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: 28171
Comments: 2261
Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1362.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
wonderfully succinct
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.
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.
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.
LOL 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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
You really are a tool...er fool...er what the hell...both... 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.
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did. Thanks...
Here's one for you to ponder; 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.
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?
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
What steel columns?
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?
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.
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?
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.
You're out of your mind...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.
Not when the links between the two support structures failed...
Huh? There was a relative pinhole in the exterior wall, and the inner steel core was ALSO still there. There are also apparently some huge inaccuracies concerning the makeup of the floors themselves, where rather than flimsy trusses it appears that there were steel girders bridging the gap between the core and the outer walls. I need to read up on that before I post the actual article, but your post makes zero sense, there was no horizontal failure or movement, otherwise the top of the tower WOULD have toppled. As I posted on another thread, the top of one tower did in fact start to lean, but that was due to a loss of integrity in one corner of the supporting structure below it, it didn't begin to sway or lean as you are apparently trying to concoct. If it HAD begun to sway or lean due to horizontal forces, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.
You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.
You are grasping at straws. You are trying to make it sound as if it was an inherently unstable structure and was performing a balancing act. It was not a disjointed unbalanced structure, it was a ridid structure supported by a steel core, so there was no shifting of center of gravity taking place.
Wha...huh? Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against... A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not... Huh? Are you trying to say that someone at the bottom of the WTC picked it up and tried snapping it like a whip? I always knew you were a whackjob, but I wasn't aware that you were a stark raving lunatic. In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place? You are a jackass. The towers were solidly in place and NOT experiencing ANY abnormal sway, if they swayed at all from the VERY slight wind that morning. You are acting like a cartoon character that even little children would see as an idiot.
Had you ever been in the towers? You could feel the sway in the upper floors. This one is the easiest of your rantings to bitch slap. The towers swayed...it 's why lateral support was so important. And, uh, the design engineers after they had tested their prototypes that determined how much sway both the building and the occupants could take, they then developed a MASSIVE system of viscoelastic dampers that mitigated the sway. Guess where they put these dampers....BETWEEN THE TRUSSES AND THE PERIMETER COLUMNS. Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism Your further problem is, there are several REALITIES that stand in the way of your paranoiac fanrasy. So to cut to the chase here and answer your question...yes, Alice IN Wonderland, the towers did sway and the lost of perimeter support exacerbated that sway.
#1386. To: war (#1362)
You stupid assed dork, NOWHERE have I EVER said ""BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!", only drooling retards such as yourself have ever thought ANYONE has ever honestly said that. What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen. Might Bush have known about the plan? More than likely he was kept in the dark in terms of operational details but knew SOMETHING was going to happen, and didn't blink an eyelash when it did. More than likely Cheney was fully aware and in fact part of the operation, along with a few other high ranking members of the administration. That is simply an observation of what they did AFTER the attacks to stifle any sort of real investigation of what happened.
You are trying to say that they swayed so much they fell. That is a lie. You are trying to say by swaying, their center of gravity shifted and they collapsed. That is a lie. I said that they didn't sway any more so than usual, and since there was only a slight wind that morning, any swaying was minimal. That is a factual observation. Grow up.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
#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.
#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.
#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.
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
#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.
#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.
#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.
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.
#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.
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
#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.
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.
#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?
#992. To: war (#836)
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...
#1136. To: FormerLurker (#992)
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.
#1145. To: war (#1136)
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.
#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.
#1150. To: war (#1148)
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
#1220. To: FormerLurker (#1150)
The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing
#1222. To: war (#1220)
What steel columns?
#1225. To: FormerLurker (#1222)
Those which were part of the steel core.
#1229. To: war (#1225)
What makes you believ that they should have been left standing?
#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.
#1233. To: war (#1231)
LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?
#1236. To: FormerLurker (#1233)
Nothing
#1251. To: war (#1236)
(Edited)
what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?
#1252. To: FormerLurker (#1251)
Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures.
#1255. To: war (#1252)
(Edited)
Not when the links between the two support structures failed...
#1285. To: FormerLurker (#1255)
, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.
#1294. To: war (#1285)
You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.
#1298. To: FormerLurker (#1294)
You are grasping at straws.
#1306. To: war (#1298)
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
#1362. To: FormerLurker (#1306)
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place?
Replies to Comment # 1362. Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism
#1399. To: war (#1362)
Had you ever been in the towers? You could feel the sway in the upper floors. This one is the easiest of your rantings to bitch slap. The towers swayed...it 's why lateral support was so important.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 1362.