Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Ranxer and Geggy, RE: 9/11
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Ranxer and Geggy, RE: 9/11 Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jun 2nd, 2006 09:47 AM
Geggy LIke I've said several times in the past...i don't give a shit about what hit the pentagon. On the other hand I challenge the NIST on the collapsing of WTC...

NIST only obtained as little as over 200 pieces of steel out of 200,000 tons each of the towers from the rubble. Because of limited evidence for analysis, they could only conclude that steel never went over 600 degrees C. They had to rely on computer model to further their testing and explain how the towers felled from the fire.

I cant prove that the three buildings including WTC7 was definitely brought down with explosives but I can show you why I think that they were...Here is a building implosion project performed by controlled demolition, inc...


You can see that every one of the explosive charges ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building to free fall into the ground...


This is north tower of the WTC...









WTC7...


[slow motion]


See the penthouse on top of the building dropping first? thats one of the characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Here's a fun project for you.... Go to this link and click on "detonate" of the computer animation...

All of the buildings felled symmetry, free fall, straight down and neatly into little piles with absolutely no resistence like you would expect from a falling building caused by heat generated by fire.
Jun 2nd, 2006 07:06 AM
Geggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

You are an ass.
To you, anyway...
Quote:
You should see the documentary Farenhype 9/11. It's no better than Moore himself, but it outlines for you the things that were set in motion during the time he was sitting there.
I've heard of the movie before but couldnt/didn't want to see it because...

1. Ann coulter's in it.
2. No CC or subtitles.
3. Very republican/conservative documentry so I would expect nothing but liberal bashing from it.

Quote:
Would it have been better if our leader had jumped up in a crowd of children and yelled "HOLY SHIT, WE'RE DONE!!?" He didn't know what had happened, and he didn't want to overreact. By the time he knew, the tower had been struck.
Yeah it would've been more comforting if andy card waited for bush's response when he informed bush that america was under attack but instead card walked away and exited quickly. Secret service didn't even whisk him away, instead bush just sat there with his poker face, only later to joke with the children and recite words from the book with the rest of the class. Yeah very disturbing. What's even more disturbing was that later in that night, he wrote in his diary "Today was an interesting day. The new pearl harbor took place in america," then went to bed in his own room in the white house and slept comfortably.

Here's what's puzzling...in the 9/11 commission report, it was saaid that both dick cheney and condi rice were whisked and taken to the bunker of the white house by the secret service. While they don't have photographic eveidence to prove that, we do have evidence that the secret service didn't perform the same duty for bush.

Quote:
See "you are an ass" above.
See "To you, anyway" above.
May 25th, 2006 01:53 PM
KevinTheOmnivore http://www.timesherald.com/site/news...id=33380&rfi=6

Quote:
Spencer Meredith, a political science professor at New York's Rochester Institute of Technology, was more optimistic.
"The impact of this is negligible, and long-term it's marginal," Meredith said.
People who believe the government is malicious and highly capable of wrongdoing are more inclined to buy into Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, Meredith said.
"It starts with a mistrust of government," he said. "They don't like Bush."
For anyone doubting Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, Arlington County Fire Department Chief Scott McKay begs to differ. He and Arlington firefighters were the first on the disaster scene on Sept. 11 and worked on shoring up the collapsed structure.
"Inside the building, there was a (airline) nose gear with wheels and passenger seats," he said, as well as human remains.
As for the World Trade Center towers, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) spent more than three years analyzing the collapses, according to Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, and published its "Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers" in 2005.
To perform the evaluation, the federal agency used 236 pieces of steel from the ground zero site, studied thousands of video and still pictures of the catastrophe and simulated the impacts and fires in several laboratories.
The study concluded that the airliners' extreme impacts severed the buildings' perimeter support columns, and the subsequent fires weakened other exposed steel.
"(The crashes) dislodged so much of the fire-proofing material (on the supports), that it left a lot of steel vulnerable to the fire," Newman said.
If the fire-proofing had not been torn away, the towers would have remained standing, he said.
The NIST report did not find any evidence that the towers had been sabotaged with explosives, as 911 Truth advocates have suggested.
"These folks have a right to their opinion," Newman said. "But we spent three-and-a-half years on the investigation and wrote recommendations, and we stand behind them."
May 25th, 2006 10:04 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Come on kevin, admit it. You know you have been set up in that other thread...sucker. Thats how predictable the members of the official story movement has become...to me anyway.
You are an ass.

Quote:
The president, the commander in cheif, only has the authority to order a shoot down but he was too busy reading the pet goat with children that morning becuase the fundamental of education toward children is much more important to him than a deadly terror attack.
You should see the documentary Farenhype 9/11. It's no better than Moore himself, but it outlines for you the things that were set in motion during the time he was sitting there. Would it have been better if our leader had jumped up in a crowd of children and yelled "HOLY SHIT, WE'RE DONE!!?" He didn't know what had happened, and he didn't want to overreact. By the time he knew, the tower had been struck.

Quote:
I only chose that photo of north tower collapsing for a clearer and closer look of what i was talking about for better indication that there is no cracks visible on the concrete. I could find many other videos and photos indicating what i think may be explosive charges.
See "you are an ass" above.
May 25th, 2006 09:58 AM
Geggy Come on kevin, admit it. You know you have been set up in that other thread...sucker. Thats how predictable the members of the official story movement has become...to me anyway.

The president, the commander in cheif, only has the authority to order a shoot down but he was too busy reading the pet goat with children that morning becuase the fundamental of education toward children is much more important to him than a deadly terror attack.

I only chose that photo of north tower collapsing for a clearer and closer look of what i was talking about for better indication that there is no cracks visible on the concrete. I could find many other videos and photos indicating what i think may be explosive charges.
May 25th, 2006 09:25 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
When people read this article, theyre going to assume the entire movement advocates the missile and pod theory and then discredit the more credible activists with other more valuable information pointing out the anomalies surrounding 9/11.
It isn't PM's obligation, nor is it anybody else's for that matter, to appease your stupid "movement". The purpose of their article was to debunk the most commonly heard conspiracy theories. They (among MANY OTHERS btw) have done this successfully, which is WHY you constantly need to move on to the next theory.

"Oh yeah, oh yeah!!? ok, so they WERE on the plane, but MAYBE Rumsfeld PUT them there!!?"

"oh yeah, oh yeah!!? ok, so they WERE on the plane, and they DID have terrorist ties, but then WHY weren't they caught, huh!!? Oil."

Pick a conspiracy and stick with it, slugger.
May 25th, 2006 07:10 AM
El Blanco So because they don't discredit every detail of every theory, they are in on it?
May 25th, 2006 06:36 AM
Geggy Kevin, you missed the point here. Youre accusing me of what PM is doing. PM never clarified that not all activists advocates the missile theory when many of them have actually debunked the theory themselves, as well as the pod on the plane theory. When people read this article, theyre going to assume the entire movement advocates the missile and pod theory and then discredit the more credible activists with other more valuable information pointing out the anomalies surrounding 9/11.
May 24th, 2006 01:12 PM
KevinTheOmnivore I think THIS might shed some more light on the matter....
May 24th, 2006 12:47 PM
El Blanco Also, those scarmbles prior to 9/11 with the exception of Payne Stewart were all off shore. NORAD is a little nervous about shooting down planes near population centers.


And geggy, one still frame doesn't prove anything. Look at the whole videos of the collapses, not just what was cut for you.
May 24th, 2006 12:41 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
The problem with the PM article attacking is that the missile and the pod theories created by straw men have already been debunked by numerous 9/11 activists long before PM even wrote the debunking 9/11 article...

Missile theory debunked...
http://flight77.info/
http://www.pressaction.com/news/webl...ckeyz12062004/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

There are too many links to 9/11 activists debunking the pod on the plane theory.
NO. You do not get away with that game, not this time. Do as you've done below, quote text, and make an argument as to why the physics and experts cited IN the PM article lack credibility. Otherwise, you've proven nothing.

Quote:
Quote:
FACT (from popular mechanics): In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet.
Wrong. From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
um, well yeah. I wonder what happened on 9/11/2001 that made the government adjust that policy a tad? What you've cited here doesn't disprove anything, in fact it only completes a thought.

Fewer planes were scrambled prior to 9/11 than after. Well done, Watson.

From your own link:

"The Federal Aviation Administration has stayed in closer contact with the military since Sept. 11 to ensure that fighter jets take off quickly to chase hostile or suspicious aircraft.

On Sept. 11, flight controllers suspected around 8:25 a.m. EDT that American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston's Logan Airport had been hijacked, but the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) wasn't notified until 8:40 a.m. _ six minutes before the plane struck the World Trade Center.

Today, NORAD would know instantly of a suspected hijacking.

"NORAD is now linked up telephonically 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so anything that's an anomaly or a suspected anomaly that's found in the system, NORAD knows about it as quickly as we do," said David Canoles, FAA's manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations."

Sounds pretty consistent to me.


Quote:
Wrong. As you can see in the area of puff of clouds ejecting, there is no sign of floor pancaking or trusses failing, otherwise cracks around the concrete on the outside of the building would be clearly visible.
WHAT!??? You're kidding, right? Are you serioulsy making that expert analysis based off of that picture??

Quote:
The PM attack on the 9/11 activists is extremely dishonest and misleading. Only reason why people bought into it is because of the credibility of PM.
How about the experts cited in the article? Did Hearst buy them too? And btw, what's with the fucking Hearst paranoia, what is it, 1925???
May 24th, 2006 12:39 PM
El Blanco You mean did they show the planes hitting the WTC? Ya, but I couldn't watch it too often.
May 24th, 2006 12:16 PM
Geggy The problem with the PM article attacking is that the missile and the pod theories created by straw men have already been debunked by numerous 9/11 activists long before PM even wrote the debunking 9/11 article...

Missile theory debunked...
http://flight77.info/
http://www.pressaction.com/news/webl...ckeyz12062004/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

There are too many links to 9/11 activists debunking the pod on the plane theory.

Quote:
FACT (from popular mechanics): In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet.
Wrong. From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

Quote:
FACT (from popular mechanics): As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Wrong. As you can see in the area of puff of clouds ejecting, there is no sign of floor pancaking or trusses failing, otherwise cracks around the concrete on the outside of the building would be clearly visible.



The PM attack on the 9/11 activists is extremely dishonest and misleading. Only reason why people bought into it is because of the credibility of PM.

Blanco, yeah yeah...hey I was wondering that since you live in the New York area, is it true that there was a catapaulting of propaganda on television all over NY showing repeated image of planes crashing/towers falling for a long period of time after the catalyzing event of 9/11? I remember here in my home state, it was forbidden to show these catastrophic images on television. In fact, the forbidding of showing these images took effect only a week after 9/11.
May 23rd, 2006 11:31 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Geggy, you're hilarious. I should ban you for being stupid.
May 23rd, 2006 08:57 PM
El Blanco So, the physics has been debunked, or is it all just ad hominem attacks?
May 23rd, 2006 08:52 PM
Geggy
Re: Ranxer and Geggy, RE: 9/11
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y
Omg, I can't believe you posted that link. I thought you were better than that, kevin. That article has been debunked to death. I could give you many examples but ah, maybe tomorrow. Popular mechanics is owned by the hearst corporation, the same company who owns the history channel. Popular mechanics and history channel both are big "supporters" of the 9/11 official fable. The hearst corporation is heavily affiliated with the us government.
May 23rd, 2006 04:36 PM
Ant10708
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranxer
shoot the messenger.. predictable, but i bite anyway.

Quote:
conflicting witnesses, confiscated tapes, secret removal of debris, grooming of witnesses, all point to a situation where we still don't know what actually happened and the government is covering it up some lies


Link?
May 23rd, 2006 04:14 PM
KevinTheOmnivore Not the messenger, the pentagon. With a missile. Cobra.
May 23rd, 2006 03:59 PM
ranxer shoot the messenger.. predictable, but i bite anyway.
May 23rd, 2006 01:40 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
The whole point of this thread was to make that joke, wasn't it?
Guilty.
May 23rd, 2006 12:54 PM
El Blanco Kevin ,you tool, thats like 6 countries.
May 23rd, 2006 12:46 PM
Emu The whole point of this thread was to make that joke, wasn't it?
May 23rd, 2006 11:52 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Re: Ranxer and Geggy, RE: 9/11
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranxer
BUT The size of the hole, distance traveled through reinforced concrete.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=6&c=y

according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage."


Quote:
conflicting witnesses, confiscated tapes, secret removal of debris, grooming of witnesses, all point to a situation where we still don't know what actually happened and the government is covering it up some lies
Link?



Quote:
3)combo of groups at least two countries and three separate groups were involved, one of which was used as a patsy.

May 23rd, 2006 11:21 AM
ranxer
Re: Ranxer and Geggy, RE: 9/11
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

1)Did planes hit the twin towers?
2)Did a plane hit the Pentagon?

3)If Osama and crew didn't orchestrate the attack, then who did?

4)Did the United States plan 9/11?
1)yes,
2)yes, some kind of plane hit the pentagon, if there was a missle it would have to have been fired from the plane, from another source or just strapped to the plane, i don't believe it was simply a missle that hit the pentagon the info i've read stating such is too shaky or too inconclusive. BUT The size of the hole, distance traveled through reinforced concrete, conflicting witnesses, confiscated tapes, secret removal of debris, grooming of witnesses, all point to a situation where we still don't know what actually happened and the government is covering it up some lies.

3)combo of groups at least two countries and three separate groups were involved, one of which was used as a patsy.

last question is too vague, but rummy ordered that hijacked planes not be auto intercepted so he's implicated.. Cheney ordered the incomming 'target' to the pentagon not be intercepted(according to secretary Mineta) so he's implicated.. bush is a puppet but would be interesting to question.. i'm sure he's not told a lot or a planner of much but hmm, i think we need a real investigation to find out more.

i'm outta time, er was ten min ago ciao
May 18th, 2006 10:07 AM
Geggy Haha. The flooding wasn't as apocalyptic as New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. But I did get a little taste of what it was like in the recent flooding. My girlfriend's home area in peabody (next town to salem) suffered the most serious consequences than any other place I know. Will post pics.

Anyhoo, whatever made you bring up this subject? Are you suggesting that you heard these crazy hologram theories which explained it wasnt really planes that hit the towers in nyc and it was something else? I would recommend you to keep afoot from these theories. Could be created by either government sponsored cointelpros to discredit the movement or a group of conspiracy theorists who went further down in the rabbit hole where none of us would dare to go. I like to keep it on the surface and focus on the more obvious anomalies with solid information and evidence backed up.

It's easy to contradict the incomptetence theory and prove that the US government allowed the attacks to occur with the foreknowledge they had of where, how and when it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. Yet it's hard to convince anyone of my gut intuition that says 9/11 was planned orchestrated by the US government.

Although I believe in coincidences but not when they are multiple coincidences in seperate incidents leading up, during and after the attacks. When you put information that is supposedly to be considered coincidences and put them together like piece of puzzles, you'll see the bigger picture that these coincidences cancel each other out and rather consider it as evidence of the conspiracy.

will explain more when i got time
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 AM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.