4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 10917
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1236.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct

LOL
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Rotara posted on 2009-03-22 1:10:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one,not the one that makes you feel good or vindicated.
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:42:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 1:49:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#265. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

BullBarack! Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to gain from it. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to either Israel OR the US,but he was very much a threat to the House of Saud.
Just like every other tribal leader/king in Arabia,the King there dreamed of being the King of a United Arabia. Saddam Hussein had this same dream,and he had the means and the willpower to do it. We invaded Iraq to protect the House of Saud.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
Sneak...I spent a whole 'nother thread being logical with them and it didn't work...
You're arguing with people who do not believe that a planes impact, exposion and ensuing fires caused more than even MINIMAL damage. IN some cases, some believe the planes were remote controlled. Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.
You're also arguing with people who believe that a well financed international terrorist group doesn't exist.
Good luck, mon frer..

war posted on 2009-03-22 8:28:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#520. To: war, sneakypete (#281) (Edited)
Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.

If you believe that a 110 story building (make that TWO 110 story buildings) can collapse in slightly more than free fall speed, then you must also believe that the tooth fairy is really the Easter bunny in drag.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 17:44:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
Helloo...McFly...anyone home McFly??
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

war posted on 2009-03-22 19:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

Excuse me? The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.
Did you miss the one that I posted to YOU, indicating it should have taken about 97 seconds?
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 21:17:54 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#836. To: FormerLurker (#591)
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

You really are a tool...er fool...er what the hell...both...
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

war posted on 2009-03-23 8:38:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#992. To: war (#836)
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

You have been a nasty mouthed little troll here war, I thought higher of you back on LP. Do you always resort to that sort of tactic when you are shown to be wrong?
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.
There was a HUGE loss of mass due to that, therefore there would be SUBSTANTIALLY less load on the lower portion of the structure. In fact, there was probably less loading force due to the kinetic energy of the upper part of the tower collapsing than the usual static loading force due to the potential energy of the upper part of the structure.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-23 16:20:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1136. To: FormerLurker (#992)
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.

Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.
Thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-24 8:22:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1145. To: war (#1136)
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.

Here's one for you to ponder;
The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact? There would be VERY little energy left over after the pulverization of an upper floor as it impacts a lower floor, and the lower floor must be caused to fail by the remaining energy if the "pancake" theory can be taken seriously.
So go ahead, give us the equations and the details.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 9:38:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1148. To: FormerLurker (#1145)
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.

Geezus fucking Crickets...
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact?
dude...did you even GLANCE atthat report?

war posted on 2009-03-24 9:47:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1150. To: war (#1148)
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...

The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
Are you retarded? You contradict yourself within the same sentence. That "concrete, glass, and drywall..." along with furniture and office equipment had WEIGHT, in fact, MOST of the weight of any particular floor. The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing even WITH a "pancake" collapse. In fact, the core could not collapse per se, it would have needed to have been shredded and torn apart for it to totally fail.
Anyways, what kinetic energy there was due to the momentum of the upper structure was largely expended in pulverizing the upper structure to dust, where there could have been very little kinetic energy left to break all the trusses and supports of the floor below

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 10:12:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1220. To: FormerLurker (#1150)
The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing

What steel columns?

war posted on 2009-03-24 15:41:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1222. To: war (#1220)
What steel columns?

Those which were part of the steel core.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:15:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1225. To: FormerLurker (#1222)
Those which were part of the steel core.

What makes you believ that they should have been left standing? You do know that they were sectional? You do know that they were tapered?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:19:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1229. To: war (#1225)
What makes you believ that they should have been left standing?

For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart. If the floors pancaked then the floors should have slid over the core. However, there wasn't much left to slide since the upper floors pulverized as they collapsed, so there was not enough energy to cause a collapse of the lower floors in the first place.
Thus, not only should the core have remained standing, but the 100 or so UNDAMAGED floors of both towers should have survived the collapse of the upper structure of both buildings, except for perhaps the top section of the remaining undamaged structures.
And sure, the top was tapered, BUT strong enough to hold most of the weight of the WTC structure at that level. In fact, it was highly improbable for a total collapse even at the damaged section to occur at all.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:28:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1231. To: FormerLurker (#1229)
For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart.

You are basing this upon what? The inane belief that the only force being exerted was DOWNWARD? What was one of the functions of the outer support structure? LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:36:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1233. To: war (#1231)
LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

Nothing unless there are high winds or a hurricane taking place. The towers didn't start swaying back and forth. Is that what you trying to say, the collapse was caused by SWAYING?
Besides, only a relatively tiny part of the exterior columns were damaged.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:38:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1236. To: FormerLurker (#1233)
Nothing

You're out of your mind...what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:42:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 1236.
#1245. To: war (#1236)
You're out of your mind...what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

If you stack cans on top of each other, nothing happens unless you push them over. Are you retarded?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:00:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1251. To: war (#1236) (Edited)
what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures. There would have virtually no loss of lateral strength anyways due to the minimal damage to the exterior columns, yet it wouldn't have mattered if there WAS a total loss of lateral strength (which would be impossible due to the construction of the buildings themselves).
There were no hurricane force winds that day, and even if there had been, there was no overall loss of lateral strength as the purpose of the exterior walls was to DISTRIBUTE the lateral load across the entire building, and a missing section of column would not affect that.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:15:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1236.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um