[Innes]

When did the Presbyterian Church become part of the "religious right"?

[Dr Caleb]

Right on time, I heard last night on Fox News during the 'O'Malley Factor' him ask the question "Is there room for Religion in American Politics? Most Americans don't think so . . "<br />

[Wraun]

Don't get too excited. Read this...<br /> http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2006/06402.htm<br /> <br /> "While the Louisville-based Presbyterian Publishing Corp. has strong ties to the PCUSA, it is separately incorporated and receives no funding from the church, Perkins said. The publisher’s nine-member board of directors is appointed by the church’s General Assembly, but editors have wide latitude in the books they choose, Perkins said."<br /> I don't think we can take it as the Presbyterian Church is a conspiracy believer at all. They are distancing themselves from the publication. I don't think they'll be ordering a large quantity of tin foil hats for the congregation any time soon. <br />

[Chris Harder]

I get the impression that there are still people who believe the <i>original government conspiracy</i>. It is to laugh! You had five long years to do your homework. I knew it was a demolition the first time I saw it LIVE. What were all you non-believers watching...the Muppets? You need to get your heads out of your *clouds* and wake up. <br /> <br /> I hope this film will help you:<br /> <a href="http://http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11+eyewitness+rick+siegel">here</a><br /> <br /> Afterwards, sit back and relax with this film:<br /> <a href="http://http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm+hq">here</a><br /> <br /> Have a nice eye-opening weekend.

[Wraun]

I don't think there is anyone here who believes the official story.

[Chris Harder]

Whew! Thank goodness. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br /> <br /> Thanks for the tip, I haven't had the time to read all the threads and draw that conclusion in this forum.

[Chris Harder]

That whole show was a good one. The guy has been on since. He has also lost his job as a result of being on that show.

[Milton]

<a href="http://prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm">Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story</a><br /> <p>The tide is turning, video from the ammo dump fire in Iraq shows that a <a href="http://www.HalTurnerShow.com/TacticalNukeDetonatedInIraq.wmv">tactical nuke</a> may have exploded. The video shows the fire burning from a distance, explosions going off and then<b>Wham!</b>. You be the judge.

[Milton]

Kathasung, in your post of Oct 19 you say that Silverstein bought the WTC complex. He did not, his company leased it for 99 years. His company did own WTC 7 though. I thought his company ownly made a down payment of $15 million but I could be wrong on that. He had a clause in the lease that said that his company was not liable for any more lease payments if the buildings were destroyed and that his company got to keep the insurance claim payout. This is not the usual practice, usually the owner of the buildings would receive the insurance payout. <br /> His company insured the WTC buildings for $3.5 billion and had a terrorism clause in the insurance contract. He claimed that each airplane was a separate act of terrorism and thus deserved the maximum payout twice.<br /> <br /> You say that WTC7 had the case files of 3000 to 4000 ongoing corporate criminal cases, I think it was 300 to 400 cases. It is another motive for the crime in any case.<br /> <br /> Your fire analysis did not mention that the NIST investigation showed that temperatures of about 600 degrees C were the highest the fire reached and ownly a few pieces of steel had evidence of this temperature, most showed temps of 250 degrees C or less.<br /> <a href="http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm">Physics 911.net</a><br /> <br /> You are right in your assertion that demolition is the only scenario that accounts for the observed events and evidence of what happened to the WTC complex on Sep 11, 2001.

[Brent Swain]

What are the odds of all supporting structures in the towers giving way at exactly the same moment , let alone the odds of it happening twice ,to two towers, side by side? It takes great precision by extremely well trained ,and very experienced demolition teams to get a building to fall vertically and not fall over sideways. Any slight variation in the timing of the collapse of any one of the many supporting structures would have caused either of the towers to topple sideways.<br /> Brent

[rearguard]

"And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little problem."<br /> <br /> Well I checked, and the $1,000,000.00 cash challenge is promoting the so-called "micronuke" theory which lacks evidence and makes little sense considering how the twin towers and WTC 7 collapsed, which means this thing is likely to be an operation designed to make 9/11 researchers look like nuts.<br /> <br /> The official 9/11 collapse theory which is based on thermal weakening due to fire and a succession of "pancaking" has been thoroughly refutted several times over and can be safely tossed into the trash bin along with creationism and perpetual motion machinary.<br /> <br /> Since the collapse of the three WTC buildings cannot be explained without resorting to controlled demolitions that use explosives, of course no one can ever claim the prize money. <br /> <br /> Ignoring the nonsense that's being promoted, the cash challenge makes a good mockery out of the official 9/11 collapse theory.<br />

[Chris Harder]

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell<br /> <br /> Link: http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/bbc ... t_fell.htm

[rearguard]

"BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell"<br /> <br /> This one is unreal, there's the building clear as day still standing, and suddenly the live feed goes dead just before the building collapses for real!<br /> <br /> You just CAN'T make this stuff up!!!!<br /> <br /> Here's the BBC's pathetic response:<br /> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html<br /> <br /> Note the readers comments. Yeah sure, we're just a bunch of nutjobs on the fringe. What, we only make up like 90% of the worlds population? <br /> <br />

[Chris Harder]

More here showing CNN also reading from the same script...<br /> <br /> http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html

[rearguard]

Here's a good summary showing that the BBC stated in no uncertain terms that WTC 7 had collapsed BEFORE it actually did collapse:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html">The BBC's 'WTC 7 Collapsed At 4:54 p.m.' Videos</a><br /> <br /> This is much much more than a simple "error" and CNN was reporting at least an hour before WTC 7 collapsed that is was "collapsing or about to collapse". So who gave these news agencies the advanced report, and how did this person or persons know WTC 7 was going to collapse? 9/11 was a serious crime, yet there's been no criminal investigation to figure out who was responsible for it AND that by itself is a conspiracy.<br /> <br /> A purely hypothetical explanation is that flight 93 was supposed to slam into WTC 7 but failed to do so which is why the plane was shot down. Since WTC 7 was rigged to go down after flt 93 slammed into it, it HAD to go down otherwise the explosives would have been discovered. The 9/11 plotters panicked, and somehow word got out early that the building was going to be demolished (or "pulled" as Larry stated). Someone screwed up and sent the message out to the news agencies that the building had collapsed BEFORE it actually did.<br /> <br /> The report must have been from very high up in the chain of command, because no one bothered to do even the most basic checks (such as looking) to confirm that the building actually had collapsed!!!!! <br /> <br /> The BCC claims to have "lost the tapes" which is a lie, and I don't know if CNN has said anything yet about this (probably not).<br />