POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

yea Howard they want to keep money coming in, if they agreed the government would have made sure they lost funding of some sort.

interesting. i'm sure that that school is crawling with nwo shadows by now.
people value there lives and professions, and going against big brother is a known career-killer.

lies and propoganda, threats and infiltration. that's how fascism works, don't you know? and it does work.

Ahhh, the paranoid minds at work. . .





Which is more likely:

1) Jones is a nutcase and just plain wrong,

or

2) Everyone else at BYU is a craven coward so afraid of loosing their cushy jobs that hey cave in at the slightest bit of pressure to cover up what would be (if true, which it is not) the most significant political scandal of history?

Hmmm...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ahhh, the paranoid minds at work. . .

Which is more likely:

1) Jones is a nutcase and just plain wrong,

or

2) Everyone else at BYU is a craven coward so afraid of loosing their cushy jobs that hey cave in at the slightest bit of pressure to cover up what would be (if true, which it is not) the most significant political scandal of history?

Hmmm...

Well prove he his wrong, you can't, prove he is nuts you can't,

all you do is discredit the messenger, but the facts remain and you can not prove the government story true.

I knew you would like this Sauron. Suprised you didn't see it earlier.

I think this:

The government was trying to "kill these people" and then use them for some millitary project. Kind of like Elvis "disappeared" you know?

Jones' career is definitely at risk because of this. The amount of negative attention anyone in the government or academia receives for speaking against the established line is well known. In the days of Copernicus, one would be burnt at the stake. Nowadays, one is still burnt at the stake but only in a metaphorical sense (although the occasional congressman does end up in a plane crash). Some of the persecution is from bodies with vested interest, but most of it is simply from the herd herding itself. The twin towers aside, if Jones' were in the engineering faculty and he raised the possibility that WTC7 alone was brought down by explosives, he would be dismissed within a few days because the faculty has a reputation to protect, and more importantly, continued funding to protect.

You can rest assured that there are people even at NIST who, after looking at all the data, have some serious questions as to how WTC7 was brought down. If you think they, as isolated individuals, are going to go on a solo crusade against the government and the established line, in the process completely ruining their present and future careers and the lives of their families, then you're fooling yourself. You don't need spooks threatening people, the herd will herd itself.

Half a century later and individuals who know something are still not game enough to go it alone and speak out about the JFK assassination. And they know that even if they did, and after their lives were ruined, no change would be affected anyway.

But in regards to 9-11, the numbers are growing; the dam is starting to crack. And Jones and all the other whistleblowers, like Sibel Edmunds, are simply the appetizer.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Ahhh, the paranoid minds at work. . .


Which is more likely:

1) Jones is a nutcase and just plain wrong,

or

2) Everyone else at BYU is a craven coward so afraid of loosing their cushy jobs that hey cave in at the slightest bit of pressure to cover up what would be (if true, which it is not) the most significant political scandal of history?

Hmmm...

if i was paranoid i would feel fear, which i do not.
it is not just their jobs that are threatened, but the lives of themselves and their families. (a probable scenario, i am not saying this is actually the case. unlike you, i don't know everything)
would not the most signifigant political scandal in history carry with it the most nefarious of hush-up campaigns?

i mean, a million dollars per family of the tower victims is quite the payout(positive reinforcement).

what happened to the anthrax perps? the media just fell silent(after reporting that it came from a us military lab). no big deal, i guess. not important for the american people to know the truth of that situation. (negative reinforcement)

who MURDERED all those microbiologists? (negative reinforcement)

why did the bird flu appear shortly after labs started messing with the revived spanish flu virus?

i'm not paranoid, howard, just aware. but you already know that.
all people who have found the big plan of the nwo are 'kooks', 'paranoid', 'whack or nut jobs', 'liberal', 'lefty' etc.

besides which, we have to take this one prof's word on whether all the engineers agree or disagree. he could be lying, and in fact there is a hot debate going on between faculty members. i dunno.
i do know tower seven was demolished. i do know huge pools of molten metal don't just happen, and buildings don't break everywhere at once.

AgentSmith wrote:
As the arrow points out you can see the same effect from the area also on fire. You will also notice that smoke is already coming from the 'squib' areas and what else would you expect it to do when the top of the building collapses in like that?

Of course you would see expulsion of smoke and debris as the collapse started; that's a given. But what is more interesting than that is the fact that the amount of smoke being expelled from the collapse point increases before the collapse. This indicates that pressures inside the building were suddenly increased dramatically, possibly as explosions or other reactions were occurring inside at the core area creating overpressure inside the structure. This increase in pressure can not not be explained by the collapse because it occurs before the collapse begins. In fact, the smoke being expelled throughout the entire cap also increases in volume just before the collapse, further indicating that overpressure was produced inside the structure.

Your video is a little unclear. You can see one that's much clearer here: WTC1 collapse - 13Mb

Below is the first frame from that video:


The building has been smoldering away for quite some time at this point. Then, across the next 30 seconds, there is a marked increase in the amount of smoke being expelled from the collapse point, and indeed from the entire cap.

Below is a capture a couple of seconds before the collapse. You can see the vast difference in smoke volume, and that the (future) collapse point has started smoking profusely. Also of note is the sudden change in color and consistency (thicker and brownish) of the smoke being pushed out the top of the building.



Below I've placed the two frames together to get a clearer idea of the dramatic increase in pressure inside the structure before the collapse.



There seems to be only one reasonable explanation for this pre-collapse increase in pressure inside the structure, and a "syringe effect" from collapse is not it. Keep in mind that thermite, which is conventional industry-level tech, can also be used to cut through columns without producing tell-tale explosions and squibs. Once the column is cut (in effect, melted), all that is needed is a much smaller charge to shift the column from it's vertical axis and let gravity do the rest. Also keep in mind that thermite reaction produces a lot of heat and smoke...and molten metal ==>

external image

Regarding the plane impacts knocking explosives off:

1. It is unlikely that the plane would damage explosives if they were placed on the core columns. Even according to NIST's estimations of the damage, only a small percentage of the core columns were damaged and/or destroyed. Lets' say that the charges are set up to cut all the columns. If even 20% of the explosives on those columns are disabled, it won't matter because destruction of 80% of the core columns would still initiate a collapse.

2. Columns that had explosives knocked off by being severely damaged or severed by the plane wreckage would then not need to be severed by charges, because the plane has already done the job! A win-win situation.

3. Demolition can be done wirelessly, so the cords being severed is not an issue.

4. If explosives were placed on the core columns, those placing them would obviously take measures to protect them from the explosion. In regards to those that were impacted, refer to point 2.

5. We are approaching the theory of how and what column severing devices and techniques were used from the point of view of conventional industry, which is a little moot considering that tech available to high-end military and intelligence would be more advanced than that of industry.

Regarding the video of the dome demolition:

www.controlled-demolition.com...
Notice the bright flashes and the delay between them, the smoke rising out and the bigger delay followed then by the collapse.

Exactly. The columns on this particular structure are on the outside so we get a good view of the sequencing and column severing effects. Notice how there is only a certain amount of smoke, but a lot of explosive power and pressure produced when the columns are severed, and then a great deal of smoke and dust when the building collapses, exactly as I explained at the start of this post above. That video is also relevant in regards to WTC7, because it shows that severing of columns does not necessarily produce huge squibs from column severing, thus the severing of core columns on the interior of WTC7 would not be visible from outside since they were quite a distance from the perimeter of the building.


[edit on 2005-11-20 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I sent an e-mail inquiry to Dr. Wood Miller, the chairperson of the civil and environmental engineering department of BYU (Structural engineering falls under the Civil engineering curriculum)

Howard, since you already have a correspondence going with Dr. Miller, could you possibly email him again and ask him what his theory is on what caused the thermal hotspots under WTC1, 2 & 7, which were still showing temperatures upwards of 1000Kelvin weeks after the collapses?

www.physicsforums.com...

Here is another board that may have more answers or govt imployee's (wish I got money for this-even at $1/hour).

If I ignore some solid facts, I'd say we have more proof that we didn't go to the moon!

As for the heat signatures, how long after the collapse were those taken? Does the flame of a bon fire get to those temp.s?

WCIP - What you havn't considered is that the sagging floors inside the structure would have more than likely started to collapse before any physical changes were seen from the outside - apart from the increase in smoke being caused by the 'syringe effect' in the building.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
WCIP - What you havn't considered is that the sagging floors inside the structure would have more than likely started to collapse before any physical changes were seen from the outside

Of course I haven't considered it, for the simple fact there's no evidence, data, or even physical possibility to support this, at all. Are you suggesting that floors were collapsing en masse throughout the inside the caps before the collapse of the building initiated? I realize that you're brainstorming in an attempt to find an alternative explanation for the sudden increase in smoke and pressure inside the cap, but you are out on your own with this particular one. NIST and FEMA would not support this hypothesis either, I can guarantee, because it directly contradicts and undermines their own hypothesis on the collapse mode. You'll have to do a lot of work to try to prove that one.

- apart from the increase in smoke being caused by the 'syringe effect' in the building.

There is no "syringe effect" possible before the collapse initiated.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Of course I haven't considered it, for the simple fact there's no evidence, data, or even physical possibility to support this, at all.

Really?........So there is no "physical possibility" to support the notion that buildings can have more damage inside the structure, and start collapsing (partial collapses) without showing much evidence of this damage in the outside?.... Riiiiight...and just claiming "there is no physical possibility to support this at all" is enough proof to show that you are correct.......

Silly me, and i wonder why so many firefighters have died in the line of duty when they believed that a building's redundant structure was not completly compromised when they didn't see a lot of damage to the outside of a building and died when the structure collapsed as they were inside the building trying to save people....

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Are you suggesting that floors were collapsing en masse throughout the inside the caps before the collapse of the building initiated?

I think he suggested that buildings can and do collapse partially, before collapsing completly and if they do collapse completly, when there is extensive fire damage.

I also believe he was trying to convey that the outside condition of a building does not necessarily convey the true damage to the building's redundant structure, or the extent of the damage inside the structure....

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I realize that you're brainstorming in an attempt to find an alternative explanation for the sudden increase in smoke and pressure inside the cap, but you are out on your own with this particular one.

And we also realize that you must try to save your "alternative explanation" at all cost...since you are set on "it was an inside job" No matter how many times you are proven wrong you always come back with another reason for "the controlled demolition theory."

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
NIST and FEMA would not support this hypothesis either, I can guarantee, because it directly contradicts and undermines their own hypothesis on the collapse mode. You'll have to do a lot of work to try to prove that one.

How would you know whether NIST and FEMA would support a theory or not?.... btw there are other theories made by structural engineers out there on how the wtc collapsed, not all of them agree with FEMA's or NIST theories, but neither do they agree with the "controlled demolition theory."

Let's see some of the excerpts from the structural engineer's standpoint.

Buildings, like all structures, are designed to support certain loads without deforming excessively. The loads are the weights of people and objects, the weight of rain and snow and the pressure of wind--called live loads--and the dead load of the building itself. With buildings of a few floors, strength generally accompanies sufficent rigidity, and the design is mainly that of a roof that will keep the weather out while spanning large open spaces. With tall buildings of many floors, the roof is a minor matter, and the support of the weight of the building itself is the main consideration. Like long bridges, tall buildings are subject to catastrophic collapse.

The World Trade Center towers used neither a steel skeleton nor reinforced concrete. They were designed as square tubes made of heavy, hollow welded sections, braced against buckling by the building floors. Massive foundations descended to bedrock, since the towers had to be safe against winds and other lateral forces tending to overturn them. All this was taken into consideration in the design and construction, which seems to have been first-rate. An attempt to damage the buildings by a bomb at the base had negligible effect. The strong base and foundation would repel any such assault with ease, as it indeed did. The impact of aircraft on the upper stories had only a local effect, and did not impair the integrity of the buildings, which remained solid. The fires caused weakening of the steel, and some of the floors suddenly received a load for which they were not designed.

What happened next was unexpected and catastrophic. The slumped floors pushed the steel modules outwards, separating them from the floor beams. The next floor then collapsed on the one below, pushing out the steel walls, and this continued, in the same way that a house of cards collapses. The debris of concrete facing and steel modules fell in shower while the main structure collapsed at almost the same rate. In 15 seconds or so, 110 stories were reduced to a pile 9 stories high, mainly of steel wall modules and whatever was around them. The south tower collapsed 47 minutes after impact, the north tower 1 hour 44 minutes after impact. The elapsed times show that the impacts were not the proximate cause of collapse; the strong building easily withstood them. When even one corner of a floor was weakened and fell, the collapse would soon propagate around the circumference, and the building would be lost.

Excerpted from.
www.du.edu...

Structural engineer describes collapse of the World Trade Center towers
Vulnerabilities in the design of New York's World Trade Center (WTC) are likely to have contributed to the collapse of its two main towers and adjacent buildings, according to Ronald O. Hamburger, a structural engineer currently investigating the Sept. 11 disaster.

"These buildings were incredibly strong, especially with respect to resisting dead loads and wind loads, but they also had a number of vulnerabilities," Hamburger told a packed auditorium on Nov. 29 when he delivered the second John A. Blume Distinguished Lecture -- an annual event sponsored by Stanford's Blume Earthquake Engineering Center.
................................
As chief structural engineer and senior vice president of ABS Consulting Inc. in Oakland, Calif., Hamburger is a member of an engineering team commissioned by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to assess the performance of the WTC and surrounding buildings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

He pointed out that four buildings were immediately destroyed in the WTC assault, and three others suffered irreparable damage and are in the process of being razed. Another half-dozen buildings were harmed structurally but can be repaired, and more than 50 others were damaged by the enormous debris cloud and the burning material that followed the collapse of the twin towers.

Excerpted from.
news-service.stanford.edu...


Some other interesting reading on the subject.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

www.arup.com...



[edit on 22-11-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Silly me, and i wonder why so many firefighters have died in the line of duty when they believed that a building's redundant structure was not completly compromised when they didn't see a lot of damage to the outside of a building and died when the structure collapsed as they were inside the building trying to save people....

...because they were demolished? lol

What you just said read like this to me:

"No evidence for internal damage? I wonder why so many firemen died when the buildings fell from structural damage then. "

Sort of a stupid argument if you ask me..

I think he suggested that buildings can and do collapse partially, before collapsing completly and if they do collapse completly, when there is extensive fire damage.

But the problem is, this contradicts the official story.

And we also realize that you must try to save your "alternative explanation" at all cost...since you are set on "it was an inside job" No matter how many times you are proven wrong you always come back with another reason for "the controlled demolition theory."

So... what's been proven wrong, exactly?

How would you know whether NIST and FEMA would support a theory or not?

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
NIST and FEMA would not support this hypothesis either, I can guarantee, because it directly contradicts and undermines their own hypothesis on the collapse mode. You'll have to do a lot of work to try to prove that one.

He knows because both of those government agencies have published information regarding the WTC collapses, and he knows what they say.

The information the engineers you have quoted put forward does not sound very wrong. In fact, it sounds very convincing. I'm sure many of these people sincerely believe what they are saying, and pay no mind to anything a conspiracy theorist might say.

The problem is, they tend to overlook some major flaws in their theory. They don't notice the loss of angular momentum, or put much thought into what those little blasts along the buildings were, or how the potential energy in the caps could have possibly crushed the rest of their buildings, being much smaller and lighter than the lower floors, without so much as retarding (if you see me use the spelling "ritard," btw, it's because of the word 'ritardando' in music and means the same thing). Neither do structural engineers take the political side of it into account, or Silverstein's comments, or Bush's comments, or Rumsfeld's, or the implications of Operation Northwoods, or the wargames, or the large corporations and international bankers. That's where the structural engineers fail.

But, of course, when you take absolutely none of that into consideration, and on top of that think of your government as all good and honest, what the engineers say would seem to make perfect sense to you, I'm sure.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
The problem is, they tend to overlook some major flaws in their theory. They don't notice the loss of angular momentum,

Structural "engineers" will take into account everything, except political motivations, when they make a report on the collapse of any building, including the wtc. The only thing is that they do not have set on their mind, at least not most of them, "the government did it, so let me see if i can find anything to try to prove that they did it."

Originally posted by bsbray11
or put much thought into what those little blasts along the buildings were,

I have only seen one squib which was presented with pictures by some of the proponents of the "controlled demolition theory." In controlled demolitions there is not just one squib, and in such an explosion that would be needed for the effects on the wtc, everyone, and I mean everyone in New York would have heard the explosions. Yet we only get some reports, of some people hearing what they think were explosions. i wonder why only a few heard them...

Originally posted by bsbray11
or how the potential energy in the caps could have possibly crushed the rest of their buildings, being much smaller and lighter than the lower floors, without so much as retarding

Where did most of the mass of falling debris fall? Did it fall on these smaller buildings or on the rest of the floors of the wtc? There was damage to other buildings and some of those buildings collapsed , or had to be destroyed later on, due to the damage but none of those building recieved the "full effect from the collapsing towers" mostly the lower floors were the ones "crushed" by the rest of the floors falling on top of them.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Neither do structural engineers take the political side of it into account,

Of course they don't...once they do they are not structural engineers anymore, and become just another "politician in disguise."

Originally posted by bsbray11
or Silverstein's comments,

Which we have covered several times, including members in these forums who say that it is a slang used by firefighters to get their people out. But some people just want to take this out of context and try to devise their own conclusion.

Originally posted by bsbray11
or Bush's comments, or Rumsfeld's,

Really? president Bush says that "explosives were used to bring down the wtc"? I don't ever recall him saying such thing, but if he did, or if Rumsfeld did, then present the proof please.

Originally posted by bsbray11
or the implications of Operation Northwoods, or the wargames, or the large corporations and international bankers. That's where the structural engineers fail.

Let's see what Operations Northwood was all about.....even if it is out of topic..

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks (such as involving the use of "hijacked" planes as missiles) on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal. In addition, the existence of Operation Northwoods was often dismissed by the general U.S. public as an unfounded "conspiracy theory" until the draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive.

Excerpted from.
en.wikipedia.org...

First look at the date of this "proposed operation"...1962....is the same administration in power now?... no....

Second, do notice that the then Secretary of Defense Mcnamara rejected the proposal....

Third, do also notice that the draft memorandum was declassified by the National Security Archive, which is part of the government....

Originally posted by bsbray11
But, of course, when you take absolutely none of that into consideration, and on top of that think of your government as all good and honest, what the engineers say would seem to make perfect sense to you, I'm sure.

All of the above has been taken into consideration several times. i still don't see any "real evidence" that tells me it was an inside job, or that the towers were not brought down by radical Muslims flying 747s into the buildings which weakened the structures, but which survived the initial impact by the aircrafts, but then the fires weakened even more the redundant structure of the buildings which precipitated the collapse.


[edit on 23-11-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib


First look at the date of this "proposed operation"...1962....is the same administration in power now?... no....

I'll let someone else enlighten you on the rest of your post but to answer this question YES....

The real "powers that be" are the same families that have been the "powers that be" since government was first introduce to control and enslave the peasants.

Do you really think each administration starts all over from scratch?
That things change with each new president?

If you do then I understand why you are so confused.

What we are seeing now is just the latest fase of an agenda that has been formulating for centuries. Complete control of the population without alarming them to the fact they are being controlled.

And I can see it's working quit well, thanx for supporting your master!

oh how timely. you know its rumored that kennedy was so upset by operation northwoods, among other things - that he vowed to dismantle the CIA. not long after, the man was killed. That was 42 years ago yesterday.

It all comes together. The people who assassinated him and whitewashed it then, are still in power today. i.e. Texas oil men, mafia, CIA....

If we refuse to calculate the near impossibility of the implausible number of coincedences, then the 'elite' must really deserve our sheepish headnods. Theyre still getting away with it and who knows how much more theyll get away with yet.

suck it up goyim.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by bsbray11
The problem is, they tend to overlook some major flaws in their theory. They don't notice the loss of angular momentum,

Structural "engineers" will take into account everything, except political motivations

Prove it. Show me where they address the potential energy in the caps being insufficient to crush the rest of the buildings, being much heavier than the caps. Show me where they explain the angular momentum. Well, actually, we have our own structural engineer here, MacMerdin, who has already commented on the angular momentum problem, but guess who he supported?

You put way too much faith into the guys that merely nod their head at the government, and assuming they take everything into account except politics is just foolhardly considering how many unanswered questions there are in regards to those collapses.

I have only seen one squib

Well you haven't been reading the responses to your posts then.

Here's 3 in the same pic:



Cheers.

...which was presented with pictures by some of the proponents of the "controlled demolition theory." In controlled demolitions there is not just one squib, and in such an explosion that would be needed for the effects on the wtc, everyone, and I mean everyone in New York would have heard the explosions. Yet we only get some reports, of some people hearing what they think were explosions. i wonder why only a few heard them...

No one is claiming that those few little explosions were what brought the buildings down. The proper claim, as you would know if you'd even read and comprehend, is that these were charges that went off incorrectly and were exposed. The rest of the charges were what were actually destroying the buildings floor by floor. You could not see them from most major media shots because of the free-falling debris covering them from the sides, but I have posted a video in another response to your posts that shows squibs coming out as puffs in symmetrical rows, floor by floor, for a moment before the person filming turns to run.

And people did report there being massive, metallic roars as the buildings collapsed.

Where did most of the mass of falling debris fall? Did it fall on these smaller buildings or on the rest of the floors of the wtc? There was damage to other buildings and some of those buildings collapsed , or had to be destroyed later on, due to the damage but none of those building recieved the "full effect from the collapsing towers" mostly the lower floors were the ones "crushed" by the rest of the floors falling on top of them.

That's not what I was referring to. The caps, crushing the rest of either building below them, was what I was addressing. Re-read my post.

Which we have covered several times, including members in these forums who say that it is a slang used by firefighters to get their people out.

There were no firefighters in the building. yawn......

Really? president Bush says that "explosives were used to bring down the wtc"?

Bush said he saw the first plane hit on live TV and thought it was a "bad pilot." He said this twice. The footage wasn't actually available until some hours later. Why would he lie about that? And so where exactly was he watching this happen from? It wasn't CNN; I'll tell you that.

I don't ever recall him saying such thing, but if he did, or if Rumsfeld did, then present the proof please.

Rumsfeld said Flight 93 was shot down during an interview on CNN. Look it up on Google for a transcript.

Let's see what Operations Northwood was all about.....even if it is out of topic..

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks (such as involving the use of "hijacked" planes as missiles) on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal. In addition, the existence of Operation Northwoods was often dismissed by the general U.S. public as an unfounded "conspiracy theory" until the draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive.

Excerpted from.
en.wikipedia.org...

First look at the date of this "proposed operation"...1962....is the same administration in power now?... no....

Second, do notice that the then Secretary of Defense Mcnamara rejected the proposal....

Third, do also notice that the draft memorandum was declassified by the National Security Archive, which is part of the government....

Are you seriously this naive?

Factions within our government were plotting to stage a war on propoganda!

The president didn't want war then, lucky us. He was also shot to death. The government itself didn't want war. There is no political gain in starting a war.

The corporations want war, to make $$ and expand influence. This has always been the case. It was the same for the Nazis. Same situation with today, and today we have a corporate lackey in office. Guess what? 9/11.

All of the above has been taken into consideration several times. i still don't see any "real evidence" that tells me it was an inside job, or that the towers were not brought down by radical Muslims flying 747s

767s*

...into the buildings which weakened the structures, but which survived the initial impact by the aircrafts, but then the fires weakened even more the redundant structure of the buildings which precipitated the collapse.

And neither do I see any evidence to support the official story. Problem is, I'm actually looking.

Originally posted by ANOK
.....................
And I can see it's working quit well, thanx for supporting your master!

I see.....

and unless I agree with you 100% I am supporting who you call my master..... Got ya....

BTW.....i have no master/masters.... i have some managers who send me to jobs once or twice a month but that's it.... Everything else that i do I do on my own free will....but then again who am I to know right? I am not enlightened.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Everything else that i do I do on my own free will....but then again who am I to know right?

Are you sure about that? The system is set up quit well as you've just proved, I have to give them credit for that.

We have freedom but it's confined to an extremely small, artificialy created boundary controlled by other peoples ideas, outside forces such as media and peer pressure.

You may think you have free will, because you see freedom as it is handed to you through conditioning and minipulation of your right of free expression. It looks like freedom cause you've never seen what true freedom is.

Society itself stifles freedom.

If we are so free how come most people think, dress, talk etc..the same way?
Where is freedom of expression? Look what happens to people who try to express that freedom? Think about it.
We are told how to think, dress, talk etc...You are not acting on your own free will....