Who actually feels the United States was behind the towers colapse - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

plsureking · 09-08-2011, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

So many little coincidences... so many quastions, it seems the only people who believe the official story are those who don't know the official story's "details".

i dont know what happened and i stopped caring a few years ago. the problem is not the facts, but the will of the American people to believe it was middle eastern terrorists. even if George W came on tv tomorrow and admitted that he and Cheney planned the thing (im not saying they did btw), most Americans would still blame middle eastern terrorists. the thought has been planted in American's minds by the media. it would be nearly impossible to uproot it.

xholly · 09-08-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vjo

As far as wiring the building's size, seems there were guys in dark clothing wandering around for 3-4 months before by some accounts. And I think they could wire it in 3 months. They wired Bldg 7.

i like some of your posts man but seriously, guys in dark clothing running around being suspicious?? comeon. thats just beyond funny.

DaddyHalbucks · 09-08-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vjo

There is no way the first tower (that collapsed) could collapse on it's own so quickly after being hit. It was the last hit (by the 2nd plane) and the first to go.

Steel doesnt melt till around 2800+ degrees. There is no way the steel frame heated that quickly throughout the building.

Steel frame structures do not pancake like a house of cards (or exactly like one under demolition).

Steel structures have burned for many hours and never once fell before. One in Japan was engulfed for over 18 hours and never fell. (as the vid above prob tells, did not view it, no need) This one burned for 45 mins (approx) and collapsed.

Acetylene torches are used to melt and cut hardened, high carbon steel (like frames in buildings) at over 2800 degrees, (blue-white flame, acetylene cutting torch, remember shop class?)

Normal fire like the one from Jet fuel burns around 1200 degrees.

These are all facts.

OK, here are some more facts:

The WTC was not just *a* steel building. It was one of the largest/ tallest buildings in the world. As such, it had special/ extra forces on it. A building like that doesn't need to have the steel "cut" or "melted" to demolish it. It only needs to have the heat *weaken* the trusses. When you take 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and burn for a while with lots of flammable debris, and add in a huge initial impact to blow off any insulation --that's exactly what can happen.

Watch the NOVA documentary. In the film, you can actually see the exact moment or frame when the trusses fail.

MediaGuy · 09-08-2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vjo

Im not picking on you Bronco

Govt had nothing to do with it. They are not even needed to pull it off. WHO has the motive? The govt are victims as I see it. (The Pentegon)

Who else could have prevented all military intervention or interception of the "hijacked" flights for a couple hours? Cave-bound Arabs with Satellite phones? Commercial property owners with a groan on for re-furbishing their building's asbestos fireproofing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xholly

just consider the amount of people that would have to be involved in this conspiracy. Has a single person ever said they were involved? ever talked about it to their friends etc? secrets are fucking hard things to keep especially when the secret is shared by thousands.

The A-Bomb had 130,000 people working on it, and about 10 to 15,000 "insiders" - starting in 1938 - and German and Japanese intelligence didn't have "wind" of it until Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and are still to this day not exactly on the public record.

Who in GLADIO were upper-up responsible? Who knows?

These things...

Now the A-Bomb was supposedly a noble effort... many have come forth, been declassified, etc... but if you were involved in a false-flag the size of 9/11, would you be coming out proudly?

:D

Argos88 · 09-08-2011, 08:37 PM

I just finished watching World Trade Center movie with Nicolas Cage.

in that movie they show explosions in the bottom of the towers, after the airplanes collapsed, so they show that the collapse was due of the explosions by FBI/CIA secret agents..

if its true or not, we dont know.

Zorgman · 09-08-2011, 08:42 PM

Check the green image behind bush, looks like the tower coming down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onedree

The United States was actually behind this ?

Rochard · 09-08-2011, 09:03 PM

The problem is with 9/11 is that it was a huge event in multiple states, witnessed first hand by tens of thousands, millions on live TV, and everyone else since. It's been over analyzed.

It's simple. If you have a three car accident witnessed by ten people, you'll get five different stories about what happened because they all saw it from different angles.

You can take one aspect of 9/11 and try to poke holes in it. "Steel doesn't melt at 600 degrees". But there's some problems with that. We've never build a 100 story building and rammed a huge jet plane full of jet fuel into it. Is the temperature that steel melts at even relevant? The steel got rammed by a fucking huge air plane, didn't need to melt but just bend a little, and failed to support the floors above it.

Buildings don't fall straight down when they collapse? Does that mean they tip over? I mean, when one floor falls on another floor, it's not going to tip over, it's going to collapse.

The little puffs that look like smoke from bombs? This was a pressurized building with hundreds of pressurized lines - everything from air to steam to oil to hydraulic fluid to window washing fluid was carried to the top of the building in pressurized lines. It might have been those lines. Or maybe it was just the fact it was a pressurized building - meaning, the only way air could escape was through the bottom (not likely) or through the hole the airplane punched... But when the floors fell, that air had to go someplace. If you've never been to the WTC when it was standing or a similar building that is pressurized, you understand this.

I also love the argument that "1000 scientists say it can't happen" a certain. Well, I have a degree in electrical engineering but that doesn't really qualify me to wire up a light switch. You have a huge degree but if you believe so firmly that the government did this, that's what your gonna say.

And finally is the lack of a smoking gun. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the people on it? Did they just take them out back and shoot them? How much explosives would have been required to take down those buildings, and how did they get planted without anyone seeing?

Caligari · 09-08-2011, 09:08 PM

The problem is the question, which should not be if the towers were demo'ed or not. This is deflection crap designed to steer away from the real issue of actually who was behind 9/11.
All of these sideline issues become "crazy conspiracies" which make every question about 9/11 seem paranoid, which has been the plan all along.

drmadcat · 09-08-2011, 09:13 PM

cummon nobody will ever know

The Demon · 09-08-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruff

I've been saying this all along. It was the same fucks that killed Kennedy.

Sam Giancana, Chicago Outfit, Santo Trafficante JR and the Tampa Crime Family? Yea, I'm pretty sure two of those are dead and the other two are close to being defunct.

potter · 09-08-2011, 09:22 PM

conspiracy threads are like train wrecks, i just can't help but slow down and watch them

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Read my post above.

An empty, gutted building of 2.2 million square feet took 3 months to prepare. ONE of the Twin Towers was 6 million square feet.

Think about how ridiculous the concept of being able to rig that in 1-2 weeks, even with the building "closed". Controlled demo requires unfettered access. Even a closed World Trade Center would be fettered, to say the least.

Anyway it's not that I don't believe the government wouldn't do it...but they couldn't. It's not logistically possible, at least for anyone that has even a layman's knowledge of what's involved with controlled demolition. It's a major endeavor that needs to take place in an uninhabited building. That means no people, exposed walls, no furniture -- freedom and access to every beam in the place.

Why the fuck am I even trying to explain simple shit like this? Fuck it.

Here's where you go..."but the building was closed..."

you have to sit and think about what is possible. Is that even an option for you people that want so badly to believe the US government destroyed a New York landmark full of Americans? It must suck to be so disillusioned. Why not move to Canada? Oh, but you're already there, never mind.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

omfg - best post ever

MediaGuy · 09-08-2011, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

The plane hit at a lower point of that tower = more weight above the impact area compared to the other tower. Basic physics; not surprising it would fall first.

Regardless, an object of lesser mass can't just pulverize an object three times it's mass regardless of the momentume or velocity - the upper portion fell as though through butter....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Steel loses much of its strength well below its melting point. And that matters a lot in regards to why the towers fell due to how they were built ... see my next response below..

The towers and many other buildings (such as WTC7) were built in such a way as to take weakened/softened steel into consideration; the weakened steel matrix would actually act as a "spring" to any tendencies to pile-driven gravitational effects.

Not to say that the structure gained strength if any of the steel softened, just to say that *if* the steel somehow managed to soften globally by some mysterious process, it still wouldn't have collapsed, AND if it had somehow it couldn't have softened all steel universally so that a vertical, symmetrical collapse could ensue, it would have fallen asymmetrically, tipping for the most part at it's weakest sections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

The towers were tube-frame construction unlike most, especially older, skyscrapers which are box framed construction. The difference is that box-frame is akin to a grid with each floor being supported by numerous internal columns. Whereas, in tube-frame, there is an inner core and the outer walls with few to no internal columns...

Tube-frames have become common because of their exceptional rigidity and flexibility - from earthquake as well as hurricane type forces, Their construction was also designed to resist multiple airliner impacts, let alone one. The "grid" you refer to is much more tensile and resistant to impacts than the classical box grids.

You also make it sound as though there is nothing but air between the core and external support, which is false.

If what you said were true, then the external "shell" would have shredded or been shedded and the core or "spindle" would have remained standing - which didn't happen, it was as though the core was shredded top to bottom, an impossibility considering the localized impoacts of the planes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

The towers, also including building 7, were tube-frame construction verses box-frame ... as the steel weakened from the heat, the floor supports sagged and pulled at the connections between the core and outer walls ...

Which according to this and NIST's cartoon reconstruction would have pulled the external parts of the building indward (and WTC7 wasn't a tube construct btw) which didn't happen. The towers blew out, laterally, against the suppositions of gravitation driven collapses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Eventually, as the stress built up, portions of affected floors began to fall onto the floor beneath. At some point, the load limit of the floors below was reached, starting a cascade of floors falling onto the floors below; pancaking effect.

NIST and the government 'experts' dismissed the pancaking years and years ago. Even if you were partially right, it would have taken a second or more for each flloor to "pancake" or resist then give out to the upper weight (what's called the pile-driver effect) - which at one hundred stories would have taken a lot more than 10 seconds for the whole thing to come down - would have taken more like a minute and a half, if all were symmetrical and perfect and slam-resist-slam-resist perfect. Which it warn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

Much of the jet fuel was rapidly consumed and hence the temperature it burns at is of little consequence. 1200F is plenty hot enough to ignite materials within the building, which then burned for an extended period of time, weakening the steel, leading to an unstoppable pancaking of floors, and ultimately, the destruction of the buildings.

Pancaking the government already said was not an event.

Jet fuel/turpentine/lighter fluid can't weaken steel to the point you're talking about. If all the fuel burned off and left wood and sheetrock and paper burning for an hour, there's no way that could soften steel. NIST has already stated that it was unlikely any of the fires burned above 650 farenheit. A foundry needs six hours and more at temps of 3000 to begin to liquefy steel, and yet liquid metal was pooled beneath the towers for weeks on end after the destructions...

[QUOTE=Ron Bennett;18413601]In short, the difference between tube-frame (Towers 1, 2, and 7), which allowed for large open floor plans, and box-frame (ie. Empire State Building) is ultimately what did the towers in ... lack of structural redundancy / robustness compared to traditional box-frame structures.
/QUOTE]

This is a familiar myth that was already discredited and in fact would have contributed to the structure actually lasting longer than a traditional construct particularly due to the impacts. However regardless unless the fires were ignited and maintained by accelerants capable of maintaining temperatures above 2000 farenheit minimum for at least 5 hours, the structure should not have suffered, regardless if the steel weakened or rather softened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vjo

It wasnt the government.. it was the owners of the building.. all 3 buildings. Need I say his name.

Better not.

Govt had nothing to do with it. They are not even needed to pull it off. WHO has the motive? The govt are victims as I see it. (The Pentegon)

Who else but elements of the government could have prevented all air support from engaging? Who but elements in the government could have arranged for all apparently available forces to be engaged in military exercises on the same day at the same time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

OK, here are some more facts:

The WTC was not just *a* steel building. It was one of the largest/ tallest buildings in the world. As such, it had special/ extra forces on it. A building like that doesn't need to have the steel "cut" or "melted" to demolish it. It only needs to have the heat *weaken* the trusses. When you take 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and burn for a while with lots of flammable debris, and add in a huge initial impact to blow off any insulation --that's exactly what can happen.

Watch the NOVA documentary. In the film, you can actually see the exact moment or frame when the trusses fail.

So the impacts blew all the insulation off all the beams from top to bottom?

Then wood and office walls burned hot enough to melt steel, forge swords, liquefy man's most tensile alloy in history within minutes?

A building like that as you say was specially constructed to withstand multiples of the very forces apparently applied to it that day, as well as those to which you refer.

The NOVA "documentary" was mistaken because they excluded any core column support in their computer "simulation" cartoon, and they subsequently corrected that or apologized for it...

Don't watch NOVA or listen to NIST unless you're willing to dig....

Vjo · 09-08-2011, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

The plane hit at a lower point of that tower = more weight above the impact area compared to the other tower. Basic physics; not surprising it would fall first.

Steel loses much of its strength well below its melting point. And that matters a lot in regards to why the towers fell due to how they were built ... see my next response below...

The towers were tube-frame construction unlike most, especially older, skyscrapers which are box framed construction. The difference is that box-frame is akin to a grid with each floor being supported by numerous internal columns. Whereas, in tube-frame, there is an inner core and the outer walls with few to no internal columns...

The towers, also including building 7, were tube-frame construction verses box-frame ... as the steel weakened from the heat, the floor supports sagged and pulled at the connections between the core and outer walls ...

Eventually, as the stress built up, portions of affected floors began to fall onto the floor beneath. At some point, the load limit of the floors below was reached, starting a cascade of floors falling onto the floors below; pancaking effect.

Heat up some steel to even half of that for awhile and one sees plainly it loses much of its strength; bends much easier.

Much of the jet fuel was rapidly consumed and hence the temperature it burns at is of little consequence. 1200F is plenty hot enough to ignite materials within the building, which then burned for an extended period of time, weakening the steel, leading to an unstoppable pancaking of floors, and ultimately, the destruction of the buildings.

In short, the difference between tube-frame (Towers 1, 2, and 7), which allowed for large open floor plans, and box-frame (ie. Empire State Building) is ultimately what did the towers in ... lack of structural redundancy / robustness compared to traditional box-frame structures.

Ron

Good points and nice post. Thanks. I only raise the q's I have and it is nice to see someone answer them. Somewhere between my extremes and your belief lies the truth.

So you believe the lower floors were affected? That is a very important q. You also believe that a sudden burst of inertia like picking up three upper floors for say 20 feet and dropping them could cause the weakened lower floors (if they were weakened) to pancake?

Perhaps if they were weakend but, I thought the lower floors were fairly untouched. Werent fireman going up like 30 floors or such. Sorry for my facts. It's been a while.

I just cant see how the bldgs could pancake if the lower floors were mostly untouched.

Some guys agree with that viewpoint. Some don't.

cooldude7 · 09-08-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drmadcat

cummon nobody will ever know

maybe julian knows., hes got all the cables .

DaddyHalbucks · 09-08-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Then wood and office walls burned hot enough to melt steel, forge swords, liquefy man's most tensile alloy in history within minutes?

A building like that as you say was specially constructed to withstand multiples of the very forces apparently applied to it that day, as well as those to which you refer.

Again, the steel was *weakened* because of the heat. Whether it actually melted or not is irrelevant. Have a look at the schematics of the trusses. It makes perfect sense that they would collapse with much of their strength depleted. Ask any competent engineer.

The building was designed to withstand the fact that it was the tallest building in the world. That alone puts enormous stress its components. It was probably not designed to withstand a deliberate military type attack with a fully loaded 757 slamming in at 500 MPH.

Vjo · 09-08-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Who else but elements of the government could have prevented all air support from engaging? Who but elements in the government could have arranged for all apparently available forces to be engaged in military exercises on the same day at the same time?

Good point. Not letting them off the hook and yeah they did gain big.. we went to war.

I guess I meant it was poss it was not only the govt.

Certainly the owners had lots to gain by what happened as well.

Anyhow interesting discussion. I am NOT an Alex Jones guy but I just dont buy the pancaking. Who did what or why it happened I have no idea.

My basic premises:

1) I dont think the lower floors were weakened from fire or impact.

2) The normal frame could hold up under huge sudden inertia if it was sound as it SHOULD have been. (minus poss detonation spots or pre planned weak spots)

There is a lot of verticle strength in those huge IBeams or Mbeams or whatever beams they are. Huge verticle strength.

Engineers have those stresses all fig out. A lil reinforced steel can hold a lot of weight. It was certainly not that easy to pancake. It is hard to pancake an erector set. (remember those

) so I dont buy it.

MediaGuy · 09-08-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The problem is with 9/11 is that it was a huge event in multiple states, witnessed first hand by tens of thousands, millions on live TV, and everyone else since. It's been over analyzed.

It's simple. If you have a three car accident witnessed by ten people, you'll get five different stories about what happened because they all saw it from different angles.

The multiple misperceptions (such as the case of the Pentagon) aren't the issue.

Me and you can look at three similar symmetrical building "collapses" and come away with different conclusions somehow (you think the coincidence is possible, I don't) but you can't in a nut dismiss all the other "coinkydinks" of that day and those events, collectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You can take one aspect of 9/11 and try to poke holes in it. "Steel doesn't melt at 600 degrees". But there's some problems with that. We've never build a 100 story building and rammed a huge jet plane full of jet fuel into it. Is the temperature that steel melts at even relevant? The steel got rammed by a fucking huge air plane, didn't need to melt but just bend a little, and failed to support the floors above it.

The temperature at which steel melts is a constant, as is the temperature at which steel begins to soften; as is the construction of the buildings taking into account these factors to allow distribution of the building load in the event of steel "softening" in the event of a catastrophic fire.

Multiple airliner impacts were taken into consideration, using older airframes which were heavier due to the fact that they were more steel based versus modern planes which had a lot more aluminum used in their build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Buildings don't fall straight down when they collapse? Does that mean they tip over? I mean, when one floor falls on another floor, it's not going to tip over, it's going to collapse.

Yes, they should tip. Pancaking was ruled out of the equation very early - NIST was challenged on their science and changed their "theory".

And heat dispersion being what it is, several impacted and burning floors could not have heated and softened every truss, every beam, every support column and joint simultaneously so that spontaneously they surrendered to gravity.

Gravity would also not explain how 20 ton pieces flew 300 to 600 feet away from the event.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The little puffs that look like smoke from bombs? This was a pressurized building with hundreds of pressurized lines - everything from air to steam to oil to hydraulic fluid to window washing fluid was carried to the top of the building in pressurized lines. It might have been those lines. Or maybe it was just the fact it was a pressurized building - meaning, the only way air could escape was through the bottom (not likely) or through the hole the airplane punched... But when the floors fell, that air had to go someplace. If you've never been to the WTC when it was standing or a similar building that is pressurized, you understand this.

The pressurization argument is a fallacy because any hermetic condition in the building was compromized by the impact.

Besides if you look at the videos you see the building corners blasting out - not windows, not squibs, but structural supports blowing out in clouds of destructive energy - I doubt the fax machines or overheated water coolers did this.

[QUOTE=Rochard;18413708]I also love the argument that "1000 scientists say it can't happen" a certain. Well, I have a degree in electrical engineering but that doesn't really qualify me to wire up a light switch. You have a huge degree but if you believe so firmly that the government did this, that's what your gonna say.[/quote[
I don't know about the qualifications of those scientists, but a lot of them are structural engineers, physicists, architects, etc... and their petitiion is signed by more than 15,000 people, they're not the only ones involved - and they don't make any claims other than their evidence points to, and only demand an actual investigation, rather than the 9/11 commission whitewash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And finally is the lack of a smoking gun. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the people on it? Did they just take them out back and shoot them? How much explosives would have been required to take down those buildings, and how did they get planted without anyone seeing?

I don't think or talk about the Pentagon. What's unique is that the FBI have all the videos concerning this. I don't point or signify anything about that particular event.

Apparently, the amount of "explosives" if you take the evidence of nano-thermite already pointed to, isn't as tremendous as with a traditional demolition, if that's what they were. And there were reportedly enough blank spots in recent WTC history pre-destruction for strategic destructive agents to be implanted.

I dunno but seems the questions outnumber the "answers" when it comes to this... and that a real investigation is required, with what evidence we have remaining...

:D

MediaGuy · 09-08-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Again, the steel was *weakened* because of the heat. Whether it actually melted or not is irrelevant. Have a look at the schematics of the trusses. It makes perfect sense that they would collapse with much of their strength depleted. Ask any competent engineer.

The building was designed to withstand the fact that it was the tallest building in the world. That alone puts enormous stress its components. It was probably not designed to withstand a deliberate military type attack with a fully loaded 757 slamming in at 500 MPH.

You're right - it's irrelevant whether or not the steel could have melted. Which it couldn't have.

It doesn't make "perfect sense" becuase no matter how weak the trusses were in the immediate orbit of the impacts, they were uncompromised above and below that.

If all the trusses were set to give out at once, then maybe you could have your collapse - if you consider the spindle or core columns would remain, which they didn't. They were shredded to 20-foot lengths like much of the building support.

BYQ the WYC towers were designed according to designers, architects etc... to withstand multiple impacts from commercial airliners - there's a quote somewhere on this very fact.

Flying an airliner into the building is not a military type operation btw...

:D

Ron Bennett · 09-08-2011, 10:26 PM

The towers were built with the utmost of economy...

An example of that economizing was plainly evident on 911 to some survivors who were able to punch their way through drywall and escape into the core section. The walls of the core ideally should have been reinforced concrete, but that would have added substantial expense, and taken up a bit more valuable space. And hence, drywall was used instead - one of numerous cost saving moves...

Point is the buildings for as amazing as they were, weren't indestructible - many here who are claiming the towers couldn't fall straight down, fell too fast, etc ignore the power and properties of gravity...

Imagine part of a floor weighing, say a million pounds, falling on to the floor below ... that floor below must support both itself plus that additional weight ... then, imagine a portion of next floor above those two falling on top of them ... and repeat that once or twice more, and the design limit is going to be far exceeded leading to a pancaking effect...

As for why the floors, and ultimately the entire structure, fell straight down instead of tipping over, is, in large part, due to the extreme strength of the outside walls - they were as strong, if not more so, than the core.

With all that said, as another poster above said, all this debating takes away from a more important issue being who was really behind 911 / did the U.S. government, as in Pearl Harbor, know a major attack was imminent, and purposely allow it to happen?...

It's remarkable how quick the PATRIOT Act was written and passed into law, and how quickly the TSA and Homeland Security were created. And then recall the whole Anthrax scare ... who was really behind that, and, importantly, what was that really all about? -an excuse to further control the population / push through unpopular policy? Those are 911 related issues that really need to be investigated and discussed more.

Ron

papill0n · 09-08-2011, 10:52 PM

no surprises a complete idiot would start a thread like this

drmadcat · 09-08-2011, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooldude7

maybe julian knows., hes got all the cables .

ye and look were he is hiding know he was ment to relise more on bank of america but nothing has happened

papill0n · 09-08-2011, 10:55 PM

and how would your dumb ass respond if your government was behind it dopey?

according to you you felt no remore after hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese were severly affected by earthquakes, tsunamis and radioactivity because of the actions of their government more than 50 years ago ?

so deadshit if we do find out your government was behind 9-11 what then ?

it's just suck shit to all the innocent americans that died is it ? just like it japan ?

lets hear it

The Demon · 09-08-2011, 11:16 PM

It's amusing that the biggest crackpots are on internet forums. They believe everyone is a sheep and that they're somehow 'different' because they allegedly know something everyone else doesn't, using retarded logic and rationalizations to compensate for their lack of individualism.

DWB · 09-09-2011, 12:55 AM

Do I think the government was behind it? No.

Do I believe the official story? No.

HerPimp · 09-09-2011, 01:23 AM

This a conspiracy site?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

wehateporn · 09-09-2011, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caligari

The problem is the question, which should not be if the towers were demo'ed or not. This is deflection crap designed to steer away from the real issue of actually who was behind 9/11.
All of these sideline issues become "crazy conspiracies" which make every question about 9/11 seem paranoid, which has been the plan all along.

Very good point!

It's time to move on from this and get onto PNAC, Relevant History, The Bankers, The Agenda, Depopulation etc. That way those who still stick with the official story, will start to get an idea of the bigger picture and start to see that 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg; there are dark times coming unless we can win the war of information.

I'll start with Agenda 21, Wikipedia says

"Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment."

Think this can't happen? This is the UN we're talking about, this is the Bankers! They got women out to work which would have seemed incredibly unlikely in the past, these guys are experts and have incredible control and wealth.

Overload · 09-09-2011, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerPimp

This a conspiracy site?

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

hum, looks interesting ... pretty scientific ... ie

Overload · 09-09-2011, 02:17 AM

i guess all architects agree with this ...

Building 7 was 5 times as tall as deep.

To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously.

Any asymmetry in damage would cause asymmetric collapse:
the building would topple.

No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse.

Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.

wehateporn · 09-09-2011, 02:19 AM

Whatever side you are on with 9/11, please forget about that for a moment. I would like you to keep this in mind for the next few months and to start paying attention to the sky where you live.

You've probably heard of HAARP before, well it's possible you can even see it's effects from where you live.

The video below shows what occurs after the geo-engineering team have been spraying Aluminium. This is the part that the debunkers of geo-engineering never show you, because they know they can't debunk it.

This is what it looks like on RADAR

HAARP is a major part of how they will bring in Agenda 21; it's an incredibly powerful weapon. It will be used to make it seem like nature is out of control, so we all have to move to "Save Havens".

Overload · 09-09-2011, 02:27 AM

and lolz at the lil campfire that is said to have brought down the towers ...
THIS is a fire!!! and yet, the steel structure did NOT collapse ...
ah well, i guess anything build in america is weak and third choice only?

Overload · 09-09-2011, 02:43 AM

and ... watch very closely ... what is that flare along with the plane?!

wehateporn · 09-09-2011, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overload

and ... watch very closely ... what is that flare along with the plane?!

That's an interesting one that

Overload · 09-09-2011, 02:49 AM

b4 i forget ... they found plane fuselage at the pentagon but the TWO TITANIUM-STEEL ENGINES HAVE BEEN VAPORIZED??? does that make ANY sense?

Avalana · 09-09-2011, 03:05 AM

9/11 was an inside job

Lucy - CSC · 09-09-2011, 03:24 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods They had planned on doing exactly the same in the past.

Lucy - CSC · 09-09-2011, 03:25 AM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=zcsbf...&feature=feedu Not to sure how reliable this is.

wehateporn · 09-09-2011, 03:32 AM

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, is the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell "I am Willing to Testify" If Dick Cheney is Put on Trial.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/3...ence_wilkerson

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 09-09-2011, 03:39 AM

As of August 2, 4,683 brave Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) on October 7, 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began with the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

Peace and Love,

ADG

wehateporn · 09-09-2011, 03:40 AM

This is one of the key men behind 9/11, notice the laugh he tries to hide. If you're good at spotting a liar; look at his eyes in this video

mafia_man · 09-09-2011, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overload

and ... watch very closely ... what is that flare along with the plane?!

Did you not see the cursor hovering above where that white line was drawn by whoever was controlling it?

Somebody at the studio was highlighting the position of the plane, there's no flare you dummy.

Lucy - CSC · 09-09-2011, 04:41 AM

My ex-boyfriend worked in demolition. The whole of his family did and had done for years. All of them stated that the 3 towers were controlled demolition and that it would be quite easy to rig the buildings in a weekend without anyone knowing the explosives were there.

wehateporn · 09-09-2011, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mafia_man

Did you not see the cursor hovering above where that white line was drawn by whoever was controlling it?

Somebody at the studio was highlighting the position of the plane, there's no flare you dummy.

I see the cursor too

Brujah · 09-09-2011, 05:29 AM

I believe in all conspiracy theories. All of them!

Fabien · 09-09-2011, 05:31 AM

Oh come on !
Seriously, after 10 years. NO LEAKS from all the people that would have been required to pull such a thing.

You're watching too much movies bunch of lefties hehehehehehe

core_dump · 09-09-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fabien

Oh come on !
Seriously, after 10 years. NO LEAKS from all the people that would have been required to pull such a thing.

They pulled it off just fine for the moon landings!

CaptainHowdy · 09-09-2011, 05:52 AM

OP is hot - thread closed.

PR_Glen · 09-09-2011, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overload

facts: burning kerosine can NOT liquify steel and yet the cellars of the towers were FILLED with molten steel (still burning firemen boots WEEKS after the collapse!)

fact: steel beams don't need to liquefy to become compromised.

Why do you think they x-ray welds on critical connections in a building or structure? It's because even a hairline crack in it could cause a subsidence and even a collapse in a crucial point. Now add a shit tonne of jet fuel and a giant plane crashing into those welds in hundreds of places. What do you get? Compromised joints. What happens when compromised joints have thousands of tonnes of weight on them? They collapse... the rest is basic momentum....

explosions? air compression from tonnes of building coming down! so strong that it burst windows in floors bellow, so strong it blew people apart in the basement and stair wells...

If you slow down and think about the ACTUAL facts of what happened, shit makes a lot more sense doesn't it?

PornoStar69 · 09-09-2011, 06:00 AM

i'll take on all BOTS,SHILLS & DISINFO agents

Bring it

bronco67 · 09-09-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vjo

Im not picking on you Bronco

I usually agree with u but..

It wasnt the government.. it was the owners of the building.. all 3 buildings. Need I say his name.

Better not.

Govt had nothing to do with it. They are not even needed to pull it off. WHO has the motive? The govt are victims as I see it. (The Pentegon)

As far as wiring the building's size, seems there were guys in dark clothing wandering around for 3-4 months before by some accounts. And I think they could wire it in 3 months. They wired Bldg 7.

BTW was building 7 occupied by people months before? THAT is the Q. If it was, well they had no prob wiring it with whatever private firm did the job.

I think it could be wired. They wired 7 no prob. And (how convenient) had scheduled the demolition for about the same time as the Twin Towers.

Then as i just read (hadnt heard that) IF they evacuated the Towers for two weeks before well..

here's the problem with you Truthers...you say everything as if it true. You said "they wired 7 no prob".

really? you know that building 7 was wired? You're saying it like its some kind of fact.

PR_Glen · 09-09-2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucy - CSC

My ex-boyfriend worked in demolition. The whole of his family did and had done for years. All of them stated that the 3 towers were controlled demolition and that it would be quite easy to rig the buildings in a weekend without anyone knowing the explosives were there.

ohh case closed...

my brother is an arborist and he can rig a tree to come down in about an hour or so. He thinks it wasn't a controlled demolition--he thinks it was lumber jacks...

09-08-2011, 09:03 PM	#57
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,303	The problem is with 9/11 is that it was a huge event in multiple states, witnessed first hand by tens of thousands, millions on live TV, and everyone else since. It's been over analyzed. It's simple. If you have a three car accident witnessed by ten people, you'll get five different stories about what happened because they all saw it from different angles. You can take one aspect of 9/11 and try to poke holes in it. "Steel doesn't melt at 600 degrees". But there's some problems with that. We've never build a 100 story building and rammed a huge jet plane full of jet fuel into it. Is the temperature that steel melts at even relevant? The steel got rammed by a fucking huge air plane, didn't need to melt but just bend a little, and failed to support the floors above it. Buildings don't fall straight down when they collapse? Does that mean they tip over? I mean, when one floor falls on another floor, it's not going to tip over, it's going to collapse. The little puffs that look like smoke from bombs? This was a pressurized building with hundreds of pressurized lines - everything from air to steam to oil to hydraulic fluid to window washing fluid was carried to the top of the building in pressurized lines. It might have been those lines. Or maybe it was just the fact it was a pressurized building - meaning, the only way air could escape was through the bottom (not likely) or through the hole the airplane punched... But when the floors fell, that air had to go someplace. If you've never been to the WTC when it was standing or a similar building that is pressurized, you understand this. I also love the argument that "1000 scientists say it can't happen" a certain. Well, I have a degree in electrical engineering but that doesn't really qualify me to wire up a light switch. You have a huge degree but if you believe so firmly that the government did this, that's what your gonna say. And finally is the lack of a smoking gun. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the people on it? Did they just take them out back and shoot them? How much explosives would have been required to take down those buildings, and how did they get planted without anyone seeing? __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

09-08-2011, 09:08 PM	#58
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	The problem is the question, which should not be if the towers were demo'ed or not. This is deflection crap designed to steer away from the real issue of actually who was behind 9/11. All of these sideline issues become "crazy conspiracies" which make every question about 9/11 seem paranoid, which has been the plan all along. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

09-08-2011, 09:13 PM	#59
drmadcat Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: in the back room wanking Posts: 2,024	cummon nobody will ever know __________________ asiamoviepass.com

09-08-2011, 10:26 PM	#69
Ron Bennett Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,653	The towers were built with the utmost of economy... An example of that economizing was plainly evident on 911 to some survivors who were able to punch their way through drywall and escape into the core section. The walls of the core ideally should have been reinforced concrete, but that would have added substantial expense, and taken up a bit more valuable space. And hence, drywall was used instead - one of numerous cost saving moves... Point is the buildings for as amazing as they were, weren't indestructible - many here who are claiming the towers couldn't fall straight down, fell too fast, etc ignore the power and properties of gravity... Imagine part of a floor weighing, say a million pounds, falling on to the floor below ... that floor below must support both itself plus that additional weight ... then, imagine a portion of next floor above those two falling on top of them ... and repeat that once or twice more, and the design limit is going to be far exceeded leading to a pancaking effect... As for why the floors, and ultimately the entire structure, fell straight down instead of tipping over, is, in large part, due to the extreme strength of the outside walls - they were as strong, if not more so, than the core. With all that said, as another poster above said, all this debating takes away from a more important issue being who was really behind 911 / did the U.S. government, as in Pearl Harbor, know a major attack was imminent, and purposely allow it to happen?... It's remarkable how quick the PATRIOT Act was written and passed into law, and how quickly the TSA and Homeland Security were created. And then recall the whole Anthrax scare ... who was really behind that, and, importantly, what was that really all about? -an excuse to further control the population / push through unpopular policy? Those are 911 related issues that really need to be investigated and discussed more. Ron __________________ Domagon - Website Management and Domain Name Sales

09-08-2011, 11:16 PM	#73
The Demon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,336	It's amusing that the biggest crackpots are on internet forums. They believe everyone is a sheep and that they're somehow 'different' because they allegedly know something everyone else doesn't, using retarded logic and rationalizations to compensate for their lack of individualism. __________________ Greed is Good

09-08-2011, 08:37 PM	#55
Argos88 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,732	I just finished watching World Trade Center movie with Nicolas Cage. in that movie they show explosions in the bottom of the towers, after the airplanes collapsed, so they show that the collapse was due of the explosions by FBI/CIA secret agents.. if its true or not, we dont know.

09-08-2011, 10:52 PM	#70
papill0n Unregistered Abuser Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 15,547	no surprises a complete idiot would start a thread like this

09-08-2011, 10:55 PM	#72
papill0n Unregistered Abuser Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 15,547	and how would your dumb ass respond if your government was behind it dopey? according to you you felt no remore after hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese were severly affected by earthquakes, tsunamis and radioactivity because of the actions of their government more than 50 years ago ? so deadshit if we do find out your government was behind 9-11 what then ? it's just suck shit to all the innocent americans that died is it ? just like it japan ? lets hear it

09-09-2011, 12:55 AM	#74
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	Do I think the government was behind it? No. Do I believe the official story? No.

09-09-2011, 01:23 AM	#75
HerPimp Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 1,197	This a conspiracy site? http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html __________________

09-09-2011, 02:17 AM	#78
Overload Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Beck's City, North Teutonia Posts: 3,185	i guess all architects agree with this ... Building 7 was 5 times as tall as deep. To bring this building down into its footprint required that all 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns be destroyed simultaneously. Any asymmetry in damage would cause asymmetric collapse: the building would topple. No combination of rubble impact damage, fires, or fuel tank explosions could have destroyed all columns simultaneously, as required to cause a vertical collapse. Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures. __________________ There aren't enough faces and palms on this planet for an appropriate reaction to religion.

09-09-2011, 02:19 AM	#79
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Whatever side you are on with 9/11, please forget about that for a moment. I would like you to keep this in mind for the next few months and to start paying attention to the sky where you live. You've probably heard of HAARP before, well it's possible you can even see it's effects from where you live. The video below shows what occurs after the geo-engineering team have been spraying Aluminium. This is the part that the debunkers of geo-engineering never show you, because they know they can't debunk it. This is what it looks like on RADAR HAARP is a major part of how they will bring in Agenda 21; it's an incredibly powerful weapon. It will be used to make it seem like nature is out of control, so we all have to move to "Save Havens". __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

09-09-2011, 02:27 AM	#80
Overload Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Beck's City, North Teutonia Posts: 3,185	and lolz at the lil campfire that is said to have brought down the towers ... THIS is a fire!!! and yet, the steel structure did NOT collapse ... ah well, i guess anything build in america is weak and third choice only? __________________ There aren't enough faces and palms on this planet for an appropriate reaction to religion.

09-09-2011, 02:43 AM	#81
Overload Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Beck's City, North Teutonia Posts: 3,185	and ... watch very closely ... what is that flare along with the plane?! __________________ There aren't enough faces and palms on this planet for an appropriate reaction to religion.

09-09-2011, 02:49 AM	#83
Overload Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Beck's City, North Teutonia Posts: 3,185	b4 i forget ... they found plane fuselage at the pentagon but the TWO TITANIUM-STEEL ENGINES HAVE BEEN VAPORIZED??? does that make ANY sense? __________________ There aren't enough faces and palms on this planet for an appropriate reaction to religion.

09-09-2011, 03:05 AM	#84
Avalana Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Coconut Grove Posts: 594	9/11 was an inside job __________________ bad behavior - Adult & Porn Site Reviews - Need a honest Review for your Adult Porn Site? Just drop me a line - ICQ @BADBEHAVIOR or SKYPE avalana.porngeekz

09-09-2011, 03:24 AM	#85
Lucy - CSC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 490	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods They had planned on doing exactly the same in the past.

09-09-2011, 03:25 AM	#86
Lucy - CSC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 490	https://youtube.com/watch?v=zcsbf...&feature=feedu Not to sure how reliable this is.

09-09-2011, 03:32 AM	#87
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Ex-Bush Official Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: "I am Willing to Testify" If Dick Cheney is Put on Trial Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, is the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell "I am Willing to Testify" If Dick Cheney is Put on Trial. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/3...ence_wilkerson __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

09-09-2011, 03:39 AM	#88
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	As of August 2, 4,683 brave Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) on October 7, 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began with the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. Peace and Love, ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

09-09-2011, 03:40 AM	#89
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	This is one of the key men behind 9/11, notice the laugh he tries to hide. If you're good at spotting a liar; look at his eyes in this video __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

09-09-2011, 04:41 AM	#91
Lucy - CSC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 490	My ex-boyfriend worked in demolition. The whole of his family did and had done for years. All of them stated that the 3 towers were controlled demolition and that it would be quite easy to rig the buildings in a weekend without anyone knowing the explosives were there.

09-09-2011, 05:29 AM	#93
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	I believe in all conspiracy theories. All of them! __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

09-09-2011, 05:31 AM	#94
Fabien Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 4,787	Oh come on ! Seriously, after 10 years. NO LEAKS from all the people that would have been required to pull such a thing. You're watching too much movies bunch of lefties hehehehehehe

09-09-2011, 05:52 AM	#96
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,177	OP is hot - thread closed. __________________ FLASH SALE INSANITY! deal with a 100% Trusted Seller Buy Traffic Spots on a High-Quality Network 1 Year or Lifetime — That’s Right, Until the Internet Explodes!

09-09-2011, 06:00 AM	#98
PornoStar69 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: xxweekxx mothers bed. Posts: 2,024	i'll take on all BOTS,SHILLS & DISINFO agents Bring it __________________ GFY King?