Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 279
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163231
Yssup Rider60955
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48654
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42591
CryptKicker37218
The_Waco_Kid37009
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-16-2015, 04:13 PM   #1
SeekingTruth
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 284979
Join Date: Feb 22, 2015
Location: Guess
Posts: 378
Default 9/11: Ten Years of Deception, Part 1 (2015)

Now available for streaming on Hulu.com. There are 3 parts.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/780176.

Caio for now. Explore and read, especially biased free news on youtube.
SeekingTruth is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2015, 04:18 PM   #2
Old-T
Valued Poster
 
Old-T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2010
Location: From hotel to hotel
Posts: 9,058
Encounters: 15
Default

Biased free news? Really? Because they say so, or because you wish to believe it?
Old-T is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2015, 04:30 PM   #3
SeekingTruth
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 284979
Join Date: Feb 22, 2015
Location: Guess
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T View Post
Biased free news? Really? Because they say so, or because you wish to believe it?
Because I follow my own truth, that's why. You probably do not have a clue about your own truth.
SeekingTruth is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2015, 04:39 PM   #4
Old-T
Valued Poster
 
Old-T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2010
Location: From hotel to hotel
Posts: 9,058
Encounters: 15
Default

Because you believe something--or want it to be true--does not make it so.
Old-T is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2015, 04:45 PM   #5
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

I think the knucklehead meant to say unbiased but I could be wrong.

noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
our strong bias in favor of the idea.
2.
unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice:
accusations of racial bias.
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2015, 11:38 PM   #6
Mr MojoRisin
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 3, 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 7,567
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old-T View Post
Because you believe something--or want it to be true--does not make it so.
Well if you think about it, that could be said about anyone's belief of 9/11. The Government version is a bit ridiculous anyway, and the footage of planes passing through a building like a hot knife through butter and exploding inside the building instead of exploding directly upon impact is very unlikely.

Jim
Mr MojoRisin is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 12:13 AM   #7
JD Barleycorn
Valued Poster
 
JD Barleycorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 12, 2011
Location: Olathe
Posts: 16,815
Encounters: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekingTruth View Post
Because I follow my own truth, that's why. You probably do not have a clue about your own truth.
Your own truth? What's wrong with the plain old simple truth where ever it may go.
JD Barleycorn is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 12:18 AM   #8
CuteOldGuy
Valued Poster
 
CuteOldGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 20, 2010
Location: Wichita
Posts: 28,730
Encounters: 20
Default

Even the 9/11 Commission admitted we aren't getting the full story. But if I say that, I'm accused of being an un-American conspiracy theorist. The fact is we don't don't know what happened. I think we need to know. 9/11 has been the excuse for the biggest attack on Liberty in history. Without the full story, we cannot possibly decide if the loss of freedom is necessary.
CuteOldGuy is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 04:09 PM   #9
WombRaider
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 7, 2015
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 8,487
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin View Post
Well if you think about it, that could be said about anyone's belief of 9/11. The Government version is a bit ridiculous anyway, and the footage of planes passing through a building like a hot knife through butter and exploding inside the building instead of exploding directly upon impact is very unlikely.

Jim
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy View Post
Even the 9/11 Commission admitted we aren't getting the full story. But if I say that, I'm accused of being an un-American conspiracy theorist. The fact is we don't don't know what happened. I think we need to know. 9/11 has been the excuse for the biggest attack on Liberty in history. Without the full story, we cannot possibly decide if the loss of freedom is necessary.
You think our government is capable of the biggest coverup in history? Get real.

Exploding inside instead of upon impact is unlikely? You have a tenuous grasp on basic physics. Why would it explode directly on impact, when the fuel is in the wings? Exploding when it did is HIGHLY likely.

The 9/11 commission did not say we weren't getting the whole story. You are a conspiracy theorist. What liberties have you lost? Have g-men visited your home? We know exactly what happened, but you refuse to accept it.
WombRaider is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 04:29 PM   #10
Mr MojoRisin
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 3, 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 7,567
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WombRaider View Post
You think our government is capable of the biggest coverup in history? Get real.

Exploding inside instead of upon impact is unlikely? You have a tenuous grasp on basic physics. Why would it explode directly on impact, when the fuel is in the wings? Exploding when it did is HIGHLY likely.

The 9/11 commission did not say we weren't getting the whole story. You are a conspiracy theorist. What liberties have you lost? Have g-men visited your home? We know exactly what happened, but you refuse to accept it.
Apparently you know nothing about physics or Airplanes. The wings of an Airplane aren't one solid piece they are constructed in sections and riveted together. They aren't going to remain intact as the plane impacts the building. Sections of the wing should have broken apart upon initial impact and that should have been obvious in the videos, it wasn't. Furthermore, whether our Government is capable of this or not may still remain to be seen, but the initial narrative has way to many holes in it to be believable anymore.

Jim
Mr MojoRisin is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 04:58 PM   #11
WombRaider
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 7, 2015
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 8,487
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin View Post
Apparently you know nothing about physics or Airplanes. The wings of an Airplane aren't one solid piece they are constructed in sections and riveted together. They aren't going to remain intact as the plane impacts the building. Sections of the wing should have broken apart upon initial impact and that should have been obvious in the videos, it wasn't. Furthermore, whether our Government is capable of this or not may still remain to be seen, but the initial narrative has way to many holes in it to be believable anymore.

Jim
You said impact. Meaning the moment the nose hits the object. The measure of time between the nose first touching the building and the planes tail end passing through wasn't even one second. The wings didn't even have time to do anything until they were already inside.

"the planes entering the buildings at 750 feet per second"

At 750 feet per SECOND, you think we are going to have time to see anything but mass destruction? Let alone wings breaking off. C'mon.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 degrees. Steel melts at 2750, so people went apeshit, saying that the fuel couldn't have melted the steel, causing the collapse.

"Steel weakens at as low as 400 degrees. As the core steel columns weakened, load-bearing was transferred to the building’s shell. As the fires continued to burn, multiple floors weakened, sagged, and pulled on the outside structure causing total collapse."



You should read up on it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/
WombRaider is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 05:15 PM   #12
Mr MojoRisin
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 3, 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 7,567
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WombRaider View Post
You said impact. Meaning the moment the nose hits the object. The measure of time between the nose first touching the building and the planes tail end passing through wasn't even one second. The wings didn't even have time to do anything until they were already inside.

"the planes entering the buildings at 750 feet per second"

At 750 feet per SECOND, you think we are going to have time to see anything but mass destruction? Let alone wings breaking off. C'mon.

Jet fuel burns between 800 and 1500 degrees. Steel melts at 2750, so people went apeshit, saying that the fuel couldn't have melted the steel, causing the collapse.

"Steel weakens at as low as 400 degrees. As the core steel columns weakened, load-bearing was transferred to the building’s shell. As the fires continued to burn, multiple floors weakened, sagged, and pulled on the outside structure causing total collapse."



You should read up on it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/
I've read up on all of it the conspiracy theories and the actual accounts. I have a hard time believing an airplane like the 767 is going to fly at over 500 miles per hour at just 900 feet altitude and not experience structural damage before hitting the building. I am not a pilot and you're not a pilot. But the pilots in the following clip will tell ya it's bullshit.

Jim


https://youtu.be/M926lPlIivU
Mr MojoRisin is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 08:51 PM   #13
WombRaider
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 7, 2015
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 8,487
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin View Post
I've read up on all of it the conspiracy theories and the actual accounts. I have a hard time believing an airplane like the 767 is going to fly at over 500 miles per hour at just 900 feet altitude and not experience structural damage before hitting the building. I am not a pilot and you're not a pilot. But the pilots in the following clip will tell ya it's bullshit.

Jim


https://youtu.be/M926lPlIivU
I call bullshit. The 767 is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 600MPH at ANY altitude. If your contention was correct, simply having a plane go into a dive would be a death sentence, which of course it isn't.

"A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively."

"The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive."

http://911blogger.com/node/20232
WombRaider is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 09:17 PM   #14
Mr MojoRisin
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 3, 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 7,567
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WombRaider View Post
I call bullshit. The 767 is capable of reaching speeds in excess of 600MPH at ANY altitude. If your contention was correct, simply having a plane go into a dive would be a death sentence, which of course it isn't.

"A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively."

"The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive."

http://911blogger.com/node/20232
Your link is full of shit, and if you believe a plane like a 767 with passengers, luggage and seats ect is capable of speeds of 500 and beyond at sea level without breaking up then you must believe in the Easter Bunny too. There is no proof what so ever those planes were travelling at those speeds, none. It can't be done. What the 911 Commission and the media portrayed to us about 9/11 simply is false. The truth is out there. I'll assure you and anyone else it is far different from what we have been told.

Jim
Mr MojoRisin is offline   Quote
Old 05-17-2015, 09:22 PM   #15
WombRaider
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 7, 2015
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 8,487
Encounters: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin View Post
Your link is full of shit, and if you believe a plane like a 767 with passengers, luggage and seats ect is capable of speeds of 500 and beyond at sea level without breaking up then you must believe in the Easter Bunny too. There is no proof what so ever those planes were travelling at those speeds, none. It can't be done. What the 911 Commission and the media portrayed to us about 9/11 simply is false. The truth is out there. I'll assure you and anyone else it is far different from what we have been told.

Jim
You're just wrong. Here are the specs, cruising speed of well over 500mph

Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 567 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft (11,000 m) cruise altitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

You know better than the government and MIT, I guess.

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said."
WombRaider is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved