| Mercuryking 02.02.2011 12:03 |
My first attempt at harmonic vocals and some opera freddie type of vocals Lets see if you guys like it.. (bare in mind that its a demo) link |
| Gregsynth 02.02.2011 15:49 |
I personally like it. |
| Thistle 02.02.2011 20:50 |
Amir, that is actually very nicely done. Not being sarcastic, but is that YOUR singing voice, or are you just trying to imitate Freddie? If it's the latter, you nailed it in this track. But also, if you are trying to sound like him, I think it would be better if you sang as YOU (even though this is a good track). It's obvious to hear that you are also influenced by MJ, as this was kinda "Earth Song" in places.... |
| Mercuryking 03.02.2011 04:29 |
Thanks guys! Glad you liked it! Thistleboy: That is actually my natural voice and im not adjusting it to sound like Freddie , it just sounds like him when i do that kind of singing. But Freddie is my inspiration so i dont know but i know that im not TRYING to sound like him though. I know its very important to be yourself and sound genuine , and truth being told, that is myself. Actually earth song is one of my favorit songs from Michael so maybe you're right hah... But i really like doing all kinds of songs , no limitations (well ok the only limitation would be rap;) The most important lesson in writing songs is that , it will never come out anything good if you PLAN on writing a song. The way i write is i only write when i have THE RIGHT feeling in me and then i go to the piano. Its funny ,you can actually feel in a couple of minutes if there will be any good pieces out of the session or not. I always give it up in like 5or 10 minutes if i sense that its not going to be good stuff. |
| emrabt 03.02.2011 09:31 |
it's a nice test of harmonic vocals but it obviously needs more to it to be a song. Although i'm sure you know that. |
| john bodega 03.02.2011 09:45 |
I'm just curious - is it only Max who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, or is it the whole band? |
| Mercuryking 03.02.2011 10:13 |
emrabt wrote: it's a nice test of harmonic vocals but it obviously needs more to it to be a song. Although i'm sure you know that. Yea this was just an feeling out process thing of the song, it must have lyrics, must be more to it and must be done more properly in a studio so its far from being done. But i think im going to take ur advice , that i rush things too much , i must stop with that and get things finished up. Zebonka: No i believe it too as there is too much evidence pointing that way, for example there is an building called World trade center 7 that collapsed from nothing hitting it or whatever and the owner even admitted they used explosives to take it down... There also was an news report of an reporter saying that the world trade center building 7 had collpased while you could see behind her in the backround that it (building 7) still hadnt collpased yet. There is soooo many things pointing to an inside job its not even funny |
| john bodega 03.02.2011 12:22 |
Interesting. |
| Mercuryking 03.02.2011 12:30 |
i take it you think its all just crazy talk i guess? but i can share some links if you like |
| Tranqvillia 03.02.2011 14:06 |
people can do nothing about it anyways as we are all slaves to the elite. |
| pittrek 03.02.2011 14:11 |
OK guys, every song you posted in the last weeks has some good "moments". This one has them also. |
| Tranqvillia 03.02.2011 14:18 |
thanks |
| emrabt 03.02.2011 14:51 |
Max People have and will post criticism in this thread, the last thing anyone needs is for you to turn this into “we’re great” delusional name calling. Listening to complaints is making your band better, replying telling people they know nothing is making it worse, a lot worse. I was thinking maybe heavily re doing / interpreting warrior could work out too, less final countdown style Synth and more guitar. |
| Mercuryking 03.02.2011 15:18 |
emrabt wrote: Max, please leave the creative side, and the promotional side to Amir. In fact, please leave. People have and will post criticism in this thread, the last thing anyone needs is for you to turn this into “we’re great” delusional name calling. Listening to complaints is making your band better, replying telling people they know nothing is making it worse, a lot worse. I was thinking maybe heavily re doing / interpreting warrior could work out too, less final countdown style Synth and more guitar. Thing is about Warrior is that it was co-written by me and our old singer so that makes it unusable , so the version that was out there is the only version ever of it. I could possibly take out my melodies from it and do a remake into a new song but i don know. |
| emrabt 03.02.2011 15:52 |
Thing is about Warrior is that it was co-written by me and our old singer so that makes it unusable , so the version that was out there is the only version ever of it. I could possibly take out my melodies from it and do a remake into a new song but i don know. ======================================= I'd just leave it then, just throwing out ideas. Sound like it would be easier to just right a new song. |
| john bodega 04.02.2011 10:52 |
"i can share some links if you like " Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy theory. They're hilarious. And however you slice it, the US was in some way culpable for 9/11; if not directly, then by their government's actions in previous decades. Unfortunately, society will (from time to time) wear the consequences of previous generations behaviour. It's not nice, it's not even fair, but it happens. Something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt was that the buildings came down because planes hit them. Every theory concerning 'controlled demolition', 'explosive charges', or (my personal favourite) 'homeless people that were used as jumpers' has been solidly debunked. Anyone still forwarding these theories is a moron. Same goes for the Pentagon. These assholes who go "where is the plane" and "where are the bodies" clearly weren't looking very hard. That plane left one hell of a mess. Don't take my word for it. Do some reading that relates to a primary source, and physical evidence, and not some pimply loser with a copy of Windows Movie Maker. I wish more people would show proper respect to the scientific method. |
| Mercuryking 04.02.2011 11:28 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "i can share some links if you like " Don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy theory. They're hilarious. And however you slice it, the US was in some way culpable for 9/11; if not directly, then by their government's actions in previous decades. Unfortunately, society will (from time to time) wear the consequences of previous generations behaviour. It's not nice, it's not even fair, but it happens. Something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt was that the buildings came down because planes hit them. Every theory concerning 'controlled demolition', 'explosive charges', or (my personal favourite) 'homeless people that were used as jumpers' has been solidly debunked. Anyone still forwarding these theories is a moron. Same goes for the Pentagon. These assholes who go "where is the plane" and "where are the bodies" clearly weren't looking very hard. That plane left one hell of a mess. Don't take my word for it. Do some reading that relates to a primary source, and physical evidence, and not some pimply loser with a copy of Windows Movie Maker. I wish more people would show proper respect to the scientific method. Actually you're wrong , its not at all proven that the planes took the buildings down , in fact its not even possible for jet fuel to melt down the steel. If you think about it , do you really think that a building which most of it (like 80%) were undamaged could fall at almost freefall speed? You would think that there would be SOME resistance from all the floors(the mass) that was unharmed , yet it falls down like butter with no resistance , COMPLETLY impossible. It doesnt make sense at all... So no Zebonka thats not AT ALL proven beyond any shadows of doubt, on the contrary... And for the pentagon thing , thats BS too , i mean first of all out like 500 cameras out there only 4 snapshots were released/shot and still on those 4 images nothing of plane is visable... neither was there any plane parts around the place it "crashed". Also its almost impossible to fly down an airplane like that to the height of the pentagon so you're telling me that som arab could do that? No again its the government hitting it with some form of missile or something like that.. And im not into this conspiracy things for fun , im in it FOR JUSTICE, it happens to be that most of these conspiracies are true. If people would like these conspiracies to end , then the solution is very simple... IT only acquires for these scumbag politicians to just answer some of these questions instead of ALWAYS running away when somebody asks these questions (its on youtube to see for urself) Its really that simple and then there would be no more conspiracies but it seems like they are hiding the truth and therefore flee when they get confronted. |
| The Real Wizard 04.02.2011 11:49 |
Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: "its not even possible for jet fuel to melt down the steel. If you think about it , do you really think that a building which most of it (like 80%) were undamaged could fall at almost freefall speed? You would think that there would be SOME resistance from all the floors(the mass) that was unharmed , yet it falls down like butter with no resistance , COMPLETLY impossible." ==================================================== For once I completely agree with this guy. The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics. The US is the only developed nation in the world where the overall electorate is stupid enough to actually believe otherwise. |
| Mercuryking 04.02.2011 11:56 |
Sir GH wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: "its not even possible for jet fuel to melt down the steel. If you think about it , do you really think that a building which most of it (like 80%) were undamaged could fall at almost freefall speed? You would think that there would be SOME resistance from all the floors(the mass) that was unharmed , yet it falls down like butter with no resistance , COMPLETLY impossible." ==================================================== For once I completely agree with this guy. The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics. The US is the only developed nation in the world where the overall electorate is stupid enough to actually believe otherwise. Glad to see that you're not stupid as most of the people believing the official story . Its ridiculous that people bought that.... |
| john bodega 04.02.2011 22:26 |
"The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics" If you can name one of them, I'll name my firstborn after you. link |
| john bodega 04.02.2011 22:54 |
*edit* eh.... |
| Mercuryking 05.02.2011 02:49 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "The idea that airplanes caused the twin towers to fall violates several laws of physics" If you can name one of them, I'll name my firstborn after you. link Zebonka: Im very dissapointed in you , really... You really bought that idea about jet fuel running down elevators and melting the steel.... and that being FACT??? You really start to sound like my brother MAX..... Whats so funny about those "facts" is that they are from FEMA that is the government haha......................................... |
| Tranqvillia 05.02.2011 04:34 |
just live your life, the elite always owned the people |
| inu-liger 05.02.2011 06:14 |
Can we get back on original topic please, for fuck sakes |
| john bodega 05.02.2011 11:11 |
"You really bought that idea about jet fuel running down elevators and melting the steel" No, I didn't. The steel was not (strictly speaking) 'melted' Are you actually this retarded, or is it an act you put on for bus fare? If you can't read a full explanation as to what happened to the steel, then what business do you have addressing anyone on the topic? |
| john bodega 05.02.2011 11:12 |
"just live your life, the elite always owned the people" Now HERE is one I can agree with! |
| Mercuryking 05.02.2011 16:44 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "You really bought that idea about jet fuel running down elevators and melting the steel" No, I didn't. The steel was not (strictly speaking) 'melted' Are you actually this retarded, or is it an act you put on for bus fare? If you can't read a full explanation as to what happened to the steel, then what business do you have addressing anyone on the topic? Cause i stopped reading it for these reasons: 1st: That they say that its all FACT, 2nd: The whole fuel thing spreading everywhere and material such as curtains and office stuff was the cause of an giant super building to fall down like butter and FINALLY number 3: This is the sole reason why i stopped reading : Building 7 now all of a sudden had some damage to its bottom part from nowhere , now how did that happen? And even though the owner spilled the beanes, right here in this link , it still must be wrong for they had all the FACTS....... This right here below is revealing that they took it down by controlled demolition THEREFORE COMPLETLY debunking that whole website of yours..... why? Cause apperently they , FEMA or whoever they are didnt know about larry silverstein , the owner ordering to pull the building down with explosives that by the way take weeks to rig into a building..........................................................................................................ENOUGH said link |
| Tranqvillia 05.02.2011 17:47 |
this whole debate is ridiculous, how the buildings fell down isnt important in the big picture, what is important is HOW those planes even got the OPPORTUNITY to hit those buildings when USA's security is so strong that should have NOT been possible, they LET it happen for obvious reasons. |
| john bodega 05.02.2011 20:07 |
"The whole fuel thing spreading everywhere and material such as curtains and office stuff was the cause of an giant super building to fall down like butter" Office materials are quite combustible. If you'd kept reading, you would've gotten to know that some of them would've gotten the fire considerably hotter than just the jet fuel alone - up to 1800F. Now, steel does not "melt" at this temperature, but it doesn't have to. At 1800F, it has something like 10 percent of its usual strength. Are you at all aware of what is going to happen when 20 storeys of a skyscraper is being supported by steel that is (in parts) at only 10 percent of its usual load carrying ability? You stopped reading 'just because it kept saying Fact'? Could you be a bigger imbecile if you tried? " This is the sole reason why i stopped reading : Building 7 now all of a sudden had some damage to its bottom part from nowhere , now how did that happen?" No. It didn't 'suddenly' get damage 'from nowhere'. It is well documented that a large part of the face on one side was knocked out and that a strong fire was burning in the building (which itself was accelerated by DIESEL which was stored inside the building for reasons that would be obvious if you knew how to read). WTC 7 also wasn't your typical building design - again, you could read this for yourself but you stopped because you didn't like being told that you were wrong and that these were facts. This is purely a matter of architecture - you should acquaint yourself with terms like 'stress', 'load', things like that. "This right here below is revealing that they took it down by controlled demolition THEREFORE COMPLETLY debunking that whole website of yours" Hmmm. I watched carefully and at no point did he say "we made the decision to destroy the building". He is referring to pulling away from the building, knowing that it was beyond help. "We made the decision to pull it" =/= someone saying "we made the decision to blow it up". You wouldn't understand this because English is not your first language and you're not acquainted with the bizarre phrases we use sometimes (especially in the land of America - a people so inept, that they ACTUALLY say 'could care less' instead of 'couldn't care less', which is the correct expression). The BBC reporter doing an early report on WTC7 is also quite explainable. There are rational reasons for the reporters to have thought that WTC7 had already come down. The other World Trade Center buildings were not nearly as famous as the Twin Towers. It's likely that the news teams weren't even sure what building they were talking about, and they had been told all afternoon that the building was also going to come down (because of the damage and fire that you just ignored in an article with 300 professional sources - primary sources, physical evidence, video footage, photography, testimony from experts who know a shitload more about architecture than you do). They jumped the gun - news teams have a long, long precedent for doing this. Many inaccurate reports were made that day. This happens on busy days when news services get information from a lot of places without verification. As important as a witness statement can be, you can't always take them literally. When people watched the Titanic sink, they reckoned it sounded like 'thunder' or 'a gun going off'. I suppose to Max and Amir, this means that there was a nearby thunderstorm, or gunplay was taking place on the deck of the sinking ship. Actually, the ship didn't sound like thunder or a gun going off - it sounded like a ship breaking up, but the people listening didn't have a proper frame of reference because they'd never heard a 45000 ton ship break in half. It is no different on 9/11. People said a lot of things that day that, in hindsight, could've been worded better. Because (funny enough) people aren't used to things like this happening. I think it's almost tragic that people like you seize upon this poorly chosen words and try to build a story out of it. This is not a reliable way to get to the truth of things. Each of the theories you've mentioned has been approached logically and debunked. I am not a person who ever thinks that one should close the book on a debate. If you have NEW information, new theories that haven't had holes poked in them, then please bring them up. I urge you to read that site again. Yes, seeing the words FACT in capitals can be a bit annoying - this is something you could possibly bring up with your brother. All the same, you shouldn't just stop reading things because they make you feel uncomfortable. In reading about 9/11, I've seen theories that the jumpers (the people falling out of the building) were actors, or vagrants, ABDUCTED to make the scene of carnage look more legitimate. Have you any remote understanding of how absolutely insane and hurtful a claim like that is? Does that bit even bother you; that it is not only complete fiction, but that it might offend people? |
| john bodega 05.02.2011 20:10 |
"this whole debate is ridiculous, how the buildings fell down isnt important in the big picture, what is important is HOW those planes even got the OPPORTUNITY to hit those buildings when USA's security is so strong that should have NOT been possible, they LET it happen for obvious reasons." Again, this isn't something I disagree with entirely. I have never asserted that the US government didn't know what was happening. They knew something was coming, and they didn't do enough to stop it. Maybe I'm getting bogged down in semantics here, but they didn't do enough, because 9/11 happened, and if they had done enough, then it wouldn't have. Perhaps I'm being unfair in saying that, but there you go. |
| Mercuryking 05.02.2011 23:08 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "The whole fuel thing spreading everywhere and material such as curtains and office stuff was the cause of an giant super building to fall down like butter" Office materials are quite combustible. If you'd kept reading, you would've gotten to know that some of them would've gotten the fire considerably hotter than just the jet fuel alone - up to 1800F. Now, steel does not "melt" at this temperature, but it doesn't have to. At 1800F, it has something like 10 percent of its usual strength. Are you at all aware of what is going to happen when 20 storeys of a skyscraper is being supported by steel that is (in parts) at only 10 percent of its usual load carrying ability? You stopped reading 'just because it kept saying Fact'? Could you be a bigger imbecile if you tried? " This is the sole reason why i stopped reading : Building 7 now all of a sudden had some damage to its bottom part from nowhere , now how did that happen?" No. It didn't 'suddenly' get damage 'from nowhere'. It is well documented that a large part of the face on one side was knocked out and that a strong fire was burning in the building (which itself was accelerated by DIESEL which was stored inside the building for reasons that would be obvious if you knew how to read). WTC 7 also wasn't your typical building design - again, you could read this for yourself but you stopped because you didn't like being told that you were wrong and that these were facts. This is purely a matter of architecture - you should acquaint yourself with terms like 'stress', 'load', things like that. "This right here below is revealing that they took it down by controlled demolition THEREFORE COMPLETLY debunking that whole website of yours" Hmmm. I watched carefully and at no point did he say "we made the decision to destroy the building". He is referring to pulling away from the building, knowing that it was beyond help. "We made the decision to pull it" =/= someone saying "we made the decision to blow it up". You wouldn't understand this because English is not your first language and you're not acquainted with the bizarre phrases we use sometimes (especially in the land of America - a people so inept, that they ACTUALLY say 'could care less' instead of 'couldn't care less', which is the correct expression). The BBC reporter doing an early report on WTC7 is also quite explainable. There are rational reasons for the reporters to have thought that WTC7 had already come down. The other World Trade Center buildings were not nearly as famous as the Twin Towers. It's likely that the news teams weren't even sure what building they were talking about, and they had been told all afternoon that the building was also going to come down (because of the damage and fire that you just ignored in an article with 300 professional sources - primary sources, physical evidence, video footage, photography, testimony from experts who know a shitload more about architecture than you do). They jumped the gun - news teams have a long, long precedent for doing this. Many inaccurate reports were made that day. This happens on busy days when news services get information from a lot of places without verification. As important as a witness statement can be, you can't always take them literally. When people watched the Titanic sink, they reckoned it sounded like 'thunder' or 'a gun going off'. I suppose to Max and Amir, this means that there was a nearby thunderstorm, or gunplay was taking place on the deck of the sinking ship. Actually, the ship didn't sound like thunder or a gun going off - it sounded like a ship breaking up, but the people listening didn't have a proper frame of reference because they'd never heard a 45000 ton ship break in half. It is no different on 9/11. People said a lot of things that day that, in hindsight, could've been worded better. Because (funny enough) people aren't used to things like this happening. I think it's almost tragic that people like you seize upon this poorly chosen words and try to build a story out of it. This is not a reliable way to get to the truth of things. Each of the theories you've mentioned has been approached logically and debunked. I am not a person who ever thinks that one should close the book on a debate. If you have NEW information, new theories that haven't had holes poked in them, then please bring them up. I urge you to read that site again. Yes, seeing the words FACT in capitals can be a bit annoying - this is something you could possibly bring up with your brother. All the same, you shouldn't just stop reading things because they make you feel uncomfortable. In reading about 9/11, I've seen theories that the jumpers (the people falling out of the building) were actors, or vagrants, ABDUCTED to make the scene of carnage look more legitimate. Have you any remote understanding of how absolutely insane and hurtful a claim like that is? Does that bit even bother you; that it is not only complete fiction, but that it might offend people? It didnt make me feel uncomfortable at all , it just makes no sense so just stopped reading it cause its ridiculous in my oppinion... If it made sense then i would have read it all... but it doesnt so why waste time on it. With people like you , how could they fail? You protect them better than they do themselves, props to you! No it has nothing to do with english not being my first language , PULL IT is the term they you use when they bring down buildings , there is videos out there from control demolition people even saying that so dont try that stuff with me... There is no meaning in discussing this with you cause you are so blinded by their fairytales its almost impossible to change your naive mind. I think it all has more to do with you not wanting to face the truth that there maybe some evil scumbags controlling you and everybody else so you do whatever you can to deny it. |
| john bodega 06.02.2011 01:07 |
"I think it all has more to do with you not wanting to face the truth that there maybe some evil scumbags controlling you and everybody else so you do whatever you can to deny it. " I'm not even talking about that, though! I just agreed with your brother on that very point! Besides which, there's a good bit of to-ing and fro-ing about WTC 7 and the "pull it" thing over here. link It's not ubiquitous industry jargon as you would like to believe. If he thought they were going to bring the building down, he obviously forgot to tell someone to do it because that's not what happened. Again, if you would have read the original article I posted, you would've learned something about the construction about WTC7, which conveniently you haven't mentioned at all. Realistically, it doesn't harm anyone that you have these delusions about 9/11, but I personally don't like to see someone make such a conscious decision to remain ignorant about a topic like this. Some simple facts to help you: the Titanic was not swapped with the Olympic, men did land on the Moon, Oswald shot JFK (although why he shot him is up for debate), Jose Perdomo did not shoot John Lennon. and planes knocked the Twin Towers over. There is really interesting history and backstory for all of these events, and plenty of good discussion to be had, but you cannot argue against things which have been reasoned out and scientifically proven until you actually have a basis for making such claims. Let's take the temperature of the fires in the Twin Towers for example. It has been established that, in places, the fire reached 1832F. That's an actual, irrefutable fact. Some guy in Sweden saying "I don't think that's possible" is utterly meaningless, because it can happen, and it did happen. Steel loses most of its strength at these temperatures. Again, another fact. I love a good debate but for God's sake, bring something new along. Everything you've posited in this thread has been proven to be wrong (or, at the very best, unreliable, debatable, or subjective in nature - which means it's not a fact). Have you got anything else?? |
| Mercuryking 06.02.2011 06:28 |
IF you dont see that WTC 7 is brought down with explosives then you are one ignorant man. It falls down exactly like controlled demolition no matter what you say ! "We made the decision to pull it" means they brought it down with explosives man, stop being naive! And that means they rigged it weeks before and that reveals everything. I still dont buy that fuel and other material brought the building down like that , sorry. Doesnt matter what or who says it , i still dont think its possible for it to fall like that.I dont need people telling me that its possible , i can think for myself and know that its not possible. AND both of them also? Haha come on man , three buildings that falls like control demolition........ one of which had nothing happen to it and the owner even says PULL IT. ITS NOT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO FALL IN FREE FALL SPEED got it? Bring every scientist guy in the world and i still wont believe this UNLESS offcourse its a controlled demolition , then its possible for it to fall like that cause then every part of the building collapses with precision. |
| john bodega 06.02.2011 07:13 |
"I still dont buy that fuel and other material brought the building down like that". "It falls down exactly like controlled demolition no matter what you say !" " i can think for myself and know that its not possible. " "TS NOT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO FALL IN FREE FALL SPEED" Sorry, were you talking to me about ignorance? Cold hard facts vs. you 'not buying that it's possible'. Where is your data? |
| GratefulFan 06.02.2011 16:11 |
Healthy skepticism is good for the individual and good for society, so though it was contrary to my instincts about which side the facts fell on I did give the ideas of the 9/11 truth movement a fair and extensive hearing. All I have seen to date is classic conspiracy theory thinking full of fallacious reasoning, half truths and bad assumptions. There are plenty of perfectly intelligent and competent people who think the government pulled off 9/11. This seems kind of amazing until you consider that the ability to perceive whether or not an argument is full and complete and properly supports a conclusion is a very specific skill. Some people just don't have it, and are unlikely to ever be able to recognize that. I took a class once where the prof posited that research indicated that conspiracy theorists, the deeply religious and those with exotic beliefs, for example, share a general credulity and susceptibility that is rooted in temporal lobe sensitivity within the brain. Other features of this group included being deeply creative and exquisitely attuned to small shifts or changes in the culture. So while a person might be really bad at accurately perceiving a situation like 9/11, that same person could also excel in areas and in ways that are beyond the reach of those of us rolling their eyes at them for general crackpottery In that class there was an unusual new-agey kind of hippe gal probably in her forties, about 10 years older than me at the time. She lived near my mom and I'd see her when I was in the neighbourhood and we were always pleasant to each other, but I kind of always kept her at arm's length because she was just not my cup of tea. It was a psychology class, and we did a whole bunch of tests and inventories in class and I remember her really bombing on out on the logic and reason tests on which I excelled to the point of being 2.8 standard deviations above the norm, and I remember her scoring high on the gullibility inventories. I wasn't surprised. Subsequently we did another test where we read 10 statements from 5 women and 5 men who were couples. The assignment was to match the couples based on their statements by looking for shared emotional themes, colours, mood and other similar elements I don't recall. Colours? There weren't any colours in the text, so in that sense I didn't even understand the question! Nonetheless I buckled down and reasoned it out and was supremely confident in my conclusions. I got zero right. Zero. Worse than chance. She got all five, and was the only one in the class to do so. I had a lot more respect for her after that and it was just such a great lesson in recognizing that there are limitations in ourselves and abilities in others that the normal course of life is unlikely to reveal. I still feel lucky to have experienced it. |
| Tranqvillia 06.02.2011 17:49 |
Greatefulfan its simple logic, the government did it for 2 reasons: 1. to have a lame excuse to invade new countries 2. to install new laws that limit the privacy and freedom of their own people so they can control them more its like 1+1=2, how anyone can be naive enough to believe the bullshit official story is beyond me when we all know what kinda corrupt evil people OWN the media, the government and us. |
| john bodega 07.02.2011 00:25 |
Some simple points I'd like to put out there for you, TM: 1). Never in history has any government had to go to such lengths to start a war or change their laws. Frequently, these things will have a pretext, but nothing on the order of what you're suggesting. 2). I'm not debating who made it all happen and for what reason. I'm talking about the scientific fact of what crashing airliners were responsible for on 9/11. 'Inside job'? Sure - go ahead, argue about that one until the cows come home! But scientifically, they did not need 'controlled demolition', 'hidden missiles', or any of the other crap that you guys suggest. It would've looked rather different to what actually took place. Besides which, even if the airplanes hadn't brought the buildings down, it still was such a massive act of terrorism that a war could've been started over it anyway. My feeling is that they knew something was coming, and they totally dropped the ball on that one. For that, I honestly feel someone should be accountable; but of course, that'll never happen. Something Amir should understand is that everything he's pointed out in this thread is ridiculous and bunkum. If he has any trump cards he hasn't mentioned yet, then I'd like to hear them, because I am a skeptic and I think every theory deserves testing, in the appropriate manner. This is how people find the truth, the right way. You take a theory, and then you try to disprove it logically. You don't start with the conclusion, and then try to make shit up to fit that conclusion. That's what Amir keeps doing. He keeps annoying hard, physical evidence, just because it upsets him. In one of his posts he said there was no damage to WTC7. We know that's not true. Why on earth would he ignore something like that? That's like architectural leprosy. |
| Tranqvillia 07.02.2011 03:18 |
are you naive or something? they have started wars A LOT of times for the purpose of their agenda. simply the elite dont give a fuck about regular people and do whatever they want. |
| Mercuryking 07.02.2011 06:31 |
What really happend by Zebonka: A group of crazy angry YET incredibly smart arabs decided one day in a cave that they should make a trip to the US and hijack 4 jumbojets. They packed their bags and flew to the states. There they chose which arab to hijack which plane and off they went into each plane. With no problem whatsoever ,they all successfully hijacked the aircrafts (in a country where security is top notch) , managed to have the people on the plane under control while taking over the controls of the plane. While all this was going on , they also had the luck of that the whole nations air space security was rehearsing some drills faar faar away so NONE of them was there to defend the country.. Now it was just to accurately hit the towers which is a piece of cake for an cave arab to do , they've done it thousands of times already by playing videogames in their cave, soo its a piece of cake. Both of them hit the towers. While this is going on , the third arab is doing a nearly impossible task , he actually has to spin the airplane around in circles in order to get the big jumojet in at the right height to hit the pentagon , which at this moment also had NO security whatsoever to do anything to stop this airplane that is SPINNING AROUND IN CIRCLES to get down to the right height of the pentagon to hit it. So after like 10mins that the airplane is spinning around in circles , it FINALLY gets to that precise height it needs to hit pentagon and BOOM it hits perfectly. Oddly enough. there was no parts of the actual air plane though...... hmm must have been an very unusual crash where the jumbojet got destroyed into particles... Meanwhile all of the 500+ security cameras installed at the area ONLY 4 snapshots with very low quality make it out and still you cant see an airplane. Nevertheless As this was going on jet fuel was spreading down like a virus down the twin towers making the whole buildings steel structure to bend , now with chairs and curtains also on fire , there is no way this building was going to stand anymore , and sure enough it falls like melted butter right down , not to the sides or anything ,just right down , perfectly so that it does not do any harm or damage to neighbouring buildings. Next tower does exactly the same as its brother. Also when this happend , some fire balls accidently came into the windows of Building 7 and started a fire in some of the rooms there. They call upon the owner Larry silverstein and he said to them that they should pull it (not to maybe put out the fire?). Now pull it means that , the building itself decides that it wants to come down by itself , not that they put explosives in weeks advance into the building and then pull it down. So again this building without any arabs crashing into it with an jumbojet, it too falls like butter and again not falling to the left or right causing potential damage to neighbouring buildings. So now three buildings fell down perfectly. And the fourth plane must have been the drunken arab, the arab that isnt a real muslim cause of the alcohol he drinks , he just crashed into the woods mysteriously with no airplane parts visable yet again... Hmmm arabs must be magicians , getting airplanes to dissappear like molecules. This was what actually happend believe it or not, this is what happend and you are a retard to not believe in this non fairytale story... Now off we go into Afghanistan and Iraq and lets start killing innocent people in civilians and our stupid soldiers...and lets start making laws that take the freedom of people away for the cause of Security .. Perfect how it all panned out for us...... The lesson learned here is that , even if you are an cave arab you still can trick the most powerful country/people in the world. Never underestimate an cave arab OK?!! THE END , now stop with all these conspiracy theories!!! just stay asleep , asleep....... they will take care of everything , just stay asleep. |
| john bodega 07.02.2011 06:31 |
"are you naive or something? they have started wars A LOT of times for the purpose of their agenda." Either you can't read, or you misread me. I said that they never had to go to *such lengths* to start a war or find a pretext for some other action. There's a long history of 'civilised' nations interfering in the affairs of others. Look at how us whities behaved in Africa and the Middle East; arbitrarily redrawing borders without paying much attention to the consequences it would have on the natives. The US (and England, and others if you care to mention them) have never been remotely ashamed of doing the wrong thing when it suits them. What I'm getting at is that they don't need to stage a terrorist strike to do it. They MIGHT (and this is a bit of speculation that I'm not entirely comfortable with) 'let' one happen, but they don't need to stage one of their own. And even if they did, they wouldn't need to go to such lengths to do so. A simple bombing like the 1993 one would've sufficed. |
| Tranqvillia 07.02.2011 09:58 |
who gives a fuck anyways? just live your lives, people discuss these things out of boredom |
| john bodega 07.02.2011 10:15 |
It was worth it just to see Amir's barely legible, unintentionally hilarious brainfart. |
| Amazon 07.02.2011 10:25 |
Mercury SingerOfLife, the 9/11 hijackers weren't 'cave Arabs.' They were educated, middle/upper class and probably never stepped foot in a cave in their entire lives. Bin Laden, himself, is a product of one of the wealthiest and most respected families in Saudi Arabia, while Ayman al-Zawahiri (Bin Ladan's second in command) is a former doctor and speaks three languages. It is not entirely hard to believe that they would be capable of carrying out the 9/11 attacks. |
| Thistle 07.02.2011 11:13 |
Come on to fuck guys, this is getting really difficult to read.....NOT because I am retarded and don't understand the conversation, but for THIS - when you're quoting someone, please pick out the relevant bits instead of copying/pasting the entire post, because the next person does the same and we are ending up with pages and pages of repeated blurb. Or at least add ========== under what you're quoting so we know what the reply is. I've read the same paragraphs at least 6 times in this thread already. |
| Mercuryking 07.02.2011 13:03 |
Amazon wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife, the 9/11 hijackers weren't 'cave Arabs.' They were educated, middle/upper class and probably never stepped foot in a cave in their entire lives. Bin Laden, himself, is a product of one of the wealthiest and most respected families in Saudi Arabia, while Ayman al-Zawahiri (Bin Ladan's second in command) is a former doctor and speaks three languages. It is not entirely hard to believe that they would be capable of carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Ya but still there is no real proof that it was bin laden that did this attack , we only have what they say about it. Its all a scam made by the US gov. and whoever that cant see that even after everything has been brought up about it, is not very bright in my oppinion. |
| The Real Wizard 07.02.2011 19:02 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Let's take the temperature of the fires in the Twin Towers for example. It has been established that, in places, the fire reached 1832F. That's an actual, irrefutable fact. =============== Right, and steel burns at about 2750 degress. Your above link states, "their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength." Assuming this is true, it doesn't explain why the building collapsed in real time. For this to happen, there must be no resistance below it. How can an airplane hitting the 78th floor affect the structure of the bottom of the building to such an extent? |
| Mercuryking 07.02.2011 19:38 |
Sir GH wrote: Zebonka12 wrote: Let's take the temperature of the fires in the Twin Towers for example. It has been established that, in places, the fire reached 1832F. That's an actual, irrefutable fact. =============== Right, and steel burns at about 2750 degress. Your above link states, "their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength." Assuming this is true, it doesn't explain why the building collapsed in real time. For this to happen, there must be no resistance below it. How can an airplane hitting the 78th floor affect the structure of the bottom of the building to such an extent? ========================================================== Exactly , as i said earlier 75 % of the building was unharmed so its impossible for it to fall like that. Zebonka is just one naive little boy. Cant believe that he follows that official fairytale story website that "totally debunked" all other theories of what really happend. |
| inu-liger 07.02.2011 21:02 |
BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE.....FFS...... |
| Thistle 07.02.2011 21:05 |
inu-liger wrote: BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE.....FFS...... ============================================================================================= It is on topic.....they're "remembering the past" lol. Hope you liked that one. It made me smirk. |
| inu-liger 07.02.2011 23:09 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: inu-liger wrote: BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE.....FFS...... ============================================================================================= It is on topic.....they're "remembering the past" lol. Hope you liked that one. It made me smirk. Best post in this thread, ever ;-P |
| Tranqvillia 08.02.2011 03:46 |
Back to the topic, Tranqvillia is bringing REAL music back again! :D |
| john bodega 08.02.2011 06:42 |
"Assuming this is true, it doesn't explain why the building collapsed in real time." Sure it does. 30 levels of skyscraper falls down rather abruptly (once it can no longer be supported by the fire damaged parts of the building), and that kind of stress is just meant to be withstood by a structure that was never designed to put up with that kind of cascade failure? Is there an appropriate speed that a massive building should collapse upon itself? I guess they should've done it slower then. "Exactly , as i said earlier 75 % of the building was unharmed so its impossible for it to fall like that. " Sure it's possible. It happened. "For this to happen, there must be no resistance below it. " Bunkum. That is not how it works at all. link |
| john bodega 08.02.2011 06:47 |
"How can an airplane hitting the 78th floor affect the structure of the bottom of the building to such an extent? " If you are of an even remotely scientific mind, look at the math of it and you'll see that this 'free fall' nonsense is an ill-conceived fallacy. What annoys me the most is that these answers are in plain sight for people to take a look at, and they ignore them. |
| john bodega 08.02.2011 06:51 |
"Back to the topic, Tranqvillia is bringing REAL music back again! :D " A lot of music is 'real music', you're just paying too much attention to the 'music industry' which is something else altogether. In any case, your sunny attitude about the songs has been a lovely change! I still think a singer would help things though. |
| GratefulFan 08.02.2011 12:27 |
Sir GH wrote: How can an airplane hitting the 78th floor affect the structure of the bottom of the building to such an extent? ========================== Perfect example of what I'm talking about. There is nothing to indicate the bottom of the building was compromised, and everything to indicate that the floors collapsed one by one or in sections, in sequence. Every single photo and every single video confirms that the towers collapsed at the damage points and took down each floor after that. So whether the building was blown up by the government or destabilized to the point of collapse by catastrophic damage and raging inferno, it didn't happen because the bottom of the structure gave way. Your question is completely irrelevant. Zebonka said it perfectly: it is possible, because it happened. It's possible that a building can collapse at near free fall speed without having the bottom of it compromised because we all saw it happen. The collapse of the two towers looked nothing like traditional controlled demolition and sounded nothing like traditional controlled demolition, as any controlled demolition video on YouTube will show you. The variables are so numerous and the processes so complex that 99.9% of us are in no position to confidently assess the physics of that collapse. All we know for sure is that whatever happened, the collapsing floors could offer little resistance to the massive and accumulating force being applied to them. The average person who pretends to know that this could necessarily *only* happen through sinister forces is generally going to be full of crap. |
| john bodega 09.02.2011 03:34 |
"The collapse of the two towers looked nothing like traditional controlled demolition and sounded nothing like traditional controlled demolition" You said it. I was trying to compose another reply earlier but I gave up because I hate posting lots of things in a row, but basically I was watching a lot of *actual* controlled demolitions and it's completely effing different. |
| Tranqvillia 09.02.2011 04:56 |
thanks zebonka, actually we will have singing from now on, we all will sing. |
| john bodega 09.02.2011 06:16 |
Awesome! Thing about singing is that it only gets better if you keep at it. |