Haliburton :

Sept 1st 2001 : 12.07
Aug-01 35.84 36.49 27.76 27.86 7,968,400 12.07
Jul-01 36.70 36.79 34.88 35.01 11,604,800 15.17
* Close price adjusted for dividends and splits.

July 2002 : Jul-02 15.80 15.84 8.97 13.20 9,982,700 5.86

Sept 2004 : Sep-04 29.23 33.98 29.06 33.69 8,203,400 15.72

June 2008 : Jun-08 48.58 53.97 46.55 53.07 11,971,700 51.35

Sept. 2010 : Sep-10 28.91 31.13 28.69 30.88 11,156,500 30.88


First | Prev | Next | Last
Download To Spreadsheet

ADVERTISEMENT

Amazing video. Never saw that one. Looks like the remains of a nuclear blast or something with all the cars burned to the steel, however, their steel did not melt but the building 7's steel did? Odd.

I don't exactly know what happened that day, but I do know there are some very odd events that took place. Some things just don't make sense.

i - r - a - q

the fact the media keeps replaying 9/11 is questionable itself. Why are we remembering someone who died by watching them get slaughtered?!

Never saw that one either. Interesting video.

Pigshit.

i hear that nonsense all the time. While it is true that the govt got to do pretty much what they wanted after the attack, do you think (just for a second) that 911 happened because we weren't prepared but then after it happened the govt realized they had an opportunity so they milked it for every penny it was worth to get what they wanted... Couldn't just have been opportunistic for Bush, no.... its more logical to think Bush planned the attack and that was remote controlled 747 that flew into the towers, we had already captured and killed those terrorist and made up stories that they had been at the airport an had been training to fly planes. We had detonators already planted in both buildings because simply crashing the planes into them wasn't enough, We had to make sure they collapsed. And that wasn't enough either they had to fly the plane into the Pentagon too... And the 4th plane, well Bush changed his mind a the last second and crashed that one because he didn't want to blow up his home. :upsidedow Yeah yeah, that is more logical. :upsidedow:upsidedow:upsidedow:upsidedow:upsidedow

You idiots give the govt too much credit. I don't think they could have 1, pulled all of that off and 2, kept it secret with out some REAL proof coming forward. It is 1000000x more likely that they were asleep at the wheel and got caught with their pants down.

I like that southpark episode where they say the govt loves the anti conspiracy theorist because it takes the focus from the truth which is they are incompetent and should have been doing a better job to prevent shit like that from happening where as the conspiracy idiots make them look like they are not only in control and intelligent by having pulled off highly difficult events like that.

The reality is, we can't protect this country 100% and shit happens, Bush (and Clinton before hand) were asleep at the wheel and did a piss poor job protecting us. the end.

Are you referring to those who think the American government was in on it or those who think the guys trained by the American government as the Mujahideen did it?

They've installed permanent military bases to protect the pipelines crossing the country, they've boosted the profits of Bush sr.'s Carlysle Group among many others, they've mega-boosted the production of heroin which had been quashed by the Taliban. Many other good reasons.

The CIA has been proven to use the profits of heroin trafficking to finance their secret operations, so that it doesn't even touch government budgets. Remember Iran/Contra.

It would be the first ever, and it didn't burn that long compared to others. The reason steel structured buildings predominate post industrial city building is their imperviousness to collapse due to fire, among other things.

Seems like they thought everyone would take their word for WMD's. But their reasons for invading changed over and over as the years and the proof, or lack thereof, came out.

Do concrete buildings stand up to fire?

Anyhow skyscrapers do, I didn't check that other link, but the Windsor in Madrid burned for 24 hours, throughout, and didn't collapse. Parts of it did collapse or fall off, but that was after about 17 hours. it took them almost a year to tear down the remains, much like the other damaged buildings of the WTC: 3, 4, 5 and 6.

How come people don't just set buildings on fire to demolish them instead of spending millions and even billions with demolition contractors? I mean, 9/11 proved three times that all it takes is a fire...

This is assuming that the Bushies themselves were involved, for which there's nothing but circumstantial proof. And saying they were is about as realistic as saying a bunch of Saudis co-ordinated by a sick dialysis patient in a desert was responsible. There were as many (documented in passenger manifests) government people and government contractors on those planes as there were (undocumented, unlisted) Saudis on those planes.

The main thing seems to be the way the buildings fell, and what was done with any investigation afterwards - well, there weren't investigations, but whatever.

:D

If this guy gets it, why can't everyone else?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2959569136609#

He seems like a regular guy: Harley shirt, cap, etc. He gets the fact that the planes caused structural failure -- same words my mom used when we watched live on TV, btw...

http://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/14/nyregion/14WTC.html

It is all how you present the "FACTS"

Fire was mainly on one floor.
Was not hit by a huge object traveling at a decent speed.
Things are a Bit heaver at the top with the pull of gravity pancaking down.
Anyway, this point and time you will not change one persons mind on what happened.

obvious false flag. :2 cents:

Right now Russian TV channel shows "Rambo III".

This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, Afghan people rule.

You know, I like " new " amp.

I dunno WTF happened in the last few years, I guess you found weed, but you're more grounded than most here now a days, quite the change from a few years ago man.

I hope you're not being sarcastic here, because I totally agree with you.

Obvious, and even if it wasn't a false flag, they've sure made the most of it.

one word = opium

Once a lunatic always a lunatic. I bet i can make him snap like he used to in minutes.

Dude, you wanna know why anyone that questions the original story is considered bat shit crazy ?

It's cause of sensationalistic retards like you.

Stop listening to Alex jones, and get real.

I question the story, like many others, but EVERY time you post, I think you're a fuckin idiot.

People have been saying that since Amp returned... and I've yet to see it.

I have a feeling Amp beat the man made evil named alcohol and switched it out for weed.
I'm a firm believer, and an example myself of how that can take someone to a better place.

When I was a drinker I was out of control, bat shit crazy, so I NEVER drink anymore.
When I was a pot smoker, I was happy, content and well... just happy.

I wish I still smoked sometimes.

The pancaking seems ridiculous - it would have taken 10 times longer for one of the towers to fall and there would have been toppling or non-symmetrical events, but there weren't. Two differently damaged buildings fell exactly the same way - makes no sense, just on the basis of probability, disregarding the fact that fire doesn't bring down steel buildings.

Then there's building seven, which could win awards if there were such a thing for perfect, seamless demolition job.

:D

thanks :)

no, no sarcasm, i believe it was a false flag. a poorly concealed one.

except i was never a full-fledged lunatic, was just driven by demons, consumed with money, and soaked in tequila. i am none of those things any more.

nobody can "make me snap" any more for any reason. it only happened in the past because i was drunk 24/7 and ruled by emotion. the worst possible thing you could do to me on a messageboard would be to attack my family, which of course violates the rules, so no need for snapping, it's a bannable offense. Anything short of that, is just.... whatever. :)


you're spot on.

it took a few years, but i'm pill free and booze free. it was only in March that i started smoking ganja regularly again (after 26 years of abstinence from it).... and that was the clincher. After that, i haven't even thought about booze any more. My proverbial shit is together and my proverbial act is cleaned up. I'm as "screwed on tight" as I can possibly be. :rasta

All of your points are quickly and easily explained away... I'll reply to the comments about WTC 7, because that's my favorite.

You questioned WTC 7 falling, saying that it was "only on fire". You also said "Windsor in Madrid burned for 24 hours" but didn't fall. Both of these comments are full of holes. Part of the Windsor did collapse. And the Windsor didn't have two large skyscrapers fall nearly on top of it, removing one quarter of it's base. Your claiming WTC 7 fell because it was on fire, but it's more like it suffered two huge earthquakes, two huge towers falling nearly on top of, the building being removed off of it's foundation, a huge amount of it's support base being physically removed, AND it being on fire.

You expect them to fall over? because they were pushed by wind?

why not? they "fell" down because they got hot.

A grammar error is an "internet meme"? Those guys think too highly about themselves :1orglaugh...

http://mickeymalta.files.wordpress.c...high_horse.jpg

how come they didn't find any of the black boxes? i mean shit they are almost indestructable... this for me is the most curious, honestly im not sure if it was a conspiracy but i think it could have been there is a lot of dubiousness surrounding it....

Jesus, you're retarded. 9 years later and this is what you come up with? Something that has been explained over and over again?

Fucking idiot.

Threads like this are good to help spot who the lunatics are. If you from some 3rd world country and believe this shit I give you a pass, you just a USA hater or miss informed and don't know better, but if you live here LOL you screaming " i'm a whacko" when you reply in threads like this that you believe that shit and then try to back up your reasons lol. way to go nutjobs!!!

I don't remember did they found black boxes but I remember they found hijackers passports... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh sorry can't find the article google it...

I don't remember saying it was "only on fire".

I did point out that part of the Windsor collapsed.

One quarter of it's base? Source me on that, 'cause I haven't found that. A chunk was taken out but why did the bldg go down vertically instead of back toward the path of least resistance?

There's no evidence of WTC7 being "removed off of it's foundation" that I've seen.

Other, closer buildings were severely and more seriously damaged, and on fire, and didn't collapse, either perfectly vertically or asymetrically, which is more probable with the sort of scenario you suggest.

Uh, no, because since part of the lower section/s was/were compromised as it seems, damage and gravity caused the upper part/s to start falling, then the upper part/s would tend to tilt towards the weakened side/s, and be resisted by the less weakened, less compromised, whatever you want to call it, sections. There would be a toppling effect, which seemed to start happening, judging from the videos, but ultimately didn't - the whole thing pulverized and descended vertically, through the path of most resistance.

If this weirdness happened only once, you could write it off to coincidence. It happened twice with the towers, and a third time with the WTC7 building...

Good argument. You've blown me away. Congrats.

:D

are you fucking kidding me?


There was no need to investigate how the buildings fell. It was captured on video what happened, a plane flew into the building, took out several floors, building caught fire then collapsed couple hours later . What the fuck is there to investigate ?

Why?? it didn't fall the way you conspiracy idiots thought it should fall? How many times has a plane crashed into a building and you watched it fall? how the fuck do you know how its suppose to fall ??

What is more logical, the govt did piss poor job protecting us, it really was terrorist who really do hate us and wanted to try to kill us, that when the plane crashed into the building it took out a lot of the supporting structure, weakening it, then the intense fire was enough to cause it to collapse... or

it was all planned, they had explosives planted in the building and controlled the planes.

If this was planned why in the hell would they blow up the buildings, you don't think crashing two planes into them wouldn't have been enough. Why didn't they blow up the pentagon too ? It would have still killed 100s if not thousands of people even if the building didn't fall. It would still have gotten 100% of the country behind whatever Bush wanted to do...

It is fine to question govt but at some point if your common sense gets over powered by your retard side, you need to stop and get your head on straight and look at this shit logically and not get caught up with all the other crazies.

Here's my argument you fucking idiot.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

But i bet you won't read it because you have no need for an official investigation full of facts.

this only proves that in other countries they know how to build skyscrapers :2 cents:

1. planes don't "vaporize".
2. no investigation required for the mass murder of thousands of people? okay champ.

In that report, they claim the building fell at gravitational acceleration, without explaining why. Free fall.

For about 2.5 seconds, steel, concrete and all other support mechanisms behaved like air, suddenly disappearing, without, in any part of that long boring report, any explanation of why these solid impediments to vertical descent disappeared.

That report has no "facts" explaining why the building behaved the way it did.

Also, as they admit, NIST detected no explosive materials because they did not look for them.

But you know all this because you of course did read the report.

mouahahah yeah I hadn't thought of that :P

:D

don't be a fucking total moron, mm'kay? you can be a partial one if you want. I never said they shouldn't do an investigation into 911. I said there was no need to investigate what happened to the buildings. Sure they should investigate 911 so we can beef up our security and not allow terrorist to hijack planes and fly them into buildings again.



the conspiracy theorist all have 1 thing in common, they are either rejects, morons, or anti govt types... there is a reason why the conspiracy idiots are on the fringe of society, they gravitate there. Find me 1 normal intelligent person that believes this shit i will find you 100 nutjobs.

none of that negates the fact that entire commercial airplanes do not "vaporize".

where are they? not a single piece? 4 planes and not...... one....... piece?

What are you trying to say fucking lunatic? That there were no planes? What?

i'm saying what i've already said. it was a false flag operation.

I can't understand how people expect a building to come down other than well, coming down, collapsing on it's on weight. What else is it supposed to do?

There were no planes? Yes or no?