ah it seems the claim was made by an aeronautical engineer "joe vialls", and repeated and extended by Andreas von Buelow, a former German minister of research and technology. see below, quoted from here
Joe Vialls' "back door" theory
According to an aeronautical engineer named Joe Vialls, the technology to capture planes via remote control has been around for a very long time. If he is correct, the US military developed the technology as far back as the mid 1970s---in response to a sharp upsurge in terrorist hijackings during this period. According to Vialls the project involved two American multinationals in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The goal was to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Vialls claimed the effort succeeded brilliantly in developing the means, first, to listen in on cockpit conversations in a target aircraft; and, second, to take absolute control of the plane's computerized flight control system by means of a remote channel. The aim was to cut the hijackers out of the control loop, meanwhile, empowering ground controllers to return a hijacked plane to a chosen airport, where police would deal with the terrorists. To be "truly effective," however, the new technology "had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems." This could only be achieved by incorporating the system into a new aircraft design. Vialls charged this is exactly what happened. A high-level decision was made and Boeing very quietly included a "back door" into the computer designs for two new commercial planes then on the drawing boards: the 767 and 757. Both planes went into production in the early 1980s.
Vialls shocked even internet users when he posted all of this on his web site in October 2001.[ix] He contended that the system, although designed for the best of intentions, fell prey to a security leak. Somehow the secret computer codes fell into the hands of evildoers within the Bush administration, who surreptitiously used the remote channel on 9/11. Armed with the secret codes---Vialls charged---the conspirators activated the hidden channel built into the transponders and simply took over the flight controls. Whether or not the alleged nineteen hijackers were actually on board was uncertain. But the issue clearly was of secondary importance since fanatical Muslims were not flying the planes.
Crucially, on 9/11, not one of the eight commercial pilots and copilots sent the standard signal alerting FAA authorities that a hijacking was in progress.[x] Sending this signal, or "squawking," as it is called, takes only a few seconds, and is done by activating a cockpit device known as an ELT (emergency locator transmitter). A pilot simply keys-in a four-digit code and the message "I have been hijacked" flashes on the screen at ground control. The fact that none of the pilots or copilots transmitted this standard SOS on 9/11 was suspicious, the first indication to Vialls that the planes were being flown by remote means. Vialls concluded that once the evildoers had commandeered the transponders the pilots lost the ability to transmit. Additional evidence turned up in a video of the last seconds of Flight 175. According to Vialls, the footage is anomalous because it shows the plane executing a maneuver during its final approach that exceeds the normal software limitations of a 767. Boeing jets are designed with liability concerns in mind, as well as passenger safety. Flight control software prevents a pilot from making steep turns that pull substantial "g" forces. Such turns run the risk of injuring passengers, especially the aged and infirm, which could result in costly lawsuits. Since a pilot cannot normally make such a maneuver, this was powerful evidence that the plane was under remote control.
I'm trying to chase up a source for the back door program, if I remember rightly it was revealed by a German intelligence minister, who said Lufthansa stripped the system out of their jets and developed their own (at great cost) to avoid being susceptible to US control. Either way, it was not what I would consider a definite fact, although it did sound plausible to me. As to the "injection from the ground" my thoughts is it would be injection on the ground, ie BEFORE takeoff, likely days or weeks earlier, since the security company stratasec at dulles was most likely in on it. this was not a spur of the moment thing, I've seen things indicating possible planning of this event many years before.
keep avoiding the issue with jokes and not answering my questions. You are the only one talking nonsense. Since you seem unwilling to actually hold an honest conversation, preferring to make jokes, lie, deceive and ignore pretty much everything I say, there doesn't seem to be much point continuing.
testimony of scientific experts who have explained exactly how it happened.: doesnt exist. All I've seen is multiple vague completely unscientific rubbish handwaving style conflicting descriptions, all of which start with the assumption that the planes brought the towers down, and try to work out how (*) Hell they STILL havent released the report on wyc7 explaining in any detail how it fell. And the company they contracted to simulate the collapse was only contracted to look from the second highest floor down to the 7th floor, even though 1) THEIR initial report said the collapse initiated below floor 12, and 2) any controlled demolition of wtc7 would have mainly involved wiring the bottom floors (according to CD inc.). 1) says they are either complete morons or have a reason to ignore the most important part of the building, and 2) tells you what that reason is.
how they managed to cover up an operation that would involve far more people than the official story, with none of them coming forward in the years since and saying "yeah, I planned the attacks". I'm asking how they managed to bribe or coerce the media and all the experts who have examined the evidence.
the media is controlled from the top down by the very people that organised this in my opinion. Have a look at a documentary called "outfoxed" to see just how honest and free journalism is in todays mainstream media. Look up who owns each media conglomerate. Its not a case of every media person is aware and being kept silent, its that 90% are taken in by the bullshit they themselves are feeding us, and have never SEEN the proof and evidence, nor even really heard truly what all the fuss is about. They trust other (ignorant) media people to tell them whats going on, and this is a cycle of ignorance. Occasionally one or two realise something, even occasionally managing to publish something before getting fired, but on the whole, they 1) dont realise the full truth 2) dont have time to investigate for themselves 3) so they trust others to research for them, none of them actually delving into any real research 4) those that do just get written off as loons, CT nuts, crazies so forth. Even lifetime millitary officers, high level government insiders, International intelligence ministers, professors, etc have come out and simply been labelled loons. its a feedback loop: no one comes out who knows because those that do just get called loons and ignored, therefore almost no one knows, therefore anyone that comes out is called a loon and ignored by the majority that dont know. (and stop saying incompetant, not only is it an ACT, its not even the same people! bush junior didnt organise this. He most likely helped cover it up with his connections, but I'd bet George senior, and a whole bunch of others (called the illuminati by some) planned it, who "just happen" to be well represented in the government (mainly because they decide who gets to run for government, and now, who wins thanks to electronic voting).
anyway, its all irrelevant. You are sitting on the jury in a murder trial, looking at the dna on the murder weapon and the video footage of the murder and going "but how did he get away with it? why does no one know? forgetting that YOU know, the people presenting the evidence know, and now, the rest of the jury knows
as to chemical doping, look up what the nazi's and soviets used flouride in the water for (hint it wasnt to protect teeth). heres a link that just came up from a Google search that has some interesting info http://curezone.com/dental/fluoride.asp but I'd recommend you do your own research. then ask why something which makes people docile and lowers IQ is being fed to much of the population of the US (and other countries)
(*)This is like starting from the assumption that the guy hanging from a rope by his neck died of natural causes, and trying to work out what those natural causes were..
apart from the fact that they DID (the reason we know there was a powerdown is because a worker claimed the building was powered down over the weekend to allow "engineers" to install "network cabling" throughout the building, a process that for some reason entailed turning the power (and therefore security cameras) off: a risky expensive proposition given the number of data servers etc in the building, and he afterwards thought this was suspicious and linked to the attacks), most of them DIED IN the incident, and pretty much the only ones left to see anything would be those that worked on the monday, escaped from the building on the tuesday (meaning they were likely in the lower levels) and yet saw the rigging in the higher levels (working from the likely assumption that the majority of the charges went in the lower basement and up in the levels near the crash sites and higher. I also think the charges were hidden where possible, and disguised everywhere else, meaning most people wouldn't have noticed them. This was not a normal CD, precise placement was not required, by using overkill (see pulverised building) they could get away with less suspicious placement and disguising of explosives (my personal opinion is thermobarics, which create huge overpressures yet could be placed centrally and therefore should have been easy to disguise.
How could a conspiracy of this scale be pulled off perfectly - it wasn't, they failed to get the white house like they wanted because air force personnel decided to go ahead and shoot down the Pennsylvania jet. A whitehouse strike would have given them reason to justify martial law. I wont go into that but you could look it up if you were actually interested in this stuff rather than shooting your mouth off.
with no leaks from the people involved - there are hundreds of whistle blowers, again you are just proving you ignorance. Problem is the MEDIA. the media ignores them all, preferring to lie to you. doesn't really matter how many people leak info if the main stream media wont publish it (and PUSH it not just hide it somewhere once).
leaving behind insufficient evidence to convince any mainstream experts - Bullshit, there is tonnes of evidence, its just, yet again, the media WILL NOT publish it in any one place or make it well known, and constantly publishes lies and distortions which confuse "experts" into thinking they know there is "nothing to see here" when really they dont even know what the issue is.
by the same government that has proved itself 100% incompetent in every other field of endeavor - Oh wake up and listen to what people say. Its not "the government".. it wasn't like this was an act of congress or something. This was people IN the government, acting on behalf of OTHERS (other groups/people) by utilizing their government contacts and connections: So it matters not at all whether this particular administration is inept or not, since only some members of it were "in on it", and they weren't acting within the normal (useless) government bureaucracy, but independently.
If The Man is willing to sacrifice 3000 civilians and then cover it up in order to seize power - 3000 is nothing to them. the mindset is that civilians are worth LESS than military people (since they "cant even be bothered serving their country"), and look how much they care about thousands of them (soldiers) dying...its all greater good or just pure greedy don't give a shit mentality.
then why haven't you been killed too, along with everyone else who's Exposing The Truth Behind The 9/11 Hoax? - oh this retarded comment again? I love maddox too, he's a funny bastard, but the 9/11 page was among his worst work. Why havent I been killed? Because I'm a nobody. A nobody who hasn't caused any problems for "them" yet. If they were to catch me in the process of becoming a somebody, and realise I might be a problem, or causing a problem while still a nobody, then I might have cause for worry. If I already am a somebody, then wiping all the "me's" out on a wide scale would be too suspicious, especially since they still control the media so it makes little difference anyway (plus I dont live in america). According to various polls the vast majority of americans think the government is at least not telling the full truth about 9/11, yet with the media covering it up, nothing happens. Its like superheating water in the microwave in a smooth sided dish: without a seed (the media pushing an issue) the water (population) wont rise up and explode and can get slowly raised above its normal boiling point. (plus the population has had 50 years of brainwashing and chemical doping to dumb them down, I dont even know if they CAN be fired up on a widescale level.)
overlooking the big, important questions such as: - Those were your important questions? you're barely worth even responding to. Unprecedented scientifically impossible events on large scale and you're asking how some of the most powerful people in the world could organize something you already assume some fucken hobo in a cave can organize? you really just couldn't answer a single one of the questions could ya.
this may be a long post, but it has to be to answer your questions:
re reichstag: I'm aware of that (but definitely not knowledgeable enough on that one to say who I think really planned/set it with certainty)
re what you believe: true, perhaps I shouldn't assume so much, however your responses, (including ones with wrong information) were a little telling...
re witnesses: there are MANY. ask yourself why firefighters and emergency workers are under gag orders? read the testimonies given by the firefighters which are only in the public after a long delayed response to a foi request (again why?) which describe flash flash flash like a controlled demolition, bombs, explosions, charge sequences etc etc. they are fairly explicit. actually research it and you'll find hundreds of people, including many high level people (even some ex bush administration people) stating it was an inside job or disputing key points of the official theories. To say there are no whistle blowers is to prove you have not done enough research, there are hundreds if not thousands. They just get ignored by the media, and usually fired or punished in some other way.
On top of this, it is highly likely in my opinion that many key witnesses (most of whom where unlikely to know what they were working on until too late due to compartmentalization) were killed on the day of 9/11. An example of this is the "passengers" on the "pentagon plane". I'm still unsure that there was a plane, and if there was, I'm unsure that it was the plane we are told it was, but either way, it is very likely those listed on board are dead. The reason I say this is because of who they are: many were military or military contractor people, working at places such as Raytheon and Boeing, on things like remote controlling planes and so forth, most likely unaware of what the intended use of their work was (although they probably would have worked it out afterwards). Another example of a likely whistle blower who died that day is John O'Neill, I'll let you look up who he was and how he died. Pay attention to who got him his last job, who found and identified him and what he was doing at the time of death.
re planting explosives: are you aware the company running security for the WTC was stratasec/securacom, link (contract expired ON THE DAY of 9/11 according to some sources) who also ran security for both one of the airlines involved in 9/11 (united) and one of the airports involved (dulles). And who was on the board at this company? the president's BROTHER Marvin. Now if anyone honestly believes thats just a list of complete coincidences, and there is nothing suspicious about it at all... well I wont finish that sentence except to say dont go betting on any horses, I dont think you understand odds.
So let's posit the possibility that the Bush family was involved (a high likelyhood if there was an inside job). This would give them 1) some control and much influence over all federal agencies and military groups through the Pres. and ex Pres., which would make a lot of things much easier. 2) Inside access to at least one airport, 2 planes and ALL WTC buildings involved. of course it also helped them greatly in the coverup, with bush all but completely blocking a real investigation (which still has not occurred, lookup The "9/11 Omission Commission"), and more relevantly, It gave them unrestricted access to the twin towers, as long as they could disguise what they were doing to the occupants.
Now here comes something a lot of "skeptics" don't seem to get: We DON'T know exactly what they used to demolish those towers. while it is beneficial to be able to come up with a likely scenario for the purposes of convincing skeptics, really, as long as you know the official theory for how they collapsed is impossible, the only alternative we have that fits the data is that they were demolished with some sort of explosive devices. This could be as conventional as
how bout I go through them one at a time with you then and you can show me how they are debunked? because I've been researching this for along time and while the claims of "debunked" are many, the actual debunks are almost non-existant.
- how many fighter jet scrambles to intercept commercial planes happened in the US in the year before 9/11? now this seems like an easy question, yet Popular mechanics completely deceives its readers in its so called "debunk" by stating that there was only 1... in actual fact there was on average more than ONE PER WEEK!:
"# Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
* Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
* Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
* Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
* In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
* Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
* Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked. Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
Now I would like to know your answer to this first question and one follow on one: (roughly) how many times in the year before 9/11 were planes in the US scrambled to intercept "wayward" aircraft? is this what the mainstream media tells you when "debunking" 9/11 CT's?
(by the way, it was all over the map to give anyone interested more starting points, but again I can see how this looks to someone with said worldview, I just dont really care. Hell just pick one and address it?)
you know, I want to ask you a question. I know you think my post a while back with a list of questions re 9/11 etc on it is a stupid way to "argue" a point (ala Cartman) but did you actually research any of them even briefly? or have you done any similar research in the past? I put it in question form because convincing people of this stuff in writing form is very difficult, and really only happens when the other person is willing to do some of their own research anyway, so I may as well give any of those sorts of people some starting points and not worry about how "silly" it might look to someone whose (brainwashed(*)) world view makes the whole thing seem like complete nonsense.
(*) this is not a (deliberate) insult to anyone. I don't know anyone who knows the truth about 9/11 who wasn't at some stage at least partly brainwashed, only to be "awakened" from it by finding the truth about one of these sorts of events. (yeah laugh all you want at my pretentious "awakened" comment, I don't mind. Hopefully one day it will happen to you).
once you see that the official story is utterly false, there is no other conclusion to draw but that at least elements of the government and media are acting to deceive us. This was not an official federal government act, its not like it passed through congress or something, this was an act by people with high level government and other connections, most likely (but not certainly) involving bush and cohorts (especially bush senior), and carried out entirely through non official channels. It's very hard to explain here the long process of awakening from your brainwashing, but I'll try. First you see holes in the stories, then you see things you realize are not possible and pages after pages of impossible coincidences and situations, then you realize that there are other stories with holes in them, and then you start reading stuff that not long before you would have though was crazy tin hat wearing stuff, but you realize it was just that you had been brainwashed into a world view that encouraged this, and that often times (not always, there ARE some crazies of course, although I'd be hesitant to identify any single persona as one) that what you once thought were crazy stories now makes more sense than the official ones.
"simply to create a sort of Reich stag fire"... simply? the benefits (to the organizers) here were immense. I'm talking many billions, possibly trillions in profits, huge political (polls), legal (patriot act) and "carte blanche" (Afghanistan, iraq, iran to come, illegal wiretaps, torture, all the other shit they've got away with since 9/11, etc etc) benefits, not to mention the continuation of their main plan: the creation of a world government in their control. But... I DO realise how that (the sentence I just wrote) can sound crazy to the "uninitiated".
Thing is this: once you start looking into this properly, you (well at least this is what happened for me) start off very skeptical, then you see some things that make you go "hmmmm...thats very strange", and pretty soon you see things that make you go "hey, wait a minute, thats not really possible". Once you get to this point of realizing there are massive holes in the official theory, you start seeing the holes in plenty of other "official theories" (jfk, okc bombing, north woods, original wtc bombing, waco, pearl harbour, federal reserve, WWII, Vietnam, desert storm,plenty more) and you begin realizing that everything you have been shown by the media is a bunch of filtered propagandized bullshit. this is a very "clarifying" yet frightening moment, as it lets you step back from story and not just assume a theory is crazy because you haven't heard it before or some source you trust or show or news story said it was crazy, rather research the details yourself thoroughly if/while it pans out. When you do this, you again start realizing just how much shit you've been fed. At this stage, simply blowing up the towers doesn't seem far fetched anymore, it actually seems like the logical progression in these maniacs plans (after okc, orig. wtc bombing etc).
"only to hijack aircraft (employing primarily Saudi nationals to do so) " well I'm doubtful of the true involvement of the so called hijackers, given that the list of names was just spewed forth almost immediately, with no reasoning or proof given, and that many of the people are possibly/probably still alive (therefore obviously not involved). While I'm still not sure of too many details (thats pretty hard with the dis info shit storm going on), after much research I do believe those planes were: 1) almost certainly radio controlled, eliminating the necessity of hijackers (but still not ruling them out as patsies for appearance purposes), 2) at least some of them were most likely not the claimed flights (ie replacement drones), again ruling out the necessity for hijackers. As to why Saudi nationals, IF they were involved, well, why the F not? its well known that Saudi money goes to funding terrorism, yet the ties between Saud and the US (especially between bin laden's
It always amazes me just how little research (took literally 10 seconds of googleing) skeptics on this issue do before shooting their mouths off. Hell you could even just bother to read the official reports from the government agencies you trust so much, which will TELL you that the fuel did NOT cause the collapse, since they say it burned out in minutes (therefore the steel should have long cooled down and regained most of its strength, had this actually been a major factor in the collapses, by the time of the collapse).
As to the structural engineer comment, you can stick that up your arse along with the peanuts you use for a brain, since you dont need to be a structural engineer to have done uni physics/chem and have common sense.(how bout you look up some info for yourself instead of trusting the very people many CT "nutjobs" tell you are fooling you to give you correct info. Try youtube for one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY, and note he says "FULLY LOADED, not empty of fuel and running on fairy floss"
finally, if you think this post is a bit harsh, it probably is, I'm just really sick of people calling other people nutjobs when they cant even be bothered doing 10 seconds of googleing to verify their "information"
answer yourself these questions if you can be bothered, you might wake up (dont trust any single source, and always look at opposing views for yourself from the source, just to see what they are:
- how many fighter jet scrambles to intercept commercial planes happened in the US in the year before 9/11 (hint, a LOT more than 1). Contrast this to how many you are told occurred on 9/11,and how many sites like scientific American claim happened in their "debunk" of the conspiracy theories.
- How much money did silverstein invest in the wtc complex? when? how much did he get on insurance? when? how much was it going to cost to remove the asbestos and other health hazards, or to pull down the buildings? how much public money did they get to clean up the mess instead?
- was there gold underneath the WTC? how much? how much was found? how was it found?
- was there insider trading on 9/11? was it investigated? why was it dropped? does this reason sound reasonable given the size and unlikeliness of this being innocent?
- how much opium was produced in afghanistan pre, during and post Taliban? how much money (cash) does the drug industry bring to the american economy each year?
- how much money was announced missing from the pentagon budget on the day before 9/11? was it ever found? did the large numbers of accountants that died in the pentagon incident have anything to do with this (lack of recovery)do you think?
- who or what is PNAC and what is the quote "new pearl harbour" in reference to? was pearl harbour a surprise? really?
- what is "operation northwoods"
- can planes be reomote controlled? what companies work on such systems? where any of their employees involved on 9/11
- who was john oneill? how do we know he is dead? how do we know how he died? do you find this coincidental given how he got his last job and what his job prior to that was?
- how did wtc7 collapse? have you ever watched it? who said "pull it"? are there any witnesses to this?
- why where the firefighters testimonies blocked for years? have ou ever read them (look up "explosive testimonies").
- what is the iran oil bourse? what similar thing did iraq try before getting invaded? what similar thing did venezuala do to get "blacklisted" by the us?
- what is mkultra?
- what movement did jfk's head make when the bullet hit? what does that tell you?
- how many bombs were originally found at OKC bombing?
- I could go on but I'll leave it there for now (doubt many people will get this far)
767 and 707 are identical for our intents and purposes. the 707 is slightly bigger, the 767 can carry slightly more fuel, the 707 has a higher cruising speed. overall, they are close enough to identical to ignore the differences.
As to smaller fuel loads, this is a load of shit. the CONSTRUCTION MANAGER is recorded on video describing (pre-9/11 : he died on 9/11 rescuing people) how the towers were designed to take a hit from a "FULLY LOADED 707, which was the biggest plane at the time" (and is bigger than the 767). He goes on to say he believes they could take MULTIPLE hits due to the way they were designed, with the load just redistributing itself across the over-engineered structure.
No where does he say "but when I say 'fully loaded', I really mean some magical plane that doesn't run on fuel so we didn't bother to take that into account"...
As to not needing to melt just soften the building, I know that. theres two problems though:
1) you'd need to get the steel in the buildings past about 800C or more, to have a chance in hell of overcoming the huge engineered safety factors. according to the official investigations, this did not happen, officially the hottest temperatures the steel reached was bout 300C. This is also backed up by common fire knowledge of temperatures involved (hey my families in the CFA) and by experiments undertaken to simulate similar conditions.
2) in reality MANY witnesses speak of "rivulets of molten steel" "white hot molten steel" "looked like a foundry" etc etc. basically huge amounts of white hot molten metal in the wreckage and pre-collapse. This is UNEXPLAINABLE (and unexplained, actually, ignored) by the official conspiracy theory. so while there shouldn't have been any molten steel, and yes there didnt need to be for a collapse to occur, but... there WAS and until I get a good answer as to where it came from, my best guess is thermate or similar.
nope. you obviously never studied fire behaviour. look up things like adiabatic flame temperatures for different hydrocarbons (office plastics, kerosene (jet fuel), wood) its virtually the same. kerosene (jet fuel) doesnt burn hotter than wood, just quicker. Note that the adiabatic temp doesn't actually apply in this case since that temperature is in ideal stoichiometric conditions which were most definitely not present (so the fire was MUCH cooler than that), and that even with whatever flame temperature was present, it was the STEEL temperature we need to know (which officially according to sample testing and experiments didn't break 300 C) not flame/air temp.
Let me give you an example of why the jet fuel was irrelevant except as a fire starter: there was, at an extremely generous estimate, 3 tonnes or so of fuel per floor which actually made it into the building to burn. Each floor had over 1000 tonnes of steel and concrete in it. Now imagine trying to heat up a 1 tonne block of steel and concrete with a few litres of kerosene to the point of seriously (*)weakening the steel/concrete....NOT GONNA HAPPEN
(*)enough to overcome the huge safety margins built into this building.
"We never needed an event like that in the past to do so....Why would we need it now?"
wow , are you serious? you've never heard of pearl harbour, babies in incubators, luisitana(sp?), gulf of tonkin, WMD's, reichstag fire (germany) etc etc. If you think ANY of these events where as described in "official US histories" you've got some learning to do.
Actually, while I agree with your comment (if you dont want bees to sting you, dont whack their hive repeatedly with a baseball bat) I dont fear islamic terrorists. I've yet to see any massive attacks that were organised successfully by them and them alone, all the major ones (eg 9/11) were OTHER groups blaming it on the islamic bogeymen (and hell, after whats been done to Palestine Lebanon Iraq Afghanistan etc while hypocritically claiming the moral high ground in the name of "democracy" (which the US is NOT, you cant have democracy if you cant even count the votes without cheating, nor is it a true democracy if the real power gives you two or three pre-chosen candidates to "pick" from) I at least understand their motives (that doesnt make terrorism ok though).
9/11 was an inside job. How else do you explain the
- air force stand down (more than one jet fighter scramble PER WEEK in the year leading up to 9/11, supposedly none till too late on 9/11)
- more than half a dozen millitary "drills" going on many of which "strangely" coincided with aspects of 9/11, and most of which seemed to deliberately tie up key resources which may have affected the events that day
- WTC7 symmetrical collapse, looking like the best example of controlled demolition I've ever seen, admitted by the owner to be controlled demolition, admitted by multiple witnesses to have been controlled demolition, yet officially fell from random assymetrical fire and minor (compared to the building size/construction) damage. (hint, CD takes weeks to months to plan, and days to set up properly, so how could they have done it in less than 7 hours?)
- twin towers, DESIGNED to take the impacts and fires from similar sized airplane hits, main construction manager thought it would be able to take MULTIPLE strikes per building (and he should know) without failing, yet small (yes they where, look at the windsor building for large fires) fires and designed for damage bring them straight down and pulverise them mid air.
- No steel framed high rise has EVER collapsed from fire before. many steel framed high rises have burned wildly for many hours, even days, making the wtc fires look like bic lighters, yet the didnt collapse.
- many witnesses claim seeing/hearing explosions, charge sequences, CD style demolition, claims of secondary devices were all over the place on the day.
- literally HUNDREDS of other major discrepencies and outright fabrications in the official conspiracy theories.
given that it was an inside job, government restrictions on airtravel etc will have no effect on the next 9/11 (which they are planning to have an excuse to invade Iran) since the black government will of course be able to use its connections to bypass it, just as they did on 9/11 (look up how these supposed islamic hijacker patsies even GOT in the country, and where they trained for "their" attack)
I will stop here, as those of you who are listening can go off and research it yourself (hint for people unfamiliar with all this, dont trust ANY web site 100% to tell you the whole truth, there are many disinfo sites and sites by people confused by disinfo out there, and often no way to be sure 100% which is which. Also ALWAYS look up the source of a claim, as many mainstream (and supposedly "trustworthy"...) sites will claim someone is saying x (x = crazy claim) when they are really claiming Y ( y = not so crazy claim) to discredit them).
Those of you who arent listening, probably wont even get this far..
my laymans understanding is: particle accelerators are used to study the basic building blocks of our universe, and as they get more powerful (ie they can give the accelerated particles higher energies ) they see new levels of building blocks EG:
imagine the world is made of Lego shaped into the form of duplo. Before we had particle accelerators, we might have thought we were made of duplo. By smashing the "faux duplo" together, we realize there's Lego in there(*). if we throw it even harder at each other, the Lego might break and we would realize we were made of plastic, or it might stick together and we would realise we can make our own "custom faux duplo". if you threw the Lego hard enough it might break into plastic molecules, then atoms, then protons neutrons and electrons, then.... etc etc. each time this happens, we learn about a new possible building material or exploitable phenomena.
(*) and we all know lego is much more useful than duplo for building cool stuff:)
This invention basically doubles the output power of any(*) other lego throwing device we make
(*)for a limited range of any's:)
in all cases with my current pcs at work and home, I could enjoy content in FULL 1080p HD (actually, even slightly higher than that), and I severely doubt you could find any but the most ancient of pc's in use at the moment unable to at least display true 720p (720*1280) or better (which IS a HD format)
in other words, perhaps you should shut up? (also 720* 480 is NOT hd(720p is 720*1280), thats the point. Which you again missed. You should perhaps take up fencing as you are good at dodging/missing the point).
simple: stop claiming unlimited. charge for bandwidth (but at a reasonable price) those that dont need it wont pay for it, those that do will be funding the infrastructure needed to support them. thats how its supposed to work, not selling what you own(bandwidth) to 20 different people at the same time then whingeing when they actually want to use it at the same time! if you sold a car to 20 people at the same time you'd be in jail for fraud, so why the hell should it be ok with bandwidth?
which seems to be exactly the grandparents point (whooosh....(*)): "surely your computer has higher res than standard def, and would thus benefit at least a little (although maybe not be able to play in full 1080p depending on your monitor) from hd content" (paraphrasing).
IF, and this is a big if in my opinion, there was a bandwidth problem from this, the solution is very simple: stop fricken overselling bandwidth so much. if 100 people are on "unlimited" accounts when there is really only bandwidth for 5 then your problem is not people using the bandwidth they paid for, its you (isp's) being lying tight asses
who really cares? everything is a quantum process at its most basic, just a very complex not very coherent one. as long as the fake neurons simulate the real neurons BEHAVIOUR to some degree of accuracy, it is IRELLEVANT in this case how that behaviour is really "implemented" in organic neurons. (ie you dont need to know that a butterflies wings are coloured blue because of interferance patterns or because of material colour to paint a blue butterfly..)
I dont really get it anyway. are they assuming everyone will be constantly in teleconference mode with everyone else at their work or something? what exactly about working from home is going to be so much of a bandwidth hog? couple of emails, an instant messenger connection, few documents passed back and forth? is this even going to be noticeable against the normal "background" bittorrent noise?
I see this as one (or both) of two things:
1) as suggested, a blatant attempt to get investment in their own industry
2) an attempt to get more internet control for the government from (according to a previous post) a government affiliated company. IE if they get some law passed that lets them throttle users in "times of emergency" and then declare a constant state of emergency, they get control over something they should not have control over (what users use their own bought and paid for bandwidth for). Kind of like america has extreme laws only meant for very extreme one off cases in times of war, and this war should not have been declared except by congress, but after these laws where made, they just slowly turned america into a constant state of "pseudo war" without actually declaring a proper war (therefore getting round the congress thing) and get to constantly abuse these laws (that shouldn't exist in the first place imho but thats another issue).
Slashdot Mirror
Joe Vialls' "back door" theory
According to an aeronautical engineer named Joe Vialls, the technology to capture planes via remote control has been around for a very long time. If he is correct, the US military developed the technology as far back as the mid 1970s---in response to a sharp upsurge in terrorist hijackings during this period. According to Vialls the project involved two American multinationals in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The goal was to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Vialls claimed the effort succeeded brilliantly in developing the means, first, to listen in on cockpit conversations in a target aircraft; and, second, to take absolute control of the plane's computerized flight control system by means of a remote channel. The aim was to cut the hijackers out of the control loop, meanwhile, empowering ground controllers to return a hijacked plane to a chosen airport, where police would deal with the terrorists. To be "truly effective," however, the new technology "had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems." This could only be achieved by incorporating the system into a new aircraft design. Vialls charged this is exactly what happened. A high-level decision was made and Boeing very quietly included a "back door" into the computer designs for two new commercial planes then on the drawing boards: the 767 and 757. Both planes went into production in the early 1980s.
Vialls shocked even internet users when he posted all of this on his web site in October 2001.[ix] He contended that the system, although designed for the best of intentions, fell prey to a security leak. Somehow the secret computer codes fell into the hands of evildoers within the Bush administration, who surreptitiously used the remote channel on 9/11. Armed with the secret codes---Vialls charged---the conspirators activated the hidden channel built into the transponders and simply took over the flight controls. Whether or not the alleged nineteen hijackers were actually on board was uncertain. But the issue clearly was of secondary importance since fanatical Muslims were not flying the planes.
Crucially, on 9/11, not one of the eight commercial pilots and copilots sent the standard signal alerting FAA authorities that a hijacking was in progress.[x] Sending this signal, or "squawking," as it is called, takes only a few seconds, and is done by activating a cockpit device known as an ELT (emergency locator transmitter). A pilot simply keys-in a four-digit code and the message "I have been hijacked" flashes on the screen at ground control. The fact that none of the pilots or copilots transmitted this standard SOS on 9/11 was suspicious, the first indication to Vialls that the planes were being flown by remote means. Vialls concluded that once the evildoers had commandeered the transponders the pilots lost the ability to transmit. Additional evidence turned up in a video of the last seconds of Flight 175. According to Vialls, the footage is anomalous because it shows the plane executing a maneuver during its final approach that exceeds the normal software limitations of a 767. Boeing jets are designed with liability concerns in mind, as well as passenger safety. Flight control software prevents a pilot from making steep turns that pull substantial "g" forces. Such turns run the risk of injuring passengers, especially the aged and infirm, which could result in costly lawsuits. Since a pilot cannot normally make such a maneuver, this was powerful evidence that the plane was under remote control.
The Crit
I'm trying to chase up a source for the back door program, if I remember rightly it was revealed by a German intelligence minister, who said Lufthansa stripped the system out of their jets and developed their own (at great cost) to avoid being susceptible to US control. Either way, it was not what I would consider a definite fact, although it did sound plausible to me. As to the "injection from the ground" my thoughts is it would be injection on the ground, ie BEFORE takeoff, likely days or weeks earlier, since the security company stratasec at dulles was most likely in on it. this was not a spur of the moment thing, I've seen things indicating possible planning of this event many years before.
keep avoiding the issue with jokes and not answering my questions. You are the only one talking nonsense. Since you seem unwilling to actually hold an honest conversation, preferring to make jokes, lie, deceive and ignore pretty much everything I say, there doesn't seem to be much point continuing.
how they managed to cover up an operation that would involve far more people than the official story, with none of them coming forward in the years since and saying "yeah, I planned the attacks". I'm asking how they managed to bribe or coerce the media and all the experts who have examined the evidence.
the media is controlled from the top down by the very people that organised this in my opinion. Have a look at a documentary called "outfoxed" to see just how honest and free journalism is in todays mainstream media. Look up who owns each media conglomerate. Its not a case of every media person is aware and being kept silent, its that 90% are taken in by the bullshit they themselves are feeding us, and have never SEEN the proof and evidence, nor even really heard truly what all the fuss is about. They trust other (ignorant) media people to tell them whats going on, and this is a cycle of ignorance. Occasionally one or two realise something, even occasionally managing to publish something before getting fired, but on the whole, they 1) dont realise the full truth 2) dont have time to investigate for themselves 3) so they trust others to research for them, none of them actually delving into any real research 4) those that do just get written off as loons, CT nuts, crazies so forth. Even lifetime millitary officers, high level government insiders, International intelligence ministers, professors, etc have come out and simply been labelled loons. its a feedback loop: no one comes out who knows because those that do just get called loons and ignored, therefore almost no one knows, therefore anyone that comes out is called a loon and ignored by the majority that dont know. (and stop saying incompetant, not only is it an ACT, its not even the same people! bush junior didnt organise this. He most likely helped cover it up with his connections, but I'd bet George senior, and a whole bunch of others (called the illuminati by some) planned it, who "just happen" to be well represented in the government (mainly because they decide who gets to run for government, and now, who wins thanks to electronic voting).
anyway, its all irrelevant. You are sitting on the jury in a murder trial, looking at the dna on the murder weapon and the video footage of the murder and going "but how did he get away with it? why does no one know? forgetting that YOU know, the people presenting the evidence know, and now, the rest of the jury knows
as to chemical doping, look up what the nazi's and soviets used flouride in the water for (hint it wasnt to protect teeth). heres a link that just came up from a Google search that has some interesting info http://curezone.com/dental/fluoride.asp but I'd recommend you do your own research. then ask why something which makes people docile and lowers IQ is being fed to much of the population of the US (and other countries) (*)This is like starting from the assumption that the guy hanging from a rope by his neck died of natural causes, and trying to work out what those natural causes were..
apart from the fact that they DID (the reason we know there was a powerdown is because a worker claimed the building was powered down over the weekend to allow "engineers" to install "network cabling" throughout the building, a process that for some reason entailed turning the power (and therefore security cameras) off: a risky expensive proposition given the number of data servers etc in the building, and he afterwards thought this was suspicious and linked to the attacks), most of them DIED IN the incident, and pretty much the only ones left to see anything would be those that worked on the monday, escaped from the building on the tuesday (meaning they were likely in the lower levels) and yet saw the rigging in the higher levels (working from the likely assumption that the majority of the charges went in the lower basement and up in the levels near the crash sites and higher. I also think the charges were hidden where possible, and disguised everywhere else, meaning most people wouldn't have noticed them. This was not a normal CD, precise placement was not required, by using overkill (see pulverised building) they could get away with less suspicious placement and disguising of explosives (my personal opinion is thermobarics, which create huge overpressures yet could be placed centrally and therefore should have been easy to disguise.
with no leaks from the people involved - there are hundreds of whistle blowers, again you are just proving you ignorance. Problem is the MEDIA. the media ignores them all, preferring to lie to you. doesn't really matter how many people leak info if the main stream media wont publish it (and PUSH it not just hide it somewhere once).
leaving behind insufficient evidence to convince any mainstream experts - Bullshit, there is tonnes of evidence, its just, yet again, the media WILL NOT publish it in any one place or make it well known, and constantly publishes lies and distortions which confuse "experts" into thinking they know there is "nothing to see here" when really they dont even know what the issue is.
by the same government that has proved itself 100% incompetent in every other field of endeavor - Oh wake up and listen to what people say. Its not "the government".. it wasn't like this was an act of congress or something. This was people IN the government, acting on behalf of OTHERS (other groups/people) by utilizing their government contacts and connections: So it matters not at all whether this particular administration is inept or not, since only some members of it were "in on it", and they weren't acting within the normal (useless) government bureaucracy, but independently.
If The Man is willing to sacrifice 3000 civilians and then cover it up in order to seize power - 3000 is nothing to them. the mindset is that civilians are worth LESS than military people (since they "cant even be bothered serving their country"), and look how much they care about thousands of them (soldiers) dying...its all greater good or just pure greedy don't give a shit mentality.
then why haven't you been killed too, along with everyone else who's Exposing The Truth Behind The 9/11 Hoax? - oh this retarded comment again? I love maddox too, he's a funny bastard, but the 9/11 page was among his worst work. Why havent I been killed? Because I'm a nobody. A nobody who hasn't caused any problems for "them" yet. If they were to catch me in the process of becoming a somebody, and realise I might be a problem, or causing a problem while still a nobody, then I might have cause for worry. If I already am a somebody, then wiping all the "me's" out on a wide scale would be too suspicious, especially since they still control the media so it makes little difference anyway (plus I dont live in america). According to various polls the vast majority of americans think the government is at least not telling the full truth about 9/11, yet with the media covering it up, nothing happens. Its like superheating water in the microwave in a smooth sided dish: without a seed (the media pushing an issue) the water (population) wont rise up and explode and can get slowly raised above its normal boiling point. (plus the population has had 50 years of brainwashing and chemical doping to dumb them down, I dont even know if they CAN be fired up on a widescale level.)
overlooking the big, important questions such as: - Those were your important questions? you're barely worth even responding to. Unprecedented scientifically impossible events on large scale and you're asking how some of the most powerful people in the world could organize something you already assume some fucken hobo in a cave can organize? you really just couldn't answer a single one of the questions could ya.
re reichstag: I'm aware of that (but definitely not knowledgeable enough on that one to say who I think really planned/set it with certainty)
re what you believe: true, perhaps I shouldn't assume so much, however your responses, (including ones with wrong information) were a little telling...
re witnesses: there are MANY. ask yourself why firefighters and emergency workers are under gag orders? read the testimonies given by the firefighters which are only in the public after a long delayed response to a foi request (again why?) which describe flash flash flash like a controlled demolition, bombs, explosions, charge sequences etc etc. they are fairly explicit. actually research it and you'll find hundreds of people, including many high level people (even some ex bush administration people) stating it was an inside job or disputing key points of the official theories. To say there are no whistle blowers is to prove you have not done enough research, there are hundreds if not thousands. They just get ignored by the media, and usually fired or punished in some other way.
On top of this, it is highly likely in my opinion that many key witnesses (most of whom where unlikely to know what they were working on until too late due to compartmentalization) were killed on the day of 9/11. An example of this is the "passengers" on the "pentagon plane". I'm still unsure that there was a plane, and if there was, I'm unsure that it was the plane we are told it was, but either way, it is very likely those listed on board are dead. The reason I say this is because of who they are: many were military or military contractor people, working at places such as Raytheon and Boeing, on things like remote controlling planes and so forth, most likely unaware of what the intended use of their work was (although they probably would have worked it out afterwards). Another example of a likely whistle blower who died that day is John O'Neill, I'll let you look up who he was and how he died. Pay attention to who got him his last job, who found and identified him and what he was doing at the time of death.
re planting explosives: are you aware the company running security for the WTC was stratasec/securacom, link (contract expired ON THE DAY of 9/11 according to some sources) who also ran security for both one of the airlines involved in 9/11 (united) and one of the airports involved (dulles). And who was on the board at this company? the president's BROTHER Marvin. Now if anyone honestly believes thats just a list of complete coincidences, and there is nothing suspicious about it at all... well I wont finish that sentence except to say dont go betting on any horses, I dont think you understand odds.
So let's posit the possibility that the Bush family was involved (a high likelyhood if there was an inside job). This would give them 1) some control and much influence over all federal agencies and military groups through the Pres. and ex Pres., which would make a lot of things much easier. 2) Inside access to at least one airport, 2 planes and ALL WTC buildings involved. of course it also helped them greatly in the coverup, with bush all but completely blocking a real investigation (which still has not occurred, lookup The "9/11 Omission Commission"), and more relevantly, It gave them unrestricted access to the twin towers, as long as they could disguise what they were doing to the occupants.
Now here comes something a lot of "skeptics" don't seem to get: We DON'T know exactly what they used to demolish those towers. while it is beneficial to be able to come up with a likely scenario for the purposes of convincing skeptics, really, as long as you know the official theory for how they collapsed is impossible, the only alternative we have that fits the data is that they were demolished with some sort of explosive devices. This could be as conventional as
oh and a source for the scramble figure is this, and another interesting critique is this
- how many fighter jet scrambles to intercept commercial planes happened in the US in the year before 9/11? now this seems like an easy question, yet Popular mechanics completely deceives its readers in its so called "debunk" by stating that there was only 1... in actual fact there was on average more than ONE PER WEEK!: "# Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
* Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
* Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
* Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
* In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
* Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
* Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious
circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
"
see here for a rundown of the deceptions and lies in this "debunk": http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_po pular_mechanics.htm
Now I would like to know your answer to this first question and one follow on one: (roughly) how many times in the year before 9/11 were planes in the US scrambled to intercept "wayward" aircraft? is this what the mainstream media tells you when "debunking" 9/11 CT's?
(by the way, it was all over the map to give anyone interested more starting points, but again I can see how this looks to someone with said worldview, I just dont really care. Hell just pick one and address it?)
(*) this is not a (deliberate) insult to anyone. I don't know anyone who knows the truth about 9/11 who wasn't at some stage at least partly brainwashed, only to be "awakened" from it by finding the truth about one of these sorts of events. (yeah laugh all you want at my pretentious "awakened" comment, I don't mind. Hopefully one day it will happen to you).
"simply to create a sort of Reich stag fire"... simply? the benefits (to the organizers) here were immense. I'm talking many billions, possibly trillions in profits, huge political (polls), legal (patriot act) and "carte blanche" (Afghanistan, iraq, iran to come, illegal wiretaps, torture, all the other shit they've got away with since 9/11, etc etc) benefits, not to mention the continuation of their main plan: the creation of a world government in their control. But... I DO realise how that (the sentence I just wrote) can sound crazy to the "uninitiated".
Thing is this: once you start looking into this properly, you (well at least this is what happened for me) start off very skeptical, then you see some things that make you go "hmmmm...thats very strange", and pretty soon you see things that make you go "hey, wait a minute, thats not really possible". Once you get to this point of realizing there are massive holes in the official theory, you start seeing the holes in plenty of other "official theories" (jfk, okc bombing, north woods, original wtc bombing, waco, pearl harbour, federal reserve, WWII, Vietnam, desert storm,plenty more) and you begin realizing that everything you have been shown by the media is a bunch of filtered propagandized bullshit. this is a very "clarifying" yet frightening moment, as it lets you step back from story and not just assume a theory is crazy because you haven't heard it before or some source you trust or show or news story said it was crazy, rather research the details yourself thoroughly if/while it pans out. When you do this, you again start realizing just how much shit you've been fed. At this stage, simply blowing up the towers doesn't seem far fetched anymore, it actually seems like the logical progression in these maniacs plans (after okc, orig. wtc bombing etc).
"only to hijack aircraft (employing primarily Saudi nationals to do so) " well I'm doubtful of the true involvement of the so called hijackers, given that the list of names was just spewed forth almost immediately, with no reasoning or proof given, and that many of the people are possibly/probably still alive (therefore obviously not involved). While I'm still not sure of too many details (thats pretty hard with the dis info shit storm going on), after much research I do believe those planes were: 1) almost certainly radio controlled, eliminating the necessity of hijackers (but still not ruling them out as patsies for appearance purposes), 2) at least some of them were most likely not the claimed flights (ie replacement drones), again ruling out the necessity for hijackers. As to why Saudi nationals, IF they were involved, well, why the F not? its well known that Saudi money goes to funding terrorism, yet the ties between Saud and the US (especially between bin laden's
Baaa Baa Baaa. (theres your answers in a language you understand)
767 - 63,000 litres http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/76 7sec2.pdf
707: depending on model, according to this http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/70 7sec2.pdf, up to 90,000 litres (smallest 65,000)
It always amazes me just how little research (took literally 10 seconds of googleing) skeptics on this issue do before shooting their mouths off. Hell you could even just bother to read the official reports from the government agencies you trust so much, which will TELL you that the fuel did NOT cause the collapse, since they say it burned out in minutes (therefore the steel should have long cooled down and regained most of its strength, had this actually been a major factor in the collapses, by the time of the collapse).
As to the structural engineer comment, you can stick that up your arse along with the peanuts you use for a brain, since you dont need to be a structural engineer to have done uni physics/chem and have common sense.(how bout you look up some info for yourself instead of trusting the very people many CT "nutjobs" tell you are fooling you to give you correct info. Try youtube for one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY, and note he says "FULLY LOADED, not empty of fuel and running on fairy floss"
finally, if you think this post is a bit harsh, it probably is, I'm just really sick of people calling other people nutjobs when they cant even be bothered doing 10 seconds of googleing to verify their "information"
- how many fighter jet scrambles to intercept commercial planes happened in the US in the year before 9/11 (hint, a LOT more than 1). Contrast this to how many you are told occurred on 9/11,and how many sites like scientific American claim happened in their "debunk" of the conspiracy theories.
- How much money did silverstein invest in the wtc complex? when? how much did he get on insurance? when? how much was it going to cost to remove the asbestos and other health hazards, or to pull down the buildings? how much public money did they get to clean up the mess instead?
- was there gold underneath the WTC? how much? how much was found? how was it found?
- was there insider trading on 9/11? was it investigated? why was it dropped? does this reason sound reasonable given the size and unlikeliness of this being innocent?
- how much opium was produced in afghanistan pre, during and post Taliban? how much money (cash) does the drug industry bring to the american economy each year?
- how much money was announced missing from the pentagon budget on the day before 9/11? was it ever found? did the large numbers of accountants that died in the pentagon incident have anything to do with this (lack of recovery)do you think?
- who or what is PNAC and what is the quote "new pearl harbour" in reference to? was pearl harbour a surprise? really?
- what is "operation northwoods"
- can planes be reomote controlled? what companies work on such systems? where any of their employees involved on 9/11
- who was john oneill? how do we know he is dead? how do we know how he died? do you find this coincidental given how he got his last job and what his job prior to that was?
- how did wtc7 collapse? have you ever watched it? who said "pull it"? are there any witnesses to this?
- why where the firefighters testimonies blocked for years? have ou ever read them (look up "explosive testimonies").
- what is the iran oil bourse? what similar thing did iraq try before getting invaded? what similar thing did venezuala do to get "blacklisted" by the us?
- what is mkultra?
- what movement did jfk's head make when the bullet hit? what does that tell you?
- how many bombs were originally found at OKC bombing?
- I could go on but I'll leave it there for now (doubt many people will get this far)
As to smaller fuel loads, this is a load of shit. the CONSTRUCTION MANAGER is recorded on video describing (pre-9/11 : he died on 9/11 rescuing people) how the towers were designed to take a hit from a "FULLY LOADED 707, which was the biggest plane at the time" (and is bigger than the 767). He goes on to say he believes they could take MULTIPLE hits due to the way they were designed, with the load just redistributing itself across the over-engineered structure.
No where does he say "but when I say 'fully loaded', I really mean some magical plane that doesn't run on fuel so we didn't bother to take that into account"...
As to not needing to melt just soften the building, I know that. theres two problems though:
1) you'd need to get the steel in the buildings past about 800C or more, to have a chance in hell of overcoming the huge engineered safety factors. according to the official investigations, this did not happen, officially the hottest temperatures the steel reached was bout 300C. This is also backed up by common fire knowledge of temperatures involved (hey my families in the CFA) and by experiments undertaken to simulate similar conditions.
2) in reality MANY witnesses speak of "rivulets of molten steel" "white hot molten steel" "looked like a foundry" etc etc. basically huge amounts of white hot molten metal in the wreckage and pre-collapse. This is UNEXPLAINABLE (and unexplained, actually, ignored) by the official conspiracy theory. so while there shouldn't have been any molten steel, and yes there didnt need to be for a collapse to occur, but... there WAS and until I get a good answer as to where it came from, my best guess is thermate or similar.
Let me give you an example of why the jet fuel was irrelevant except as a fire starter: there was, at an extremely generous estimate, 3 tonnes or so of fuel per floor which actually made it into the building to burn. Each floor had over 1000 tonnes of steel and concrete in it. Now imagine trying to heat up a 1 tonne block of steel and concrete with a few litres of kerosene to the point of seriously (*)weakening the steel/concrete....NOT GONNA HAPPEN
(*)enough to overcome the huge safety margins built into this building.
"We never needed an event like that in the past to do so....Why would we need it now?"
wow , are you serious? you've never heard of pearl harbour, babies in incubators, luisitana(sp?), gulf of tonkin, WMD's, reichstag fire (germany) etc etc. If you think ANY of these events where as described in "official US histories" you've got some learning to do.
9/11 was an inside job. How else do you explain the
- air force stand down (more than one jet fighter scramble PER WEEK in the year leading up to 9/11, supposedly none till too late on 9/11)
- more than half a dozen millitary "drills" going on many of which "strangely" coincided with aspects of 9/11, and most of which seemed to deliberately tie up key resources which may have affected the events that day
- WTC7 symmetrical collapse, looking like the best example of controlled demolition I've ever seen, admitted by the owner to be controlled demolition, admitted by multiple witnesses to have been controlled demolition, yet officially fell from random assymetrical fire and minor (compared to the building size/construction) damage. (hint, CD takes weeks to months to plan, and days to set up properly, so how could they have done it in less than 7 hours?)
- twin towers, DESIGNED to take the impacts and fires from similar sized airplane hits, main construction manager thought it would be able to take MULTIPLE strikes per building (and he should know) without failing, yet small (yes they where, look at the windsor building for large fires) fires and designed for damage bring them straight down and pulverise them mid air.
- No steel framed high rise has EVER collapsed from fire before. many steel framed high rises have burned wildly for many hours, even days, making the wtc fires look like bic lighters, yet the didnt collapse.
- many witnesses claim seeing/hearing explosions, charge sequences, CD style demolition, claims of secondary devices were all over the place on the day.
- literally HUNDREDS of other major discrepencies and outright fabrications in the official conspiracy theories.
given that it was an inside job, government restrictions on airtravel etc will have no effect on the next 9/11 (which they are planning to have an excuse to invade Iran) since the black government will of course be able to use its connections to bypass it, just as they did on 9/11 (look up how these supposed islamic hijacker patsies even GOT in the country, and where they trained for "their" attack)
I will stop here, as those of you who are listening can go off and research it yourself (hint for people unfamiliar with all this, dont trust ANY web site 100% to tell you the whole truth, there are many disinfo sites and sites by people confused by disinfo out there, and often no way to be sure 100% which is which. Also ALWAYS look up the source of a claim, as many mainstream (and supposedly "trustworthy"...) sites will claim someone is saying x (x = crazy claim) when they are really claiming Y ( y = not so crazy claim) to discredit them).
Those of you who arent listening, probably wont even get this far..
imagine the world is made of Lego shaped into the form of duplo. Before we had particle accelerators, we might have thought we were made of duplo. By smashing the "faux duplo" together, we realize there's Lego in there(*). if we throw it even harder at each other, the Lego might break and we would realize we were made of plastic, or it might stick together and we would realise we can make our own "custom faux duplo". if you threw the Lego hard enough it might break into plastic molecules, then atoms, then protons neutrons and electrons, then.... etc etc. each time this happens, we learn about a new possible building material or exploitable phenomena.
(*) and we all know lego is much more useful than duplo for building cool stuff :)
This invention basically doubles the output power of any(*) other lego throwing device we make (*)for a limited range of any's :)
in other words, perhaps you should shut up? (also 720* 480 is NOT hd(720p is 720*1280), thats the point. Which you again missed. You should perhaps take up fencing as you are good at dodging/missing the point).
simple: stop claiming unlimited. charge for bandwidth (but at a reasonable price) those that dont need it wont pay for it, those that do will be funding the infrastructure needed to support them. thats how its supposed to work, not selling what you own(bandwidth) to 20 different people at the same time then whingeing when they actually want to use it at the same time! if you sold a car to 20 people at the same time you'd be in jail for fraud, so why the hell should it be ok with bandwidth?
bin laden? me thinks you mean mossad/cia. Bin laden had nothing to do with it.
(*) look up....
IF, and this is a big if in my opinion, there was a bandwidth problem from this, the solution is very simple: stop fricken overselling bandwidth so much. if 100 people are on "unlimited" accounts when there is really only bandwidth for 5 then your problem is not people using the bandwidth they paid for, its you (isp's) being lying tight asses
who really cares? everything is a quantum process at its most basic, just a very complex not very coherent one. as long as the fake neurons simulate the real neurons BEHAVIOUR to some degree of accuracy, it is IRELLEVANT in this case how that behaviour is really "implemented" in organic neurons. (ie you dont need to know that a butterflies wings are coloured blue because of interferance patterns or because of material colour to paint a blue butterfly..)
I see this as one (or both) of two things:
1) as suggested, a blatant attempt to get investment in their own industry
2) an attempt to get more internet control for the government from (according to a previous post) a government affiliated company. IE if they get some law passed that lets them throttle users in "times of emergency" and then declare a constant state of emergency, they get control over something they should not have control over (what users use their own bought and paid for bandwidth for). Kind of like america has extreme laws only meant for very extreme one off cases in times of war, and this war should not have been declared except by congress, but after these laws where made, they just slowly turned america into a constant state of "pseudo war" without actually declaring a proper war (therefore getting round the congress thing) and get to constantly abuse these laws (that shouldn't exist in the first place imho but thats another issue).