The Sheeple Analyst: The Fall of the WTC
|
|
|
Mr. Sheeple: Sheeple Analyst: No doubt you could imagine anyone piloting a heavy as though it were a Model T. That's why I am not interested in any more of your ignorance. You have such blindered thought processes (if they can be called that) that you have proved my point sufficiently that I don't need further evidence of sheeple ignorance and stupidity. You don't account for the navigation across hundreds of miles, the handling of controls of a Boeing 757 or 767 at very high speeds, the restrictions the Flight Control Computer places upon a human pilot in flight beyond commercial parameters, and the extraordinary accuracy of landing a heavy into the first floor of the Pentagon without marring the lawn and missing most of the second floor, you don't account for the descent and bank into the south tower of the WTC estimated to be 5 g, and you don't account for the 270 degree turn and dive from 7,000 feet over Washington DC into the west wedge of the Pentagon. In fact, your primer on flight control would make a good children's book, My Adventures in Flying. Mr. Sheeple:
Okay, then revel in your mechanical concepts ignorance if you want. Fine
with me! Sheeple Analyst:
Your reach for an understanding of the Flight Control Computer purpose and
function far exceeds your grasp. Go research this topic before you spout
more nonsense. It's purpose is far more than translating mechanical into
hydraulic.
THERE'S a nifty piece of mechanical conceptualization! "as if they did not exist..."!
Now you are trying to apply a little magic because the mathematics and
physics contradicts your theory. Please don't let a little thing like
Newtonian physics get in your way. If it doesn't help your ideology, just
set it aside for a moment, a "divine moment" perhaps. You are rejecting
300 years of scientific advancement so that you can get the WTC to fall
"as if structural elements did not exist" so that the rate of fall could
be FREE fall. You think YOU have a corner on mechanical concepts? Such an
answer on your Physics 101 pop quiz would get you a big fat
F AND derisive laughter from the rest of the
class. Mr. Sheeple: "One witness seeing a commercial jet hit the Pentagon is contradicted by another who thought it was a military fighter, countered by another who thought they saw a small commercial jet, debunked by another who saw a missile, and so on. You've forgotten or probably never discovered that there are several witnesses and they each saw something different " Well, then, what the hell was it? A fast bird? Sheeple Analyst: Haven't found any evidence of a fast bird yet. Not in the physical evidence or in witness testimony. But there is certainly no incontrovertible evidence for a commercial jet so stop pouting and accept the evidence or lack of it. It does no good to make up a legend in your own mind. That's only lying to yourself. I had hoped that there would be some sign that a sheeple could become aware of his bondage, but you've proved to me in this one case that it might be totally hopeless. Some folks will just go through their whole lifetime in mental and spiritual bondage. It might be in the DNA or perhaps it is a spiritual contract. Clearly, no amount of careful reasoning, logic, or facts can dislodge the ideology with which a sheeple identifies. As an identity problem, sheeplehood is a spiritual issue that is beyond argument and sensibility. Good luck.
Mr. Sheeple:
Use your self-styled superior intellect,
thinking and reasoning ability to answer this question: If all the people
of middle eastern descent reported to have been seeking flight training in
various flight schools around the nation, and planned on getting into
commercial aviation, why would they ask to be taught how to fly a 767 but
not taking off and landing? The logical conclusion is they intended to
hijack an aircraft already in flight and never intended to land it intact!
Sheeple Analyst:
I haven't self-styled anything. That's another
legend in your own mind. It appears to be intended to upset. However, I
always consider the source in all cases.
We don't know who planned 9/11 attacks.
That's another projection, because I have changed my mind as new information was available. You won't even go look. See: 9-11 "Hijackers" Still Alive Mr. Sheeple: True statements in the context of your thinking. You, when faced with the truth, slither and dodge. That is why I referred to you some time ago as a "legend in your own mind" because you believe your perception is the truth and that anything contrary to what you want to believe has to be a lie. You say that you changed with respect to the facts I had to point out to you regarding the fallacy of that WTC 7 item concerning "pull the building". But, you adamantly still insist that the twin towers were loaded with explosives rather than changing your mind on that when presented you with facts contrary to your belief. Instead of accepting the view of Dr. Eagar of MIT and others who correctly assessed the reason the towers fell, you have adamantly insisted they were wrong, and therefore proclaimed your lack of knowledge and experience in the "mechanical" elements of structural engineering and design takes precedence over that of experienced engineers. To claim they were "in on the conspiracy" is a fallacious premise which adss many to the cast of thousands allegedly in on the "truth" that the WTC towers were hit by explosives. I will believe in your views only when you acknowledge you were wrong on the implosion and that experienced and knowledgeable structure engineers were correct in their assessment. Sheeple Analyst: You are expecting me to follow YOUR modus operandi: FOLLOW SOMEONE ELSE THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE IN, DON'T THINK FOR YOURSELF. I've told you many times that that is the description of a sheeple. I provided you with facts and principles of physics to substantiate what Professor Eagar left out of his analysis YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THAT. I got a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. All of whom were utilizing laws of physics and mathematics that Eagar was NOT. Eagar is NOT an experienced engineer. He is a college professor. You know, those ivory tower guys with their head in the clouds and don't know how to function in the practical world. You sure flip-flop when you wish to. Worse than Kerry. As usual you prattle about the same nonsense about conspiracy of thousands without knowing anything about it other than having read something about it in the past 30 years. You are so programmed with that line that I can see the practicality in NOT being in the military. They took your organic computer and installed the necessary programs to make a useful New World Order automaton of you. Useless to tell you about freedom or what's happening to the Constititution and Bill of Rights under both Democrat and Republican regimes. You have to get out of the quagmire by yourself. I've tried to give you a helping hand but you refuse it and squirm deeper in the morass. Pitiful. I don't give a crap if you believe in what I say or not. What is true is true. What is a lie is a lie. But then I brought in the implosion evidence because it reflects what is true according to the evidence. You don't even understand the law of acceleration so you have no clue how important that is to the mass of other evidence. You see some propaganda on TV and you have no tools to evaluate it so you just take their word for it. Don't care if you take my word for it or not. That's YOUR problem not mine. I've got 13 chapters done on my book, The Sheeple Analyst and my website now has a Page Rank 6 on Google. We're closing in on 2,000 visitors a day. Sheeple Analyst has moved up in the Google results for "sheeple" to #31 out of 22,000 other web sites. We'll be in the top ten soon and then many more people can see your anonymous sheepling. It's quite a display. But I am also working on a progressive sheeple analyst to give it some balance. Wouldn't wish to ignore the dumb followers programmable organic computers on the left.. I'm working on the fallacy of Peak Oil. Turns out that it likely is NOT a fossil fuel. Outmoded science has been replaced by substantial research by the Russians for half a century while the West was playing in the geological sand box. Truth doesn't know right from the left. It just IS. Mr. Sheeple unbold and Sheeple Analyst in bold: And, you are expecting me to follow YOUR modus operandi. You provided me with "facts and principles of physics" you claim Eagar left out, but you fail to consider the matter of mass. Failed to consider the "matter of mass?" I'll dissect that for you below. I assumed you would get it from the first 5 times I explained it. Left out mass? It was the M in the equation you thought too complicated. Holy Cow! You still think massive things fall faster than the less massive? Your grasp of fundamental principles is only about 500 years behind. Galileo would be disappointed you hadn't understood his scientific breakthrough yet. He laid the groundwork for Newtonian Mechanics! Of course, you are referring to the matter of "floors above the crash scene cannot fall through floors below, so you therefore proclaim and assume that explosives had to be used to get the floors out of the way. You also cited the experiment at the leaning tower of Pisa regarding free fall, then include a complicated formula to "prove your point". Gee, I'm sorry the physics and mathematics was too difficult for you but you seemed confident of your capacity to program your organic computer. I'll try to make it simpler this time. See below. As I have said in response to your comments that I read, but you ignored. I will restate that below:
So you're suggesting a la Eagar that floors fell on each other from the top down, the weight of the floors above exceeding the maximum load of the floor on which they fell accumulating more mass and more readily destroying the structure in each successive floor. How long would you estimate it would take for your scenarios of fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash-fall-smash to be complete? Would you propose something like one second for each floor? Perhaps we could cut that in half, say one half second each floor, taking a bit more time at the top and a bit less at the bottom. How many seconds is that? Let's see now....about 110 floors. Let's knock that down to 100 floors even. That would be.....50 seconds. Nope, won't work. Five times too long. That's way too long. Then let's say that it took only a half-second on the top 50 floors and a quarter of a second in the bottom 50 floors. That would be 25 seconds for the top 50 floors to get half way down...added to 12.5 seconds for the WTC to fall the rest of the way. That's 37.5 seconds. Nope. That won't work. That's nearly 4 times too long. So what if it only took half second to smash-fall the top 25 floors, one quarter second to crush each of the next 25 floors, one tenth of a second to demolish the next 50 floors......that's 12.5 + 6.25 + 5 = 23.75 seconds. Nope! Still took too long by more than double. C'mon! I'm squeezing this hypothesis as much as I can and it still seems way off. (How fast can you say fall-smash 100 times? Try it. Time it.) OK. Let's try a quarter of a second in the top 50 and one tenth the rest of the way. That's 12.5 + 5 = 17.5 seconds. Still too slow. OK. That's it! For anything to be so ground up as the WTC ended up, lot's of powder. stuff has to be hitting other stuff, right. So there HAS to be SOME collision time to do all that work. We saw the pieces, the dust AT THE START of the fall. Demolition does take energy and in this case a lot of energy. That energy of smashing + the energy of falling (yes, even falling, acceleration) must all be accounted for. Calculations for the FASTEST time that the WTC could reach the bottom is about 10 seconds. That's with NOTHING getting in the way, not even touching anything else on the way down. It's called free fall. Free fall represents the sole effect of gravity causing a mass to accelerate through space between a point above the earth to the surface of the earth. The hypothesis you have suggested and that Professor Eagar and the Bush Liars' Club would have us believe is that a 110 story building fell from 1300 feet up to approximately street level at the rate of free fall yet it serially crushed floors below on the way down as though they weren't there. According to the Official Conspiracy Theory, WTC was in a hurry that cannot be accounted for by laws of physics. You can't have the WTC fall at the rate of free fall and still encounter even the tiniest bit of resistance on the way down. A tiny bit of resistance on the way down means that it can't get there in the time that is in evidence. Eagar's hypothesis fails simply the top can't get down as fast as the documented facts demonstrate. If it doesn't fit the facfs, it's filed in the circular file. It's not about "wanting" to believe. The hypothesis proffered by the Prof. just simply does NOT fit the observed facts. If you wish to throw out the observed and provable facts, then any opinion will do. But al-Qaeda could not repeal the laws of physics even if they COULD get the USAF to stay on the ground for an hour while they flew all over, the Northeast, (even over several USAFB). Unless, of course, Allah is really that good. There you have a choice:
I find it interesting that yourself and others with academic college degrees, and no degrees in structural engineering, arrogantly proclaim that professor Eagar is wrong and does not know what he is talking about because his analysis, and that of others, was contrary to what you and other conspiracy advocates want to believe. Isn't it amazing that YOU with NO engineering degree nor even a rudimentary grasp of the laws of physics can arrogantly proclaim that in YOUR judgment Professor Eagar was correct? How does a vocational degree make YOU an adequate judge of the science involved. It would be analogous to myself and others lacking education in biology making declaring as fact statements and observations contrary to principles of biology, then considering you as being wrong when you proclaim to the contrary based on your education toward the Masters degree in biology! I have also been a successful salesman, landscape designer, entrepreneur, commercial grower, artist, and now Internet marketer and educator. I've built from scratch, redesigned and remodeled. I've repaired cars, lawnmowers, trucks, and tractors......all of this without a formal education in the field. As I said, you are a "legend in your own mind" because you see yourself as the self-proclaimed expert in everything, to the extent you would like everyone to quit reading newspapers and watching the television news and then concentrate solely on your website for you to spoonfeed them your version of the world around us. If what you say were the true I would not have thousands of links that visitors might use to leave my website. I've proclaimed over and over to you that I DON'T know everything and that I go looking for expert advice and analysis as well as investigative reporting. Much of that I BRING TO the SEVENTH FIRE for others to use in their learning. You, on the other hand, love the "programming" you get on corporate- controlled TV and the corporate-controlled newspapers, eagerly lapping up the propaganda and accept the corporate version of the world regardless of how much they lie and manipulate the news. How foolish you are. You say such silly things and then expect anyone to take you seriously. Nothing you say can stand up to documentation and proof. I even make judicious use of the corporate news to read between the lines, weigh it against historical record and past performance. My "alternative" sources are mostly mainstream sources which I have carefully chosen to shine the light of truth on the darkness of the lies. Your attempt at judging me is pathetic since your opinion is of less than NO value. Your opinion is a signal to look for the programming hidden in your organic computer. Our extensive conversation has shown me propagandists' many tricks and devices employed to try to manipulate others. It's been quite an education. Thanks. Mr. Sheeple: Another thought: You refer to me as a "sheeple", but you are yourself a "sheeple" by following the misguided WTC and other concepts proposed by various websites run by conspiracy theorists lacking the knowledge of structural engineering principles, rather than thinking for yourself. As I said, you are a legend in your own mind because you assume you are the fount of all knowledge. Just because I disagree with your concept contradicting that put forth by Professor Eagar of MIT, rather than eagerly and blindly accept the premise, you naively assume I have not read what you said about Eagar's analysis of the WTC collapse. I reject your fallacious analysis because it is based on naive speculation rather than based on knowledge as is Prof. Eagar's analysis. If he is that inept and still a professor of structural engineering at MIT, then there must be many structures collapsing due to failed engineering and design principles due to inept structural engineers getting their degrees based on courses Eagar taught. Soon as I manage to find a photo of the upwind side of the WTC burning towers, and send it to you, you will have to change your mind! Because it clearly shows the entire crash floor burning with intense flames, then it shows the outside structural members BUCKLING OUTWARD FOLLOWED BY COLLAPSE OF THE UPPER FLOORS ONTO THE BURNING FLOOR! Of course, you will spend weeks figuring out a way to rationalize that which is in conflict with what you want to believe as one with a masters degree in biology rather than structural engineer. Sheeple Analyst: The shop teacher is telling the man with the master's degree in biology that the shop teacher knows so much about structural engineering and physics that he can readily recognize the truth of Professor Eagar's explanation for the WTC and judge it to be correct? He uses NO facts, no evidence, to explain the acceleration of the structure to the ground at the rate of free fall while still positing that one floor fell on another and then another and still arrives at the bottom of the fall as though nothing slowed the fall along the way. He doesn't notice that he has just merged two explanations into one even though they are mutually exclusive. You are sheeple because you follow blindly according to your programmed organic computer unaware that someone is programming you or is using your programming to dump lie after lie into the database. As a result you can't see the mutual exclusivity of the elements of your reasoning and think that you have performed a masterful reply that would boost your status above sheeple. Your mind IS all legend and myth. Since you cannot even grasp the law of acceleration, it is unreasonable to expect that you would grasp anything that has not been fed into your organic computer from the boob tube or the corporate progeny of the corporate state. Newton's law of acceleration has not been speculative for about 300 years and has found frequent application by many engineers. Typical of your programming, you only judge my statement as fallacious without rationale or evidence What is fallacious about Newton's law of acceleration? Just an opinion of a shop teacher incapable of the will to learn, only to follow. A sheeple. A sheeple with hubris but without ambition to actually investigate something. Professor Eagar necessarily left out the Newton's law because it would destroy his whole analysis. Unless he can account for the building reaching the ground at the rate of free fall, ALL of what he advocated is in question. It is the Achilles heel of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Without any evidence you refer to "various websites run by conspiracy theorists lacking the knowledge of structural engineering principles." To state this is not to prove anything. It is as hollow as the simpleton who stated it. Actually, these are engineers and physicists who are looking for answers and have not necessarily formulated ANY conspiracy theories. They see a flaw in the Official Conspiracy Theory and pursue it to understand what happened. YOU can simplistically call it a conspiracy theory because that is part of your programming. That is how your organic computer has been fitted to dismiss inconvenient facts and explanations. You have been programmed to follow, not think for yourself. Sheeple. I didn't eagerly and blindly accept Newton's law of acceleration. I had taught that principle years ago. It was, however, helpful that other scientifically trained people pointed out the anomaly in the Official Conspiracy Theory and laid out the mathematics. I studied it for some time before I accepted their analysis. You, on the other hand, had never even heard of it and classified it as speculative. That pinned the tail on that donkey. You think I'm saying Professor Eagar is inept? No. He just depends upon YOU being inept and uneducated in scientific disciplines. He knows which side of the bread the butter is on. You don't get yet that the game is just about over and the Illuminati can depend on most of the American people not ever grasping the significance of the fast rate of fall of the WTC. Dumbed down by the boob tube and controlled news, more interested in bread and circuses than the condition of the Republic, too many Americans haven't the tools to understand something like this even if, like you, it is placed before them and explained in elementary terms. You bring up some irrelevant fact such as "you neglected You don't seem to understand that it matters not one wit how hot the fires got or how the structural members bulged. Gravity only works one way and it works that way EVERY day whether you like it or not. They obviously didn't teach you that in your college industrial education courses. And you still haven't acknowledged your flip-flop on ivory tower professors who have no practical knowledge of the real world. You've huffed and puffed on that a few times but now you embrace Professor Eagar because it is convenient. Not very honest, Mr. Sheeple. Mr. Sheeple: Nope! Just that growing mass from accumulated floors will quickly overload successive floors to the point where they instantly collapse as if they were not there at all. Prof. Eagar did not "forget" that, he only did not believe it to be relevant as he stated the reason for the collapse on the basis of his knowledge and experience in Structural engineering and design. Knowledge and experience you and others lack but push it to rationalize the contention that explosives were planted. I guess you are as guilty of failing to read what I write as you claim I am allegedly guilty of failing to read what your write. I have repeatedly pointed out that, unlike impolding high rise buildings of standard construction by taking 3 months to rig the main support columns to bring it down in its "footprint", the WTC's unconventional design and construction would take much longer. Much longer to rig because explosive charges would have had to be placed at each end of each floor joist on each floor of an occupied building over a longer span of time to prevent detection. Charges would have had to be placed above the drop ceiling, which would have meant moving office furniture for steplader access to remove ceiling tiles, then replace the tiles and spend time making sure everything was placed in its original position to avoid raising suspicion. Office workers would quickly realize if some little thing was out of place. Building security and office scurity, along with Port Authority Police stationed in the building would surely have noticed suspicious activity. Of course, you think they all were in on the conspiracy and looked the other way. That is assuming that none of them would have had either a guilty conscience and "blew the whistle", or inadvertantly talked out of turn on a social occasion with a lapse or too much to drink. It is irrational to believe that a conspiracy with a cast of thousands could keep a secret very long. Besides, it is irrational to belive that the Port Authority police would allow their franternal "brothers" to be on duty in their offices if they knew that the WTC would be bombed and result in a loss of life. Sheeple Analyst: Is that what Professor Eagar said? "instantly collapse as if they were not there at all."? Or did you infer that from what you thought he said? In addition to the time involved is also the energy involved, but that's the mathematics you didn't like. You haven't explained yet how you can fawn over this "ivory tower professor" type that you would have nothing to do with previously. But you find one of those disgusting creatures that says what you like and you are a big fan of his. Don't you consider that quite dishonest and disingenuous to make such a convenient transition? So which is the truism:
You can't have it both ways, you know. You make your stand and STAND if that is a truism. What makes it OK for you to discard your previous position and hold to its opposite? Do you hold ANY truths to be self-evident and or is waffling permitted by your new religion? It IS a secular religion, you know. Its god is satanic, its prophet is Machiavelli, and the current representative, called by some the Prince of Darkness, is Richard Perle. He's a really awesome role model, don't you think so? Behold a voice of one crying in the wilderness--Ron Paul calling you to take a stand as a conservative, perhaps? In cartoons, things can fall on something else as though they weren't there, but outside of Toon Town there is a time and a space construct in which there is a measurable physical consequence of an action. There is a cause and an effect. That is what the complicated mathematical formula was stating. By admitting that mass encountered structural resistance, even if that structure were quickly crushed, the result is to slow the fall of the upper mass even a small amount. Therefore the upper floors were NOT falling as though they were falling through the air. They were falling through structural resistance and the inertia of mass. That is the way the world works according to the currently accepted laws of physics. Therefore the top could not get to the bottom in the time predicted by Newton's law of acceleration. The calculations using Newton's law of acceleration for the WTC come out to about 10 seconds. That's the time it would take for any dense mass to fall through a column of air 1300 feet high. If you put a more dense medium in the column it would fall slower. Air would be more readily displaced by the falling mass, water less so and a mixture of air and solid structural elements still less. The greater the density of the medium, the greater the time required to traverse the same distance. The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. I hope you can recognize the physical impossibility of falling through structural elements and masses of furniture, concrete, and steel as fast as falling through air. I taught these principles to ninth graders. What's so difficult? My word model was just a very simplified version I hoped you would find helpful in understanding Newton's law of acceleration. Alas, you either didn't try to understand it because you don't wish to acknowledge principles of science that get in the way of your belief system or you don't have the capacity to understand science. Both of these characterize sheeple--willful ignorance or functional ignorance. It becomes necessary to purge the programs that block effective use of their organic computer or give up on trying to extend its capacity. No, unlike you I do read what you say and respond almost point by point to your assertions. I know you have noticed because you have commented on how much I write. Darned if I do and darned if I don't. That's another Machiavellian ploy of the Zionists you voted for, buddies of his dad, you know.. So now you proclaim the specifications for demolition as though you were a demolition expert. I didn't know they taught that at Mankato State! Did you get a specialist certificate in demolition? Or, perhaps in your vast experience in the private sector you had occasion to rig a building for demolition? Could it be that you did some free-lance work in demolition or studied under a demolition guru in your spare time? You have a few of the terms, like "rig" and "footprint" but you could have picked that up from watching TV news. Maybe you got a book from the library about demolition of skyscrapers 1300 feet high? What is the title? I'd like to look it over. I wonder if Cave Junction has that book. I might have go all the way to Grants Pass to get that. From a practical viewpoint, though, I just don't see why one must place a demolitions charge at the outermost tip of the beam nor do I see a necessity to get into the ceiling to "rig" a charge along the beam. You had previously pointed out that once the joints had been sufficiently heated to weaken the connectors the collapse at the central columns would pull the connectors at the outer walls loose and the floor would force the outer walls to bulge out. Wasn't that the scenario you were proposing? I don't think the Official Conspiracy Theory required that the connectors at the outer walls be heated to lose their integrity at the same time as the connectors at the core. So check this out. You have just required that a hypothetical demolition plan would require the simultaneous loss of integrity in the outer wall as in the core. You have proposed that this be accomplished by rigging demolitions charges both at the outer wall and at the core. This is a Tutti-Fruiti Express again. This is NOT how Eagar has described the fall of the WTC in his chapter of the Official Conspiracy Theory. What you accept in the Official Conspiracy Theory is unacceptable in an alternative hypothesis. You are creating an hypothesis for demolition that is not required of the Eagar explanation. Why is that? Was it just to be able to revisit the silly scenario of messing up people's desks and being discovered because of an overturned jar of paperclips? Or footprints on the Etch-a-sketch? No, I didn't miss reading this. I've just responded to it several times previously, explaining how the demolition could have been done at the core through the elevator shafts with entry points at the maintenance floors under the security provided by the corporation in which Marvin Bush sits on the Board of Directors. You just added this latest piece about rigging at the outer walls to get demolitions riggers on someone's desk. But in your rush to prove this little nonsense, you forgot the original parameters Eagar pointed out. Well, you won't pass as a structural engineer or as a demolitions expert. You're having a hard enough time just keeping track of the lies. It's quite a juggling act, so take heart, you're doing well enough to step into plenty of doo-doo. So wipe your shoes clean. I can imagine you've taken care of the silly, self-confident "gotcha grin" cuz..... I gotcha!!! Unfortunately. Wish it weren't so, but you keep insisting on juggling lies and it's really very easy to trip up liars. Truth is quite solid. Lies squish around a lot and you never can keep your footing when you engage to lie. Alas! You've forgotten about Martin Bush! I forgot to remind you again for the umpteenth time. There's this little tidbit of evidence that the President's brother sat on the Board of Directors of the corporation in charge of security at the WTC AND at Dulles AND at United Airlines. Isn't that just a lovely coincidence? You've also forgotten the nature of the Fascist State. As Mussolini defined it, fascism is the Corporate State. All corporations are creatures of the State, which grants corporate privilege and commands allegiance. The US was incorporated in England in 1871 and all states and local governments are subsidiaries. That was in the information I sent you that you thought was too difficult and boring to read. Too bad. Gotta turn on the lights before you can grasp the truth behind the illusion. Otherwise you keep bumping into things in the dark. Then you are no longer free because the Illuminati know how helpless you are and they don't plan to be nice about it. As I have said before: There is no problem keeping a conspiracy a secret when you control what people learn in school, what people read in the newspapers and magazines, what people see on TV and in the movies, what people eat, breathe, and drink. There is no problem remaining hidden in plain sight if the dumbies don't know what to look for. There is no problem controlling their mind when you can program them as they get into the military boot camp, while they watch TV and movies, etc. There is no problem keeping them complacent by just repeating often enough that large conspiracies would not remain hidden because someone would spill the beans. So large conspiracies become possible because the sheeple have been convinced that what they are seeing is not possible therefore it must not be so. Thousands of whistleblowers and nobody listening because they can think such a thing could not be so. If it was so, they mumble, someone would be blowing the whistle. That's sheeple, Mr. Sheeple. The Illuminati think of the sheeple as "goyim." It's a derogatory appellation that means roughly, "cattle." Until you have read and understsood the Protocols, you have no idea about conspiracy and how it works. For now you have a small conception and a severely limited idea about what it is. You can find this type of loose conspiracy in action and adventure movies and on TV, comic books and pulp novels, but this is not THAT kind of conspiracy. What we are facing is a multi-generational, millennial, historical, demonic secular religion with rigid rules, stern penalties, careful recruitment, and fiercely final enforcement. People HAVE breached their agreements and were sometimes terminated without prejudice but usually quietly suicided, accidented, or disappeared. Those who survived were professionally, politically, or personally destroyed and made irrelevant to the Goyim. The cattle barely notice the disturbance and go back to grazing. What do the Port Authority Police have to do with firemen and WTC security?
By the way, Professor Eagar just tossed one of your pet theories in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory--the aluminum catching fire. Here is that portion of the Nova program:
Lies face a losing battle to the truth. 
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer, told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture? Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study. Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of RightsAmendment 1Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Queen
Victoria
