Its not just that. He has told us about other conspiracies that he believes in comes out with some ridiculous **** like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a truthful guy and his words should be believed over others.
Wonder what their conclusions will be Bet they half answer things and dont even bother to fully address any points of question from the "loony theorists" and subsequently leave more questiobs than answers, but still managing to paint conspiracy theorists (hate that term) as nutbeans at the same time
[video=youtube;_RpSv3HjpEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw[/video] Is this the same Rumsfeld you're basing your theory on?
I dont see him to be a truthful guy. Everyone has their bias and opinions as words from these people will be tailored to suit as much. But his opinion and assertons should certainly be taken on board. The man has first hand experience of being the focal point of hostilities from the America/Isreal power cartel
Thank you for backing up our point with further examples of the mans lack of integrity and deceitfulness.
Or the fact that the man was as much of a ****ing idiot as his boss. I don't doubt he's deceitful and an absolute **** but that adds absolutely no weight to your fantasy theories.
ST, not politicians in general....the actual same individual people who told us the 9/11 story, the same people whos lies have cost millions of lives. Why are we to believe them on 9/11? You can think what you like about me, its what gets said to anyone who does not believe the official story, its standard. Can you honestly tell me that you believe 100% what they told you about 9/11? Medro, Mr Alien Ghost Moonlanding Man, what other conspiracies are these? I have answered your questions in seperate posts and told you to check your beloved NIST for the latest theory - shows how cluieless you are on this topic.
eddie There is absolutely no point in arguing with people like you. You can twist anything, any fact, any theory to fit in with what you want to believe is the case and no matter what evidence people provide you with you either ignore it or twist it to suit your argument. Anyone who doesn't agree with your madcap theories is instantly labelled as gullible or a sheeple (which is a ridiculously childish term). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, no matter how concrete the evidence, that will convince you that your argument is wrong. It's actually quite frustrating sitting here watching you put forward incredibly flimsy evidence and suggesting that it's "proof" that your theory is correct then watching people take that evidence apart only for you to ignore this and carry on as if it doesn't matter.
[video=youtube;-IACdhpfZjk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk[/video] [video=youtube;0VJGILSOr2k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=0VJGILSOr2k[/video]
What's your point? That they used 9/11 to push through legislation? Everyone knows that. It does not prove that there was some intricate and well planned conspiracy.
Its a question, im not making a point with it. A simple yes or no answer is all you have to give. So yes or no?
1. In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat. In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types. If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C. This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°Câhardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmithâs bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel richâhardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750â800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best. 2. He said that the pancake theory has been proved wrong and there is now another official story. 3. But do you not think that these could have been produced out of the 1.2m tonnes of rubble? 4. Easy to dissapear a plane? He said there was evidence from people who said they didn't see a plane. So what did they see? 5. So millions of dollars, years of planning this and the guy says that they shot down a plane in an interview is evidence that the whole thing is an inside job?
Could easily have been muslim terrorists believing they were acting in a muslim terrorist ploe but who was actually pulling the strings of the operations was a mystery. Look im not getting into the nitty gritty of this as there are several methods it could have been executed and all are THEORIES but that doesnt mean they can be dismissed out of hand. There are a variety of ways this could have been pulled off
