The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why does Israel have a veto over the peace process? > Comments

Why does Israel have a veto over the peace process? : Comments

By Alan Hart, published 18/4/2011

Resolution 242 effectively gave Israel’s leaders and the Zionist lobby in America a veto over any peace process.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Danielle,Do you understand why it is impossible for any building constructed of steel and concrete to collapse at freefall speeds into its own footprint, leaving almost no evidence of the layered concrete structures?Look at the Christchurch earthquake.Many of the large buildings fell over.They did not explode into dust or leave pools of molten steel.

It means that a force greater than gravity had to sequentially deconstruct the buildings in a co-ordinated fashion.This is called controlled demolition.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 20 April 2011 10:56:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice posts, Danielle. Hadn't come across the "Nutty 9-11 Physics" site before.

You won't get Arjay to address the points it makes, though. He is having far too much fun hobnobbing with the geniuses who have manufactured a gravy-train for themselves out of 9-11. How these idiots can look themselves in the mirror each day, knowing that they are profiting from the misery of so many people, is a mystery to me. Can you imagine what it must be like, to have lost a husband, wife, son, daughter, whatever, and have these clowns constantly tell you that they were murdered by their own government?

You are losing your touch, though, Arjay.

>>Look at the Christchurch earthquake.Many of the large buildings fell over.They did not explode into dust or leave pools of molten steel.<<

That probably qualifies as the least smart rationale you've so far offered. And there's no shortage of competition for that title.

Have you experienced an earthquake? If you had, you would know instinctively, without the aid of 1,500 US architects, that its effect on a building is substantially different to either i) a controlled demolition or ii) a fully-loaded plane smacking into its superstructure.

I know, you are too committed to this fantasy to drop it any time soon. But do try to maintain some basic standards.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 21 April 2011 8:33:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why has this thread been diverted into discussing a 9/11 conspiracy theory? The author of the article is apparently a nutter who goes in for conspiracy theories, but that was not the thrust of the article.

The title of the article is "Why does Israel have a veto over the peace process?" The title assumes that Israel has a veto over the peace process. That assumption is false, and the article does nothing to establish the validity of that assumption.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 21 April 2011 9:36:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Daneille started the argument trying to denergrate Alan Hart because he espouses that 911 needs a new investigation.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 21 April 2011 12:38:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Those demolition 'experts' must have been pretty stupid, dropping those buildings almost straight down, if as you say, it is impossible for it to happen naturally. If they were experts, they would know that. So why didn't they simulate a standard sort of building collapse, lop-sided, crap everywhere, all over the place ? Just put demolition charges down one side of the buildings ? Why bother with precise ? Perhaps they are not so smart ? Or perhaps they didn't do it ? Perhaps those planes weren't actually holograms after all ?

And why on earth did they need to wire up a third building with explosives, when they must also have been aware that it wasn't going to be hit by a plane ? Isn't it possible that the collapse of two 300-metre buildings right next door to it might have destabilised its foundations enough to - a few hours later - bring it down ? Does it happen a few hours after an earthquake, that a building collapses without warning ?

Those are two aspects which YOU need to explain, Arjay.
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 22 April 2011 5:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,WTC 7 the third building of 47 stories was supposed to come down hidden amidst the dust of the towers.Had it not been for the delay in the demolition of WTC 7,they would have pulled it off sucesssfully.WTC 7 had to go since it housed CIA,FBI and ENRON.It was packed with evidence.No plane hit WTC 7 but it came down in its' own footprint in a controlled demolition style,defying the laws of maths and physics.

So let's have a new investigation looking at all the evidence.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 22 April 2011 10:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy