|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | So did the FBI write out a report about their procedures for determining whether explosives could have been the cause of the collapse of the towers that day? |
Ask them. |
So you don't know? What's with the "this is what they did" attitude, if you don't know?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It isn't a defense for you to say I can't question the experts, and if 200 say this and that then it is that way. |
The science doesn't need my defense. I was just pointing out that one stupid individual's OPINION means absolutely nothing when compared to the evidenced work of over 200 real scientists. |
What science, the uncertain conclusions? Science is not being questioned if it can show itself as being objective. Geez, I gotta remind you of your own rules.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | After watching the videos on the NIST site, I'd say 99% of those involved are just looking forward to their next cigerette break, and are just doing what their team leader is commanding. |
I REALLY hope that you will convey that directly to the men and women who were there searching for their fallen comrades and other victims of the attack, say next September 11. I'll even provide the bullhorn(I'll make it a small one, so it doesn't hurt so bad when they surgically remove it from your ass. While they are at it, maybe they will remove your head from there as well). |
You've done it again with the emotional blackmail, trying to make me feel guilty for not accepting things as they are being told. Instead of pointing to the reports about testing for explosives, you want to make it about patriotism and how history has no examples of authority turning corrupt.
If people in authority are not prepared to be scrutinized, they should not be in public SERVICE.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Stop pretending it is all clear cut, IDIOT. |
I'm not pretending, dumbass. |
Yes you are, because you want to turn uncertainty into more than probablity, you want no questions asked. You're an idiot.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Read the bit about uncertainty. it leaves room for other explanations, |
No, it does not. Real scientist must give the range of error, but explosives are well outside that range, as the reports say. |
Round and round it goes. Sorry but I'm choosing to doubt the report, because that choice exists due to the uncertainty. I'll persue the idea that someone is hiding something, and continue to take in possible reasons. The two images Fintan shows of the twin towers in this thread give me reason to doubt the conclusions you are reaching. However, NIST haven't gone as far as you, they have only predicted up the the point of collapse.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I know you are desperate to take down religion |
Believe what you like, but you will be held accountable for your ACTIONS. |
AND? You won't?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I don't believe you, or your science or the conclusions you are trying to say speak for themselves. |
Yeah, I noticed your problem with science when we were discussing your book, Merkaba boy. It hasn't changed even though the topic has. You haven't got a clue what real evidence is. |
I have no problem with science. I have loved scientific things since I was a young teen. So stop pretending I have a problem with science. I don't have a problem at all, I can clearly see you are full of shit, and what's more your shit is tainting many young kids and helping to turn them into narrow-minded hyenas.
You have yet to discuss my book in a scientific manner. Not having read it is a bad start, and sends your speiling on about it into a Jackanory land.
| Quote: | | To summerize, I'm a complete and hopeless idiot. |
| Quote: | Why yes, yes you are. Acceptance is the start of recovery. Terminal Stupidity is a terrible way to go.
Grumpy  |
Dear Fintan, if you are reading this by any chance would you please ask Grumpy not to use apparent quotes from me that do not exist.
I don't see how you are dong your cause any good at all Grumpy.
You need to work on your own resentment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grumpy wrote: | psikeyhackr
| Quote: | | I don't buy a linear distribution for a minute. |
The floor weights, other than the three mechanical floors, were identical for every floor. The only differences from one floor to another was the varying thickness of the steel the frame and core columns were made from.
This is the base of the largest corner core columns, with specs.
Grumpy |
So why don't we find this in the NIST report Gumpy?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The columns had to be a lot thicker and stronger in the bottom third of the building by the very nature of skyscrapers. The easiest way to show the change would just be a table with the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. So it only makes sense to not have that is if people want to BULLSHIT.
Curious how a cross section of that column isn't in your collection of diagrams.
psik
_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockDock
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I sense this thread will be another 221 page extravaganza of Grumpy saying "the NIST report said there were no explosives!" and others saying "the NIST report is flawed and inconclusive."
Grumpy, don't you have anything better to do than hang around here arguing? Does the gig pay that well? Which agency hired you, or are you not allowed to say?
Your emotional blackmail tactic of calling doubters of the official lie is pretty low, even for a troll. Interesting too how you rarely respond to anything R4S posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
psikeyhackr
| Quote: | | So why don't we find this in the NIST report Gumpy? |
Because you don't bother to look? The charts and photo are directly from the NIST report.
| Quote: | | The columns had to be a lot thicker and stronger in the bottom third of the building by the very nature of skyscrapers. The easiest way to show the change would just be a table with the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. So it only makes sense to not have that is if people want to BULLSHIT. |
There are charts of the column thicknesses on every level. The tons of concrete did not change from one level to the next, except on mechanical floors.
Do you bitch this much if your mommy doesn't butter your toast for you??? Or cut the crust off your PB&J? Figure it out yourself.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Because you don't bother to look? The charts and photo are directly from the NIST report. |
So why didn't you put it in with your diagrams? I saw those long ago. I didn't bother searching the NIST for that column because I have never run across it in months. It also did not turn up in my search for "5 in." though I found "7 in." So why would there be no mention of 5 inch thick steel in the entire report? My computer can do that search, I don't need to look at every page.
psik
_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
psikeyhackr
| Quote: | | So why would there be no mention of 5 inch thick steel in the entire report? |
I see 2 dimensions of five inches JUST IN THIS ONE PHOTO!!!
The NIST report, unfortunately, cannot be easily(or legally) copy/pasted. It should be, but is not.
But to say that there is no mention of EVERY columns dimensions is pure crap, they are ALL there, your computer needs an upgrade, and you need to read the documents you are denigrating.
aAzzAa
| Quote: | | you want to make it about patriotism and how history has no examples of authority turning corrupt. |
You questioned their patriotism, I asked you what basis you had to do so. I got no answer.
It isn't that there are no examples of corrupt gov. But there are no examples where EVERYONE BUT YOU is corrupt.
| Quote: | | If people in authority are not prepared to be scrutinized, they should not be in public SERVICE. |
Scrutinized is fine. FALSELY ACCUSED OF TREASON WITHOUT A BIT OF EVIDENCE something else.
| Quote: | | Yes you are, because you want to turn uncertainty into more than probablity, you want no questions asked. You're an idiot. |
Does saying that a survey has a margin of error make the survey null and void??? Does saying a fossil is ___MYO +-100,000 years mean it was buried yesterday??? Does a predicted track of a hurricane mean it is not coming because they give a band of probability for landfall???
Scientist have to deal with a degree of uncertainty in everything they do, 911 was no exception. But explosives fell well outside the range of that uncertainty. It is YOU who does not understand science.
| Quote: | | Round and round it goes. Sorry but I'm choosing to doubt the report, because that choice exists due to the uncertainty. |
You chose to doubt the reports based on your ignorance and you predisposition. That you choose ignorance and stupidity is not really a surprise, it seems to fit a pattern.
| Quote: | | However, NIST haven't gone as far as you, they have only predicted up the the point of collapse. |
Because, as they also say, once started, nothing in the remaining structure had the strength to stop it.
| Quote: | | So stop pretending I have a problem with science. |
I am not pretending, Merkaba boy.
| Quote: | | You have yet to discuss my book in a scientific manner. Not having read it is a bad start, and sends your speiling on about it into a Jackanory land. |
I've read your book. It is mystical goobledegoop. It has so many major flaws as science that it is a huge waste of my time to correct them all. So I chose one single item to show how unscientific the whole thing was,
What is the scientific source for the meaning you give to the Merkaba??? It is central to your book and the endpoint of all your numerological prognostications. If you can not provide a valid, scientific meaning your whole book fails as scientific.
RockDock
| Quote: | | Grumpy, don't you have anything better to do than hang around here arguing? |
Sometimes yes, other times, no.
| Quote: | | Does the gig pay that well? Which agency hired you, or are you not allowed to say? |
It's called retirement, look into it. The only money I receive is from the NC teacher's retirement fund. I do this for my own amusement, if it ceases being fun, I will stop doing it.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grumpy wrote: | psikeyhackr
| Quote: | | So why would there be no mention of 5 inch thick steel in the entire report? |
I see 2 dimensions of five inches JUST IN THIS ONE PHOTO!!!
The NIST report, unfortunately, cannot be easily(or legally) copy/pasted. It should be, but is not.
But to say that there is no mention of EVERY columns dimensions is pure crap, they are ALL there, your computer needs an upgrade, and you need to read the documents you are denigrating.
aAzzAa
| Quote: | | you want to make it about patriotism and how history has no examples of authority turning corrupt. |
You questioned their patriotism, I asked you what basis you had to do so. I got no answer.
It isn't that there are no examples of corrupt gov. But there are no examples where EVERYONE BUT YOU is corrupt.
| Quote: | | If people in authority are not prepared to be scrutinized, they should not be in public SERVICE. |
Scrutinized is fine. FALSELY ACCUSED OF TREASON WITHOUT A BIT OF EVIDENCE something else.
| Quote: | | Yes you are, because you want to turn uncertainty into more than probablity, you want no questions asked. You're an idiot. |
Does saying that a survey has a margin of error make the survey null and void??? Does saying a fossil is ___MYO +-100,000 years mean it was buried yesterday??? Does a predicted track of a hurricane mean it is not coming because they give a band of probability for landfall???
Scientist have to deal with a degree of uncertainty in everything they do, 911 was no exception. But explosives fell well outside the range of that uncertainty. It is YOU who does not understand science.
| Quote: | | Round and round it goes. Sorry but I'm choosing to doubt the report, because that choice exists due to the uncertainty. |
You chose to doubt the reports based on your ignorance and you predisposition. That you choose ignorance and stupidity is not really a surprise, it seems to fit a pattern.
| Quote: | | However, NIST haven't gone as far as you, they have only predicted up the the point of collapse. |
Because, as they also say, once started, nothing in the remaining structure had the strength to stop it.
| Quote: | | So stop pretending I have a problem with science. |
I am not pretending, Merkaba boy.
| Quote: | | You have yet to discuss my book in a scientific manner. Not having read it is a bad start, and sends your speiling on about it into a Jackanory land. |
I've read your book. It is mystical goobledegoop. It has so many major flaws as science that it is a huge waste of my time to correct them all. So I chose one single item to show how unscientific the whole thing was,
What is the scientific source for the meaning you give to the Merkaba??? It is central to your book and the endpoint of all your numerological prognostications. If you can not provide a valid, scientific meaning your whole book fails as scientific.
RockDock
| Quote: | | Grumpy, don't you have anything better to do than hang around here arguing? |
Sometimes yes, other times, no.
| Quote: | | Does the gig pay that well? Which agency hired you, or are you not allowed to say? |
It's called retirement, look into it. The only money I receive is from the NC teacher's retirement fund. I do this for my own amusement, if it ceases being fun, I will stop doing it.
Grumpy |
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah blah blah from Grump-Bot.
Margin of error eh?? Ha! Uncertain about just about all of it, then having
to use simulation based on those uncertainties, and out the other end comes a probable cause. meanwhile Grumpy Poopy Pants gets his kicks using his beloved scientific method to try and smack people on the head with. Grumpy, fuck off, your slogan mind is like a defunct rectum.
And stop telling lies about having read my book. You openly admitted you haven't, and will always diss the mention of the word Spiritual. But not all of us wish to promote zombies, and your lack of moral fibre is about as obvious as your next slogan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
aAzzAa
| Quote: | Margin of error eh?? Ha! Uncertain about just about all of it, then having
to use simulation based on those uncertainties, and out the other end comes a probable cause. |
When the sims match the observed data then they have reduced the margin of error to the point where confidence can be had in the outcome. That is what NIST did.
| Quote: | | And stop telling lies about having read my book. |
I read your book, it is total crap.
All of the rest of your post is just an attack on me, not on what I post.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I see 2 dimensions of five inches JUST IN THIS ONE PHOTO!!!
The NIST report, unfortunately, cannot be easily(or legally) copy/pasted. It should be, but is not. |
I have NEVER seen that photo in the NIST report. If it was that "5 inches" wouldn't show up in a text sarch because it is part of the photo. But if that photo was in the NIST report it seems very odd that the dimensions of such a large column are never mentioned in the text. So I am saying I don't think the photo is in there.
Of course there is nothing stopping you from telling us the report and page number if it is there.
psik
_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I read your book, it is total crap. |
No you didn't you liar. Must I go find the posts where you admit you didn't? Besides, I've got no real interest in discussing this with you. It is you that keeps bringing it up as a way to deflect from other things.
But more importantly:
| Quote: | | All of the rest of your post is just an attack on me, not on what I post. |
That is just incredible coming from you. You are a NASTY bit fo work Grumpy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: The Fall of Physics |
|
|
In my rarely humble opinion (LOL) many of the people who claim the WTC towers underwent gravitational collapse seem to exaggerate what gravity can do. This is a table showing the velocity and distance fallen by an object from a stationary start. In the first 1/10th of a second the mass moves less than 2 inches and is only traveling at 3.2 ft/sec. So a gravitational collapse of the WTC meant the falling top portion must have accelerated what it struck much more than gravity could have and also have broken whatever was supporting that intact portion of the building.
| Code: | v == initial velocity
Time V = at + v D = 1/2 at^2 + vt
v = 0
00.1 3.2 ft/sec 0.16 ft 1.92 in.
00.2 6.4 ft/sec 0.64 ft 7.68 in.
00.3 9.6 ft/sec 1.44 ft 17.28 1n.
00.4 12.8 ft/sec 2.56 ft
00.5 16.0 ft/sec 4.00 ft
00.6 19.2 ft/sec 5.76 ft
00.7 22.4 ft/sec 7.84 ft
00.8 25.6 ft/sec 10.24 ft
00.9 28.8 ft/sec 12.96 ft
01.0 32.0 ft/sec 16.00 ft
01.1 35.2 ft/sec 19.36 ft
01.2 38.4 ft/sec 23.04 ft
01.3 41.6 ft/sec 27.04 ft
01.4 44.8 ft/sec 31.36 ft
01.5 48.0 ft/sec 36.00 ft
01.6 51.2 ft/sec 40.96 ft
01.7 54.4 ft/sec 46.24 ft
01.8 57.6 ft/sec 51.84 ft
01.9 60.8 ft/sec 57.76 ft
02.0 64.0 ft/sec 64.00 ft |
No matter what brought the towers down the conservation of momentum cannot have been violated. This is the equation for an inelastic collision in which two masses stick together. If the second mass is stationary then v2 is zero.
Conservation of Momentum:
(m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m1 + m2) * v3
This means the ratio of the stationary mass to the impact mass greatly affects the resulting velocity. If the impact mass is smaller then it will be slowed considerably, but in the opposite case the velocity of the stationary mass will change a lot. But in a gravitational collapse there will be the additional effect of gravitational acceleration before and after impact.
So I have done the calculations for 3 "magical" cases. In each case four masses are magically suspended and when struck from above each mass is released with no resistance. In case #1 the 4 masses are are equal, 2.5 tons each. In case #2 the masses are in the sequence 1, 2, 3 and 4 tons from top to bottom. Case #3 is the reverse sequence of 4, 3, 2 and 1 ton. When the masses are struck from above they begin moving on the basis of conservation of momentum and undergo gravitational acceleration until the next object is struck. Case #0 is just a 10 ton mass dropped from 64 feet with no impacts and is used as a reference case.
| Code: | mass 1 mass 2 mass 3 mass 4
64 feet feet 48 feet 32 feet 16
Case 0 10 ton 0 0 0
speed 0 32 45.25 55.43 64 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.41 1.73 2 sec
Case 1 2.5 ton 2.5 2.5 2.5
speed 0 32 16 35.78 23.85 39.91 29.93 43.82 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.618 14% 2.12 23% 2.554 sec 28%
Case 2 1 ton 2 3 4
speed 0 32 10.67 33.74 16.87 36.17 21.70 38.66 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.721 22% 2.324 34% 2.854 sec 43%
Case 3 4 ton 3 2 1
speed 0 32 18.29 37.35 29.05 43.23 38.91 50.37 ft/sec
time 0 1 1.58 12% 2.023 17% 2.381 sec 19% |
The Case line specifies the weight of mass at each of the 4 heights, 64, 48, 32 and 16 feet. These heights were chosen because they correspond to the "1/2 * 32 feet/sec^2" that is in the distance from acceleration equation thereby making calculations easier.
The speed line has the velocity of the net mass before and after impact based on conservation of momentum.
The time line has the time for the mass to fall to that point and the percentage difference from Case 0.
A body in freefall dropped from the top of the World Trade Center would have taken 9.2 seconds to reach the ground. The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds. So that is only 20% longer than the freefall time. But the WTC collapses required that the tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete which had held up the buildings for 28 years be bent and broken and crushed. So how is it that only my absurd and miraculous collapse with inverted masses and disappearing supports comes down that fast in relation to freefall? A skyscraper must be bottom heavy and Case #2 using that distribution has double that percentage of time but it didn't require kinetic energy be used to break supports.
So what is the story with all of these people that claim there was a gravitational collapse but also pretend that knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level isn't necessary? I have demonstrated that changing the distribution of mass alters the collapse time regardless of the strength of the material involved and how much kinetic energy would be required to break it.
Time and velocity calculations after impacts:
| Code: | After Impact #1:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 16t 1 = t^2 + t t = 0.618 19.78+16
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 10.67t 1 = t^2 + 0.666875t t = 0.721 23.07+10.67
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 18.29t 1 = t^2 + 1.143125t t = 0.58 18.56+18.79
After Impact #2:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 23.85t 1 = t^2 + 1.490625t t = 0.502 16.06+23.85
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 16.87t 1 = t^2 + 1.054375t t = 0.603 19.30+16.87
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.05t 1 = t^2 + 1.815625t t = 0.443 14.18+29.05
After Impact #3:
Case 1: 16 = 16t^2 + 29.93t 1 = t^2 + 1.870781t t = 0.434 13.89+29.93
Case 2: 16 = 16t^2 + 21.70t 1 = t^2 + 1.35625t t = 0.53 16.96+21.70
Case 3: 16 = 16t^2 + 38.91t 1 = t^2 + 2.431875t t = 0.358 11.46+38.91 |
psik
_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hombre
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I mention this very thing months back which fell on deaf ears for good reason.
Nice post.
Google Dreier Structural Steel. See what you find ( good luck )
They manufactured the grills for the foundation of WTC. One grill was 34 plus tons worth of steel x how many others needed. Massive foundations, and if encased in concrete as some would say, a tremendously stout base.
Hombre |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: Re: The Fall of Physics |
|
|
| psikeyhackr wrote: |
So what is the story with all of these people that claim there was a gravitational collapse but also pretend that knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level isn't necessary? I have demonstrated that changing the distribution of mass alters the collapse time regardless of the strength of the material involved and how much kinetic energy would be required to break it.
|
The degree of sophistication required to do this, is staggering. Another aspect to the "big lie", which makes it more difficult to counter.
_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"
Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psikeyhackr
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: Re: The Fall of Physics |
|
|
| Christophera wrote: | | Another aspect to the "big lie", which makes it more difficult to counter. |
After SEVEN YEARS a lot of people would have to admit to themselves that they were really stupid also to have believed the LIE if they just assimilated the basic information about the nature of skyscrapers.
The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the destruction of the WTC. They didn't even have computers. How much have computers improved in seven years since the WTC was destroyed? How much since it was designed? A computer simulation of the impossibility of a straight down gravitational collapse of the north tower should not be that difficult for a skyscraper professional. I don't know how you compute the amount of energy necessary to crush one level of the building.
But then maybe skyscraper pros don't know either. They just have to compute the quantity of steel necessary to support the weight plus the standard safety margin. This is unique in their experience too. But I find it really strange that I can't find the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of ANY SKYSCRAPER.
psik
_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bri
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2887
Location: Capacious Creek
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So a popular "strange happening" highlighted as hinting towards an inside job is the "My Pet Goat" incident.
Although a seemingly odd place to pick up this kind of info,the most telling account of the incident I've heard to far is from a Michael Moore debunking film called "Farenhype 9/11" I believe...a bit dull overall.
I can see why it would angry your average "lib" so they overlook a key aspect if they even bother to look at it.
The teacher of the class on the day mentions that Bush did not say anything because a Secret Service Agent held up a card that said "Don't say anything yet.".
I swear...look it up. In terms of the inside job angle, the fact that he knew that little about what to do or say should be telling in it's own way. Maybe he was there for a reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
