FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

I am a critic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  

how many of you actually believe the things said by loose change and 9/11 mysterie?
I believe ::::anything they say
16%
 16%  [ 1 ]
I am skeptical ::::this is a rediculous theory
16%
 16%  [ 1 ]
I know there are some things we weren't told by the media, but the truth might be very far from these rediculous accusations posted by this site
66%
 66%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 6

Author Message
gurl102
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gurl102 wrote:


for example, you claim that the twin towers could not have collapsed from fire alone, true, true, but what about furnace heat? do you realise that this was not an open fire? the fire was mostely INDOORS, feeding on the oxegen in the AIRTIGHT building. do you know how flammable oxegen is? do you know how hot an indoor fire can become? the videos themselves claim that a furnace melting steel is a CLOSED fire! even more so the elevator shafts, which were airtight too.


Quote:
You say that the WTC fires were furnaces feeding on oxygen in the airtight building. Can you elaborate on the source of the oxygen please? If it was airtight (oxygen could not enter), then the ambient oxygen would very quickly be used by the furnace. It either had an oxygen supply or it didn't, in other words it was either airtight or it wasn't.


well, the building had oxygen tanks, right? this was the source of oxygen. the subway, too. the doors. when they build something to be "airtight" they supply loads of oxygen for people to breathe in.

Quote:
A 'furnace' in this instance would need a continuous supply of oxygen to burn efficiently, yet the smoke was deep black indicating an inefficient fire. Bearing in mind if oxygen had no access, the people working there would have suffocated.


and it did have a continuous supply of oxygen. from the oxygen tank, from the broken windows, from the subway below, etc.

Quote:
Did you witness either of the aircraft hitting the towers?


yes.

Quote:
You say oxygen is highly flammable, so if I strike a match, the planet catches fire? Oxygen is NOT a fuel and does not burn by itself.


oxygen does not burn by itself, but try burning a cave. then try burning a casino. you'll see what I mean.

_________________
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY! THE WORLD IS REALLY FLAT, THE STARS ARE REALLY JUST FIREFLYS THAT GOT STUCK ON THAT GOOEY THING THAT PEOLE CAL "sky" AND THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gurl102 wrote;

Quote:
well, the building had oxygen tanks, right? this was the source of oxygen. the subway, too. the doors. when they build something to be "airtight" they supply loads of oxygen for people to breathe in.


No, wrong. The buildings had no oxygen tanks, nor the subway. The fact you have added an question mark means you have simply assumed the WTC had its own bottled oxygen supply. Do you have even the slightest comprehension of the quantity of bottled oxygen it would take to supply buildings of that size, not the mention an underground railway system?

Quote:
and it did have a continuous supply of oxygen. from the oxygen tank, from the broken windows, from the subway below, etc.


Nope, still no oxygen tank. You said the building was airtight, yet now you acknowledge there were 'broken windows'. You cannot have it both ways. The smoke was black, the fire was not burning like a furnace - black smoke = an inefficient poor fire.

Quote:
oxygen does not burn by itself, but try burning a cave. then try burning a casino. you'll see what I mean.


Ah, the old cave and casino argument. Believe it or not, as you suggested, I did try this to check the comparison. It was only after the casino was burning ferociously that I realised it had stuff in that the cave didn't, but of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with the basic principle that oxygen isn't highly flammable as you stated. All you have done is highlight that oxygen does not burn on its own which is the point I made.

However, this all pales into insignificance now that I have 15 disgruntled casino employees who are giving me a hard time as they no longer have jobs. You could have warned me about that and that's very very mean.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gurl102 wrote:
I know the facts. the facts are that people like you would swallow ANYTHing that them "unoficials" shove down your throats! the scariest part is that while I was standing there, looking at my city getting destroyed, I just KNEW that it would somehow be blamed on the those dirty Jews and the Blacks


The fact is that you believe ANYTHING those Neo-Con psychopaths feed to you! I don't care if you were there or were not there, the fact of the matter is that you are perpetuating the evil myth. If you truly care about your fellow New Yorkers and countrymen then you might use your own critical faculties to come to your own conclusion.

WATCH and LEARN!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5182535448932065917

And then get back to me and explain the above images. Prove to me that you are not an idiot of colossal proportions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sentinel
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Goodafternoon,

My name is Paul Isaac Jr. I will show by corporate connection that Guliani had a tie in w/911 You'll see that it was done to cover up for Enron which was in business with Keyspan Energy formorly Brooklyn Union Gas. On July 15, 2001 Keyspan Energy conducted the Controlled Demolition of the Kespan Maspeth Holder Tanks in Queens. The Company which conducted the Demoliton was CDI, the same company the purformed the Murrah Federal Building in OKC, the same companmy which had thew clean up contract for post 911 wtc.

And, no, I play for millions and I don't make a damn dime for this. And another thing, if the FDNY had played by the rules according to the 1951 Emergency Defense Act calling for trained Civilian Personell who act strictly to assist the first responders and population, there might have been more people saved on 911 being I ran out of Ten House right across the damn street from the towers. But, being there is sop much self iondulgence on the job they have alot to be blamed for alot of the F-up that morning.

I was the one who programed the scanner in the kitchen for them to monitor for this sort of sh*t.

Did they listen? Hell no. I told the Captain they were'nt ready.....


So Here is the connections. Assecory before and after the fact.
Have a nice day Gurl102 and may your hatred bring you much joy.




Archives of the Mayor's Press Office
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001

Release # 034-01
Contact: Sunny Mindel/Lynn Rasic (212) 788-2958 View the Mayor's
Press Conference
Gregory Miley/Janel Patterson (212) 312-3523 (EDC)










MAYOR GIULIANI, NEW YORK METS AND KEYSPAN ENERGY ANNOUNCE
METS MINOR LEAGUE BALLPARK WILL BE NAMED "KEYSPAN PARK"
The Brooklyn Cyclones to Begin Play at Ball Park June 25th



Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, KeySpan Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert B. Catell, New York Mets Co-Owner and Brooklyn Baseball Company Chairman Fred Wilpon and Brooklyn Baseball Company Executive Vice President Jeffrey Wilpon today announced that the New York Mets' 6,500-seat minor league ballpark, currently under construction at Steeplechase Park in Coney Island, will be officially named KeySpan Park. The new ballpark will be home to the New York Mets' minor league team, the Brooklyn Cyclones, which will play its home-opener against the Mahoning Valley Scrappers on June 25, 2001.

The Mayor was also joined by City Council Finance Committee Chairman Herbert E. Berman, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Finance Robert M. Harding, and New York City Economic Development Corporation President Michael G. Carey for today's announcement at City Hall.

"The new KeySpan Park will serve as a catalyst in the revitalization of Coney Island, much the way Disney's investment on 42nd Street helped turn Times Square around," said Mayor Giuliani. "When the Brooklyn Cyclones play at this new ballpark on June 25th, it will mark professional baseball's return to Brooklyn after an absence of more than 40 years. On behalf of all baseball fans, I want to thank Robert Catell of KeySpan and the Wilpon family for their investment in this ballpark, which will provide thousands of New Yorkers with affordable family entertainment. I'm already looking forward to throwing out the first pitch at the Cyclones' home-opener, and I encourage all baseball fans to purchase their tickets to the Brooklyn Cyclones before it's too late."

Located just a few blocks from the Stillwell Avenue subway station, KeySpan Park will play a pivotal role in the revitalization of the Coney Island amusement area. To date, approximately 500 construction jobs have been created, and it is expected that an additional 200 construction jobs will be created before construction of the ballpark and related site work is completed. The Brooklyn Cyclones are scheduled to play 38 home games, and could play an additional six home games if they make the playoffs this year. In addition, the City can host up to 35 events per year, which may include other sporting, cultural, recreational, community, and civic events. Once the ballpark is completed, it is expected that an additional 240 full-and part-time jobs will result from the operation of the ballpark. The new ballpark is expected to generate more than $11.7 million in economic activity for New York City and is expected to generate $1.1 million in City revenues.

"Brooklyn Baseball Company is thrilled that the home of the Brooklyn Cyclones will carry the distinguished and respected name of KeySpan," said Mr. Jeffrey Wilpon.

"KeySpan Park is being developed as a state-of-the-art ballpark for the 21st Century, and, when completed this summer, it will be a fitting venue in which to return professional baseball to Brooklyn. Brooklyn Baseball Company is committed to making the Brooklyn Cyclones the best professional minor league baseball club in America. We believe that KeySpan joining our team is a home run for the Cyclones, for Brooklyn, and for all our new fans."

Mr. Catell said, "This is a wonderful day for Brooklyn and for baseball. KeySpan Park will be a centerpiece in the revitalization of Coney Island, a source of pride and recreation for the families of Brooklyn, and an engine of economic development for the City of New York. As a boy from Borough Park, I'm delighted that Brooklyn no longer has to 'wait til next year' for its own professional baseball team. I'm especially proud that KeySpan Park will help to make these the 'good old days' for future generations of New Yorkers."

In addition to revitalization of Steeplechase Park, many improvements to the surrounding neighborhood are planned. The Giuliani Administration has appropriated $11 million for improvements to the area which will include new playgrounds, a lifeguard station, additional comfort stations, shade pavilions, information kiosks and sand volleyball courts. Three pedestrian corridors will be built to maintain public access to the waterfront. Portions of the world-famous Reigleman Boardwalk will be rebuilt, and the landmark Parachute Jump, Brooklyn's Eiffel Tower, will receive needed repairs. Recently, ground was broken for Mermaid Commons, a public/private initiative that will bring residential and commercial development to Mermaid Avenue. In addition, a Local Development Corporation will be created to support the area's development of amateur sports facilities.

"This is another step in the rehabilitation of this historic section of Brooklyn," said Deputy Mayor Harding. "Mayor Giuliani is committed to making sure that what has happened in Times Square, on Harlem's 125th Street, and other parts of our City also takes place in Coney Island, once a crown jewel of family entertainment for thousands of New Yorkers and tourists. In addition to this new ballpark, plans to expand the Aquarium and establish a Sports Museum will ensure Coney Island's position as the place to go for great family entertainment."

EDC President Carey said, "After more than four decades, professional baseball is coming back to Brooklyn. The partnership between the Mets and the City, and now KeySpan, in this ballpark, will do much to foster the continued economic development of Coney Island and the surrounding areas."










www.nyc.gov

Go to Press Releases | Giuliani Archives | Mayor's Office | NYC.gov Home Page
Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sentinel
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt2@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fireman Paul Isaac: The Y2K- KeySpan- Maspeth-Twin Gas files


...speaking of pre-9/11 terror exercises connected with the "Guiliani gang", i might have something else:

Some months ago, Aux LT Fireman Paul Isaac Jr (correct name) made already some news at PrisonPlanet.
Isaac "was stationed at Engine 10", across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers.

Isaac came forward and said, that "many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact."

I picked up the same story on my blog and helped him to find out, if there was possibly an additional gag order by ex-CIA James R Woolsey, but besides hearsay we couldn't find any new evidence on that point.


Isaac didn't give up to dig more on 9/11.
Meanwhile sick from the air of 9/11, his dedication to 9/11 research became extremely high.


Isaac confidentially contacted me last week again and after i first denied,
i promised to help a bit, basically for technical reasons and proper promotion of his research.

Paul has no proper computer equipment at home.


Following is now a collection of 'documents', which Isaac sees in a logical connection.

I helped him to scan some stuff and locate original details.


I would like to forward these files into this group to analyse what he has.


I promised Isaac, that someone might help him to co-write an article.

I also recommended not to focus on one particular document only, because it could be easily oversensationalized and distract from the other stuff he has "letsroll.org-effect".


Here are the files:

To make it more personally, we scanned an older photo of Paul Isaac:
http://img17.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img17&image=paulisaac5nm.jpg

The files:

File 1:
The following picture is a scan of the brochure of the 2000 Y2K "Y2K readiness disclosures".
http://img17.exs.cx/img17/8697/y2kshadowdrill8as.jpg

On this brochure you see the names of some involved responsible spokespersons, among them Jerome Hauer (OEM, WTC 7 etc...)

One of the main organizations, who also had been involved,
was KeySpan, formerly Brooklyn Union Gas, as mentioned within this brochure on Page 3, as i recall.
I found a confirmation of their "involvement" also here:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990221102818/http://www.marketspancorp.co m/about/y2k.htm
KeySpan Energy's Year 2000 Program,
Year 2000 Readiness Disclosures


Isaac pointed on the cover of this brochure and asked for confirmations of sun/shadow experts.
He thinks, that the shadow which you see in the middle of the North Tower is an artificial constructed shadow from the Woolworth Building, possibly forced by a backlight projection.

Isaac might explain this better and i would like to forward his personal notes ASAP.


He thinks, that this could imply a symbolical "announcement" of the "attack" on the North Tower 9 months later, but possibly also could have been a test drive for a positioning of the bomb system.


I replied, that critics could downplay this as a photoshopped "dramatization" without any further reason.
Therefore he also suggested to add more files...


File 2:
http://img17.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img17&image=wtcpostcardcollection9cc.jp g

A collection of WTC-postcards to make the point, that this shadow on the North Tower (as seen on the brochure -and not manipulated from us) was impossible.
(Jean, our photographer in this group, might add now more clues)


Because i was more interested in another angle of an article, he had in this collection, we also scanned the following picture:


File 3:
http://img17.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img17&image=towerspluskeyspantanks1gm.j pg

Here you see the Twin Towers and a little bit far away, two twin gas storage tanks.

The story becomes now more interesting.

These two twin gas storage tanks had been destroyed, in a controlled demolition, by KeySpan (formerly Brooklyn Union Gas), on July 15, 2001 - 7:02 am, on Maspeth Avenue in Queens, New York.

http://www.qgazette.com/news/2001/0718/Front_Page/007p1_lg.jpg

July 18, 2001

Isaac believes, that this controlled demolition was a test drive for the Twin Towers, because of similar "procedure", effects, association AND nearby location.


Here is one article about this event:


http://www.qgazette.com/news/2001/0718/Front_Page/007.html
The Tanks Came Tumbling Down
July 18, 2001

"...KeySpan uses mechanized scissor-like devices to cut up the steel skin of the tanks, rather than torches, to avoid vaporizing the lead paint. In addition, KeySpan also laid down a special fabric cover to shield nearby buildings and vacuumed streets after the implosion...

...The twin gas storage tanks on Maspeth Avenue that hovered over Greenpoint and neighboring Queens for more than 50 years collapsed in a cloud of dust early Sunday morning after KeySpan Energy imploded the long unused structures..."



Possibly unsurprisingly for us (and maybe known for some), Keyspan destroyed these Gas storage tanks together with Controlled Demolition, Inc. !!

http://www.phillyblast.com/benthere.htm

http://www.phillyblast.com/Keyspan/keyspan6.jpg

Structures: Keyspan Gas Holder No. 1 and Holder No. 2
(formerly known as the Maspeth Holders)
City: Brooklyn, NY (Greenpoint area)
Location: Maspeth Ave. between Morgan Ave. and Vandervooft Ave.
Date & Time: July 15, 2001 - 7:02 am
Implosion Contractor: Controlled Demolition, Inc.
General Contractor: Mercer Wrecking
Height: Almost 400 feet tall each
Explosives: 750 lbs. of shaped charges (375 per holder) and 25 lbs. conventional charges (12.5 per holder)



These are all current Isaac files, i can provide.

He might add more notes from other articles, but i thought, that's already enough to build a story.


I promised Isaac to send him all the links, once i'm finished uploading and sending him the first responses of our members of 9/11 Science and Justice Alliance.

I think, an interesting article is possible.


If there is enough response, i would post his email address.
I cannot speak of the significance of his collection, but i think, he found some interesting stuff and it depends on how one write this.

nico



APPENDIX:


http://www.keyspanenergy.com/corpinfo/about/index_all.jsp
KeySpan Corporation was formed in May 1998 as a result of the merger of KeySpan Energy Corporation, the parent company of Brooklyn Union Gas, and certain businesses of the Long Island Lighting Company.

On November 8, 2000, KeySpan acquired Eastern Enterprises, a Massachusetts business trust, and the parent of several gas utilities operating in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

http://www.keyspanenergy.com/corpinfo/about/leaders_all.jsp
Corporate Leaders

Robert B. Catell
serves on JPMorgan/Chase's Metropolitan Advisory Board

Gerald Luterman
former Chief Financial Officer of Arrow Electronics (1996-1999).
http://www.arrow.com/
Luterman began his career with Booz-Allen & Hamilton
(linked to PNAC member, ex-CIA James R. Woolsey)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sentinel
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.enron.com/corp/pressroom/releases/1998/ene/bunion.html
Press Release

ENRON TO MANAGE GAS SUPPLY FOR BROOKLYN UNION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, February 13, 1998

HOUSTON - KeySpan Energy Corporation and Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. (ECT), a subsidiary of Enron Corp., today announced an agreement whereby ECT will provide gas supply management services for Brooklyn Union Gas, the primary subsidiary of KeySpan Energy. Under the terms of this agreement, which is subject to approval by New York Public Service Commission, ECT will assume responsibility for managing Brooklyn Union's interstate pipeline transportation, gas supply and storage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sentinel
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Auxiliary Firefighter/First Responder Speaks
After meeting him at Ground Zero just one week before, on Nov. 25th at St. Marks Church, Paul Isaac thrilled the audience at St. Marks Church in what was his first public speaking engagement. Paul had much to share based on his expertise which supported the claims that prior to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, the fires were not only cooling, but it's likely the sprinklers were working. He addressed the issues of the firefigher's radios, saying that many of them as well as law enforcement are aware of the corruption of our leadership. He advocates for communities focusing on self-defense in the event of any future catastrophic events. Paul pointed out many aspects of the official account of 9/11 which just don't stand up to scrutiny, and shared an intriguing analysis of Controlled Demolition, Inc.'s demolition of the Maspeth Keyspan tanks and their resemblence to the collapse of the towers. His passion for truth, his solidarity with the community of first responders, and his desire for protecting our civil liberties were clearly evident. We look forward to hearing more from Paul in the future. For a 15 minute interview and film clip of Paul at Ground Zero, click here.


Paul at Ground Zero during a First Responder's press conference.


Heres to you bright and sunny desposition.



But, if you need alittle more go to ny911truth.org and watch as I bring hared evidense for justice.

Listen to the explosion going off before the collapse of the south tower and ask yourself what made those sounds?


As an Auxiliary Fireman I don't make any money as I'm civil defense not civil servant.

Truth is the Highest Religion
GOD BLess the Patriot

Have a nice day

Paul Isaac jr (Sentinel)
NYCcrashcrew@yahoo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sentinel
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EPA Covering Up Toxic Pollution at Ground Zero?

By catseye in MLP
Sat May 04, 2002 at 03:52:19 AM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
EPA Ombusdman Robert Martin resigned on Earth Day, and in his resignation letter accused EPA Administrator Christie Whitman of withholding data on toxic levels of pollution and poisons in the air at the World Trade Center for personal gain.



---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------






According to Martin, Ms. Whitman is the wife of a former CitiGroup officer who now manages about $800 million of CitiGroup's investments. CitiGroup owns Travelers' Insurance, the insurance company of many buildings in the WTC area. He charges that because Ms. Whitman issued a statement that the air was fine, Traveler's saved a lot of money by not having to pay claims.

Apparently there are a number of complaints from rescue workers, residents, and cleanup crews of respiratory and other problems.

The full article can be found at the Environmental News Service site. The article also contains links to other documents regarding pollution at the WTC site.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sentinel
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm, looks like Cristys got some splainin to do. Seems Guiliani tried to cover up this little deal with all the baseball contracts by commiting grand larceny removing Official city records and placing them in private storage after 911. ooopppsdddd



TAKE YOUR FIRST STEPS INTO CITI FIELD
WITH 2007 SEASON TICKETS AT SHEA!
CONTINUING FULL SEASON TICKET HOLDERS THROUGH THE 2007 AND 2008 SEASONS
WILL HAVE PRIORITY ACCESS FOR SEASON TICKETS IN CITI FIELD.


RELATED MEDIA
• Time-lapse construction webcam
• VIDEO: Virtual tour of Citi Field
• VIDEO: Citi Field Press Conference
• VIDEO: Citi Field Groundbreaking
• PHOTOS: Ceremonial Groundbreaking

Updates may be subject to inclement weather
and/or other restrictions.



On November 13, 2006, Citigroup - the leading global financial services company operating in more than 100 countries - and the New York Mets announced an exclusive 20-year, multifaceted strategic
marketing and business partnership that includes the naming rights for Citi Field, the new world-class home of the Mets, scheduled to open by Opening Day 2009.

Citi Field will feature unprecedented sightlines, amenities, and comfort for Mets fans, sports fans and visitors to the New York metropolitan area. The open-air ballpark connects the Mets' National League heritage to the future and to the City through a number of unique design elements. Citi Field will feature natural grass and capacity for approximately 45,000 fans. A contoured seating configuration will bring spectators closer to the field on all levels to provide optimal sightlines for a more intimate and entertaining experience throughout the park.

> AMENITIES/FAN ENHANCEMENTS
• Citi Field's baseball-specific design produces superior sightlines for the game throughout the venue. There is a more intimate atmosphere with seating angled toward the infield and set down closer to the field. Forty-two percent of the ballpark's seats will be located in the Concourse (or lowest) seating level.

• The ballpark will feature some of the widest unobstructed concourses in new sports facilities. Concession stands and restrooms will be located within the facility's exterior walls leaving the circulation areas with uninterrupted views of the field.

• Wider seats provide enhanced comfort throughout the venue while more space between the rows allows for improved legroom.

• The Concourse level features 360-degree, walk-around circulation around the ballpark with expansive field views and ample standing room. The Promenade level features a split-deck design providing uninterrupted views into the ballpark from the circulation and concession areas.

• Fans throughout the ballpark will have access to multiple sit-down, climate-controlled restaurants, bars, clubs, and lounges, a majority of which will provide field views, and a wide range of menu choices.

• Numerous permanent attractions built into the master plan add to Citi Field's family-friendly environment, including: an expanded Fan Fest family entertainment area within the ballpark on the Concourse level, an enhanced outfield Picnic Area adjacent to the batter's eye, multiple party deck areas, and an interactive Mets museum with club memorabilia and Hall of Fame displays.


> ARCHITECTURAL HIGHLIGHTS
• Inspired by tradition, Citi Field will be clad in brick, limestone, granite and cast stone, with the brick closely resembling the masonry used at Ebbets Field, both in color and texture. Exposed steel will be painted dark blue and the seats will be dark green.

• A structural steel "bridge" motif throughout Citi Field reinforces the Mets' connection to New York's five boroughs while also symbolically linking the team's storied tradition to its future. Design elements call for exposed trusses, light towers, scoreboard structure, and a roof canopy that recall the ballparks of yesteryear.

• This landmark partnership will accelerate Citi's and the Mets' current significant commitments to the community with new resources to develop and launch outreach platforms and programs in and beyond New York City, involving both the Citigroup Foundation and the New York Mets Foundation.

As the first step in this effort, the Mets and Citi will commission a statue and name the entry rotunda of Citi Field - inspired by the classic design of Ebbets Field - to honor Jackie Robinson, the legendary pioneer and great American who broke baseball's color barrier with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. The partnership will include a significant commitment to recognize and perpetuate, in and around the rotunda and the community, Robinson's legacy and the "nine values" he embodied as articulated by his daughter and Foundation Vice Chair, Sharon Robinson: courage, integrity, determination, persistence, citizenship, justice, commitment, teamwork, and excellence.

In addition, Citi and the Mets through a pledge to the Jackie Robinson Foundation will help create the Jackie Robinson Foundation Museum and Education Center in lower Manhattan. As much as a tribute to Jackie Robinson, the Museum and Education Center will educate children about Jackie Robinson's pioneering spirit and leading role in social change. This partnership will support new programs for the Jackie Robinson Foundation, including leadership development and scholarships for students who exemplify Jackie's humanitarian ideals.


> SETTING HIGHLIGHTS
• A landscaped plaza around the ballpark will welcome fans, improve access and egress, and create space for pre- and post-game activities, vendors, and other amenities.

Various areas of Citi Field will reinforce the setting of the venue and the Mets connection to the City of New York and baseball history, including: the Ebbets Club behind the plate, Coogan's Landing beyond the leftfield fence, the "East Side" stands in rightfield, and "The Orchard" picnic area in centerfield.


> ON THE DIAMOND
Field Orientation: The four-acre natural turf field will expand from home in a northeasterly direction with the leftfield line stretching northward, and the rightfield line extending eastward.

Right Field Porch: In rightfield there will be a singular deck that will be situated to extend into and over fair territory by eight feet.

Pitcher Friendly: Distinctive asymmetrical outfield walls, along with generous dimensions (LF - 335'; LC - 379'; CF - 408'; RC - 383'; RF - 330') make for a traditional pitcher's park.


> DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Sterling Equities, the Mets ownership group, has expertise and experience in the development and management of premium New York City properties, as well as new minor league ballparks in Coney Island and Port St. Lucie, Fla. The Citi Field project is developed by Queens Ballpark Company, L.L.C. and has been designed by the internationally renowned architects of HOK Sport. HOK Sport has designed and renovated 13 of the 30 major league ballparks in use today and seven of the last eight to open in Major League Baseball. Hunt-Bovis, a joint venture of Hunt Construction Group and Bovis Lend Lease, will provide construction management.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David WJ Sherlock
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 471
Location: Kent GB

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Re: I am a critic Reply with quote

gurl102 wrote:
I find it very offensive that people take a terrible tragety and screw up the evidence in order to serve their own twisted perpouses,
I wonder what those purpouses are? oh yeah, to Hate America.
to tell the truth, I forgot about the twin towers already. life goes on. but seeing these rediculous accusations brought it all back to me. now I have nightmares of being stuck in burning buildings, and the fire is not really real but only propaganda... I keep waking up at night from dreams of fires that are not really fires.... airplanes that are not really airplanes.... buildings that are not really buildings....
thanks for screwing up the life of yet another New Yorker.


Hi gurl. Let me start by saying. I have nothing but empathy for your feelings of that terrible event on 9/11. I could not imagine the feelings of those who lost loved ones on that day. I'm sorry to hear you are having restless nights and bad dreams. I do hope these diminish as time goes by. I too share your skepticism over these idiots who try to tell people like yourself, that there was no planes. This is of course, nonsense. Long before 9/11. I myself and many others were ardent researchers into the onslaught of the New world Order and the Neo-cons. no one like to think their own Governments would carry out such a deed on its own countrymen. but I am afraid this is a stark reality. Since the days of Nero to present day, World Leaders have been carrying out, what have become known as "False flag Operations" to gain support from a waning public opinion for support of an administration planned agenda. The information we research and uncover, is solid and undisputable evidence of the Neo-con and corporate in-house clandestine behavior to gain world supremacy and thus make slaves of us all. this is not an attack on the American people. I for one, am a supporter of the 4th July celebration. and I am British. but I am no more in favour of our crimes against the American People, as I am for the American government to Invade other sovereign states. you kicked the British, and that was a good thing. I have always loved America and her people. I could never hate a country who's basic tenet stands on freedom and love. but we have to face the reality that there is a criminal elite that "Overlords your democratic system and pulls the strings. I will not trouble you further on this subject. however. If you want me to send you information. please feel free to contact me and I will furnish you with whatever you want.

God bless you and God bless America. I do hope you find the peace of mind you hope for.

David. UK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, NWOWATCH has come back with a reasoned and convincing argument by way of a PM. I think it is worth quoting in full:

"Twonk. Bushwacker. You are an ignorant fool. So Kiss my hiney you moron!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.


bushwacker, i agree some people do do that with certain theorys when trying to explain the HOW, however there are lots of simple facts and things on 9/11 that do not add up and are obvious and are not made up by anyone on this site as they are there for everyone to see and documented, however you will do everything you can to do what you and gurl accuse others of to explain away these things to suit your pet theory.

you do everthing ive qouted to make obvious lies and faults in the offical story into something it isnt to suit your theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.


bushwacker, i agree some people do do that with certain theorys when trying to explain the HOW, however there are lots of simple facts and things on 9/11 that do not add up and are obvious and are not made up by anyone on this site as they are there for everyone to see and documented, however you will do everything you can to do what you and gurl accuse others of to explain away these things to suit your pet theory.

you do everthing ive qouted to make obvious lies and faults in the offical story into something it isnt to suit your theory.

OK, give an example of an obvious lie in the "official theory" which I have distorted in some way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.


bushwacker, i agree some people do do that with certain theorys when trying to explain the HOW, however there are lots of simple facts and things on 9/11 that do not add up and are obvious and are not made up by anyone on this site as they are there for everyone to see and documented, however you will do everything you can to do what you and gurl accuse others of to explain away these things to suit your pet theory.

you do everthing ive qouted to make obvious lies and faults in the offical story into something it isnt to suit your theory.

OK, give an example of an obvious lie in the "official theory" which I have distorted in some way.


that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel and concrete skyscrapper.

that a building can fall at near freefall speed falling into the path of most resistance.

any witness statement questioning the offical version including excusing anything firemen said.

the numerous coincidances are just that even though there is a very long list that in anyother case would be suspious.

the wargames in the 2 years prior and the drill the day before and on the day simulating the exact same scenerio being suspious in anyway, especially when condi rice said there was no way they could of invisage them using planes as weapons etc.

cheney and bush not taking oaths to give evidence to the commission report being in anyway suspious.

supporting the commission report that didnt include everything even though it was meant to explain to the familys everything that happened and all testimony.

theres tons of things that no doubt you will disagree with, i could go on all day so ill leave it there or you will end up with a essay if you want to counter reply them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You could bore someone to tears with this nonsense. WHO CARES. All of this stuff has been answered a thousand times. Don't like the answers? WHO CARES! Anyone? NO!

You want to know why buildings collapse? Talk to demolitions experts. Talk to structural engineers. Raise some money and hire someone. If you go to web forums and complain every day that "i don't think buildings should collapse like that" every day for the rest of your life, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE NOBODY CARES.

Get it? I don't want to convince you that Condi was doing the same CYA that every politician does when shown they have screwed up because I DON'T CARE whether you are convinced. There is no conceivable explanation or evidence that could settle that once and for all, because you can interpret it any way you want to.

You have the rest of your life to remain unconvinced that "sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean it was a bomb. Nobody will every be able to change the fact that someone said that, and if the guy says that's not what he meant, you can say he is lying or has been threatened. Those quotes will always be out there for you to cling to, and WHO CARES if nobody can ever convince you otherwise?

_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
You could bore someone to tears with this nonsense. WHO CARES. All of this stuff has been answered a thousand times. Don't like the answers? WHO CARES! Anyone? NO!

You want to know why buildings collapse? Talk to demolitions experts. Talk to structural engineers. Raise some money and hire someone. If you go to web forums and complain every day that "i don't think buildings should collapse like that" every day for the rest of your life, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE NOBODY CARES.

Get it? I don't want to convince you that Condi was doing the same CYA that every politician does when shown they have screwed up because I DON'T CARE whether you are convinced. There is no conceivable explanation or evidence that could settle that once and for all, because you can interpret it any way you want to.

You have the rest of your life to remain unconvinced that "sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean it was a bomb. Nobody will every be able to change the fact that someone said that, and if the guy says that's not what he meant, you can say he is lying or has been threatened. Those quotes will always be out there for you to cling to, and WHO CARES if nobody can ever convince you otherwise?


"OK, give an example of an obvious lie in the "official theory" which I have distorted in some way."

i was replying to this do read posts, or was i meant to ignore him then be told i was avoiding it??????????????????????????????
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.


bushwacker, i agree some people do do that with certain theorys when trying to explain the HOW, however there are lots of simple facts and things on 9/11 that do not add up and are obvious and are not made up by anyone on this site as they are there for everyone to see and documented, however you will do everything you can to do what you and gurl accuse others of to explain away these things to suit your pet theory.

you do everthing ive qouted to make obvious lies and faults in the offical story into something it isnt to suit your theory.

OK, give an example of an obvious lie in the "official theory" which I have distorted in some way.


If you have time on your hands, why not take on the basement bomb theory of Rodriguez and co - the many witnesses who describe the devastation in the basement at the time of the first strike. Explain just how the strike on the 105th floor could cause the amount of damage described by the witnesses. Maybe you can postulate why this evidence never appeared in the Commission Report?

Or maybe take a quick peek at the Pentagon incident .... as it is obvious that many witnesses are lying, prove why the "lamp strike" crew are correct while the Citgo crowd are all lying with exactly the same story. And if you don't understand what I am talking about, maybe you need to do more research .....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.


bushwacker, i agree some people do do that with certain theorys when trying to explain the HOW, however there are lots of simple facts and things on 9/11 that do not add up and are obvious and are not made up by anyone on this site as they are there for everyone to see and documented, however you will do everything you can to do what you and gurl accuse others of to explain away these things to suit your pet theory.

you do everthing ive qouted to make obvious lies and faults in the offical story into something it isnt to suit your theory.

OK, give an example of an obvious lie in the "official theory" which I have distorted in some way.


that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel and concrete skyscrapper.

that a building can fall at near freefall speed falling into the path of most resistance.

any witness statement questioning the offical version including excusing anything firemen said.

the numerous coincidances are just that even though there is a very long list that in anyother case would be suspious.

the wargames in the 2 years prior and the drill the day before and on the day simulating the exact same scenerio being suspious in anyway, especially when condi rice said there was no way they could of invisage them using planes as weapons etc.

cheney and bush not taking oaths to give evidence to the commission report being in anyway suspious.

supporting the commission report that didnt include everything even though it was meant to explain to the familys everything that happened and all testimony.

theres tons of things that no doubt you will disagree with, i could go on all day so ill leave it there or you will end up with a essay if you want to counter reply them.

that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel and concrete skyscrapper.

The concrete in the WTC buildings was only used as a thin layer over the floors, to call them steel and concrete skyscrapers is to misrepresent their method of construction. Fire can bring down a steel framed building, as with the Madrid Windsor Hotel, where all the steel part of the building collapsed, leaving only the concrete core and lower floors. No obvious lie there.

that a building can fall at near freefall speed falling into the path of most resistance.

That is not an obvious lie to any physicist or structural engineer, if it were do you not think it would have been pointed out as such? It is only a lie to people who know nothing about structures.

any witness statement questioning the offical version including excusing anything firemen said.

You are claiming that any witness statement questioning the official version is an obvious lie? You are arguing against yourself!

the numerous coincidances are just that even though there is a very long list that in anyother case would be suspious.

Being suspicious is not an obvious lie, is it?

the wargames in the 2 years prior and the drill the day before and on the day simulating the exact same scenerio being suspious in anyway, especially when condi rice said there was no way they could of invisage them using planes as weapons etc.

Being suspicious is not an obvious lie, is it?

cheney and bush not taking oaths to give evidence to the commission report being in anyway suspious.

Being suspicious is not an obvious lie, is it?

supporting the commission report that didnt include everything even though it was meant to explain to the familys everything that happened and all testimony.

Who ever said it was meant to explain that? Who ever said it should include all testimony? You are just inventing that, it seems

theres tons of things that no doubt you will disagree with, i could go on all day so ill leave it there or you will end up with a essay if you want to counter reply them.

You have failed to produce even one obvious lie, just as expected. You may well have honest doubts and suspicions, but you simply cannot point to an obvious lie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
marky 54 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
The trouble is, NWOWATCH, what you regard as stark reality supported by indisputable evidence, are actually rather puerile fantasies supported by no solid evidence at all. If there were solid evidence, there would be no need to distort and misrepresent facts in the attempt to support fanciful theories in the way that has become the norm for "truth-seekers" of all persuasions, from no-planers to thermate-huggers to LIHOP merchants. You all have your pet theories and try to bend the facts to fit them, which is what gurl102 complains of. It is no way to discover the truth of anything.


bushwacker, i agree some people do do that with certain theorys when trying to explain the HOW, however there are lots of simple facts and things on 9/11 that do not add up and are obvious and are not made up by anyone on this site as they are there for everyone to see and documented, however you will do everything you can to do what you and gurl accuse others of to explain away these things to suit your pet theory.

you do everthing ive qouted to make obvious lies and faults in the offical story into something it isnt to suit your theory.

OK, give an example of an obvious lie in the "official theory" which I have distorted in some way.


that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel and concrete skyscrapper.

that a building can fall at near freefall speed falling into the path of most resistance.

any witness statement questioning the offical version including excusing anything firemen said.

the numerous coincidances are just that even though there is a very long list that in anyother case would be suspious.

the wargames in the 2 years prior and the drill the day before and on the day simulating the exact same scenerio being suspious in anyway, especially when condi rice said there was no way they could of invisage them using planes as weapons etc.

cheney and bush not taking oaths to give evidence to the commission report being in anyway suspious.

supporting the commission report that didnt include everything even though it was meant to explain to the familys everything that happened and all testimony.

theres tons of things that no doubt you will disagree with, i could go on all day so ill leave it there or you will end up with a essay if you want to counter reply them.

that it is possible for fire to bring down a steel and concrete skyscrapper.

The concrete in the WTC buildings was only used as a thin layer over the floors, to call them steel and concrete skyscrapers is to misrepresent their method of construction. Fire can bring down a steel framed building, as with the Madrid Windsor Hotel, where all the steel part of the building collapsed, leaving only the concrete core and lower floors. No obvious lie there.

that a building can fall at near freefall speed falling into the path of most resistance.

That is not an obvious lie to any physicist or structural engineer, if it were do you not think it would have been pointed out as such? It is only a lie to people who know nothing about structures.

any witness statement questioning the offical version including excusing anything firemen said.

You are claiming that any witness statement questioning the official version is an obvious lie? You are arguing against yourself!

the numerous coincidances are just that even though there is a very long list that in anyother case would be suspious.

Being suspicious is not an obvious lie, is it?

the wargames in the 2 years prior and the drill the day before and on the day simulating the exact same scenerio being suspious in anyway, especially when condi rice said there was no way they could of invisage them using planes as weapons etc.

Being suspicious is not an obvious lie, is it?

cheney and bush not taking oaths to give evidence to the commission report being in anyway suspious.

Being suspicious is not an obvious lie, is it?

supporting the commission report that didnt include everything even though it was meant to explain to the familys everything that happened and all testimony.

Who ever said it was meant to explain that? Who ever said it should include all testimony? You are just inventing that, it seems

theres tons of things that no doubt you will disagree with, i could go on all day so ill leave it there or you will end up with a essay if you want to counter reply them.

You have failed to produce even one obvious lie, just as expected. You may well have honest doubts and suspicions, but you simply cannot point to an obvious lie.


the obvious lie is your excuses for each point they are just that, you think a 1hour fire can collapse an whole skyscrapper? some of the things i mentioned were not the the actual lie, they were mentioned because the are answered with an actual lie! you just make it up and dont have a clue if half of what your saying is true. you do it over and over whhich is why the stuff you didnt have an explaination for you just said it wasnt an obvious lie, the point is your reasons for them are!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
you think a 1hour fire can collapse an whole skyscrapper?
1,000,001 times now I have heard that fire collapsed the WTC. Why do you keep forgetting about the planes?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
Quote:
you think a 1hour fire can collapse an whole skyscrapper?
1,000,001 times now I have heard that fire collapsed the WTC. Why do you keep forgetting about the planes?


"then the plane reamed into the side of the building and came through the otherside, then the towers came down one first then the other mainly due to structual failure because the fire was to intense"

is that better?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

marky 54 wrote:

the obvious lie is your excuses for each point they are just that, you think a 1hour fire can collapse an whole skyscrapper? some of the things i mentioned were not the the actual lie, they were mentioned because the are answered with an actual lie! you just make it up and dont have a clue if half of what your saying is true. you do it over and over whhich is why the stuff you didnt have an explaination for you just said it wasnt an obvious lie, the point is your reasons for them are!

You may know what you are talking about, marky, but I am afraid I have no idea. Can you try to put your thoughts across rather more clearly, you sound like John Prescott on a bad day!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
marky 54 wrote:

the obvious lie is your excuses for each point they are just that, you think a 1hour fire can collapse an whole skyscrapper? some of the things i mentioned were not the the actual lie, they were mentioned because the are answered with an actual lie! you just make it up and dont have a clue if half of what your saying is true. you do it over and over whhich is why the stuff you didnt have an explaination for you just said it wasnt an obvious lie, the point is your reasons for them are!

You may know what you are talking about, marky, but I am afraid I have no idea. Can you try to put your thoughts across rather more clearly, you sound like John Prescott on a bad day!


nevermind it dosnt matter, untill i see evidence that the offical story is true and it is addressed properly and fairly by the mainstream media im wasting my time posting in here.

its no differant to trying to see evidence for some of the other theorys here, people who believe energy weapons, no planes, people ignoring obvious problems in the offical story and ignoring other issues in the world on top of that, im banging my head against a brick wall.

so i aint gonna waste my time mainly because i cannot be bothered with those i consider to be playing games, paid, dumb, or cannot admit when something points to bad/evil things happening as that would mean being wrong.

there is a counter arguement to everything in life, that dosnt mean the person with a counter arguement is right, everyone is capable of lieing and making it seem believable.

so who to trust, who to trust?

all i can say is if your not any of the above i hope your right about what you think about things, as i'd rather be wrong than thinking most things ive read/seen are right, but i cannot help what the evidence points to, and i didnt create it, film it etc etc.

so we disagree but it changes nothing whatever is true or the outcome of that. people will decide for themselves.

i dont know all the answers to everthing but im pretty sure there are things we are being lied to about, that needs ferther/another investigastion.

no doubt you disagree and the likes of pepik will TRY to tell me what i think as though he knows.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
all i can say is if your not any of the above i hope your right about what you think about things, as i'd rather be wrong than thinking most things ive read/seen are right
I find that very had to believe. You seem to do everything you can to reject the obvious in search of the conspiracy explanation.

Try reading through some moon landing conspiracy websites. Even though the theory is idiotic, they find loads of unexplained coincidences, anomalies, seemingly inexplicable contradictions and what they would call scientific impossibilities. Yet people did land on the moon. If enough people try hard enough for long enough, if they have enough material to work with, they can eventually put together a pretty decent conspiracy theory.

The same is true for 911. If you are waiting for every anomaly and coincidence to be 100% explained, you will be waiting forever. "Sounded like a bomb going off" is always going to be "sounded like a bomb going off" - the quote isn't going away. Its always going to mean whatever you want it to.

_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
Quote:
all i can say is if your not any of the above i hope your right about what you think about things, as i'd rather be wrong than thinking most things ive read/seen are right
I find that very had to believe. You seem to do everything you can to reject the obvious in search of the conspiracy explanation.

Try reading through some moon landing conspiracy websites. Even though the theory is idiotic, they find loads of unexplained coincidences, anomalies, seemingly inexplicable contradictions and what they would call scientific impossibilities. Yet people did land on the moon. If enough people try hard enough for long enough, if they have enough material to work with, they can eventually put together a pretty decent conspiracy theory.

The same is true for 911. If you are waiting for every anomaly and coincidence to be 100% explained, you will be waiting forever. "Sounded like a bomb going off" is always going to be "sounded like a bomb going off" - the quote isn't going away. Its always going to mean whatever you want it to.


i absoulty agree for once with something you have said.

however they only thing you fail to admit is that any of it could apply to our goverments telling us things yet you have just proved how easy it is if a member of the public can do it.

however i do agree with what your saying and dont believe everything i read, but at the same time i realise that it is possible for goverments or person in top postions to employ the same tactice to keep something covered or to profit from lies if they so wished.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so which conspiracy theory is true is the question, an offical one or the one being claimed by millions worldwide?.

its easy to dismiss one and accept the other without looking at all the evidence and considering it all. but only the evidence can answer it, but if you have two differant claims on the same bit of evidence who's do you believe to be true?

both sides are capable of lieing and faking evidence or staging something to use as proof later(like a convincing u.f.o for example), it just depends on what your budget is as to what you can stage.

however if you didnt stage anything and all the evidence is real or your telling the truth, anyone can point the finger and say conspiracy theorist/liar and use ridicule, instantly branding the truth under the looney bin/ or making people question what they have been told rather than disproving the claims with evidence that they cannot prove unless using a conspiracy theorists tactic by making evidence look convincing.

it all boils down to what you think, BUT only what you think unless you in on the hoax/conspiracy to know, or evidence needs to be relooked at fairly with full complicity from all parties and in the eyes of the public to find out who is lying and why so the people are the judge.

however we both know that aint likely to happen, but you have to wonder why when somebody clearly has an agenda where 9/11 is concered. the innocent party has nothing to fear in doing so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, ever tried convincing someone that evolution happened or people landed on the moon? You can't, they can argue forever that you are wrong. Does this make you suspect they may be right after all?

The only way to see through the conspiracy theory is to say, "OK, lets assume it was a conspiracy. Lets try to imagine exactly how the conspiracy would have worked". Before long you have on your hands the most absurdly complicated, farthest reaching most all encompassing conspiracy ever imagined. And very little of it even makes sense - you have to go to great lengths to explain why two jets were good enough for the WTC but the Pentagon needed a missile and the fourth plane was secretly shot down, and so on. I find it impossible to put together an even remotely plausible or logical alternative theory. None of the pieces fit together in a coherent way. There is no rhyme or reason - just a grab bag of oddities and reverse engineered logic, cherry picked and cobbled together.

_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
So, ever tried convincing someone that evolution happened or people landed on the moon? You can't, they can argue forever that you are wrong. Does this make you suspect they may be right after all?

The only way to see through the conspiracy theory is to say, "OK, lets assume it was a conspiracy. Lets try to imagine exactly how the conspiracy would have worked". Before long you have on your hands the most absurdly complicated, farthest reaching most all encompassing conspiracy ever imagined. And very little of it even makes sense - you have to go to great lengths to explain why two jets were good enough for the WTC but the Pentagon needed a missile and the fourth plane was secretly shot down, and so on. I find it impossible to put together an even remotely plausible or logical alternative theory. None of the pieces fit together in a coherent way. There is no rhyme or reason - just a grab bag of oddities and reverse engineered logic, cherry picked and cobbled together.


and of course the offical version makes perfect sense dosnt it Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
Quote:
you think a 1hour fire can collapse an whole skyscrapper?
1,000,001 times now I have heard that fire collapsed the WTC. Why do you keep forgetting about the planes?


WTC7

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group