conspiracy theories

[Soul Doctor]

---

Connect tanang events pagkahuman atong 9-11 ba.Ge invade nilang iraq abot sila sa afghanistan.

Apil na cguro ang mga Companies na tig-humo ug mga high tech na weapons ato.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Actually mao ni ilang business bro.
War is their business.
They supply the weapons, the missiles, the jet fighters.
They call it in the JFK assassination--the Military Complex.
They create a false scenario that would lead to war.
Just like what happened in 911.

[Soul Doctor]

OT:
@springfield
judging from your avatar,
i can say you are in the military.

And what do the military say about thinking?

Are you allowed to think when an order is given?

Are you allowed to question your superior?

Now I understand why your so submissive to the official 911 report.

You my sir, are programmable.
Probably product of military psychological and mental trainings.
You think what they what you to think.
That makes us two different types of person.
The reason why you could not accept what i'm saying.
Me on the other hand is willing to accept an idea
if somebody can present my with a reasonable point.

[Soul Doctor]

here is an article from the debunk springfield was too proud of defending.

"Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses.

In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever "had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767". In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. "For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse". Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition."

Hmmm! Lets see it point by point now.
1.)"had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767"

----in a simulated computer reconstruction of the crash, you can see it in you tube.
The plane could only damage 3 columns at the most.
The plane is made of aluminum alloy. which easily tears off if being crashed to a solid steel column of the wtc. just look at the pictures of the WTC building as it was constructed. Those steel columns are gigantic piece of metal.
and thats in the top part of the building?
How could that affect the basement columns that collapsed ?

And where are the columns by the way?
It was removed by Fema personnel assigned to cover the area.

2.)"For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse"

THIS IS A BIG LIE (that is was I call it CRAP) take note Rick Springfield...

If somebody burn a building for 2 days, it would never collapse the building.
The fact is, never in the history of fire (even if the fires lasted for days) that a building collapse due to fire.

cases that supports my claim:

A.)In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html

B.)In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. See Markets


C.)In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See Towering Inferno In Caracas - CBS News

D.)In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See ITV Error 404

Windsor Building burning

Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See BBC NEWS | Europe | Commuter chaos after Madrid blaze

See also Christopher Bollyn's
9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire.

Windsor Building still standing

The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/wo...10beijing.html

So that you will see that that building would never collapse from the fire.

DEBUNK THAT!

[Soul Doctor]

AHHH!
Now I figured it out!
Nice try Springfield.

You want me to read your links
so you would not have to argue and post for yourself.

So then I would post the link you gave and i will post it here
and i will try to post some more to discuss whats wrong with their findings.

In the process I would be posting your link.
I would be posting my opinion.
I would be posting all your debunks.
And I will again post all there is to squash them.
And it would look like I am doing all the posting.
So you will have grounds to call me "flooding the thread".

Nice try though.
What a cheat!

[THE SKULLS]

is obama riding a horse in the moon during lunar landing?

maybe rodsky is making fun

why would anybody fake or edit a photo of the moon taken during lunar landing?
thats my question!

so many questions, but the answers are so few.
the main reason why they would edit such thing is for them to be benefited of what they do. simply, money works.

[Soul Doctor]

maybe rodsky is making fun

so many questions, but the answers are so few.
the main reason why they would edit such thing is for them to be benefited of what they do. simply, money works.

I know he is but its totally uncalled for.
Its like a wrong analogy.

The purpose of editing the picture might be to make fun of a president.
The purpose of editing a picture of moon landing is unknown.
Why?
Why would you edit those picture that supposed to be a cornerstone in American history.
The last thing you would do is edit it.

[THE SKULLS]

^
correct Doc. a very wrong analogy.

and the lunar landing pictures are not edited. they were captured in a controlled environment that looks like a moon surface I guess.

[Soul Doctor]

^
correct Doc. a very wrong analogy.
and the lunar landing pictures are not edited. they were captured in a controlled environment that looks like a moon surface I guess.

but we cant proved that it is shot elsewhere other than the moon.

but, as examined, some of it were edited.
even copy pasted. watch the video i showed here before.

[THE SKULLS]

How about ani mga AFP Controller issues ron? Heidie Mendoza exposed, and Angie took his life.

[Soul Doctor]

How about ani mga AFP Controller issues ron? Heidie Mendoza exposed, and Angie took his life.

nothing fishy there.

he was just protecting his family.

If he goes to trial he and his family could lose everything.
Their dignity, their houses, their dollar accounts, their so called friends..
But if he sacrificed himself, there's a chance his wife and family could keep everything.

For a soldier like Reyes, it is the only dignified thing to do.