WW3 On The Way - Sensationalist Alert!

[Rincewind]

Yes I thought I had seen them too. I also thought that it was said part of the top part of the building collapsed just before the 'controlled' collapse. Also I seem to remember something about the footage not being shot where it said it was.

If the other side had collapsed there would be no way a bomb expert could have predicted it and way blow it up after it had been damaged? Would that not be enough to require a demolition at later date?

[Zingari]

Conspiracy theories often fail to explain WHY "they" did it and instead focus on HOW.

With regards 9/11 WHY would they demolish these buildings? Surely there are slightly more life-friendly ways of instigating a war on terror without killing shitloads of your own citizens.

WHY is very simple

Governments throughout the ages have used false flag operations as justification to go to war under a pretext of self defence rather than aggression

Most people don’t want war until they believe themselves to be under attack

War is fookin big business , plain and simple

[OzFox]

Yes I thought I had seen them too. I also thought that it was said part of the top part of the building collapsed just before the 'controlled' collapse. Also I seem to remember something about the footage not being shot where it said it was.

If the other side had collapsed there would be no way a bomb expert could have predicted it and way blow it up after it had been damaged? Would that not be enough to require a demolition at later date?

Yeah I would have thought that holes and fires would ruin the best laid plans of any demolition expert.

Also, as somebody else said, why bother blowing up wtc7 and risk revealing the plot, when you've already achieved the near impossible and taken down the twin towers?

[Zingari]

Yeah I would have thought that holes and fires would ruin the best laid plans of any demolition expert.

Also, as somebody else said, why bother blowing up wtc7 and risk revealing the plot, when you've already achieved the near impossible and taken down the twin towers?

jesus wept , the charges must have been put there before the attack .

that's the whole fookin point of the argument

And proof of preplanning one of the buildings to collapse leads to an almost certain proof of all three being planned

don't you get that?

[OzFox]

jesus wept , the charges must have been put there before the attack .

that's the whole fookin point of the argument

and proof of preplanning one of the buildings leads to certain proof of all three

don't you get that?

You know perfectly well what I'm getting at. If you know you're going to attack the two big ones, why risk revealing yourself by blowing up the silly little one hours later? Daft as a brush.

[Rincewind]

Understood but the planes hit BEFORE the explosion and there was damage done which is why it was be evacuated. So given that where would the explosives need to be placed to cause a controlled explosion. Placed in the wrong place and it would not have looked how it did.

[Zingari]

Understood but the planes hit BEFORE the explosion and there was damage done which is why it was be evacuated. So given that where would the explosives need to be placed to cause a controlled explosion. Placed in the wrong place and it would not have looked how it did.

planes didn't hit wtc7

[Rincewind]

No but I thought it was damaged from debris?

[OzFox]

planes didn't hit wtc7

how do you know? According to you, nobody saw a plane hit the Pentagon, so why would they see one hitting wtc7?

By the way, I noticed my local Vietnamese is called "le Tonkin". They know the truth.

[Zingari]

No but I thought it was damaged from debris?

yes , but never before has debris , hurricanes , fire , earthquajkes , or fookin godzilla brought down a massive steel framed building symmetrically , at freefall with pyroclastic clouds that all give a damn good impersonation ao controlled demolition

[Rincewind]

I am talking about bringing the building down but enough damage to make any ex-plosives placed elsewhere to act differently to the expected way.

[BoneDog]

Jeez, El Empty - I'm sure you're a funny guy and all but that's just looney.

The first way of starting a war is by implying there's potential for one via media.

And quoting FOX News? They're openly conservative and war-mongers of the highest order.

They j3rk off to the mere thought of an armed conflict.

I agree it seems a bit looney, but I did warn that it is sensationalist! What you say about the media implying the potential for war is correct, and so I think we should be slightly worried as all media seems to be showing that we are gearing up for major confrontations. It's the talk of the town.

As for Fox News, I don't watch that channel but I do follow Gerald Celente. He was a guest on there and I decided to post that video as he mentions the similarities of the world situation in 2012 as compared to the build up to the other two World Wars - the financial and economic turmoil, and the beating of drums by the world powers etc.

Edit : And I see that nobody has voted for "Yes we can stop it", so now I am crapping! Build your bunkers and weapon up!

[BoneDog]

What's a moran?

It's a moron who can't spell.

I uploaded that pic to tinypic just now, and the verification code thing I had to enter was Genghis Khan. It's some kind of sign I'm positive

Edit : Zingari beat me to it!

[BoneDog]

So world war three will be fought with ray guns?

For sure. The usual weapons will also be used but ray guns are the future, especially for crowd control. There are many examples which are common in the US already but here's one example for now.

http://rt.com/news/heat-ray-crowd-control-894/

[BoneDog]

Iran has its own internal problems too, Ahmadinejad’s regime is not popular with everyone and there are a number of dissident groups who are bent on change, Full scale boots on the ground war may not be required to facilitate regime change. However, this could be precluded by Israeli intervetntion if it perceives that Iran's nuclear capability has matured in to a real threat to its security. All bets may be off if that happens.

True, the regime is not popular with everyone in Iran, but that is the case with every government around the world. I have seen enough reports from different journalists who say that the majority of the country support Ahmadinejad. When the higher class of Tehran took to the streets and started setting fire to petrol stations and generally causing destruction in the so-called green revolution recently there were much bigger peaceful demonstrations all over the country in support of Ahmadinejad. But, of course, our media didn't mention or show these, as we were hoping the coup would be succesful. It backfired though, and the truth started to filter out about who was behind the so-called revolution. And those people certainly don't have the best interests of Iranians at heart.

The same can be said of Syria and the real oppostion there (not the foreign terrorists who our media call opposition) are not taking up arms against their government but are pushing for reforms the legal way. Some reforms in Syria have already been agreed upon but the terrorists are not interested. The Syrian guy on the Tarpley video I posted in the Syria thread talks about this after the half way mark of the discussion. There were also massive demonstartions in Syria a month or two ago in support of their government and armed forces.

Edit : Regarding whether Iran's nuclear program is a threat to Israel, this report came out this morning just after I started this thread - http://rt.com/news/i...ear-weapon-990/

The only way Israel is going to be threatened is if we do start a war with Iran. Otherwise, Iran is not stupid enough to attack any other country. They know it would be suicide.

[BoneDog]

El Empty

Guess who plus one'd that!

I'm sorry, but who the fvck are you to tell people what they can and can't post, if you don't want to read about it, don't look at this thread, if you don't like what El Empty posts, then put him on ignore.

I would have said something myself, but I think he might just be giving some friendly advice as he said 'pal', so I didn't take offence! I do appreciate your sentiment of defending free speech though

El Empty I am going on holiday to Israel in November. Should I be worried?

Worried, no. Prepared mentally, yes!

The only problem I foresee is if war breaks out (or I should say escalates) while you are in that region you might have trouble getting back home for a while. You may have to take a detour to get home that's all. Of course you may be very unlucky and get caught up in a missile attack or something, but life does come with a death sentence for us all, if you're a world traveller that's just a risk you take! GOOD LUCK!

My uncle went to Israel a year or so ago for the second time and he had a good time. He went to India and Vietnam on the same journey.

[I am Rod Hull]

WWIII is not in the interests of the powers that be.... The same powers that try to frighten us with scary terrorist threat stories , the powers that have made us all slaves to the banks/insurance companies, the powers that pretend to hold elections, the powers that intentionally give us a shite education, the powers that need us to be servile.....

WWIII? I don`t think so.....

[davieG]

WWIII is not in the interests of the powers that be.... The same powers that try to frighten us with scary terrorist threat stories , the powers that have made us all slaves to the banks/insurance companies, the powers that pretend to hold elections, the powers that intentionally give us a shite education, the powers that need us to be servile.....

WWIII? I don`t think so.....

Maybe they need to reduce the population, I bet all those kindly souls that contribute to and try to relieve poverty and save lives are really pissing them off.

[I am Rod Hull]

Maybe they need to reduce the population, I bet all those kindly souls that contribute to and try to relieve poverty and save lives are really pissing them off.

I hear their words but I have eyes

[BoneDog]

I can't really see what the point in worrying about it is. There's not a lot you can do to affect it, so you might as well assume it's not going to happen.

El Empty, do you own a placard with, "The end is nigh" on it?

Why not just get on with your life while there's no world war going on? I think you'll be happier for it.

No I don't own any placards! I've never been on a protest in my life (which is quite shameful for me) and I don't sit at home worrying all day. I am happy with my lot but the thing is that now I'm over 30 I've stopped doing all the going out stuff and usual lad shit I used to get up to. Nowadays in my spare time I just like to relax and read about some world events and stuff like that. I find it much more interesting than watching films or tv shows which mostly bore me to tears!

I do sometimes get a bit upset about what's going on in the world so I try to do my bit and spread the word now and then. Three of my family were in the first Gulf war and the second Iraq war and it worried me to death. When they were away at war it was on my mind all the time (even though a couple of them enjoyed their army days and are very proud of their service, I couldn't stop worrying about them). One of my cousins (who was in the first Gulf War) sons, in his early life, suffered from something that is connected to Gulf War Syndrome and I know many more are in the same boat. I don't like to see wars started on lies by governments that don't care about their soldiers, their families, or the citizens of other countries. I think it's despicable and it puts millions of people in foreign countries, our armed forces, and their families waiting at home through absolute hell. These are some of the reasons I don't want more wars to start in Syria or Iran.

Another reason I don't want war in Syria or Iran is because I don't support Al Qaeda. The rebels outside Syria waiting to pounce and continue their killing spree are fricking Al Qaeda terrorists in black masks and people in the West are supporting them, arming them and paying them! You couldn't make this shit up, but like they say, truth is stranger than fiction.

i think Empty believes that if enough people are prepared to listen to the warnings and try to expose the lies and deceit perpetrated by NWO etc ( or whatever anyone wants to call global elite rulers ), then WW3 can still be avoided

Sorry Empty if i'm misrepresenting you

You're not misrepresenting me, you're usually spot on

Can any major countries afford a costly world wide war? Does any country have the manpower to engage in major conflicts? Transporting arms and men across the globe then keeping them there at a cost? Will the UN sanction a World war?

These are some of the questions I believe should be looked at before we start to panic.

Regarding the first question, I heard someone talking about this the other day, and he said that countries are constantly engaging in wars that they cannot afford. I don't think the leaders who take us to war care if we, as a country, can afford it or not as they all have their fingers in the money making schemes that come out of these wars. They will all personally get richer as our country as a whole gets poorer. This is one of the main reasons for the financial crisis. Trillions of pounds of our money is being spent on war.

And the UN question, I don't think that this new war will need UN approval. The Libya war was illegal under UN or international law but we just went ahead and bombed them. The UN are basically redundant and powerless anyway, but the main reason that I think the UN will be bypassed is because there will be a spectacular and convenient terrorist attack that will be blamed on either Iran or maybe Pakistans ISI. I think we will hear Western leaders pretending to be diplomatic about Iran until this terrorist event and then they will say 'no more talking, it's time for war'. Time will tell.

Got to nip out, be back in an hour or so to carry on catching up on ze thread yo.

[Jaspa]

I'm sorry, but who the fvck are you to tell people what they can and can't post, if you don't want to read about it, don't look at this thread, if you don't like what El Empty posts, then put him on ignore.

Can you not see how hypocritical that is ?

Furthermore I have no problems with what Empty or his posts, I was just trying to say there's alot of similar threads, and they always end up the same

[JadeFalcon]

the doomsday clock is the only thing to go by if you want to know how close we are to WWIII, or the end of the world in general, it takes into account lots of different statistics

http://www.thebulletin.org/

Currently 5 minutes to midnight, 1953 is when it was at its closest to midnight and that was 2 minutes

[Guest Bilo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Mz4ISiW4w

World War III can fvck off with World War IV.

[dave the caveman]

Any damage caused to the building would have been asymmetric and any collapse would have been asymmetric too.

You seriously think a building that size would just fall over to the side? Like it's a ****ing tree? Jesus Tony Crickets, how barmy are you?

Buildings like that are very heavy things. The steel beams can take the load only if it is applied vertically. There is no way they could remain intact as the entire weight of the building fell to the side. Once one beam failed due to the intense heat of the fire or impact damage or whatever, they all failed.

Think of ten bricks laid on top of four vertical straws. If the straws remain perfectly vertical and the bricks remain still, the straws will take the load. But if you then set fire to one of the straws, the other three will collapse instantly, leaving the bricks to fall down symmetrically.

[Zingari]

You seriously think a building that size would just fall over to the side? Like it's a ****ing tree? Jesus Tony Crickets, how barmy are you?

Buildings like that are very heavy things. The steel beams can take the load only if it is applied vertically. There is no way they could remain intact as the entire weight of the building fell to the side. Once one beam failed due to the intense heat of the fire or impact damage or whatever, they all failed.

Think of ten bricks laid on top of four vertical straws. If the straws remain perfectly vertical and the bricks remain still, the straws will take the load. But if you then set fire to one of the straws, the other three will collapse instantly, leaving the bricks to fall down symmetrically.

no it won't it will fall to one side

try sawing off one leg of a table ,you can load the table with concrete slabs if you like

then set fire to the legs .

i bet it falls in the direction of the weakest point (the corner with no leg)

this is because the legs even weakened by fire will offer at least some resistance to the fall

actually this is too fookin ridiculous to answer because we're talking about a "steel framed" building and i'm annoyed that i've actually bothered to answer this