Forums | MacLife

During times like this I usually like to fall back on the unwritten rule of the scientific research. That being, inelegant theories are usually bullsmurf.

Metacell wrote:

Kennedy was never shot--he was zapped back in time to assassinate Lincoln.

But it's okay, because we have their clones now over at Clone High along with Cleopatra, Gandhi and Joan of Arc.

I saw this conspiracy theory video where the narrator was all breathless about how it "proved" a missile was sent ahead of one of the planes just before it hit one of the towers and used freeze frames to say how a clearly visible, circular shock wave pattern could be seen on the side of the building immediately , like a 100th of a second, before the nose of the plane impacted.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of high speed aerodynamics would have easily understood that what sorta looked like a "pre-impact" impact was just high pressure zone that precedes all jet aircraft running into the building.
They conspiracy theorists would do themselves a favout if they attempted to learn at least a little something about the smurfing subject they are masterbateing about.

Pariah wrote:

I saw this conspiracy theory video where the narrator was all breathless about how it "proved" a missile was sent ahead of one of the planes just before it hit one of the towers and used freeze frames to say how a clearly visible, circular shock wave pattern could be seen on the side of the building immediately , like a 100th of a second, before the nose of the plane impacted.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of high speed aerodynamics would have easily understood that what sorta looked like a "pre-impact" impact was just high pressure zone that precedes all jet aircraft running into the building.
They conspiracy theorists would do themselves a favout if they attempted to learn at least a little something about the smurfing subject they are masterbateing about.

Ahh, Loose Change.

I also liked the puffs of smoke which were supposed to indicate controlled demo charges detonated in WTC 1 & 2... not pancaking floors that were spewing debris as they collided together.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2007-10-22 6:00 pm)

Aqua OS X wrote:

Phydeaux wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Kennedy was never shot--he was zapped back in time to assassinate Lincoln.

But it's okay, because we have their clones now over at Clone High along with Cleopatra, Gandhi and Joan of Arc.

This is stupid.
Kennedy was one of the first people to ride along in Space Ship One, the president's spaceship. Upon leaving orbit he hit a worm hole (which was then called a Kennedy tube) and traveled back in time where he became stuck. This forced the government to fake Kennedy's death. Moreover, since space travel was clearly too dangerous, the government was also forced to fake a moon landing several years later.

While in the past Kennedy changed his name to Lincoln and ran for office after growing a beard. Kennedy-Lincoln was assassinated in a movie theater by the Bush administration. Karl Rove learned that Bush could only win the 2000 election if the South resented the North. By sending an assassin back in time Karl Rove was able to assure that Kennedy-Lincoln would not be able to conduct progressive diplomacy in the past. The assassin created the red state / blue state divide.

And, as we all know, once in office Bush plotted to destroy the WTC.

So that explains it!

That was awesome.

I think WTC 7 was intentionally brought down.
I don't think it had a fuel source for the kind of fire to take it down, like the bigger buildings had (jet fuel) - and it went down too well IMHO.

I think there was something in that building that they did not want the general public to know about, and I think demolition charges were in the building in case they were ever needed - kind of like how some spies carry a suicide pill.

But I only tentatively think that - I haven't fully investigated it myself - and I'm certainly very open to the idea that it was not intentionally brought down by us.

resedit wrote:

I think WTC 7 was intentionally brought down.
I don't think it had a fuel source for the kind of fire to take it down, like the bigger buildings had (jet fuel) - and it went down too well IMHO.

I think there was something in that building that they did not want the general public to know about, and I think demolition charges were in the building in case they were ever needed - kind of like how some spies carry a suicide pill.

But I only tentatively think that - I haven't fully investigated it myself - and I'm certainly very open to the idea that it was not intentionally brought down by us.

It didn't need jet fuel. It had plenty of fuel from the paper and furniture within. (plus it apparently sat upon a deposit of diesil).
The sprinklers couldn't work (no water), it was burning all day, and debris from WTC 1 &2 took out an enormous chunk of the south side -along with it a good amount of structural integrity.


Plus, if there was something in there that the authorities "didn't want us to see", the LAST thing they would do is collapse the building, spreading all the classified documents all over Lower Manhattan, allowing all sorts of people with no security clearance to view it.

Last edited by iSeamas (2007-10-23 11:09 am)

There is only one thing about 9.11 that I have serious doubts about which is that I am not sold on what seems to me to be the "let's roll" macguffin of flight 93 because it seemed much more plausible that it was shot down. In fact, if you believe the commission, you should be scared to death of any sort of future attack because it claims the fighters scrambled didnt even have the plane in sight, which is appalling to the point of unbelievability. If jets were ordered up in the air at about 9:30, knowing that 3 airplanes had hit targets and that a fourth one was still up there and your 3 Andrews AFB jets are up and ready by 9:40 with this info (and there were patrols flying in NY almost an hour earlier), and couldnt get to the plane before, luck of all luck, the passengers trying to break in the cockpit manage to scare the terrorists into crashing the plane into mountains at about 10:10, then you have one heck of a terrible military.

You even had Cheney reportedly informing other officials from his bunker that day that the plane had been shot down, he later defended the order on public television, and Rumsfeld called it shot down before it was called a slip of the tongue. Am I 100% sure? Of course not, I just am skeptical.

Last edited by StaticAge (2007-10-23 11:47 am)

iSeamas wrote:

It didn't need jet fuel. It had plenty of fuel from the paper and furniture within. (plus it apparently sat upon a deposit of diesil).

The diesel may explain it - but not paper and furniture, which I have a hard time believing would burn hot enough.

Plus, if there was something in there that the authorities "didn't want us to see", the LAST thing they would do is collapse the building, spreading all the classified documents all over Lower Manhattan, allowing all sorts of people with no security clearance to view it.

If the building was designed to be brought down beforehand, that would have been taken into account. I'm far more suspicious of computer records etc. than them trying to hide a paper trail.

I had not heard about diesel storage at the site. I'm guessing for backup power generation? That makes more sense.

Like I said - I never fully investigated it, if we did take it down intentionally - the truth would have had a good cover story, so a peasant like me would never really be unable to uncover it without a major leak.

It still went down in an extremely clean way though. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and it went down way too cleanly IMHO.

Last edited by resedit (2007-10-23 12:10 pm)

JakeTheTall wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

A good number of the aircraft put into the air on CAP weren't even armed, I think.

Do the fighter-jets that are used for CAP have a machine-gun mounted on it anymore ?  I thought I've read those are usually kept loaded, due to balance issues.  But I'm probably wrong.

If there are balance issues when they are not loaded, what do they do after they empty them on an enemy target?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

A good number of the aircraft put into the air on CAP weren't even armed, I think.

Do the fighter-jets that are used for CAP have a machine-gun mounted on it anymore ?  I thought I've read those are usually kept loaded, due to balance issues.  But I'm probably wrong.

I don't know about AF jets, but F-18s do not require a loaded cannon for any balance issues. I doubt that any jets require it.

resedit wrote:

I think WTC 7 was intentionally brought down.

OK, it's officially time to turn off Coast To Coast and step away from the AM radio.

resedit wrote:

It wasn't coast to coast - the video of that building falling looked more like intentional demolition to me than anything else.

I'm not a demolition expert - but that's how it looked to me.

If a building is uniformly weakened, that is how it is going to collapse. Like because it had fires raging throughout it all day.