Right. Let's remember this thread was actually started by Mick, let's be charitable and say 'on my behalf', but really just because he didn't want to talk about the other subject; the thread for which he closed without good reason (other than he felt like it). Let's leave aside some of the ludicrous claims about Iran and 'al-qaeda' - an organization made up by the FBI back in the nineties in order that they might prosecute bin Laden in absentia, using existing laws created to deal wth the mafia. You see, they required an organization with a command structure in order to do that - without it, new laws would have had to be drafted and that didn't suit - much easier just to make it up. 'Al-qaida' was 'born' out of the database (and the fertile imagination of some establishment people) of Mujahadeen trained and funded by the CIA, MI6 and ISI during the Russian episode in Afghanistan. There's abundant evidence to back this claim, so get to work and try to stop being blinded by the bullshit spun at you. If all you want is to cling to the paradigm you desire to be real, then don't bother getting to work. All of you appear to be quite happy being on a war footing. Them against us. It's ok that the US and UK go about the world arming people and then killing them if they don't do what they're told - ie. give us your resources so we can maintain a better standard of living at your expense. I've really no time for people like you. You simply have no idea, and worse, you don't really want to see the reality of it. Suffering of others for your benefit is ok with you lot so long as it is at a remove in distance and culture and it doesn't affect your 'cost of living'. To conclude: Some posters here are so blinded by the propaganda they will seize upon any old bullshit and present it as fact - then, when Meta Mick holds forth, they flip and acquiesce to his view all of a sudden.Here's a picture of the North Tower going down. Would anyone care to say that this looks like a 'progressive collapse'?
On to this photo: Let's have a look at the arrow pointing to the steel being thrown through the air. Follow the arrow line to the opposite end of the pointy bit and then, at around 9.30 to that point you will see another piece of steel, much higher than the ones the arrow points to. Another reference point to this is the top of the building - find the top of the building and go about one and a quarter inches to the right and fractionally higher: there is the steel I am discussing. Now, let's take Mick's analogy of a car driving through people spaced ten feet apart (it's a ridiculous analogy as the material involved doesn't bear comparison to the actual ones, but hey-ho, let's go with it anyway). Given that the main body of the top part of the building is below this errant piece of steel, what could we conclude from this? That the large part of the building is accelerating faster than this piece of steel detached and presumably in freefall. Presumably Mick will come up with some nonsense about 'bouncing' steel beams, but what did it bounce off, Mick? Did it bounce up? This picture asks us to believe that a mass trying to break through a greater mass below it is moving faster than a piece of steel in freefall. When are you people going to stop deluding yourselves?
Last edited by a moderator: