http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8Vna373uI&feature=related

9/11 Inside Job: Undeniable Evidence

____________

never before seen footage released 4 days ago

namaste

I would call Light gullible and stupid but then I remembered, seeing as he's religious, it just comes naturally.

i observe you in confusion

for i am that i am,and not religious

you are forgiven for ignorances and taking

ungranted liberties

namaste

-:)

We already saw that one light.
They reported WTC 7 collapsing before it actually collapsed, and it had no reason to collapse except that the owner, Silverstein (with a late insurance policy) ordered the building to be "pulled".

Unfortunately dumbass jewass Silverstein didn't realise that a Jew's word doesn't defy physics and a demolition cannot physically be put together within a few short minutes, or even hours.
He was foiled like a dumbass twat, but he was still smarter than the general public who failed to look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
And yess...months of demolition planning was then put together in a few short minutes.. and yay, the building was "pulled" at the word/whim of the insurance owner, Silverstein.
He "pulled" the building and nobody was any the wiser.
They removed the scrap "evidence" quick time and sold it to China which was riddled with thermite and thermate.
Nobody cares.

Nobody notices these things, they are purely arbitrarily accepted truths as dictated by the media.

Unfortunately for Siverstein, he didn't realise that a demolition required months of planning, and he assumed that his jew ass could give the demolition order at a whim.
Not so, he was trying to defy physics there.

But what he could do is suck in the general public who still has no idea of this impossibility. ::)

jndfvjsbnvjkisnv

http://www.debunking911.com

Good thread Light,
Building 7 was never mentioned in the 911 enquiry.

We need a new enquiry which should last for 5 years not a few months.

When we used to be on yahoo politics any thread mentioning
Building 7 was deleted within a few hours.
Yahoo is a Yanky company & they must have been told to delete it.

Someone is hiding something.
The truth will get out but maybe not in our lifetime.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 8:41am:

Good thread Light, Building 7 was never mentioned in the 911 enquiry. We need a new enquiry which should last for 5 years not a few months. When we used to be on yahoo politics any thread mentioning Building 7 was deleted within a few hours. Yahoo is a Yanky company & they must have been told to delete it. Someone is hiding something. The truth will get out but maybe not in our lifetime.

The link i provided explains what happened with WTC 7.

You should read it.

http://jayinreallife.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/6-out-of-10-of-the-official-911-commissioners-on-record-discuss-how-the-government-lied-about-the-official-story/

6 out of 10 of the official 9/11 Commissioners on record, discuss how the government lied about the official story.
Filed under: 9/11, America no more — Leave a comment February 16, 2010
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
link here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/12/911thebigcoverup

9/11 - the big cover-up?
Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.

From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.

The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.

The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.

But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.

What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.

There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.

Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:

1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.

2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.

3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.

4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.

More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.

In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.

There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.

Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?

What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.

http://www.project.nsearch.com/page/911-truth

The 9/11 Truth Movement Has Grown Every Year Since The 9/11 Event

The 911 Truth movement has grown steadily in the 10 years since the September 11th attacks in 2001.  911 Truth does not claim to have all the answers for what actually happened on that day but clearly there are so many questions and so much evidence that contradicts the official government story that further investigations must be done. 

6 out of the 10 Members of the 9/11 Commission Report Say There Was a Coverup

It's not unpatriotic to question the official story about 911 because 6 out of 10 of the members of the government own's 911 Commission rejected the official story.  John Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey actually drafted the original 911 Commission report.  He later wrote the book, "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11" which builds an effective case that the official government story is almost entirely untrue!

Farmer states, "at some level of government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened...I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described..The (NORAD air defense) tapes told a different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.  This is not spin."

In 2006 The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10 member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources.

Review The Evidence For Yourself And See If It Fits The Official Story

We invite you to review all the evidence and make up your own mind.  Why was all this evidence never presented to you in the mainstream news?  The answer to this is that the mainstream news all received billions of dollars from the government and they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.  Also if you research "Operation Mockingbird" you will soon see that the CIA has full control of all mainstream news sources in the United States.  The CIA has even bragged that not a story gets to the American people without their approval!

To really dip your toe into the evidence that proves that the official story does not make sense, you should first watch some great films that cover 9/11 in detail and also cover the concept of "false flags".  A false flag operation is basically a self inflicted wound or trick that is used to make it seem that somebody attacked you so you can go to war with whatever country or group you want and have the support of the people.  It's been going on since the very beginning of time.  We have recently found out that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never even happened which was the reason they gave us for going to war.  So over 58,000 Americans were killed along with over one million Vietnamese and the event never even happened. 

Flight 77 Simply Could Not Fit Into the Small 15 Foot Hole In The Pentagon

The first thing that made me realize that the official story on 9/11 was a lie was when I saw photos of the Pentagon before the outer wall collapsed.  Not many people realize that the hole before the outer part of the building fell down was only about 15 feet in diameter!  This will not even feet the body of of a Boeing 757 much less the wings, tail or the massive engines!  But when you see photos from the Pentagon before the wall fell down you will see that we have undamaged wall to the left, right and above the entry hole!  Not only that, you will see in the following video that the glass isn't broken to the left, right or above this small 15 foot entry hole!  This is absolutely impossible because the tail on a 757 sticks up over 42 feet (4 stories) so if an airliner did in fact hit the Pentagon you would have seen entry holes form the wings, engines, and tail section.  Watch this video and you will see that it's very clear that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gKWKowswLI&feature=player_embedded

No Evidence Of A Jet Hitting the Pentagon - Evidence Points to a Missile

We also have many witnesses that say a missile hit the Pentagon and we have even seen people in our own government slip up and say that a missile hit the pentagon. Here's a clip where 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer slips up and says a missile hit the Pentagon.  Also, if you review the Dimitri Khalezov Video in our 9/11 Truth Videos page you will hear that he also says it was a missile, a stolen Russian Granite anti ship missile.  This would explain why the Pentagon was hit basically right at about the same height that an anti ship missile would hit a naval vessel after skimming across the Pentagon lawn and leaving it pristine.

Video where 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer Says Missile Hit Pentagon

Recently footage has surfaced on the Internet that appears to be from an airplane or helicopter that seems to show a missile hitting the Pentagon.  It looks very credible and since we know that the FBI confiscated all the security videos from private businesses and never returned them, it seems clear that they are hiding something. 

It took many years for them to release the few frames that they did release and experts have already said that there are missing frames in that video they released. They only show the very tip of the object and it does not even look like the nose of a 757! 

Video Showing Missile Hitting Pentagon

Here's the footage that seems to show a missile hitting the Pentagon.   This video has been repeatedly erased from Youtube and accounts have been terminated for uploading it.  Why would they do that if it was fake?

Footage Showing Missile Hitting Pentagon

Always keep in mind that none of the evidence you are being shown has ever been shown on TV or in any mainstream media in the United States.  Mainstream news only ridicules people that want to ask questions and calls them "Truthers" just like they have called those that question Obama's birth certificate, "Birthers".  If the news is really fair and balanced why wouldn't they show both sides of the story instead of constantly parroting the official government narrative? 

Why Does the Mainstream Media Produce Hit Pieces on 9/11 Truth?

The mainstream media only produces TV shows that try to debunk 9/11 truth using completely flawed logic that make no sense.  This is done to convince the viewer that 9/11 truthers are crazy or conspiracy nuts.   Nothing could be further from the truth. The mainstream media has never talked with the thousands of architects and engineers that have stated that the official government story on 9/11 is a lie.

Here are some full length videos to watch to get familiar with the massive evidence that we've been lied to by our government and press about everything concerning the terrorist attacks from Sept 11, 2001.

911 Truth Videos

Bombs in the Basement and More!

Another very important thing that must be looked at when you investigate 9/11 is the many witnesses and even mainstream news that said bombs were going off in the basements of the twin towers before the planes even hit in some cases.  Here's a good video that goes over some of this huge amount of evidence.  As you watch this, consider that if the government story was true and the towers were strictly brought down by airplanes then there would have been no bombs going off at all!    The fuel was burned away in the first 60 seconds of impact and that's why the firefighters all said that they had it completely under control.  The fact is that there were MANY bombs going off that day and we have the eyewitness testimony on tape to prove it.  This fact was completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=player_embedded

As the old saying goes-

"The light is on but nobody is home"

Do you nutjobs ever look at the evidence that contradicts your tin foil hat theories?

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 8:31am:

http://www.debunking911.com

You nutjobs should read this before spreading your tin foil hat theories.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 8:41am:

Good thread Light, Building 7 was never mentioned in the 911 enquiry.

Actually, in that documentary, Zeitgeist, they said it WAS mentioned in the enquiry: and they had absolutely no idea what caused it to collapse. How could that be?

Now they're saying it was the heat.

Sure.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 8:41am: Good thread Light, Building 7 was never mentioned in the 911 enquiry. Actually, in that documentary, Zeitgeist, they said it WAS mentioned in the enquiry: and they had absolutely no idea what caused it to collapse. How could that be? Now they're saying it was the heat. Sure.

Building 7 was just one of about 1001 subjects that were brushed over or not mentioned.

I added a poll.

Did the 911 enquiry uncover the full story ?

Exactly. How can a building just collapse and no one asks any questions?

If that doesn't raise any suspicions, we're living in a very surreal, Alice in Wonderland kind of world.

All that is solid melts into air.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:11pm:

I added a poll. Did the 911 enquiry uncover the full story ?

The 911 Enquiry was a political snow-job, and everybody knows.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 6:11pm: I added a poll. Did the 911 enquiry uncover the full story ? The 911 Enquiry was a political snow-job, and everybody knows.

At first it was passed off as laughable conspiracy theories but
then the anomalies just added up & now we know
that we were lied to.

Sure, but we don't have any answers either. It's ridiculous to assume it was the Bush administration, although the Bush family, Cheney and Rumsfeld had the most to benefit.

Something like September 11 would need to be planned for years. And no matter what anyone says, I can't imagine a patriot like Bush copping a loss of face like September 11, or even the loss of American lives.

So who did it? The Zionists?

You tell us, Karnal. I'm really interested to know what you think.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:02pm:

You tell us, Karnal. I'm really interested to know what you think.

He is just regurgitating


Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 3:47pm:

One of Soren's perfectly excreted stools. Delicious!

Shhh.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:02pm:

You tell us, Karnal. I'm really interested to know what you think.

There's good evidence it was the Pakistani ISI - their director transferred $100,000 into hijacker, Mohammed Atta's, bank account: evidence submitted to the inquiry and ignored. Reason? No reason.

The ONLY evidence it was Al Qaida is a grainy video of someone who looks like Osama bin Laden saying September 11 was a good thing. That's it.

And they supposedly got rid of him.

The inquiry itself is reason for suspicion, but they were most likely covering up their incompetance - not their complicity. Bush's own testimony was not allowed to be recorded, transcribed or witnessed by reporters. No notes were allowed, and Cheney had to be right there by his side - which wasn't at all strange during the Bush period.

Bush hushed EVERYTHING up. For good reason too: he was a clutz.

I doubt he could have organised September 11.

The question then, is who?

Quote:

Bush's own testimony was not allowed to be recorded, transcribed or witnessed by reporters. No notes were allowed

It's amazing what a country can do under cover of war.

Exactly. How can a building just collapse and no one asks any questions?

If that doesn't raise any suspicions, we're living in a very surreal, Alice in Wonderland kind of world.

___________-

alice ate a mushroom and tripped out

into a wonderland

they made a fairytale upon the drug use

9/11 was an inside job

namaste

-:)

Thanks.


Bush might have been a klutz, but if he had something to do with it, he wouldn't have been alone. Cheney would have been right by his side then too.

At first it was passed off as laughable conspiracy theories but
then the anomalies just added up & now we know
that we were lied to.

__________

yes i remember you id bobby attacking the i am

that i am....

you are forgiven.

i just keep shining the LIGHT and truth unto illusion

and lies about 9/11 and everything else i have

the care to have discourse upon

namaste

-:)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:41pm:

Quote: Bush's own testimony was not allowed to be recorded, transcribed or witnessed by reporters. No notes were allowed It's amazing what a country can do under cover of war.

It's also amazing how a supposedly independant media can fall in line almost completely.

Sure, but we don't have any answers either. It's ridiculous to assume it was the Bush administration, although the Bush family, Cheney and Rumsfeld had the most to benefit.

Something like September 11 would need to be planned for years. And no matter what anyone says, I can't imagine a patriot like Bush copping a loss of face like September 11, or even the loss of American lives.

So who did it? The Zionists?

____________

yes it was planned for many years through

satanic freemasonry

further,

i remember being attacked by this karnal id as well

truth always comes out yes

forgiven

bodhisattva

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:39pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 7:02pm: You tell us, Karnal. I'm really interested to know what you think. There's good evidence it was the Pakistani ISI - their director transferred $100,000 into hijacker, Mohammed Atta's, bank account: evidence submitted to the inquiry and ignored. Reason? No reason. The ONLY evidence it was Al Qaida is a grainy video of someone who looks like Osama bin Laden saying September 11 was a good thing. That's it. And they supposedly got rid of him. The inquiry itself is reason for suspicion, but they were most likely covering up their incompetance - not their complicity. Bush's own testimony was not allowed to be recorded, transcribed or witnessed by reporters. No notes were allowed, and Cheney had to be right there by his side - which wasn't at all strange during the Bush period. Bush hushed EVERYTHING up. For good reason too: he was a clutz. I doubt he could have organised September 11. The question then, is who?

Musta been Soros - he's jewish, he's rich (smart) - what else is there to it???

It's also amazing how a supposedly independant media can fall in line almost completely.

___________

yes freemasons are at the top of media

government corporations law property religion

things starting to add up yet dear ones?

we shall see

blessings unto all hearts

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:45pm:

Exactly. How can a building just collapse and no one asks any questions? If that doesn't raise any suspicions, we're living in a very surreal, Alice in Wonderland kind of world. ___________- alice ate a mushroom and tripped out into a wonderland they made a fairytale upon the drug use 9/11 was an inside job namaste -:)

WTC 7 is the definitive piece of evidence in the 911 cover up.
Regardless of what you believe about the other buildings or pentagon nothing can explain wtc 7 and it proves the government was lying and that there was prior internal planing in the event.

jhbfwujhfbwuhebf

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:52pm:

Exactly. How can a building just collapse and no one asks any questions? If that doesn't raise any suspicions, we're living in a very surreal, Alice in Wonderland kind of world.

Speak for yourself.
And your fellow uncoverers of conspiracies.

Welcome.

Thanks for opening up.

If you expect nice or a decent community, you're in the wrong place.

id shilo


your opinion is yours alone

everyone has an opinion

however

the fact remains

building 7 imploded into its own footprint

a 757 went into the pentagon leaving a 12 foot hole

no wing

no tail

no engines

went through multiple reinforced concrete into many

layers inside the pentagon

all the trademarks of a missile

besides

you may be a government stooge and sycophant

for the government lie and coverup

i would not be in illusion that you can just come in here

write 1 post and think everyone will believe you

over the facts

having said that

blessings unto your HEART

namaste

-:)

Physics does not lie

nano thermite

this is a weapons grade thermite found

why? how?

plus...there is this

the gold

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329597476/11#11

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-were-trillions-fake-bonds-held-chicago-fed-crates

HEY NEEDED TO STAY SECURE FOR 60 YEARS
The wooden boxes were then glued shut. That way, the bonds were much less likely to get moldy -- after beingstored in a chest and buried underground in a secure location for 60 years.After the 60 years, the Asian countries were told they could dig up the chests, cash out the bonds and get theirmoney back if they wanted to.According to Fulford, Keenan and other sources, in 1938, the Kuomintang dynasty in China sent seven battleships'worth of gold-- a staggering amount -- to the United States to protect against it being stolen by the Japanese.This is a key aspect of the trillion-dollar lawsuit we have been discussing.In response, the United States issued massive amounts of 1934-series Federal Reserve bonds -- carefully sealed inboxes, which were then sealed in locked chests -- and handed them back to China as collateral.
THE 60 YEARS WERE UP IN 1998 -- AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LOST THE CASE
In 1998, the 60 years were up. The Kuomintang had fled to Taiwan and were no longer the ruling party in China, butthey still wanted their gold back. The Federal Reserve fought them in a secret international court at the Hague -- and
lost.
The Federal Reserve was ordered to pay out the debt as of September 11, 2001. They did not. We all know what
did
happen that day.What
very few
people knew, until now, was that all the Kuomintang gold was being stored under Building 7 at theWorld Trade Center. After the towers came down, the vaults were "mysteriously" found to be empty.The Kuomintang have been fighting ever since to get their gold back. The size and scope of such a "winner takesall" heist is truly extraordinary -- but something outrageous and unprecedented in any known laws of physics didhappen that day.Susan Lindaeur is now the highest-level, most credible witness to have added significant strength to the story that"9/11 was an inside job.

THE 60 YEARS WERE UP IN 1998 -- AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LOST THE CASE
In 1998, the 60 years were up. The Kuomintang had fled to Taiwan and were no longer the ruling party in China, butthey still wanted their gold back. The Federal Reserve fought them in a secret international court at the Hague -- and
lost.
The Federal Reserve was ordered to pay out the debt as of September 11, 2001. They did not. We all know what
did
happen that day.What
very few
people knew, until now, was that all the Kuomintang gold was being stored under Building 7 at theWorld Trade Center.

______________

truth always comes out

namaste

-:)

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 7:49pm:

Sure, but we don't have any answers either. It's ridiculous to assume it was the Bush administration, although the Bush family, Cheney and Rumsfeld had the most to benefit. Something like September 11 would need to be planned for years. And no matter what anyone says, I can't imagine a patriot like Bush copping a loss of face like September 11, or even the loss of American lives. So who did it? The Zionists? ____________ yes it was planned for many years through satanic freemasonry further, i remember being attacked by this karnal id as well truth always comes out yes forgiven bodhisattva

Thanks, Light. So it was those dastardly Satanists. Soren thinks it was the Muselmen. Do you think the two could have been collaborating?

If it was an "inside job", it would mean that Cheney was planning September 11 when he was the CEO of Haliburton.

Which would mean he also knew that Bush would tap him on the shoulder to be his running mate in the 2000 election.

Which would mean he also knew that Bush was going to win the primaries, tie the election with Gore, the US would have no president-elect for 8 months, a jury in Florida would rule on a recount, etc, etc, etc -

And, of course, he knew that Bush would become the most narrowly elected president in the US's history.

Very Satanic indeed.

Forgiven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shprqaTwW88&context=C3de6d16ADOEgsToPDskI5qcUUwOvkJjHdSq7afMNE

The Most Powerful Man In The World = The Black Pope

jesuit order / freemasons

Quote:

If it was an "inside job", it would mean that Cheney was planning September 11 when he was the CEO of Haliburton. Which would mean he also knew that Bush would tap him on the shoulder to be his running mate in the 2000 election. Which would mean he also knew that Bush was going to win the primaries, tie the election with Gore, the US would have no president-elect for 8 months, a jury in Florida would rule on a recount, etc, etc, etc - And, of course, he knew that Bush would become the most narrowly elected president in the US's history. Very Satanic indeed.

Sounds legit.

If it was an "inside job", it would mean that Cheney was planning September 11 when he was the CEO of Haliburton.

Which would mean he also knew that Bush would tap him on the shoulder to be his running mate in the 2000 election.

Which would mean he also knew that Bush was going to win the primaries, tie the election with Gore, the US would have no president-elect for 8 months, a jury in Florida would rule on a recount, etc, etc, etc -

And, of course, he knew that Bush would become the most narrowly elected president in the US's history.

Very Satanic indeed.

___________

cheyney was still is bush jnrs handler

prescot bush tried for treason funding hitler

research the fact

both prescott bushs son and grandson become

US presidents

google it

florida electronic vote counting google it

the programmer that wrote the program stood

up in court and said its rigged

type in youtube rigged elections in US and you

will see the court room testamony

anything else?

ignorances forgiven

namaste

-:)

THE 60 YEARS WERE UP IN 1998 -- AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LOST THE CASE
In 1998, the 60 years were up. The Kuomintang had fled to Taiwan and were no longer the ruling party in China, butthey still wanted their gold back. The Federal Reserve fought them in a secret international court at the Hague -- and
lost.
The Federal Reserve was ordered to pay out the debt as of September 11, 2001. They did not. We all know what
did
happen that day.What
very few
people knew, until now, was that all the Kuomintang gold was being stored under Building 7 at theWorld Trade Center.

______________

now..lets stay ontopic shall we

truth always comes out

namaste

-:)

Light, you'll believe anything, but some of what you say on this is right. Yes, the Twin Towers wreckage tested positive for demolition explosives, and people reported hearing explosions hours before the buildings came down.

This was even reported on mainstream media outlets, such as CNN.

It's not a fringe or conspiracy theory.

However, a cabal of Satanic Freemasonic Zionist Pakistani Neocon alien lizards is not possible. Why?

They wouldn't get on.

Namaste.

Shilo   Online
YaBB Newbies
Australian Politics

Gender:
Posts: 3

  jndfvjsbnvjkisnv « Last Edit: Today at 8:20pm by Shilo »

___________

looks like id shilo has retracted his her post at

08:20pm

something to hide maybe

forgiven

namaste

-:)

always interesting watching you retreat id karnal

blessings

-:)

Light, you'll believe anything, but some of what you say on this is right. Yes, the Twin Towers wreckage tested positive for demolition explosives, and people reported hearing explosions hours before the buildings came down.

This was even reported on mainstream media outlets, such as CNN.

It's not a fringe or conspiracy theory.

However, a cabal of Satanic Freemasonic Zionist Pakistani Neocon alien lizards is not possible.

___________

on the contrary

its the only way it is possible

bodhisattva

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 8:31am: http://www.debunking911.com You nutjobs should read this before spreading your tin foil hat theories.

Unfortunately, there seems to be allowed only two very distinct species of people who can enter into a discussion about 911; the nutjob tin-foil hat wearers, and the sheeple. All others are barred from discussion, ..nay, they quickly get a tag as either a believer or non-believer.

So you tell me. If something doesn't seem right, should we all just shrug our shoulders, have complete faith, and look the other way to avoid being labelled?
Or should we stay open minded and look at the facts on either side?

..Or should we just make up our minds from the outset and stick with that?

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 8:23pm:

If it was an "inside job", it would mean that Cheney was planning September 11 when he was the CEO of Haliburton. Which would mean he also knew that Bush would tap him on the shoulder to be his running mate in the 2000 election. Which would mean he also knew that Bush was going to win the primaries, tie the election with Gore, the US would have no president-elect for 8 months, a jury in Florida would rule on a recount, etc, etc, etc - And, of course, he knew that Bush would become the most narrowly elected president in the US's history. Very Satanic indeed. ___________ cheyney was still is bush jnrs handler prescot bush tried for treason funding hitler research the fact both prescott bushs son and grandson become US presidents google it florida electronic vote counting google it the programmer that wrote the program stood up in court and said its rigged type in youtube rigged elections in US and you will see the court room testamony anything else? ignorances forgiven namaste -:)

All true. But these are just assembled facts. Together, they mean nothing.

If you say Bush did it, you also have to say Clinton did it.

Now I know you believe both are alien lizards, but I have the minority opinion that a Democrat president and a Republican Texan governor wouldn't be hanging out in dark rooms together smoking cigars and planning an attack on the US of A.

Call me old fashioned, but I think that if they couldn't even agree on things like tax reform and health care, they wouldn't have much to say to each other about blowing up their own civilians.

And if they did, it would be a prisoner's dillema - who would be the first to leak?

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 8:31pm:

Light, you'll believe anything, but some of what you say on this is right. Yes, the Twin Towers wreckage tested positive for demolition explosives, and people reported hearing explosions hours before the buildings came down. This was even reported on mainstream media outlets, such as CNN. It's not a fringe or conspiracy theory. However, a cabal of Satanic Freemasonic Zionist Pakistani Neocon alien lizards is not possible. ___________ on the contrary its the only way it is possible bodhisattva

And they used to say the same about mad old ladies with black cats.

If they floated, it was only possible that they were witches.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 8:29pm:

Shilo   Online YaBB Newbies Australian Politics Gender: Posts: 3   jndfvjsbnvjkisnv « Last Edit: Today at 8:20pm by Shilo » ___________ looks like id shilo has retracted his her post at 08:20pm something to hide maybe forgiven namaste -:)

Why would a Higher Being from the 5th order of reality point out something like this?

It doesn't make sense.

Forgiven.

3 posts riddled with confusion in a row..this is forgiven

stay on topic if you have the care yes

namaste

-:)

THE 60 YEARS WERE UP IN 1998 -- AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LOST THE CASE
In 1998, the 60 years were up. The Kuomintang had fled to Taiwan and were no longer the ruling party in China, butthey still wanted their gold back. The Federal Reserve fought them in a secret international court at the Hague -- and
lost.
The Federal Reserve was ordered to pay out the debt as of September 11, 2001. They did not. We all know what
did
happen that day.What
very few
people knew, until now, was that all the Kuomintang gold was being stored under Building 7 at theWorld Trade Center.

______________

now..lets stay ontopic shall we

truth always comes out

namaste

-:)

As Rumsfeld would say, there are known knowns and unknown knowns knowns, and unknown known unknowns and all the other combinations.

With September 11, we know that two passenger airliners were flown into two New York skyscrapers. No one else would do this than people who were prepared to die for a cause: martyrs.

I doubt you'd round up too many CIA volunteers prepared to perform their patriotic duty of blowing up the Manhattan skyline and creating the War On Terror.

And, unlike the Kennedy assasination, I don't think the Mafia would want to be in on this one.

So that leaves religious extremists of one persuasion or other - my money's on the Muselmen - whatever organisation, faction or cell they were from: take your pick.

But they did not act alone. Someone was on the ground on September 11, 2001, pulling it all together: the known unknowns.

As much as the Bush administration profited politically from September 11 - in their first term at least - and as much as affiliated companies like Blackwater and Haliburton profited economically - I doubt very much that they could have pulled an operation like this off in 6 months.

You're mistaken, the ID known as the Light. In this dimension, truth does not always come out.

Rumsfeld was right. We know some things, but others will remain shrouded in mystery forever.

Forgiven.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 10:08pm:

THE 60 YEARS WERE UP IN 1998 -- AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LOST THE CASE In 1998, the 60 years were up. The Kuomintang had fled to Taiwan and were no longer the ruling party in China, butthey still wanted their gold back. The Federal Reserve fought them in a secret international court at the Hague -- and lost. The Federal Reserve was ordered to pay out the debt as of September 11, 2001. They did not. We all know what did happen that day.What very few people knew, until now, was that all the Kuomintang gold was being stored under Building 7 at theWorld Trade Center. ______________ now..lets stay ontopic shall we truth always comes out namaste -:)

i
Right. So the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, organised September 11.

His diabolical plan was to blow up New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pensylvania to stop the Kuomintang from getting their hands on all that gold.

Clever.

i observe you looking for

"who,why?"

so you dont believe the official story then?

what is your stance here

9/11 inside job or no?

simple question..

namaste

-:)

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 10:38pm:

As Rumsfeld would say, there are known knowns and unknown knowns knowns, and unknown known unknowns and all the other combinations. With September 11, we know that two passenger airliners were flown into two New York skyscrapers. No one else would do this than people who were prepared to die for a cause: martyrs.

How can you be so sure. The pentagon was working on on a program to fly planes by remote control. Today we see drones flown by remote control, and used to bomb people by the American military on a regular basis.


Quote:

The General Atomics MQ-1 Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used primarily by the United States Air Force (USAF) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Initially conceived in the early 1990s for reconnaissance and forward observation roles, the Predator carries cameras and other sensors but has been modified and upgraded to carry and fire two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles or other munitions. The aircraft, in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011026-jsf01.htm

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 10:38pm:

As Rumsfeld would say, there are known knowns and unknown knowns knowns, and unknown known unknowns and all the other combinations. With September 11, we know that two passenger airliners were flown into two New York skyscrapers. No one else would do this than people who were prepared to die for a cause: martyrs. I doubt you'd round up too many CIA volunteers prepared to perform their patriotic duty of blowing up the Manhattan skyline and creating the War On Terror. And, unlike the Kennedy assasination, I don't think the Mafia would want to be in on this one. So that leaves religious extremists of one persuasion or other - my money's on the Muselmen - whatever organisation, faction or cell they were from: take your pick. But they did not act alone. Someone was on the ground on September 11, 2001, pulling it all together: the known unknowns. As much as the Bush administration profited politically from September 11 - in their first term at least - and as much as affiliated companies like Blackwater and Haliburton profited economically - I doubt very much that they could have pulled an operation like this off in 6 months. You're mistaken, the ID known as the Light. In this dimension, truth does not always come out. Rumsfeld was right. We know some things, but others will remain shrouded in mystery forever. Forgiven.

The only possible way to manipulate a human mind is via the very crude and archaic technique of "religion" is it?

Mind manipulation isn't rocket science and we are all very easily led to believe certain things which defy logic without even being specifically targeted.

Take for example the widespread belief that the jet fuel weakened the WTC structure to such an extent as to cause total and catastrophic failure.
Logic and experience would say that this is not possible. You can quite easily try it yourself with a steel rod holding a load and gallons upon gallons of fuel.
Try as you might, for as long as you like, you will not get the steel rod to even buckle or warp by using a petroleum product. It quite simply does not burn hot enough.
Then you should consider that the jet fuel burned up very quickly with only a small amount getting anywhere near the core structures.
You should also consider that although they said that the lagging (asbestos covering) was shaken off by the impact of the plane (in two instances), there was obviously still some protection which remained intact. And since steel is a very good conductor of heat, the heat from the unprotected areas would have quickly dissipated towards the protected areas making the theory even more of an impossibility...if that is possible.

I challenge you to pour loads upon loads upon loads of fuel onto a steel rod with areas of lagging for three days (not 20 seconds) and see if you can get it to fail holding a relative load to the WTC's. It won't fail. That part of the story is blatant bs.

Take for example the widespread belief that the jet fuel weakened the WTC structure to such an extent as to cause total and catastrophic failure.
Logic and experience would say that this is not possible. You can quite easily try it yourself with a steel rod holding a load and gallons upon gallons of fuel.

_____________

using this logic the fuselage in every plane on the planet

,made of steel alloy, should melt and

combust/weaken to the point of destruction..

get real yes

wake up

namaste

further,

now what are you saying id amadd

9/11 inside job or no

simple question..

blessings

That's just one of the unanswered questions. There may be more of a logical explanation which I have overlooked for that particular question, however, to make it logical I'd have to assume that the engineers of the WTC....(s) failed dismally at physics.

Jet fuel and (cooler burning) black smoke does not equate to failure of steel structures. And any half-witted prep-school budding engineer would definitely not build that possibility into their project...'cause it would be as likely for a fat boy to take down the towers by leaning in the wrong spot.

The ball of flames in the towers was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. You ain't gonna do poo to a steel shaft by throwing a petrol bomb at it. And I'd assume that the petrol bomb didn't even hit the main shafts at all. The explosion looked spectacular, but it went outward and burned up quickly as fuel fires do.

9/11 inside job yes or no?

I think that an answer of "yes" would satisfy economic objectives and MO far more than an answer of "no".

I'm still expecting answers that haven't been forthcoming as yet. They may eventuate, I'm still hopeful of that.

i appreciate your candour and humility

namaste

-:)

On September 11, I don't think there can be a simple answer.
I agree with Rumsfeld on the known unknowns, but I think he may have known a little more that he'd care to admit.

As soon as Rumsfeld was appointed Defence Secretary in late 2000, he began a plan to "modernise" the US military. This was the biggest command restructure in the post war era, and later involved the privatisation of much of the military. On the morning of September 11, Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon giving a speech where he announced an attack on the US in the next "two, four, six or twelve months". Instead, it happened that very morning, and Rumsfeld "assisted" in the cleanup.

INo plane wreckage was ever offered up for examination by aviation authorities.

September 11 marked two shifts in US "defence": the strategic shift away from conventional warfare against nation states, and the operational shift towards a corporatised, outsourced military. The US was not ready for either, and the  paradigm shift took years to settle in. Many organisational squabbles took place, and many heads rolled. It wasn't pretty. The CIA versus Defence Intelligence, the FBI versus the newly created Homeland Security aparatus, and the various commands Rumsfeld had created in the Pentagon.

Not to mention the wars over contracts for catering, communications, outsourced intelligence and security, collectively worth trillions over the next few years. It was the biggest reform to the military industrial complex since Vietnam.

And they didn't even have a war.

So what unites an army more than anything? Exactly what Rumsfeld was predicting: an attack.

But I doubt very much that the Bush administration had the gall or the organisational capability to organise such an attack. I believe they wanted it, and I believe they looked the other way when the intelligence was presented to them. CIA director, George Tenet, has made this pretty clear, but he was probably covering his arse with everyone else.

To cut a long story short, I think they knew what was coming and were in a state of such convenient paralysis that they basically allowed it to happen.

But I also think there are a few unknowns in there too.

The explosives: why would you demolish three buildings if you've got planes to fly into them? Public safety? Minimising collateral damage? Maybe.

If no planes did crash into the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania, where did those planes, their passengers and crews disappear to?

The biggest mystery to me is why no fighter jets were deployed. It's a tested ten minute response time. All those emergency calls: from the airspace controllers to observers on the ground to the passengers and crews of the planes themselves are recorded.

But no action was taken.

Was it a debacle or an organised attack from within?

I'm going to hedge my bets and say both.

The biggest mystery to me is why no fighter jets were deployed.

________

norad was stood down by cheney

research the fact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfW3IwyXhPs

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/455482/cheney_orders_norad_to_stand_down_as_flight_approaches_d_c/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/455482/cheney_orders_norad_to_stand_down_as_flight_approaches_d_c/

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/norad-stand-down-in-2-minutes.html

The 9/11 Stand Down in 2 Minutes
NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes
They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 and and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.

Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:

NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases
Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds
Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them
You might think that the military couldn't find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

As a former senior air force colonel said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
Norad's stand down on 9/11 was so blatant that Norad has been forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he? The falsity of Norad's explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

In addition, Dick Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon -- one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world -- and yet ordered that the airplane not be intercepted (confirmed here). Given that Cheney was in charge of all of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks on 9/11 -- apparently including Norad (see this Department of State announcement, this CNN article, and this essay) -- Cheney's orders regarding flight 77 seem to be part and parcel of the Norad stand down.

Absolutelty ludicrous.

Not at all ludicrous. It happened.

You also need to understand the extent that the crisis of September 11 shaped the Hawks. In one morning, they went from being ageing politicos to macho heroes with emergency powers in command bunkers. For them it was war, and they relished it. For Cheney, it was the war he'd been accused of avoiding since Vietnam.

Light, I understand Cheney had a role in coordinating the evacuation of the president but it doesn't seem very plausible that he was in charge of air traffic control in all those states.

Tracking a plane and ordering it not to be intercepted is an entirely different matter to ordering the fighter jets to be grounded - which is what happened.

Intercepting a plane means shooting it down - a very difficult decision to take, especially for a civilian and someone as public as the Vice President.

Mind you, he shot his friend full of buckshot in that hunting incident, so who knows?

That September 11 wasn't prevented goes to the heart of the hubris that the Bush administration represented. The failure of all the usual systems and chains of command comes down to the "all power to the executive" crusade of Cheney's. If the right people had been left to do their jobs - if the government had listened to the experts instead of using them as political pawns - perhaps none of it would have happened. September 11, Iraq, none of it.

But it did, and it's history.

I doubt Cheney was giving orders for a US invasion from his very own command bunker. He just, without the abdication of responsibility that comes from a chain of command, didn't want to shoot down a planeload of passengers.

Karnal, if the Bush administration turned a blind eye and allowed religious extremists to carry out a terrorist attack, do you believe they were responsible for the three different locations? Who do you think was responsible for the explosives, if they were used?

And, seeing as I've given my tin foil hat a bit of a polish, what does everyone believe about the dramatic differences in Bin Laden's appearance in videos over the years?

The poll is now 8 to 2  as NO for

Did the 911 enquiry uncover the full story ?

Answer = NO

I'm sick of Yanky lies.

A guy seizes upon an idea. A plan is set. The plan is implemented. 19 individuals set out and hijack four planes. So far the plan is working great. The 19 individuals manage to slam three of the four planes into the intended targets. It certainly was a successful plan! The twin towers collapse. Much better than expected results!

US govt wants to kick someone, anyone will do. They can't kick any of the 19 as they have ceased to exist. They still have to kick someone. Somebody apart from the 19 dead guys has to take the blame. Blaming individuals won't work - it has to be a country or sinister wide spread organisation. The US population wants someone kicked and soon.

Links are found between the 19 who carried out the plan and a couple of specific locations in Afghanistan. Localised strikes on those locations? No. That wouldn't satisfy the US public's craving for revenge. Let's hatch a plan to invade and occupy Afghanistan! A bunch of backward goat herders won't be any opposition to the US armed forces of the 21st century. Let's forget that the Soviets had no luck there with twice the number of troops and zero rules of engagement. Implement the invasion plan. Things don't go so well and the US is still there 10 years later without having much success at all.


Some plans work, some plans work better than expected and some plans just turn to sh!t.

Pfft. That doesn't make sense.

Don't you just love internet conspiracy theories?
No? Neither do I.

muso wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Don't you just love internet conspiracy theories? No? Neither do I.

By your logic the offical story is a conspiracy theory as the theory that the government lied has more evidence to it.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:00am: Don't you just love internet conspiracy theories? No? Neither do I. By your logic the offical story is a conspiracy theory as the theory that the government lied has more evidence to it.

Pardon?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:02am: muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:00am: Don't you just love internet conspiracy theories? No? Neither do I. By your logic the offical story is a conspiracy theory as the theory that the government lied has more evidence to it. Pardon?

Well if my theory is conspiracy then so it the offical story.
Isnt something classified a conspiracy due to the evidence it has or doesnt have?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:02am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:02am: muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:00am: Don't you just love internet conspiracy theories? No? Neither do I. By your logic the offical story is a conspiracy theory as the theory that the government lied has more evidence to it. Pardon? Well if my theory is conspiracy then so it the offical story. Isnt something classified a conspiracy due to the evidence it has or doesnt have?

No.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:04am: Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:02am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:02am: muso wrote on Mar 4th, 2012 at 11:00am: Don't you just love internet conspiracy theories? No? Neither do I. By your logic the offical story is a conspiracy theory as the theory that the government lied has more evidence to it. Pardon? Well if my theory is conspiracy then so it the offical story. Isnt something classified a conspiracy due to the evidence it has or doesnt have? No.

So you base your opinion on important things by what people TELL you, even if they dont have evidence to back up their claims?

I give you 2 x 1 and you come up with 74.

Wrong again.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

I give you 2 x 1 and you come up with 74. Wrong again.

So what is the classification of conspiracy based on?

According to Oxford it's:


Quote:

a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event

That's for conspiracy theory.

Just plain old conspiracy is:


Quote:

secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful the action of plotting or conspiring

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:20am:

According to Oxford it's: Quote: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event

And how much evidence does it need to not be a conspiracy?
And how little evidence does an offical story need to be a conspiracy.

Wouldnt that definition make the offical story a conspiracy anyway??

It depends on you, doesn't it? No amount of evidence will be enough for some people. A whisper is enough for others. It wouldn't cease to be a conspiracy theory even if it were proven to be true.


Do you mean how many believers are needed before a conspiracy theory is generally accepted as what actually happened?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

It depends on you, doesn't it? No amount of evidence will be enough for some people. A whisper is enough for others. It wouldn't cease to be a conspiracy theory even if it were proven to be true. Do you mean how many believers are needed before a conspiracy theory is generally accepted as what actually happened?

True, its really a matter of perceived value isn’t it.
The government or some influential person may say that an orange is an apple and people will believe them because they value their word highly.
A random person on the street would call an orange and orange and people would say “no that’s an apple” because someone else said so.
What’s funny is that value doesn’t come from the trustworthiness of a source, or the evidence it presents. It would seem that is strictly an emotional attachment, and as we know emotion does not serve well when trying to make a logical decision or opinion.

No I didn’t mean how many followers; you can have a million people believe a dumb idea and it is still a dumb idea.

In reality there is just as much if not more evidence backing up the theory that 911 was an inside job, but emotion has blocked people’s ability to perceive and analyse that information rationally.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

http://st911.org/

Visit These Two Major Websites of 9/11 Scholars

http://www.ae911truth.org/


Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality - Part 2                  
Written by Adam Taylor         
Thursday, 01 March 2012 20:00
Plane Impacts, Fire Damage & Melted Steel
Editor’s note: This is Part 2 of an extensive report by researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.
(Quotes from Popular Mechanics’ book are shown in red and with page numbers.)

Plane Impacts and Fire Damage

PM next turns to the issue of the plane impacts and fire damage and their roles in the WTC event. Though PM acknowledges that the fires in the buildings could not have become hot enough to melt steel, they nonetheless rehash the constantly heard argument from other defenders of the official story that the steel did not need to melt to cause collapse. According to PM, it only had to be weakened by the fires enough to cause collapse.

PM argues that “When the planes hit the buildings and plowed into their centers, a large section of the exterior load-bearing columns as well as some crucial core columns were severed.” (pg. 37-38) Though this may be true, the collapse of the Towers appears to have actually started at floors that had minimal structural damage.1 PM also discusses the theory from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that “the impact stripped fireproofing insulation from the trusses that supported 80,000 square feet of floor space.” (pg. 38) This assertion, however, is greatly flawed, as noted by UL whistleblower Kevin Ryan:
Read more...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

  Click one of the following boxes to select a section
    220+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,500+ Engineers and Architects
    250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
    400+ Professors Question 9/11
    300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
    200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
    400+ Medical Professionals
ABOUT

ARTICLES      
LINKS
Recent Additions to This Page
(Please also check the other six pages.)


Steve R. Pieczenik, MD, PhD
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President Nixon, Ford and Carter
Added July 17, 2011

Commander James Clow
U.S. Coast Guard (ret)
Former Chief, National Response Center
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters
Added December 27, 2010

Roland Dumas
Former Foreign Minister of France
Added December 23, 2010

Major Albert M. Meyer, MHA
U.S. Air Force (ret)
Added December 15, 2010

Commander James R. Compton
U.S. Navy (ret)
Added November 1, 2010

Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr.
Captain, U.S. Army Intelligence, World War II
Former CIA Case Officer
Added October 18, 2010

Michael Scheuer, PhD
Former Chief of the CIA's bin Laden unit
Added October 11, 2010

Ramsey Clark, MA, JD
66th U.S. Attorney General
Added September 29, 2010

Gov. Walter Peterson
81st Governor
State of New Hampshire
Added May 29, 2010

IMPORTANT ARTICLE

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up” English, Danish, French, German, Greek, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish

   
Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report.  Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11.  This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 220 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite. (continued below)

Contact Your Local 9/11 Truth Group Listed Here!

Demand a New 9/11 Investigation!

I'm in two minds whether September 11 showed up the bickering and incompetance of a vast warring buraucracy; or the cult-like groupthink of a military power in total war, its media, education system, its entire state aparatus geared up and ready to go.

The truth, I think, lies somewhere in between. The US did not unanimously support retribution by any means. The fact that we're even discussing this points to other possibilities.

I doubt many in the 1940s & 50s called the attack on Pearl Harbour into question. The US has changed a lot since Vietnam and Watergate.

I don't know who set the explosives, Annie, but I don't know why you'd even need explosives when you've got hijacked airliners. The objective wasn't to flatten buildings, surely.

A lot of bullsh!t information is put alongside legitimate enigmas. I saw one documentary where they said the passengers and hijackers are all still alive.

JFK is not dead.

Elvis is working in a supermarket in Arkansas.

John Lennon faked his own death.

We never landed on the moon - it was all filmed in Hollywood.


The internet - home of kooks, weirdos and the insane.

I'm in two minds whether September 11 showed up the bickering and incompetance of a vast warring buraucracy

____________

yes you are confused and a mediocre actor

forgiven

namaste

-:)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

JFK is not dead. Elvis is working in a supermarket in Arkansas. John Lennon faked his own death. We never landed on the moon - it was all filmed in Hollywood. The internet - home of kooks, weirdos and the insane.

The difference between these conspiracy theories and the theory that 911 was an inside job is evidence.

What relevance does your post have when you are trying to compare two completley different things?

What relevance does your post have when you are trying to compare two completley different things?

___________

many ids on this and many other forums are

paid stooges,dupes,below level iqs,freemasons,

operatives and more..i would not be in confusion

upon the fact...

facts speak volumes i do not try to convince anyone

merely bring facts

and do observe with forgiveness

namaste

-:)

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

I'm in two minds whether September 11 showed up the bickering and incompetance of a vast warring buraucracy ____________ yes you are confused and a mediocre actor forgiven namaste -:)

You've finally worked out who I really am, eh?

Forgiven unconditionally and with all my heart.

You see? We freemasons can forgive better than you miserable lightworkers.

Foriven again.

yes 9/11 was a proven inside job..

and many take their eyes off this fact

and try character assassination


the last bastion of the defeated

namaste

-:)

Dear Light - you tend to blame freemasons for everything.
I think this makes your conclusions somewhat misguided.

You are forgiven
with much kindness & respect.
And so it is.
Namaste.

Yes character assassination is the choice of the weak when dealing with cold hard facts.
The word is not "debunking", the word is "debating".

We're so lucky that so many architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, metallurgists, professional pilots, honest police, firefighters..etc. have now stood up to say their piece.

..because they are the building blocks of our democracy, and when they cry foul, people should listen.

They have cried foul, but we still aren't listening.


There was some very good information provided there by light, it tied together a lot of loose ends for me.

After looking at this pathetic and disgusting thing for so many years now, I cannot come to any other conclusion than it being anything other than the most elaborate false flag operation in the history of the world.

Amadd wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 12:14am:

Yes character assassination is the choice of the weak when dealing with cold hard facts. The word is not "debunking", the word is "debating". We're so lucky that so many architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, metallurgists, professional pilots, honest police, firefighters..etc. have now stood up to say their piece. ..because they are the building blocks of our democracy, and when they cry foul, people should listen. They have cried foul, but we still aren't listening. After looking at this pathetic and disgusting thing for so many years now, I cannot come to any other conclusion than it being anything other than the most elaborate false flag operation in the history of the world.

The 9/11 nutjob theories have been debunked, the nutjobs refuse to read anything that contradicts their wacky views,is there any point in debating them when they refuse to look at real evidence?

There must be millions of engineers and scientists yet you can only attract about 1000 nutjobs claiming to be engineers and psuedoscientists?

Is every engineer and scientist on the planet backing these tin foil hat theories?

I have a pilots license i dont see what they are whingeing about.

WTC 7 was hit by the South tower when it fell,did the firemen put any fires out in the WTC complex on 9/11?

Thermate leaves 2 distinct traces,neither were found,do you have any idea of how many cubic metres of thermate would be needed to do what the nutjobs claim?

What about the first attempt on the WTC in the 1990"s, was that a false flag or did they catch the people who did it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5402/wtcsouthtower.jpg

A picture says 1000 words.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

The 9/11 nutjob theories have been debunked, the nutjobs refuse to read anything that contradicts their wacky views,is there any point in debating them when they refuse to look at real evidence? There must be millions of engineers and scientists yet you can only attract about 1000 nutjobs claiming to be engineers and psuedoscientists? Is every engineer and scientist on the planet backing these tin foil hat theories? I have a pilots license i dont see what they are whingeing about. WTC 7 was hit by the South tower when it fell,did the firemen put any fires out in the WTC complex on 9/11? Thermate leaves 2 distinct traces,neither were found,do you have any idea of how many cubic metres of thermate would be needed to do what the nutjobs claim? What about the first attempt on the WTC in the 1990"s, was that a false flag or did they catch the people who did it?

What 9/11 nut job theories in particular? There are hundreds of theories regarding 9/11 and there are many which have not been debunked.

There are tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who agree that the official story is not an accurate explanation to the events which occurred on 9/11.
Where has pseudoscience been used by accredited professionals? From what I have seen they use basic principles of physics which is not a pseudoscience.
What you’re doing here is looking at a few stupid 9/11 conspiracy and discrediting thousands of others for no reason, ones that have basic science and hard evidence to back them up.
You would be hard pressed to find a structural engineer who won’t agree that the collapse of the buildings was as a result of controlled demolition for a start; among many other points incorporating many different areas of science and physics.

How does having a pilot’s license have anything to do with this?
In fact I am sure you would actually understand how impossible a task these untrained pilots accomplished; even tho you have probably never controlled such a large and heavy aircraft. Hitting the pentagon would be virtually impossible for the world’s best pilots.

Do you have any evidence to say that WTC7 was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the other towers? Because official reports say that very little hit WTC, video footage confirms this. And regardless there is no amount of debris that could have fallen on it which would result in a steal frame to collapse in on it.
As far as I am aware no fire was put out by fire fighters, but I am not 100% on that.
Regardless, fire is not capable of causing a steal frame building to collapse in on itself.

Thermite is only one possible scenario. And when and where was it ever tested for???

Quote:

The 9/11 nutjob theories have been debunked, the nutjobs refuse to read anything that contradicts their wacky views,is there any point in debating them when they refuse to look at real evidence?

Naturally, there will be many theories which are spurious at best. Most often they are probably initiated by attention seekers; some of them may possibly have been started by people whose objective is to poo poo the whole idea of S11 being anything more than what we have been told. But that should be besides the point when looking at cold hard facts shouldn't it?

Yes I am very aware that the unsighted side of WTC-7 was significantly damaged, and if this did indeed cause the building to collapse, wouldn't you expect it to fall into the path of least resistance?
As did the WTC's 1&2, it fell symmetrically into it's own footprint. Now there's a trick that demolition experts would like to mimic; it would save them months and months of preparation  ;D

Yes buildings are all different, but essentially they are the same in that they are built stay upright through extreme conditions.
If you care to, you can check out the (more than) significant damage caused to the Oklahoma building:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/04/19/the-15th-anniversary-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/1717/



Quote:

There must be millions of engineers and scientists yet you can only attract about 1000 nutjobs claiming to be engineers and psuedoscientists?

Well, it's you who is stating without proof that they are all unqualified.
There are actually more than 1500 architects and engineers alone who have put themselves and their jobs on the line.
Other separate groups include: Scholars for 911 truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Pilots (commercial) for 911 truth, etc.
Keeping in mind that a lot of these people get the arse from their jobs for speaking their mind.


Quote:

Is every engineer and scientist on the planet backing these tin foil hat theories?

Of course not. Most would not even have the time to look closely enough. Others would not dare to look closely enough. Some would have their preconceived beliefs. Some would see the questions but may be too afraid to speak their mind due to the obvious consequences..etc.
There are also many reason why the average person doesn't become outwardly politically active.


Quote:

I have a pilots license i dont see what they are whingeing about.

I can fly a Cessna 152 as well, it's not hard.
Being able to manoeuvre a Boeing 737 with extremely limited experience as the (reported hopeless) pilot did into the pentagon is a whole different kettle of fish.


Quote:

WTC 7 was hit by the South tower when it fell,did the firemen put any fires out in the WTC complex on 9/11?

This guy says that "truthers are owned"
I think that he's just stood in a big pile of doo doo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXlIlfLIn0w&feature=related


Quote:

Thermate leaves 2 distinct traces,neither were found,do you have any idea of how many cubic metres of thermate would be needed to do what the nutjobs claim?

Do you? Pray tell.
As was mentioned before, they (NIST report) never even checked for explosives of any kind  :o

Evidence of both thermite and thermate were found according to independent analysis of an abundance of remaining residue, however, the vast majority of the crime scene was sold off as scrap metal before the public had a chance to even comprehend the events.

Thermite, and more especially "thermate", are the only rational explanations for molten metal found throughout the crime scene according to professional opinions which I believe to be true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM


Quote:

What about the first attempt on the WTC in the 1990"s, was that a false flag or did they catch the people who did it?

It's exactly the type of bombing that you'd generally expect from dumbass Islamic extremists. Crude and ineffective.

Amadd wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 12:34am:

Quote: The 9/11 nutjob theories have been debunked, the nutjobs refuse to read anything that contradicts their wacky views,is there any point in debating them when they refuse to look at real evidence? Naturally, there will be many theories which are spurious at best. Most often they are probably initiated by attention seekers; some of them may possibly have been started by people whose objective is to poo poo the whole idea of S11 being anything more than what we have been told. But that should be besides the point when looking at cold hard facts shouldn't it? Yes I am very aware that the unsighted side of WTC-7 was significantly damaged, and if this did indeed cause the building to collapse, wouldn't you expect it to fall into the path of least resistance? Others say wtc was not damaged,can you nutjobs make up your minds on WTC7 As did the WTC's 1&2, it fell symmetrically into it's own footprint. Now there's a trick that demolition experts would like to mimic; it would save them months and months of preparation  ;D They fell into an area the size of 3 acres,hardly falling in its own footprint is it? Just ignore th facts and make up your own theory. Yes buildings are all different, but essentially they are the same in that they are built stay upright through extreme conditions. If you care to, you can check out the (more than) significant damage caused to the Oklahoma building: http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/04/19/the-15th-anniversary-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/1717/ The WTC was a tube frame design how is that the same as Oklahoma? You are comparing apples with peanuts here,why dont you compare a sandstone building to a tin shack. [quote]There must be millions of engineers and scientists yet you can only attract about 1000 nutjobs claiming to be engineers and psuedoscientists?

Well, it's you who is stating without proof that they are all unqualified.
There are actually more than 1500 architects and engineers alone who have put themselves and their jobs on the line.
Architects are not engineers,they employ engineers for engineering
Other separate groups include: Scholars for 911 truth, Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Pilots (commercial) for 911 truth, etc.
Keeping in mind that a lot of these people get the arse from their jobs for speaking their mind.
The USA constitution guarantees their right to speak up,utter codswallop from the nutjobs here


Quote:

Is every engineer and scientist on the planet backing these tin foil hat theories?

Of course not. Most would not even have the time to look closely enough. Others would not dare to look closely enough. Some would have their preconceived beliefs. Some would see the questions but may be too afraid to speak their mind due to the obvious consequences..etc.
There are also many reason why the average person doesn't become outwardly politically active.
You mean out of the millions of engineers there is only a tiny minority that disagree with the official report


Quote:

I have a pilots license i dont see what they are whingeing about.

I can fly a Cessna 152 as well, it's not hard.
Being able to manoeuvre a Boeing 737 with extremely limited experience as the (reported hopeless) pilot did into the pentagon is a whole different kettle of fish.
They did go to flight school,an Airbus has fly by wire where a computer can override the pilots input,a Boeing has the pilot in control at all times with no chance of a computer overriding pilot inputs.
Videos of a 747 ad Airbus 380 doing barrel rolls on youtube,they are both much larger than a 767
The majority of pilots i know will never exceed the placard stating operation limits or the limits set in the Pilot operating handbook.
Yes the nutjobs say 5000 fpm descent is unheard for a commercial airliner of,they must be deaf dumb and blind


Quote:

WTC 7 was hit by the South tower when it fell,did the firemen put any fires out in the WTC complex on 9/11?

Quote:

Thermate leaves 2 distinct traces,neither were found,do you have any idea of how many cubic metres of thermate would be needed to do what the nutjobs claim?

Do you? Pray tell.
As was mentioned before, they (NIST report) never even checked for explosives of any kind  :o

Evidence of both thermite and thermate were found according to independent analysis of an abundance of remaining residue, however, the vast majority of the crime scene was sold off as scrap metal before the public had a chance to even comprehend the events.
If your nutjob theory relies on thermite watch the video i will link,1000 lbs of thermite takes forever to not even cut a car in half.

Thermite, and more especially "thermate", are the only rational explanations for molten metal found throughout the crime scene according to professional opinions which I believe to be true.
So where did all this kinetic energy from a falling building go?
Thermodynamics points out when you compress things heat is generated.
My pushbike pump gets hot from pumping up bike tyres,where does this heat originate from?



Quote:

What about the first attempt on the WTC in the 1990"s, was that a false flag or did they catch the people who did it?

It's exactly the type of bombing that you'd generally expect from dumbass Islamic extremists. Crude and ineffective.
Who else does suicide attacks? The japs stopped doing them after WW2


[/quote]


Watch this video of 1000 lbs of thermite on the roof of a car.

Are there any explosions?

Does it take a long time to not even cut the roof in half?

How much thermite is needed to cut through a beam and how long will it take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4

A boeing 767-200
Empty weight - 82,380 Kg
Max take off weight - 179,170 KG
Max cruise speed (not Vne) - 493 Knots,913 Kph
Fuel Tank - 91,000 L
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

We look at kinetic energy- MV^2/2 
Since velocty is "squared" that means the faster you go the bigger the impact.

Once the WTC started to fall the loading changed from static to dynamic and that is a whole new ballgame.
The WTC had a Factor of safety of 3 for a static condition.
Once the building started to fall it was gone,nothing else was need for complete failure.

You should read this link-
http://www.debunking911.com

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5402/wtcsouthtower.jpg A picture says 1000 words.

A report written by Brent Blanchard from Implosion world on WTC 1,2,and 7.

He gives me the impression you would need rocks in your head to believe explosives were used to bring down these 3 buildings.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

No reply Baronvonrort?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 5:56pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 6th, 2012 at 2:22pm: The 9/11 nutjob theories have been debunked, the nutjobs refuse to read anything that contradicts their wacky views,is there any point in debating them when they refuse to look at real evidence? There must be millions of engineers and scientists yet you can only attract about 1000 nutjobs claiming to be engineers and psuedoscientists? Is every engineer and scientist on the planet backing these tin foil hat theories? I have a pilots license i dont see what they are whingeing about. WTC 7 was hit by the South tower when it fell,did the firemen put any fires out in the WTC complex on 9/11? Thermate leaves 2 distinct traces,neither were found,do you have any idea of how many cubic metres of thermate would be needed to do what the nutjobs claim? What about the first attempt on the WTC in the 1990"s, was that a false flag or did they catch the people who did it? What 9/11 nut job theories in particular? There are hundreds of theories regarding 9/11 and there are many which have not been debunked. There are tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who agree that the official story is not an accurate explanation to the events which occurred on 9/11. Bullshit, Just because a large number of idiots believe something that does not make it true,a lot of children believe bugs bunny is real and unlike any god these kids have actually seen bugs bunny. You are lucky to have 1000 idiots claiming to be scientists and engineers,are they allowed to take their name off the list if they change their minds? Where has pseudoscience been used by accredited professionals? From what I have seen they use basic principles of physics which is not a pseudoscience. Do you even understand the concept of peer review? What you’re doing here is looking at a few stupid 9/11 conspiracy and discrediting thousands of others for no reason, ones that have basic science and hard evidence to back them up. why should i waste my time with idiots who only read what confirms their opinion and reject any evidence that shatters their bullshit theories? Psuedoscience is not the same as science. You would be hard pressed to find a structural engineer who would agree that the collapse of the buildings was as a result of controlled demolition for a start; among many other points incorporating many different areas of psuedoscience and dodgeyphysics. I have posted a pdf link from a demolition expert,the people he represents hold many world records for explosive demolition,did you read it or do you always ignore anything that goes against your nutjob theory? How does having a pilot’s license have anything to do with this? In fact I am sure you would actually understand how impossible a task these untrained pilots accomplished; even tho you have probably never controlled such a large and heavy aircraft. Hitting the pentagon would be virtually impossible for the world’s best pilots. A 747 is much larger than a 767, videos of them doing barrel rolls. Those pilots went to flight school. Controlled flight into terrain is a term used in plane crash investigations,not the first and wont be the last Do you have any evidence to say that WTC7 was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the other towers? Because official reports say that very little hit WTC, video footage confirms this. And regardless there is no amount of debris that could have fallen on it which would result in a steal frame to collapse in on it. Video footage i posted shows a direct hit on WTC7 ,did you watch it? As far as I am aware no fire was put out by fire fighters, but I am not 100% on that. Regardless, fire is not capable of causing a steal frame building to collapse in on itself. Yeah lets forget a 150,000  kg plane travelling at 900 KPH hit it before the fire. Thermite is only one possible scenario. And when and where was it ever tested for??? Read the report i posted from someone who works in explosive demolition

You can't bring down a building in a controlled manner by using thermite.

I've seen it being used and it's just about impossible to get consistent timing in regards to how long it takes to complete the job - even when it's being used on exactly the same material.

You need something that goes bang, not something goes fzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz for ages.

Dear Puppet,


All people want is a proper enquiry not a cover up.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Dear Puppet, All people want is a proper enquiry not a cover up.

So what do you believe has been covered up?

You can't bring down a building in a controlled manner by using thermite.

I've seen it being used

__________

you would not have seen top military

black ops grade nano thermite being used so

i would suggest you do not know everything

lets have the proper inquiry 6 out of the 10

9/11 commissioners said they were lied to

they saw and heard all the evidence

and they know 9/11 was an inside job..

i would also look at the ids baron von rort and others

breaking their collective neck to keep everyone

hoodwinked...too late

we're looking behind the curtain ..

namaste

-:)

So what do you believe has been covered up?

___

your cover has been blown

1.building 7

freefall,no plane hit this building

2.pentagon

missile sized hole busting through many layers

of reinforced concrete here

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread272758/pg1

"The follow thread contains information from many sources, links, ATS members and independent researchers into the alleged Boeing 757 Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

Some say it was a plane and some are claiming it was not.

My personal opinion is unclear as to what happened that day at the Pentagon, because the government withheld many angles of different video footage from cameras positioned throughout the Pentagon exterior walls and perimeter. Why?

How did a 757 pierce 3 rings of the Pentagon for Total of 9 Feet of steel reinforce concrete?

There are many conflicting reports for the incident at the Pentagon that day.

What you will find in this thread are some of the most compelling facts and research the internet has to offer on that tragic day at the Pentagon. Enjoy your journey!"

Here is some footage I watched and had to agree with. I would like to hear your views.

namaste

Hi Light -
the link you gave has dead video links in it.

they must have recently been deleted..

they are devastating to the 9/11 official story

i will post more soon..

namaste

-:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY-gmzxnaVs

Eyewitness Missile hit Pentagon on 9/11, No Plane, Government Confiscated 84 Camera Tapes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm8-COJwzis

Pentagon 9/11 cruise missile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TUlOOSPWZI

Missile hit Pentagon on 9 11 Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1vjLBFk5PI

9/11 commissioner slip up MISSILE at the Pentagon!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Z6-GZd3Nc&feature=related

9-11 TRUTH PROOF Pentagon HIT BY US CRUISE MISSILE Whitnessed

this is %100 real , i have seen photos of the cruise missile painted like a Americana airlines plane. i didnt think anyone had any other photos until now, the first witness ever interview is the man who stated i saw a missile with wings ....they never replayed his interview and he is probably dead. all the clips show the missile as it descends over the road before it hits NO PLANE WERE EVER FLOWN BY HIJACKERS

____________

look at the missile hit at 1:11

check mate

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

they must have recently been deleted.. they are devastating to the 9/11 official story i will post more soon.. namaste -:)

I would say these links have been contaminated using black magick, yes.

Hi Light,
Thanks for the videos,
havent seen them all yet.


Quote:

Eyewitness Missile hit Pentagon on 9/11, No Plane, Government Confiscated 84 Camera Tapes

Why can't we all see the confiscated tapes?
There must be something to hide.

Baronvonrort,

I conclude that your use of the word "nutjob" is directly proportional to the degradation of your argument  ;D

To save myself some time, I'll help you out with a question which you asked me, of which you could provide no answer yourself.
Just a little food for thought for you Baronvonrort:


Quote:

The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. (The articles at http://members.fortunecity.com/911 are a valuable resource for presenting and then challenging the "official" explanation for WTC collapses). Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air [Ref. (6)]. The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail [Ref. (7)]. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pancaked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all). Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g. Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g’ x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g’ = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g’ = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g’ will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t’, then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g’ x (t’ exp2) = (1/2) x 0.7g x (t’ exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t’ exp2), or (t/t’) = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t’ = 1.195 t. Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory. The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud [Ref. (8)]. By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible. A discussion of the melted steel found at the base of the WTC complex, not explained by any official, forms the bulk of the remainder of this paper. The following discussion explores the possibility of whether it is possible to get sufficient volume of a relatively slow-reacting chemical compound, like thermite, either on or inside the inner columns to melt a section of them or otherwise weaken them to allow for the inner core to collapse. As Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., commenting on the pools of molten steel he observed at the bases of the towers’ elevator shafts, said: "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure" [Ref. (9)]. Controlled Demolition, Inc., incidentally was the company contracted to remove the debris from both the WTC and from the 1995 bombing of the Murrah building in OKC. Also, in the 15 December 03 edition of Sam Smith’s Progressive Review [Ref (15)] there is an excellent discussion of the collapse of the WTC buildings from the perspective of professional firefighters. Included is an excerpt of an article by Jim Malott, a San Francisco architect, in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Designer/ Builder magazine. Malott states regarding a WTC tower collapse: "The outside of the building did not fail, it did not get hot enough…It was the core that failed." To summarize so far: the discussion in the text above and in Appendix A indicates that the energy of the seismic signal (best viewed as a semi-logarithmic plot) and the gravitational collapse are very close to being the same. This coupled with the fact that there is only one short video clip allegedly showing shaking before collapse of one of the towers leads an objective observer to conclude that there is no actual proof that the seismic "spike" signal is nothing more than building collapse. This is not to say that the seismic signal is 100% guaranteed to be non-explosion related, just that there is no firm evidence so far for the alleged massive explosion. That is, this is not an area on which to stake a lot of credence. The seismic event must be regarded as a "red herring" unless a second, longer video showing the same behavior appears. The free-fall times and pools of molten steel are entirely different matters. They are a matter of public record, observed by many individuals. So we have evidence of molten steel in the basement; the FEMA report saying molten steel was not to blame, just weakened floor joist bolts; collapse times close to free fall; no real record of a massive explosion (although numerous claims of sounds of smaller explosions and observations of demolition squibs). The immediate conjecture supported by direct observation is the following: controlled demolition, characterized by a (relatively) non-explosive, huge energy release necessary to melt (some) steel. M. Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com and others have proposed the use of thermite, familiar to those of us who had the high school chemistry course with an impressive thermite demonstration. So the question arises: can one get enough thermite close enough to melt sections of the inner core columns, as part of a controlled demolition scenario? The following calculations in this paper indeed do show that it is possible (and I stress possible). Until simple chemical reactants like thermite can be discarded there is really no need to invoke the use of highly speculative and sophisticated devices like thermobaric bombs and scalar EM weapons. Melting of WTC Inner Core Columns Evidence of molten steel was found at the very base of the WTC towers, and is a matter of public record. This present study is by no means exhaustive. It is intended as a first attempt to test the possibility that the core columns could have been melted by a known chemical compound. Thermite was chosen as the reactive chemical compound because it is well understood, and is used commercially to weld steel parts (e.g. train rail sections in situ). Other more sophisticated chemical compounds with higher energy densities, by mass and/or volume, could be used in future calculations. Broad assumptions will be made, to get rough estimates of relevant parameters.

..more

....
Quote:

Structure of WTC Columns and Their Metal Mass The best on-line discussion resource found for these calculations was at Ref. (10). According to this source the inner core consisted of from 44 to 47 box columns (the exact number and layout is not known; the architectural firm had not released the construction drawings). The dimensions of the columns reduced in size with increasing height, changing to I-beams above the 85th floor. The above website article assumes (generously) that each core box column has the following (average) X-section: 12"wide x 36"deep x 2" thick. If w = box column width, d = depth, and t = thickness, then the X-sectional steel area is given by A = [d x t + (w-2 x t) x t] x 2. For d = 36", t = 2" and w = 12", then A = [36" x 2" + (12"-2 x 2") x 2] x 2 = 176 in2 = 1.222 ft2. Floor height was 12ft, so we choose for discussion sake, a 12′ high box column in these calculations. Note that multiple floors could have had thermite-type compounds placed there. Also, no more than a foot portion, rather than a full 12 ft of column would be necessary to collapse that floor. Also, complete melt of a column portion is not necessary to cause collapse. So, per floor, per column there is a steel volume V = 12′ x 1.222 ft2 = 14.67 ft3. Also, note that the internal X-sectional area of a box column is given by Aint = [d-(2 x t)] x [w- (2 x t)], and the internal volume by Vint = 12′ x [d - (2 x t)] x [w - (2 x t)]. Here, Vint = 12′ x [36"-2 x 2"] x [12"- 2 x 2"]/(144 in2/ft2) = 12′ x 1.778 ft2 = 21.333 ft3. The internal volumes will be re-examined later as a possible space to place the thermite. The website also mentions that the largest box columns used at the core bases had the dimensions of 16" wide x 36" deep x 4" thick. It is not known where exactly the molten steel, that puddled in the WTC basement, originated in the towers. The melt could have occurred some what higher in the columns (where "average" box columns would have been), or at the base where the "largest" box columns were. Molten material would flow down the various WTC shafts to the lowest point possible, 6 stories (some 72′) below ground level. Applying the same formulae as above, we have for these "largest" columns, A= [36" x 4" + (16" - 2 x 4") x 4"] x 2 = 352 in2 = 2.444 ft2. Note that this happens to be twice the area as for the "average" box column assumed above. Again, for a 12′ column, V = 12′ x 2.444 ft2 = 29.328 ft3. Also, here, the internal volume is Vint = 12′ x [36′ - 2 x 4"] x [16′ -2 x 4"]/144" = 18.667 ft3. In summary, we have for a 12 ft. high core box-column, for a 12" wide x 36"deep x 2" wall thickness (hereafter referred to as an "average" box column), that it has 14.67 ft3 = 0.415 m3 volume of steel, and 21.33 ft3 = 0.604 m3 of internal volume; and 16" wide x 36" deep x 4" wall thickness (hereafter referred to as a "largest" box column), that it has 29.328 ft3 = 0.832 m3 of steel and 18.667 ft3 = 0.529 m3 of internal volume. Sensible and Latent Heat Energies Needed for Melting a Core Column Section Knowing the volume of steel involved, we next turn our attention to calculating the energy needed to melt a core column section. We decided to use values for the element iron rather than steel for the following pragmatic reasons: steel is mostly iron (Fe); whatever steel is chosen, may be the wrong kind and would be contested: Fe is a given and known quantity, whereas there are many steels; Fe values found were readily available and reasonably self-consistent; except for stainless steels, the thermal properties of steel are relatively close to Fe, although the mechanical properties may certainly differ more. For Fe we will use the following values: Density = 7874 kg/m3 Melting point = 1811 K = 1538 C Specific heat = 25.1J/mol K = 449 J/kg K = 0.449 kJ/kg K Latent heart of fusion = 13,800 J/mol = 2.47 x 10+5 J/kg Latent heat of evaporation = 347,000 J/mol = 6.21 x 10+3 kJ/kg mol = gm mole equivalent = 0.0558 kg for Fe For a 12 ft high core Fe column, we have for the "average" box column, 0.415 m3 x 7874 kg/m3 = 3267.71 kg Fe; and for the "largest" box column, 0.832 m3 x 7874 kg/m3 = 6551.17 kg Fe. Taking 300 K as "ambient" temperature on 9-11, then the temperature difference up to the melting point of Fe is given by 1811 K - 300 K = 1511 K (give or take a few degrees K). Hence, the energy needed to raise a 12 ft high Fe column to its melting point temperature is given by for an "average" column, 3267.71 kg x 1511 K x 0.449 kJ/kg K = 2.22 x 10+6 kJ; and for a "largest" column, 6551.17 kg x 1511 K x 0.449 kJ/kg K = 4.44 x 10+6 kJ. To actually melt the Fe at 1511 K, we need to provide the latent heat of fusion: for "average" column, 3267.71 kg x 2.47 x 10+2 kJ/kg = 8.07 x 10+5 kJ; and for "largest" column, 6551.17 kg x 2.47 x 10+2 kJ/kg = 1.62 x 10+6 kJ. Thus we see that the sensible heat energies involved are almost a factor of 3 times larger than the latent heats. Hence, for the total amount of energy needed to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need: for "average" box column, (2.22 + 0.81) x 10+6 kJ = 3.03 x 10+6 kJ; and for "largest" box column, (4.44 + 1.62) x 10+6 kJ = 6.06 x 10+6kJ Energies of the Thermite Reaction An iron oxide/aluminum "thermite" mixture consists of 23.7% Al, 74.7% Fe2O3 by weight, in the reaction Fe2O3 + 2 Al => Al2O3 + 2 Fe + 849 kJ/mol. Thus, 849 kJ of energy are released for every g-mole-equivalent (mol) of Fe2O3 that reacts with 2 mol of Al. For Al, with a density of 2.699 g/cm3, there are 26.98 g/mol. For Fe2O3, with a density of 5.24 g/cm3, there are 159.70 g/mol. So then, 159.70 g of Fe2O3 + 53.96 g of Al (213.66 g total) produces 849 kJ of energy, or 3.974 kJ/g = 3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg (Note that this gives the proper % component mixtures by weight). For an infinitesimally compacted powder mixture, this would occupy a volume of 159.70g x (cm3/5.24 g) + 53.96 g x (cm3/2.699 g) = (30.48 + 20.0) cm3 = 50.48 cm3. A separate analysis of a CuO/Al thermite mixture (used to weld copper parts) indicates a powder packing fraction of 0.82 (82%) can be achieved. Let’s assume a powder packing fraction of 0.82. Hence, our Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture would occupy not 50.48 cm3, but 61.5 cm3. Thus the physical density of our densely-packed Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture is 213.66 g/61.5 cm3 = 3.474 g/cm3 = 3.474 x 10+6 g/m3 = 3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3, and our energy density (per volume) is given by 849 kJ/61.5 cm3 = 13.805 kJ/cm3 = 1.3805 x 10+7 kJ/m3. Thus to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need for an "average" column, (3.03 x 10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 0.7625 x 10+3 kg = 762.5 kg of thermite. This would occupy a volume of 762.5 kg/(3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.219 m3. Note that this volume of thermite is less than the internal volume Vint calculated earlier, 0.604 m3. Actually, the internal volume of the "average" box column could be filled with 0.604 m3/0.219 m3 = 2.76 times more than needed to do the job. Alternatively, the column does not require as high a packing density ( i.e. <0.82) and yet be able to load a sufficient charge of thermite mixture to cause melting for a "largest" column, (6.06 x10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 1524.9 kg thermite. This would occupy a volume of 1524.9 kg/(3.974 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.439 m3. Note that this volume of thermFite also is less than the earlier calculated Vint = 0.529, but would require a moderately high packing density, approximately > 0.82 x 0.439/0.529 = 0.68. Other Locations Where Thermite Could Be Placed to Cause Core Box Column Melting In the preceding section, the amount of thermite needed to cause melting was calculated, and compared to the internal volume available. Just as insulation in building walls is introduced by means of relatively small holes drilled through walls, so could thermite have been placed into the interiors of the core box columns. For the "average" columns this would certainly work, since there is ample volume to overcharge with a low packing density (>0.5). The "largest" columns could be filled in the same way, although some way to "settle" the compound powders might be necessary to achieve a packing density from a pour to be > 0.68. Rather than fill the interior of a column with chemical compound, what if the thermite compound was applied to the outside of the column, under a layer of "fire-proofing" protective cladding/thermal insulation? How thick would an exterior layer need to be applied?

..more

....
Quote:

(a) For an "average" box column, if T is the thickness of the applied outside layer of thermite compound, it would have a X-sectional area given by Acoat = [T x (d + 2 x T) + T x w] x 2, where d = 36" and w = 12" as before. This can be rewritten as Acoat = 2 x [2 x Texp2 + T x (d + w)] For a 12 ft = 3.658 m column, the volume of the coating of thickness T is given by Vcoat = 2 x 3.658 x [2 x Texp2 + (d + w) x T] = 0.219 m3, or 2 x Texp2 + (d + w) x T = 0.219 m3/ (2 x 3.658 m) = 0.0299 m2, or 2 x Texp2 + (d + w) x T -0.0299 m2 = 0. This is in the form of a quadratic equation, where the solution is given by T (in meters)= {-b + SQRT(bexp2 - 4 x a x c)}/2 x a, where here a = 2, b = (d + w) = 12" + 36" = 48" = 1.219 m, and c = -0.0299 m2. Substituting, T = {-1.219 + SQRT[(1.219)exp2 - 4 x 2 x (-0.0299)]}/(2 x 2). Simplifying, T = {-1.219 + SQRT[1.486 + 0.2395]}/4 = {-1.219 + SQRT[1.725]}/4 = = {-1.219 + 1.313}/4, or T = 0.0236 m = 0.93", which is less than 1" of coating for the "average" column. (This solution can be verified by substitution in the original equation for Vcoat). (b) For a "largest" box column, here Vcoat = 0.439 m3 and (d + w) = 16"+36" = 1.321m. So, 2 x Texp2 + 1.321 x T = 0.439m3/(2 x 3.658 m) = 0.0600, or 2 x Texp2 + 1.321 x T - 0.0600 = 0. So, using the quadratic solution again, T = {-1.321 + SQRT[(1.321)exp2 - 4 x 2 x (-0.600)]}/(2 x 2). Simplifying, T = {-1.321 + SQRT[1.745 + 0.48]}/4 = {-1.321 + SQRT[2.225]}/4 = {-1.321 + 1.492}/4, or T = 0.04275 m = 1.683", which is less than 1-3/4" of coating for the largest column. In short, if a coating slightly less than 2" thick of a thermite coating were applied to the outer surface of any box column, that is sufficient chemical compound to melt that column section. A protective, insulating and cosmetic/disguising layer (e.g. fiberglass/foam) 1" or less would also be helpful.

Not that much at all hey?
And we're just talking ordinary thermite here, which had ample time to react before the final detonation.

Please read the entire paper, it's interesting.

http://physics911.net/thermite

Interesting videos. There is just far too much evidence to disprove the official story about what happened.

The truth will start to emerge as the insiders in the Pentagon get older and want to clear their conscience before their final departure.

It seems that Ex government officials don't mind coming clean, it's happening all the time now. Secrets revealed, the pieces of the jigsaw will eventually fall into place over time.

Reply to Baronvonrort:

Quote:

Bullshit, Just because a large number of idiots believe something that does not make it true,a lot of children believe bugs bunny is real and unlike any god these kids have actually seen bugs bunny. You are lucky to have 1000 idiots claiming to be scientists and engineers,are they allowed to take their name off the list if they change their minds?

That is really no bull.
All you have been doing here is calling people idiots and whatever which really proves that you are struggling.
While yes I agree some people who believe certain 911 conspiracies are not thinking about it logically. BUT this does not and should not take away from the academics and right minded people who have their own theories or doubts about the official story based on basic science.
Stop trying to discredit by calling names as that is really pathetic.

There are probably up to hundreds of thousands of scientists who know that the official story is not right, I have seen countless interviews with high level engineers and other professions who have been in the industry for decades who know that it was controlled demolition for one, among hundreds of other points.


Quote:

Do you even understand the concept of peer review?

Yes and it is not lacking here. Regardless you do not need peer review to know that the official story is not correct.


Quote:

why should I waste my time with idiots who only read what confirms their opinion and reject any evidence that shatters their bullshit theories? Psuedoscience is not the same as science.

Don’t waste your time with idiots, spend your time on the serious people who know that the official story was not correct.
If you are so worried about pseudoscience then why do you believe the official story which fails to conform with BASIC PHYSICS???


Quote:

I have posted a pdf link from a demolition expert,the people he represents hold many world records for explosive demolition,did you read it or do you always ignore anything that goes against your nutjob theory?

Can you atleast quote some of the important parts on here because that was a large pdf and I dont really want to read it all.


Quote:

A 747 is much larger than a 767, videos of them doing barrel rolls. Those pilots went to flight school. Controlled flight into terrain is a term used in plane crash investigations,not the first and wont be the last

These people trained for a very short time on much smaller aircrafts and it is well accepted even by your side that they were NOT good pilots. Watch the second to last video I posted..


Quote:

Video footage i posted shows a direct hit on WTC7 ,did you watch it?

If debris did affect wtc7, it would strip away the outer structure and not collapse the steel core of the building.


Quote:

Yeah lets forget a 150,000  kg plane travelling at 900 KPH hit it before the fire.

Even if the level where the plane hit were to collapse, it would not be capable of freefalling through the rest of the building right to the floor. This is not possible.



Here are just a few proffesionals on my side, if you have ever looked you will know there are thousands more. Why would these people risk their careers and credibilty if they didnt know they were right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWv_wVKA_7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EuFqsyETKQ&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHHJIg0vVyQ&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKReas0WNc&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfoVpDPNXRE&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lg28z2a9zY&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_GArE7UBQ

Amadd wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 11:46pm:

And we're just talking ordinary thermite here, which had ample time to react before the final detonation. Please read the entire paper, it's interesting. http://physics911.net/thermite

You didnt read the paper from explosives experts saying this would be the very first explsove demolition to start from near the top when every explosive demolition has started at the base.
Why should i waste my time reading your nutjob garbage?

From your link-

Quote:

Conclusions The columns would have been most easily filled during the initial construction phase,but this requires belief in a forsight and a 30-40 year master plan that may be difficult for many to think possible

This nutjob is suggesting the beams were filled with thermite during construction.

Here is a paper that uses Physics to show no explosives were needed to bring down the WTC.
Please read it.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 9:59am:

Reply to Baronvonrort: Quote: Bullshit, Just because a large number of idiots believe something that does not make it true,a lot of children believe bugs bunny is real and unlike any god these kids have actually seen bugs bunny. You are lucky to have 1000 idiots claiming to be scientists and engineers,are they allowed to take their name off the list if they change their minds? That is really no bull. All you have been doing here is calling people idiots and whatever which really proves that you are struggling. While yes I agree some people who believe certain 911 conspiracies are not thinking about it logically. BUT this does not and should not take away from the academics and right minded people who have their own theories or doubts about the official story based on basic science. Stop trying to discredit by calling names as that is really pathetic. There are probably up to hundreds of thousands of scientists who know that the official story is not right, I have seen countless interviews with high level engineers and other professions who have been in the industry for decades who know that it was controlled demolition for one, among hundreds of other points. Now you have hundreds of thousands of engineers, i bet by next week you have millions..lmao [quote]Do you even understand the concept of peer review?

Yes and it is not lacking here. Regardless you do not need peer review to know that the official story is not correct.
So what part of the official story is not correct?


Quote:

why should I waste my time with idiots who only read what confirms their opinion and reject any evidence that shatters their bullshit theories? Psuedoscience is not the same as science.

Don’t waste your time with idiots, spend your time on the serious people who know that the official story was not correct.
If you are so worried about pseudoscience then why do you believe the official story which fails to conform with BASIC PHYSICS???
The Physics i have seen shows no explosives were needed,the kinetic energy of 30 stories falling 3.7 m was more than enough to do the job.
Why do people ignore the basics with Physics?


Quote:

I have posted a pdf link from a demolition expert,the people he represents hold many world records for explosive demolition,did you read it or do you always ignore anything that goes against your nutjob theory?

Can you atleast quote some of the important parts on here because that was a large pdf and I dont really want to read it all.
Yes the nutjobs never read anything that shows their nutjob theories are a load of codswallop.
The demolition experts say the collapse of the WTC showed no sign whatsoever of explsive demolition,the nutjobs ignore this fact while putting on their tin foil hats.


Quote:

A 747 is much larger than a 767, videos of them doing barrel rolls. Those pilots went to flight school. Controlled flight into terrain is a term used in plane crash investigations,not the first and wont be the last

These people trained for a very short time on much smaller aircrafts and it is well accepted even by your side that they were NOT good pilots. Watch the second to last video I posted..
How good does a pilot have to be to fly into a building?
Try landing on an aircraft carrier for extreme difficulty.


Quote:

Video footage i posted shows a direct hit on WTC7 ,did you watch it?

If debris did affect wtc7, it would strip away the outer structure and not collapse the steel core of the building.


Quote:

Yeah lets forget a 150,000  kg plane travelling at 900 KPH hit it before the fire.

Even if the level where the plane hit were to collapse, it would not be capable of freefalling through the rest of the building right to the floor. This is not possible.
Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy involved,no? I didnt think so.



Here are just a few proffesionals on my side, if you have ever looked you will know there are thousands more. Why would these people risk their careers and credibilty if they didnt know they were right?
Anyone can make a claim,do they have real evidence to back it up?I didnt think so.
[/quote]

Baronvonrort:

Quote:

Now you have hundreds of thousands of engineers, i bet by next week you have millions..lmao

The numbers grow everyday, you can already see from the poll on this thread that most people here support my side.. And this is the most right wing website in Australia.
Sorry but you guys are outnumbered big time and we have 100x more credibility then you.
Soon enough you are going to have to face reality and accept the official story is not correct and needs to have a proper investigation.


Quote:

So what part of the official story is not correct?

The falsities are all over the offical story. This is a good start I guess: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646


Quote:

The Physics i have seen shows no explosives were needed,the kinetic energy of 30 stories falling 3.7 m was more than enough to do the job. Why do people ignore the basics with Physics?

That is not possible? If it was enough, it would not have fallen at freefall, nor perfectly in on itself like in a professional demolition.


Quote:

Yes the nutjobs never read anything that shows their nutjob theories are a load of codswallop. The demolition experts say the collapse of the WTC showed no sign whatsoever of explsive demolition,the nutjobs ignore this fact while putting on their tin foil hats.

I have read hundreds of articles relating to 911, many of them are from your side of the story.
That doesn’t mean I am going to read what some random guy tells me too without any idea what it’s about.

The collapse showed overwhelming signs of professional demolition.


Quote:

How good does a pilot have to be to fly into a building? Try landing on an aircraft carrier for extreme difficulty.

Very good actually, maybe if they were going 100x slower but look at the speed they were travelling at and their trajectory.. It would not be an easy feet for a professional.
And hitting the pentagon would have been impossible.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is nothing like this and they are highly trained professionals.


Quote:

Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy involved,no? I didnt think so.

Not enough to collapse a steel frame building at freefall and perfectly in on itself.



Quote:

Anyone can make a claim,do they have real evidence to back it up?I didnt think so.

I have more evidence then you do buddy.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 8:37pm:

9-11 TRUTH PROOF Pentagon HIT BY US CRUISE MISSILE Whitnessed this is %100 real , i have seen photos of the cruise missile painted like a Americana airlines plane. i didnt think anyone had any other photos until now, the first witness ever interview is the man who stated i saw a missile with wings ....they never replayed his interview and he is probably dead. all the clips show the missile as it descends over the road before it hits NO PLANE WERE EVER FLOWN BY HIJACKERS ____________ look at the missile hit at 1:11 check mate

The American missiles are all precision "smart weapons" that have a crosshair to target whatever you want to hit.

Did the missile zig zag to knock down 5 light poles?
How does a missile zig zag like that to knock down 5 light poles?

Did these light poles damage the fins that allow the missile to make course alterations?

When the missile hit 5 light poles why didnt it detonate?

This video shows plane wreckage, did they sneak it and plant it after the plane crashed into the Penatagon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Baronvonrort: Quote: Now you have hundreds of thousands of engineers, i bet by next week you have millions..lmao The numbers grow everyday, you can already see from the poll on this thread that most people here support my side.. And this is the most right wing website in Australia. Sorry but you guys are outnumbered big time and we have 100x more credibility then you. Soon enough you are going to have to face reality and accept the official story is not correct and needs to have a proper investigation. It is the nutjobs that have to face reality,not me [quote]So what part of the official story is not correct?

The falsities are all over the offical story. This is a good start I guess: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
So what art of the story do you disagree with.planes crashing into the WTC?


Quote:

The Physics i have seen shows no explosives were needed,the kinetic energy of 30 stories falling 3.7 m was more than enough to do the job. Why do people ignore the basics with Physics?

That is not possible? If it was enough, it would not have fallen at freefall, nor perfectly in on itself like in a professional demolition.
It did not fall at freefall, freefall would be 9.1 seconds it took longer than thatI personally did that calculation to see how long the jumpers would have been in the air.


Quote:

Yes the nutjobs never read anything that shows their nutjob theories are a load of codswallop. The demolition experts say the collapse of the WTC showed no sign whatsoever of explsive demolition,the nutjobs ignore this fact while putting on their tin foil hats.

I have read hundreds of articles relating to 911, many of them are from your side of the story.
That doesn’t mean I am going to read what some random guy tells me too without any idea what it’s about.
The link i posted is from explosive demolition experts who hold many word records,Of course the nutjobs will never read anything from people who actually know what the bugger they are talking about.
The explosive demolition experts say there was absolutely no indication of controlled explosive demolition

The collapse showed overwhelming signs of professional demolition.
No it did not, i posted a paper from explosive experts saying this was not the case.


Quote:

How good does a pilot have to be to fly into a building? Try landing on an aircraft carrier for extreme difficulty.

Very good actually, maybe if they were going 100x slower but look at the speed they were travelling at and their trajectory.. It would not be an easy feet for a professional.
And hitting the pentagon would have been impossible.
If they were travelling 100x slower the plane would stall and fall out of the sky.
Do you know what happens when a plane is travelling below stall speed?"

Landing on an aircraft carrier is nothing like this and they are highly trained professionals.


Quote:

Do you have any idea of the kinetic energy involved,no? I didnt think so.

Not enough to collapse a steel frame building at freefall and perfectly in on itself.
Physics says the building only needed to fall 50 cm,ceiling height is 3.7 m.
It did not fall at freefall which would have taken 9.1 seconds,every video shows it took much longer.
If it fell i on itself then how did all the surrounding buildings get damaged?




Quote:

Anyone can make a claim,do they have real evidence to back it up?I didnt think so.

I have more evidence then you do buddy.
They have nothing but lies and bullshit, no hard evidence from the nutjobs


[/quote]

Since most of these nutjobs cite the work of Steven  Jones we should look at him.

93% of the members of The National Academy of Science did not believe in god when they were last surveyed,only 7% believed in god.
Finding a religious person in a group of scientists can be like trying to find a turd under a rocking horse.
Evolution is science (Biology) and it contradicts religious creation.

Steven Jones is a devout mormon who also believes in fairy tales.


This wiki page suggests many who backed him have since changed their minds and gives a bit more info about the book he wrote to fund his retirement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Baronvonrort,

Instead of waving your arms around screaming "nutjob, nutjob" like a babbling twit, it might be an idea to at least finish what you started.

Now in my case, it was you who posed the question, "Do you know how much thermite would be required to take down the WTC's?"

No, I was not exactly sure, but seeing that it was you who posed the question in such a fashion, I naturally assumed that you may have an inkling of an idea of the answer yourself.
Obviously this was not the case, and I chose to take it upon myself to provide an answer to your own question.
That would seem a little silly in a "normal" debate wouldn't it? Because it was you who was supposedly telling the story.

But silly as it was, I found for you an answer to your question.
The answer was a less than 2 inch coating on one foot of each of the 47 inner columns (to be sure). The calculations were also made assuming that a readily available crude grade of thermite were employed.

http://physics911.net/thermite

When you've finished (if ever  ::)) running around screaming "nutjob, nutjob!", then maybe you would like to debate at least one of the points which you have raised yourself?

I doubt that very much indeed  ::)
It is you who believes in the fairytale story of WMD's!

i do observe the baronvonrort behaving quite frantic

and breaking his/her back to keep the lid on

the 9/11 official story

interesting behaviour seeing as the genie

as it were,is out of the bottle

enjoy

-:)

namaste

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 8:37pm: 9-11 TRUTH PROOF Pentagon HIT BY US CRUISE MISSILE Whitnessed this is %100 real , i have seen photos of the cruise missile painted like a Americana airlines plane. i didnt think anyone had any other photos until now, the first witness ever interview is the man who stated i saw a missile with wings ....they never replayed his interview and he is probably dead. all the clips show the missile as it descends over the road before it hits NO PLANE WERE EVER FLOWN BY HIJACKERS ____________ look at the missile hit at 1:11 check mate The American missiles are all precision "smart weapons" that have a crosshair to target whatever you want to hit. Did the missile zig zag to knock down 5 light poles? How does a missile zig zag like that to knock down 5 light poles? Did these light poles damage the fins that allow the missile to make course alterations? When the missile hit 5 light poles why didnt it detonate? This video shows plane wreckage, did they sneak it and plant it after the plane crashed into the Penatagon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Light-

How does a missile zig zag to knock down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on a missile to have such a radical flight path?

How does the crackpot missile theory account for 5 light poles and a generator being struck before impact with the Pentagon?

Why has nobody come forward to say aircraft parts were planted at the crash site,does this nutjob missile theory explain all the aircraft parts found at the Pentagon?

Please answer the questions if you expect people to believe your nutjob theory.

Amadd wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 10:07pm:

Baronvonrort, Instead of waving your arms around screaming "nutjob, nutjob" like a babbling twit, it might be an idea to at least finish what you started. Now in my case, it was you who posed the question, "Do you know how much thermite would be required to take down the WTC's?" No, I was not exactly sure, but seeing that it was you who posed the question in such a fashion, I naturally assumed that you may have an inkling of an idea of the answer yourself. Obviously this was not the case, and I chose to take it upon myself to provide an answer to your own question. That would seem a little silly in a "normal" debate wouldn't it? Because it was you who was supposedly telling the story. But silly as it was, I found for you an answer to your question. The answer was a less than 2 inch coating on one foot of each of the 47 inner columns (to be sure). The calculations were also made assuming that a readily available crude grade of thermite were employed. http://physics911.net/thermite When you've finished (if ever  ::)) running around screaming "nutjob, nutjob!", then maybe you would like to debate at least one of the points which you have raised yourself? I doubt that very much indeed  ::) It is you who believes in the fairytale story of WMD's!

You are not debating anything,you are ignoring anything that contradicts the nutjob theory,you expect me to read all your crackpot nonsense yet you dont even read anything i post that refutes it.

By insisting on thermite it shows your ignorance with thermite it also indicates you do not believe an aircraft could bring down the WTC.

They say the WTC did take into acount a 707 lost in the fog on its way to the airport travelling at 600Kph.
The kinetic energy equation is - (mass (Kg) x Velocity squared (m/s))/2 or MxV^2/2.
So when you do the mathematics on kinetic energy you will discover this 767 hit the WTC with 2.5 times the kinetic energy of a 707 travelling at 600 Kph.
The reality is the plane hit the WTC tower over twice as hard as predicited and you idiots ignore this fact.that is proved by physics.

They had no reliable way of predicting the impact of fire when the WTC was designed,the design brief suggested a plane crashing while it was on its way to land so that means it would be near the end of its flight and low on fuel which differs from a plane headed to LA with a full tank.

Do you see any evidence of thermite coating on the exposed coulmns?Any evidence of thermite burning anything in this photo?
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/9615/debrisg.jpg

When i look at that photo i see vertical columns buckling,they are loaded in compression and it looks like an inelastic deformation which indicates the modulus of elasticity has been reached and the stress levels are already unacceptable for a vertical column loaded in compression.
Thermal expansion due to the fire will contribute to compressive stress and keep in mind the design of the WTC did not take the fire from jet fuel into consideration.

A first year engineering student will see this vertical column buckling as a sign of impending failure due to compressive stress.

Quote:

You are not debating anything,you are ignoring anything that contradicts the nutjob theory,you expect me to read all your crackpot nonsense yet you dont even read anything i post that refutes it.

Obviously I cannot debate 100 points at a time, so I chose one which you asked me.
If you have any problems with the findings that I presented, then go ahead and present your own findings.


Quote:

By insisting on thermite it shows your ignorance with thermite it also indicates you do not believe an aircraft could bring down the WTC.

Do you insist on kinetic energy being responsible for the molten metal?

Why are you ignoring the 47 inner columns?
I agree, if these 47 inner columns were taken out of the equation, the pancake theory would then hold water.
And yes, if the 47 inner columns were taken out, the outer columns would probably be expected to buckle and eventually fail.

Also, in your photograph, arrows point to: Sagging floors due to fire?
The hanging material is located where there are no visible fires.
And naturally, you'd expect some displacement of material due to a frikin' jumbo smashing into it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E15GbdVaV-Q

Seeing that the above clip was made in the '80's, it proves that tinfoil-hat wearing conspiranuts may hold amazing powers of psychic ability.  ;D

The picture certainly shows columns ( or the external façade )   buckled, infact it clearly shows some that are total deformed.

It also shows columns from level 79/243 to 79/249 are completely unaffected, also  on levels 80 to 83 the columns to  /248 also seem totally unaffected, one would think if the structure was to fail  the building would then lean to the left of picture and  fall, not collapse vertically for 100 levels.    

Light-

How does a missile zig zag to knock down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on a missile to have such a radical flight path?

____________

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/

Sections
1.            American Airlines Flight 77
2.            The Five Frames
3.            The Security Videos
4.            Flight Characteristics
5.            The Alleged Tailfin
6.            The Smoke Trail
7.            By The Light of A Rocket Motor
8.            The Overflight and Lloyde England's Testimony
9.            Mike Walter
10.            Donald Rumsfeld
11.            Porter Goss
12.            April Gallop
13.            The Damage to Lamp-posts on The Highway
14.            The Damage to The Pentagon
15.            The Alleged Airplane Wreckage
16.            2.3 Trillion Red Herrings
17.            The Real Target

Appendices
I.            The Zelikow ‘9/11 Commission Report’
II.            Attempts to Discredit The Case for A Cruise Missile
‘Pentagon Missile Hoax’ by anonymous
‘Is the 9/11 “Pentagon Hole” a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?’ by Erik Larson
‘The “Pod People” And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon’ by Mike Rivero
III.            “Missile” #3
IV.            Gov. Jesse Ventura - Conspiracy Theory: 9/11 Pentagon Attack
V.            Mirror Websites
VI.            Other Websites of Interest
VII.            Recommended Books



September 11th 2001

A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon

by Peter Wakefield Sault

Copyright © Peter Wakefield Sault 2008-2012

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”

A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon

____________

much documented evidence including what

happened with the detonated lightpoles

and if this is all you have its a reflection upon your

desperation to stitch up that which is unravelling

before our eyes...

9/11 was an inside job

truth always comes out in the end

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/ntsb.jpg

No airplane wreckage was found in the Pentagon, much less positively identified as Flight 77

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/ntsb.jpg No airplane wreckage was found in the Pentagon, much less positively identified as Flight 77

I've heard this, but I've also heard that Pentagon officials found a part and squirrelled it away from the FAA.

Evidence of conspiracy or two agencies playing cloak and dagger games with each other?

Given most of the info on Sept 11, both accounts could be false.

Just with the sole fact that we don't have adequate video footage of a plane crashing into the pentagon( one of the most secure and protected building in the world) automatically casts suspicion of some sort of a cover-up.

The claim that the footage they do have will not be shown to the public due to national security is laughable, infact all it;s doing is securing the identity of what really happen.         

Sure, but what happened to the plane they CLAIM crashed into the Pentagon?

It would be hard to make a plane, crew and passengers just disappear, surely - not in North Korea, but in Amerika.

You'd have the airline, the FAA, the insurance companies and everybody's lawyers all sniffing around.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how it COULD happen.

this is unbelievable stupid things i have read here.

9/11 was terror attack to the USA by Muslim terror individuals who is all responsible for it.

Not US Government, not US police or FBI,, or whatever.

Quote:

this is unbelievable stupid things i have read here. 9/11 was terror attack to the USA by Muslim terror individuals who is all responsible for it. Not US Government, not US police or FBI,, or whatever.

Do you mean that you are having a hard time coming to terms with the facts?

Nice that you believe that the banks give a toss about you more than you give a toss about them.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 9:00pm:

Sure, but what happened to the plane they CLAIM crashed into the Pentagon? It would be hard to make a plane, crew and passengers just disappear, surely - not in North Korea, but in Amerika. You'd have the airline, the FAA, the insurance companies and everybody's lawyers all sniffing around. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how it COULD happen.

Personally, I do not know what happen that day,  what I do know is that there is a lot of questions that need to be answered...etc:  Release footage of the plane hitting the pentagon.

As for the Americans staging such an  horrific event to its own public was discussed behind closed doors in the year 1962 , call "Operation Northwoods"...

Quote:

Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated in 1962 within the United States government, and which the Kennedy administration rejected. [2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington." Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated

Quote:

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.     a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.     b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[18] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

Quote:

The previously secret document was originally made public on 18 November 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,[4] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.[5][6][7][8] A total 1521 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

I'm not stating that what happen on Sept 11 was created to set a precedent to be active in the middle east ... the purpose of mentioning "Operation Northwoods"is to show Governments are prepared to create incidents on their own soil to change public opinion. 

Avram Horowitz wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 9:35pm:

this is unbelievable stupid things i have read here. 9/11 was terror attack to the USA by Muslim terror individuals who is all responsible for it. Not US Government, not US police or FBI,, or whatever.

It's still strange how none of those organisations bothered to
inform the airlines to
reinforce the doors of aircraft cockpits until after 911 happened.

The Israelis had reinforced cockpit doors since the 60s.
They knew muslims would love to die for their allah by
flying a commercial plane into e.g the parliament of Israel
or any other target of their choice.

This was a known about loophole in aviation security.
Many people have a lot of questions still to answer.
That's why we need a proper enquiry - even if it takes 5 years -
&  "grounds of national security" should not be used as an excuse
not to show everyone all the evidence.
The enquiry needs to be live on TV all around the world.


We also need to know if Bush was ever told about such a possible scenario.
I have this feeling that information was not acted upon.
I think it could have been stopped - if not by intelligence sharing then
by better aviation security.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/ntsb.jpg No airplane wreckage was found in the Pentagon, much less positively identified as Flight 77

All that document shows is the idiocy of the nujobs.

Any plane hijacking becomes a FBI investigation do the nutjobs understand this fact?


Quote:

The NTSB web site references the documents but does not provide copies,the terrorist attacks on 911 are under the jurisdiction of the FBI. The Safety board provided requested assistance to the FBI and an material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI.

Here is some flight data from 9/11-
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

You have failed to explain how a missile could knock down 5 light poles while zig zagging its way to the Pentagon.

How does a missile do this when there is no mechanism on the missile to enable this to happen?

Aircraft parts were found near the light poles that were knocked down how does a missile theory explain this are you ignoring the evidence left at the scene by the aircraft?

Amadd wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 12:55pm:

Quote: You are not debating anything,you are ignoring anything that contradicts the nutjob theory,you expect me to read all your crackpot nonsense yet you dont even read anything i post that refutes it. Obviously I cannot debate 100 points at a time, so I chose one which you asked me. If you have any problems with the findings that I presented, then go ahead and present your own findings. [quote]By insisting on thermite it shows your ignorance with thermite it also indicates you do not believe an aircraft could bring down the WTC.

Do you insist on kinetic energy being responsible for the molten metal?
We should also consider Potential energy- mass (kg) x G (9.81) x H (m).
Damage on 80th floor means 30 story building above damage,say 25% rough estimate therefore we will use 300 m for height instead of the buildings 414m height.
The Paper i linked was clear on the conversion of kinetic energy to heat i dont suppose you will read anything that contradicts the nutjob theory.

Why are you ignoring the 47 inner columns?
I agree, if these 47 inner columns were taken out of the equation, the pancake theory would then hold water.
And yes, if the 47 inner columns were taken out, the outer columns would probably be expected to buckle and eventually fail.
There is evidence of the outer perimeter columns buckling,these columns are holding up 20-30 story buildings.
Any engineer would be concerned with the buckling in a compression column shown in photo i posted.
The paper i linked that you ignored also did the mathematics on impact with the outside wall and came up with 78G's that slowed the plane to around 195 m/s which means the plane was headed for the core columns still going much faster the the 166 m/s design speed for a 707.
The Kinetic energy of the plane was still higher after impacting the outer wall than what the building was designed to resist.
I am not ignoring the inner core columns there is a considerable unknown on how many were damaged and since nobody went in and counted them that will probably always remain unknown.
The WTC had a factor of safety of 3,The factor of safety is calculated from ultimate strength and not the modulus of elasticity(Youngs modulus).
Mild steel will usually go through inelastic deformation before failure,heating steel to 500 deg C will see it lose about 20% of its strength.
The damage to the outer wall reduced the factor of safety to 2.
While a factor of safety of 3 is fairly low IMO it was adequate and would have saved considerable material costs in construction.

Also, in your photograph, arrows point to: Sagging floors due to fire?
The hanging material is located where there are no visible fires.
And naturally, you'd expect some displacement of material due to a frikin' jumbo smashing into it.
150,000 kg travelling at 900 Kph tends to leave a mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E15GbdVaV-Q

Seeing that the above clip was made in the '80's, it proves that tinfoil-hat wearing conspiranuts may hold amazing powers of psychic ability.  ;D

Why should i waste my time with that nonsense when you dont even read physics reports that show the falling 20-30 story buildings had 2-3 times the energy required for destruction

[/quote]

this is the hole in the pentagon after the attack

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZAKkFBCKxZL9VX6srSfsaROB3xiFpU07r-VmzrLS-lgLzoYGSBg

and you are worried about detonated lightpoles?

look at the evidence and the lightpoles if hit would

have been chopped in half because the "757" was

travelling at mach 2 (which is impossible)

check mate

namaste

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8JsUuD2GpfmFiSGYufV1JeSVQ-tounp8XTpJBccg2rnxILuAu

a 757 does not travel at mach 2

a 757 does not leave a 12 foot imprint

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B9kO-7TQ__M/TPjeylt_wUI/AAAAAAAAAXc/ye40bEA8kl0/s1600/pentagon_hole2.jpg

http://911lies.org/911_pentagon_attack_damage.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B9kO-7TQ__M/TPjeylt_wUI/AAAAAAAAAXc/ye40bEA8kl0/s1600/pentagon_hole2.jpg

metal_j wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

The picture certainly shows columns ( or the external façade )   buckled, infact it clearly shows some that are total deformed. It also shows columns from level 79/243 to 79/249 are completely unaffected, also  on levels 80 to 83 the columns to  /248 also seem totally unaffected, one would think if the structure was to fail  the building would then lean to the left of picture and  fall, not collapse vertically for 100 levels.

Those columns are holding up a 20-30 story building,the buckling indicates comressive stress is already unacceptable.

Gravity does tend to make things fall straight down is anybody going to dispute that?

Look at the photo and see if the building did tilt before failure-
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5402/wtcsouthtower.jpg

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

and you are worried about detonated lightpoles? look at the evidence and the lightpoles if hit would have been chopped in half because the "757" was travelling at mach 2 (which is impossible) check mate namaste

You still have not answered how a missile can zig zag to knock down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on any missile that enables it to do that?
You nutjobs have to explain this you cannot ignore the 5 light poles that were knocked down it is a huge hole in your theory.

The photgraphic evidence shows the light poles were knocked down not cut in half.

You cannot explain the plane debris found at the Pentagon- Did the FBI form a line and walk over the lawns picking up every bit of debris like they do in any investigation when the gather evidence.

Did the 5 light poles rip chunks from the plane that hit them,would you expect that to be the case?
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5608/debrishr.jpg

A report that uses real science instead of the psuedoscience favoured by the nutjobs.

I disagree with his estimate of aircraft weight his figure is much lighter and the plane will not have the range to make it to LA with his figure according to data supplied by Boeing.


I dont expect the nutjobs to read it or even comprehend it-
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

You still have not answered how a missile can zig zag to knock down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on any missile that enables it to do that?

_____________

and here is your confusion

nobody has supposed this illusion but you

this is your illusion

a missile can not do this so you are incorrect

insinuating that it can

you project your confusion and try to prop up your

argument

i am in no argument or confusion...

lets have a proper enquiry why not and find out

if these lightpoles were detonated to fall..and why not..

they actuall used weaponized grade nano thermite

and brought down the 2 towers

they felled "pulled" building 7

they sent a missile into the pentagon and confiscated

all cctv from around the pentagon

so detonating a few lightpoles to fall would be a given

your pursuance unto this feeble point reflects your

agenda being a

1. government sycophant

2. dupe

3. agent provocateur

4. imbecile

5. inbred slack jawed local repeating official story

6. all of the above

this is of no consequence unto the fact that

9/11 was an inside job

namaste

-:)

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5608/debrishr.jpg

look at the photo

looks like the FBI and or CIA placed that piece there

any more to speak of?

no wing no tail no engines just this hole..

http://911lies.org/911_pentagon_attack_damage.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B9kO-7TQ__M/TPjeylt_wUI/AAAAAAAAAXc/ye40bEA8kl0/s1600/pentagon_hole2.jpg

tell me baron,do you think a 757 can leave

this imprint?

maybe we need an second enquiry as 6 out of the 10

9/11 commissioners said they were lied to.

blessings and

i send forgiveness unto you for attacking and abusing

others continuously ..this is a reflection upon your

frustrations as i do not abuse unto you

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 1:25pm:

You still have not answered how a missile can zig zag to knock down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on any missile that enables it to do that? _____________ and here is your confusion nobody has supposed this illusion but you this is your illusion a missile can not do this so you are incorrect insinuating that it can you project your confusion and try to prop up your argument i am in no argument or confusion... lets have a proper enquiry why not and find out if these lightpoles were detonated to fall..and why not.. they actuall used weaponized grade nano thermite and brought down the 2 towers they felled "pulled" building 7 they sent a missile into the pentagon and confiscated all cctv from around the pentagon so detonating a few lightpoles to fall would be a given your pursuance unto this feeble point reflects your agenda being a 1. government sycophant 2. dupe 3. agent provocateur 4. imbecile 5. inbred slack jawed local repeating official story 6. all of the above this is of no consequence unto the fact that 9/11 was an inside job namaste -:)

That does not explain how 5 light poles  and a generator were hit before the impact with the pentagon.

The light poles show no sign of explosives only impact damage with no sign of fire.

What about the generator that was hit,why didnt your missile detonate with that impact?

The missile story at the pentagon is a fairy tale promoted by nutjobs.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B9kO-7TQ__M/TPjeylt_wUI/AAAAAAAAAXc/ye40bEA8kl0/s1600/pentagon_hole2.jpg

look at the 757 imprint

impossible

further

your lightpole theory has been addressed and

proven incorrect

you are forgiven for confusions

namaste

http://911lies.org/911_pentagon_attack_damage.jpg

please explain this if you can

namaste

Light,

Quote:

9/11 was an inside job

We won't ever know that unless we get a full open enquiry.
It looks like that will never happen -
at least not in our lifetime.
Historians 100 years from now might know the answers.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5608/debrishr.jpg look at the photo looks like the FBI and or CIA placed that piece there any more to speak of? Yes plenty just try google no wing no tail no engines just this hole.. There are photos of engines try searching google for non nutjob stuff every once in a while tell me baron,do you think a 757 can leave this imprint? blessings and i send forgiveness unto you for attacking and abusing others continuously ..this is a reflection upon your frustrations as i do not abuse unto you namaste

If the FBI or CIA planted the aircraft parts does that mean you have ruled out Mossad?

Do you know the difference between a low wing and high wing aircraft?
What would a 757-767 be?

I prefer this photo of the hole, it shows more bits of the aircraft than your photo.
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/6935/pentagonwall.jpg

I see a big chunk of aircraft in that photo along with a few other smaller bits.

Here is a plane that caught fire after running out of runway.
Not much of it left and no visible fire damage to surroundings.

Aircraft are fragile, the G rating  indicates a stronger plane if it is a bigger number,the factor of safety is about 1.5.

The wings  are not designed to resist hitting 5 light poles while flying low and fast i think damage to the wings from the light poles will remain unknown.

I dont think anyone would have predicted this-
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8492/runwayfire6.jpg

you only serve to support 9/11 was an inside job

please keep posting

check mate

namaste

-:)

A close friend who is an Aviation expert told me that the plane that went into the second building had a 'pod' on it between the engine and the fuselage. Further, in super slow mo...He tells me that you can see a missile fired from about fifty feet before actual impact with tower 2.

Boeing denied all knowledge of such a pod existing.

My friend is of the opinion that the C.I.A. knew of the original plot and ramped it up so that the country would go to war.

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

you only serve to support 9/11 was an inside job please keep posting check mate namaste -:)

Lets see what Sydney University say about the WTC tower collapse.
They deal with facts and figures the nutjobs deal in fairy tales and fantasy so i wonder which side they take with this nonsense.


Quote:

Once one story collapsed all the stories above would have begun falling.The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum (Kinetic energy) crushing the structurally intact floors below,resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure.While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above,once the floor collapsed and the floors started to fall,the dynamic load of 50 stories above is very much greater,and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.

Source-http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml

Baronvonrort.....Sydney University as an authority.....you are seriously joking right?

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8^th, 2012 at 10:01am:

Amadd wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 11:46pm: And we're just talking ordinary thermite here, which had ample time to react before the final detonation. Please read the entire paper, it's interesting. http://physics911.net/thermite You didnt read the paper from explosives experts saying this would be the very first explsove demolition to start from near the top when every explosive demolition has started at the base. Why should i waste my time reading your nutjob garbage? From your link- Quote: Conclusions The columns would have been most easily filled during the initial construction phase,but this requires belief in a forsight and a 30-40 year master plan that may be difficult for many to think possible This nutjob is suggesting the beams were filled with thermite during construction. Here is a paper that uses Physics to show no explosives were needed to bring down the WTC. Please read it. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Dear Baronvonrort,

No, I don't discard the theory that the explosions started from the top. But there is plenty of first-hand evidence concluding that explosions occurred firstly in the basement.

I know that you really want to discard the theory from an '80's Doco which concluded that a building which was built to withstand 13,000 tons of pressure from natural elements, would hardly feel a pinch from a fully loaded 300 ton 747.

But you don't even consider this as relevant.

It's a short 2.5 min, clip, and yet you cannot even look?
What's up with you sunshine?
Are you at all human?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E15GbdVaV-Q&feature=player_embedded#!




Now, puhlease Baranvat sunshine, ... you must surely see something which doesn't fit with your argument there?
...Or maybe not?

Do you see anything at all relevant there Baronvite?

Well, I do see something of relevance. And I hope that you will see it too.

red baron wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 3:24pm:

Baronvonrort.....Sydney University as an authority.....you are seriously joking right?

Sydney University does teach engineering you will not get an engineering degree from a corn flakes packet.

The civil engineers say a falling building is a dynamic impact load which is far greater than any  static force these buildings are designed to resist.

The civil engineers at Sydney University do not agree with that nutjob theory of controlled demolition.

Amadd wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 10:43pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8th, 2012 at 10:01am: Amadd wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 11:46pm: And we're just talking ordinary thermite here, which had ample time to react before the final detonation. Please read the entire paper, it's interesting. http://physics911.net/thermite You didnt read the paper from explosives experts saying this would be the very first explsove demolition to start from near the top when every explosive demolition has started at the base. Why should i waste my time reading your nutjob garbage? From your link- Quote: Conclusions The columns would have been most easily filled during the initial construction phase,but this requires belief in a forsight and a 30-40 year master plan that may be difficult for many to think possible This nutjob is suggesting the beams were filled with thermite during construction. Here is a paper that uses Physics to show no explosives were needed to bring down the WTC. Please read it. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf Dear Baronvonrort, No, I don't discard the theory that the explosions started from the top. But there is plenty of first-hand evidence concluding that explosions occurred firstly in the basement. I know that you really want to discard the theory from an '80's Doco which concluded that a building which was built to withstand 13,000 tons of pressure from natural elements, would hardly feel a pinch from a fully loaded 300 ton 747. But you don't even consider this as relevant. It's a short 2.5 min, clip, and yet you cannot even look? What's up with you sunshine? Are you at all human? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E15GbdVaV-Q&feature=player_embedded#! Now, puhlease Baranvat sunshine, ... you must surely see something which doesn't fit with your argument there? ...Or maybe not?

Is this 13,000 kg of wind pressure a uniformly distributed load or is it a point loading?

How does a uniformly distributed load of 13,000 kg compare to the dynamic non elastic collision impact force of a 150,000 kg jet travelling at 900 Kph?

Did the jet hit the entire side of the building or just an outline of the jets shape?

The equation for pressure is - force/area

Air = 1.2kg M^3, air weighs 1.2 kg per cubic metre.

Do you think 13,000 kgs of uniformly distributed air will cause the same damage as a 150,000 kg aircraft travelling at 900 kph impacting a much smaller part (pressure =Force /Area)  of the building?

150,000 kg - 13,000 kg = 137,000 kg , how many times greater than 13,000 kg is this number?
Do you see the flaw with this garbage?

Do you know the difference between a uniformly distributed load and a point load?

It is easy to design something to resist 13,000 kg wind,not so easy to design something to withstand the impact of a 150,000 kg jet travelling at 900 Kph.

Your video was garbage that just shows the idiocy of the nutjobs in comparing apples to peanuts.

WTF?

I said 13,000 tons

I suppose you just read what you want to see.

OMG!!

And if you had taken the slightest interest in looking honestly, you would note that the buildings were designed to distribute "point loading" throughout the building and into the foundation.
Just as the steel structures are designed to act as heat sinks.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, have you heard the one about how the C.I.A. developed a plot whereby a plane headed for Cuba full of American students would be shot down?

It goes this way, the C.I.A. recruited a plane load of students to board an aircraft which would head for Cuba. It would then divert and another dummy plane with nil pax and an identical transponder would 'takeover' the route. The C.I.A. arranged for a missile to be launched from Cuba downing the decoy into the sea.

This would then precipitate a full on war between the States and Cuba.

When Jack Kennedy got wind of it he apparently went ballistic and canned the whole thing.

Amadd wrote on Mar 13^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

WTF? I said 13,000 tons I suppose you just read what you want to see. OMG!!

I see idiocy used to prop up nutjob theories.

Are you saying a building that is designed to withstand the force of air which weighs 1.2kg per m^3 will magically withstand a 150,000 kg jet crashing into it at 900Kph?

Is there any difference between wind hitting the entire side of a building (uniformly distributed load) and an aircraft of 150,000 kg travelling at 900kph colliding with a smaller section of the building (Pressure = Force/area)?

Using the dim witted logic of the nutjobs any building designed to withstand a gale force wind should hold up if a 150,000 kg jet collides with it at 900 kph.

Do you see the irrelevance and idiocy  of trying to compare a building resisting wind pressure to a 150,000 kg jet impacting it at 900kph?

I think maybe you should take that up with the building designer featured in the '80's documentary.

I am no expert on building design, and I'm quite certain that you are not either.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't mistake 13,000 tons for 13,000 kg  ;D

Amadd wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

I think maybe you should take that up with the building designer featured in the '80's documentary. I am no expert on building design, and I'm quite certain that you are not either. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mistake 13,000 tons for 13,000 kg  ;D

Those who study Physics and engineering use SI units eg kilo-mega-giga-etc.

The force from the wind on a building and the forces from an inelastic collision with a 150,000 kg jet travelling at 900 kph are 2 different things.
Do you see any difference?

Just because a building was designed to withstand wind pressure does not mean it can automatically withstand the damage from a 150,000 kg jet travelling at 900 Kph.

Your guy did not take into account velocity of the jet and made no mention of how the building would absorb the kinetic energy of the jet.

The Kinetic energy of the jet-
150,000 x 250^2/2 = how many joules?
How does that compare to the energy from 1000 kg of TNT, does the jet have more kinetic energy than 1000 kg of TNT?

Do you see the idiocy of comparing an eleastic collision with air ( the building springs back to its original shape) to an inelastic collision with a jet.

The World trade centre did sway in a good breeze you should look up the viscoelastic dampers they used to reduce building sway which some say (NIST report) caused a weak point in the buildings.

It is lunacy to compare a building resisting the wind to an inelastic collision with a 150,000 kg jet doing 900 kph.

Quote:

Your guy did not take into account velocity of the jet and made no mention of how the building would absorb the kinetic energy of the jet.

He's not my guy, but yes he did.

Amadd wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

Quote: Your guy did not take into account velocity of the jet and made no mention of how the building would absorb the kinetic energy of the jet. He's not my guy, but yes he did.

About 20 seconds into the video he describes the wind force as a static load.

He does not mention velocity or kinetic energy of a 747.

A jet impacting a building is a dynamic load a inelastic collision.
14 or 29 Story building that is falling is a dynamic load and  in the case of the WTC falling an  inelastic collision.

Do you even understand the difference between a static and a dynamic load?

All that video proves is the idiocy of the nutjobs clutching at straws to get something to help their nutjob theory.i

Ok, so how about we take a little review here?

Firstly, this was a clip from a 1980's doco involving an expert on building design, so we can safely assume that he is not a tin-foil hat wearing truther... unless he has some amazing powers of psychic ability.

Next, we can safely assume that he is quite a lot more informed on the subject than you and I.

Granted, the Titanic did sink, however we are talking about two Titanics + 1 onlooker that went down in sympathy.

Considering the impact positions upon these buildings; they were all of a different nature insofar as any "weak point" of the buildings' integrity is concerned.
So, very unlikely that 3 exclusive 100,000/1 coincidences would happen at once.
The probability of that happening is absolutely enormous.



Quote:

I see idiocy used to prop up nutjob theories. Are you saying a building that is designed to withstand the force of air which weighs 1.2kg per m^3 will magically withstand a 150,000 kg jet crashing into it at 900Kph?

Did you listen?
He said that the force of air is 40lbs per square foot.
You do the conversion. How does that compare to your figure?
And obviously, the building would be designed to withstand far more than the average expected pressure.


Quote:

Do you think 13,000 kgs of uniformly distributed air will cause the same damage as a 150,000 kg aircraft travelling at 900 kph impacting a much smaller part (pressure =Force /Area)  of the building? Do you think 13,000 kgs of uniformly distributed air will cause the same damage as a 150,000 kg aircraft travelling at 900 kph impacting a much smaller part (pressure =Force /Area)  of the building? 150,000 kg - 13,000 kg = 137,000 kg , how many times greater than 13,000 kg is this number? Do you see the flaw with this garbage?

Well, of course I do. Do you think I'm some sort of nutjob or something?  ;D

The figure is 13,000 tons my friend. That's 13,000 x 1000.
Do you see the err of your math there?

Also, the figure used for a fully loaded 747 was 300 tons, so let's do the math now hey?
And we'll round off 1016 imperial to equal 1000 Ok?

13000000kgs - 300000kgs = 12700000kgs of available pressure to be absorbed by the integrity of the building.
So, really, you're talking ant on an elephant stuff here. The big fireball of fuel obviously puffed up that ant to make it look more impressive than it actually was.

But, ohhh..ooops...unless that ant just happens to be a grand master of karate and can apply significant enough point pressure to take down that elephant...yeah right!


Quote from the doco:

Quote:

A 300 ton element crashing into the WTC, which was designed to absorb 13,000 tons would not do anything to the major building. As far as a plane of that type taking out a building..that would not happen

All that I can say is "don't shoot the messenger"
I am not an expert in building design, and never will be.


Merely, I am party to raising questions here (where others have raised questions also). And where I/we are seeking those who raise them to be far more knowledgeable on these subjects than myself/ourselves.

Personally, it is not about an accusation of any particular person, group or gang, it is about questioning what I/we have been told about the "pancake theory" ....and so forth...and so forth...and so forth.
Things that "just don't seem right".

If you don't want to question, if all seems hunky dory with the picture, then good for you.
I am not a nutjob for asking questions about things that just don't seem right to me, and I'm extremely confident that your math is entirely wrong moron.

This are the most crazy ideas I have read.

Why do so many peoples always wish to see conspiracy in everything?

9/11 is was caused by Muslim terrorists. No never will american government kill the own citizens,, this is just so crazy talk,,

Me I definitely do not believe

Quote:

Me I definitely do not believe

Coz you a Joo, an idiot, or sarcamoslitologist?  ;D




..you gave that angle up pretty quickly didn't you?  ;D

Nice try .....Nottttt 

We have a democracy to run here...moron.

So.
why on earth would a Jew symbol appear at this stage? We endured it?


It's a bit concerning

What's with that crap at all?

It's a little concerning.....sunshine.

Amadd wrote on Mar 14^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

Ok, so how about we take a little review here? This building was designed the old fashioned way,with a drawing board there was no CAD or Finite element analysis when this building was designed. Firstly, this was a clip from a 1980's doco involving an expert on building design, so we can safely assume that he is not a tin-foil hat wearing truther... unless he has some amazing powers of psychic ability. Some people scrape in a pass, others get distinctions,he cant do simple maths. Next, we can safely assume that he is quite a lot more informed on the subject than you and I. I have studied Science and Engineering at University so while you are ignorant it does not mean i am. Granted, the Titanic did sink, however we are talking about two Titanics + 1 onlooker that went down in sympathy. And how many buildings were demolished because they were damaged beyond repair by the falling towers? Considering the impact positions upon these buildings; they were all of a different nature insofar as any "weak point" of the buildings' integrity is concerned. So, very unlikely that 3 exclusive 100,000/1 coincidences would happen at once. The probability of that happening is absolutely enormous. one tower had a 14 story buiding above the impact zone,the other had a 29 story building above the impact zone. The factor of safety was 3, this means if the metal was rated at 300 Mpa then 100 Mpa is the allowable stress. A 14 story section of the building which falls 1 story has a dynamic load about 33 times greater than the static load. Quote: I see idiocy used to prop up nutjob theories. Are you saying a building that is designed to withstand the force of air which weighs 1.2kg per m^3 will magically withstand a 150,000 kg jet crashing into it at 900Kph? Did you listen? He said that the force of air is 40lbs per square foot. You do the conversion. How does that compare to your figure? And obviously, the building would be designed to withstand far more than the average expected pressure. He gave all sorts of numbers. 260,000 sq ft x100 (lbs per sq ft) =26000000 total lbs ,divide by 2.2 to convert Lbs to Kg = 11,818,181 kg I see a simple mistake with his calculations. [quote]Do you think 13,000 kgs of uniformly distributed air will cause the same damage as a 150,000 kg aircraft travelling at 900 kph impacting a much smaller part (pressure =Force /Area)  of the building? Do you think 13,000 kgs of uniformly distributed air will cause the same damage as a 150,000 kg aircraft travelling at 900 kph impacting a much smaller part (pressure =Force /Area)  of the building? 150,000 kg - 13,000 kg = 137,000 kg , how many times greater than 13,000 kg is this number? Do you see the flaw with this garbage?

Well, of course I do. Do you think I'm some sort of nutjob or something?  ;D

The figure is 13,000 tons my friend. That's 13,000 x 1000.
Do you see the err of your math there?
I see the error in his calculations even using a figure of 100lbs per sq ft

Also, the figure used for a fully loaded 747 was 300 tons, so let's do the math now hey?
And we'll round off 1016 imperial to equal 1000 Ok?

13000000kgs - 300000kgs = 12700000kgs of available pressure to be absorbed by the integrity of the building.
Pressure = Force /Area, If units are Newtons and MM^2 then Pressure is in Mega pascals.
So, really, you're talking ant on an elephant stuff here. The big fireball of fuel obviously puffed up that ant to make it look more impressive than it actually was.
It does not work like that.
Since the building was designed to withstand wind a force of 40-100 lbs per sq ft as claimed how does that compare to a jet?
The nosecone of a 767 was the first part of the jet to strike the building, it is rounded and has an area of around 1 sq ft.
150,000 x 2.2 = 330,000 lbs 
330,000 lbs just resting on 1 sq ft with no velocity will = 330,000 lbs per sq ft.
How does 330,000 lbs per square ft compare to 100 lbs per sq ft?
We have 330,000 lbs per sq ft with a plane resting on its nose cone with gravity (static load) and we have not even started the velocity calculations.


But, ohhh..ooops...unless that ant just happens to be a grand master of karate and can apply significant enough point pressure to take down that elephant...yeah right!


Quote from the doco:

Quote:

A 300 ton element crashing into the WTC, which was designed to absorb 13,000 tons would not do anything to the major building. As far as a plane of that type taking out a building..that would not happen

What a load of crap


All that I can say is "don't shoot the messenger"
I am not an expert in building design, and never will be.


Merely, I am party to raising questions here (where others have raised questions also). And where I/we are seeking those who raise them to be far more knowledgeable on these subjects than myself/ourselves.

Personally, it is not about an accusation of any particular person, group or gang, it is about questioning what I/we have been told about the "pancake theory" ....and so forth...and so forth...and so forth.
Things that "just don't seem right".


I am not a nutjob for asking questions about things that just don't seem right to me, and I'm extremely confident that your math is entirely wrong moron.
So what evidence do the nutjobs have to back up the nutjob theory?nothing zip zilch.



[/quote]

I have posted this several times, the nutjobs will not read it i doubt they can even comprehend it.

A first year engineering or physics student could understand the mathematics in this paper-

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Well, like I said: "Don't shoot the messenger".

As long as you think that you're more of an expert than a building designer, then I suppose you can satisfy your own mind.

Personally, I don't consider myself more of an expert than the experts.

Amadd wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Well, like I said: "Don't shoot the messenger". As long as you think that you're more of an expert than a building designer, then I suppose you can satisfy your own mind. Personally, I don't consider myself more of an expert than the experts.

The guy in your video must  have been an architect i dont think an engineer woud make such a fundamental error  in comparing 330,000 lbs per sq ft static jet force to a wind force of 100 lbs sq ft.

Do you think you could walk into a headwind that gives 100 lbs per sq ft of wind force?

Aeronautical engineers would probably suggest a round building to reduce wind force,a flat plate perpendicular to the wind is the worst case scenario.
A tiny stagnation point with a round building which will reduce areo drag.
Round is still not that good yet much better than flat squares.

I am not a architect so i dont design buildings yet i have done many engineering jobs for architects.
I posted a link from the civil engineers at Sydney University who dont agree with the nutjobs on controlled demolition.

This isn't over, it's just beginning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSJZqMwNoY

9/11 was a Modern crusade and a Modern Inquisition, it was the declaration of war on humanity and its own societies by the Western Middle Class and its Government which continues unabated today in Afghanistan, and in the social economic crimes being committed in our countries. 8-)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2012 at 2:24pm:

This isn't over, it's just beginning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSJZqMwNoY

People still think Elvis is alive

People still think there was a second shooter with JFK.

The 9/11 nutjobs still insist thermite was used, the nutjobs dont even consider the 50 stories of WTC tower that hit WTC 7.
Newtons 3rd law explains aircraft debris at the Pentagon caused by the light poles.

So how does a missile zig zag to knock down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on the missile to allow this to happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA&feature=related

CIA WhistleBlower EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice"

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging,

EXTREME PREJUDICE(Book by Susan Lindauer) reveals one Asset's desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA's advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq's contributions to the 9/11 investigation.

Further Review and link to the book at this Link.
http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/

Susan's book "Extreme Prejudice" can be purchased on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudice-Terrifying-Story-Patriot/dp/145364275...
She in urgent need of book sales and donations. Please consider a donation to her paypal account with her email slindauer2008@yahoo.com

(Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the makers of this video and is presented for educational and informational purposes only)
_________________________________________
The Light of the World,Movie(Full Length)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWO_peGaGvg
Category:
Nonprofits & Activism

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA&feature=related CIA WhistleBlower EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice" Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging, EXTREME PREJUDICE(Book by Susan Lindauer) reveals one Asset's desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq. EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA's advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq's contributions to the 9/11 investigation. Further Review and link to the book at this Link. http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/ Susan's book "Extreme Prejudice" can be purchased on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Prejudice-Terrifying-Story-Patriot/dp/145364275... She in urgent need of book sales and donations. Please consider a donation to her paypal account with her email slindauer2008@yahoo.com (Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the makers of this video and is presented for educational and informational purposes only) _________________________________________ The Light of the World,Movie(Full Length) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWO_peGaGvg Category: Nonprofits & Activism

The light is on but nobody is home.....

Unlike some i dont have hours to fritter away watching youtube videos which dont contain any referenced links to back up their opinions.

So we have to buy a book to hear more about this nutjob theory?

Is that all you have?

Still waiting for you to tell me how a missile can zig zag while knocking down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on a missile to allow this to happen.

Still waiting for you to tell me how a missile can zig zag while knocking down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on a missile to allow this to happen.

__________

i have answered this it would seem you have trouble

within reality and like to twist as much to your

agenda..

fail.

namaste

-:)

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:

Still waiting for you to tell me how a missile can zig zag while knocking down 5 light poles when there is no mechanism on a missile to allow this to happen. __________ i have answered this it would seem you have trouble within reality and like to twist as much to your agenda.. fail. namaste -:)

You have not answered this.

I reject your nutjob 9/11 theory  what you claim to be evidence is nonsense.

I reject your nutjob 9/11 theory  what you claim to be evidence is nonsense.

________

i observe confusion by you

this is your idea about some type of lightpole theory

taking attention away from the major facts of the

crime

9/11 fresh evidence is delivered and justice is

befelling upon those of the dark,ie no LIGHT

how are your sour grapes?

this does not effect unto LIGHT

namaste

-:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAep3CW8cA&feature=g-u-u&context=G24acf82FUAAAAAAAQAA

Dick Cheney Admits to Inside Job on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylKWivA3B4M&feature=g-u-u

The Government Is Raping You: Sibel Edmonds

Published on May 19, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel
In this startling new memoir, Sibel Edmonds—the most classified woman in U.S. history—takes us on a surreal journey that begins with the secretive FBI and down the dark halls of a feckless Congress to a stonewalling judiciary and finally, to the national security whistleblowers movement she spearheaded. Having lived under Middle East dictatorships, Edmonds knows firsthand what can happen when government is allowed to operate in secret. Hers is a sobering perspective that combines painful experience with a rallying cry for the public's right to know and to hold the lawbreakers accountable. With U.S. citizens increasingly stripped of their rights in a calibrated media blackout, Edmonds' story is a wake-up call for all Americans who, willingly or unwillingly, traded liberty for illusive security in the wake of 9/11.
http://www.classifiedwoman.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://twitter.com/#!/RealAlexJones
http://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerikJones
Category:
News & Politics