Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site

[blufish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bad things happen and the government is not going to save you, man. same with the whole katrina "fiasco". grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This becomes problematic, however, when the government claims it can save you and asks you to give up a lot of your liberty to accomplish that end. Oh, and also outlaws competition on the "saving you" front.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

what exactly are you thanking him for? nothing in there has anything to do with your point.

btw, i don't remember or know of any people in government who claim that they can "save you", except those demented liberals... i also wonder where all of these everyday americans are that have lost their "liberty". i don't know any. i live my everyday life now the same as i did pre 9/11.

our country is big and our borders are huge and open. sometimes the answers are simple. dueces has it right.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does there have to be a conspiracy theory to prove your point. Everything you need to know is already proven:

1) THEY KNEW about the threat <font color="blue">yeah? and? fanatical crazy muslims have been around decades </font> .

2) THEY KNEW that it would involve airplanes again, <font color="blue"> so what. i'm on a team that builds airports. you obviously have no clue regarding the volume of air traffic there is. </font>

3) THEY KNEW that the trade centers were likely targets <font color="blue"> maybe because they were BOMBED before? so what?? your smart. everyone on the planet knew that one.</font>

4) THEY KNEW that it was from Al Queda <font color="blue"> and? </font>

5) THEY KNEW that the organization had the ability to pull it off <font color="blue"> and? it wasn't all that hard, was it? this means nothing. you are on a roll. </font>

6) THEREFORE, THEY KNEW the threat was credible <font color="blue"> and? how many threats do you think the FBI, CIA, or what have you, get a day, a month a year? another clueless point. do you live in a shell or something ?</font>

7) THEY ALSO KNEW the threat was imminent <font color="blue"> and? imminent is relative. imminent as in within the next 30 seconds, within the year, or decade? thanks for the clear up.</font>

8) AND YET, they did absolutely nothing to mitigate the threat because THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPEN. <font color="blue"> oh, i guess we should have had an all ground stop across the planet. wait. what flight, out of what airport, going where, at what time, which "middle eastern" looking guys to catch? </font>

All of that is proven and yet the public is so stupid that they don't realize that their government implicitly, through inaction, agreed to this attack and desired for it to happen. <font color="blue"> ridiculous. you haven't stated anything, but nutbag conspiracy theories. idiotic. bad things happen and the government is not going to save you, man. same with the whole katrina "fiasco". grow up.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

When intelligence indicates that Al Queda plans to do something, you don't just ignore it. It is proven that they had foreknowledge of almost every facet of the attack except for the exact timing of it. Your rebuttal is merely spin.

Further, there is no conspiracy theory to it. There was no need for the government to plan and execute the attacks because we had people (our enemies) who were more than willing to do it. All of points 1-7 are proven. They did nothing to mitigate it and, thus, point #8 is a reasonably intelligent conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's prevent it then....

Shutdown our borders... no one in out out.. NO ONE, sorry, no exceptions.
Airplanes are grounded indeterminately
Strict curfew! No one out of their house before 5am, and everyone back by 10pm.

LOL, that will show them [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IIRC that thing is nothing more than "we didn't find any evidence to support x".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's supposed to refute it? I mean, elaborate on the points and methodology, but as a summary "we didn't find any evidence to support x" is pretty damning for x.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, it's not. When a government funded agency tells you that they didn't find anything to encriminate the government, then it means squadoosh.

It's almost exactly like all the officials saying that they had no idea that weapons would potentially be used as weapons, or that they had any warnings; it's the standard *I don't know nothing* argument. In reality, there was a drill that morning of the exact same events happening (hijacked planes into pentagon, WTC, etc). Do you see how *We didn't find evidence for..* is meaningless?

On a similar point; the official partyline considering the insider trading just before 9/11 is (as found in the Commission Report) "we couldn't trace the trading back to the terrorists, so this information is of no importance".

To conclude their method:

* Assume conclusion
* Dismiss any evidence that doesn't point to conclusion
* Voila, the 19 hijackers &amp; Osama Bin Laden myth is born.

[kerowo]

[LongRedHair]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IIRC that thing is nothing more than "we didn't find any evidence to support x".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's supposed to refute it? I mean, elaborate on the points and methodology, but as a summary "we didn't find any evidence to support x" is pretty damning for x.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, it's not. When a government funded agency tells you that they didn't find anything to encriminate the government, then it means squadoosh.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nielsio it's pretty obvious that you never bothered to read the report because Protec is not a "government funded agency" they are a private company and were not even paid by the government to produce the report. They did it all on there own.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IIRC that thing is nothing more than "we didn't find any evidence to support x".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's supposed to refute it? I mean, elaborate on the points and methodology, but as a summary "we didn't find any evidence to support x" is pretty damning for x.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, it's not. When a government funded agency tells you that they didn't find anything to encriminate the government, then it means squadoosh.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nielsio it's pretty obvious that you never bothered to read the report because Protec is not a "government funded agency" they are a private company and were not even paid by the government to produce the report. They did it all on there own.

[/ QUOTE ]


Read page 2.

* The are indeed a government contracted agency

* They are clearly not in a position to have an objective opinion because there is no way they could possibly fall to the 'controlled demolition' position, given their public status.


However, if you go overseas you will find controlled demolition experts who say the exact opposite of this report. Here is a list of almost 200 (structural) engineers, architects, etc, who don't accept the official story:
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php


Just look at their ASSERTION #1, where they try to dismiss controlled demolition because the collapse wasn't bottom-up;

This is just such a silly way to deal with this claim. Nobody claims the state would implode the buildings bottom-up; that would be the dumbest false flag operation in history. And besides that, I showed in this very thread an example of a top-down demolition.

Another claim they make is that they try to debunk the idea of applying demolition charges to the building between the time of impact and the collapse, which is another assinine straw man. Nodoby claims this gigantic building was rigged in an hour of panic, fire, smoke and mayhem.

Contrast this with finding strong evidence for opportunity:

Unusual Evacuations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo


Do you see how this paper is incredibly biased? They can't possibly be said to take the controlled demolition theory seriously. Their mindset is totally focussed on the official story and how they can handwave anything else.

[LongRedHair]

Nielsio, using your own words and not using any links to anywhere ( because all the links you provide have different theories on how things were done) I want to know how YOU think it was done. Could you please answer the following questions :-

1) What kind of explosives were used ?
2) Where were they placed ?
3) When and how were they placed ?
4) How were they detonated ?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio, using your own words and not using any links to anywhere ( because all the links you provide have different theories on how things were done) I want to know how YOU think it was done. Could you please answer the following questions :-

1) What kind of explosives were used ?
2) Where were they placed ?
3) When and how were they placed ?
4) How were they detonated ?

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you tell me what the purpose of the exercise is?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio, using your own words and not using any links to anywhere ( because all the links you provide have different theories on how things were done) I want to know how YOU think it was done. Could you please answer the following questions :-

1) What kind of explosives were used ?
2) Where were they placed ?
3) When and how were they placed ?
4) How were they detonated ?

[/ QUOTE ]


Can you tell me what the purpose of the exercise is?

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears he wants you to perform a useful exercise in critical thinking for yourself rather than relying on crackpot conspiracy theories and links from other crackpots found all over the internet.

If you in fact are unable to answer his questions perhaps you should step back and be more objective and at least consider that you don't even have enough personal experience or information to make an educated decision one way or another.

Jimbo

[warrantofice]

Wow. longest thread thats never going anywhere.

I bet half the posters here play World of WarCraft