you say you see them all the time. Doesn’t it worry you that you’re breathing in something in which you have no data to examine?. They didn’t ask your permission… and god only knows what’s in that stuff.
Please don’t respond with ‘But the media would be all over it’ as both me and Siatd, I think, have provided enough reasons to disprove this claim. By media you mean the corporate media, the one tied by money. While comparatively, the average blogger vs. the average formally trained, system employed journalist isn’t going to weigh up, it doesn’t mean that every source outside of the usual (I don’t want to say ‘respected’ here cause I don’t feel they are anymore) corporate organs is faulty or inaccurate.
LA,
I wasn’t aware they were in Britain as well… but that doesn’t surprise me either.
The real question here is: What are they using them for?
Weather control would be an awesome weapon. If you have the ability to cause a draught in a country, that’s a powerful leverage.
I support weather control if possible. To you disbelieve that governments would not use weather control to prevent too little or too much rain, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, etc. I believe they would.
Thermodynamics are used by creationists to support their theory. Also, eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable evidence around. This one I do know as at one point I wanted to be a lawyer back in the early 70’s. The male department chair said no regardless of my grades. Ditto for astronomy. Why, my gonads are in the wrong place.
Perhaps, but the laws of thermodynamics are some of the most fundamentals scientific laws available.
Well, when dozens of eyewitness say they saw and heard explosions, and when some of the video heavily suggests explosions, and explosives could explain all the dubious phenomena recorded then it becomes part of a stronger case. Eye witnesses alone don’t prove a thing either way.
Well, that’s a bullshit reason obviously but I don’t see the relevance.
[.quote]
[/quote]
Again, I am not a scientist, and am not sure regarding thermodynamics. However, I do live in earthquake country, have seen the results of many quakes, and a third story apartment building will totally destroy the second and first stories. I have also seen similar results with a several storied cement parking facility. The cement was rubble in many places. My point is that the weight of the upper stories will indeed crumble cement.
Many claim that the impact of a Boeing along with several thousand pounds of jet fuel exploding was near the blast level of Fat Man or Little Boy. This could easily have ejected both steel and concred several hundred feet. A gallon of regular gas gas the equivalent power of several sticks of dynamite, and jet fuel has much more octane. I believe the ratio is 2. X 10 to the power of 8 or exponent 8 per gallon of gas measure in joules (sp).
Hiroshima: news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsi … d_4746100/
4746147.stm
Many single story buildings do not crumble, they often suffer sever damage, the walls crack, furniture is moved, water and gas mains break, but they do not crumble, it is usually the taller building that exhibit crumbled cement. This is 1906 San Francisco Quake. Note how many of the structures are several stories high, and they have crumbled cement. sfmuseum.org/hist/pix49.html
Please note that the crumbled cement was not the result of an explosion, but is probably caused by the upper storied falling down and crushing the underlying cement. Earthquakes have been know to have the power of a nuke as well; one bad one even changed the course of the Missouri River.
Here is a shot of a three story Northridge Quake damaged building, note the crumbled cement.
Here are a few miscellaneous shots, some with single story buildings. Note, there are only cracked walls, which has been my experience: photolibrary.fema.gov/photol … _search.do?
SCategoryComboId=&SId=&SLocation=6&SKeywords=
earthquake&pageStart=13&pageSize=12&SStartDate=&SDisasterNumber=
&SPhotographer=&SEndDate=
I have been in some doozies, the Big Bear and Landers Quakes lasted several minutes, and we had aftershocks for weeks afterward. Once, I woke-up as my bed danced to the other side of my bedroom.
You may claim that I am making a faulty analogy, but I do not believe so as this proves that the weight of upper stories will indeed crumble cement.
Of course after a few tons of jet fuel exploded many computers and electrical breakers would explode. Ever heard an electrical breaker box explode? Boom. My best friend’s father rewired his garage and was not an electrician. The break box shorted, a fire broke out, his specially rigged breaker box (he played with cars and had many tools) exploded and woke-up the entire neighborhood. Dad had to yell at the idiot to “get out” as my father knew it was an electrical fire (something about the smell) and Mr. B., was pulling out a fucking hose. Half the house burned down.
If what you said made sense regarding, Bush I would probably believe this. Remember that I believe that we went into Iraq because Wbya wanted to avenge Saddam’s assasination attempt against Sr. Everyone else seems to believe it was for oil, but not me because it would have been cheaper to lift the santions and purchase the oil. Bush may have played the oil card with Rummy and Cheney, but I doubt if this was this whole issue.
Is the light coming on yet.
You a UK citizen and really do not know many U.S. conservatives or neocons, they do differ, and I do know many. Many are furious with Bush’s spending, illegal immigration (70% opposed) embryonic stem cell research, (yes not all conservatives are religious), Rummy not listening to his generals in prosecuting the Iraq War, the show-down with Iran and North Korea and much more. However, the one item that all conservatives agree on is the economy, working-hard, investing, trade, and reaping the rewards of hard work. Trust me on this one. War is not good for most businesses. If he wanted to provoke a war and nail Iraq he would have had everything set to point the evidence to Iraq not the poverty stricken Afganistan.
Did you for minute every think that Bush, as does most of the world, believe Saddam is a really bad guy; Bush already had a grudge against him, and took the opportunity to nail him.
Hence, I really doubt if Bush would attempt to destroy the U.S. economy for honor nor profit. He would have never gone into Afganistan, a land with zero oil and no worthwhile resources, if not provoked.
To me it would make zero “cents” (intended) for conservatives to destroy our economy, and it was destroyed for a couple of years after 9/11, just to have an expensive war (Iraq) that would make a small fragment of our economy rich. Afghanistan is not nearly as expensive, but was necessary in my POV. Most conservatives hate wars as they are not good for trade.
From a government site: gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/ … tions.html
tem 1. Social Security 22%.
Item 2. Net Interest 11%.
Item 3. Medicare 11%.
Item 4. Medicaid 6%.
Item 5. Other Mandatory 6%.
Item 6. Other Means-tested entitlements 6% (Footnote: Means-tested entitlements are those for which eligibility is based on income. The Medicaid program is also a means-tested entitlement.)
Item 7. Reserve pending Social Security reform 6%.
Item 8. Non-defense discretionary 17%.
Item 9. National defense 15%.
Note, military is only 15% of government spending during a time of war.
I would have to review what I’ve previously read.
Of course there were explosions which I have previously explained.
My point is that this is a topic I have studied and eye witness accounts are
the least reliable. Hum, have you ever been in a disaster? Have you ever been in a 6 point earthquake. Individuals tend to lose a sense of time, porportion, etc. Just look at the faces of those who went through 9/11. Do they really appear to calmly logical, and super observant, or panic sticken, confused, terrified.
Aspacia, now you’re really fucking lost it. You’re equating the blast of hiroshima to 9/11? And to back it up you post a link to the BBC where there are only a couple of pictures of hiroshima?
I’m actually laughing right now.
Anyways you two, take it to the other thread.
Edit: 10 minutes later and I can’t even concentrate on my Carston reading because I keep giggling at this a-bomb comparison.
I officially nominate that post as post of the year. This has nothing to do with (you) Aspacia, I’m not trying to be bitter or anything, you actually just put some excitement in an otherwise pretty boring night of reading.
There’s no way it was the same as Hiroshima, or any other a-bomb for that matter. Know why? Because New York still exists.
I mean… lol… what?
And no Carston isn’t health, She’s in the philosophy of language field. Quite a clear and concise writer actually, I’m enjoying her style. Still though, too dense to be reading high. Where she’s coming from is literally the axis of philosophy/linguistics/psychology
I’d keep up with the stereotypes about me though, that seems to be working pretty well. If you want you can even start with the black ones and give the pothead one a rest; you know, big penis – stuff like that
Edit: I’m just assuming Robyn Carston is a -she-, but to be honest I really don’t know… and since she’s not in wiki, I’m not checking further.
Again, I am not a scientist, and am not sure regarding thermodynamics. However, I do live in earthquake country, have seen the results of many quakes, and a third story apartment building will totally destroy the second and first stories. I have also seen similar results with a several storied cement parking facility. The cement was rubble in many places. My point is that the weight of the upper stories will indeed crumble cement.
[/quote]
Crumble, yes, I’ve seen it myself. Pulverise and eject several hundred feet in a pyroclastic flow? Never seen anything like that from an earthquake damaging a building and making it collapse. Maybe you have. The issue of the pyroclastic flow is significant because it points to a massive energy deficit. Even if the latent energy in the falling section, combined with the fires, and the initial impact/explosion did contain enough energy to pulverise most of the concrete in one of the towers, the energy is not sufficient to explain how tons of dust were ejected at high speeds in a hot, thick dustcloud. It’s the rapid transformation from a solid state in a building to a hot, heavy, rapidly moving fluid in less than 15 seconds, that’s a massive problem for physicists and engineers who affirm the pancake collapse theory.
If this claim were true then every time a plane hit a runway, or a building, or an embankment, or a hill, or crashed into the ground anywhere (as long as it were doing a fair speed and exploded on impact) then we’d expect to see the equivalent damage to that hill/building/bit of ground as we would if a small A-bomb had been set off there. Remember the crash in Shanksville? Hell, what about the crash at the Pentagon? That plane was allegedly going at top speeds, and was virtually identical to one of the planes at the WTC towers, yet the Pentagon doesn’t look anything like a small A-bomb has been set off there. In fact, it doesn’t even look like a large plane has hit it, in my opinion. Nor does it really look like a cruise missile has hit it, contrary to the suggestions in Loose Change and other such places.
So, even from the other crashes on that day, we see nothing comparable to an A-bomb, and every other crash I’ve seen of a large jet doesn’t cause anything like the damage caused by an A-bomb. I’d take that claim with a pinch of salt.
Sure, but buildings 100 years ago weren’t built very well compared to today. And while I appreciate your point about it being the taller buildings that tend to crumble, we’re talking about a pulverisation and pyroclastic flow, which as I understand it hasn’t been seen in any earthquake damage.
Sure, earthquakes are some serious stuff. I’ve been in a lift (elevator) when the building was hit by a small earthquake, and that’s not fun. Well, since nothing bad happened in the end, it was a lot of fun. But it might not have been.
Like I say, I’ve got no argument about the possibility or even likelihood of crumbled cement. It’s the pyroclastic flow (much smaller sections or particles than in crumbled cement) that bothers me.
Nonetheless, exploding electrical breakers don’t account for the rumble recorded on several cameras just prior to collapse, and certainly don’t explain the damage and injuries in the lobby and sub basement floors. They might, however, explain the explosions heard by people and firefighters in the building as they went up and down the stairs to rescue people.
This presumes that Bush is at the top of the ladder, which I don’t see as the case. I don’t tend to talk about oil much - certainly not regarding Bush himself. I dunno what you’re talking about here.
I’m well aware of that. I haven’t talked about neocons in general very much at all, merely about PNAC (a particular group of neocons).
I’m well aware of that too
Afghanistan has the world’s largest opium crop. That’s worth billions.
That may well have been how Bush himself conceived of it, but the decision wasn’t made by Bush.
Because opium isn’t worth a damn thing, is it?
That depends entirely on whether they care about America as a nation. If you follow globalisation through to its logical conclusion then a corporation has no reason to give a toss for the economy of any particular nation. If you have a political party (or parties) that are mostly funded by such interests then why would that have any particular interest for the economny of the nation in which they are running?
And what does that tell you?
Fair enough.
You offered an explanation that may have accounted for some of the explosions, but not the ones witnessed very early on in the lobby and on the sub basement levels.
Some of them appear remarkably lucid. Some seem like headless chickens. But there are also numerous reports from the news coverage that day of explosions - Fox, the BBC, CNN, ABC all reported explosions. One even reported that the police had found what they believed to be a bomb in the building. When explosives (regardless of who planted them) can explain all these phenomena, but no other explanation offered so far can explain all these phenonema, then Ockam’s Razor comes into effect and explosives are the most plausible explanation.
I have. I’ve applied the scientific method, however much I might dislike it. The most likely explanation of the collapse and all the other phenomena (police reporting a suspicious device believed to be a bomb, apparent squibs, reports of explosions, damage to lower floors early on etc.) is explosives, regardless of who was responsible for putting them in there.
I’ll tell you this, from the pictures show, it is HIGHLY unusual to see so many chem trails in one area of sky.
Obvisouly chem trails such as these, generall come from Airplanes, but to have so many in one place suggests several things:
*Air traffic looks just as busy as any motorway road during the day
*Aviation Pollution has gone beyond the ridiculous and they are literally shitting this fuel out.
*Or, this fuel emmitted is actually being used to control minds and spread all sorts of hideous disease.
If the public focuses on a fictional organization then they won’t focus on real industrial pollution, which benefits the rich. And, if the public blames pollution on a secret group, then they don’t have to do anything about it.
That’s a great deal.
Again, you should ask yourself just how anyone knows this stuff.
