PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!
2024-04-18, 18:27:46
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 973141 times)
Topic Options img
img  tysb3
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #250 on: 2011-12-03, 00:28:36 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011-12-03, 00:02:57
I submit you are sheeple.  

Is this yours argument how aluminum tube penetrate steel column?
   
img  Magluvin
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #251 on: 2011-12-03, 00:31:21 »
Group: Guest
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #252 on: 2011-12-03, 00:49:26 »
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
1.  MH: "The "upward force" associated with the floor compacting event complete with curlicue support beams being deformed like limp cooked spaghetti is negligible in comparison with the "downward force" associated with the mass of the falling and self-disintegrating building." 
  NO, by Newton's Third Law, the upward and downward forces are equal in magnitude (and opposite in direction).  I realize this fact is hard for many to accept, because I've taught Newtonian physics for over 21 years and I found that people just could not believe that the Third Law "really works", but it does.   One has to properly isolate the two interacting objects to understand the Third Law correctly (I've found with hundreds students), in this case the falling mass and the resisting "compacting mass".

If only you could see the simple model but apparently you can't.  A massive block of concrete and steel (let' call that 'Big M') is falling due to the acceleration of gravity.  The gravitational force causing that massive block of concrete and steel to accelerate downwards (let's call it 'Big F') is F = Mg.

At the same time there is an upwards force acting on the falling mass M due to the compacting of the floors and the deformation of the support beams.  (Let's call that 'Little f.')

Anybody should clearly see that F >> f.  The downward gravitational force on the falling building is probably at least hundreds of thousands of times larger that the upward compacting force f.

So where does that leave us?   The net force causing the acceleration of the building will be equal to (F - f).

We know that acceleration is equal to the force divided by the mass, i,e.:

a = (F - f)/M

But since we know that F >> f, then we can say that:

a <is approximately equal to> F/M.

And we also know that F/M = g

Therefore, a <is approximately equal to> g.

In other words, in plain common sense language, the collapsing mass of the more or less intact structure of Building 7 was so huge that as the lower floors got crushed it barely slowed down the collapse.  In fact the building was so massive that for a substantial portion of the collapse the building was falling at near-g acceleration, 9.8 meters per second squared.

This is just Physics 101, Mr. Physics Professor.

Your talk about the Third Law is just a Red Herring.  Yes action is equal to reaction but it's not about that.  It's about the NET FORCE on the mass of the collapsing building determining it's acceleration.

I just turned common sense into equations.

MileHigh
   
img  ion
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #253 on: 2011-12-03, 01:19:10 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Quote from: ramset on 2011-12-03, 00:02:26
Ion
You Know My Family has much History In the construction supply Biz In NYC ,We Had Tons Of customers All over the city watching from Roof tops after the first impact
One Job was right accross the river In Jersey [I mean Rjght there ] What was it JP morgans Building I think? [One of the Banks I get them all confused?], I never personally saw the impacts But plenty of fellahs did... All Union workers.

I also Took a ten year Hiatus into The demolition Biz In NYC ,I have to tell You ,Once you make a hole all bets are off as far as What happens next.
I have plenty of  respect for your opinion .

I just can't get my Head around No Planes... Having spoken to Hundreds of Fellahs that saw planes, As a matter of fact Just today A man stopped by Who is in the fire department
In NYC he was there during the attacks ,His engine Company lost Most of its Members.We never talk about these kinds Of things In the trades [bad luck]
I will ask him a few questions Next time I see him [later this Week].

Chet

Chet: I agree there were numerous witnesses to real aircraft hitting the towers

I never said there were no aircraft, you have me confused with someone else.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #254 on: 2011-12-03, 01:29:38 »
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
2.  MH:  "floor compacting event is taking place at the bottom of the building. "  Hold on -- this removes kinetic energy from the fall, so that free-fall at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed and admitted to by NIST in their final report (as I noted above) would not be possible.

There is a disconnect here.

Yes, the mass of the falling building is being eroded away and "this removes kinetic energy from the fall."  Meanwhile, the acceleration due to gravity is always adding kinetic energy to the fall.

But if you really could "put on your science hat," for lack of a better term, you would realize that the point you are making above is meaningless and irrelevant to the question whether of not the collapse approaches free fall acceleration or not.  And you are stating that this process whereby some of the kinetic energy in the fall is removed by the compacting event will prevent a free fall acceleration and this is clearly not the case at all.  The only critical issue as I just stated in my previous posting is what the net force on the falling mass is.  The fact that the falling mass is not constant and is slowly decreasing over time is a secondary factor.  It simply means that over time the ratio of (F/f) will change.  However, the observation that F >> f will not really change for most of the duration of the fall.

Quote
Another way to look at it is that the Third-law reaction force upward from the "compacting mass" would slow the fall so that free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed would not be possible.

Yes, here I agree with you.  As the eroding mass of the falling building becomes smaller and smaller eventually the upward force from the compacting process starts to become comparable to the downward force due to the acceleration of gravity and then the building will start fall at noticeably less than free-fall speed.  This goes back to what I said in my original posting and how it is consistent to what is measured in the videos.

Quote
3. Note also that you are saying that there IS MASS IN THE WAY, mass getting compacted, although you started out by saying "There is no mass crashing into another mass causing a slow down, period.   There is no need to get mass OUT OF THE WAY!  NONE!"  You contradict yourself, do you not?

The mass of compacted concrete and steel accumulating at the bottom of the building is not "in the way" it's simply accumulating and not moving.  There is no "need" for that mass to move and of course it won't move.

I am not contradicting myself.  You are just taking statements out of context and juxtaposing them.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #255 on: 2011-12-03, 01:44:23 »
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
IOW, just because the mass of the floors is (NIST says) out of the way, one must still remove the mass of the lower shell to permit acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed.  Math example:  39 floors-worth of "outside shell" hitting just one floor of "outside shell", then by conservation of momentum at time of collision the speed drops by 2.5% (1/40), and the next floor the speed drops by another nearly 2.5% (1/41) -- and already we find this "model" is OUTSIDE the allowed error for the fit to the observed g= 32.2ft/s**2 which I posted earlier.  So material must be moved out of the way, according to the data.

I suppose that I am just hammering the point home.  There is no need to "remove the mass of the lower shell to permit acceleration at g= 32.2ft/s**2."

I am all for simplifying but sometimes you can simplify too far.  In the above statement it's almost like you "forgot" that gravity is always adding momentum.  Also, it's obtuse and uncomfortable to read you talking about "conservation of momentum" which implies something like a perfectly inelastic collision between two bodies where after the collision the new single body of mass is moving.  Nothing even remotely close to two masses moving and a perfectly inelastic collision is going on here.  To use the concept of conservation of momentum is inappropriate and simply wrong in this case.

No material "must be moved out of the way."  Sorry, just hammering the point home.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #256 on: 2011-12-03, 01:56:52 »
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
4.  NIST failed to mention here that they have adamantly refused to allow me or other scientists to have access to their computer model.  Thus, there is no opportunity for peer-review by other scientists, no professional courtesy extended.  A result which cannot be challenged does not represent good science.

I am certainly not disagreeing with you here in principle.  But there is a lousy thought experiment that one can make if they did release the models.  Thousands of people would then run simulations for themselves and start playing with all of the variables.  The NIST report would then get drowned out by tons and tons of reports of simulation runs, some of them good, but likely most of them bad.  It would have created an uproar of "noise" that may have drowned out the original report itself.  People would "exploit" the variables for their own purposes.

Quote
5.  NIST in their final report admitted that they had set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO, and that they had the fires burning near the critical column 79 for several HOURS.  In reality, the thermal conductivity of steel is not zero, so that heat is transported away from the point where the fire is heating the steel -- wicked away to connected structural beams.  NIST turned this heat conductivity to ZERO -- and they're getting away with it!    You see, I would like to put reasonable PHYSICAL parameters into the computer simulation -- and see if the building actually will fail and fall at g=32.2ft/s**2 when this is done...

I can't disagree with you here either.  However, there is a flip side to this with respect to a related issue.  People always say that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel and it's used as an argument to support the conspiracy theory.  There is either the intentional or unintentional omission of some points that would prove that point about the jet fuel incorrect, once you factor in the proper context.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #257 on: 2011-12-03, 02:13:04 »
Group: Guest
Tysb3:

Quote
1. the aluminum tube of airplane can not penetrate steel columns with thickness of tank armor. On this level of speed it's no chance!!! You need to check material physics.
All videos with planes are faked.

Certainly it is interesting, perhaps even surprising, to see that some of the steel support beams of the tower walls were sheared by the plane.

The problem is that it actually happened, sadly illustrated by that clip that you pointed to of the woman in the gaping hole.

Sometimes you have to try to figure things out after the fact.  I would assume that if a materials expert and a mechanical engineer examined the problem they could work out a model that explains it.  Don't forget, not all of the support columns were sheared straight through, most of them more or less remained intact (you assume) and the support column sections were ripped out of the building wall where they were attached by bolts.  So the bolts failed, not the steel support columns themselves.

Sorry but your comments about all the videos being faked and other comments (like the nukes) put you in that "too far out" class for me.

MileHigh
   
img  tysb3
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #258 on: 2011-12-03, 03:13:17 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-12-03, 02:13:04
Tysb3:


Sorry but your comments about all the videos being faked and other comments (like the nukes) put you in that "too far out" class for me.

MileHigh

Can You  guarantee that all videos with planes wasn't faked? It is impossible?

Sorry, but that's yours problem if you can't see the whole picture from the facts. I don't have credentials to prove something to you.
I just point some details which fall out from chaotic picture of the official story and which  fit nice in mine perfect picture. Which is sure not mine. I'm not nuclear specialist :)
I'm just conspiracytheorist :)
« Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 15:15:30 by tysb3 »
   
img  giantkiller
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #259 on: 2011-12-03, 05:23:58 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1567
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Well there was no plane debris @ Camphill or the Pentagon. The wings never showed up regardless of the attack angle.

30 days before the twin towers falling the rock group Mountain was in the plaza at ground zero playing 'Mississippi Queen', a song about a prostitute in Louisianna. Nice message to send about 'Our' morals and how self righteous we are. Funny thing too, in NY with the Woman holding a torch. A gift from the French. Oh yeah, Baton Rouge(red rod). Now what do you think that means?


---------------------------
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #260 on: 2011-12-03, 06:35:08 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
@MH -- glad we agree on some things, like the clearly problematic issue of NIST admitting that they set the thermal conductivity of steel  to zero in their computer model.**  But then you go on to say:

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-12-03, 01:56:52

I can't disagree with you here either.  However, there is a flip side to this with respect to a related issue.  People always say that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel and it's used as an argument to support the conspiracy theory.  There is either the intentional or unintentional omission of some points that would prove that point about the jet fuel incorrect, once you factor in the proper context.

MileHigh

Now that's obtuse....Are you saying that jet fuel enters into the picture for the fall of WTC 7?  That's the context of the current discussion, is it not.

Regarding Newton's Third Law. 
You wrote:
Quote
The gravitational force causing that massive block of concrete and steel to accelerate downwards (let's call it 'Big F') is F = Mg.

At the same time there is an upwards force acting on the falling mass M due to the compacting of the floors and the deformation of the support beams.  (Let's call that 'Little f.')
  I'm trying to help you to understand the Third-law picture, but you seem to be missing the point, so I ask the questions: 

Are you saying that these (F and f) are a "Third-law pair" of forces?  If not, what is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the upward force f?  And what is is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the downward force F? 

We can go from there, once I see from your responses if you truly grasp Newton's Third law and its implications for WTC7.

And I notice that you have not commented on several points I've made, particular my point #1 above:
Quote
"1.  When one does a velocity-time analysis on their [NIST] simulation (done by physicist David Chandler), one finds that the acceleration of the falling roof is NOT g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed, but rather much less than g. "

What do you think of that?

I await your responses... noting that I will be traveling to visit my son and his family much of the day tomorrow (Saturday).

** I noted,
Quote
5.  NIST in their final report admitted that they had set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO, and that they had the fires burning near the critical column 79 for several HOURS.  In reality, the thermal conductivity of steel is not zero, so that heat is transported away from the point where the fire is heating the steel -- wicked away to connected structural beams.  NIST turned this heat conductivity to ZERO -- and they're getting away with it!    You see, I would like to put reasonable PHYSICAL parameters into the computer simulation -- and see if the building actually will fail and fall at g=32.2ft/s**2 when this is done...
   
img  ion
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #261 on: 2011-12-03, 13:56:20 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
According to MH's "common sense put into equations" we should now condemn all skyskrapers built of steel and concrete everywhere in the world as they are in immanent danger of collapsing at the slightest perturbation e.g. the rumble of a minor earthquake that produces a vertical component where F>f.

He has made some major assumptions in those simple equations, so by these you should grab your hard hats and head for safety.

There is a resiliency and conversion to horizontal wave motion when forces meet in real structures or objects. This is a shock absorption principle not accounted for in the "simple equations".

e.g. If you hit a long steel bar on the end with a hammer of equal hardness, neither the hammer nor the bar is instantly destroyed, instead we hear the bar ring as the energy is absorbed and converted to wave motion.

The twin towers were designed with a certain resiliency to withstand large hurricane forces and were allowed to bend and move by several feet in high winds. As such a large vertical downward force could also be absorbed by the bending shock absorption principle.

This is totally neglected in the "simple equations" of MH.
« Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 14:21:57 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #262 on: 2011-12-03, 15:43:50 »
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
Are you saying that jet fuel enters into the picture for the fall of WTC 7?

That was a comment about the twin towers, sorry for any confusion.

Quote
Are you saying that these (F and f) are a "Third-law pair" of forces?  If not, what is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the upward force f?

No I am clearly not saying that.  I said the resultant of F and f was the net force accelerating the mass of the building downwards into the compacting zone.

I can give you the whole Third Law treatise but I don't see the point.  You end up with F and f as I described in my previous postings.

F -down [][][][][][]  <F-down and f-up acting on mass of falling building>
f -up      [][][][][][]
            [][][][][][]
            [][][][][][]
f-down  [][][][][][] <bottom of building>
------------------------
f-up      XXXXXXX  <top of compaction zone>
f-down  XXXXXXX  <bottom of compaction zone>
-------------------------
f-up      ///////// <ground layer>


Quote
And what is is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the downward force F?

The downward force is Mg where M is the mass of the falling building.   We will pretend for a second that M is constant.

The equal and opposite upward force is d(Mv)/dt.   That's equal to Mdv/dt.

There you go, and when you let all of the force vectors cancel themselves out you are left with (F-f) accelerating the mass of the building down into the compaction zone.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 16:12:03 by MileHigh »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #263 on: 2011-12-03, 15:53:12 »
Group: Guest
Ion:

Quote
According to MH's "common sense put into equations" we should now condemn all skyskrapers built of steel and concrete everywhere in the world as they are in immanent danger of collapsing at the slightest perturbation e.g. the rumble of a minor earthquake that produces a vertical component where F>f.

He has made some major assumptions in those simple equations, so by these you should grab your hard hats and head for safety.

There is a resiliency and conversion to horizontal wave motion when forces meet in real structures or objects. This is a shock absorption principle not accounted for in the "simple equations".

e.g. If you hit a long steel bar on the end with a hammer of equal hardness, neither the hammer nor the bar is instantly destroyed, instead we hear the bar ring as the energy is absorbed and converted to wave motion.

The twin towers were designed with a certain resiliency to withstand large hurricane forces and were allowed to bend and move by several feet in high winds. As such a large vertical downward force could also be absorbed by the bending shock absorption principle.

This is totally neglected in the "simple equations" of MH.

This is nothing more than a gratuitous nonsense posting where you are trying to compare apples to oranges.  "f" is defined as upward force on a collapsing building from a compaction layer at the bottom of the building where the building has completely lost its structural integrity at the compaction layer itself.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are discussing above.

I am pretty sure that you are aware of the fact that it has nothing to do with what you are discussing above and in that sense you should be worried about your own personal integrity.

MileHigh
   
img  eatenbyagrue
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #264 on: 2011-12-03, 15:56:09 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: tysb3 on 2011-12-03, 00:15:58
it's not  law of physics says, it's physics theory says

But all of a sudden you like physics theory when it helps you prove up your conspiracy?  You cannot have it both ways.  Either physics theory is reliable, and overunity is impossible, or it is not reliable, in which case you cannot use it as foundation for any argument.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #265 on: 2011-12-03, 16:09:27 »
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
And I notice that you have not commented on several points I've made, particular my point #1 above:

I noticed that you have not commented on the entire main thrust of my argument that explains how WTC7 fell at near free-fall speed and I hope that you do.

Quote
Quote
"1.  When one does a velocity-time analysis on their [NIST] simulation (done by physicist David Chandler), one finds that the acceleration of the falling roof is NOT g= 32.2ft/s**2 as observed, but rather much less than g. "

What do you think of that?

Not much that I can really say not having read the report.  Nor am I an expert on simulations but I do understand the base mathematics with respect to the finite element modelling.  The granularity of the simulation is probably quite coarse (just a guess)  considering they are trying to simulate a whole building on fire and subsequent collapse.  You have to give them credit for not "massaging" a variable or variables in their simulation to make the building fall faster and instead sticking by their best attempt to do the modeling.

MileHigh
   
img  ion
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #266 on: 2011-12-03, 16:16:20 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-12-03, 15:53:12
Ion:

This is nothing more than a gratuitous nonsense posting where you are trying to compare apples to oranges.  "f" is defined as upward force on a collapsing building from a compaction layer at the bottom of the building where the building has completely lost its structural integrity at the compaction layer itself.  It has absolutely nothing to do with what you are discussing above.

I am pretty sure that you are aware of the fact that it has nothing to do with what you are discussing above and in that sense you should be worried about your own personal integrity.

MileHigh

I'm basing my statements on personal experience with real world structures which can demonstrate modes far more complex than simple equations can provide for.

You are basing your opinion on oversimplified equations.

We agree to disagree, so be it, maybe you missed the point or would rather ignore it. In either case I'm not really worried about my personal integrity, as the ones who really are mixing apples and oranges seem to also be getting their buildings mixed up.

I'm now convinced there is no point in wasting any more time in endless debate on this issue as points of view on both sides are entrenched, and I think "dumped" summed it up rather well quite a few times.

I also won't ask you any questions or for your opinion on certain matters since you took it so badly the last time I did as if I was a Nazi interrogation officer, which I am not.

Rather, I will make my own assumptions about your "world point of view" as you already have concerning mine.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  tysb3
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #267 on: 2011-12-03, 17:21:01 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011-12-03, 15:56:09
But all of a sudden you like physics theory when it helps you prove up your conspiracy?  You cannot have it both ways.  Either physics theory is reliable, and overunity is impossible, or it is not reliable, in which case you cannot use it as foundation for any argument.

You don't see any difference between law and theory?
Against the law you can not put any theory.
Against the theory you can put thousands of theories of many directions.
You can not penetrate steel by aluminum in given speed - that's law.
The fly can not penetrate front window of car wihich goes 100 mph. That's exactly what will happen to aluminum plane when it hit the twin tower.
Overunity is impossible - that is the theory which will exist until OU device will be created, or conspiracy will be eliminated.
OU and conspiracy is the same ways. If you go conspiracy way you necessary come to OU (what happened to me).
« Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 19:58:29 by tysb3 »
   
img  ion
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #268 on: 2011-12-03, 18:55:34 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I think a lot of time can be saved by pre-qualifying anyone you wish to have a debate with concerning their world view.

Sometimes people are just too far apart politically, ideologically etc. to be even close to the same ballpark to have an engaging and insightful discussion with.

For example, if your debating opponent believes the US government is a benign, loving organization that never lies and is, dedicated to freedom and the spreading of freedom and democracy to all people, you will have a huge hurdle to overcome.

Does government never engage in conspiracy?

"Of course not, those good men in the Pentagon are too busy guarding us against foreign attackers to be hatching sinister plots"

History shows us that this is not the case as men do indeed get together to further their economic interests, be they mafia or government, those are just labels. Men do "conspire" and form groups to further their economic aims by whatever means necessary using blatant military force or clandestine black ops and then spin lies to their family or constituency  to make their actions palatable and justifiable.

Peel back a layer of lies covering truth, and you will definitely be called a "conspiracy theorist" at every turn as if conspiracy was something separate from and not an essential tool of corporatism, something outside and separate from empire building. The media tries to do this every time a layer of lies is peeled back to reveal a little truth, as the media and journalistic endeavor has long long ceased it's existence as the "fourth estate" and is now firmly well established in the pockets of government.

Whenever you are called a "conspiracy theorist" that should be an immediate red flag as it has always been used in a very negative connotation  by the propagandists to instantly label you a nut, a fruitcake, a whackadoo, a tinfoil hat wearing hippie pinko beatnik type.

When this happens best to back off in constructive retreat and find someone to talk to that you can share some ideas with and still have a friendly discussion.

Few know that the term "beatnik" was coined by propagandists shortly after "Sputnik" was launched by the Russians in order to imply a "commie pinko" connection somehow to those that saw through the mask of the system and hence decided to drop out or otherwise change their lifestyle to something other than an "approved clean cut one".

Choose your friends carefully, the divide can be wide.
« Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 20:12:09 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  tysb3
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #269 on: 2011-12-03, 19:52:13 »
Group: Guest
"THEY" still is calling names. It's their weapon. But it'll became inefficient when majority will be experienced in conspiracy. Then call name "conspiracy theorist" will change its meaning.
I don't afraid this name. If you find truth and speak it, you can not escape this call name until conspiracy is not disclosed to majority. 
Nothing is constant in present times. Lie can't be constant how big it wasn't.
   
img  giantkiller
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #270 on: 2011-12-03, 21:17:09 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1567
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Everything is masterbation be it physical or theoretical...


---------------------------
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/
   
img  cheappower2012
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #271 on: 2011-12-03, 22:32:26 »
Group: Guest
Milehigh do you believe that 911 happened because of terrorists and the government had no part in it. Do you believe that the government after 911 did not fabricate and twist data to convince the American people to attack Iraq.
Could you please clarify where you stand, do you trust the US government. My own personal view is I don't know whether 911 was a government plot, I believe they knew something was going to happen and let it happen in order to invade Iraq. I believe the government fabricated data after 911 to convince the American people that Iraq was responsible for 911. I personally do not trust our US government at all.
   
img  ion
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #272 on: 2011-12-03, 23:06:37 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011-12-03, 22:32:26
Milehigh do you believe that 911 happened because of terrorists and the government had no part in it. Do you believe that the government after 911 did not fabricate and twist data to convince the American people to attack Iraq.
Could you please clarify where you stand, do you trust the US government. My own personal view is I don't know whether 911 was a government plot, I believe they knew something was going to happen and let it happen in order to invade Iraq. I believe the government fabricated data after 911 to convince the American people that Iraq was responsible for 911. I personally do not trust our US government at all.


cheapower2012:

If you have listened carefully, you know exactly where MH stands, it is all there in the many clues he has left. His general language is ripe with adjectives that give his position away very clearly, not just on 911 but in regards his political leaning, belief systems, disbelief systems etc. He is an easy read.

Be careful about asking him such questions he is very touchy about that. His general image of himself is in his screen name, i.e. way above us all by 5280 +/-  feet, both intellectually and technically.

But maybe he will answer you anyway.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  muDped
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #273 on: 2011-12-03, 23:30:41 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
MH, ebag and several others take great
delight in their ability to evoke emotional
response to their proddings.

The have been programmed by the "Best"
(some would prefer BEAST) to carry out
their mission.

Rational discussion is an impossibility with
such heavily indoctrinated minions of the
established Powers that Be.

ION has correctly stated that their real
intent and motives are well characterized
within all that they write.  They wittingly,
and unwittingly, reveal to all who are able to
"see" what and who they truly are.

Have pity on them.  They have been greatly
deceived and believe that they have the
favor of the upper hand.

We are in the age when Truth will finally be
made known to all;  when the deceptions of
all time will be revealed and the perpetrators
exposed.  For many it is going to be a very
rough and painfully difficult time.

We have all been deceived and "programmed"
to some extent.  Fortunately the majority are
fast becoming aware and earnestly look forward
to the changes for good which are soon to come.



---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  ion
Re: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk! « Reply #274 on: 2011-12-04, 00:34:57 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I was home when I received the call to turn on the TV on the morning of 9/11 so I was able to watch and tape much of what was broadcast on the networks.

I rarely if ever watch TV, mostly I view it as a programming / propaganda device, and when I do watch, such as on that morning, I am always wondering "what are they trying to get me to believe, how are they trying to shape my mind and the mind of others".

I was in that mode on the morning of 9/11 and all through the day as network banner after banner spelled out "America Under Attack" with all the talking heads reading their scripting to the masses. It was so obviously  a propaganda machine churning out stuff to shape your beliefs, but if you were just taking notes as I was, none of it would stick.

You have to actively practice this mode if you are going to watch any TV, especially the staged "State of the Nation" so called discussions where  "experts" seem to be arguing among themselves. This stuff is cleverly scripted to shape opinion. It is not a casual discussion.

And after watching it if you are not careful, you will surely come away with an opinion, the one they want you to have.

As the day wore on I could see where the anger would be growing in the American people, because nothing was put into perspective and an agenda was being created. As the week wore on  the banners changed, the agenda became clearer  "America Under Attack" changed to "America Mourns" then "America At War".

I am very sorry and it saddens me deeply that 3000 innocent Americans were killed on that day. Their deaths must have been unimaginably horrible, and the fright they must have experienced makes my skin crawl when I think about being crushed and ground into pieces by the falling debris. I imagine "what if my own son or daughter had been there that day, how would I feel" and trust me it is a nightmare to imagine.

So on that day was the beginning of the programming that would cause lots of young people to sign up to fight in a foreign land and take their anger for 9/11 out on innocent dark skinned people who had nothing to do with the "attack". And in the following years hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans were slaughtered as vengeance, men women and children.

Even if you take the stance that we were indeed attacked by foreign terrorists, our response was totally disproportionate and unfocused, shameful and not befitting a nation that calls itself "God fearing or Christian or even fair".

Funny thing, no one on the media is outraged when ten or twenty thousand die prematurely from a bad drug churned out by the pharma industry.  We don't mobilize to take out the internal terrorists that make the billions on bad legal drugs. There is no big media campaign "America Fights Back at Big Pharma".

They are protected by the gangster state and the complicit media.

End of Rant.

« Last Edit: 2011-12-04, 14:26:07 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-18, 18:27:46