Saturday, July 21, 2012

Was the Colorado shooting staged?



Whilst still reeling from the shocking shooting in a Colorado theatre, media outlets are starting to ask if assault rifles really should be available to the public. I wrestle with that myself. Here in Canada you can go down to your local sports store and buy an AR-15 or an M-15 assault riffle. It’s legal because it’s sold with a limited sized clip but there is nothing stopping anyone from buying a banana clip and switching clips after purchase.

One has to ask oneself should assault rifles really be available to the public. Yet there is another bizarre element that when thrown into the equation, makes you wonder. In the United States they have a constitutional right to bear arms. Jesse Ventura pointed out that right to bear arms was not to preserve a citizens right to hunt. It was intended to protect the nation from invasion, foreign or domestic. It is harder for a Fascist or a Communist dictatorship to invade and take over a nation where the civilians are well armed. Just like Scotland was back in the day when everyone would take their claymores with them everywhere they went, even to church.

I saw a recent link someone shared on facebook which implied the Colorado shooting may have been staged with the intent of eroding the constitutional right to bear arms. The article isn’t suggesting the murders were faked. The article is suggesting the crazed gunman might have had some evil influence or help from outside. As outrageous as that may sound, I think it is worth considering.

Michael Moore put out a very thought provoking movie about the Columbine massacre. One has to wonder what makes people go crazy and start shooting innocent civilians randomly. Yet the whole concern about black ops needs to be addressed. I’ve talked about 9/11 inconsistencies in one of the podcasts. Operation Northwoods was real and needs to be addressed. The ripple effect of those concerns affect Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty and even the Oklahoma city bombing. It is a real concern.

46 comments:

  1. "It’s legal because it’s sold with a limited sized clip but there is nothing stopping anyone from buying a banana clip and switching clips after purchase"

    First of all, definitions. What we are talking about here are correctly called magazines. In this case they are detachable magazines. Clips are devices that hold separate rounds of ammunition together as a group outside the weapon. These are generally "stripper clips" or "en-bloc clips". Goggle'ing these terms will provide you pictures to better illustrate.

    The old bolt action Lee-Enfield .303 rifles many Canadians are familiar with have a 10 detachable magazine, but these guns were in actual use loaded from the top side with a 5 round stripper clip, so named because when the clip was inserted into the clip holder on top of the gun, the thumb would then be used to push the top round of ammunition (and the four below it) down into the magazine, "stripping" the ammunition from the clip. A second five round clip would then be loaded as the first, fully loading the magazine with 10 rounds.

    In Canada, all detachable magazines intended for used in semiautomatic rifles must be blocked to hold no more than 5 rounds. There is no difference other than this between a legal "banana clip" and a standard (30 round capacity) magazine.

    I do realize that in practical parlance the terms "clip" and "magazine" are considered (incorrectly) to be interchangeable but it's helpful to know the difference if only to correctly communicate the true facts of such matters.

    In this case, the "nothing stopping anyone from from buying a banana clip and switching clips after purchase" would be the fact that they are not readily available. No one in the US will send them to you in the mail, even if they did you would face 1 count of possession of a prohibited weapon (Yes boys and girls, in the twisted world of Canadian law a sheet metal magazine is a prohibited weapon, same as a machine gun itself would be) for each magazine.

    So, your options for obtaining a full capacity detachable magazine for a semiautomatic rifle in Canada are basically limited to illegally modifying legal 5 round mags. Doesn't stop criminals, just law abiding gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clip, magazine, you know what I mean. I've heard of a banana clip but I haven't heard of a banana magazine.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I do, no worries. My real point was that you don't just switch the "clips" after purchase, there's a bit more to it, and that large cap mags are illegal anyway. I just couldn't resist explaining the difference between a clip and a mag is all.

      Delete
    3. No worries. I’ve been disarmed for so long and my FAC is expired so easy for me to get terms mixed up.

      Delete
  2. That would be a very interesting aspect of this senseless tragedy to dig into and see who or what agency pops up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already questions are starting to rise. Like how did a university student afford $20,000.00 worth of military equipment. Columbine comes to mind which was also in Colorado and was full of strange things. Like how did the federal swat arrive in five minutes after the 911 call when they were stationed 12 miles north. Who fired all the extra rounds that the two kids didn't fire and who shot the two kids and made it look like a suicide. Many unanswered questions.

      Delete
    2. I actually have the book from columbine, I'm only about 1/3 of the way into it

      Delete
  3. Wow you're an idiot. shit like this completely destroys your credibility, this and the 9/11 nonsense. you must read shit like naturalnews and infowars.

    ReplyDelete
  4. haha it WAS natural news; didn't even check your link. you're a gullible loser.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like infowars. I’m not aware of the other one. If I’m such an idiot then explain to me how the third tower collapsed into it’s own blueprint at freefall speed when no planes hit it? Explain to me how that happened. One could argue that a plane hit the twin towers and the pressure from that trauma put pressure on that floor which caused it to collapse which in turn put pressure on the floor below it and caused that floor to collapse and so on.

    That would almost explain it. Only that wouldn’t happen at freefall speed. The only way for a tower to collapse into it’s own blueprint at freefall speed is if the load bearing beams are simultaneously blown out. That’s the only way that can happen. So tell me how a few goat herding terrorists got into the towers beforehand and planted explosives on load bearing beams. Explain that to me.

    If I’m such and idiot, explain to me how Operation Northwoods got so far. Explain to me how the director of the CIA and the joint chiefs of staff signed and approved such a treasonous plot. If I’m such an idiot, explain to me how that happened.

    If I’m such an idiot, explain to me why we let the CIA have black prison sites all over the world where they arrest people without a charge, detain them without a trial and refuse them legal representation while they torture them. If I’m such an idiot, explain to me how we let that happen when we are supposed to uphold the constitution for all people. Explain that to me because I’m having a really hard time accepting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WTF exactly is "freefall" speed? Is that like, you know, the speed at which gravity would make it hit the ground? Not trying to jam on you but you have used that "collapsed into it's own blueprint at freefall speed" phrase at least 30 to 40 times and I KNOW you didn't write that, you got it from somewhere else, written by someone who wanted to sound like they had some kind of expertise/insight/whatever about how buildings come down......collapsed onto it's own foundation as opposed to tipping over? The twin towers did that too. That's what happens when a modern skyscraper loses it's structural integrity, it all comes straight down. Smaller building will often go to one side or another, and in a controlled demolition as well if the charges take out one side or the other and there's enough time to get the lean going. But something big and tall enough tends to go straight down simply because of how massive it is. When a million tons loses what's keeping it up, it goes down.

      As far as what the CIA does, you continually overlook the fact that the American Constitution does NOT apply to all people, especially if they are not IN the United States. No one talks about some hajji in Sudan's "constitutional rights" because he doesn't have any. You can not like that all you want, you can say that you think they SHOULD have them, but they don't. And quite frankly, someone who we have hard evidence (I agree that a couple of mistakes may have happened, but that's how it goes) is a terrorist, a bad actor who has information we need, well, "surf's up"....the fact that we've done this with literally thousands of suspects with only a handful of mistakes, yeah, I'm good with that. Especially when you look at the number of people who were grabbed and taken to Guantanamo who, when released because they were "innocent" wound up going back to their old ways after release.

      Care to address the fact that the Hizbollah operative who blew up a bus in Bulgaria killing a bunch of his favorite people (Jews) was a Guantanamo alumni? I'm sure he was driven to it by all the bad things we did to him, he was just an innocent guy until the big bad Americans disrespected him and his "religion".....right. Seriously, you don't fall for this shit when it's HA types doing a toys for tots run, why with terrorists?

      Delete
    2. Freefall speed means you stand on top of a tower and drop an apple. That’s how fast the towers fell. They didn’t meet any resistance from the upper floors collapsing and putting pressure on the lower flours. That only can happen when the load bearing beams are simultaneously blown out like they are in a controlled demolition. I sincerely believe all three towers were a controlled demolition. To claim that they fell at freefall speed due to heat and fire is not scientific.

      As far as the CIA goes, torture is wrong. Torturing people in black prison sites outside of the United States is a loophole in the law but it is still wrong. Sarah air Head Palin claimed non Americans were not worthy of rights. Yet that defeats the whole purpose of the constitution and the American Revolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3fm_IQ5Hco

      The purpose of false flag attacks it to trick the people into giving up their liberty just like Hitler did. The Hizbollah operative you refer to likely worked for the CIA like the two SAS soldiers dressed as Arabs caught at a roadblock in Iraq with a car load of explosives. I don’t support terrorism at all. Yet the CIA is clearly a criminal organization. I will address that in my next post before moving on to the Kelowna Summer Jam.

      Delete
    3. "The Hizbollah operative you refer to likely worked for the CIA"

      Dude, seriously?? The CIA is behind the bus bombing in Bulgaria?

      IS there ANYTHING that ever happens in your world that's not a conspiracy or some kind of plot? IS ANYTHING we're ever told the truth, or are "the puppetmasters" that blindingly efficient that EVERYTHING is bullshit?

      A lot of the things you reference are worthy of further investigation, if only to lay to rest any doubts, but there are times when your astounding leaps of illogic just baffle me. This is definitely one of them.

      Delete
    4. Let’s see… Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein … is there any mayor terrorists the CIA didn’t train and who wasn’t formally a CIA asset. I am serious. Operation Gadio was real. The CIA are a criminal organization.

      Delete
    5. Come on man, Gladio being real (I agree that it was) does no equate to this guy who bombed a bus in Bulgaria being a CIA asset. You think the Israeli's would stand still for that? The Jewish lobby in the US (never mind elsewhere) would go absolutely bonkers if they believed that. A couple of false flag ops you can point to does not equate to EVERYTHING being a false flag op.

      There is a lesson here along the lines of the folks you name though. Did we at one time support them? Yes. We of course gave chemical weapons to Iraq when they were busy using them on Iranians in the 80's. ("Invade our embassy and take people hostage will you? Suck on this, bitch.")

      Does that mean they stayed in line as far as doing the CIA's bidding? Hardly. The lesson would appear to be that we need to stop doing business with bad people because it is thought that they suit our needs of the moment, too often (all the above examples) this proves in the long run to have been more trouble than it was worth. The fact of previous association does not equate to ongoing control of them, quite the contrary.

      If you don't like the way the CIA does business, cool. I personally draw a distinction that you do not between the actions of individuals with much latitude and little oversight, and what the agency would knowingly sanction. Nature of the beast and all that. But, you need to have a problem with ALL intelligence agencies if that is your outlook, they ALL play the same game, by much the same rules. I'd like to think you are not so naive as to believe there is no difference between them and us, between the CIA/MI6 and the Russians, Chinese, etc.. There always was, and there still is.

      Delete
    6. I do believe the Russians have also used false flag attacks. China, they just massacre people. Israel participated in a false flag attack on the USS Liberty where President Johnston recalled the air support when they were under attack stating he wanted that battleship sunk. Interesting that you would mention selling Iraq chemical weapons to use on Iran. I find it somewhat bizarre that Saddam Hussein was hanged for using chemical weapons on the Kurds when it was the US that sold him the chemical weapons in the first place. Using chemical weapons on the Kurds was wrong. Just as it was wrong to use chemical weapons on Iran.

      I worked with a really nice lady from Iran who escaped Iran during their war with Iraq. She said it was horrible. They were using mustard gas on entire villages. She said it caused birth defects in the children. The whole idea of selling Iraq chemical weapons to use on Iran as payback for the hostage taking is suspect when you consider the October surprise.

      George Bush Sr. and William Casey went to Iran and paid them a bribe to keep the hostages until after the election so Reagan could get elected. Iran contra was more than selling Iran weapons in exchange for the release of American hostages. It was selling Iran weapons to raise money for the contra rebels in Nicaragua. Operation Northwoods doesn’t prove any other false flag attack. It only proves we can’t believe a word that comes out of their mouth.

      Delete
  6. good article , the u.s anglo american shadow goverment is very sinister and i thought of this right away when it happened as the un is trying to get rid of the 2nd ammendmant, and what better way than to kill random familys..really sad but i would bet its tru

    ReplyDelete
  7. Trailrunner:

    "The old bolt action Lee-Enfield .303 rifles many Canadians are familiar with have a 10 detachable magazine... but these guns were in actual use loaded from the top side with a 5 round stripper clip, A second five round clip would then be loaded as the first, fully loading the magazine with 10 rounds."

    Hi, Trailrunner; I can see you know about firearms, but so do I, and I actually own my father's .303 Enfield, stamped *1942.*

    It has a factory build magazine, half in, and half out of the rifle.

    It holds TWENTY rounds, amazingly enough. They are loaded in a double-stack, side-by-side, making for a very small mag. for so many rounds. I was surprised that anyone could build such an effective mag; load once & fire yer heart out.

    You're a great commenter on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, but Agent K gets the credit, he does all the heavy lifting around here, providing anyone who comments with a forum to do so.

      All the Lee-Enfields have that "half in, half out" appearance, it's a characteristic of the breed as the dog folks like to say, but I think if you will take 11 rounds and try and fit them into that mag, you will find that only 10 will go. I've owned a few Enfields, currently limited to a No.5Mk1 Jungle Carbine and a No.4MkII in mint condition. I have never seen nor heard of a L-E mag that holds 20. That said, one of the neat things about the field is how much there is to learn, and it would never bother me to be proved wrong.

      The Lee Enfield is a great rifle, the American guys get all torqued when I say I'd take one over the M-1 Garand if I was forced to choose between the two. It is truly a rifleman's rifle and a piece of Commonwealth history/heritage.

      Delete
  8. AK: "Like how did the federal swat arrive in five minutes after the 911 ..."

    Just sayin'...1st responders was the local Police (I saw their Chief's press conference)...who, as he said, got there not in 5 minutes, but in ninety seconds. They charged the theater, and made the arrest.

    The reason was the high crime in the city, which caused them to to up the Police presence, and he said they were lucky to have the ten or so Officers who could respond so fast.

    90% or more of the SWAT are local; city, or State Police origins; not *federal*...What Fed. Agency did you mean...?

    Good work, keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was referring to Columbine not Aurora with regards to federal swat being there within 5 minutes. I went out for coffee with a guy from Denver last night who knew three of the people in the news helicopter that responded to Columbine right away since they were already in the air. They reported FEMA and the Federal Swat team were there instantly. They claimed that couldn’t have happened without foreknowledge. There are a lot of strange things about Columbine.

      Delete
    2. The guy was arrested sitting in his car in the parking lot. There was no SWAT involved, arresting officers were LEO's who were on regular patrol duty in the area.

      Delete
    3. There appears to be a delay in approving posts and responses. When I said Swat arrived on scene at a suspiciously early response I was referring to Columbine not Aurora. The two kids involved with the Columbine shooting were found dead. We were told they committed suicide. I understand there is conflicting evidence about the fact that they committed suicide as well as the huge number of rounds of ammunition fired in areas the two kids weren’t in.

      Delete
  9. These words you speak are true - we're all... you know the rest.

    Six years of intensive investigation proved to me that nine eleven was an inside job.

    Ats exactly why the events of that day were so "outside" most people's imagination and unwittingly, the TPTBs downfall. Its also why magicians ain't showing you the same trick three times in a row. (as in Tower 7)

    As far as people being controlled goes, it isn't as complicated as most people think because The Powers That Be have already been in our driver's seat for a while.

    In fact, here is some pretty mind blowing stuff from a national award winning teacher:

    1) The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto (Intro + Hour 1 of 5)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8

    Have a grand day Sire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. A lot of people are starting to think that. I had to look up the Alice Copper quote.

      Delete
    2. His first court appearance was this morning,he was told he is being held on a no bond hold. He looked drugged,emotionless, almost nodding off right in court. One question that bothers me is how why was he in possession of a clip capable of holding 100 rounds. Only govt or military personnel should have access to those, luckily his AR-15 jammed up on him or the body count could have been extremely worse. (as reported on CNN) I know guns are only a tool, but this type of behavior makes me sick to my stomach, while the USA spends billions on fighting wars overseas. When will they start worrying about their own backyard first, North America...

      Delete
    3. The "BetaMag" (no such thing as a 100 round "clip") that he had is a known piece of shit. Civilians and recreational shooters, "gunstore commando's" etc., love this thing because it looks cool and they fondle their guns more than they shoot them. Serious folks will not use it, and quite frankly it's a blessing that he had a BetaMag rather than just regular mags that he had practiced reloading.

      You will not stop people like this by passing "laws". Or restricting sales of whatever. The frequency of illegal usage by criminals and "mass shooters" like this defective individual is LESS than one tenth of one percent. For this you want to restrict the rights/freedoms of 999 people out of 1000? Really? But hey, if it saves just one life....IT WON'T. You wanna save lives, make cars illegal. Like that will happen though.....

      This theater was a "gun free zone". It boggles my mind that people who think they are intelligent DON'T GET IT, that these guys ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS target places where they believe their potential victims will be unable unprepared or unwilling to resist, schools, churches, etc. It is further a bit of a puzzlement that no one other than pro self defense folks ever want to talk about the many incidents of this type where the presence of an armed individual either stopped the shooter cold or induced them to surrender very quickly with minimum casualties rather than be shot. The media does not like these stories, they like the blood better because most of them are in favor of gun control. An "active shooter" successfully dealt with by an armed citizen is not what they want to tell you about.

      Frankly I am surprised that no one in that theater was packing, and the fact that he was wearing a vest does not make him impervious to return fire.

      The only thing this incident is going to do for me is give me motivation to bring my game up a notch or two. I already carried (legally) my Glock and at least one spare mag when out in public before.

      Nice that you can find a way to turn this into a typical diatribe against American foreign policy.

      Delete
    4. That thought did enter my mind. What if someone in the theatre had a gun and returned fire. With a vest they could have shot him in the legs or as you prefer, in the head. After Columbine I think some of the schools support the idea of some of the teachers packing a gun.

      Delete
  10. Yeah Norhwoods PROVES Colorado was staged. Now that it's come out that the mom knew it was him, another bunch of kooky theories will follow. BTW , love the link in the story on why the crowd didn't fight back (they were terrified maybe?)
    Rather than address the veracity of the absurd article you posted, you switch to some 9/11 baloney. Great. I'll readily admit I am not an engineer (love it how 'troofers' are all architectural geniuses), but I'll happily link you to the PopMech article, which you'll dismiss because OMG MICHAEL CHERTOFF'S COUSIN . Yeah, they are such lazy conspirators they didn't bother to get a ghost writer.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
    You've completely gutted the credibility of a blog i once enjoyed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not going to get all angry and argue with you. You have an opinion and I respect that. I will admit the idea that this particular crazed gunman had help is rather outrageous. Someone shared a link on facebook and I also shared that link. There are a lot of strange things about the Colorado theatre shooting. First of which is the fact that the guy is a nut bar. You can’t do something like that and be playing with a full deck. I do find the fact that a University student having over $20,000.00 worth of military equipment to be unusual. Jumping to conclusions would be premature but I do think asking questions is a good thing.

    As for 9/11 that is a heartbreaking concern. I’ve seen the Popular Science article. I don’t discount it because someone is someone’s cousin. I question it because I have seen the disinformation campaign that rages around the CIA. I saw video clips of the towers fall at freefall speed. Trailrunner says that’s what happens when a tower loses it’s structural integrity. Yet that has never happened before. Never before has a tower collapsed at freefall speed due to heat and fire.

    I saw a video of a huge fire in a large tower in Beijing 2009. The fire left the tower gutted but the tower didn’t collapse let alone at freefall speed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8

    This month there was a huge fire in a 42 storey tower in Istanbul. Same storey. The tower did not collapse let alone at freefall speed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZYihEhyyUw

    So please excuse my ignorance and my skepticism. “Scientists” can argue whether or not they found thermite in the 911 ruble back and forth until the cows come home. I know what I saw. The only way a tower can fall at freefall speed like a controlled demolition is when the load bearing beams are simultaneously blown out. If the towers lost their structural integrity in the middle of the tower, then it would crumble after the mid point it wouldn’t keep falling at freefall speed with no resistance. I do believe all three towers in New York fell because they were a controlled demolition. That is what Larry Silberstein meant when the said they made the decision to “pull” the third tower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Never before has a tower collapsed at free fall speed due to heat and fire"

      I did not realize in our previous discussions that you were basing it on that. My bad, here's the difference.

      Fire alone based on combustible materials present in the building, no. Fire based on an full load of JP jet fuel to take that plane all the way to the west coast, different story.

      Bear in mind that regular gasoline has 15 times the explosive power of 60/40 industrial dynamite if the optimal fuel/air ratio exists. The heat released by a full load of jet fuel being released by the impact, aerosolized and ignited, results in a fire that is hot enough to ruin the heat treatment/melt the I beam structure of the the part of the building where it happens. That structure is dependent on the integrity of the whole to remain standing. Damage part of it and the rest will only be able to stand for a limited amount of time, the only question is how long before it all comes down. Those things are (IMHO) not stable enough for me to go up into for 8 hours a day 5 days a week to begin with, people on the top floor are moving a foot or two back and forth on a windy day. Fuck that.

      Delete
    2. "then it would crumble after the mid point it wouldn’t keep falling at freefall speed with no resistance"

      You need to imagine that the top 20 percent of that tower weighs a couple million tons. (or whatever) When that weight comes down, the rest of the tower is going to be crushed straight down, it is NOT going to be able to withstand that, it was not that over-engineered, it was only designed to hold itself up and even that only within a certain margin of stress, certainly not to withstand a few million tons dropping on it. Watch a karateka doing a tile breaking demo with spacers between each tile to get the idea. Each tile/floor going down adds it's weight/impact to the force exerted on the one below it.

      Delete
    3. No offense but I don't buy the jet fuel argument. There was no jet fuel in the third tower. There is controversy as to how hot jet fuel really burns. Many claim it doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. I initially thought that when the top 20% of a building collapses from trauma like getting hit by an airplane, that could have caused enough pressure on the rest of the building to make it collapse or crumble. The problem with that is the freefall speed thing. It didn't crumble or tip over it fell straight down at freefall speed. It met no resistance. When we see the same thing happen in a controlled demolition, it is because the load bearing beams are blown out at the base of the building. I just can't see any other feasible explanation. That indeed does open pandora's box as to who went in before hand and planted the explosives to bring it down.

      Delete
    4. "When we see the same thing happen in a controlled demolition, it is because the load bearing beams are blown out at the base of the building."

      True. And you see the building coming straight down with the middle and top of the building still intact and visible as they approach the ground, yes? Because THAT is where there is no support. Yet with the towers, we see the bottom and middle part of the structure visible as the damaged part (top)collapses onto the rest of the still standing rest of the tower. Like I said, the middle and bottom parts of that towers support structure are not strong enough to sustain the impact from above of the millions of tons of structure one it starts to collapse.

      Really K, how buildings come down is really not much of a mystery. The only mystery here would seem to be why no one who is an actual expert in such things seems to find anything "mysterious" about how/why towers one and two came down. Tower three I haven't done any reading on so I won't comment on that at the moment, but as far as one and two sorry, no mystery. I suppose if someone else hijacked an airliner and drove it into a skyscraper you would expect it to remain standing? Or would that be a false flag George Bush did it conspiracy too? Really?

      That structure should absorb the millions of ft/tons of energy generated by a 125,000lb missile impacting it at 300 miles an hour and remain standing with no problem? That would be a severely over engineered building that would never be built due to cost. That's not how business works.

      Remember Sonny Barger saying, "Why do they have to make up stuff about us, the truth is bad enough"?

      There is enough REAL, documented conspiracy stuff out there to keep you occupied for the rest of your days and then some. Someone named Bush engaged in financial shenanigans? OK, there's evidence that might indicate Neil was a naughty boy. The POTUS ordered explosives placed in Towers 1 & @ and there was a massive operation to get that done that no one noticed (:rolleyes: never done security in a large office building have you? I have....) and no one involved in doing it had any conscience about it? Really? Only in movies bro......

      Seriously, pick your conspiracies. Those who attempt to rule the world from the shadows (coughBilderbergcoughcoughBohemianGrovecoughcough) are nowhere near as competent as you believe they are. And you hurt your credibility with the real stuff by tagging along with the more outlandish.

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

      Delete
    5. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/world-trade-center-building-designers-pre-9-11-claims-strongly-implicate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11

      Delete
    6. And sometimes a controlled demolition is just a controlled demolition. The burning jet fuel was nowhere near the base of the building to melt the load bearing beams. 420 has raised a good point. There is a very large and growing movement of architects and engineers who think it was a controlled demolition: http://stj911.org

      Delete
    7. Of course it wasn't, and doesn't have to have been. I'm saying that it's enough that it destroys the load bearing ability the structure where it was, because then THAT part of the structure collapses ON TOP OF the rest of the building below it. At that point it all comes down, not being able to resist that impact from above.

      You keep saying the load bearing part of the bottom of the structure was blown. In that case the rest of the tower should have remained intact as it came down, just as any other controlled demolition. That is not what happened and it's perfectly obvious from watching it happen that the towers collapse from the top down and not from the base.

      Delete
    8. That's the whole problem. If the load bearing capacity was damaged higher up in the building, the rate of falling would have slowed down to a crumble instead of a freefall when it got past that point. I've never seen a controlled demolition where the building stayed intact. The whole point of a controlled demolition is to destroy the building so it collapses.

      Delete
  12. "That is what Larry Silberstein meant when the said they made the decision to “pull” the third tower."
    http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
    Really ? the greatest conspiracy in my lifetime and a guy yells "pull" the tower while he's being recorded? Man the illuminati is getting sloppy. You know what you saw? what you saw on youtube interpreted by conspiracy nuts.
    Of course the authorities have used distraction and frame-ups.Law Enforcement did it in the Mongols - HA war in California; by your reasoning the arrests and convictions are all some ongoing grand conspiracy by "the powers that be" to put innocent bikers away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not going to argue with you, I’m just going to disagree with you and point out that I’m not the only one who disagrees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

      Delete
  13. The internet was going to amount to nothing in 2001.

    The dot com crash of 2000 - 2002 and subsequent stock market crash of the same time period almost ensured that.

    Thing is, the internet didn't just go away and this is something The Powers That Be weren't counting on.

    Damn keedz.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And now it's official,lobbyists have brought this tragedy into their anti-gun agenda. Wolf Blitizer posed the question this afternoon about amendments that should stop regular public citizens from legally obtaining fully automatic weapons' and/or clips capable of discharging that many rounds that fast. The response was short and simple their second amendment. I didn't read it very carefully,but I'm pretty sure it's about a right to bare arms. Not the right to stock pile 1000's of rounds and go shoot as many INNOCENT victims as possible... Personally I think the U.S.A. who constantly claim to be the greatest country in the world, SORRY GUYS BIG EGOS DON'T FIX PROBLEMS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to read some history books. A government that does not trust it's citizens with weapons is an untrustworthy government. If after close to 60 years of ever increasing controls on guns on both sides of the border and changes for the worse not the better you still believe further restrictions are the answer I really don't know how to help you with this, or more correctly, I don't have a minimum of a couple of hours to spend that would do no more than just get you started. But here's a thought, "More Guns Less Crime". Seems counter-intuitive I know, but it's fact. In every single state that has adopted "shall issue" (meaning if you have no criminal record and complete whatever training is mandated they MUST issue you a concealed carry permit) the violent crime rate has dropped. Without exception.

      Delete
  15. "Harper and Ford trade 'suggestions' on tackling gun crime"

    You have to read this, it's a textbook example of worthless politicians blowing hot air and saying nothing. The best they can come up with is "more police". ROFLMAO.

    And down south....

    http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/gun-control-losing-support-in-us-despite-mass-shootings-1

    People are starting to realize that the idea of gun control solving anything is BS, and waking up to the idea that the only thing that stops a maniac with a gun is a law abiding citizen with a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Harper shaking hands for as photo op with an abusive pig. No wonder. That’s what he surrounds himself with. Harper talking gun control with Ford? Why not. Harper has abandoned every other conservative principle there is like giving the banks a bail out. Harpers corporate communism rises.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree, Harper has been a major disappointment. Canada deserves better. We have the same problem down south though, I am so piss-choked that our choice is between Obama and Romney. Really? That's the best America can do? And we wonder why society is going downhill on both sides of the border.....

    ReplyDelete