True Black American Heroes

Alot of european (and other) countries had their hand in the slave trade......and England was one of the first to get out......I am talking about their dictaorial colonial empire that fucked up most of Asia, Africa, Ireland, and Persia.

The biggest global mistake was bringing African slaves to the western hemisphere. Originally Posted by pantsontheground

I could go for another black president but their last name would have to be West, Rice, Watts, or Cain. I fear it will take a few years before people forget about this one. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No "Powell" on your list? Why not? I gotta disagree with Cain (aside from his sex scandal, 999 was just stupid) and Rice owes me one - she said publicly we had conclusive evidence about Al Queda and 9/11 that she would present and she never did - I would personally still like to see this clear evidence as I think everyone has a few 9/11 questions heh.

Okay now that I've kicked the hornets nest I'm going out for the night

No "Powell" on your list? Why not? I gotta disagree with Cain (aside from his sex scandal, 999 was just stupid) and Rice owes me one - she said publicly we had conclusive evidence about Al Queda and 9/11 that she would present and she never did - I would personally still like to see this clear evidence as I think everyone has a few 9/11 questions heh.

Okay now that I've kicked the hornets nest I'm going out for the night Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

Bin Laden admitted he and his cohorts were responsible, and the 9/11 Commission published a book on their findings. All the bells and whistles are accounted for: use Ockham's Razor. .

Bin Laden was an attention whore. Of course he took responsibility. And a government commission does not give me much comfort.

No, I'm not a truther, but be real. You can't trust the government. I'd like to see some more evidence. For example, no one has ever adequately explained Building 7.

Bin Laden admitted he and his cohorts were responsible, and the 9/11 Commission published a book on their findings. All the bells and whistles are accounted for: use Ockham's Razor. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Don't waste your time in these posts IB.

If COG wants to think that Bush wired building 7, wtf can you do but shake your head?

Typical WTF non answer; Are you saying Sharpton did a similar story before Beck? Or are you saying, there is no reason to watch Sharpton because he doesn't do informative stories about Black history? I.E. it takes a conservative white dude like Beck to get the truth out? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I'm saying that folks like you would no watch brother Al.

You would discredit the source if you happened to watch..."Awww MSNBC, Lamestream media bla bla bla"

So yes, Glenn Beck or others you trust need to inform you of things like this. Limbaugh , Hannity those types. Your hero types.

Don't waste your time in these posts IB.

If COG wants to think that Bush wired building 7, wtf can you do but shake your head? Originally Posted by WTF

Did I say that, WTF? No, of course not. But you love to bring in strawmen, knock them down, and congratulate yourself.

Google Building 7, watch it collapse, then explain to me how it happened just like that. I'm not accusing anybody, but I would like a plausible explanation.

But a rational discussion is beyond you. You need a forum where you can spell "fuc" in your own cute little way, and make yourself feel superior by making things up, and knocking them down.

What a sad little man you are.

Google Building 7, watch it collapse, then explain to me how it happened just like that. I'm not accusing anybody, but I would like a plausible explanation.

. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not that you will believe a thing something than other a UFO magazine publishes. Do you get your news from the Globe?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Conspiracy theorists say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. They also claim that there was a confession from the building owner who said he "pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence showing that conspiracy theorists are wrong.
As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers as WTC7 were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above them.
As you can see, the building never caught fire so it was never in any danger of collapse. It also was constructed differently, with a web column design. The interior columns were not pushed out to the perimeter.
Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.
So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition

On 17 March, 1945, ten days after its capture, the Remagen bridge suddenly collapsed into the Rhine River. Twenty-eight U.S. Army engineers were killed while working to strengthen the bridge, and 93 others were injured.

Why?

The bridge collapsed because it had suffered enough cumulative stress – no one, single factor – from battle and carrying heavy loads. Same with Building 7.

Wow, I have to agree with WTF and disagree with COG (my alter ego according to some but then that is another conspiracy theory). A hundred years ago buildings failed with considerable loss of life but our building codes probably condemn a lot of buildings with insufficient damage to fail. We always err on the side of caution.
In Wellington, New Zealand they are gutting their downtown because of the earthquake. Many were damaged but were left standing. They may stand for the next 100 years but they won't take that chance. The Twin Towers were brought down by a engineering failure brought about by the intense heat from the jet fuel burning.

Wow, I have to agree with WTF and disagree with COG (my alter ego according to some but then that is another conspiracy theory).. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

There is hope still for you JD!

COG, not so much.

There is hope still for you JD!

COG, none at all. Originally Posted by WTF

There I corrected it for you!

WTF, I don't think your article explains how Bldg 7 free-fell. People pay lots of money to get a building to free fall into it's own footprint. That article does nothing to explain how that happened. Sorry.

WTF, I don't think your article explains how Bldg 7 free-fell. People pay lots of money to get a building to free fall into it's own footprint. That article does nothing to explain how that happened. Sorry. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
For Immediate Release:November 25, 2008

The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.

http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm


NIST Releases WTC 7 Investigation Report for Public Comment
For Immediate Release: September 3, 2008

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said.

http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7_090308.cfm

How does the failure of one beam cause a building to collapse at free fall into it's own footprint? The entire building came down equally at free fall speed. It doesn't make sense. Under your evidence, it would have collapsed at unequal speeds. I'm not buying this. Watch the video, and see if it makes sense to you. I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition, but it sure looks like one. That's what bothers me.