The Drones Are Here

[We Come In Peace]

Conspiracy theorists are c-nts.

Yo' momma!

[boyst]

Thanks for cheering me up fella's. I now feel like I am in the upper 50% of this place as far as being more intelligenter then the rest!

 

also, screw the ncdot.

 

Conspiracy theorists are c-nts.

ha

 

edit: Yes, what I said above is still true in your case. I am smarter then anyone who wears spandex (please forget I was a HS wrestler) (and this was only done for saying you want to ride over my bridge!)

Edited February 1, 2013 by jboyst62

[TakeYouToTasker]

Thank you Tom,

 

I have never read that from you previously, but I have read the accounts from hundreds of others in Washington that day who also saw the plane go in.

 

Nothing works me up more than those idiot 9/11 "deniers"...................I won't call them truthers, because there is no truth in any of their claims.

 

 

.

I've read everything that has been released by our government, and as many first hand accounts as I have been able to find.

 

What I have taken away from my reading is that we aren't being told the truth. The hard science surrounding the World Trade Center buildings and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania don't come close to adding up.

 

With that said, I also have no idea what the truth is, I only know that what we've been told isn't it.

[3rdnlng]

Not only drones but "smart meters":

 

 

[KD in CA]

Not only drones but "smart meters":

 

Ben Kingsley was right...

 

[John Adams]

 

I've read everything that has been released by our government, and as many first hand accounts as I have been able to find.

 

What I have taken away from my reading is that we aren't being told the truth. The hard science surrounding the World Trade Center buildings and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania don't come close to adding up.

 

With that said, I also have no idea what the truth is, I only know that what we've been told isn't it.

 

It doesn't add up because there is not a wealth of data about how hundred plus story buildings fall when hit by jets. You can find holes in every story OJ juror, but at some point, most rational people arrive at a reasoned conclusion based on the evidence presented.

 

Oswald acted alone. OJ was guilty. Bonds used steroids. 9-11 was not a government plot or coverup.

[B-Man]

It doesn't add up because there is not a wealth of data about how hundred plus story buildings fall when hit by jets. You can find holes in every story OJ juror, but at some point, most rational people arrive at a reasoned conclusion based on the evidence presented.

 

Oswald acted alone. OJ was guilty. Bonds used steroids. 9-11 was not a government plot or coverup.

 

I wasn't really going to respond to TYTT's post. I usually agree with his posts , but this "doesn't add up" silliness is just wrong, as John Adams so ably points out.

 

You've "read as many first hand accounts as you could" and you are still skeptical ? I have no intention of re-arguing something so obvious, and I certainly do not require the government to tell me what happened.

 

Use your own eyes, it was a terrorist attack !

 

 

.

[KD in CA]

I've read everything that has been released by our government, and as many first hand accounts as I have been able to find.

 

What I have taken away from my reading is that we aren't being told the truth. The hard science surrounding the World Trade Center buildings and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania don't come close to adding up.

 

With that said, I also have no idea what the truth is, I only know that what we've been told isn't it.

What doesn't 'add up' about the WTC? Is this the "gov't agents spent weeks secretly wiring two 110 story buildings for demolition with nobody noticing" theory again?

[B-Man]

What doesn't 'add up' about the WTC? Is this the "gov't agents spent weeks secretly wiring two 110 story buildings for demolition with nobody noticing" theory again?

 

LOL........I know that we are going far afield, but when I watched The Dark Knight , I laughed, because I thought the same thing. I have worked in hospitals for over 2 decades...how the hell did the Joker get those explosives into every part of a busy Gotham General ??

 

I know that we are supposed to suspend our belief (for movies), but I won't do that for reality............sorry.

 

 

.

Edited February 2, 2013 by B-Man

[Nanker]

I know that we are supposed to suspend our belief (for movies), but I won't do that for reality............sorry.

 

.

 

Its actually suspending our disbelief. Americans love movies, and we're well practiced as suspending our disbelief. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

[B-Man]

Its actually suspending our disbelief. Americans love movies, and we're well practiced as suspending our disbelief. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

 

I dis-believe you..............lol

 

Nah, you are correct. I'm surprised that my late, sainted (English Teacher) mother didn't slap me in the back of the head for that one.

[Tux of Borg]

If drones actually "see" someone committing a crime in their backyard behind a nice tall solid privacy fence, can that be used as evidence?

 

If they see a crime on public property, that's fine. But I would think that private property is still an illegal search.

 

I need a Law and Order episode to teach me about this.

 

CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO

[TakeYouToTasker]

John Adams, B-Man, and KD in CT:

 

I'm not going to have an argument about it with you, and I don't think there is anyone worth debating the issue with who believes the Towers attack wasn't a terrorist act, or, as I prefer to describe it, an act of war, as the towers were a very highly rated military target. My objections are based on physics. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to generate molten steel and rock. Structurally sound floors constructed of steel and concrete, that are designed to endure 8.0 and greater magnitude earthquakes, cannot engage in a freefall. Buildings not even hit by planes, sustaining only minor structural damage after being hit by debris, certainly cannot engage in freefall. And finally, we do have plenty of data on plane crashes in remote fields. Those crashes create wreckage, not empty craters left by planes which "vaporize" on impact.

 

The 9/11 was most certainly a calculated terror attack or act of war, but I don't, for a single minute, believe that the perpetrators have been properly identified to us.

[DC Tom]

John Adams, B-Man, and KD in CT:

 

I'm not going to have an argument about it with you, and I don't think there is anyone worth debating the issue with who believes the Towers attack wasn't a terrorist act, or, as I prefer to describe it, an act of war, as the towers were a very highly rated military target. My objections are based on physics. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to generate molten steel and rock. Structurally sound floors constructed of steel and concrete, that are designed to endure 8.0 and greater magnitude earthquakes, cannot engage in a freefall. Buildings not even hit by planes, sustaining only minor structural damage after being hit by debris, certainly cannot engage in freefall. And finally, we do have plenty of data on plane crashes in remote fields. Those crashes create wreckage, not empty craters left by planes which "vaporize" on impact.

 

The 9/11 was most certainly a calculated terror attack or act of war, but I don't, for a single minute, believe that the perpetrators have been properly identified to us.

 

Except that jet fuel does burn that hot, under the right conditions. The temperature at which ANY fuel burns is a minimum, not a maximum. If you enclose the fuel (say, in a stove, or in a building) and give it a constant, forced air flow (e.g. a chimney, or a tall, chimney-like building), it burns MUCH hotter. If that weren't true, you couldn't smelt iron, much less steel.

 

And how are building supposed to fall? Like dominoes?

 

And I can think of more than a few plane crashes that left little more than a crater.

 

 

How do people buy into this bull ****? Learn how the world actually works first.

[K-9]

Except that jet fuel does burn that hot, under the right conditions. The temperature at which ANY fuel burns is a minimum, not a maximum. If you enclose the fuel (say, in a stove, or in a building) and give it a constant, forced air flow (e.g. a chimney, or a tall, chimney-like building), it burns MUCH hotter. If that weren't true, you couldn't smelt iron, much less steel.

 

And how are building supposed to fall? Like dominoes?

 

And I can think of more than a few plane crashes that left little more than a crater.

 

 

How do people buy into this bull ****? Learn how the world actually works first.

 

Wait. You mean like when I blow air from bellows on the burning embers in my fireplace and they glow brighter it's actually burning hotter than before I introduced a stream of oxygen from the air in the bellows?

 

Are you also suggesting that when a floor of a building collapses the weight of that floor upon the floor below it might also cause that and subsequent floors to "pancake" as a result of the ever increasing stresses on each successive floor?

 

And when jets crash at over 500 mph into anything, much less the ground, are you suggesting that there is often not much more than anything left but a crater?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Except that jet fuel does burn that hot, under the right conditions. The temperature at which ANY fuel burns is a minimum, not a maximum. If you enclose the fuel (say, in a stove, or in a building) and give it a constant, forced air flow (e.g. a chimney, or a tall, chimney-like building), it burns MUCH hotter. If that weren't true, you couldn't smelt iron, much less steel.

Jet fuel burns hot enough to soften steel, not to make it molten, and certainly not enough to keep it molten for weeks without replentishing the fuel source.

 

And how are building supposed to fall? Like dominoes?

Not in a !@#$ing freefall. Freefalls are a characteristic of engineered demolition, which works to cut out the resistance of a buildings structural supports simultaniously, allowing the building to collapse inward upon itself. Otherwise, the building tips the !@#$ over, because the laws of physics dictate exactly that.

 

And I can think of more than a few plane crashes that left little more than a crater.

List them, and provide details, or STFU.

 

How do people buy into this bull ****? Learn how the world actually works first.

That's awfully heavy (and empty) criticism from someone who apparently doesn't understand the concepts of gravity and resistance.

[KD in CA]

Jet fuel burns hot enough to soften steel, not to make it molten, and certainly not enough to keep it molten for weeks without replentishing the fuel source.

So wouldn't 'softened' steel be sufficient to create a failure considering the thousands of tons that such softer steel was supporting? I'd be pretty surprised if building codes required soft steel to hold up a building.

 

Not in a !@#$ing freefall. Freefalls are a characteristic of engineered demolition, which works to cut out the resistance of a buildings structural supports simultaniously, allowing the building to collapse inward upon itself. Otherwise, the building tips the !@#$ over, because the laws of physics dictate exactly that..

LOL - I was right! Naturally no credible theory for how someone wired a 110 story building without anyone noticing.

 

And on what planet would a 110 story building 'tip over' with a fatal structure failure on the 95th floor? You sound like that Congressman discussing Guam.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

So wouldn't 'softened' steel be sufficient to create a failure considering the thousands of tons that such softer steel was supporting? I'd be pretty surprised if building codes required soft steel to hold up a building.

 

 

LOL - I was right! Naturally no credible theory for how someone wired a 110 story building without anyone noticing.

 

And on what planet would a 110 story building 'tip over' with a fatal structure failure on the 95th floor? You sound like that Congressman discussing Guam.

No, softened steel would not "hold up" a building, however unless that softened steel was on every structural support beam on every floor of the building it would not permit a controled inward collapse at freefall velocity. The building would have twisted where it was structurally damaged, the outer walls would have buckled, and the weight of the structure above the damaged area would have fallen outward, away from the building, or "tipped". It's the whole reason we have demolition engineering to begin with, rather than just detonating cylinders full of accelerants on the upper floors of buildings we're trying to bring down. Buildings don't come down like that on their own.

Edited February 3, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

Honest question.

Does it really matter if 9/11 was an inside job?

[3rdnlng]

Honest question.

Does it really matter if 9/11 was an inside job?

 

You been doin "shine'?