My opinion about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

[Psy]

I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not).

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

[Majix]

Originally posted by Psy
I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? *A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not). *

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

quite the active mind :P do you just think about debate topics all day long? :wub:

[Psy]

Originally posted by Majix+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Majix)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Psy

I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? *A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not). *

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

quite the active mind :P do you just think about debate topics all day long? :o :wub:[/b]

Unfortunately, yes. And it drives me crazy. About an hour ago I was going to make a topic about: Why in Kill Bill Vol.2, in the scene between Elle and Budd, does the amount of margarita change inbetween cuts? Exactly how wasted were they when they were filming that scene? I also saw in War of the Worlds that the actor playing the father (Tom Cruise) threw a rock at the window instead of a baseball while playing catch with his son- yet it was to be passed off as a baseball. Why is it that they had him throw a rock? What do they gain by doing so?

[lIIIIIIIIIIl]

Originally posted by Psy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psy)</div>

Originally posted by Majix@
<!--QuoteBegin-Psy

I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? *A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not). *

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

quite the active mind :P do you just think about debate topics all day long? :wub:

Unfortunately, yes. And it drives me crazy. About an hour ago I was going to make a topic about: Why in Kill Bill Vol.2, in the scene between Elle and Budd, does the amount of margarita change inbetween cuts? Exactly how wasted were they when they were filming that scene? I also saw in War of the Worlds that the actor playing the father (Mel Gibson) threw a rock at the window instead of a baseball while playing catch with his son- yet it was to be passed off as a baseball. Why is it that they had him throw a rock? What do they gain by doing so?[/b]

i think u mixed up signs and war of the worlds

tom cruise = war of the worlds
mel gibson = signs

[camaz0tz]

Originally posted by lIIIIIIIIIIl+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lIIIIIIIIIIl)</div>

Originally posted by Psy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psy)

<!--QuoteBegin-Majix

@
<!--QuoteBegin-Psy

I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? *A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not). *

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

quite the active mind :P do you just think about debate topics all day long? :wub:

Unfortunately, yes. And it drives me crazy. About an hour ago I was going to make a topic about: Why in Kill Bill Vol.2, in the scene between Elle and Budd, does the amount of margarita change inbetween cuts? Exactly how wasted were they when they were filming that scene? I also saw in War of the Worlds that the actor playing the father (Mel Gibson) threw a rock at the window instead of a baseball while playing catch with his son- yet it was to be passed off as a baseball. Why is it that they had him throw a rock? What do they gain by doing so?[/b]

i think u mixed up signs and war of the worlds

tom cruise = war of the worlds
mel gibson = signs[/b][/quote]
lets be honest here...theres no difference between the two...both are retards :rollseyes:

[undefined]

psy i didnt read a word of it, but i lowe you

[Psy]

Originally posted by camaz0tz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(camaz0tz)</div>

Originally posted by lIIIIIIIIIIl+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lIIIIIIIIIIl)

Originally posted by Psy
<!--QuoteBegin-Majix

@
<!--QuoteBegin-Psy

I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? *A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not). *

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

quite the active mind :P do you just think about debate topics all day long? :o :wub:

Unfortunately, yes. And it drives me crazy. About an hour ago I was going to make a topic about: Why in Kill Bill Vol.2, in the scene between Elle and Budd, does the amount of margarita change inbetween cuts? Exactly how wasted were they when they were filming that scene? I also saw in War of the Worlds that the actor playing the father (Mel Gibson) threw a rock at the window instead of a baseball while playing catch with his son- yet it was to be passed off as a baseball. Why is it that they had him throw a rock? What do they gain by doing so?

i think u mixed up signs and war of the worlds :(

tom cruise = war of the worlds
mel gibson = signs[/b]

lets be honest here...theres no difference between the two...both are retards :rollseyes:[/b][/quote]
WHATEVER! And contradicting the movie Loose Change - there was no 9/11 conspiracy. If there was, then the people making it would have been silenced (killed for you ignorant folks) by the U.S. government. The bit about steel burning at however many degrees and jet fuel burning at a level of degrees has little to do with the reasoning behind why the steel melted. I believe that it melted because of the jet fuel, added pressure, AND friction.

but don't take my word for it:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

7a. * How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? *
OR
7b. * *Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). *

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. *

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

As a side note: Conspiracy theorists have been proven wrong so many times that it is nearly impossible to actually consider what a majority of them are saying to be true.

Oh and you all know who Glenn Beck is. Right? He is the guy that discovered, or made public, that little trick with the 20 dollar bill that allows you to see the pentagon burning on one side and the twin towers falling on the other side being more than cooincidence. Here's a little picture I found online in response to that:

[OrcTank]

Originally posted by Psy


WHATEVER! And contradicting the movie Loose Change - there was no 9/11 conspiracy. If there was, then the people making it would have been silenced (killed for you ignorant folks) by the U.S. government. The bit about steel burning at however many degrees and jet fuel burning at a level of degrees has little to do with the reasoning behind why the steel melted. I believe that it melted because of the jet fuel, added pressure, AND friction. *

but don't take my word for it: *

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

7a. * How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? *
OR
7b. * *Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). *

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. *

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

As a side note: Conspiracy theorists have been proven wrong so many times that it is nearly impossible to actually consider what a majority of them are saying to be true.

well this movie is not the only documentation coming out saying that UL certfied the steel. also NIST said that bombs from the towers would have been read on seismic graphs which in fact they wouldnt have been the bombing of 1993 was not read on those graphs. also it shows a camera in a tripod shake before the building fell?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=...041112144051451

this theoretically proves 1(ONE) piece of informations wrong(has yet to really prove it wrong). this doesnt prove anything about building 7. so magically 3(three) steel framed buildings(first ever in the history) fall. this is way too much of a coincidence. so for the other hour and a half of the video, how id that explaind? the atks of 9/11 were horrible but they are not how they are said to be. because that day set dozens of records as the firsts in history(steel buildings falling, bowing planes gone "evaporated"). its too much, and even more its bullshit. if you take any science class that basics will tell you what they say is bull.

these people would not have been eliminated because who is there to beleive them? its harder to prove the government wrong than almost anything. the people trust their government more or as much as they trust their moms, dads or even priests. its like your were 5 and someone said your mom was wrong, who are you going to believe? if you even TRY to explain this video to anyone they say no way its true. now watching it, and knowing a little science you see what is very real here.

[wraith86]

Originally posted by Psy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psy)</div>

Originally posted by camaz0tz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(camaz0tz)

Originally posted by lIIIIIIIIIIl

Originally posted by Psy
<!--QuoteBegin-Majix

@
<!--QuoteBegin-Psy

I believe that PETA is no different than the al-Queda (in the sense that i'm about to demonstrate). Why? They are trying to force their culture onto the rest of us. Even if they are successful, there's no way they can maintain the power in their newly obtained positions. Also, if we (the USA, or any other country) stopped eating animal products (cattle, chicken eggs, milk) and started eating nothing but soy, wheat, potatoes, lentil, etc; then there would be no way for the farmers to afford to feed their livestock other than to dish out more money, resulting in the starvation of those animals. And then, let's say, a drought comes along. We will have to either A: Import [more] goods from countries such as China (less money in our pockets), B: Starve just as underpriveledged Eithiopian children do or C: Pay more for our homegrown foods (runoff of A). Also, for you PETA supporters, don't go waving statistics in my face about water consumption to produce beef compared to vegetables(some will say it takes 2,500 - 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat.), truth of the matter is that the amount of freshwater on earth has been about the same for 2 billion years. Vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? *A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20. If you eat meat, it's the same thing. If I decide to eat meat 364 days out of the year, then it is no better than if you're eating it 2 days out of the year. I'm doing my part to ease animal suffering by buying the product. And if all vegetarians decided to plant their own vegetables they could ease a lot more suffering (Since cows/pigs/whatever have to shit out the manurer to refertilize lands, you know. We want to use our own shit as manurer? I think not). *

Anyways, I guess most of this covers how I feel about PETA.

quite the active mind :P do you just think about debate topics all day long? :wub:

Unfortunately, yes. And it drives me crazy. About an hour ago I was going to make a topic about: Why in Kill Bill Vol.2, in the scene between Elle and Budd, does the amount of margarita change inbetween cuts? Exactly how wasted were they when they were filming that scene? I also saw in War of the Worlds that the actor playing the father (Mel Gibson) threw a rock at the window instead of a baseball while playing catch with his son- yet it was to be passed off as a baseball. Why is it that they had him throw a rock? What do they gain by doing so?

i think u mixed up signs and war of the worlds

tom cruise = war of the worlds
mel gibson = signs

lets be honest here...theres no difference between the two...both are retards :rollseyes:[/b]

WHATEVER! And contradicting the movie Loose Change - there was no 9/11 conspiracy. If there was, then the people making it would have been silenced (killed for you ignorant folks) by the U.S. government. The bit about steel burning at however many degrees and jet fuel burning at a level of degrees has little to do with the reasoning behind why the steel melted. I believe that it melted because of the jet fuel, added pressure, AND friction.

but don't take my word for it:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

7a. * How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? *
OR
7b. * *Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36). *

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. *

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

As a side note: Conspiracy theorists have been proven wrong so many times that it is nearly impossible to actually consider what a majority of them are saying to be true.

Oh and you all know who Glenn Beck is. Right? He is the guy that discovered, or made public, that little trick with the 20 dollar bill that allows you to see the pentagon burning on one side and the twin towers falling on the other side being more than cooincidence. Here's a little picture I found online in response to that:

[/b][/quote]

if they killed the people that made loose change it would prove they did it. and the dude your talking about is stupid. by the time i read 3 sentences of his webpage there was like 10 curse words. extremely unprofessional and he hardly points out anything from what i remember.

[h3h3h3]

well i was going to post about PETA but now youre all talking about 9/11..

i never thought that the melting of the steel was a very strong conspiracy point. There are physical explanations for it, even if they are a bit far-fetched. However, the tower collapsed in free-fall. If a tower falls down under its own pressure, it will never collapse in free fall. This is strong evidence that explosives were used. And i have never heard of any counter for this evidence.

The other big hole in the official story is the pentagon. EVERYONE at the time knew there was no plane, i remember saying it wasn't a plane, everyone on TV said it too. There is no decent evidence that a plane ever went near, in fact all the evidence points to a missile, as Rumsfeld gratiously admitted in a freudian slip. All camera evidence was removed and people were silenced. The one piece of evidence allowed was 5 frames of something that was not a plane. Planes also do not vapourise in explosions. I do not understand why the mainstream american media does not take this seriously, it is horrendous political bias.

And worst of all, conspiracy or not, the American public and media let their government get away with not investigating 9/11 properly. Whether or not the government planned it, you let them take advantage of the hysteria to go after any enemies in the middle east with no evidence linking them to the attacks. Britain is guilty too, but at least here, everyone hates Blair and he will be gone very soon. You must have bulletproof stupidity to still support Bush after everything.

[wraith86]

lol zero your always posting randomly but your never in vent, its like you have something in your brain that dings when theres debate on ko4life and you come flipping out of bed and hit a red button on your desk with your head that turns on your comp and you start posting rofl.

[Psy]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military. In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense.

It says on the last page he consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Check the last page of that article after you're done reading it, it has his sources.
I'm still strong on the point that the fact that Dylan Avery and his friends and family are still alive is living proof that Loose Change is somehting he put together in order to make a few bucks.
About the pentagon, let me lead you to

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

There is one thing that you must remember. The media prints out what it will sell. One thing that Nixon's Vice president said was "The media gets rid of its' garbage by printing it"

CLAIM: *Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Next you might ask "But why was there no pictures taken?"
I will respond "Because by the time someone started asking about the video of the impact at the pentagon (roughly 4 years later) they had already cleaned the area and built over the wreckage."
The reason why the media hasn't announced these articles disproving the theorists is because that's not what sells. Here's a prime example of that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

You can go to www.msn.com or www.cnnnews.com to find an article and pick out as many debates as you want from one article, either proving or disproving a point (in this case proving nixon's vice president's point) here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/15/hilton.spears.fake.reut/index.html

Spears, 25, has been photographed -- sometimes without panties under her mini-skirts

She was seen one time. By saying "sometimes" they are implying that she has been seen over an extended period of time - in a series or spree. On the website mentioned below, you can see that she was in the same car thirteen pictures being taken on one occasion. There needs to be more occasions in order for them to use "sometimes".

If any readers want to see her vagina, click on this link http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/?p=3728 .

Oh and zero, by all means, write about PETA: speak your mind in this topic.

[Psy]

Originally posted by wraith86
if they killed the people that made loose change it would prove they did it.

Not if they have not posted it on the internet yet. The US has the capability to moniter any electronics around the world. If they really did want to keep it a secret, then they would have been spending billions on monitering everyone's computer (recieving a sum of money back by charging people with possession of child pornography in the process) right after the attack. Dylan Avery is living proof that this was not the case.

[wraith86]

Originally posted by Psy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Psy)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-wraith86

if they killed the people that made loose change it would prove they did it.

Not if they have not posted it on the internet yet. The US has the capability to moniter any electronics around the world. If they really did want to keep it a secret, then they would have been spending billions on monitering everyone's computer (recieving a sum of money back by charging people with possession of child pornography in the process) right after the attack. Dylan Avery is living proof that this was not the case.[/b]

it wouldve gotten out one way or another. and what about the full report the government said they were going to do and havent yet? or am i completely missing something here?

[Psy]

Originally posted by OrcTank
well this movie is not the only documentation coming out saying that UL certfied the steel. also NIST said that bombs from the towers would have been read on seismic graphs which in fact they wouldnt have been the bombing of 1993 was not read on those graphs. also it shows a camera in a tripod shake before the building fell?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=...041112144051451

this theoretically proves 1(ONE) piece of informations wrong(has yet to really prove it wrong). this doesnt prove anything about building 7. so magically 3(three) steel framed buildings(first ever in the history) fall. this is way too much of a coincidence. so for the other hour and a half of the video, how id that explaind? the atks of 9/11 were horrible but they are not how they are said to be. because that day set dozens of records as the firsts in history(steel buildings falling, bowing planes gone "evaporated"). its too much, and even more its bullshit. if you take any science class that basics will tell you what they say is bull.

Sadly, people try to profit off of disasters such as 9/11. When you said if I take "any science class" I believe you are referring to either Rocket Science or Physics. There are two ways to look at everything; right and wrong, good and bad, half full and half empty. There are also facts that, if viewed in one way, will go against the same fact, viewed in the other way.
Let's take, for example, the case of Susy and Alex.
Susy trips over Alex's leg as she is walking to the front of the room with her dissected from in hand. She does a belly flop/face plant right into the frog with needles still stuck in it to hold the place of the frog's chest open. Now, her face is covered in dead frog and there are needles that have peirced her face in a gory fashion. Susy needs to then get plastic surgery.
Now. Alex and his parents are brought to the principal's office. There happens to be a camera rolling at the time of the incident that shows his foot being in places that it should not have been, but none of him putting it there.

He will say "It was an accident".
But Susy's parent will say "We can see that he placed is foot there! what more evidence do you need?!"
Then Alex's Parent would say "Our son has no reason to do such a thing. He may have been stretching or leaning in a certain direction, even adjusting himself."
Susy's inconsolable parent will respond "He wanted to see her go through the agony of surgery."

Susy's parent is a metaphor for conspiracy theorists.
Alex's parent is a metaphor for the opposition to the conspiracy theorists.
The frog with needles and tripping is a metaphor for the 9/11 attacks.
Surgery is a metaphor for the war in the middle east.
Alex is just the involuntary culprit, not a terrorist.
The principal is a metaphor for a jury of truth.
The film in the camera serves as the evidence

(note: this is not the best metaphor I could come up with. In this case it serves a purpose that the cause of the creation of evidence, such as: the tripping of Susy can be seen as either a malicious act or innocent act based upon the ways one views the video).

I'll ask you this:
Which parent's theory would you like to believe over the other? Someone who likes drama will say Susy's parent.