Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: One rule for some one rule for others
Isnt it just a little bit hypocritical of you all to whine when I dont post in the critics corner...
some of you are organising demonstrations, which I believe breach current laws (and dont go on about the validity of those laws 'cos I actually agree with you about the right to demonstrate outside parliament)
some of you are contemplating 'ambushing' TV shows like question time, which I'm sure is a breach of the conditions of entry onto any BBC 'set' be it in a temporary location such as question time is usually recorded or within BBC property itself..
you give each other hints and tips about how to react to arrest etc etc. what to bring on illegal demonstrations
You openly encourage the breaching of rules and then throw your arms up in disgust when I or others dont actually follow this boards rules!!
Makes us sound like real villains - standing outside places and handing out leaflets.
Well, in infowar terms, I suppose it is an "ambush".
Anyway I saw you did have a serious questions, which my RSS feeder picked up before someone deleted or moved your post (not me this time guvna):
Quote:
This is a serious question now andrew, as I dont really have the time to read every single post ever written here can you direct me to a post which explains how the miles of det cord that are required to initiate an explosive circuit, were hidden and a post which explians why the weeks of preparation that rigging such demolition explosives requires, were never noticed or mentioned by anybody whom worked in the towers and survived. i would appreciate it thanks
Yes - another common cognitive block. If we had access to such evidence, we wouldn't really need to campaign for the release of evidence, now would we.
It's a common non-sequiter to say "Ha - you're nuts. You can't provide ANY evidence of explosives being planted, so they can't have been used!"
Of course - anything you guys say. You are clearly:
1) Not afraid to reveal your identities
2) Have serious handles which anyone can see means you are an authoritative, accurate and verifiable source of bona fide information.
However, I really am trying to work out your motives for posting here. They must be a selection of the following:
1) You enjoy the "sport" of it (fair enough when people spar with you), but a strange choice of sport it is.
2) You are being paid to do this.
3) You really fear what we are doing.
4) You inhabbit a different reality to most of us.
Out of these 4 possibles, 2 interests me the most, because if this is the reason, then are perhaps sub-reasons why you're posting
A) To waste our time and divert energy from campaigning (you've certainly failed in my case - and a number of others here)
B) To dilute our site content and attract people to read your posts - again you partially fail here because though your posts may be ultimately linked from Google searches etc, they are not linked on the front pages. Also, the traffic on each posts is quite low - perhaps 200 views - and many of those are the people who are participating in the thread.
So options 2A and 2B I figure are largely a waste of your time and our money..
Have fun, whatever your reason for being here... _________________ Andrew
Makes us sound like real villains - standing outside places and handing leaflets.
Well, in infowar terms, I suppose it is an "ambush".
Anyway I saw you did have a serious questions, which my RSS feeder picked up before someone deleted or moved your post (not me this time guvna):
Quote:
This is a serious question now andrew, as I dont really have the time to read every single post ever written here can you direct me to a post which explains how the miles of det cord that are required to initiate an explosive circuit, were hidden and a post which explians why the weeks of preparation that rigging such demolition explosives requires, were never noticed or mentioned by anybody whom worked in the towers and survived. i would appreciate it thanks
Yes - another common cognitive block. If we had access to such evidence, we wouldn't really need to campaign for the release of evidence, now would we.
It's a common non-sequiter to say "Ha - you're nuts. You can't provide ANY evidence of explosives being planted, so they can't have been used!"
Of course - anything you guys say. You are clearly:
1) Not afraid to reveal your identities
2) Have serious handles which anyone can see means you are an authoritative, accurate and verifiable source of bona fide information.
However, I really am trying to work out your motives for posting here. They must be a selection of the following:
1) You enjoy the "sport" of it (fair enough when people spar with you), but a strange choice of sport it is.
2) You are being paid to do this.
3) You really fear what we are doing.
4) You inhabbit a different reality to most of us.
Out of these 4 possibles, 2 interests me the most, because if this is the reason, then are about 3 sub-reasons you're posting
A) To waste our time and divert energy from campaigning (you've certainly failed in my case - and a number of others here)
B) To dilute our site content and attract people to read your posts - again you partially fail here because though your posts may be ultimately linked from Google searches etc, they are not linked on the front pages. Also, the traffic on each posts is quite low - perhaps 200 views - and many of those are the people who are participating in the thread.
So options 2A and 2B I figure are largely a waste of your time and our money..
Have fun, whatever your reason for being here...
No I didnt say that you were villains, I just said that you encouraged the breaking of rules to further your cause/aims, but all whine when soemone doesnt follow your rules, smacks of double standards!!
My name is George (if you want my full name and address I will glady give it but will ask why you want it?),
I spent 17 years in the Royal Engineers, part of my training involved the use of PE3 and PE4 plastic explosives and the necessary items that are required to turn it from a fairly inert substance to a destructive substance, such as detonating cord, detonators and firing mechanisms. Having set up the demolition of various objects from vehicles to bridges, then I know that a lot of time planning and physical resources are required. I now work in construction and am fully aware of the amount of time planning and physical resources that are required for the clean demolition of a small office block, let alone two structures the size of the World trade centre
I am no expert but my involvement with exposives is slightly higher than yours I would say... and although finding any of these items in the rubble that was produced would be a difficult task indeed unless everything was carefully sifted, the placement of the explosives would have been nigh on impossible to have hidden, you cant just stick a wadge of explosives against a girder you know it needs to be directed to cut the girder and not just blast out into the area of least resistance.
next do I enjoy the sport of it, well if it hadnt been for Hera then I wouldnt be here...so yes the sport is fine thanks
am i being paid??? by whom? I am a freelance construction health and safety consultant, who on earth would pay me just to put some posts on your site!! if you know please give me their contact details cos I would be happy to post more on here if I was being paid.
am I scared of your views...no not at all what do I have to be scared of, if your views mean that my job will be at risk then I wouldnt be scared but highly piss*d off, but I doubt thats going to happen.
No I find its you whom inhabit a different reality from the rest, I have read a fair few posts here, and it seems that some of the people on this site live sloely on thier beliefs in conspiracys, organising rallys and demos, feeling the need to get the message out, I mean come on there is more to life!! and when I state some people need to get out more I mean it they really do..I find it quite sad actually
if someone like G dubya or that idiot Blair, suddenly said to you all yes you are quite right it was all a sham 9/11 happened as you said it did, what would you all do then, after slapping each other on the back and celebrating...you would then ave nothing to do, your lives would be empty, so actually no go ahead, keep on campaigning man we wouldnt want to shatter your illusions now would we!!
am I wasting my own time, then yes obviously I am, I am not going to change your views just as you are not going to change mine, however until i get bored of it all I will continue posting on here.
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: just in passing - Safety??
Geo7863
you mention your expertise with explosives. Can or could you tell the difference between a building collapsing and a building exploding? Is it possible by examining photos or looking at video sequences to tell the difference between a collapse and an explosion?
If you can somehow bring yourself to support the absurd notion that the WTC buildings 'melted and collapsed' due to a combination of 'kerosene and gravity', then I won't be hiring you anytime soon as ....well ..anything.
Please reassure me that I have misunderstood, and that you do not support the ridiculous official conspiracy theory(OCT), because to have safety reps who don't know their collapse(a*se) from explosive demolition(elbow) wandering around building sites, or indeed anywhere, is really to be discouraged. Thank you.
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: just in passing - Safety??
alwun wrote:
Geo7863
you mention your expertise with explosives. Can or could you tell the difference between a building collapsing and a building exploding? Is it possible by examining photos or looking at video sequences to tell the difference between a collapse and an explosion?
If you can somehow bring yourself to support the absurd notion that the WTC buildings 'melted and collapsed' due to a combination of 'kerosene and gravity', then I won't be hiring you anytime soon as ....well ..anything.
Please reassure me that I have misunderstood, and that you do not support the ridiculous official conspiracy theory(OCT), because to have safety reps who don't know their collapse(a*se) from explosive demolition(elbow) wandering around building sites, or indeed anywhere, is really to be discouraged. Thank you.
cheers Al..
Where did you get the idea that anything "melted" in the WTC to cause its collapse? That's not mentioned anywhere in the official story. The only place that comes from is conspiracy theorists. Why they feel the need to perpetuate this lie I don't know. _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject:
Hey Geo (George)
Thanx for your honesty. I try to stay out of the away team room but I thought that I would give you the benefit of the doubt
Quote:
I now work in construction and am fully aware of the amount of time planning and physical resources that are required for the clean demolition of a small office block, let alone two structures the size of the World trade centre
How long would it take to set up the demolition of WTC7 (a 47 storey office building) which was not hit by a plane and ignored by the official conspiracy theory, the 571 page Keane commission report?
Also what do you reckon to the statement made by the building owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, who gave the instruction to "pull it" _________________ Pikey
I for one would be genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say from your background in explosives. One of the things that's always made me unsure about the 'conspiracy theory' is the point you raise about the difficulty setting it up. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that military explosives work is where the expertise really lies - I'd sincerely like to hear your thoughts on the actual collapse whatever they are - it's not often you get to speak to someone with a miitary explosives background (oh the wonders of the internet).
Many people here do spend a lot of time researching and campaigning, but it's their life and surely no worse than watching telly, drinking beer, playing computer games and reading the Sun. At least the people here are striving for a better world whether you agree with their point of view or not. What makes you think they don't have a life outside all this? I know I do.
You will also find people will be hostile if you dismiss them - as you would if people dismissed you as some kind of madman. Many theories I've read on this forum are a little rich for my tastes, but until I've taken the trouble to properly look into them, I can't see how I 'know' they're wrong. At least people here are wise enough not to take what they're told for granted. I'd rather people be like the folk here than swallowing every soundbite the tv offers. Besides, I've lived long enough to know the world is a stranger place and the 'truth' more deceptive than you get from mainstream media.
Why come here to trade insults? I'm sure you've got better things to do than that. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: to goerge
George,
I spoke a little unkindly and rudely above. I would also, in fact like to hear your views on the WTC situation. Please do not allow my comments to interfere with the requests from the other posters, who sincerely regard your expert presence as a genuine advantage, as I also now do.
Ah - great! We have a sensible debate opening up! I don't doubt you have more experience with explosives than most posters here (myself included).
Our sign up notice asks you to review as much of evidence linked on the home page as possible. Have you been able to do this? We do get a little tired of going over and over old ground and debates - whose evidence is better discussde and analysed in videos and articles we link in other sections of the forum, but of course many people (largely thanks to the documented complicity of the BBC and others in cover up) have not seen this information. And, as I said, this is PRIMARILY a CAMPAIGNING forum, not an EVIDENCE DEBATING forum
Here is a little video for you about 7 minutes, which kind of seems the most relevant for you that I can think of.
The key point with the above is that NONE of the official reports mention CD of ANY of the WTC buildings. So who's lying and who's truthing? _________________ Andrew
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: One rule for some one rule for others
Geo7863 wrote:
Various silly and unproductive comments
I get the impression your on a blindfolded revenge mission towards this forum. Don´t blame and judge a whole forum for the FREE acts of a couple of members.
maybe take the time to actually read some of the stuff, watch a vid or two which are available or linked from here and you might learn something [/i] _________________ "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley
Ah - great! We have a sensible debate opening up! I don't doubt you have more experience with explosives than most posters here (myself included).
Our sign up notice asks you to review as much of evidence linked on the home page as possible. Have you been able to do this? We do get a little tired of going over and over old ground and debates - whose evidence is better discussde and analysed in videos and articles we link in other sections of the forum, but of course many people (largely thanks to the documented complicity of the BBC and others in cover up) have not seen this information. And, as I said, this is PRIMARILY a CAMPAIGNING forum, not an EVIDENCE DEBATING forum
Here is a little video for you about 7 minutes, which kind of seems the most relevant for you that I can think of.
The key point with the above is that NONE of the official reports mention CD of ANY of the WTC buildings. So who's lying and who's truthing?
...and remind us all again what Jowenko says about WTC #1 and 2....
-z _________________ "Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
What? No one can remember what Jowenko said about WTC #1 and 2????
Really????
_________________ "Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[/i]
