Neutral, if Grandpappy was still alive, I'd have him sit down with you and have a long talk.

quote:

The president of a country is a pretty big terror threat, wouldn't you agree?

Actually pretty small, to external foes, since the UN sanctions had in fact crippled all his weapons programs, but hey you guys backed him while he was your tool for Iran, you tell me.

quote:

N. Korea is a far bigger threat at this point than Saudi. We have US Military in Saudi, and the Saudi Government has been and continues to be an ally.

N Korea has always been a far bigger threat than Iraq ever could have been, but THERE IS NO OIL IN N KOREA. nuff said.

Glenn

Neutral, you are rapidly becoming irrational. I asked for a doccument to support your point that was not full of glaring errors. Why would you provide a doccument full of complex calculations and then as soon as I destroy it's relevence and credibility you pretend that I am confusing the issue.

Re:
"I don't acknowledge much of what you say because it is plain wrong."

"Much"? You must have meant "everything" because you haven't acknowledged any of it.

Extrapolating... All the stuff I said about building 7 was wrong?

Setting all the confusing stuff aside for a moment, review the video carefully. We are talking about the very top of the building reaching the ground in near free-fall time, right? You will see the very top portion of the building falling far to the side of the collapsing building. Even after it is completely obscurred by the rapidly ejecting dust, moments later it emerges yet further from the resistance of the concrete pulverising. This definitively solves your near free-fall problem as it was largely unobstructed all the way to the ground. Your point would only be valid if the top remained directly above the collapse all the way down. At the time the top hit the ground, much of the rest of the building had not finished collapsing yet. Which means that the rest of the building was not falling at free-fall speed.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg

Re:
"Actually pretty small, to external foes, since the UN sanctions had in fact crippled all his weapons programs, but hey you guys backed him while he was your tool for Iran, you tell me."

Except that everybody and their dog in the UN took bribes from him, making the UN a clever smoke screen. Iran and Iraq were both our tools against each other.



Re:
"N Korea has always been a far bigger threat than Iraq ever could have been, but THERE IS NO OIL IN N KOREA. nuff said."

Not always, when Iraq began to invade and conquer it's neighbors with no provocation, it became the biggest threat. If only for a moment.



Re:
"THERE IS NO OIL IN N KOREA. nuff said."

There is no broken cease fire agreement in N Korea. You are right though, there is no oil in N Korea. What will they say when we go to war there?

quote:

Iran and Iraq were both our tools against each other.

With friends like that who needs enemas ?

So to recap, you acknowledge that Iraq wasn't a threat to anybody, just some nasty bribes going on, no terrorists based there, no WMD's (lol), but they had to be invaded.

Now I remember why I don't look at the political threads here, too many ****ing morons.

Glenn

quote:

Kyoto Dragon, of the alleged 19 hijackers, which ones do think should bear the responsibility?

Interesting choice of words alleged, I always thought the whole thing smelled fishy.

But if we're gonna blame phantoms we should go with sneezy, grouchy, and bomby, those dirty rotten arab dwarves they hate us for our freedom.

Glenn

I don't remember the Bomby dwarf, he must have been in the towers.

branw

Once again it seems you should think a little longer before flying in with a refutation. The top of building 7 did not lean as it fell. You have mixed it up with one of the twin towers. That of course doesn't invalidate all your arguments.

The fact that I drew your attention to a paper which was inaccurate does not invalidate my central point either, which you repeatedly ignore.

The central point is that the tops of all three buildings got down in little more than free fall time. Free fall - not a hard concept to understand. If something is falling freely it isn't performing work on anything. If something falling performs work it slows down.

Please think that through before you reply.

"and instead confuse yourself with complexities."

Gee whiz, maybe he's just engaging in intentional obfuscation.

Tilly, that is a nice smiley you found - was that a tribute to the patriotic fever of Vegsvc?

...............Hello Terry................

Yes, me and the Vegsvc are going to re-up in the Marines so we can go kill slants and gooks.
True blue blooded Mericans were just naturally born to kill those dirty commie bastard Slants and Gooks, even if they wear towels on their heads

I posted some information to DVA that indicated that the engines for the aircraft came off a 737, not a 757 or 767.

I had expected that someone would have seen the obvious and asked a question - something like, "How did Osama switch the planes, while sitting in a cave in Afghanistan?"

But then, we are still dealing with the issue of how Osama planted explosives in the Towers, or how did Osama stand down NORAD.

Don't hurry America, these questions can wait. In the meantime we'll just continue to wage war.

quote:

Likewise, the engine that exited the South Tower and landed in the street has been positively identified as a CFM-56, which comes off the 737-200.

quote:

I had expected that someone would have seen the obvious and asked a question - something like, "How did Osama switch the planes, while sitting in a cave in Afghanistan?"

Has the plane type not been verified in the available video footage?

Tilly:

quote:

True blue blooded Mericans were just naturally born to kill those dirty commie bastard Slants and Gooks, even if they wear towels on their heads

Sarcasm intended? Offense taken. A$$HOLE

I don't understand why you stopped with slants and gooks. I burn crosses nightly and salute pictures of hitler by day. I HATE EVERYONE.

Sarcasm? Moi?

Neutral, lets destroy your theory one building at a time as the collapses were different.

Re:
"The top of building 7 did not lean as it fell. You have mixed it up with one of the twin towers."

My final paragraph was about the South Tower only and you know it! NOT BUILDING 7! As evidenced by the video links included. You can pretend all day long that I don't understand what is going on here but you are causing people to doubt your credibility and making yourself look like a fool.

"Extrapolating... All the stuff I said about building 7 was wrong?" was a question which had nothing to do with the final paragraph. It was about your inability to acknowledge when you have been proven wrong.

Now, if you want to climb down from your pedestal and converse rationally I will proceed to destroy your theory on the other two buildings, although it is not necessary as your theory requires that all three buildings were wired with explosives. Otherwise, I have better things to do as the logical people here already know you are wrong.

My patience is wearing thin, I don't know if I can continue without just a little sarcasm.

Maybe just a little...

Please consult your American English to Austrailian English dictionary and understand what I am saying before you reply.

I'm still waiting for you to address the question of why the buildings barely slowed down from free fall rate. If they didn't slow down much they weren't doing much work. If they weren't doing much work there was little support. If there was little support, and given the great strength of the central column, something must have undermined it. If you can't follow that ask a high school kid.

By the way I didn't say that everything you said about building 7 was wrong.

My logic is sometimes wrong and I like to be put right.

quote:

While terrorism happened in far off lands the U.S. had little to no involvement in terms of declaring war on terrorists

What about the involvement in Afganistan. Wasn't it before the attack ? Don't you think that it may have ruffled up a few feathers ?

If you will remember, we declared war on all terrorists as well as those who harbor and assist them. Our declaration was, at the time, supported by both houses of congress..

But, as a nation, you had no qualms about supplying the IRA with money and weapons via Noraid. What do you think they were doing with this support during the 25 years of active terrorism in the UK ?

I also believe that if you are not with us you are against us. Call it arrogant if you want, I call it patriotic.

Not only is it arrogant, it is extremly misguided. Do you have a signed picture of Oliver North on you lounge wall ?

You really don't have a clue.
regards
dva

quote:

The Pentagon damage does not look like the impact of a large aircraft, nonetheless it would take a cover-up of massive proportions if it wasn't the aircraft stated and all those passengers were 'fak

Interesting that you also find this aspect of the whole situation to be the real odd one out.

My aguement is that as the engines are probably the heaviest one-piece items on the plane, they would have carried along the flight path longer than the relatively weak and crushable fusalage. So it seems to me that there should have been two impact areas where the engines hit the wall, spaced about the same as the distance they were mounted on the plane. Instead we have one 30 foot hole. And where is the tail ?


At times like this it helps to think about the construction of the stealth bomber. This took a huge work force 10 years to make. And nobody new about it. Blackest of black program. But yes, it can be done.

regards
dva

Mr. Neutral, Pertaining to the SOUTH TOWER ONLY, for now.......

quote:

Originally posted by branw:

Setting all the confusing stuff aside for a moment, review the video carefully. We are talking about the very top of the building reaching the ground in near free-fall time, right? You will see the very top portion of the building falling far to the side of the collapsing building. Even after it is completely obscurred by the rapidly ejecting dust, moments later it emerges yet further from the resistance of the concrete pulverising. This definitively solves your near free-fall problem as it was largely unobstructed all the way to the ground. Your point would only be valid if the top remained directly above the collapse all the way down. At the time the top hit the ground, much of the rest of the building had not finished collapsing yet. Which means that the rest of the building was not falling at free-fall speed.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_from_south_a.mpg

You see, if the building had actually fell in free-fall time, the roof would have to be the last thing to hit the ground. It was not. As stated in a previous post and as quoted above, the roof hit the ground before much of the building had finished collapsing. Why? Because it was falling to the side unobstructed by the work being done by the rest of the building which was falling much slower than free-fall. You cannot time the fall of the roof (which was falling to the side with little obstruction) and ignore that the rest of the building was still falling. The roof fell at nearly free-fall speed, not the building.


Once this is understood, we can move on to another building. It does not make sense to discuss all three collapses at the same time as they fell differently.

I decided to take your advice, unfortunately I did not have a high-schooler handy. So I asked one of our foster children who is 13. A middle-schooler. He understands the above perfectly. He has the same concerns as me though about your logic.

dva:

quote:

NORAID was filing six-monthly returns with the U.S. Justice Department in Washington , giving details of its fund-raising activities . The figures provide a good barometer of Irish-American re-action to British tactics ; from August 1971 to the end of January 1972 , the INAC reported collecting $128,099 . In the next six-month period , ending in July 1972 , and encompassing the Bloody Sunday killings , collections of $313,000 were recorded .

The next six months showed a considerable drop , with a reported collection of $150,000 ; the period coincided with the height of the IRA's car-bombing campaign , which resulted in heavy civilian casualties , and may have cost the IRA support in America reflected in NORAID's returns .

1169 and counting....

http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com/2004_12_19_1169andcounting_archive.html

Noraid seems to have been a "non-profit" and private organization. Are you incenuating that the the US government was supplying the IRA with weapons and money?

Tactics of the IRA were sickening as were some of the tactics of the brits during this period.

Funny that you want to bring up the IRA and somehow point out that we were at fault as a nation. I think that you really need to look at the history of your country's relationship with Ireland.

I do have a signed picture of Oliver North as a matter of fact. He is a great Military Hero. We do take an oath to follow orders when we enter the military. No matter how you personally feel about Iran-Contra, Oliver North had absolutely no obligation to tell anyone anything.

As fo our involvement in afghanistan prior to the attack, I must play dumb, as the only direct involvement that I remember was helping the Afghani Rebels during the Russian Invasion, I fail to see how that would ruffle any feathers, since the Russians were repelled.

Just to answer a few of your questions.