Jim Corr is talking about the New World Order right now!

Keano

MOH wrote: »

Also, this

Page Error!

We're sorry! The page does not exist.

To find the page you are looking for, try the following:

Mailman

Has this picture been posted yet? Maybe he discussed it with Dubya already.
The Girls are looking fine.

How do I embed the image rather than attach it.

kowloon

MOH wrote: »

No, but I've watched "911 Reno", and it didn't really change my opinion

How can a one armed man make a taco anyway?

Kernel

whiskeyman wrote: »

He's all over some of the tabloids this morning.
Well done Jim... you're a certified 'looney celeb' now!!

Wonder who in TodayFM thought it'd be funny to let him on air? They must have known what to expect given the topic?

Why is he a looney? Have your read up on the subject? Are you truly informed? I believe 911 was an inside job, am I a looney? You're confusing people who believe in fairies and reptilians with someone who has looked at evidence of the 911 event and come to a valid conclusion based on that. Even if I admit that the conclusion is not a certainty, it's still a valid one based on the event, and therefore not one to be scoffed at or dismissed as 'looney'. It's easy to label people like that, especially when it's thrown around as the general (uninformed) consensus by people.

Did you even watch the video he spoke about?

Fair play to Jim Corr, the man has risen a lot higher in my esteem for having the balls to do a little research and to arrive at and express a conclusion for which he could expect a hostile reception. I gaurantee that most who are slagging him off here known little about the subject (and I'll put Jerry Ryan into that category!).

Mailman

Doesn't matter whether 911 was a fix or not. Using it as a reason to argue against Lisbon Treaty is a poor argument.
It isn't a commonly held belief that 911 was a fix so you won't win over the majority to your point of view on Lisbon by wheeling it out.
I'm pro Lisbon treaty and was listening to him yesterday and up until he started talking about neo-con conspiracy theories he was making the most coherent argument I have heard so far against the treaty then it all fell to pieces when he turned in to a loon at the end. Un-did all the good points he made earlier.
He didn't make any arguments that changed my opinion but I heard him making enough points to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the undecided.
Most of the interview with him was very effective.
Good debaters always go with strong points that bring opinion to their side of the debate. true-believers of whatever don't win debates because they isolate themselves from those in the middle ground.

Kernel

Mailman wrote: »

I'm pro Lisbon treaty and was listening to him yesterday and up until he started talking about neo-con conspiracy theories he was making the most coherent argument I have heard so far against the treaty then it all fell to pieces when he turned in to a loon at the end. Un-did all the good points he made earlier.

Again, I fail to see how he turned into a loon at the end? Do you think his opinion based on his research and findings is not a valid opinion?

Seriously lads, from all quarters of boards there is a witch-hunt against so called 'conspiracy theories' or theorists where moderator sanctioned mockery and insulting is rife. It wouldn't be allowed on other topics or forums. I am often made to (unfairly) feel insulted on these topics by people here. There's a thread in feedback about this, where people are laughing down their sleeves at boards users of certain forums.

I don't call believers of the official 911 story crazies, loons, etc. Why should others be called that? *shrug*

curiousn

You're seeing first hand the reason why these things can easily be covered up. The non-official view is so far removed from what people could easily believe that 99% of people will call anyone who questions it a nutter, no matter how much evidence they have.

Just call someone a "conspiracy theorist" and they'll be instantly discredited and chastised in the media, while nobody bothers to really examine the evidence.
This exactly what we're seeing played out in the media and message boards.

It's difficult to say whether it was deliberately orchastrated or just let happen, but the evidence against the offical story and government cover up (no official investigation etc....) is just too hard to ignore. The more you start to look at the evidence, the more intriguing it gets.

Zzippy

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

i bet andrea is touching herself right now

Can't really blame her in fairness. I would too...

Nick_oliveri

Mailman wrote: »

Has this picture been posted yet? Maybe he discussed it with Dubya already.
The Girls are looking fine.

How do I embed the image rather than attach it.

Oh my god, sechs. Dont think you can embed an image on AH. I think this image should be allowed though, for humanitys sake. Minus Jim.

tunaman

javaboy wrote: »

The simple fact is that it would be practically impossible for the US government to perpetrate such a major terrorist attack on its own soil without some serious leaking.

Since when is your personal uninformed opinion called a simple fact?

If you were in some way informed, then you would have realised that there are many 9/11 whistle-blowers. Here a just a few examples of them and the incredible difficulty and threats they received trying to speak out...

9/11 Widow Ellen Mariani and Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg

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

FBI WHISTLEBLOWER GAGGED BY JUSTICE DPT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apz60ugBRx4

FBI whistleblowers are obstructed, silenced

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGAiyJ_l2a8

The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcRAxnsay58

The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjEddVpRj7o


You will find that if you look into the subject yourself, that you will find leaks all over the place. These people have had the courage to try to go public with their evidence and yet the vast majority have never even heard their voices.

That would only make sense if they had nothing important to say, yet the reality is completely the opposite...

tunaman

janeybabe wrote: »

I'm watching that 9/11 mysteries thing now. The woman narrating it is so bloody irritating. She pronounces every bloody word perfectly.

If you don't/won't watch the whole thing, then have a look at this.

Here is a two minute segment from the documentary, which shows footage of an interview with a supposedly random man on the streets of New York on the day. He instinctively knew exactly what caused the buildings to come down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fp7w_0_BzM

Now try to tell me you think that wasn't scripted.

Starryeyd

what was that sound???

Is Jim Corr SNAPPING!!!! His making Tom Cruise look sane...

curiousn

Matt Cooper was reading out more comments from listeners today.

Matt said that a structural engineer from Cork wrote in to say that there's no way a skyscraper like that could be expected to withstand the impact of a large jet plan. From his engineering experience he dismissed the whole theory.

On this matter, a more important expert opinion is that of Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction, who built the towers. Here he is on camera (in January 2001) explaining that the towers were designed to take the impact of multiple aircraft strikes (jets larger than the one which actually hit them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM

However, I've no doubt many listeners were swayed by the opinion of the structural engineer from Cork.

Keep digging and the official story is almost insulting to your intelligence.

bandit197

JJ6000 wrote: »

Wrong!!! THEY ARE THE FIRST EVER BUILDINGS TO HAVE 747's FULL OF FUEL SLAM FULL SPEED INTO THEM. THE FIRST EVER SKYSCRAPERS OF THAT SIZE TO SUFFER FROM SUCH A MAJOR FUEL INDUCED FIRE. DId you know that the take off weight of a 747-400 is around 900,000 pounds?? Imagine 900,000 pounds SLAMMING full speed into a structure at around 550mph...imagine all that sudden kinetic energy transferred into the structure....then imagine it is full of 40,000 - 50,000 gallons of fuel. Then consider the ensuing hours of fire....thousands of degrees of heat weakening that metal for hours. Any idea of how much structural damage that causes??? Nope, I didnt think so.
This type of thing had happened before 9/11 so you could not possibly compare it to other building fires and say "well, it didnt happen when all these other buildings went on fire".



Seriously, do some research before believing this utter crap.

This would be interesting if it were actually 747-400's that were used. Follow your own advice and do some proper research.
Edit: fixed quote box

Ciaran500

curiousn wrote: »

On this matter, a more important expert opinion is that of Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction, who built the towers. Here he is on camera (in January 2001) explaining that the towers were designed to take the impact of multiple aircraft strikes (jets larger than the one which actually hit them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM

You posted it twice so I might aswell.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/march/wtc.htm
Leslie Robinson designed his towers to withstand being hit by a 707. But the scenario of his design was very different from what happened on September 11th : He envisaged a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport, low on fuel at the end of its flight, with a pilot not daring to go faster than the stalling speed of 280 km per hour under such dangerous conditions.

Very different scenario to 911.

curiousn

Bandit197, you wrote earlier:
"Seriously, do some research before believing this utter crap."

How about you yourself do this research.

The planes which crashed into the WTC were 767s, a midsize aircraft and not

"THE FIRST EVER BUILDINGS TO HAVE 747's FULL OF FUEL SLAM FULL SPEED INTO THEM"

as you claimed.

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

I suggest anyone reading these message boards don't believe too much of the unsubstantiated "facts" they read here and do their own research.

Ciaran500

curiousn wrote: »

I suggest anyone reading these message boards don't believe too much of the unsubstantiated "facts" they read here and do their own research.

Agreed, I wouldn't advise youtube/google video as a place to look though. You're going to get very selective quotes and information with plenty of conjecture on top of that.

JJ6000

curiousn wrote: »

Bandit197, you wrote earlier:
"Seriously, do some research before believing this utter crap."

How about you yourself do this research.

The planes which crashed into the WTC were 767s, a midsize aircraft and not

"THE FIRST EVER BUILDINGS TO HAVE 747's FULL OF FUEL SLAM FULL SPEED INTO THEM"

as you claimed.

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

I suggest anyone reading these message boards don't believe too much of the unsubstantiated "facts" they read here and do their own research.

OK, so I made a mistake in the plane type.

The main body of my argument remains true though. Yes, they are the first building of this size to have been hit by a 767.

Name another comparable incident and MAYBE you might have a valid argument. You can't. Therefore, the argument that buildings "never collapsed before" is bull. Agree??

Also, care to try and back up the "controlled demolition" argument? No? Of course not.......because it is bull. Thermite?? Bull. Squibs?? Bull. No damage to surrounding buildings?? bull.

All bulls*hit.

Post ONE SUBSTANTIVE FACT OR ARGUMENT and then maybe I will give your argument some credence.

Otherwise, your posts, like all the other conspiracynuts, smack of childish fantasy.

JJ6000

bandit197 wrote: »

This would be interesting if it were actually 747-400's that were used. Follow your own advice and do some proper research.

Are you going to post a substantive rebuttal to what I said or just focus on the fact that I got the model of the plane wrong??

The principles remain the same.

Massive Kinetic energy transferred into building at huge speed......thousands of gallons of highly flammable jet fuel....massive fire....thousands of degrees = weakened structure & collapse.

Even apart from the logistical impossibility of a controlled demolition, anyone with 2 eyes in their head can see it does not resemble a controlled demolition in any way.

Thermite, explosives, building falling into neat pile = total bull....and has been SHOWN to be bull.

Keano

I watched the 9/11 Mysteries video and I have to admit some of the evidence and the points the raise I would like to see an official explanation, however, that it never going to happen.

What I do believe is that the US governent and the lack of communication between all those fancy 3 letter agencies got in the way of them possibly preventing the attacks.

JJ6000

and can someone also explain.....if the US govt carried out 9/11, then why exactly have Al QAEDA taken responsibility for it??

I suppose they are in on the conspiracy with the US govt????? HAHAHAHAHA!! Dont make me laugh!!

Yes, they are in on the conspiracy.....along with all the firefighters who went into those buildings and never saw the thousands of tons of explosives necessary to take down the WTC, along with all the workers in the WTC who must have kept quiet when thousands of pounds of explosives were being placed in the building when the guts were being ripped out of the building and heavy drilling taking place and thousands of metres of cable being laid throughout the entire building..

Oh yes, lets not also forget the NYPD, the aviation authorities, air-force generals, the tens of thousands of eye witnesses...the many engineers who compiled studies on the incident, politicians etc etc etc.

Yes, it's quite obvious tht ALL these people were in on it.....because some google video most probably made by a clueless civilian who has nothing better to do says so.

Yep....that seems likely.

JJ6000

Keano A Legend wrote: »

I watched the 9/11 Mysteries video and I have to admit some of the evidence and the points the raise I would like to see an official explanation, however, that it never going to happen.

What I do believe is that the US governent and the lack of communication between all those fancy 3 letter agencies got in the way of them possibly preventing the attacks.

I think your second point has merit.

It is nothing like what the conspiracy nuts & Jim Corr's of this world are arguing though.

bandit197

curiousn wrote: »

Bandit197, you wrote earlier:
"Seriously, do some research before believing this utter crap."

How about you yourself do this research.

The planes which crashed into the WTC were 767s, a midsize aircraft and not

"THE FIRST EVER BUILDINGS TO HAVE 747's FULL OF FUEL SLAM FULL SPEED INTO THEM"

as you claimed.

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

I suggest anyone reading these message boards don't believe too much of the unsubstantiated "facts" they read here and do their own research.

ehhmm, read the post again, I was quoting another poster. My comment is the last sentence.

mike65

Oh dear a perfectly fine AH thread mocking the afflicted has been taken over by nutters and those rebutting them. There is a whole board for this sort of thing

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Fill your boots.

Mike.

bandit197

JJ6000 wrote: »

OK, so I made a mistake in the plane type.

The main body of my argument remains true though. Yes, they are the first building of this size to have been hit by a 767.

Name another comparable incident and MAYBE you might have a valid argument. You can't. Therefore, the argument that buildings "never collapsed before" is bull. Agree??

Also, care to try and back up the "controlled demolition" argument? No? Of course not.......because it is bull. Thermite?? Bull. Squibs?? Bull. No damage to surrounding buildings?? bull.

All bulls*hit.

Post ONE SUBSTANTIVE FACT OR ARGUMENT and then maybe I will give your argument some credence.

Otherwise, your posts, like all the other conspiracynuts, smack of childish fantasy.

I think you are imagining an argument between us. I posted in this thread to simply remind you to get the facts straight before posting them. As for calling my posts childhood fantasy WTF?? Read my posts again and see if there is any childhood fantasy in them. I hav'nt even let you know what my thoughts or opinions as to what happened on sept 11th are.

JJ6000

JJ6000 wrote: »

and can someone also explain.....if the US govt carried out 9/11, then why exactly have Al QAEDA taken responsibility for it??

I suppose they are in on the conspiracy with the US govt????? HAHAHAHAHA!! Dont make me laugh!!

Yes, they are in on the conspiracy.....along with all the firefighters who went into those buildings and never saw the thousands of tons of explosives necessary to take down the WTC, along with all the workers in the WTC who must have kept quiet when thousands of pounds of explosives were being placed in the building when the guts were being ripped out of the building and heavy drilling taking place and thousands of metres of cable being laid throughout the entire building..

Oh yes, lets not also forget the NYPD, the aviation authorities, air-force generals, the tens of thousands of eye witnesses...the many engineers who compiled studies on the incident, politicians etc etc etc.

Yes, it's quite obvious tht ALL these people were in on it.....because some google video most probably made by a clueless civilian who has nothing better to do says so.

Yep....that seems likely.

Pride and honour probably. It's whenever there's a terrorist attack somewhere, you usually get a few groups claiming responsibility. And can anyone remember if Al Queda claimed responsibility or was the responsibility thrust on them?

humanji wrote: »

Do you really love lamp?

... I ... I love lamp.

curiousn

JJ6000 wrote: »

It is nothing like what the conspiracy nuts & Jim Corr's of this world are arguing though.

Why is it that those brave enough to do their own research and question the official view are called looneys and nuts?

You don't find the people who've done the extra research and now see another point of view going around calling those who believe a ridiculous official explanation looneys or nuts.

I have some respect for people who examine the events in detail and still (somehow) manage to agree with the official story. At least they were somewhat open minded and made an attempt to study before judging.

I don't think it's right for people who haven't done much research, outside of what's in the mainstream media, to refer to those who have in a degrading, critical and completely insulting manner.

Queen-Mise

curiousn wrote: »

I don't think it's right for people who haven't done much research, outside of what's in the mainstream media, to refer to those who have in a degrading, critical and completely insulting manner.

Did you hear Jim Corr on Ray Darcy today, he was a complete loon. I agree with one of the earlier posters, a few brain cells mixed with the legacy of two many drugs = paranoid political intellectual.

Ray Darcy is not known for his lightning wit, and he was catching Jim out with some of his interpretations of the Lisbon Treaty.

I am not denying the conspiracy theories on September 11th, I have no opinion, don't know enough about it. I

JJ6000

R0C0 wrote: »

Yes he did.

The explosions are recorded on seismometer.

Here, have a little explanation from popular mechanics on that one:

"The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. "

People suffered burns from explosions in the sixth sublevel.. or did they just imagine that?

Small explosions in a burning building are not uncommon...could have been caused by anything.....there are PLENTY of things that can explode in a building.
I'm not sure about who was burned by explosions, but some people suffered burns from the Jet fuel which poured down the elevator shaft to the floors below. Is that what your referring to?

Where do I say Thermite explodes??? Where??
Its used in demolition to cut through girders.

Well, you said there were explosions. I was simply pointing out that this woud not have been caused by thermite.

Thats just plain wrong. Takes about two minutes to check this out. Thermite is used in conjunction with sulphur, making Thermate.

So, it's thermate, we're talking about?? Thermate is not thermite.
in any case, even if traces were found I have a few questions:
1. Was the steel that was examined independantly verified to be from the WTC? Didnt Jim Corr already tell us all the steel was brought to an island in asia??
2. ANd also, how could you, or anyone else possibly know that the traces of thermite/thermate were not from a demolition but from the massive rescue & cleanup operation which involved cutting steel girders??

Also, thermate does not explode either.

It is also not used during controlled demolitions. It may be used in the PRELIMINARY work to controlled demolitions, to cut certain points in order to weaken the overall structure thus making it easier for the explosives to do their work. However, so are drills and acetylene torches etc etc.
Thermate/thermite is NOT used at the moment of controlled demolition. Explosives are what is used to take the building down which may/may not have been structurally pre-weakened with thermite.
Thermite is too unpredictable to use in the ACTUAL DEMOLITION itself.

Not true. And not the opinion of people who've worked in professional demolition.

Tell you what.....show everyone that ricidulous clip in loose change where he makes the comparison betwen a real demolition and the WTC "demolition". I laughed when I saw it since it bears NO RESEMBLANCE TO A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Also, dont cotrolled demolitions occur from the ground?? NOt from the top floors??

Take your own advice and do some research. The planes weren't full of fuel. The buildings were specifically designed to take the impact of jetliners of this size. The jet fuel was Kerosine, doesn't burn very hot at all, and was mostly consumed in the initial flare up. The fire was in "isolated pockets" of the building. But I suppose you know better than the firefighters there yeah?

hahahahha!!! So you trust the firfighters view now????
So, THEN YOU MUST ALSO BELIEVE THEM WHEN THEY SAY THE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM THE PLANES & FIRE???!!!
HAHAHA, bit of contradiction there no????

Hours of fire??? Thousands of degrees?? And you think I'm uninformed??

Yes, I do.
Fire possibly 1,300-1,400 F.
More than enough to significantly weaken the steel structure.

There's a difference between pulverized concrete and dust you know?? A building collapse doesn't cause concrete to pulverize

Explain it to me, because one of the definitions of pulverisation is to make into a powder by breaking up.
What does hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete falling on more conrete do?

1. You're wrong. The official story of the American Government and AA and the 9/11 Commission is they were lost. I can't believe you actually tell me to "do some research" and then come out with ridiculous completely wrong statements like this, "as far as you know"!

Yep, I said as far as I know.
The differnec between me and a conspiracy theorist is that a conspiracy nut would never say "as far as I know". They would present it as fact. I was open to being proven wrong on that.

2. Do you know anything about Black Boxes?? Do you understand what they're desined to resist??

Yes, they are designed to withstand a plane crash.
Oh, so are you saying they are designed to withstand hundreds of thousands of tons slamming onto them?
sorry friend, but contrary to what you may believe, black boxes are not indestructible.

Bullsh*t? NORAD admit they were carrying out these wargames on the day. Or do you think NORAD are lying too??

Jesus christ bud, honestly. How can you tell someone else to do research when its clear you've not done an ounce.

Here, since I cant be bothere explaining this to you, have alink.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Cheney_in_charge_of_NORAD

Haha.. and what would you expect??

Sorry, what exactly are you saying here.???
Oh yes, wait of course, they are in on the conspiracy too!! How silly of me. Yes, it's not possible at all that they in fact, genuinely do denounce OSAMA.
Since what they say does not fit with the conspiracy theory, then they must be liars....or better yet, co-conspirators!!
Yes, of course they must be co-conspirators since that fits in nicely with all the little crackpot theories that we all love.

JJ6000

bandit197 wrote: »

I think you are imagining an argument between us. I posted in this thread to simply remind you to get the facts straight before posting them. As for calling my posts childhood fantasy WTF?? Read my posts again and see if there is any childhood fantasy in them. I hav'nt even let you know what my thoughts or opinions as to what happened on sept 11th are.

No no sorry, that wasnt directed at you.

I ws responding to so many posts at once I got mixed up.

genuine apologies for that.