me when you know something. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
It's true, and I posted the footnotes for every question too.
What's so funny about that? |
Well after zimmie , you are the biggest joke on the internet . So thats why everyone is laughing at you |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Thanks for illustrating my point. |
Seriously dumbass, you've seen the evidence against in just about every thread on this subject. Just because you seem to think it's evidence to post the same stupid shit over and over again doesn't mean everyone should be obligated to post evidence that you're going to continually act like it was presented to you. What hasn't been detailed. A plane crashed into PA; you presented the eyewitnesses for that one. A plane crashed into the Pentagon; I showed you multiple eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the building as well as detail analysis of the parts that were found, how the damage was incurred, and what happens when a plane hits a concrete wall via a video of just that. On WTC 7, you have the firefighters in charge talking about the signifigant damage and fires as well as the pending collapse base on those 2 things. On WTC 1 and 2, you have the fact that the 2 planes hit them....which I believe even you agree with. You've seen evidence that steel is weakened and you've been presented (in this very thread) with past evidence of what happens to structures in a fire...What else do you want; how much more can you just ignore to keep a stupid story going. |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
It proves that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The Deutsche Bank bldg was not part of the World Trade Center. I would expect someone familiar with Manhattan to know that.
Boy it didn't take long to prove my point. You don't know your shit. Come back and yell and scream at me when you know something. |
That's the point dumbass...I know where you're going with your stupid leading Silverstein question that means nothing. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
What else do you want; how much more can you just ignore to keep a stupid story going. |
Obviously a lot since stickman is only an attention whore and not a scholar! |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
Seriously dumbass, you've seen the evidence against in just about every thread on this subject. Just because you seem to think it's evidence to post the same stupid shit over and over again doesn't mean everyone should be obligated to post evidence that you're going to continually act like it was presented to you. What hasn't been detailed. A plane crashed into PA; you presented the eyewitnesses for that one. A plane crashed into the Pentagon; I showed you multiple eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the building as well as detail analysis of the parts that were found, how the damage was incurred, and what happens when a plane hits a concrete wall via a video of just that. On WTC 7, you have the firefighters in charge talking about the signifigant damage and fires as well as the pending collapse base on those 2 things. On WTC 1 and 2, you have the fact that the 2 planes hit them....which I believe even you agree with. You've seen evidence that steel is weakened and you've been presented (in this very thread) with past evidence of what happens to structures in a fire...What else do you want; how much more can you just ignore to keep a stupid story going. |
Consider breaking up your large block of text into readable passages. |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Consider breaking up your large block of text into readable passages. |
You have a preferred format for stuff you're just ignore. Isn't it about time to talked about Scott Forbes or the fake Bin Laden video. Tell me, where do you stand on that one. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Consider breaking up your large block of text into readable passages. |
Another confirmation of laziness. Just adds to the list of PARROTING, cut and paste, deflection, denial, changing information to suit his own purposes, and the general ignorance that is stickman.
:D :D :D :D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
You have a preferred format for stuff you're just ignore. Isn't it about time to talked about Scott Forbes or the fake Bin Laden video. Tell me, where do you stand on that one. |
On what? The Bin Laden video? That's not one of my preferred pieces of evidence. You will not find me promoting that on here. I've discussed it, but there is much stronger evidence. Are you familiar with the back story on the video? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| OFFICIAL SHIT THREAD! |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
On what? The Bin Laden video? That's not one of my preferred pieces of evidence. You will not find me promoting that on here. I've discussed it, but there is much stronger evidence. Are you familiar with the back story on the video? |
So, it's up to the realists to argue individual theories. You believe the video is real, some people don't. For the Pentagon, some loons say there was plane, some say a missile, some say a Global Hawak. For PA, some say no plane, some say a missile, some say a holograph.....Can't your cult agree on one silly storyline. This really bothers me. It allows you people (as you do) to change your story on the fly by not sticking to just one....
By the way, I'm not answering yet another leading question by you. The back story of the video and where it came from is not proof of anything. If you think it is, you owe a made up story for every threat ever made by Al Qeda, and you need a story for every attack they were ever involved in. |
|
|
| nunpuncher |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
So, it's up to the realists to argue individual theories. You believe the video is real, some people don't. For the Pentagon, some loons say there was plane, some say a missile, some say a Global Hawak. For PA, some say no plane, some say a missile, some say a holograph.....Can't your cult agree on one silly storyline. This really bothers me. It allows you people (as you do) to change your story on the fly by not sticking to just one....
By the way, I'm not answering yet another leading question by you. The back story of the video and where it came from is not proof of anything. If you think it is, you owe a made up story for every threat ever made by Al Qeda, and you need a story for every attack they were ever involved in. |
more time well spent
remember im the dumb one |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by nunpuncher
more time well spent
remember im the dumb one |
You're probably right, debating that silly story does seem stupid sometimes. My bad with the English remark, I don't like resorting to the grammar police rebuttal. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules
So, it's up to the realists to argue individual theories. You believe the video is real, some people don't. For the Pentagon, some loons say there was plane, some say a missile, some say a Global Hawak. For PA, some say no plane, some say a missile, some say a holograph.....Can't your cult agree on one silly storyline. This really bothers me. It allows you people (as you do) to change your story on the fly by not sticking to just one....
By the way, I'm not answering yet another leading question by you. The back story of the video and where it came from is not proof of anything. If you think it is, you owe a made up story for every threat ever made by Al Qeda, and you need a story for every attack they were ever involved in. |
What's the matter, Snoop? You didn't get the answer you wanted. Why should I be responsible for every theory out there.
I got bad news for you, despite what the debunkers say, there aren't that many conflicting theories. Popular Mechanics and people like you tend to focus on the least credible theories and disregard the rest.
It's funny to me that you never even bothered to find out exactly how many bldgs were destroyed in the WTC. And you don't have to include the Deutsche Bank bldg, since it was never part of the WTC. Oh boy, you make this too easy. |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
What's the matter, Snoop? You didn't get the answer you wanted. Why should I be responsible for every theory out there.
I got bad news for you, despite what the debunkers say, there aren't that many conflicting theories. Popular Mechanics and people like you tend to focus on the least credible theories and disregard the rest.
It's funny to me that you never even bothered to find out exactly how many bldgs were destroyed in the WTC. And you don't have to include the Deutsche Bank bldg, since it was never part of the WTC. Oh boy, you make this too easy. |
You're an idiot. I mention Deutche Bank because you love to say only Silverstein buildings got hit. Since this is not a WTC building, your stupid Silverstein only buildings crap falls apart. You're forced to stretch it to some giant CIA leap to have this building inclued.
You also continue to prove you don't listen. I've shown a picture of all the buildings that were destroyed in this thread (post #360). Obviously 3-6 would fall they're in the same complex. That's no f-ing Silverstein conspiracy. That's logic. It's just an illustration that your so ass deep into this stupid story that you have no interest in actually discussing how stupid it is. To do that, you'd have to admit your one of the biggest idiots on this board, and that would be tough. |
|
|
| Stickman |
From what I get, every question I ask you is irrelevent.
Where the tape comes from, irrelevent
Total number of buildings, irrelevent
Only Silverstein owned buildings collapsed, irrelevent
No serially coded plane parts in PA or the Pentagon, irrelevent
Who occupied WTC 7, irrelevent
Who sat on the BOD for security of the WTC, irrelevent
Who transferred funds to Atta, irrelevent
The 9/11 Commission and the Administration love you. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
| Stickman......irrelevent. |
|
|
| Snoopyrules |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
From what I get, every question I ask you is irrelevent.
Where the tape comes from, irrelevent
Total number of buildings, irrelevent
Only Silverstein owned buildings collapsed, irrelevent
No serially coded plane parts in PA or the Pentagon, irrelevent
Who occupied WTC 7, irrelevent
Who sat on the BOD for security of the WTC, irrelevent
Who transferred funds to Atta, irrelevent
The 9/11 Commission and the Administration love you. |
Where the tape comes from, irrelevent - Completely irrelevent. It is a tape of a known terrorist that orchestrated global attacks confessing.
Total number of buildings, irrelevent - Of course it is....look at the picture, the buidlings below were obviously destroyed.
Only Silverstein owned buildings collapsed, irrelevent - This is stuipd for so many reason. First 1 and 2 were hit with planes and 3-6 were directly below, Two other buildings were ruined including the one that had the most damage (WTC 7) the other (Deutche Bank) was never used again and it's not a Silverstein buidling. Let's also wonder why they would even warn anyone that it was going to collapse, part of the plan was to have people die...what'd they have a change of heart. Why we're at it, why was the post office (a completeley government occupied building) not demolished.
No serially coded plane parts in PA or the Pentagon, irrelevent - This is completely idiotic based on your own theory. You acknowledged there was a plane. Where are the serially coded plane parts.... you made an ass out of yourself when you tried to explain your thoughts about flight 93, you should stop.
Who occupied WTC 7, irrelevent - Yes, completely idiotic because you're including everyone who worked in any capacity as being part of your stupid story. Than on top of this, there is a claim that the 9/11 planning was in this building....how f-ing stupid is that. They would take that chance....
Who sat on the BOD for security of the WTC, irrelevent - Yes, these are 2 of the most important buildings in the financial capital of the world. It would not be impossible to have someone's brother on the board. What is relevent is the fact that it would not be possible to take power down in that building without a shitload of people working for those highly secure financial institutions knowing.
Who transferred funds to Atta, irrelevent - Prove it and prove it's relevence.. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Stickman......irrelevent. |
That's on a Billy level of cleverness. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Another deflection of a truth! |
|
|
| nunpuncher |
[QUOTE=Snoopyrules]You're probably right, debating that silly story does seem stupid sometimes. My bad with the English remark, I don't like resorting to the grammar police rebuttal. [/QUOTE
see right here snoopy this is why your one of my fav posters here |
|
|
| KOAJaps |
We're fighting a war against terror after 9/11, we're going after the Sunnis, Hamas, Al Qaeda and so on. Tower 7 for example was living proof that these organizations caused the collapse and President Bush said that we will not deal with terrorists. Keep in mind, terrorists allegedly knock down the WTC 1, 2, 7 and the Pentagon. I say allegedly because no one was charged and the mastermind behind this plot was never charged:
MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON
A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH
USAMA BIN LADEN
Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, The Prince, The Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, The Director
DESCRIPTION
Date of Birth Used: 1957 Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia Eyes: Brown
Height: 6'4" to 6'6" Sex: Male
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds Complexion: Olive
Build: Thin Citizenship: Saudi Arabian
Language: Arabic (probably Pashtu)
Scars and Marks: None known
Remarks: Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.
CAUTION
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
REWARD
The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS
IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS PERSON, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST AMERICAN EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.
And nothing on 9/11...hmmm. But that's not why I restarted this thread but because of this story from the New York Times:
[CENTER]U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies[CENTER]
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALISSA J. RUBIN
Correction Appended
BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
American commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province west of Baghdad and have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong. In some cases, the American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups. Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.
American officers who have engaged in what they call outreach to the Sunni groups say many of them have had past links to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia but grew disillusioned with the Islamic militants’ extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases, Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps.
But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans’ arming both sides in a future civil war. The United States has spent more than $15 billion in building up Iraq’s army and police force, whose manpower of 350,000 is heavily Shiite. With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.
American field commanders met this month in Baghdad with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, to discuss the conditions Sunni groups would have to meet to win American assistance. Senior officers who attended the meeting said that General Petraeus and the operational commander who is the second-ranking American officer here, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, gave cautious approval to field commanders to negotiate with Sunni groups in their areas.
One commander who attended the meeting said that despite the risks in arming groups that have until now fought against the Americans, the potential gains against Al Qaeda were too great to be missed. He said the strategy held out the prospect of finally driving a wedge between two wings of the Sunni insurgency that had previously worked in a devastating alliance — die-hard loyalists of Saddam Hussein’s formerly dominant Baath Party, and Islamic militants belonging to a constellation of groups linked to Al Qaeda.
Even if only partly successful, the officer said, the strategy could do as much or more to stabilize Iraq, and to speed American troops on their way home, as the increase in troops ordered by President Bush late last year, which has thrown nearly 30,000 additional American troops into the war but failed so far to fulfill the aim of bringing enhanced stability to Baghdad. An initial decline in sectarian killings in Baghdad in the first two months of the troop buildup has reversed, with growing numbers of bodies showing up each day in the capital. Suicide bombings have dipped in Baghdad but increased elsewhere, as Qaeda groups, confronted with great American troop numbers, have shifted their operations elsewhere.
The strategy of arming Sunni groups was first tested earlier this year in Anbar Province, the desert hinterland west of Baghdad, and attacks on American troops plunged after tribal sheiks, angered by Qaeda strikes that killed large numbers of Sunni civilians, recruited thousands of men to join government security forces and the tribal police. With Qaeda groups quitting the province for Sunni havens elsewhere, Anbar has lost its long-held reputation as the most dangerous place in Iraq for American troops.
Now, the Americans are testing the “Anbar model” across wide areas of Sunni-dominated Iraq. The areas include parts of Baghdad, notably the Sunni stronghold of Amiriya, a district that flanks the highway leading to Baghdad’s international airport; the area south of the capital in Babil province known as the Triangle of Death, site of an ambush in which four American soldiers were killed last month and three others abducted, one of whose bodies was found in the Euphrates; Diyala Province north and east of Baghdad, an area of lush palm groves and orchards which has replaced Anbar as Al Qaeda’s main sanctuary in Iraq; and Salahuddin Province, also north of Baghdad, the home area of Saddam Hussein.
Although the American engagement with the Sunni groups has brought some early successes against Al Qaeda, particularly in Anbar, many of the problems that hampered earlier American efforts to reach out to insurgents remain unchanged. American commanders say the Sunni groups they are negotiating with show few signs of wanting to work with the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. For their part, Shiite leaders are deeply suspicious of any American move to co-opt Sunni groups that are wedded to a return to Sunni political dominance.
With the agreement to arm some Sunni groups, the Americans also appear to have made a tacit recognition that earlier demands for the disarming of Shiite militia groups are politically unachievable for now given the refusal of powerful Shiite political parties to shed their armed wings. In effect, the Americans seem to have concluded that as long as the Shiites maintain their militias, Shiite leaders are in a poor position to protest the arming of Sunni groups whose activities will be under close American scrutiny.
But officials of Mr. Maliki’s government have placed strict limits on the Sunni groups they are willing to countenance as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda. One leading Shiite politician, Sheik Khalik al-Atiyah, the deputy Parliament speaker, said in a recent interview that he would rule out any discussion of an amnesty for Sunni Arab insurgents, even those who commit to fighting Al Qaeda. Similarly, many American commanders oppose rewarding Sunni Arab groups who have been responsible, even tangentially, for any of the more than 29,000 American casualties in the war, including more than 3,500 deaths. Equally daunting for American commanders is the risk that Sunni groups receiving American backing could effectively double-cross the Americans, taking weapons and turning them against American and Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government forces.
Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division and leader of an American task force fighting in a wide area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers immediately south of Baghdad, said at a briefing for reporters on Sunday that no American support would be given to any Sunni group that had attacked Americans. If the Americans negotiating with Sunni groups in his area had “specific information” that the group or any of its members had killed Americans, he said, “The negotiation is going to go like this: ‘You’re under arrest, and you’re going with me.’ I’m not going to go out and negotiate with folks who have American blood on their hands.”
One of the conditions set by the American commanders who met in Baghdad was that any group receiving weapons must submit its fighters for biometric tests that would include taking fingerprints and retinal scans. The American conditions, senior officers said, also include registering the serial numbers of all weapons, steps the Americans believe will help in tracing fighters who use the weapons in attacks against American or Iraqi troops. The fighters who have received American backing in the Amiriya district of Baghdad were required to undergo the tests, the officers said.
The requirement that no support be given to insurgent groups that have attacked Americans appeared to have been set aside or loosely enforced in negotiations with the Sunni groups elsewhere, including Amiriya, where American units that have supported Sunni groups fighting to oust Al Qaeda have told reporters they believe that the Sunni groups include insurgents who had fought the Americans. The Americans have bolstered Sunni groups in Amiriya by empowering them to detain suspected Qaeda fighters and approving ammunition supplies to Sunni fighters from Iraqi Army units.
In Anbar, there have been negotiations with factions from the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a Sunni insurgent group with strong Baathist links that has a history of attacking Americans. In Diyala, insurgents who have joined the Iraqi Army have told reporters that they switched sides after working for the 1920 group. And in an agreement announced by the American command on Sunday, 130 tribal sheiks in Salahuddin met in the provincial capital, Tikrit, to form police units that would “defend” against Al Qaeda.
General Lynch said American commanders would face hard decisions in choosing which groups to support. “This isn’t a black and white place,” he said. “There are good guys and bad guys and there are groups in between,” and separating them was a major challenge. He said some groups that had approached the Americans had made no secret of their enmity.
“They say, ‘We hate you because you are occupiers’ ” he said, “ ‘but we hate Al Qaeda worse, and we hate the Persians even more.’ ” Sunni militants refer to Iraq’s Shiites as Persians, a reference to the strong links between Iraqi Shiites and the Shiites who predominate in Iran.
An Iraqi government official who was reached by telephone on Sunday said the government was uncomfortable with the American negotiations with the Sunni groups because they offered no guarantee that the militias would be loyal to anyone other than the American commander in their immediate area. “The government’s aim is to disarm and demobilize the militias in Iraq,” said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Mr. Maliki. “And we have enough militias in Iraq that we are struggling now to solve the problem. Why are we creating new ones?”
Despite such views, General Lynch said, the Americans believed that Sunni groups offering to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American and Iraqi forces met a basic condition for re-establishing stability in insurgent-hit areas: they had roots in the areas where they operated, and thus held out the prospect of building security from the ground up. He cited areas in Babil Province where there were “no security forces, zero, zilch,” and added: “When you’ve got people who say, ‘I want to protect my neighbors,’ we ought to jump like a duck on a june bug.”
Damien Cave and Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting.
Correction: June 12, 2007
A front-page article yesterday about the American military’s new strategy of arming some Sunni Arab groups in Iraq gave an incorrect identification in some copies for the river where the body of a kidnapped American soldier was found last month. It was the Euphrates, not the Tigris.
So can someone explain to me if the Sunnis are killing soldiers and they do have ties with Al Qaeda, who allegedly caused 9/11, shouldn't we not then avoid these scums? Apparently Bush thinks otherwise. And if 9/11 was caused by Muhammad Atta, wouldn't the borders be closed? Makes no sense...unless it's a lie |
|
|
| jigzaw |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
