Mind Control...Don't believe it? Then it's working

11/07/2006 10:41:49 PM · #76

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by amber:
I have total faith in humanity. I have a problem with what happens to people when they pursue power and money over all else. These people are in the minority but have an adverse effect on the majority.

It doesn't make sense to use the word "total" and then qualify it.

I also have total faith in humanity, except the uneducated ones and those who are very verbal about things they aren't qualified to understand. (That wasn't pointed at you.)

Makes sense to me.

It sounds like it's pointed at me;)

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 22:44:57.

11/07/2006 10:45:46 PM · #77

Building 7

A New York Times article entitled â��Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,â�� provides relevant data.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Thatâ��s correct â�� no such steel-beam building had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires!
......

â��Fire and the structural damage â�¦would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporatedâ��, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 22:50:02.

11/07/2006 10:54:03 PM · #78

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

If you "scoop out" one side of a building to a depth of 25% I'd expect it to fall over sideways.

Well, that WTC7 was kinda a crappy built building, built well after the twin towers in 1980. It was corner loaded, and a 10 story chunk was torn in the side of one of those corners. Add it with the let it burn attitude, because everyone had escaped, it colasped like a house of cards.

11/07/2006 11:08:59 PM · #79

A kinda crappy building?

No where in Fema's report or the NIST report or even PM is there any evidence stating that WTC7 fell because it was a kinda crappy building;)

As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous â��pullingâ�� of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the â��officialâ�� theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 23:10:17.

11/07/2006 11:20:29 PM · #80

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Last time I checked gravity still pulled straight down.

11/07/2006 11:22:27 PM · #81

Originally posted by amber:

A kinda crappy building?

No where in Fema's report or the NIST report or even PM is there any evidence stating that WTC7 fell because it was a kinda crappy building;)

Originally posted by LoudDog:

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

11/07/2006 11:25:41 PM · #82

Originally posted by amber:

A kinda crappy building?

No where in Fema's report or the NIST report or even PM is there any evidence stating that WTC7 fell because it was a kinda crappy building;)

It was! Cheap as possible! Here's one to blow your mind.. Follow the money, who got rich off this whole ordeal? He seems to have done well

11/07/2006 11:29:23 PM · #83

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

If you "scoop out" one side of a building to a depth of 25% I'd expect it to fall over sideways.

Last time I checked gravity still pulled straight down.

No need for demolition experts then, to get buildings to fall into their own footsteps.

11/07/2006 11:34:01 PM · #84

Originally posted by MQuinn:

Originally posted by amber:
A kinda crappy building?

No where in Fema's report or the NIST report or even PM is there any evidence stating that WTC7 fell because it was a kinda crappy building;)

It was! Cheap as possible! Here's one to blow your mind.. Follow the money, who got rich off this whole ordeal? He seems to have done well

I know about him - I mentioned him in my posts above.

Google WTC and asbestos...how the towers were full of the stuff. How it would have cost old Larry millions to rectify, which he had to under law. How he was saved the job and the expense when a man in a cave ordered 19 geniuses to do the job for Larry.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 11:37:43 PM · #85

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Take four cans, arrange in a rectangle. Place a cereal box on top of them, lying down, Then place 2 or 3 more boxes on top, standing up.

Now pull out one (25%) of the supporting cans, and tell me which way those boxes on top fall.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/07/2006 11:40:41 PM · #86

was the 25 percent all in one place or was it spread out. cuz if it was spread out, and we took 10per cent of one of General#'s cans, adn 10 percent of another and 5 percent of another, that would distribute the instability, right?

of course, i am the first to admit i have no idea what i am talking about, and that i am in desparate need of sleep.

or chocolate.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 11:40:42 PM · #87

Originally posted by amber:

... a man in a cave ordered 19 geniuses to do the job for Larry.

Don't forget that guy was paid and trained by the US for quite a while ... and he's still hasn't been found in 5 years. Has anyone actually bothered to check to see if he was ever taken off the payroll?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 11:41:51 PM · #88

Originally posted by karmat:

was the 25 percent all in one place or was it spread out.

Read the quote I cited: "25% scooped out of one side (or maybe corner) of the building."

I vote for chocolate!

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 23:42:20.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/07/2006 11:45:56 PM · #89

Originally posted by amber:

But then there comes a question; Maybe Larry made the decision to include a clause "against terroristic attack event" after all it did happen back in 1993. But the bin ladin factor is kinda an unknown, that guys got some issues...

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

11/07/2006 11:46:27 PM · #90

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

If you "scoop out" one side of a building to a depth of 25% I'd expect it to fall over sideways.

Last time I checked gravity still pulled straight down.

Take four cans, arrange in a rectangle. Place a cereal box on top of them, lying down, Then place 2 or 3 more boxes on top, standing up.

Now pull out one (25%) of the supporting cans, and tell me which way those boxes on top fall.

bold is mine to show what confused me. that sounds like a center part, not a corner tome.

i vote for choclate too. brb

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 23:47:18.

11/07/2006 11:47:10 PM · #91

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by amber:
... a man in a cave ordered 19 geniuses to do the job for Larry.

Don't forget that guy was paid and trained by the US for quite a while ... and he's still hasn't been found in 5 years. Has anyone actually bothered to check to see if he was ever taken off the payroll?

I haven't forgotten. Nor I have forgotten that he wasn't on the FBI's most wanted list after 911. Or that the Bush family are in business with the Bin Laden family. Or that the ONLY people allowed to fly on 911 after all other aircraft was grounded was THE BIN LADEN FAMILY.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 23:47:44.

11/07/2006 11:48:11 PM · #92

Originally posted by amber:

why... how... why... why... how... why...

Other then questions you can't answer, give me one piece of evidence that someone intentionally blew up the buildings.

In order to blow up multiple buildings, two of which are among the worlds tallest and and one being the pentagon (because that was hit by a missle, right?), and coodinate it with a terrorist attack, there would have to be a lot of people involved. Easily hundreds of people over several months just to plant explosives in the WTC towers and building 7 alone. Contractors, munitions experts, structural engineers... Not to mention all the people that would have to be involved in the missle strike on the pentagon, such as ground crew that put it on the plane and didn't see it on the plane when it landed, the pilots, the inventory guy that counts the missles, the accountants that buy and track the missles (costing about $1,000,000 each), the guy that moved the missle from the warehouse to the flight deck... And of course all the investigators at the NIST are also in on the conspiracy, along with the cousin at Popular Mechanics. They all over look all the evidence of what really happened and ignore what they really see so they can just make up stories and cover the truth??? No one has come forward on this? Not a single person? No one feels guilty about killing all those people or covering this up and had to get it off their chest? No emails were leaked? No evidence left? No securiy gaurds or cameras catching someone hollowing out supports and filling it with TNT? No cleanng crew or maintanence guy finding holes inthe wall or supports weakened? Lets hear some real evidence other then questions.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 11:50:29 PM · #93

OK, take four cereal boxes and arrange in a rectangle, either around a hollow center or just lined up. Stack more boxes flat on top. Pull out one box.

If you "scoop out" one side of something tall, you sort of expect it to fall sideways, don't you? Not somehow collaspse in on itself?

11/07/2006 11:51:56 PM · #94

I posted lots of evidence - did you read the links I gave at all?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 11:52:34 PM · #95

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by amber:
why... how... why... why... how... why...

Other then questions you can't answer, give me one piece of evidence that someone intentionally blew up the buildings.

In order to blow up multiple buildings, two of which are among the worlds tallest and and one being the pentagon (because that was hit by a missle, right?), and coodinate it with a terrorist attack, there would have to be a lot of people involved. Easily hundreds of people over several months just to plant explosives in the WTC towers and building 7 alone. Contractors, munitions experts, structural engineers... Not to mention all the people that would have to be involved in the missle strike on the pentagon, such as ground crew that put it on the plane and didn't see it on the plane when it landed, the pilots, the inventory guy that counts the missles, the accountants that buy and track the missles (costing about $1,000,000 each), the guy that moved the missle from the warehouse to the flight deck... And of course all the investigators at the NIST are also in on the conspiracy, along with the cousin at Popular Mechanics. They all over look all the evidence of what really happened and ignore what they really see so they can just make up stories and cover the truth??? No one has come forward on this? Not a single person? No one feels guilty about killing all those people or covering this up and had to get it off their chest? No emails were leaked? No evidence left? No securiy gaurds or cameras catching someone hollowing out supports and filling it with TNT? No cleanng crew or maintanence guy finding holes inthe wall or supports weakened? Lets hear some real evidence other then questions.

Don't forget the apparent complete incompetence of the administration to plan or carry out anything to a successful conclusion ...

11/07/2006 11:53:48 PM · #96

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

If you "scoop out" one side of a building to a depth of 25% I'd expect it to fall over sideways.

Last time I checked gravity still pulled straight down.

Take four cans, arrange in a rectangle. Place a cereal box on top of them, lying down, Then place 2 or 3 more boxes on top, standing up.

Now pull out one (25%) of the supporting cans, and tell me which way those boxes on top fall.

Bad example. Take 4 cans, make a rectgangle. Stack four cans on top of those. Repeat about 100 times. put a cereal box on top. crush one of the bottom four cans in place. The cereal box will be very close if not on top of the base.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/07/2006 11:56:57 PM · #97

Originally posted by amber:

I posted lots of evidence - did you read the links I gave at all?

No, you posted a lot of questions you can't answer.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

11/07/2006 11:57:04 PM · #98

jenga blocks. use jenga blocks.

11/07/2006 11:57:11 PM · #99

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Paid by given weapons? We gave him weapons back in the early 80's back when the Russians attacked Afghanistan. That was a mistake, no doubt about it, we have made quite a few. Heck look how dumb we were back in Vietnam, the French had aleady fought the same war for 20 years. Trying to stop the communists from coming in, because it threatened 'our' ideals.