User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

25. February 2009, 08:25:44
The Usurper 
Subject: Some preliminary observations of your post....
Artful Dodger: Your first point is that you "watched a number of videos of the fires of surrounding buildings." It is true, buildings close to WTC 7 had bigger fires than it did. Why didn't they collapse also? But you argue that "It's structure was weakened by a number of contributing factors." Nevertheless, how did those factors cause it to collapse with the speed it did, and in the way it did? You say it wasn't "simultaneous." The phrase here ought to be "virtually simultaneous." In other words, no resistance is met with anywhere, at any point in the collapse, by any portion of the building. Only if the columns are simultaneously severed, would this seem to be possible.

"Anyone can come up with a series of questions about any event and word those questions in such a way as they draw a suspicious eye."

True perhaps, but the questions I asked seem fairly forthcoming, non-manipulative, to me. Are they suggestive? In one sense, yes. They point out strange anomalies. But these are anomalies that must be addressed. And couched within the questions are true statements of fact. For example, it is a fact that the 9/11 Commission ignored WTC-7 in its report. Why? Do you consider that an invalid, or immaterial, question? I submit that none of my questions "are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife." "

As to Silverstein's statement, how could the phrase "pull it" (a recognized term for using explosives to demolish a building by "pulling" out its supporting columns) be construed as saying, "the building is going to collapse"? Was the building going to "pull" itself? Or was the decision made to have the building pull itself down?

The case of WTC-7 really is "only a small part of a much larger picture." So the other side of what you say about this is also true, which is that, even if 9/11-Truthers are wrong about bldg. 7, this doesn't invalidate their arguments in other areas. However, my conviction at this point, is that they are correct here also.

Yes, the firefighters established a perimeter. They knew it was going to fall. They were told it would fall. Yet NIST itself cannot explain why it fell, and admits as much. I'm glad you saw this bit of evidence, that everyone knew a fall was immanent.

These are only some preliminary remarks. I will look at your websites. I will also provide some links for you. Perhaps together we can at least learn more about the collapse of WTC-7 than anyone else on Brainking! :o)

25. February 2009, 09:08:36
Mort 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
Modified by Mort (25. February 2009, 09:09:05)
The Usurper: Almost like the script from "V for Vendetta", where the ultra conservative UK government creates a bio weapon to which they have a cure. But instead of using it on other countries they use it on the UK people in 3 places to create fear so that the 'high chancellor' gets the power and authority to do what he wants. Prosecution of anyone who disagrees or annoys him.. Gays, Muslims, any minority is picked on, vanished (via black bagging and taking away) .... Torture is fine, firing squads are fine.

Unfortunately America can't help as they are in the midst of a civil war.

25. February 2009, 09:31:51
The Usurper 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
(V): You got it! "V for Vendetta" is a window into the truth. That's a great movie. It is one reason I liked you before you ever posted. lol

That is also one of the themes of Orwell's great book, "1984" (as I'm sure you know!). That is, the government leaders counted its own population as the real enemy. Occasionally bombs flew in from "somewhere," to let the people know there is an enemy out there and the government is providing protection. And to justify domestic repression & oppression, the curtailment of civil liberties, etc.

25. February 2009, 14:01:48
Mort 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
The Usurper: Oh I remember.. Also books like Brave New World where people are grown not born. And that you are grown to be a certain class (Alpha, Beta, etc) you had no chance to improve yourself. You were as bred.

One book I remember had the USA government fake a UFO crash so accurately that it does as they want and takes the peoples minds of the countries mess. ... civil war being round the corner.

In Dune, the emperor used the Atreidies enemies to get rid of the Duke and to exterminate a threat to his own power. But if you've read it, you'll know that there was a small matter of the locals being rather..... numerous then thought. And through hardship and the nature of their world they were naturally defiant and a strong people.

That's what Governments fear, a strong people, people that think, being able to see through the 'political rant', see the signs of 'being lied to' or 'less then truthful'. We've had so many recent events in British politics where MP's have been shown up over various things like fraud, deception, etc.. that the people are starting to really question what an MP is allowed in terms of 'expenses', especially when it comes to what it is for. One MP got caught paying his son (who was at uni at the time) £200K+ in wages and said he worked in his office... But the uni was accross the country so it was impossible. The real insult was that he had only to pay back a small part of the fraud!!!

One day... we'll have enough, and the MP's better beware that day. We might have some music and a little fireworks display.

26. February 2009, 02:11:41
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
The Usurper:In other words, no resistance is met with anywhere, at any point in the collapse, by any portion of the building. Only if the columns are simultaneously severed, would this seem to be possible.

I really don't think you can tell this for sure from the video.  It's not that clear.  At any rate, the building was severely weakened by the time of the collapse.  So it's not unreasonable for it to have fallen as it did. 

True perhaps, but the questions I asked seem fairly forthcoming, non-manipulative, to me.

When you call a quote a "confession," that is manipulative.

For example, it is a fact that the 9/11 Commission ignored WTC-7 in its report. Why? Do you consider that an invalid, or immaterial, question?

I don't consider that an invalid question.  I wouldn't mind knowing why they didn't report on WTC7.  Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for that.

I submit that none of my questions "are on the order of "When did you quit beating your wife." "

Fine, then they are on the order of "When did you quit kicking your cat." 


As to Silverstein's statement, how could the phrase "pull it" (a recognized term for using explosives to demolish a building by "pulling" out its supporting columns) be construed as saying, "the building is going to collapse"?


Pull the plan, pull the firefighters, who knows?  And pull it has to do with a non explosive way of falling a building.  They use cables and they fall an unstable building when there is danger of that building of falling onto other buildings. 


The case of WTC-7 really is "only a small part of a much larger picture." So the other side of what you say about this is also true, which is that, even if 9/11-Truthers are wrong about bldg. 7, this doesn't invalidate their arguments in other areas.

What I am saying is that if they were right about building 7, that would prove nothing towards all the  other events on 911.  WTC7 is likely the strongest case you have.  Clearly, the twin towers fell very much UNLIKE a explosive takedown.  The building crumbled.  I've seen the science on this and it's more than a reasonable explanation.  You can't wire buildings like that to fall without hundreds of experts.  Sorry, you can't keep that many people quiet, not even with the threat of death.

Yes, the firefighters established a perimeter. They knew it was going to fall. They were told it would fall. Yet NIST itself cannot explain why it fell, and admits as much.

I could have told you it was gonna fall just by looking at it.  It was totally unstable.  No way was that building going to remain standing.  And just because NIST can't explain why it fell doesn't mean it was blown up.  Sheesh....



26. February 2009, 02:14:45
Czuch 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
Artful Dodger: Give it up Art.... how you got sucked in this far, really????

26. February 2009, 02:29:34
The Usurper 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
Czuch: Art's just getting warmed up! He loves a good mystery as much as the next man. You ought to climb aboard, there's plenty of room. :o)

26. February 2009, 02:36:12
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Give it up Art.... how you got sucked in this far, really????
Czuch:Hush!  I'm winning the debate! 

26. February 2009, 03:30:25
The Usurper 
Subject: Re: "Hush! I'm winning the debate!"
Artful Dodger: Winning?

I'll admit you're doing your damndest (sp), though how you transform a collapse showing ALL the obvious signs of controlled demolition into a "routine" collapse by fire which breaks many laws of physics, is a wonder to me.

But this debate is healthy for both of us. Everyone else just has to suffer through it. lol

26. February 2009, 02:22:35
The Usurper 
Subject: Re: Some preliminary observations of your post....
Artful Dodger: Welcome back Dan! Nice of you to pop in with such an awful post! lol :o)

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top