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 > Baby Bush: the worst president in history? > Comments

Baby Bush: the worst president in history? : Comments

By Doug Casey, published 4/9/2009

Was Bush the worst president ever? Here are some of the highpoints in the catalogue of disasters his regime created.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All
Sorry the website for Architects and Engineers is http://www.ae911truth.org/ View the indisputable reality.These are not a bunch of crackpot wackos who are influenced by mind altering drugs.This is the reality,no matter how unpalitable we in our Western comfort zones find it.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 10 September 2009 11:58:30 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, you're going to have to kick this habit of seeing the world as one giant conspiracy.

It will, I can promise you, be damaging to your health, both mental and physical.

Your new favourite - nano-thermite - is an absolute doozy.

>>This is not conspiracy theory but scientific forensic evidence<<

That is exactly, and most precisely, absolutely wrong, on both counts.

The evidence that nanothermite was present in samples of dust taken from the vicinity of the towers is irreducibly vague. It talks about the presence of aluminium and iron oxide in samples, as if the only way their presence could be justified was in nano-thermite form.

Conveniently ignoring that the building contained thousands of tons of aluminium, and significant amounts of rust, simply because it was... a building.

Also completely ignoring the fact that a residue of "spent" thermite is barium nitrate. None of which was found. Even by the conspiracy-dudes.

Pure fantasy. And this is also to ignore a half-dozen other impossibilities embedded in the theory. How did the necessary amount come to be installed in the building, and where? How was it detonated? Why did it not just explode from the heat generated by the exploding planes.

Or were those planes fictitious too?

Frankly, I would imagine any and every wacko theory gets a run at your place.

And the "architects video" is pure undiluted speculation. The collapse of a building of this size, under the conditions it experienced, was literally unprecedented. To speculate that experience from "normal" demolitions would apply here is irresponsible. Except of course for people who wish to profit financially from the controversy.

It is simply a string of vague "how else can you explain" postulations. I found myself disagreeing with just over 100% of the "statements" made in the video, and reinforced my view that 9/11 conspiracy nutters are unable to apply normal logic.

Anyway, you did manage to pervert yet another thread with your nutjob theories, Arjay.

Kudos at least for that.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 12 September 2009 7:27:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All

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