|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I sure do hope that what he suggests isn't correct... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, do you read any of the crap you post? Perfect example: those idiots try to dbunk the building collapse with nothing more than:
See! Progressive failures DO happen!
And none of their examples in any way match the situation at the WTC. They debunked nothing.
I also looked at the take on the warnings. While there were warnings from many different sources prior to 911, they cite only ONE memo, and their interpretation ignores a very simple reality: No one would expect the government to act solely on one suspicious element. But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about FBI agents being shut down in their work.We're talking about agents being silenced. We're talking about a compendium of events and warnings, not one memo. Analysis is in putting lots of little pieces together, not pretending one memo was the sole source of warnings.
But, of course, you can't understand this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure...and Elvis isn't dead. 
One of the biggest flaws in the whole missile hitting the Pentagon and explosives in the World Trade Center theories is that backers of both conspiracies compare the damage to both building to prove their points, disregarding the fact that both buildings couldn't be more different. The World Trade Center was essentially a tower constructed of steel, aluminium, concrete and glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, was a concrete fortress with thousands of tons of dirt between its layers (yes, just like old fortresses. The plane disintegrated on impact because it basically hit a reinforced mound of dirt).
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Sure...and Elvis isn't dead.
One of the biggest flaws in the whole missile hitting the Pentagon and explosives in the World Trade Center theories is that backers of both conspiracy theories compare the damage to both building, disregarding the fact that both buildings couldn't be more different in design. The World Trade Center was essentially a tower constructed of steel, aluminium, concrete and glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, was a concrete fortress with thousands of tons of dirt between its layers (yes, just like old fortresses. This explains why the plane disintegrated on impact. It basically hit a reinforced mound of dirt). |
I am, for the first time, looking at this stuff today. None of the things I ahve read or watched are claiming what you state. What are you talking about?
With regard to the Pentagon: where are the wings and where is the damage where the wings should have hit?
And, quite simply: why is the footage of the hit on the Pentagon classified? That makes no sense. Would't the government want us to everythign there is to know about this attack on our nation?
Apply the KISS principle to 9/11 and you get real confused real fast. That shouldn't be the case if it was all simple collapse. And, what caused 7 to collapse? The small fires on two floors?
If the government, i.e. the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have signed off on faked terrorism to enrage the populace in the past (Northwoods), why do people like you try to equate people who think that may have been the case with 9/11 with Elvis sightings? Idiotic. Northwoods is a real document and is exactly the sort of thing that happened with 9/11. If the government would do taht once, why not twice?
What happened to the core columns in the WTC buildings? How did they fall at the speed of freefall? One floor hitting another is not going to SPEED UP a fall, it will slow it. Why didn't 80 to 90 impacts slow the fall?
Etc., etc.
To say there are no questions here is just foolish. Was it a conspiracy? A Northwoods? I don't know. But I'm not burying my head in the sand. I want my freedoms back.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Sure...and Elvis isn't dead.
One of the biggest flaws in the whole missile hitting the Pentagon and explosives in the World Trade Center theories is that backers of both conspiracy theories compare the damage to both building, disregarding the fact that both buildings couldn't be more different in design. The World Trade Center was essentially a tower constructed of steel, aluminium, concrete and glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, was a concrete fortress with thousands of tons of dirt between its layers (yes, just like old fortresses. This explains why the plane disintegrated on impact. It basically hit a reinforced mound of dirt). |
I am, for the first time, looking at this stuff today. None of the things I ahve read or watched are claiming what you state. What are you talking about?
With regard to the Pentagon: where are the wings and where is the damage where the wings should have hit?
And, quite simply: why is the footage of the hit on the Pentagon classified? That makes no sense. Would't the government want us to everythign there is to know about this attack on our nation?
Apply the KISS principle to 9/11 and you get real confused real fast. That shouldn't be the case if it was all simple collapse. And, what caused 7 to collapse? The small fires on two floors? |
People who claim that there should have been more debris at the Pentagon if an airplane had hit it point to the debris found at the WTC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Sure...and Elvis isn't dead.
One of the biggest flaws in the whole missile hitting the Pentagon and explosives in the World Trade Center theories is that backers of both conspiracy theories compare the damage to both building, disregarding the fact that both buildings couldn't be more different in design. The World Trade Center was essentially a tower constructed of steel, aluminium, concrete and glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, was a concrete fortress with thousands of tons of dirt between its layers (yes, just like old fortresses. This explains why the plane disintegrated on impact. It basically hit a reinforced mound of dirt). |
I am, for the first time, looking at this stuff today. None of the things I ahve read or watched are claiming what you state. What are you talking about?
With regard to the Pentagon: where are the wings and where is the damage where the wings should have hit?
And, quite simply: why is the footage of the hit on the Pentagon classified? That makes no sense. Would't the government want us to everythign there is to know about this attack on our nation?
Apply the KISS principle to 9/11 and you get real confused real fast. That shouldn't be the case if it was all simple collapse. And, what caused 7 to collapse? The small fires on two floors? |
People who claim that there should have been more debris at the Pentagon if an airplane had hit it point to the debris found at the WTC. |
I've still come across no comment such as you state.
Tell me, if Kerosene burns at 1300 and the steel columns in WTC 1 and 2 were certified for fires of over 2000 for six hours, what the hell happened? What about the blasts? What about the basement explosions? What about the MELTED steel? What about the building in Spain that burned all day and all night, was reduced to nothing but it's frame, and still stood?
Tell me, where did the wings go? Footage prior to the collapse at the Pentagon shows a hole not even big enough for the basic plane and no damage where the wings would have hit. And no wings!
Etc., etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Sure...and Elvis isn't dead.
One of the biggest flaws in the whole missile hitting the Pentagon and explosives in the World Trade Center theories is that backers of both conspiracy theories compare the damage to both building, disregarding the fact that both buildings couldn't be more different in design. The World Trade Center was essentially a tower constructed of steel, aluminium, concrete and glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, was a concrete fortress with thousands of tons of dirt between its layers (yes, just like old fortresses. This explains why the plane disintegrated on impact. It basically hit a reinforced mound of dirt). |
I am, for the first time, looking at this stuff today. None of the things I ahve read or watched are claiming what you state. What are you talking about?
With regard to the Pentagon: where are the wings and where is the damage where the wings should have hit?
And, quite simply: why is the footage of the hit on the Pentagon classified? That makes no sense. Would't the government want us to everythign there is to know about this attack on our nation?
Apply the KISS principle to 9/11 and you get real confused real fast. That shouldn't be the case if it was all simple collapse. And, what caused 7 to collapse? The small fires on two floors? |
People who claim that there should have been more debris at the Pentagon if an airplane had hit it point to the debris found at the WTC. |
I've still come across no comment such as you state.
Tell me, if Kerosene burns at 1300 and the steel columns in WTC 1 and 2 were certified for fires of over 2000 for six hours, what the hell happened? What about the blasts? What about the basement explosions? What about the MELTED steel? What about the building in Spain that burned all day and all night, was reduced to nothing but it's frame, and still stood?
Tell me, where did the wings go? Footage prior to the collapse at the Pentagon shows a hole not even big enough for the basic plane and no damage where the wings would have hit. And no wings!
Etc., etc. |
Actually, the burden of proof rests on you. But, let me take a crack at it. There were pieces of wing on the lawn (if you stayed away from the conspiracy theory sites and did your own research, you'd find enough pictures that show evidence of that). The building in Spain was not hit by a plane, nor was it the WTC. The hole in the Pentagon was big enough and the plane penetrated the Pentago 150 feet deep (and a plane is a long aluminium tube, the Pentagon is a fortress). The collision shook the building and weakened its structure. The blasts/building explosions could have been simply signs that the structure was giving ( I've been in a building that was violently shaken by what I thought was a bomb or an earthquake, but was in fact just bricks on its southern wall exploding under the pressure created by their expansion due to sunlight. So imagine the explosion you could get when the structure of such a large buiding at the WTCs would give out). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
Sure...and Elvis isn't dead.
One of the biggest flaws in the whole missile hitting the Pentagon and explosives in the World Trade Center theories is that backers of both conspiracy theories compare the damage to both building, disregarding the fact that both buildings couldn't be more different in design. The World Trade Center was essentially a tower constructed of steel, aluminium, concrete and glass. The Pentagon, on the other hand, was a concrete fortress with thousands of tons of dirt between its layers (yes, just like old fortresses. This explains why the plane disintegrated on impact. It basically hit a reinforced mound of dirt). |
I am, for the first time, looking at this stuff today. None of the things I ahve read or watched are claiming what you state. What are you talking about?
With regard to the Pentagon: where are the wings and where is the damage where the wings should have hit?
And, quite simply: why is the footage of the hit on the Pentagon classified? That makes no sense. Would't the government want us to everythign there is to know about this attack on our nation?
Apply the KISS principle to 9/11 and you get real confused real fast. That shouldn't be the case if it was all simple collapse. And, what caused 7 to collapse? The small fires on two floors? |
People who claim that there should have been more debris at the Pentagon if an airplane had hit it point to the debris found at the WTC. |
I've still come across no comment such as you state.
Tell me, if Kerosene burns at 1300 and the steel columns in WTC 1 and 2 were certified for fires of over 2000 for six hours, what the hell happened? What about the blasts? What about the basement explosions? What about the MELTED steel? What about the building in Spain that burned all day and all night, was reduced to nothing but it's frame, and still stood?
Tell me, where did the wings go? Footage prior to the collapse at the Pentagon shows a hole not even big enough for the basic plane and no damage where the wings would have hit. And no wings!
Etc., etc. |
Actually, the burden of proof rests on you. But, let me take a crack at it. There were pieces of wing on the lawn (if you stayed away from the conspiracy theory sites and did your own research, you'd find enough pictures that show evidence of that). The building in Spain was not hit by a plane, nor was it the WTC. The hole in the Pentagon was big enough and the plane penetrated the Pentago 150 feet deep (and a plane is a long aluminium tube, the Pentagon is a fortress). The collision shook the building and weakened its structure. The blasts/building explosions could have been simply signs that the structure was giving ( I've been in a building that was violently shaken by what I thought was a bomb or an earthquake, but was in fact just bricks on its southern wall exploding under the pressure created by their expansion due to sunlight. So imagine the explosion you could get when the structure of such a large buiding at the WTCs would give out). |
What burden? I'm asking questions, not making accusations. BTW, the explosion in question? Prior to the plane hitting, if memory serves. I've seen no pictures or video from immediately after the hit on the Pentagon that show any debris. Hours later, yes, but at the time? No.
And why not release the video from the security cameras? What could possibly be gained by witholding it?
Why was there no forensic investigation of 9/11? They spend YEARS investigating plane crashes, but the collapse of three buildings, in ways neve seen before nor since, gets no investigation?
Why was the company that hauled away the steel beams from 9/11 a demolition company?
What about the guy who leased the WTC stating they made a decision to "pull" building 7?
The melted steel?
The cores?
The speed of collapse being the same as free fall, which is physcally impossible without demolition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
He claimed this and that, but where's the beef?
Next thing he's going to say is who did it. IT WAS THE SPACE ALIEN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
What burden? I'm asking questions, not making accusations. BTW, the explosion in question? Prior to the plane hitting, if memory serves. I've seen no pictures or video from immediately after the hit on the Pentagon that show any debris. Hours later, yes, but at the time? No. |
I've seen nothing that proves there were such explosions, but I've seen pictures that were taken shortly after the collision.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
And why not release the video from the security cameras? What could possibly be gained by witholding it? |
The government simply doesn't want these to be used for propaganda purposes by its enemies.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Why was there no forensic investigation of 9/11? They spend YEARS investigating plane crashes, but the collapse of three buildings, in ways neve seen before nor since, gets no investigation? |
Well, it's pretty obvious why the buildings collapsed: a couple of planes crashed into them.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Why was the company that hauled away the steel beams from 9/11 a demolition company? |
My guess is that they got the contract because they had the trucks and the experience needed to clean out the site. Besides, who else would have been experienced to clean out the site?
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
What about the guy who leased the WTC stating they made a decision to "pull" building 7? |
'Pull' as in?
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The melted steel?
|
Jet fuel and the flammable material in the building did it.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The cores?
|
What about them?
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The speed of collapse being the same as free fall, which is physcally impossible without demolition? |
Impossible, and yet it happened.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| To say there are no questions here is just foolish. Was it a conspiracy? |
Another IGTG. It was just a matter of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
What burden? I'm asking questions, not making accusations. BTW, the explosion in question? Prior to the plane hitting, if memory serves. I've seen no pictures or video from immediately after the hit on the Pentagon that show any debris. Hours later, yes, but at the time? No. |
I've seen nothing that proves there were such explosions, but I've seen pictures that were taken shortly after the collision. |
Do a search on google video for 9/11. So, you've never seen any of the news reports, live that day, talking about explosions, for example? Well, a few billion other people did.
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
And why not release the video from the security cameras? What could possibly be gained by witholding it? |
The government simply doesn't want these to be used for propaganda purposes by its enemies. |
That's just stupid.
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Why was there no forensic investigation of 9/11? They spend YEARS investigating plane crashes, but the collapse of three buildings, in ways neve seen before nor since, gets no investigation? |
Well, it's pretty obvious why the buildings collapsed: a couple of planes crashed into them. |
And you have scientific, forensic evidence to prove the crashes were the cause? What about WTC 7?
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Why was the company that hauled away the steel beams from 9/11 a demolition company? |
My guess is that they got the contract because they had the trucks and the experience needed to clean out the site. Besides, who else would have been experienced to clean out the site? |
So, then, you have no information, you're just in this thread to say, "Just because?"
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
What about the guy who leased the WTC stating they made a decision to "pull" building 7? |
'Pull' as in? |
Why are you in this thead if you have no info? It's a term used in demolition.
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The melted steel?
|
Jet fuel and the flammable material in the building did it. |
So, you cannot read? Did I not already post in this thread that there was nothing in the planes nor the building that burns hot enough to do that? Did I not post that those columns were rated for 6 hours at over 2000 degrees? How could they have fallen in such short times? And why did the building hit SECOND fall FIRST, if due to fire?
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The cores?
|
What about them? |
Are you trying to appear to be ignorant? Again, if you have not reviewed any of the issues even slightly, why are you opening your mouth?
| Quote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The speed of collapse being the same as free fall, which is physcally impossible without demolition? |
Impossible, and yet it happened. |
Precisely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To say there are no questions here is just foolish. Was it a conspiracy? |
Another IGTG. It was just a matter of time. |
Do tell. Where have I stated an opinion about the cause of 9/11 or the collapses themselves? And, it is not at all far fetched. Our government had previously planned false terrorist attacks. Is that due to IGTG? To me? Did we plant the Northwoods documents?
Idiotic response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
