Reality...

[maynard]

That fact can be attributed to having a conservative government for 8 years. Drug laws become more strict as people with conservative values are in power. It's a general trend in government.

I'm about the most liberal person you'll meet, so I'm a bit biased when it comes to the 8 years before Obama.

As a side note, I'm pretty cool with Weed; it's not addictive, doesn't cause aggression, and is impossible to overdose on. You shouldn't drive or operate heavy machinery, but it's less of an issue than with alcohol. WHERE'S THE PROBLEM PEOPLES?

I am 10 times better driver when stoned. after I get high and drive... I drive way slower, and I'm far more alert and aware of things.

[OMGBEARS]

I am 10 times better driver when stoned. after I get high and drive... I drive way slower, and I'm far more alert and aware of things.

Yup it's all about how you act while high. I'm a bit catatonic and get realllllyyy sleeepppyy so it does inhibit my driving a bit. Then again I don't drive often while high.. so my experience is limited.

[maynard]

Oh my goodness Maynard you have to be kidding me.

1. No such thing as a top down demoliton. The odds of the explosives surviving is also a huge issue.

2. Noise. Not near enough noise.

3. No visible flashes up and down the building prior to collapse (explosions occur within the building prior to another set of explosives taking down the building)

4. No time to put the needed explosives in the necessary areas without removing obvious visible elements (demo crews work with completely gutted buildings and still take weeks to set them up despite the drastic difference in size) and being seen by office workers.

No thank you, Maynard.



So you mean to tell me we should waste our resources on every single tip and threat for whatever time it takes just in case one of them is true?

Come on Loka, bring something substantial to the debate (except read a book since I could say that for any one of my assertions) instead of "haha government laughed at threats and shit". Same bullshit conspiracy nuts have tried to use for the past seven years.

Lol.. ok then

also there were explosions after the plane hit, quite a few, I was actually watching the news right as it was happening that morning, and watching the fire fighters strait up say "there's explosions going off within the tower" just prior 2 it's falling.

you can also see just before it falls on many points of the building the mini charge explosions blowing out windows and throwing dust and shit out into the air.

[Christmas]

Lol.. ok then

also there were explosions after the plane hit, quite a few, I was actually watching the news right as it was happening that morning, and watching the fire fighters strait up say "there's explosions going off within the tower" just prior 2 it's falling.

you can also see just before it falls on many points of the building the mini charge explosions blowing out windows and throwing dust and shit out into the air.

I'm glad you posted that video, Maynard. Compare the noises from that implosion to the WTC "implosion".



Now notice how the reporter is able to speak perfectly clearly prior to collapse. No prior explosions are heard prior to collapse. The only loud noises are the sounds coming from a gigantic structure toppling on itself.

There is even a phone call from a worker trapped above the impact zone on youtube that reveals no prior explosions and no explosions during collapse.

And random "squibs" don't make a controlled explosion. If it was "controlled" it would be light and air coming out of all sides of the tower in the same pattern, yet you see random puffs of air from random floors. Is it controlled or not?

[maynard]

I'm talking about the live footage that was on the air, and then removed at the government request. just like the survilence tape at the pentagon that would clearly show a massive plane crashing into it, but can't be viewed....

there was inbetween 10-20 explosions when I Was watching, and I watched the fire department strait up say that there's explosions going off all in the building, and that they have no clue as 2 wtf is going on. after about an hour and a half that footage we removed from the news networks. just like the news chick that was at the pentagon and was constantly saying "there's 0 debdree of the plane here" her little news report was also removed quite quickly, and that's when they released the footage of the side of the building exploding... and that it.

also with demolitions you "can" stack the majority in the bottom and remove the support that way, giving the same results as shown in the vid, and 9/11 buildings.

[loka]

Wow. Again. Law enforcement will never be your specialty.

When a threat of a bomb at a bank in let's say in the city of New York is called in, the operator will then notify their superior. They are encouraged to make that their priority. Will try to get as much information as they can, possibly narrow it down to a bank. They will notify all precincts of the threat PLUS the bank company it's self and their security team will work with local PD. FBI steps in when a bank and bomb threat is made so even more man power is used to be vigilant at those banks. They will then notify bomb squad, ATF and the fire departments of the possible threat. That's how it works when a threat is called in. Law enforcement is out for vigilance not for details. Details are for AFTER the crime has happened. No law enforcement agency takes any threats lightly. Unless the person collecting the information doesn't think it's serious at all. That's the only way a threat or intelligence can have a brain fart as bad as 9/11.

There is a reason why the FBI, US Marshals, ATF, CIA have different divisions. So they don't use up that "man power". No such thing as man power when there is FBI offices all over the United States, state and local police, National Guard etc. All of those people are called in for statewide threats.

Stick to something you know.

[loka]

I'm talking about the live footage that was on the air, and then removed at the government request. just like the survilence tape at the pentagon that would clearly show a massive plane crashing into it, but can't be viewed....

there was inbetween 10-20 explosions when I Was watching, and I watched the fire department strait up say that there's explosions going off all in the building, and that they have no clue as 2 wtf is going on. after about an hour and a half that footage we removed from the news networks. just like the news chick that was at the pentagon and was constantly saying "there's 0 debdree of the plane here" her little news report was also removed quite quickly, and that's when they released the footage of the side of the building exploding... and that it.

also with demolitions you "can" stack the majority in the bottom and remove the support that way, giving the same results as shown in the vid, and 9/11 buildings.

Your comparing the Pentagon to the WTC bombing. The Pentagon bombing always looked fishy to me, and your not the only one who believes that. The WTC is about as real as it can get. If you want to argue why it imploded from the inside, structural damage did happen to the WTC in 1993 on a previous terror attack by Al-Qaeda that had to be repaired. You should also look at how the tower was engineered and what jet fuel can do to steel.

[maynard]

Your comparing the Pentagon to the WTC bombing. The Pentagon bombing always looked fishy to me, and your not the only one who believes that. The WTC is about as real as it can get. If you want to argue why it imploded from the inside, structural damage did happen to the WTC in 1993 on a previous terror attack by Al-Qaeda that had to be repaired. You should also look at how the tower was engineered and what jet fuel can do to steel.

the fact is, the support beams could not be made hot enough 2 collapse.. the fires and the engine heat, was not enough. that's a fact. the building collapsed on it's self... and they say it's cause the support beams got 2 hot, that is just not possible lol. also if they did get 2 hot the building would have not imploded in on it's self it would have rolled over falling into other buildings

but if you can agree the pentagon is hardcore fishy, what makes you think then the WTC is legit they were all part of the same attack.

[XxMastagunzxX]

I'm just going to say I completely agree with christmas.......... maynard....no offense but your ideas are rediculous.

[maynard]

I'm just going to say I completely agree with christmas and maynard....no offense but your ideas are rediculous.

myself and christmas don't agree.