Jimbo

shouldnt those words be replaced with, "racist allegations" It's whats known as a euphemism. I think the word they are looking for is suspended.

1, Apprentice Electrical Engineer. 2, Electrical Engineer. Boring eh ?

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? Do you have a working theory of which camera would show a shadow on which car park given the lighting and flight path? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? There's debris all over the place in the pics I've seen. no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ? 2001? Did you have a camera phone? Would that have been your first action if you were there? Are you saying you honestly think that none of the camera's monitoring the Pentagon would have picked up any evidence of an aircraft ?? I've not seen any pictures that catagorically prove that 757 hit that building. OK, camera phone's maybe I'll conceed that one, but the chances of not one person filming an aircraft heading towards the Pentagon are just daft.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Exactly. Well known that government buildings have CCTV cameras or the like logging the comings and goings in,out,and immediately surrounding the buildings. As I've mentioned elsewhere it smacks of 'something to hide'. Quite alot I'd imagine. The cameras would be covering walkways, doors and ground levels. Not approximately 30 foot of the exterior walls, or pointing up at the sky. Really. A building of that degree of importance to the US government? Christ they'd know if a dog farted within a mile of that building if it was a black or chocolate lab and what kind of kibble it was fed. And what would a camera pointing at the exterior of the upper floors or the sky tell you? What threat would it be looking for? And how would you keep the attention of the officer/s monitoring all the approximately 200 cameras that would require focused? So none of the CCTV of the carparks had any indication of a shaddow of a massive aircraft ? or any of the exterior CCTV captured any pictures of debris ?? no one with a camera phone thought to take a picture of the massive airplane heading directly to the pentagon ?

Seems amazing that considering all of the amateur footage of the planes hitting the world trade center that no one filmed anything approaching, or hitting the Pentagon.

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level. Speed of the plane? Number of frames per second of the CCTV cameras? Number of cameras covering the impact site? what exactly was the speed of the plane ? and what was exactly the frame rate of the cameras ??

The cameras that point up at the sky? Have you read this thread? I went over this with Parky... The camera didn't need to be pointing up at the sky, the "plane" hit at ground level.

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building? 2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do? 3. Yes 4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect? 5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh. Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened? I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again. Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too? I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm aahh snopes.com, the source of irifutable truth. Pretty good site and very useful I think, a lot more reliable than the conspiracy sites and what's more they are independent. Unless they are in on it too! Agreed, I just don't believe every thing just because they say so, bit like the US government.

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building? 2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do? 3. Yes 4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect? 5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh. Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened? I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again. Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too? I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm aahh snopes.com, the source of irifutable truth.

Anyone doubting the conspiracy theories would do well to give this a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag exactly the excuse required to invade Iraq and Afganistan.

That would be pretty hard considering he's dead.

http://www.clipstr.com/videos/GuyFilmsHims...gAndGetsCaught/

If he plays 10 matches for ManUre he'll get a medal surely ? *presuming they win.

Screaming Trees - Nearly Lost You

Its incredible stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALIH9dAAAUc

Classy girl.

Wan.... no, no I can't.........

Jesus wept.

No need for a detonation device if thermite is used. Termites can't chew through steel. George Bush had a special thermite termite camp in Texas for years.

No need for a detonation device if thermite is used.

Good call, I was chuffed to bits when I watched that film with my 7 year old daughter for the first time, she loved it, its a truely great movie.

Nope, in fact they were the first 3 buildings ever to fall into their own footprint because of a fire. Not only was it a fire, but it was the hottest fire known to man, able to melt all of the steel in the towers. Amazing stuff Quelle suprise! Which part? The whole thing. Jet fuel burns off very vast and would have been totally unable to sustain a fire of the required heat for the length of time to melt steel. I agree with you by the way Fires were burning at temperatures of 1000 degree's C weeks after the "attacks", thats a text book example of Thermite rather than aviation fuel. Have I read this thread wrong? Thought most people were saying it was as the US told us? I'm open minded regarding the theories regarding 911, I'm just not arrogant enough to say that one argument is right or wrong.

Apocalypto By far and away the best film I've seen in the last 12 months.