The truth about 9/11

OutOfBreath · July 2010

Well, there's a difference between "a fire" and a huge goddamn plane ramming the building, tearing away who knows how many support beams and tearing away fire-proofing all over the place, exploding thousands of gallons of jet fuel on impact, and THEN having a big-ass fire eating away at the leftovers fueled by whatever stuff was in the office landscape. I'm not totally surprised it came down pretty fast when the 10 top floors dropped 2-3 meters through the compromised floor into the next, that the following collapses would just go faster and faster as it went down, nearing max speed pretty fast. It strengthens the theory that both towers came down after similar hits with the second one also getting a push from the first one falling down right next to it. Those tremors would locally be as strong as a pretty bad earthquake, after all.

So, the building was built to sustain fires, and it was actually built to sustain an airplane crashing into it. It was not built to sustain a huge plane filled with gas slamming in and starting a very hot fire in an entire, compromised floor. That's not an eventuality they usually think of.

As far as I've read, the official story is the one that makes most sense. (and is also the most thorough with a zounds of professionals being in on the process, who agreed to the "official story") The alternative explanations go off in all directions, killing eachother in the process.

Peace
Dan

Blockhead · July 2010

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there's a difference between "a fire" and a huge goddamn plane ramming the building, tearing away who knows how many support beams and tearing away fire-proofing all over the place, exploding thousands of gallons of jet fuel on impact, and THEN having a big-ass fire eating away at the leftovers fueled by whatever stuff was in the office landscape. I'm not totally surprised it came down pretty fast when the 10 top floors dropped 2-3 meters through the compromised floor into the next, that the following collapses would just go faster and faster as it went down, nearing max speed pretty fast. It strengthens the theory that both towers came down after similar hits with the second one also getting a push from the first one falling down right next to it. Those tremors would locally be as strong as a pretty bad earthquake, after all.

So, the building was built to sustain fires, and it was actually built to sustain an airplane crashing into it. It was not built to sustain a huge plane filled with gas slamming in and starting a very hot fire in an entire, compromised floor. That's not an eventuality they usually think of.

As far as I've read, the official story is the one that makes most sense. (and is also the most thorough with a zounds of professionals being in on the process, who agreed to the "official story") The alternative explanations go off in all directions, killing eachother in the process.

Peace
Dan

Can you tell me how Building 7 came done. and please make sure you back up your info with the offical story (NIST, 911 commission)

Blockhead · July 2010

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there's a difference between "a fire" and a huge goddamn plane ramming the building, tearing away who knows how many support beams and tearing away fire-proofing all over the place, exploding thousands of gallons of jet fuel on impact, and THEN having a big-ass fire eating away at the leftovers fueled by whatever stuff was in the office landscape. I'm not totally surprised it came down pretty fast when the 10 top floors dropped 2-3 meters through the compromised floor into the next, that the following collapses would just go faster and faster as it went down, nearing max speed pretty fast. It strengthens the theory that both towers came down after similar hits with the second one also getting a push from the first one falling down right next to it. Those tremors would locally be as strong as a pretty bad earthquake, after all.

Tearing away the fire-proofing??? are you aware on how that is applied. ALso please look into newtons law of conservation of momentium, When something pancakes its goes floor by floor, meaning each floor slows the momentium each time, making the way that building feel agains the physics of this planet. Also tell me how concrete was pulzverized into dust? And please explain the molten steel seen days after collapse. Fire does weaken steel but do you understand jet fuel could never reach the tep. to leave molten steel. We have still yet to get an explanation for that.Sounds like we need to address a fireprooing inspecstion in all sky scrapers in america if building are burning down and causing the whole building to collapse, Don't you think?

mikepegg44 · July 2010

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there's a difference between "a fire" and a huge goddamn plane ramming the building, tearing away who knows how many support beams and tearing away fire-proofing all over the place, exploding thousands of gallons of jet fuel on impact, and THEN having a big-ass fire eating away at the leftovers fueled by whatever stuff was in the office landscape. I'm not totally surprised it came down pretty fast when the 10 top floors dropped 2-3 meters through the compromised floor into the next, that the following collapses would just go faster and faster as it went down, nearing max speed pretty fast. It strengthens the theory that both towers came down after similar hits with the second one also getting a push from the first one falling down right next to it. Those tremors would locally be as strong as a pretty bad earthquake, after all.

Tearing away the fire-proofing??? are you aware on how that is applied. ALso please look into newtons law of conservation of momentium, When something pancakes its goes floor by floor, meaning each floor slows the momentium each time, making the way that building feel agains the physics of this planet. Also tell me how concrete was pulzverized into dust? And please explain the molten steel seen days after collapse. Fire does weaken steel but do you understand jet fuel could never reach the tep. to leave molten steel. We have still yet to get an explanation for that.Sounds like we need to address a fireprooing inspecstion in all sky scrapers in america if building are burning down and causing the whole building to collapse, Don't you think?

got any pictures of the molten steel?

OnTheEdge · July 2010

HeidiJam wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there's a difference between "a fire" and a huge goddamn plane ramming the building, tearing away who knows how many support beams and tearing away fire-proofing all over the place, exploding thousands of gallons of jet fuel on impact, and THEN having a big-ass fire eating away at the leftovers fueled by whatever stuff was in the office landscape. I'm not totally surprised it came down pretty fast when the 10 top floors dropped 2-3 meters through the compromised floor into the next, that the following collapses would just go faster and faster as it went down, nearing max speed pretty fast. It strengthens the theory that both towers came down after similar hits with the second one also getting a push from the first one falling down right next to it. Those tremors would locally be as strong as a pretty bad earthquake, after all.

So, the building was built to sustain fires, and it was actually built to sustain an airplane crashing into it. It was not built to sustain a huge plane filled with gas slamming in and starting a very hot fire in an entire, compromised floor. That's not an eventuality they usually think of.

As far as I've read, the official story is the one that makes most sense. (and is also the most thorough with a zounds of professionals being in on the process, who agreed to the "official story") The alternative explanations go off in all directions, killing eachother in the process.

Peace
Dan

Can you tell me how Building 7 came done. and please make sure you back up your info with the offical story (NIST, 911 commission)

Two of the tallest buildings in the country came down in a heap and shook the earth as far north as Maine. Why is it such a big mystery to people that building 7 came down? I'm actually suprised that was the only one.

Blockhead · July 2010

wow... what a scientific answer. Thanks for clearning it.
Its not wonder people belivie the officail story, with rantionalizations like that one.
Why didn't any other building come down, especially once closer to the WTC buildings. Why does the commission report and NIST the bible that you clowns go by say they don't know how building 7 came down. I am not saying its an inside job, or even claim to know what happened, I am just trying to get some questions answered. I will post pictures of the molten steel, care to comment on that?

Dirtie_Frank · July 2010

So controlled demolition? Not only did they cut beams in the building but they did it without anyone noticing it? for what 4 months too? :roll: Then let me guess too that it wasn't really a plane but a UAV.

catefrances · July 2010

and what will you americans do if it were to be discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that the destruction of the twin towers and the murder of all those poeple was perpetrated by the US government??

Commy · July 2010

catefrances wrote:

and what will you americans do if it were to be discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that the destruction of the twin towers and the murder of all those poeple was perpetrated by the US government??

one more for all the lazy americans.

One thing about media in the Unites States.......if the message it is trying to convey does not support the state line, chances are most americans will not see it. There is a bubble here that most are perfectly willing to reside in.

most of what we read, see hear is pro gov't....it takes an effort to learn the truth.....an effort most just can't seem to be bothered to put out.

I think its something in the food.

whether there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 or not is moot, most americans would never see the truth anyway.

something like 40% still get their news from the big 3 propaganda machines, that were so crucial in allowing W to invade Iraq......they're not journalists, they are puppets to manufacture consent.

the United States is an empire with the most advanced military in the world, they excel at warfare. if the enemy is public dissent or a foreign army, they know how to win.

still empires fall.

catefrances · July 2010

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and what will you americans do if it were to be discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that the destruction of the twin towers and the murder of all those poeple was perpetrated by the US government??

one more for all the lazy americans.

One thing about media in the Unites States.......if the message it is trying to convey does not support the state line, chances are most americans will not see it. There is a bubble here that most are perfectly willing to reside in.

most of what we read, see hear is pro gov't....it takes an effort to learn the truth.....an effort most just can't seem to be bothered to put out.

I think its something in the food.

whether there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 or not is moot, most americans would never see the truth anyway.

something like 40% still get their news from the big 3 propaganda machines, that were so crucial in allowing W to invade Iraq......they're not journalists, they are puppets to manufacture consent.

the United States is an empire with the most advanced military in the world, they excel at warfare. if the enemy is public dissent or a foreign army, they know how to win.

still empires fall.

but what would you do???

Commy · July 2010

catefrances wrote:

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

and what will you americans do if it were to be discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that the destruction of the twin towers and the murder of all those poeple was perpetrated by the US government??

one more for all the lazy americans.

One thing about media in the Unites States.......if the message it is trying to convey does not support the state line, chances are most americans will not see it. There is a bubble here that most are perfectly willing to reside in.

most of what we read, see hear is pro gov't....it takes an effort to learn the truth.....an effort most just can't seem to be bothered to put out.

I think its something in the food.

whether there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 or not is moot, most americans would never see the truth anyway.

something like 40% still get their news from the big 3 propaganda machines, that were so crucial in allowing W to invade Iraq......they're not journalists, they are puppets to manufacture consent.

the United States is an empire with the most advanced military in the world, they excel at warfare. if the enemy is public dissent or a foreign army, they know how to win.

still empires fall.

but what would you do???

our power is in our ability to shut this country down....ideally a general strike. which would put us in a position to make changes.

ideally we would take away their ability to do something like that in the future. get a more transparent military, truly put the military in the hands of the people. we need to get away from this idea that we have power by checking a box every 4 years, and truly take some power, genuine control of the military.

Sludge Factory · July 2010

Commy wrote:

our power is in our ability to shut this country down....ideally a general strike. which would put us in a position to make changes.

ideally we would take away their ability to do something like that in the future. get a more transparent military, truly put the military in the hands of the people. we need to get away from this idea that we have power by checking a box every 4 years, and truly take some power, genuine control of the military.

Do you mean something like militias instead of a standing army?

catefrances · July 2010

Commy wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but what would you do???

our power is in our ability to shut this country down....ideally a general strike. which would put us in a position to make changes.

ideally we would take away their ability to do something like that in the future. get a more transparent military, truly put the military in the hands of the people. we need to get away from this idea that we have power by checking a box every 4 years, and truly take some power, genuine control of the military.

im not talking collectively. im more interested in what action you all would take individually. how would you harness that extreme indignantion that you surely must feel when you discover that your government had attacked its own citizens.. that they had become the domestic terrorists they tell you theyre protecting you from.

Pepe Silvia · July 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

occam's razor.

apply it please.

We were attacked because of our policies in the middle east. Not because anyone hates our freedom or /anything stupid like that. They basically laid out why they attacked us, why is it such a strange thing for people to believe that this group plotted and attacked us for the reasons they said they did? Why is it holding our head in the sand because we believe that people orchestrated an attack and pulled it off because of extreme dedication to what they were doing.

nope, couldn't be that. It had to be the US gov't in some strange plot to wage a war that has done nothing but weaken our standing as a super power, added to a situation that devalued the dollar to the point of near collapse, damaged our foreign relations abilities, damaged numerous relationships with allies, etc etc etc.

Well if you apply occams razor to the collapses of the buildings then that throughly supports Conrtolled Demolition... does it not????

no it doesn't. The simplest solution is that GIANT FUCKING PLANES hit the buildings structurally weakening them to the point of failure. they then fell on top of themselves (pancaked). Why is that so hard to believe?

again, we were attacked for the reasons given, not so a few white men could get a little more money that their "plot" successfully lowered the value of anyway.

that might explain the first 2 buildings but not wtc7. they claim one side was damaged and that made it fall. but if a structure is damaged on a side or corner and weakens enough to fall it should topple over in that direction, not straight down without resistance.

also, you don't find it odd bush later said he didn't think about bin laden and he wasn't important because it's bigger than just 1 guy??? wtf is that about!? of course a concept is bigger than a single guy but what about this crime he supposedly masterminded and ordered? maybe i should rob a bank and argue that crime is much bigger than just me so no harm, no foul

it's a lot bigger than a few white men making a little more money, take a look at all the things they managed to change and agendas they put in motion with the blind support they had

OutOfBreath · July 2010

Pepe Silvia wrote:

that might explain the first 2 buildings but not wtc7. they claim one side was damaged and that made it fall. but if a structure is damaged on a side or corner and weakens enough to fall it should topple over in that direction, not straight down without resistance.

Mustn't forget the massive earthquake-tremors suffered by a building standing right next to a couple million tons of concrete slamming into the ground. The controlled demolition thesis demands that for days and weeks beforehand people were walking all over that building placing explosives everywhere. (That's how long it takes to prepare for stuff like that) You can't pull one of those "on the fly" shortly after the building is emptied of people. So, the commision couldn't pin down just why exacty it fell down. Isn't that strange, considering this wasn't exactly a controlled experiment, but trying to deduce from debris what might have happened.

Controlled demolition is still extremely unlikely, given that noone in that building noticed something was going on for the days it had to have taken to place all those charges. (Not to mention WHY would they need to demolish that building if they successfully brought down the two big'uns, and they did it to scare people into support. It didsn't add anything, so motive is also absent.) And any other alternative theory has yet to materialize to my attention. So, given the choice between "We're not sure" and the highly unlikely alternative (both physically and motive-wise), I'll stick with the "don't know" one.

also, you don't find it odd bush later said he didn't think about bin laden and he wasn't important because it's bigger than just 1 guy??? wtf is that about!? of course a concept is bigger than a single guy but what about this crime he supposedly masterminded and ordered? maybe i should rob a bank and argue that crime is much bigger than just me so no harm, no foul

Well, he IS correct in that statement. One man didn't do this. It took an organization of some scope to pull it off. Of which he happened to be the head, and he surely played a part, but one man didn't do it, and getting that one man changes nothing. You gotta get the organization behind. (The ones that actually DID it, also died in the process, remember?) So Bush actually gets that one right. (Although later they focused alot an getting Bin Laden for the pr-boost they needed)

it's a lot bigger than a few white men making a little more money, take a look at all the things they managed to change and agendas they put in motion with the blind support they had

Actually, what is striking is that so little has changed, really. And this comes from someone who also thought things were looking bad back in the day. For a stunt like this, a coup d'etat or something should or would have been the goal. For sure, they went into Afghanistan after this, but for what possible reason should someone want that beforehand? They abused the sentiments afterwards to sell the war on Iraq as well, which (maybe) Bush and (definitely) pals were just waiting for the excuse to go on. Many power players were pissed that the US didn't use the opportunity in the gulf war to oust Saddam. But kill thousands of Americans to justify it? Not seeing it. Taking advantage, yes. Planning and doing, no. And if they are so clever and have so much control of the state apparatus as to pull off and keep quiet 9-11, how did they not manage to place a couple of WMD in a hidden bunker somewhere in the country they were controlling militarily?

9-11 is an outrageous price for very few benefits for the perceived benefactors. You can get many power-people into doing dodgy shit overseas, or in countries they dont like, but I actually believe that the vast majority would have serious and severe qualms about killing thousands of fellow americans. Since their motivation usually is a sort of patriotism that also is good for their business (elsewhere).

Peace
Dan

ryanevolution · July 2010

Yes controlled demolition would take weeks to set up. That's why 30 year employees of the building said security was taken down for weeks before the event. Construction sounds were heard on supposedly abandoned floors. Undocumented workers were seen in the building. So there were signs. And then there's the video footage of the guys actually detonating one of the building by implosion.

OutOfBreath · July 2010

Are you referring to the good old "pull it" video? Where we dont know who is saying it, or in what context?

Peace
Dan

Pepe Silvia · July 2010

OutOfBreath wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

that might explain the first 2 buildings but not wtc7. they claim one side was damaged and that made it fall. but if a structure is damaged on a side or corner and weakens enough to fall it should topple over in that direction, not straight down without resistance.

Mustn't forget the massive earthquake-tremors suffered by a building standing right next to a couple million tons of concrete slamming into the ground. The controlled demolition thesis demands that for days and weeks beforehand people were walking all over that building placing explosives everywhere. (That's how long it takes to prepare for stuff like that) You can't pull one of those "on the fly" shortly after the building is emptied of people. So, the commision couldn't pin down just why exacty it fell down. Isn't that strange, considering this wasn't exactly a controlled experiment, but trying to deduce from debris what might have happened.

Controlled demolition is still extremely unlikely, given that noone in that building noticed something was going on for the days it had to have taken to place all those charges. (Not to mention WHY would they need to demolish that building if they successfully brought down the two big'uns, and they did it to scare people into support. It didsn't add anything, so motive is also absent.) And any other alternative theory has yet to materialize to my attention. So, given the choice between "We're not sure" and the highly unlikely alternative (both physically and motive-wise), I'll stick with the "don't know" one.

there were reports that at least at the 2 big towers certain floors were shut down while work was done shortly before. lots of files were destroyed in building 7 and lots of cases were dropped because of it, 1/2 of the floors that had fires that burned 'uncontrollably' happened to be the floors where the securities and exchange commission had all their offices. but i can't say for sure, just like i can't say for sure why bush and cheney refused to testify unless they were together and refused to testify under oath. and i don't know why the team fema picked to initially investigate building 7 were not allowed at the site but given a few pieces of scrap at a landfill and were denied blueprints to building 7 since they lacked any kind of subpoena power.

OutOfBreath wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

also, you don't find it odd bush later said he didn't think about bin laden and he wasn't important because it's bigger than just 1 guy??? wtf is that about!? of course a concept is bigger than a single guy but what about this crime he supposedly masterminded and ordered? maybe i should rob a bank and argue that crime is much bigger than just me so no harm, no foul

Well, he IS correct in that statement. One man didn't do this. It took an organization of some scope to pull it off. Of which he happened to be the head, and he surely played a part, but one man didn't do it, and getting that one man changes nothing. You gotta get the organization behind. (The ones that actually DID it, also died in the process, remember?) So Bush actually gets that one right. (Although later they focused alot an getting Bin Laden for the pr-boost they needed)

that is like the police saying they don't have any interest in finding manson because he only orchestrated the killings. he is the leader of the group that they say committed this attack, terrorism being bigger than 1 guy aside shouldn't he still be hunted down for it? maybe in ww2 they shouldn't have cared about hitler, the nazis were bigger than a single guy, afterall....

OutOfBreath wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

it's a lot bigger than a few white men making a little more money, take a look at all the things they managed to change and agendas they put in motion with the blind support they had

Actually, what is striking is that so little has changed, really. And this comes from someone who also thought things were looking bad back in the day. For a stunt like this, a coup d'etat or something should or would have been the goal. For sure, they went into Afghanistan after this, but for what possible reason should someone want that beforehand? They abused the sentiments afterwards to sell the war on Iraq as well, which (maybe) Bush and (definitely) pals were just waiting for the excuse to go on. Many power players were pissed that the US didn't use the opportunity in the gulf war to oust Saddam. But kill thousands of Americans to justify it? Not seeing it. Taking advantage, yes. Planning and doing, no. And if they are so clever and have so much control of the state apparatus as to pull off and keep quiet 9-11, how did they not manage to place a couple of WMD in a hidden bunker somewhere in the country they were controlling militarily?

9-11 is an outrageous price for very few benefits for the perceived benefactors. You can get many power-people into doing dodgy shit overseas, or in countries they dont like, but I actually believe that the vast majority would have serious and severe qualms about killing thousands of fellow americans. Since their motivation usually is a sort of patriotism that also is good for their business (elsewhere).

Peace
Dan

they also took a record surplus and pissed it away, mostly on war and weapons to where we are now which is a record deficit, i'd say that's a pretty big change. they got fisa rewritten so the warrantless wiretapping is perfectly legit now, i'd say that's a pretty big change. there's evasive measure like the patriot act passed and we have 2 administrations in a row that support the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without a trial, i'd say that's a pretty big change. we have prisons where torture is now legal and the geneva conventions 'quaint' holding 'terrorists' who were never even given a trial, some not even a charge, how is that not a big change? you say nothing much has changed and yet thousands of people have died over these 'small changes'. perpetual war seems like a pretty big change to me

i've already answered why i think they didn't plant any wmds which should be obvious to anyone - we are still there and funding it is always approved without a problem, hell, they even gave bonuses to companies AFTER the military proved they committed billing fraud, fed the troops spoiled meat, dirty water...without any problems so obviously there not being any wmds mattered fuckall

WaveCameCrashin · July 2010

Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.

mikepegg44 · July 2010

prfctlefts wrote:

Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.

exactly...no matter what they hear, it is always that someone else is in on it. I don't get it. Theoretical physics are just that...

Truthers is the biggest misnomer in our country. they aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in a controversy, and people like alex jones are laughing all the way to the bank.

edit:

but of course I was in on it so I am only trying to throw them off the scent

The truth about 9/11

Comments

Categories