The Black Vault

I shake like a dog shitting peach seeds in your presence! I might wet myself at any second. I don't know whether to bow or salute!

Go get yourself a life. It's obvious that you're a miserable misguided dolt!

Just read your negative comment on everything you deem to be too far to the left.

As for your Religion, if you were as true as you want people to believe than you'd accept your teachings and turn the other cheek, but you're incapable of such. That tells me that you're a fake, a sheep in wolf's clothing so to speak.

Who cares if someone is gay or not? Only self absorbed idiots make comments like you do on the topic. I see you tried to tie it to religion and marriage. Is that because deep down you're jealous, or just feel alone in the closet!

Either way you have issues where certain opinions differ from your, whether they be real ones or imagined. That;s not very healthy Stoner. Take it for what it's worth!

Cole

WOW JUST WOW.


You need help, I suggest you get it.







BloodStone...

jaydeehess wrote:That is, as you say, a dog that won't hunt.
There ARE several buildings that were, or still are, being taken down, including Banker's Trust.

I don't see how that addresses my point. Just because not all of the bldgs were demo-ed says nothing about whether or not at least one bldg was demo-ed.

jaydeehess wrote:An examination of the monies paid out or to be paid out illustrates that there was a net LOSS. So much for insurance.
Insurance has not covered loss of business, only reconstruction and even that was not paid out in a lump sum. Its in instalments as reconstruction progresses.

You're making my point for me. The cost to NYC, both public and private would have been much more severe had NYC been forced to pull buildings down AFTER the attack. That's just outright fact.

jaydeehess wrote:Go what or where? Why is it 'clear' that WTC 7 was 'blown'? Have you read the WTC 7 report, or just read about it?
How about providing a few details along with such definitives

I based that partly on the video that was included in this thread. I assumed you were following along. Check out the video yourself. Bldg 7 came down in gravitational free fall. You don't get that with a collapsing bldg with the type of damage bldg 7 had. Sorry, the laws of physics can't be bargained with or spun in a liberal direction. That bldg had to come down so it could be included in the insurance claims. Its the same thing you see in floods where some guy sets his house on fire because he doesn't have flood insurance. Oldest trick in the book. And that from my insurance agent.

jaydeehess wrote:Ok, you're wrong Since when has the rest of the world had a hard time blaming the USA for world woes or hating the USA for its extravagence? I also must have missed the part where the rest of the world loved the past Pres and hates the new one. (maybe in Fox news coverage this was the case but we all know how 'fair and balanced' FN is.

Common fallacy, part of the left's manufactured reality. The world did not hate the US during the Bush years and you could talk to people around the world and prove it. But with B.O. running around the world apologizing, it makes people who have heard ANY conspiracy theory about the US believe it. "Well, if the president is apologizing then the US must have done something wrong." The rest of the world thinks B.O. is a dunce.

jaydeehess wrote:I take it you subscribe to the notion of a world shadow gov't.(whatever tag name you wish to put on such a beastie.)

Don't know how you define that so I can't speak to it. I do know about the Bilderbergers, and such. An organized branch of the gov that is not known to the public? No, probably not. But people keep secrets and the real power behind the system is not our elected representatives. Need I mention names? The billionaire behind the bull$h1t. Its a known fact that "he" has setup an organization to send out dis-information agents around to online forums to shutdown 9/11 conspiracies. Its not even a secret. Its been reported by the news media.

BloodStone wrote:Alien proton beems !
Why not ? makes as much sense as the nutters crap...
They want so much to beleive that President Bush caused this, ...
I'm sure you will tire of their lunacy relatively soon. Good Luck to ya.

Hey, I can understand your pov. You think those who disagree with you are idiots or lunatics. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff really is just wrong and some of it is whacky. But your attitude seems more akin to the typical lefty, yet you are oddly defending George Bush. Or are you? If there was any 9/11 inside job conspiracy it would all be on B.O.s back now, wouldn't it? People never figure out that its all connected. Bush 41, B.C., Bush 42, B.O. All connected. You don't have total disconnect from one president to the next. So any 9/11 conspiracy would definitely rub off on B.O. sooner or later.

My points about bldg 7 have nothing to do with any conspiracy, just common sense actions.

Partly, I think, many of the 911 conspiracy theories have erupted because Hollywood has photographed the WTC in almost every movie that was filmed in NYC, since the bldgs were built. Go back and look. The WTC is everywhere! AND, the number 1 "conspiracy" movie taking place in NYC, Die Hard 3, prominently displayed the WTC and it was fresh in people's mind on 9/11. Somehow people put the stuff they've seen in movies together with 9/11 and presto, conspiracy.

There are weird things though, there was a prediction of 9/11 before 9/11 (I can't go into that). Also, I noticed that the movies which showed the WTC seem to hover strangely on those shots as if trying to say something. It isn't just one movie either. Premonition or just prudent planning? Unfortunately I am prevented from relating my own story. If you want a hint look at my picture gallery.

Still, there are strange things left unaddressed. It is not inconceivable that "entities", some being American, were ultimately behind 9/11, in addition to the hired guns in Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia. Given all we know about brain washing (MK Ultra, etc.) it is not inconceivable that these kids were not in complete control of their faculties (see Sirhan Sirhan and the guy who shot the pope). It is not inconceivable that the airliners were on remote control, since this very thing did happened in upstate NY back in 1992 - 1993 (or there abouts). It was reported as a UFO event but it could have been advanced human technology. You can remotely take control of a commercial airliner. Sorry if that scares anyone but it is possible. The jet that went down in PA just seems too convenient, as does the mighty convenient Moussoui capture, at least to me. They needed to imply the target was the White House without actually taking it out. Hard to rebuild that. Although I wouldn't have suspected Bush, obviously others have. The Pentagon strike hitting the section under construction? Now that is convenient! And finally, given that even the bldg designers never thought that planes hitting the WTC would bring them down, how do you explain Bin Laden out there in the desert being such a gifted genius that he knew they would? And that comes partly from the official story, which explains the direction of the attacks on the WTC bldgs. Just too many weird things man.

BTW, where is Waldo?

fortwynt wrote:ah now jaydee knows better than the poor fools who were actually there.

tsk tsk...the final refuge of the denier....attack the credibility of the victim.


are you secretly Bill O'Reilly?

Oh please.............

I was not present when a woman first stated that the child she bore was God incarnate and that she was actually a virgin, but I doubt her story.

I asked a question; how would those in the basement who could not and did not actually se the two events know hich one was the aircraft impact and which one was the explosion out the elevator shaft?

,,,,, and no, I cannot stand B.O'R or the station he is on. For the record I do watch Olbermann on occassion.

Cole_Trickle wrote:

I specifically asked for an explanation of how explosives would/could be used to launch perimeter column trees 500 feet. I would like to know how this launch could be accomplished with explosives without destroying the column tree

Column tree? That's a new one on me.

then you know little or nothing about the construction of the towers or what was ejected during the collapse, yet are quite willing to pontificate on the subject.

Like I said there was an energy source over and above Arabs, planes, and jet fuel induced fires in play that day

Which I have asked you to back up with some, any explanation, and so far you choose only to require that I take your word for it.

You're assuming that they were explosives of the garden verity kind. I wish I knew what they used as do many other people, but we will probably never know

That is often refered to as invoking magic to explain something. I don't subscribe to such voodoo.

due to the fact that they relied on a computer model to tell the public that testing for explosives was unnecessary.

A complete and utter misrepresentation of a report you have obviously never read for yourself.

In reading through the many posts of yours both on the new board and using my memory of the old, you seem to have an authoritative attitude in regard to all things 9-11,

Born of the fact that I have educated nmyself on the issue from both sides.

yet most all of it is/are a play on words, hence my partly cloudy/sunny comment, It's also why you use the quote feature and pass it off as communication.

I use the quote feature to ensure that what I say is referenced to what i am speaking of. I often find myself unclear what you are referencing, or to whom you are directing a post to.

I do not play with words. I ask for details to back contentions made. So far you are unwilling to do so, instead you make declaritive statements such as "there was an energy source over and above Arabs, planes, and jet fuel induced fires in play " and expect that is all there is to it. You say you are just asking questions but are steadfast in refusing to answer questions asked of you.

WHAT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Are those rightly answered questions or wrongly answered questions, or just the ones that stay on point.

Are they "right" only if they point to a predetermined poltical POV that you have? It sure appears so. Me, I go with the verifiable , technical details and am not concerned with ideologies.

Now I can ask you that if: Your collapse theory is correct then how where the core box columns severed in tandem with the perimeter columns to produce a near free fall collapse? You see these Towers were strong as hell for one argument and equally weak for another, which ever suits the seller.

This question illustrates that you either did not read my post concerning this or did not comprehend it.
The column failures were explained there. It was explained that the falling material impacted the floor pans/ floor space/ and not the lower portions of the columns. It was explained that the trusses that support the floors and the truss seats that transfer the floor load to the vertical columns were designed to transfer loads that a FLOOR could be expected to exert, not the combined load of 10+ floors and the column sections between them.
It was explained that for columns to withstand common buckling they must be braced and in the WTC towers that bracing occured via the trusses to brace core to perimeter and vice versa.

Surely you don't believe that mere butt plates and welds were all the core columns were comprised of, yet that's the main selling points of all of those who think one floor collapsed into the lower, and then the next and so forth. That's too ridiculous to comment on.

Oh do go one since this sentence makes little sense.

They never would have survived the energy that they were exposed to during a few Hurricane force wind storms, nor-Easters, and other wind events. Most all way beyond the energy of a plane by several x's over. Maybe you've seen what straight line winds can do on structures at ground level let alone 100-125 mph winds at 1,200 feet. If those Towers were as weak as some would have common people believe then they would have blown apart years prior to 9-11.

A completely different force, the resistence to which would be directly a function of how the core was braced with the perimeter via the trusses. No bracing between column systems and you do not even need a wind to fail the columns. They will fail on their own, a concept that I know you cannot envision due to your complete lack of any technical training in physics or engineering. I don't fault you for that, I fault you for believeing you can render an educated opinion.

Trying to sell the collapse as a pancake gravitational event that somehow had it's energy released throughout the entire structure all at once is an absolutely insane pitch.

Who states that? If that were the case then all levels would have failed at the same time. I saw a progressive collapse, not an instantaneous one.

This is where you say " OH BUT IT WASN'T LIKE THAT, IT TOOK SEVERAL SECONDS FOR THOSE BUILDING TO COMPLETELY COLLAPSE "

Apparently you saw something different.
As for "near free fall" I seem to recall that I asked how far from a free fall time it 'should' be. I don't recall an answer. I pointed out(IIRC) that the time to collapse was between 10 % ( at the quickest) and 45-50% longer than a free fall. This illustrates that the average collapse accelleration is between 0.8g and 0.2g (if one actually does the math). Far from free fall accelleration.

I can only say BULLSHIT!

Indeed so far that's the sum total of your arguemnet.

Every necessary support column severed at the same time causing a free release of energy, none of which was arrested at any point during the collapse is impossible without an outside source over and above those I mentioned previously, yet that's exactly what is seen in video and photos abound.

Once again you must be thinking of a different collapse. If all columns on each floor were severed at the same time then yes indeed the collapse would be at afree fall. That is the only way to acheive free fall. However if all columns were severted at the same time then all floors would be moving at the same time as well, and this is quite obviously not the condition seen. in fact even to the most scientifically challenged it is obvious that the collapse occured significantly slower than free fall because much of the material ejected reaches ground level before the collapse zone does.

The Winter Garden was severely damaged during the collapse of Tower 1. Large intact sections of the outer skin of one was found on and near the Winter Garden. How is this possible if the building just happened to collapse from fire. The fire weakened the steel until the structure could no longer bear the weight and it simple collapsed, never mind the expulsion of material floor by floor/every third floor, that's all in your head, it's not what you're really seeing

I asked you how explosives could possibly explain this ejection. You answered by invoking magic yet expect me bvelieve that it could not be accomplished by the collapse mechanism itself.

Gee Wally what do you expect when several tons of steel and concrete contained within a 1,300 tall building weighing in at several million tons decides to collapse

Tell me why debris does not get ejected like this during true explosive CD's.
Were a few magic explosives placed somehow on the perimeter sections in order to specifically eject them hundreds of feet? In true explosive CD's the explosives used first cut the column , then a second one 'kicks' the two sections apart only as much as is neccessary. Your senario somehow has the planners requiring the columns to travel hundreds of feet.

BloodStone wrote: I give ya credit JAYDEES, they will keep beating this dead horse long after we are gone. I gave up arguing this topic with idiots that have no clue about reality.

I understand your position. I haven't hit my head against the wall enough times yet I guess.

They want so much to beleive that President Bush caused this, and their Government, that they can no longer see reality.Blinded by hate for one man and his party is all it comes down to.

I really have no use for GWB myself. He will, IMHO, go down as the worst POTUS in history (at least to date << shudders>> ) However I can easily see that the contentions for explosives in the structures or any of the other technical contentions made by the TM and others, like Cole who profess to not be part of the loose coalition that calls itself the truth movement, are complete hooey.
Bush made a complete balls up of his entire stay in office and it boggles the mind of non-Americans that he was elected not once, but twice. (both times because the Dems did not have anyone running against him )

CodeBlack wrote:

jaydeehess wrote:That is, as you say, a dog that won't hunt.
There ARE several buildings that were, or still are, being taken down, including Banker's Trust.

I don't see how that addresses my point. Just because not all of the bldgs were demo-ed says nothing about whether or not at least one bldg was demo-ed.

jaydeehess wrote:An examination of the monies paid out or to be paid out illustrates that there was a net LOSS. So much for insurance.
Insurance has not covered loss of business, only reconstruction and even that was not paid out in a lump sum. Its in instalments as reconstruction progresses.

You're making my point for me. The cost to NYC, both public and private would have been much more severe had NYC been forced to pull buildings down AFTER the attack. That's just outright fact.

No, if a building had to be taken down before reconstruction could take place then insurance pays for that too.

jaydeehess wrote:Go what or where? Why is it 'clear' that WTC 7 was 'blown'? Have you read the WTC 7 report, or just read about it?
How about providing a few details along with such definitives

I based that partly on the video that was included in this thread. I assumed you were following along. Check out the video yourself. Bldg 7 came down in gravitational free fall. You don't get that with a collapsing bldg with the type of damage bldg 7 had. Sorry, the laws of physics can't be bargained with or spun in a liberal direction. That bldg had to come down so it could be included in the insurance claims. Its the same thing you see in floods where some guy sets his house on fire because he doesn't have flood insurance. Oldest trick in the book. And that from my insurance agent.

In fact those making this claim will only show you the north facade of the building which came down in fact slower than free fall and only after the interior had already collapsed. they will often cite the seismic readings for the collapse of WTC 1&2 as showing the collapse times as being very fast but ignore those same readings for WTC 7 which indicate a collapse taking place for at least 16 seconds

jaydeehess wrote:Ok, you're wrong Since when has the rest of the world had a hard time blaming the USA for world woes or hating the USA for its extravagence? I also must have missed the part where the rest of the world loved the past Pres and hates the new one. (maybe in Fox news coverage this was the case but we all know how 'fair and balanced' FN is.

Common fallacy, part of the left's manufactured reality. The world did not hate the US during the Bush years and you could talk to people around the world and prove it.

I am Canadian and believe me when we were told that because we would not join in the invasion of Iraq that we were "against" the USA it was not taken in the spirit of love and understanding. I am sure that the French were also very understanding of the words out of the White House concerning them, or the Germans,,,,, etc.
If you think that GWB had any friends in the streets of the middle east you are deluding yourself. I am sure that they all took the talk of a "crusade" with love and understanding.

But with B.O. running around the world apologizing, it makes people who have heard ANY conspiracy theory about the US believe it. "Well, if the president is apologizing then the US must have done something wrong." The rest of the world thinks B.O. is a dunce.

I assure you that a vast multitude of us considered GWNB to be a dunce, moron, incompetatnt,,etc. long before we ever heard of Barrack Obama.

jaydeehess wrote:I take it you subscribe to the notion of a world shadow gov't.(whatever tag name you wish to put on such a beastie.)

Don't know how you define that so I can't speak to it. I do know about the Bilderbergers, and such.

that's one of the names I was thinking about. I hesitate to use a specific name since in the past i have been told things along the lines of "no that;s not true its the xxxxxx

An organized branch of the gov that is not known to the public? No, probably not. But people keep secrets and the real power behind the system is not our elected representatives.

That's what I meant by 'shadow gov't', it is what the term refers to.

Need I mention names? The billionaire behind the bull$h1t. Its a known fact that "he" has setup an organization to send out dis-information agents around to online forums to shutdown 9/11 conspiracies. Its not even a secret. Its been reported by the news media.

Yes please, mention names because you are the first to tell me who is responsible.

Let me guess first though
Silverstein?
Murrdoch?
Ted wassisname founder of CNN?
Bill Gates?

jaydeehess wrote:No, if a building had to be taken down before reconstruction could take place then insurance pays for that too.

Not if the insurance company would determine that the bldg could be salvaged and repaired. Plus they didn't want 7 to fall into any other bldgs.

jaydeehess wrote:In fact those making this claim will only show you the north facade of the building which came down in fact slower than free fall and only after the interior had already collapsed. they will often cite the seismic readings for the collapse of WTC 1&2 as showing the collapse times as being very fast but ignore those same readings for WTC 7 which indicate a collapse taking place for at least 16 seconds

So what your are saying is that the evidence for the collapse of the towers does not match the evidence for the collapse of bldg 7? Hmm. interesting. Why not?

jaydeehess wrote:I am Canadian and believe me when we were told that because we would not join in the invasion of Iraq that we were "against" the USA it was not taken in the spirit of love and understanding. I am sure that the French were also very understanding of the words out of the White House concerning them, or the Germans,,,,, etc.
If you think that GWB had any friends in the streets of the middle east you are deluding yourself. I am sure that they all took the talk of a "crusade" with love and understanding.

Sounds like you are referring to the "you are either with us or against us" speech. At the time that seemed perfectly reasonable to me. The US was attacked, presumably, and it had a right to defend itself and go after those involved. Why would that be a problem for France or Canada or Germany???

Funny, because I have this video of the Saddam statue being torn down and those people seem real real happy. Side note: the Iraqi's who were there began hitting the statue with their shoes even as the head was being dragged down the street. Left wing media painted a completely fabricated view over 7+ years. You bought it.

jaydeehess wrote:I assure you that a vast multitude of us considered GWNB to be a dunce, moron, incompetatnt,,etc. long before we ever heard of Barrack Obama.

Point taken. He was not a great orator or statesman, had a Texas accent, said what he believed, did what he thought was right. Liberals hate all of that. But I don't want to seem to be buying everything from the Bush admin. I fully accept that some things were not as they appeared. But the 8+ year incessant Bush bashing ruined all the credibility of the left on all things Bush. If the left believed Bush was behind 9/11 then they were their own worst enemy.

jaydeehess wrote:that's one of the names I was thinking about. I hesitate to use a specific name since in the past i have been told things along the lines of "no that;s not true its the xxxxxx
That's what I meant by 'shadow gov't', it is what the term refers to.

There will be conspiracies and rumors of conspiracies. It is foolish to think that people with money and power sit idley by while their fortunes are decided by the whims of politics. Not a chance.

jaydeehess wrote:Yes please, mention names because you are the first to tell me who is responsible.

Let me guess first though
Silverstein?
Murrdoch?
Ted wassisname founder of CNN?
Bill Gates?

Not even close. Come on, you can do better than that. Who really fits the bill? Who hates America, and has said so? Think like a billionaire. You know the world is all b.s., mostly your own.

The French Bros were supposed to have the only known footage of the first strike. Maybe that excluded still photos, only I'm pretty sure that this was a shot ( shots ) captured from a security camera or someone was ( just so happen to be in the right place at the right time )



Just one of many things most in the public have no knowledge of.

Cole