Check out this "EXPERT" on FOX NEWS the day of 9-11

Search

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,164
Tokens
YOU MOONBATS ARE RETARDED!!!


If you were'nt so fuckin stupid and stayed in school, you probably would have thought the same thing.

Boy you guys are dumb.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Wow ...

early morning "commentary" from Mr 1.6 GPA !!


Thanks for getting my thoughts back on track Mr Chertoff
 

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,164
Tokens
Really Doc, You are a dumb gullible idiot.

Anytime a building collapses, its from the structure failing to hold.

30 minutes after the attacks gives plenty of time to find a suspect and a motive. Especially when we were threatened 2 weeks prior, and the person takes claim.

Doc, i new you were dumb, and this compounds it
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Really?

How did #7 drop and why did Silverstein admit it was "pulled"?

Interesting how #1 and #2 dropped straight down in their footprints like #7 ..

How did the BBC know 23 minutes ahead of time that the North Tower was
going to collapse? How did Guilani know ahead of time that the WTC was
going to collapse?


Hmmmmm .... gosh ... thank God Marvin Bush was not involved in any of this shit:


Marvin P. Bush, the president�s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."


As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter]
A heightened WTC security alert was lifted on 9/6/2001...
<center><table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" width="600"> <tbody><tr> <td>The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]</td></tr></tbody></table> </center>​
...there was a power down in WTC 2 the weekend before 9/11...
<center><table style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="7" cellspacing="0" width="600"> <tbody><tr> <td>On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." [WingTV]</td></tr></tbody></table> </center>​
...Bush's cousin had a fortunate change of venue for a September 11 business conference...
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" bgcolor="#ffffff" border="1" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="6" width="602"> <tbody><tr> <td>President Bush's cousin should have been in the World Trade Centre when it was attacked. Jim Pierce, managing director of AON Corporations, had arranged a business conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower where its New York offices were based. But his group was too large so they decided to move across the street to the Millennium Hotel. [Annova] </td></tr></tbody></table>​


...and it just so happens that Marvin was in New York on 9/11.
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
Really Doc, You are a dumb gullible idiot.

Anytime a building collapses, its from the structure failing to hold.

Any examples of steel buildings collapsing ?
Reading your post it seems like an everyday occurence.

And better drop the namecalling.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

<table class="figure_right" align="right" width="200"> <tbody><tr> <td>
meridian_plaza_c.jpg
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-1] The One Meridian Plaza fire [/SIZE] </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1] <sup> </sup>[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]<sup>1 </sup> [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] <sup> 2 </sup> [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] <sup> 3 </sup> [/SIZE] It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. [SIZE=-1] <sup> 4 </sup> [/SIZE] Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed. <table class="figure_right" align="right" width="200"> <tbody><tr> <td>
fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-1] The First Interstate Bank fire [/SIZE] </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The First Interstate Bank Fire

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1] <sup> </sup>[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]<sup>5 </sup> [/SIZE]
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
<table class="anon_quote" border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="quote"> <anon_quote> In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. [SIZE=-1] <sup> 6 </sup> [/SIZE] </anon_quote> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> The 1 New York Plaza Fire

<table class="figure_right" align="right" width="300"> <tbody><tr> <td>
fib_la_fire1_s.jpg
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-1] Close-up of the First Interstate Bank fire
Photo: New York Board of Underwriters [/SIZE] </td> </tr> </tbody></table> 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. [SIZE=-1] <sup> </sup>[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]<sup>7 </sup> [/SIZE]
Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.
Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. [SIZE=-1] <sup> </sup>[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]<sup>8 </sup> [/SIZE]
The Windsor Building Fire

<table class="figure_right" align="right" width="320"> <tbody><tr> <td>
windsor9c.jpg
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [SIZE=-1] The Windsor Building fire [/SIZE] </td> </tr> </tbody></table> The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.
[SIZE=-1] <sup> 9 </sup>[/SIZE]
 

New member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,223
Tokens
I just love how people like Darwinian ignore the facts and just believe what they are told from the media.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Always ... there is a simple reason why Darwinian is who he is

Look at the source he turns to:

October 6, 2003

<!-- google_ad_section_start --> Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html


Posted October 6th, 2003 at 11:43 am


I have naively believed for years that staying informed about current events by getting some news is better than blissful ignorance derived from getting no news. Then Fox News Channel helped demonstrate just how wrong I was.


The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of alleged WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq — helped fuel support for the war.


While the PIPA study concluded that most Americans (over 60%) held at least one of these mistaken impressions, the researchers also concluded that Americans’ opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information.


As the researchers explained in their report, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.”


Almost shocking was the extent to which Fox News viewers were mistaken. Those who relied on the conservative network for news, PIPA reported, were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three.”

Looking at the misperceptions one at a time, people were asked, for example, if the U.S. had discovered the alleged stockpiles of WMD in Iraq since the war began. Just 11% of those who relied on newspapers as their “primary news source” incorrectly believed that U.S. forces had made such a discovery. Only slightly more — 17% — of those who relied on NPR and PBS were wrong. Yet 33% of Fox News viewers were wrong, far ahead of those who relied on any other outlet.


Likewise, when people were asked if the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” similar results were found. Only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. has such evidence, while 67% of Fox News viewers were under that mistaken impression.

Overall, 80 percent of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions.


Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total.


In other words, Fox News viewers are literally less informed about these basic facts. They have, put simply, been led to believe things that are simply not true. These poor dupes would have done better in this survey, statistically speaking, if they received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate.


And, in addition to a fun bash-Fox-athon, I wanted to add that the PIPA study also documented that those who relied on newspapers as their primary news source were better informed than those who watched any of the television news broadcasts. The only folks more informed than newspaper readers were NPR listeners.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,631
Messages
13,453,060
Members
99,426
Latest member
bodyhealthtechofficia
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com