Quake3World

also note all the burning debris

the burning was caused by jet fuel

not ballistics

close this shit...

Did you even watch the video?

I think hate made those pictures, he was there. Which is probably why he doesn't need to watch the video.

hate was the one driving that taxi

So, since the Pentagon was hit with a plane, that means the official account of the 9/11 Commission is now proven to be accurate? :icon27:

This isn't about the Pentagon, although a lot of people make it out to be. The Pentagon shenanigan stories are a red herring IMO.

BTW hate, I'm not trying to imply anything, but curious...

I remember you posted some pics you took in an older thread of mine when you were driving in toward the Pentagon after the attacks. You posted pics of the building from the road a little distance off, but several of us asked you to post pics of the plane debris that you saw.

Why didn't you post any of these pics, with the wreckage and light pole visible? They would have closed the entire argument immediately, but it carried on for several pages after that.

the wreckage was cleaned up immediatley after the attack

those freeway pics i took were well after the attack ~1-3 months


i probably didn't post the other pics out of laziness

plus it was amusing to watch unfold

Fair enough.

Lazy bastard.

R00k wrote:So, since the Pentagon was hit with a plane, that means the official account of the 9/11 Commission is now proven to be accurate? :icon27:

This isn't about the Pentagon, although a lot of people make it out to be. The Pentagon shenanigan stories are a red herring IMO.

Rook, you got any juicy links to the Able Danger stuff? Heard anything new about Siebel Edmonds or howeverthefuck you spell her name?

good vid

interesting watch. that narrator needs to be kicked in the neck though.

heres the deal...if u think the official 911 story is tru...ur nothing but a moron...questions?...

and btw...

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html

Nightshade wrote: Rook, you got any juicy links to the Able Danger stuff? Heard anything new about Siebel Edmonds or howeverthefuck you spell her name?

Most of these are pretty short, btw, aside from the Raimondo article.

The article I linked to earlier has some info in it that might be new to you:
http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/index.php

Justin Raimondo also did a decent write-up that covers a lot of it, about 3 months ago. If you like Raimondo's writing, definitely check it out:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6923


For background, here's an article about Weldon calling for an investigation, in which he claims the original whistleblower on Able Danger is being retaliated against:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/vi ... 0108-6365r

Here's an article about the Pentagon revoking his security clearance after he went public:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... ed?mode=PF

This one is about the administration blocking witnesses from testifying to Congress about the program:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article ... 1904/1/32/


And this one has to do with Sibel Edmonds' take on the situation, based on her own experience so far:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/1/1955/10277


Unfortunately there's not much to report about Edmonds right now as far as I know. She is still waiting to see if the Supreme Court will hear her case. If they do, then the question before them is whether the Justice department can continue gagging her about facts that could be useful in many other areas, including even some facts that are already public.

Right now she's gagged harder than My-Little-Pony-Barbie, and the last time she went to court to get it lifted, the judge threw her and her attorney out of the courtroom while he conferred with the Justice Dept. Lawyers about her case. Then he ruled that she had to remain gagged, and that the arguments to keep her gagged were classified.

our govt used shock and awe on us on 911...worked very well...

A BYU physics professor has written a paper (posted online a couple days ago, and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year) on the WTC collapses. The paper itself is here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

hey moron...i linked to that already...

ok this seems like a comprehensive debunk:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html

haven't read it yet tho

R00k wrote:A BYU physics professor has written a paper (posted online a couple days ago, and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year) on the WTC collapses. The paper itself is here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

More of the same tired shit in a new wrapper. He claims to see "the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.”"
Bullshit. This guy may be rather smart, but it's clear to me he doesn't know much about demolitions.

Just thought I would post it since it was just released. A lot of people really acclaimed that MIT guy who posted his analysis, but maybe that was just because he supported their own opinions.

I haven't read it myself. I doubt I will, but I thought somebody else might find it interesting since the topic was already here.

I really do try to remain open-minded about all possible theories surrounding 9/11. Take WTC7 for instance, the way it came down IS very suspect in my opinion. So, when someone mentions demolitions, I'm willing to listen. With WTC1 and 2, all I see is people proclaiming their own ignorance.

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:A BYU physics professor has written a paper (posted online a couple days ago, and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year) on the WTC collapses. The paper itself is here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

More of the same tired shit in a new wrapper. He claims to see "the sequence and fast timing of observed puffs or “squibs.”"
Bullshit. This guy may be rather smart, but it's clear to me he doesn't know much about demolitions.

He's got peer review, beotch!

[xeno]Julios wrote:ok this seems like a comprehensive debunk:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html

haven't read it yet tho

this is the worst debunking of all time...google it...

Nightshade wrote:I really do try to remain open-minded about all possible theories surrounding 9/11. Take WTC7 for instance, the way it came down IS very suspect in my opinion. So, when someone mentions demolitions, I'm willing to listen. With WTC1 and 2, all I see is people proclaiming their own ignorance.

I don't understand how someone can be open to the idea that WTC7 was pulled, and not be open to the others.

If there were already explosives placed in WTC7, how would it be impossible for the other two buildings to have them as well? That is what convinces me of the possibility more than anything else. I was originally a little wishy-washy even on the complicity issue, but once I learned that WTC7 had been demolished, well, that just kinda blows the entire story wide open.

And you don't even have to rely on physical evidence or bad videos to conclude WTC7 was pulled - the owner of the building said it was on national television.

Freakaloin wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:ok this seems like a comprehensive debunk:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html

haven't read it yet tho

this is the worst debunking of all time...google it...

Yea, the Popular Mechanics article was touted by a lot of people as the true debunker of all 9/11 conspiracy theories.

In reality, they took a few unsubstantiated theories they could find on the internet, and then debunked the theories with obvious flaws. And that was enough for most people to proclaim the entire movement a bunch of 'crazies.'