I know most people don't want to see a 2hr video of bullshit rationalisations, so I gave you a nice alternative: An 18 minute documentary with good questions and facts. Surely you could be open minded enough to give 18 minutes to see what could be happening.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I know most people don't want to see a 2hr video of bullshit rationalisations, so I gave you a nice alternative: An 18 minute documentary with good questions and facts. Surely you could be open minded enough to give 18 minutes to see what could be happening.
every point in the video has been addressed several times in this thread already
its ridiculously biased and downright lies...for example...the maximum weight of a 767 is 450,000lbs...the 707 is 315,000
the building was designed to take low speed accidental impacts with fuel loads not taken into consideration...not high speed deliberate impacts with full fuel loads at maximum (which made up a large % of the plane weight on sept 11th)
the point about "squibs"...you only see these effects on the wtc at non structural parts of the building...ie windows...not the way you bring down a building...as much as some people would like to think it was true
again...thermate and thermite only cuts vertically as its effects are determined by gravity....i know this cause i've actually made thermite myself and used it....its at its most basic a mix of alumunium and magnesium powder...the magnesium burns quickly and reaches the temperature to melt the aluminium which burns long enough to melt through most treated steels...but it only does so vertically...to make it work horizontally would require cutting through the whole length of the column which would then make the whole issue of using the thermate irrelevant...as you would have already cut the column all the way through anyway
not to mention that the "thermate" was only observed at 1 point of one of the towers at the lowest point of damage from where an aluminium based plane had struck the tower....coincidence?
once again...basic physics for those who dont understand...yes steel melts at above 1100 oC...but it loses 90% of its strength at half that temperature...easily achievable in organic fuel fires...eg jet fuel mixed with office furniture
next...you can even read on the link about supposed hypothetical attacks on the wtc..."shootdown over the atlantic ocean" which is where norad looked at the time of 9/11...not inwardly into US domestic airspace...again i'm repeating facts that i've stated many times before
Originally posted by jaden101The film shows melted steel, or at least, some melted metal. And Thermite and Thermate are different. That cut on the core couldn't have been due to a crash. As for the squibs, I don't fully believe that.
every point in the video has been addressed several times in this thread alreadyits ridiculously biased and downright lies...for example...the maximum weight of a 767 is 450,000lbs...the 707 is 315,000
the building was designed to take low speed accidental impacts with fuel loads not taken into consideration...not high speed deliberate impacts with full fuel loads at maximum (which made up a large % of the plane weight on sept 11th)
the point about "squibs"...you only see these effects on the wtc at non structural parts of the building...ie windows...not the way you bring down a building...as much as some people would like to think it was true
again...thermate and thermite only cuts vertically as its effects are determined by gravity....i know this cause i've actually made thermite myself and used it....its at its most basic a mix of alumunium and magnesium powder...the magnesium burns quickly and reaches the temperature to melt the aluminium which burns long enough to melt through most treated steels...but it only does so vertically...to make it work horizontally would require cutting through the whole length of the column which would then make the whole issue of using the thermate irrelevant...as you would have already cut the column all the way through anyway
not to mention that the "thermate" was only observed at 1 point of one of the towers at the lowest point of damage from where an aluminium based plane had struck the tower....coincidence?
once again...basic physics for those who dont understand...yes steel melts at above 1100 oC...but it loses 90% of its strength at half that temperature...easily achievable in organic fuel fires...eg jet fuel mixed with office furniture
next...you can even read on the link about supposed hypothetical attacks on the wtc..."shootdown over the atlantic ocean" which is where norad looked at the time of 9/11...not inwardly into US domestic airspace...again i'm repeating facts that i've stated many times before
Originally posted by lord xyz
The film shows melted steel, or at least, some melted metal. And Thermite and Thermate are different. That cut on the core couldn't have been due to a crash. As for the squibs, I don't fully believe that.
thermite and thermate are only different in what they are composed of...not in the way they act
if you're refering to the molten liquid coming from the tower...that isn't steel
what don't you fully believe about the squibs?
Originally posted by jaden101Fair enough.
thermite and thermate are only different in what they are composed of...not in the way they actif you're refering to the molten liquid coming from the tower...that isn't steel
what don't you fully believe about the squibs?
What it is?
That they're squibs. I think the rushing air is more sensible.
X-Files and Simpsons predict 9/11
Dunno if this has been mentioned before but xfiles & a simpsons episode would appear to be hinting on 9/11, or is this a coincidence🙂
The Explosives being used is obvious.
Next Topic please: The Pentagon
Disinfo agents please reply. DEBUNK the PENTAGON INFO i have posted. You are so happy to debunk everything that i have presented yet you seem to ignore anything concerning the PENTAGON.
Want to know why people? They cant DEBUNK the PENTAGON lies. So they wont touch it.
THE PENTAGON INCIDENT
Japanese Parliament questions 9-11, Mr. Yukihisa Fujita:
"He began by addressing the evidence provided by the US Government that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. He addressed the unwillingness of US Authorities to release footage of the impact despite the fact that over 80 security cameras captured the event. He then showed the damage done to the Pentagon and the 16 foot impact hole that a jumbo jet disappeared into. He showed pictures of the C ring of the pentagon which had been punctured during the impact and argued that the damage was totally inconsistant with the impact of a 757. They also pointed out the flight path of 77 and questioned why a plane, allegedly flown by terrorists, would fly past the Defense Secretary's office (the optimum target for a terrorist hell-bent on destroying the USA) and crash into the only wing of the Pentagon that had been recently reinforced to withstand bombs and plane impacts. Circumstances which directly conflict with the motives of the terrorists. They also cited a US Air Force official who said he had flown both types of aircraft flown on 9/11 and that it would be impossible for an inexperienced pilot to be able to carry out such a maneuver. He finished by pointing out the absurdity of a plane hitting the Military Command center of the United States an entire hour and a half after the country was known to be under attack when defenses should have been on high alert."
The witnesses.
The witnesses who came forward were rather typical of all aircraft accident witnesses - they described what they believed was true. It's nearly impossible to have an aircraft crash that someone doesn't see it on fire - in the air; often with an associated explosion. That's just an accepted quirk of human nature. Witness testimony is always corroborated against physical evidence - if such exists. Typical was one eloquent witness who poisoned his own statement by describing his having "heard" the aircraft pull up; a maneuver would not make a noise. Given the physical magnitude of the event, the physical evidence would corroborate reliable witness accounts - yet, the physical corroboration is 100% lacking. Some witnesses may have actually been casual individuals, versus "plants." We'll never know, for sure. But, there is one detail which eliminates 99% of the "witnesses," instantly - what they DON'T describe! No one described being terrified by the noise of a low-flying aircraft. The aircraft was alleged to have passed low over major buildings, yet no one describes it as "big;" certainly not "deafening." A B-757 is supposed to have passed low over so many people, yet no one was frightened by the overwhelming noise of a 757, doing 300 Knots. The approach-departure "Doppler Effect" would have left a frightening impression, as the frequency of the engine noise built, then faded. Still, there are no such descriptions. The required path would have taken the aircraft extremely low over a major highway. Yet, there aren't hundreds of witnesses who saw ANYTHING. Drivers eventually
stopped for the Pentagon fire; they didn't stop for a low-flying aircraft. Nor did any group of people abandon a building or even run to a window to see what had to be a major event of some sort. Nor do you hear of any sounds of the crash. One bang; that's about it. A 757 hitting the Pentagon would have made one hell of a racket. For all the recorders in the Pentagon, there is no trace of an audio recording of the event.
LIES LIES LIES AND MORE LIES
Originally posted by jaden101Looking at the video,
aluminium...from the plane...
Originally posted by KatsuYou're retarded.
The Explosives being used is obvious.
Originally posted by KatsuSure thing.
Next Topic please: The PentagonDisinfo agents please reply. DEBUNK the PENTAGON INFO i have posted.
Originally posted by KatsuWho is "they"?
You are so happy to debunk everything that i have presented yet you seem to ignore anything concerning the PENTAGON.Want to know why people? They cant DEBUNK the PENTAGON lies. So they wont touch it.
Originally posted by KatsuThe government has released some footage. I recall it is illegal for the FBI to release the footage, why? I don't know. Seems a bit suspicious, but doesn't actually prove anything government involvement which I assume you're claiming.
THE PENTAGON INCIDENTJapanese Parliament questions 9-11, Mr. Yukihisa Fujita:
"He began by addressing the evidence provided by the US Government that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. He addressed the unwillingness of US Authorities to release footage of the impact despite the fact that over 80 security cameras captured the event.
Originally posted by KatsuDissapeared into? It crashed into it. And where is this person gettin the 16 foot hole from? I've never heard of a 16 foot hole. Have you?
He then showed the damage done to the Pentagon and the 16 foot impact hole that a jumbo jet disappeared into.
Originally posted by KatsuHe would know, after all, he is an expert on 757s.
He showed pictures of the C ring of the pentagon which had been punctured during the impact and argued that the damage was totally inconsistant with the impact of a 757.
Originally posted by Katsu2 arguments here, they were told to hit this place by someone, they're really bad pilots.
They also pointed out the flight path of 77 and questioned why a plane, allegedly flown by terrorists, would fly past the Defense Secretary's office (the optimum target for a terrorist hell-bent on destroying the USA) and crash into the only wing of the Pentagon that had been recently reinforced to withstand bombs and plane impacts.
Originally posted by Katsuyes it is unusual. This is hard proof.
Circumstances which directly conflict with the motives of the terrorists. They also cited a US Air Force official who said he had flown both types of aircraft flown on 9/11 and that it would be impossible for an inexperienced pilot to be able to carry out such a maneuver. He finished by pointing out the absurdity of a plane hitting the Military Command center of the United States an entire hour and a half after the country was known to be under attack when defenses should have been on high alert."
Originally posted by KatsuAbscence of proof is not proof of abscence...or proof of conspiracy. You're saying they planted witnesses? Wow, that has to e the dumbest conspiracytheory ever!
The witnesses.The witnesses who came forward were rather typical of all aircraft accident witnesses - they described what they believed was true. It's nearly impossible to have an aircraft crash that someone doesn't see it on fire - in the air; often with an associated explosion. That's just an accepted quirk of human nature. Witness testimony is always corroborated against physical evidence - if such exists. Typical was one eloquent witness who poisoned his own statement by describing his having "heard" the aircraft pull up; a maneuver would not make a noise. Given the physical magnitude of the event, the physical evidence would corroborate reliable witness accounts - yet, the physical corroboration is 100% lacking. Some witnesses may have actually been casual individuals, versus "plants." We'll never know, for sure. But, there is one detail which eliminates 99% of the "witnesses," instantly - what they DON'T describe! No one described being terrified by the noise of a low-flying aircraft. The aircraft was alleged to have passed low over major buildings, yet no one describes it as "big;" certainly not "deafening." A B-757 is supposed to have passed low over so many people, yet no one was frightened by the overwhelming noise of a 757, doing 300 Knots. The approach-departure "Doppler Effect" would have left a frightening impression, as the frequency of the engine noise built, then faded. Still, there are no such descriptions. The required path would have taken the aircraft extremely low over a major highway. Yet, there aren't hundreds of witnesses who saw ANYTHING. Drivers eventually
stopped for the Pentagon fire; they didn't stop for a low-flying aircraft. Nor did any group of people abandon a building or even run to a window to see what had to be a major event of some sort. Nor do you hear of any sounds of the crash. One bang; that's about it. A 757 hitting the Pentagon would have made one hell of a racket. For all the recorders in the Pentagon, there is no trace of an audio recording of the event.
Originally posted by KatsuN-No.
LIES LIES LIES AND MORE LIES
NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assisted collapse hypothesis. This is a disservice to Americans and the world--as GROWING numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
Photo below, helicopter view of North Tower looking over Building 7: Massive interlaced vertical columns of the North Tower are seen falling outward--their ends severed and glowing white--while streaming smoke from the ends. Gravity? Thermate? NIST admits to NOT TESTING any WTC debris for explosives/demolition residue. This amounts to criminal negligence--and underlies all the debate in this thread. Had NIST done its proper job--recognizing that there were over 500 eyewitness reports, many of which identified "explosions" which were NOT COINCIDENT with the planes crashing or the buildings collapsing. News footage reveals explosions. It took a Freedom of Information Act petition to get to these eyewitness testimonies about explosions--testimonies that were OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report.
Typical of many 9/11 "discussions" several participants here rely upon tactics of ridicule rather than intelligent debate with evidence. When you finally awake to who you have been, you will be horrified at what you have done.
Originally posted by whole2th
NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assisted collapse hypothesis. This is a disservice to Americans and the world--as GROWING numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
Photo below, helicopter view of North Tower looking over Building 7: Massive interlaced vertical columns of the North Tower are seen falling outward--their ends severed and glowing white--while streaming smoke from the ends. Gravity? Thermate? NIST admits to NOT TESTING any WTC debris for explosives/demolition residue. This amounts to criminal negligence--and underlies all the debate in this thread. Had NIST done its proper job--recognizing that there were over 500 eyewitness reports, many of which identified "explosions" which were NOT COINCIDENT with the planes crashing or the buildings collapsing. News footage reveals explosions. It took a Freedom of Information Act petition to get to these eyewitness testimonies about explosions--testimonies that were OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report.
Typical of many 9/11 "discussions" several participants here rely upon tactics of ridicule rather than intelligent debate with evidence. When you finally awake to who you have been, you will be horrified at what you have done.
well done my man.well done.Yeah Nist cant even keep their storys straight,first they say one thing,then when its been disproven by experts,they make something else up to try and justify themselves.their storys have changed so many times they have no credibility left anymore.every year more and more people are seeing the truth that it was an inside job all the time and waking up.the numbers are growing all the time.example,the thread starter of this thread,me and him use to argue all the time about this.He used to defend the offical version years ago when we used to argue but now his professor at his college convinced him it was an inside job.and like many milions of others out there,he has woken up to the truth as well.Like you said,the numbers are growing all the time.again,well done. 👆 great post.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
well done my man.well done.Yeah Nist cant even keep their storys straight,first they say one thing,then when its been disproven by experts,they make something else up to try and justify themselves.their storys have changed so many times they have no credibility left anymore.every year more and more people are seeing the truth that it was an inside job all the time and waking up.the numbers are growing all the time.example,the thread starter of this thread,me and him use to argue all the time about this.He used to defend the offical version years ago when we used to argue but now his professor at his college convinced him it was an inside job.and like many milions of others out there,he has woken up to the truth as well.Like you said,the numbers are growing all the time.again,well done. 👆 great post.
do you not get embarrased by the gibberish you post on here? as well the virtual felating of other members
Originally posted by Mr ParkerYou're a tool of the conspiracy nuts. Next you'll be saying I told you Clinton would be president/vice president/not the president depending on where she'll end up and come up with some bullshit excuse why.
well done my man.well done.Yeah Nist cant even keep their storys straight,first they say one thing,then when its been disproven by experts,they make something else up to try and justify themselves.their storys have changed so many times they have no credibility left anymore.every year more and more people are seeing the truth that it was an inside job all the time and waking up.the numbers are growing all the time.example,the thread starter of this thread,me and him use to argue all the time about this.He used to defend the offical version years ago when we used to argue but now his professor at his college convinced him it was an inside job.and like many milions of others out there,he has woken up to the truth as well.Like you said,the numbers are growing all the time.again,well done. 👆 great post.