Most amazing pics EVER of 9/11

[TheStripey1]

Not yet, but I'll watch it now...

Thanks... and it made my jaw drop... and in more than one segment, too...

now don't get me wrong... I'm not buying into the conspiracies that say bush et al were IN on it... heavens no... cuz IMO, their mishandling of everything from finding OBL to invading Iraq to Katrina belies the supposition that they had anything to do with 9/11...

I'm just don't buy the explanation, anymore, that the towers fell on their own... not after seeing this...

[-Cp]

the part about liberals needing to wake up. THAT was a political statement and played quite well to your right winger audience. And not well at all to us lefties. So... YOU set the tone with your political statement.

Are you now trying to say that you think that was just a friendly comment? I didn't take it that way and neither did mfm...

And how is talking about liberals, political?

[Dilloduck]

Thanks... and it made my jaw drop... and in more than one segment, too...

now don't get me wrong... I'm not buying into the conspiracies that say bush et al were IN on it... heavens no... cuz IMO, their mishandling of everything from finding OBL to invading Iraq to Katrina belies the supposition that they had anything to do with 9/11...

I'm just don't buy the explanation, anymore, that the towers fell on their own... not after seeing this...

They didn't fall on their own--they we hit by big ass airplanes loaded with jet fuel and innocent Americans

[Gaffer]

Ahhhh stripy, the ward churchill of the internet forums. Back to encourage your minions and pat them on the back for their good work I see. With the usual challenge for everyone to join the military if they really want to support the troops.

I find your references to the Army insulting. I was in the Army. And your correct, I am a hawk, just like every other vet I have been associated with. You want everyone to go out and enlist. I suggest the line form right behind you.

As for the conspiracy theorists, they are people with too much time on their hands. They need to join the military. That is your standard answer to everything isn't it?

I have noticed you have a routine. Come in on a Friday, respond to every post in a thread where the libs are taking a beating. Then leave fo two weeks, then return and start fresh in new threads. Interesting way to do it so you don't get bogged down answering direct questions. Let the minions do the dirty work while you stay aloof and in command. The weekly pep talks is a nice touch. Keep em motivated with regular training sessions.

See ya at the recruiters.

[jimnyc]

maybe... maybe not... have you seen 9/11 Mysteries?

It was produced by a conservative bent on refuting what he had seen in Loose Change...

Stripey, I've taken the time and spent about 3hrs between last evening and this morning watching the video you referred me to, as well as another involving the same video. I have to be honest, it sounded more to me like a video full of rhetoric tossed together by some conspiracy theorists. While I'm certainly not a scientist or engineer, here are some inconsistencies or errors I believe I have found in the video.

The claim the beginning that firemen reported only "pockets of fire". - These were isolated reports from firemen IN the building who didn't know exactly what was transpiring above them. It was quite obvious to anyone who saw footage from that day that fires were abundant throughout many floors in both buildings that were struck.

The stated it wasn't as hot as reported, yet they showed footage of people standing in the windows begging for help. We also know that many people leaped to their deaths. If it wasn't that hot, why would these people choose death rather than stay behind and wait for help?

They made a point of stating that the towers were made to withstand 150mph winds from hurricanes. Sorry, but planes hitting the towers and making specific points of structural damage in no way is comparable to a hurricane which would evenly "hit" the building.

They made statements that buildings designed of steel have never fallen from fire before. First off, this is incorrect, it has happened before. Secondly, how many buildings in history have been hit by 767's filled with jet fuel?

They point out throughout the video that planted bombs likely took down the buildings but NEVER show any proof of this, and also forget to point out that the plane itself hitting the building was a HUGE bomb.

They make a point of stating that steel, concrete and glass don't burn. But they do hold heat, and steel specifically doesn't need to actually burn to become unstable.

They point out multiple explosions throughout the building. Of course, I would imagine the amount of damage that was done by the planes impact and following fires would in fact cause parts of floors to collapse, elevator shafts to be consumed & electrical devices to explode.

The state that steel won't burn or break. It wouldn't have needed to, it only needed to "bend" to become structurally unsound enough to cause collapse.

They ask how bone fragments ended up on buildings neighboring buildings. What do they think happened to the people on the planes hitting the building at 550+ mph, or those in the direct path of those planes?

They imply that windows blown out and damage in the lobby was from explosions down there. The initial impact and resulting fireballs likely caused the fire & oxygen to race down the elevator shafts and out through various openings and floors.

They ask how the foundation walls could have moved. How about a million tons of steel falling on them?

They point out that the ground continued to burn and smolder for weeks after 9/11, but earlier stated that there was little fire and not enough heat. They even pointed out that weeks after 9/11 there were pockets of 1100 degree heat. If it was that hot weeks later, how hot was it on that day?

The speak of liquified steel yet earlier in the video they stated steel couldn't "burn".

They claim WTC7 only had small fires and smoke, but fail to mention the structural damage it took on the lower floors. http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/

They pointed out that Giuliani wasn't in WTC7. Of course not! He was at the main towers when they started to fall, and then took up shelter elsewhere in a makeshift command center. By that time the damage was already done to WTC7.

They implied "Securacom" wired the buildings for demolition for years leading up to 9/11. They even showed "fake" pictures of workers working with ammunition for effect. So many people and so many years, yet not a shred of proof and not a single person coming forward? That's a hell of a conspiracy to cover up!

They claim later in the film that poor fireproofing allowed fires to go easily throughout the floors. But wait a minute, they said earlier in the film that there were only a "few pockets" of fire!

Claims of construction going on within unused floors throughout the building, once again implying that this was the work going on of demolition experts. Where are all of these people? So many people involved and not a shred of evidence and not a sngle person coming forward.

They state in the film that major demolitions of major buildings are generally done so by the military, and that not even civilian blasters understood what took place that day. Funny how these civilian blasters were good enough to use as supposed evidence earlier in the film to imply the building was a controlled demolition.

After I finished watching this film and taking my notes, I watched another "re-take" of the film. This film does better at blowing their theories clear out of the water than I could ever had hoped to do. I hope you'll give this film a peek as I did the one you recommended, as I think what is pointed out in this film is much more believable and states much more facts.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/...ries-debunked/

[retiredman]

And how is talking about liberals, political?

are you referring to "liberals" as people who are liberal in the way they use ketchup, or liberal in the way they apply eye makeup or liberal in the way they give to charities??

for some reason, I was under the impression that you were talking about people who were liberal in their POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY!!!!!

[-Cp]

are you referring to "liberals" as people who are liberal in the way they use ketchup, or liberal in the way they apply eye makeup or liberal in the way they give to charities??

for some reason, I was under the impression that you were talking about people who were liberal in their POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY!!!!!

I was talking about liberals who are too dumb to see that the war against jihadists is well beyond the country of Afghanistan.

I was referring to the liberals who have forgotten about that tragic day and have a strong desire for the war in Iraq to fail - after all, a win in Iraq is bad for them.

I was referring to liberals who think it was somehow better for the people of Iraq to live under Saddam and his sons than to have their own chance of some sort of freedom and the ability to perch up their own fashion of government.

I was talking to liberals who blame Bush for everything wrong in their lives, yet give so many other folks a complete pass for saying the same things before he was even in Office.

I was talking to liberals who are so short-sighted that they forget that 9/11 can and will happen again once those that wish to kill more Americans are able to execute their next vile plan. Let us only hope that when it does happen that it's in a wonderful city like San Francisco - at least it'd help take out a ton of liberals - oops, was that my inner-voice failing me again? :P

Liberals have been on the wrong side of history time and time again:

- Liberals thought that Carter's pasifiscm would lead to peace - they were wrong.

- Liberals thought that Reagan's Arms build-up would lead to war, not peace - they were wrong.

- Liberals thought that giving peace a chance after Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90's was the way to go - they were wrong.

- Liberals now think that going into Iraq was a bad idea - Nevermind the fact that we've liberated 25 million people and closed the rape-rooms and torture chambers of Saddam and his sons forever - they will be proven to be wrong in the prism of history.

You see, Liberalism isn't a political view as there are really only two long-standing political parties in this country, Republicans and Democrats. No, liberalism is a spiritual/mental disorder that God told us in his word would plauge the minds of people towards the last days - The Bible refers to this as a reprobate mind in Romans 1.

1. a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
3. morally depraved; unprincipled; bad.

[trobinett]

show me where I suggested that they were "suddenly spot on"


how about not nitpicking one phrase and addressing my overall point?

Here's an idea, how about being just a tad more CLEAR.

I certainly thought you were suggesting that they WERE "spot on".

Shame on me............

[retiredman]

Lets do this point by point:

I was talking about liberals who are too dumb to see that the war against jihadists is well beyond the country of Afghanistan.

bullshit. I have NEVER suggested that the war against islamic extremism ought to be confined to one country. I HAVE suggested that invading, conquering, and occupying a country where little to no islamic extremists existed and which was run, brutally perhaps, by secular ba'athists was a dumbass counterproductive diversion in our war against our real enemy.

I was referring to the liberals who have forgotten about that tragic day and have a strong desire for the war in Iraq to fail - after all, a win in Iraq is bad for them.

more bullshgit. NO ONE in America thinks that America losing at ANYTHING is a GOOD thing. The "war" in Iraq has been "won" for a few years now...the occupation of Iraq, the cramming of jeffersonian multicultural democracy down the throats of Iraqis at the point of a gun...THAT has not gone well at all, and many many of us warned against just such a political defeat long ago.

I was referring to liberals who think it was somehow better for the people of Iraq to live under Saddam and his sons than to have their own chance of some sort of freedom and the ability to perch up their own fashion of government.

PUH-LEESE. Abandoning our fight against the islamic extremists who attacked us and going after a brutal secular baathist regime because they were brutal to their own people and the sons of the leader liked to score some strange pussy now and then, is ridiculous. There are far worse humanitarian disasters going on around the globe and we don't give a shit about them.

I was talking to liberals who blame Bush for everything wrong in their lives, yet give so many other folks a complete pass for saying the same things before he was even in Office.

more and more bullshit. I think Bush has been a rather inconsequential president who has impacted my life in fairly minimal ways - except for the war in Iraq. I certainly do not "blame" him for anything wrong in my life.... I only blame him for losing sight of our real enemy and invading Iraq to bolster flagging poll ratings and to bolster the bottom lines of Haliburton , et. al.

I was talking to liberals who are so short-sighted that they forget that 9/11 can and will happen again once those that wish to kill more Americans are able to execute their next vile plan. Let us only hope that when it does happen that it's in a wonderful city like San Francisco - at least it'd help take out a ton of liberals - oops, was that my inner-voice failing me again? :P

I agree that 9/11 can and will happen again and I am sickened by the fact that we have wasted so much time, blood and treasure in Iraq that could have been better used in making our borders and our ports of entry truly safe from attack. The fact that you would wish ill on your fellow Americans is truly and profoundly despicable and makes me ill.

Liberals have been on the wrong side of history time and time again:

- Liberals thought that Carter's pasifiscm would lead to peace - they were wrong.

not me. I voted against Carter in '80 because he failed to start out and stay tough with Tehran.

- Liberals thought that Reagan's Arms build-up would lead to war, not peace - they were wrong.

not me. I thought that his arms build up would mean two things and I was right....one, more money for me, and two, greater debt for America.

- Liberals thought that giving peace a chance after Saddam invaded Kuwait in the 90's was the way to go - they were wrong.

bullshit. I was completely supportive of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait.

- Liberals now think that going into Iraq was a bad idea - Nevermind the fact that we've liberated 25 million people and closed the rape-rooms and torture chambers of Saddam and his sons forever - they will be proven to be wrong in the prism of history.

again... our first priority ought to be protecting Americans, not protecting the virtue of Iraqi women. What we have done in Iraq may very well have done all the things you claim, but it still does not make that worth five years, 31K dead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars while the real enemy remains just as strong as he was the day he attacked us.

You see, Liberalism isn't a political view as there are really only two long-standing political parties in this country, Republicans and Democrats. No, liberalism is a spiritual/mental disorder that God told us in his word would plauge the minds of people towards the last days - The Bible refers to this as a reprobate mind in Romans 1.

1. a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.
3. morally depraved; unprincipled; bad.

I think it is grotesquely hypocritical for someone like you to be quoting the New Testament to me. Do you really think that Jesus would approve of shock and awe? of Haditha? of Abu Ghraib? Do you really think, that if George Bush had listened to Jesus that he would have invaded Iraq?

[Yurt]

manfrommaine;124559]Lets do this point by point:

I was talking about liberals who are too dumb to see that the war against jihadists is well beyond the country of Afghanistan.

bullshit. I have NEVER suggested that the war against islamic extremism ought to be confined to one country. I HAVE suggested that invading, conquering, and occupying a country where little to no islamic extremists existed and which was run, brutally perhaps, by secular ba'athists was a dumbass counterproductive diversion in our war against our real enemy.

Ok, so you fully support invading Saudi Arabia???

And don't forget, that while Saddam and cronies "may" have been "secular", Saddam is a SUNNI. And guess which Islamic group, bin hiden included, is fighting us...............SUNNI. Get a book on islam, if they have one in Maine.

And please, don't tell me to do anything to your ass again, either answer the post or stfu, because you are horrible at insults. I don't mind insults, but they have to be at least a wee funny.

[B]more bullshgit. NO ONE in America thinks that America losing at ANYTHING is a GOOD thing. The "war" in Iraq has been "won" for a few years now...the occupation of Iraq, the cramming of jeffersonian multicultural democracy down the throats of Iraqis at the point of a gun...THAT has not gone well at all, and many many of us warned against just such a political defeat long ago.

Whose gun? The loving muslims who threaten AND kill those who work with America? Are you effing dense? Those guys will take your family if you work with America and they don't approve. Give me a break you effing armchair soda pop, cheeto pushing warrior. Get a grip and not on your armchair.....

PUH-LEESE. Abandoning our fight against the islamic extremists who attacked us and going after a brutal secular baathist regime because they were brutal to their own people and the sons of the leader liked to score some strange pussy now and then, is ridiculous. There are far worse humanitarian disasters going on around the globe and we don't give a shit about them.

You're right. I am sorry for ever going against you. Saddam should be in power today. Absolutely. He should be left UNCHECKED in power, today, yesterday and tomorrow. Sorry for screwing that up for you.

[retiredman]

Ok, so you fully support invading Saudi Arabia???

why is INVASION of nation states the only possible solution for dealing with a nationless ideology?

And don't forget, that while Saddam and cronies "may" have been "secular", Saddam is a SUNNI. And guess which Islamic group, bin hiden included, is fighting us...............SUNNI. Get a book on islam, if they have one in Maine.

Don't be obtuse. for you to suggest that wahabbist extremism is some logical progression of the sunni sect shows that if anyone needs a book on Islam, it is you. I would give you my old and well worn copy of Raphael Patai's "The Arab Mind" except I still refer to it often. It is still available at Amazon, however. I highly recommend it. The fact is: ba'athism and wahabbism are diametrically opposed at almost every level


Whose gun? The loving muslims who threaten AND kill those who work with America? Are you effing dense? Those guys will take your family if you work with America and they don't approve. Give me a break you effing armchair soda pop, cheeto pushing warrior. Get a grip and not on your armchair.....

Wow.... what a huge cyber penis you have! I am suggesting that assuming that we could just blithely cram jeffersonian multicultural democracy down the throats of mortal enemies and watch them miraculously swallow and commence the group hug and the singing of kumbaya was a horrible miscalculation borne of the same sort of arrogance that you routinely display.

You're right. I am sorry for ever going against you. Saddam should be in power today. Absolutely. He should be left UNCHECKED in power, today, yesterday and tomorrow. Sorry for screwing that up for you.

Do you always leap to hyperbolic excess? Saddam WAS checked in his power. Go read the remarks of Colin Powell made in Cairo six months before 9/11. The fact remains, that, in our global war against islamic extremism, we are doing three things poorly that we would love to be doing better: 1. keeping AQ out of Iraq. 2. Keeping sunnis and shi'ites from slaughtering one another in Iraq, and 3. Keeping Iran's regional hegemony in check. Saddam did all three of those better than we do.