cjunken

I realize this post is about six years old.....so has something changed because I can't find out how to do this. edit: my further searching indicates this is avaible for premier members.

Dude... I bet the kid got a good ass chewing from his mom till she saw the video. Usually these videos/incidents aren't so one sided. I don't think you could possibly defend his actions.

Yeah...I don't believe anybody would raise their hand for the fifth one

anybody figure out how to swoop?

I'd hate to be playing football in that pasture and see that screamin around the corner!

I thought one of the purposes of the site was to allow individuals (me) to learn about the sport before I went off and did something stupid. I always take the advice with a grain of salt, but I believe just gettin in here and hearing whats happening in the industry is useful. This site has verified for me that I do want to become more involved. I also believe that there is a large group of people like me.

Had buddy lose one rank for looking at porn on duty in Kosovo.

Anybody checked out the movie yet?

amen, I wanted to slap both of em.

Whats that huge bottle of green lotion doing next to the computer

Exactly -- people seem to be missing this. As much bs as there may be in this movie (my biggest problem with it is that there are no cites or documentation presented in the film), the fact that it raises questions is not a bad thing at all. If you look on the site there is a sources page and an interactive transcript (with sources), but for only part 1. It seems to be pretty detailed.

Oh hell, they couldn't even keep the fake moon landing a secret. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GuwyY2DzO2I So it might take 35 more years before these truths are exposed Good talk...I'm outty your video is hilarious

I suppose you're going to tell me that NASA isn't responsible for JFK assassination?

I don't know but we're definitely going into wars over bogus reasons, I just don't take this film as the factual spokespiece. agree!

That's correct it's what started the collapse, but we need to separate the concepts. The second thing that happened was that the floors pancaked and destroyed the structure within the core as it fell. This movie is saying that it would be impossible without large-scale demolition charges. See this site also http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml What about the portion of the video that showed the column sheared in manner consistent with demo practices and appeared to have been blasted or melted?

So you've never heard of the chemical but know that it only needs to be used sparingly? Thats what the engineer in the video alluded to. edit: we could go back and forthfor days and I'm not saying that would be bad, but what was your opinion on part 1 or 3. Is our government orchestraing wars for private corpate interests?

I'd be interested to read. My interpretation of the article you linked earlier leans toward the fire destroying the structural intergrity of the core steel and most importantly the angles that support the floors. The deformation that was caused lead to the floor collapse. I didn't recall any talk about demo charges on those upper floors in the video and the building did relay almost entirely on this core.

so your saying its impossible? The movie wasn't referring to a mass brigade of workers prepping the building with explosives. The chemical that they were refering to, which I've never heard of, would only have to be used sparingly. It could of been accomplished by a couple of people and why would they tell on themselves?

No wreckage found at the Pentagon. - Wrong No wreckage found at the Pentagon. -Black box found 25 ft underground No wreckage found at WTC. - You're right, we saw 50 camera angles of it going in but it must have snuck out the back. Other quotes are used out of context or are said in a way that are misleading, such as W. Wilson's quote about us being controlled by creditors. In this piece it says it was (after ratifying the federal reserve) years later that he wrote this. It was actually not something he wrote in the academic sense but was part of his speech in his NEXT campaign. The movie showed debirs at the pentagon. I don't think they were arguing what hit it....were they? I think the point was the quickness that it was covered up and people going on the assumption that a proper investigation took place. Have you read an info stating how long the wreckage was left in place? Do you standards on aircraft wreckage recovery after an accident? Also, I never heard them say they didn't recover any plane wreckage from WTC site.

Statements that WTC was planted with explosives so that it would fall down very presicely. -If someone has already decided that they're going to cause destruction that scale, then who gives a crap what else it takes down. Nevermind the massive scale it would take to install and wire these things in a highly secure building. Their description of the collapse was incorrect. They show the slabs to shear at the interior columns, stressing that those are the major structural members. In actuality the Towers took much of their support fromthe perimeter structure, a structural tube design. The interior columns didn't stand a chance once the slabs started pancaking and snapped like toothpicks. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html *** I agree that planting these explosives would have to be on a rather large scale and does seem a bit unrealistic, but not impossible. I read your link differently.....Its misleading to say that "much" of the support was taken by the perimeter. I would say a majority was taken by the core and enough lightweight steel was used on the perimeter to stiffen the structure against wind loads and support the curtainwall. Also, the report just said that main failure was likely at the clip angles that ultimately carried the floor load. So its kind of unclear whether this failure was at the perimeter or the core. Either way based on the structural loading of the floors if you loss one or two your screwed.

This quote... "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." ...is stated in the film to be said by both GWB and Hitler as is delivered as proof for the obvious comparison. It seems to have come out of thin air; nobody can find where EITHER of them have said it. I know..Iknow..Internet research isn't always as reliable as we would like it too be. However, I can't help ask why I found so many sites stating that these are Hitler's words and did the movie actual say that this is a quote from Bush? I took that as meaning it may sound like something Bush would say. I'm looking in too your other longer reply on WTC. I'm terrible at independent research. What did you think about part 1?

what makes it fiction?

This is an interesting comment. I have a sister-n-law that pops em out and can't afford to feed or diaper them. On the other hand I have a friend who is more than capable and willing who is spending thousands trying to have a baby and can't. Sometimes it just doesn't seem right.

Were you listening in on my phone conversation last night......that all sounds really familiar. Preach on!

Why do you say "pure crap"? Does anyone buy into any of the messages? edit; is this whole Iranian incident with the naval ships another Gulf of Tonkin?