Learn the truth about 9/11!

[PSPHax0r9]

To anybody with a clue about physics, engineering or science, it is beyond any doubt that WTC buildings were brought done with controlled demolitions. It is blatant and WTC Building 7 makes it so obvious that I am surprised that people here just do not get it.

Did you watch the video? It would have been quite easy for the building to fall considering its architecture and the placement of backup generators and their fuel supplies. It is definitely NOT "beyond doubt" that the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions, in fact, it is very probable that they weren't. I can't argue with you if you won't consider my evidence, and you obviously did not watch the video, so there's nothing I can do. I highly doubt that the Researcher for Popular Mechanics would be less qualified than you.

 

Your inability to consider any other explanation than your own means that I will not be able to change your mind. However, I can at least present my point. I can only hope that you're not one of the @ssholes who goes to the 9/11 memorial services and starts screaming "9/11 is a lie" and everyything. I can only hope that your chosen ignorance hasn't harmed other people, emotional or physical. I can only hope.

 

With that said, I'm going to leave this thread for now.

[Lkr]

bofors: learn the truth about 9/11: http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-ddhFrxtB8

[PSPHax0r9]

bofors: learn the truth about 9/11: http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-ddhFrxtB8

How dare you post that blasphemy!

 

Everyone knows that you can't trust real-life experts! It's possible that the government could be manipulating and orchestrating their every word. And because there's a chance that it's possible, even if it is such a miniscule chance, it must be the truth. The only REAL experts are the kids in their basement making the Loose Change video. They are obviously free of any bias, they are the true experts.

 

/sarcasm

 

OK, now I'm really gonna leave

[OryHara]

The media has brainwashed me? Does youtube count? Does the youtube video where they disprove Loose Change count? Isn't Loose Change a youtube video in the first place?You're a sick person. No one has to prove anything to you, the burden of proof is ont he conspiracy theorists, who have yet to provide ANY real proof that America was behind 9/11. ANY.EDIT: Never mind, I see the problem, you're one of those Ron Paul idiots who thinks he can actually win.

Loose Change was made by an individual from the US army. Not a Neo-Con news agency that bows to their profits.The devil is in the details, and your ignorance has shown like a star exploding.

How dare you post that blasphemy! Everyone knows that you can't trust real-life experts! It's possible that the government could be manipulating and orchestrating their every word. And because there's a chance that it's possible, even if it is such a miniscule chance, it must be the truth. The only REAL experts are the kids in their basement making the Loose Change video. They are obviously free of any bias, they are the true experts./sarcasmOK, now I'm really gonna leave

I personally know an expert that is in construction. After seeing the blueprints, and studying them for 2 weeks he came back and said: "there is no {censored} way in hell that a 767 could take those buildings down. "If the public has difficulty on the show "are you smarter than a 5 year old" then God help us.

OK, now I'm really gonna leave

That would be your best course of action at this point.

bofors: learn the truth about 9/11: http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-ddhFrxtB8

EXPERTS?? HAHA. That {censored} moron that did that documentary couldn't explain a damned thing over public radio the next day.What a {censored} looser.

[Paranoid Marvin]

That {censored} moron that did that documentary couldn't explain a damned thing over public radio the next day.What a {censored} looser.

 

The History Channel will have more credibility than your loose change morons ever will

[OryHara]

The History Channel will have more credibility than your loose change morons ever will

 

So History Channel actually had soldiers in Afghanistan, and Iraq? When did they enlist? They were US Army demolition experts?

I am SOOOO sure that a news agency that is party owned by Rupert (Faux News) Murdock, and Disney has credibility. Yea. When pigs fly.

 

That is sooo funny considering that most soldiers are voting for Ron Paul.

[Onetrack]

I'm not sure if its been mentioned here, but you should really take a look at 9/11 mysteries: demolitions.

Its not as ' speculative ' as loose change, but goes right into great detail about the towers and why / how they fell.

 

First off as well, the towers were an albatross for silverstein, they were old, and were difficult to upgrade with wiring to keep tech companies interested in paying the rent. Several offices were unrentable. removing all the fireproofing and asbestos from the buildings would have cost into the hundreds of millions, etc.

 

There are photos taken from within the buildings 2 weeks prior showing concrete dust, and lots of it coming through the ventilation system

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings 2 weeks prior

Several power failures in the building leading up to the collapse weeks prior

Companies were being forced to move offices without warning from floor to floor weeks prior

Silverstein pulled out a big insurance policy on the buildings prior to the collapse, specifically against acts of terrorism

 

The building was designed to taked an impact of a fully loaded 707, which if i recall actually weighs more than the 727's that hit

 

The buildings fell at FREEFALL speed. Which is impossible - not once, not twice but 3 steel framed buildings fell at free-fall speed ' due to fire ' and people BELIEVE THIS?

Give your head a damn shake.

 

It was a false flag operation, the US government did it to themselves simply as a rally to push through the patriot act, the department of homeland security and the war.

 

Speaking of the war, its all osama did it, osama did it, osama did it, he's in afghanistan, lets go to iraq. ??

Its been 6 years now, ' we're making progress, we're winning.. yadda yadda yadda bs..' they are nowhere NEAR winning.

 

Heres a short video on WTC 7

 

America, you gotta wake up before its way too late.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Right, it's impossible to sway those who have been zombified by this 9/11 conspiracy rubbish, so I'm doing this for the people that are sitting on the fence.

 

I'll start with building 7. Building 7 was weird. The foundations were not built for a building of that size, so there were special trusses on floors 4-7 to adapt the upper stories to the foundations, as can be seen in this diagram:

 

- http://upload.wikimedia.org

 

These trusses are an obvious point of weakness - there are at least 40 floors supported by these structures.

The building was heavily damaged by tonnes and tonnes of falling, flaming debris from WTC1&2. This severely damaged the building, and started small fires.

WTC7 had several backup generators and large tanks of diesel fuel to power them. Last time I checked, diesel burns! There were some pressurised diesel fuel lines fuelling the fires.

Steel does not need to melt to lose it's strength. The temperature of the burning fuel was more than enough to weaken the steel. The trusses carried most the weight of the building over two foundations, as seen in the diagram above. The building was crippled enough from the debris, and the weakening of the trusses by fire was enough to compromise the integrity of the entire building.

 

 

Some claim that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition. In that case, how come there were no signs of demolition during and after the collapse? Why can't you hear any explosions on any of the videos of the building collapsing? Why wasn't there things like detcord found in the rubble?

 

It take weeks to rig up even a high rise flat for demolition. It would take months and an army of workers to rig up a skyscraper like WTC7 for demolition. When did they do that? Wouldn't people have seen them?

 

Some people say that these images are evidence:

 

 

Those jets of explosions are 'squibs' which are apparently used in demolition (the wikipedia page says otherwise...). Here's a little experiment for you to try. Fill a plastic bag up with tomato ketchup (water would do, but ketchup makes more mess ). Tie the bag so it is air tight. Stab lots of tiny holes in the bag, and then push down on it.

What happens? See the image above...

The 'squibs' are merely dust and {censored} being ejected from the building, as a massive weight pushes down and forces the air out.

 

 

Can anyone answer me this question:

 

Why?

 

Why would the government blow up a building like that?

It would be much easier, safer and would cause much less loss of life just to demolish it normally...

 

 

I think that's enough for anyone who is slightly leaning towards the ideas of WTC7 being destroyed by a controlled demolition.

Of course, I know Bofors and OryHara won't acknowledge any of the obvious evidence, but what else can I say...

 

 

Oh, and BTW, Onetrack, a 707's maximum takeoff weight is 333,600lb and a 767's (specifically, the ones that hit the WTCs) is 395,000lb.

[Onetrack]

Why would the government blow up a building like that?

It would be much easier, safer and would cause much less loss of life just to demolish it normally...

 

Why? - Shock and awe.

 

Read my comments above - to push through the patriot act to further the neocon agenda. To get funding for an invasion of iraq, and to rally to us citizenship to war.

 

Its pretty simple, the people in power make the decisions, while your rights get taken away.

 

Really, which is more believeable - that? or that a 70+ year old man who lives in a cave on kidney dialysis is the mastermind behind it all.

 

 

 

Yes, you're right, he's some kind of super genius.

 

Here is a quick test you can try.

The towers were 110 stories each - they fell in about 10 seconds. According to the ' pancake theory ' the floors gave way one at a time due to the crushing weight of the sections above the damage from the plane impact. Even thinking that the entire building was weakened by fire, which it couldn't have possibly been considering that people were WALKING down stairwells (you ever try walking through a 1700 degree jet fuel fire?) So the steel may have been weakened around the impact zone but not at all on each floor all the way to the bottom.

 

Anyways, simple test.

 

Say the WORD pancake 110 times, once for each floor in 10 seconds.

 

Bet you cant.

 

And you're trying to tell me that in that same time the concrete, building, desks, computers, chairs, walls, support structures, copper and ceramic plumbing, tubes, pipes, wires and everything else in the building was able to do it?

 

So now are you willing to consider that there were explosives?

 

It was a controlled demolition, there is no doubt.

[OryHara]

 

And the KEY there is PUSH down on the bag. Because it won't fall by itself. You have to force it, because it won't free fall in 8 seconds.

 

I am surprised thatyou are commenting on something you know NOTHING about. There is your credability mr news team reporter. Just like The history channel.

[apowerr]

@ Onetrack: 9/11 Mysteries is the best 9/11 movie there is.

 

I don't feel like arguing any more, I believe what I believe (false flag) However:

The towers were 110 stories each - they fell in about 10 seconds. According to the ' pancake theory ' the floors gave way one at a time due to the crushing weight of the sections above the damage from the plane impact.

I am on your side, but I hate that term

'Pancake theory' was a term used immedietly after 9/11 and by FEMA, 9/11 Commision etc. But the NIST report had more of a 'global collapse' theory. In which, smoke from the plane impact zones rises, and all this heat collects in the top of the building. Then the heat causes the floor trusses to push out, so the sides above the plane impacts push out and buckle. Then one face of the building fails, so all the weight of the top is unevenly shared. A specific point then recieves the majority of the weight of the top of the building, that point fails. Weight is then shifted from point to point, and each point that gets the weight fails.

The above was how the NIST explained the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Does it make some sense? Yes. Does it explain: squibs, basement explosions, and all kinds of other things listed in this thread? No.

 

Thats one thing I hate about the conspiracy videos: they always mention 'pancake theory' as official because its so retarted and easy to criticize. But the NIST (which did loads of research) does not cite pancake collapse in its report. I really hope Loose Change: Final Cut will analyze 'global collapse'. Because if conspiracy theorist (such as myself) fail to acknowledge what the NIST report said, then we are the ones being biased.

[cringemaster]

And the KEY there is PUSH down on the bag. Because it won't fall by itself. You have to force it, because it won't free fall in 8 seconds.

 

I am surprised thatyou are commenting on something you know NOTHING about. There is your credability mr news team reporter. Just like The history channel.

Dude, u cant compare a plastic bag falling on its own to a building falling on its own. but the concept of the "squibs" is the same. And why are personally attacking someone based on their credibility? What credibility do you have? Scratch that, it doesnt matter. All it takes is someone with half a brain to look at that picture to understand how 7 fell even though it didnt appear to badly damaged.

 

(good post btw PM)

[OryHara]

Dude, u cant compare a plastic bag falling on its own to a building falling on its own. but the concept of the "squibs" is the same. And why are personally attacking someone based on their credibility? What credibility do you have? Scratch that, it doesnt matter. All it takes is someone with half a brain to look at that picture to understand how 7 fell even though it didnt appear to badly damaged.

 

(good post btw PM)

 

Larry: Pull it !!!

 

(Boom, boom, boom)

 

Everyone: AHEHGEHEGHE!!!!!!!! RUN !!!!!!!!!!! ITS COMING DOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thats what the firefighters heard. Did you?

 

And nobody has of yet proved to me that a plane hit the pentagon.

[antic]

Believe what you want, I don't really care, but I do find it amusing that all we hear is how incompetent the Bush administration is, yet now you would have us believe they are clever enough to devise this 9/11 scheme and fool most of the population.

 

Why bother with the Pentagon, or the United flight?

If they knew the towers would collapse, did they think that wouldn't be enough to compel the country to war?

 

Do you actually believe JWB is in charge of the US government. Just look at his face during the videos when the twin tower were hit.

[Lkr]

OryHara, prove to me that it wasn't. you can't prove any of your lightly supported claims. do you know how WTC1 and 2 were built? DRYWALL protected the framing. The drywall, and fireproofing foam got blown off, by a 767 going SLAMMING through the building. it destroyed most of the frame on a floor. It continued to weaken, until it gave in. WTC 2 was hit at an angllish type of approach, so it got all of its support on one part of the building. this forced it down even faster, because it was hit in a more key position. too much weight on one part, steel is being weakened due to know more drywall, and it gives in. also, how do we know that the buildings weren't already weakened from the previous terrorist attack on it? That also could've made it go faster. The fact they used drywall instead of concrete is what made the buildings fall. And even if they didn't come down, in WTC1, no one could've gotten out of the top of it. They would've died either way unfortunately. In WTC2, it was hit at an even more key position, but there was 1 stairwell in tact. Not to mention most people evacuated from it.

 

WTC7 was obviously weakened, because tons of debris from WTC 1 and 2 fell on it. This will weaken the entire building, start fires, and then ignite the diesel at the bottom. You then have a very hot fire burning a very oddly built structure. Larry has no authority to determine whether or not they take the building down or not anyway. And the firefighters were not in control of any of those bombs you claim to have existed. He wanted everyone removed from their, because he did not want more loss of life.

[apowerr]

And the firefighters were not in control of any of those bombs you claim to have existed. He wanted everyone removed from their, because he did not want more loss of life.

Like I said, I'm done arguing for Inside Job. It's unproductive, people can watch videos and come to their own conclusions. However, I do not think that Oryhara was implying firefighters had any control of the demolition. And if he was indeed claiming firefighters were directly involved, then he is wrong.

[OryHara]

OryHara, prove to me that it wasn't. you can't prove any of your lightly supported claims. do you know how WTC1 and 2 were built? DRYWALL protected the framing. The drywall, and fireproofing foam got blown off, by a 767 going SLAMMING through the building. it destroyed most of the frame on a floor. It continued to weaken, until it gave in. WTC 2 was hit at an angllish type of approach, so it got all of its support on one part of the building. this forced it down even faster, because it was hit in a more key position. too much weight on one part, steel is being weakened due to know more drywall, and it gives in. also, how do we know that the buildings weren't already weakened from the previous terrorist attack on it? That also could've made it go faster. The fact they used drywall instead of concrete is what made the buildings fall. And even if they didn't come down, in WTC1, no one could've gotten out of the top of it. They would've died either way unfortunately. In WTC2, it was hit at an even more key position, but there was 1 stairwell in tact. Not to mention most people evacuated from it.

 

WTC7 was obviously weakened, because tons of debris from WTC 1 and 2 fell on it. This will weaken the entire building, start fires, and then ignite the diesel at the bottom. You then have a very hot fire burning a very oddly built structure. Larry has no authority to determine whether or not they take the building down or not anyway. And the firefighters were not in control of any of those bombs you claim to have existed. He wanted everyone removed from their, because he did not want more loss of life.

 

Thats what you think.

 

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=2432.0

 

Get the facts strait. And show me proof that an plane hit the pentagon.

 

EDIT: And you would have to be one stupid mother {censored} if you believe that diesel can melt steel.

[Paranoid Marvin]

EDIT: And you would have to be one stupid mother {censored} if you believe that diesel can melt steel.

 

No one said diesel fuel melts steel.

 

Diesel can not melt steel.

 

Steel loses its strength as the temperature increases. It only needs to be heated to 900˚C and it loses a fair amount of its integrity. Due to the construction of wtc7, it was particularly vulnerable.

[iDerf2006]

Don't get me started on your damned Mainstream Media propagandist {censored}. The majority of you stupid {censored}s have been brainwashed by that {censored} so long, that they could tell you that 2+2=5, and you would believe it.

 

The only conspiracy is the one that the Taliban pulled off 9/11. Most of you idiots are dumb enough to believe that al'qaeda pulled it off.

 

People are so damn brainwashed by the Media, and 'movie stars', and american idol that they believe that THIS is the world we live in. HA! Fools! uter damne d fools. You scream government, help me, help me, the radical extremeists are attacking! What are yoiuu going to do when your government is anhialated by their own actions? What are the people going to do , if a nuclear fallout occours because russia got pissed because the US planted flags at the north poll to claim their damned oil?

 

100 years ago, they wold have laughed in your face as I am doing now. Look at you. FOOL. You have become a slave. .. and you LOVE IT.

 

America's IQ has dropped to nothing because of TV. And you run to it like soma, everytime you face a problem that your simple mind can't deal with.

 

And BTW, nobody has of yet has been able to prove to me that a plane hit the pentagon.

Oohh, thanks man, you started off my day right, I just love idiots like you - believing something different just to be exactly that - different. Morons.

[Alessandro17]

Oohh, thanks man, you started off my day right, I just love idiots like you - believing something different just to be exactly that - different. Morons.

 

I, on the other hand, love people who believe in everything the government and the media tell them, like my fellow Italians did under Berlusconi.

Pigs can fly, the moon is made of green cheese, Donald Duck is real...why not?

[Paranoid Marvin]

I, on the other hand, love people who believe in everything the government and the media tell them, like my fellow Italians did under Berlusconi.

Pigs can fly, the moon is made of green cheese, Donald Duck is real...why not?

 

How would we know? Man never walked on the moon - it was a government conspiracy!!!

 

/jk

[bxsci(macuser)]

Munitions were stored in Bulding 7?

 

Umm... no, this was an office building not an arms cache.

i am merely stating that t is a possibility - The CIA often has small munitions in their offices

[PSPHax0r9]

Larry: Pull it !!! (Boom, boom, boom)Everyone: AHEHGEHEGHE!!!!!!!! RUN !!!!!!!!!!! ITS COMING DOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!Thats what the firefighters heard. Did you?And nobody has of yet proved to me that a plane hit the pentagon.

Oh, yes, use that outdated and disproven argument. Smart Why will no one watch the History Channel videos?

Loose Change was made by an individual from the US army. Not a Neo-Con news agency that bows to their profits.The devil is in the details, and your ignorance has shown like a star exploding.

An individual kid and his friends. The kid narrating went to the army, but he wasn't even the one who researched most of the stuff. And how the hell does being in the Army make him an expert all of the sudden?

I personally know an expert that is in construction. After seeing the blueprints, and studying them for 2 weeks he came back and said: "there is no {censored} way in hell that a 767 could take those buildings down.

First of all, I highly doubt that you do. Second of all, the guy who they interviewd was a long-time expert who was ON THE SCENE. Yes, THERE, for months. Not one piece of anything that would be from a controlled demolition and no evidence of one. I'm sure that your "expert" friend was there, too, bud.

"If the public has difficulty on the show "are you smarter than a 5 year old" then God help us.

You obviously are not smarter than a five year old if you can't even get the name of the show correct.

That would be your best course of action at this point.

I'm baaaack.

EXPERTS?? HAHA. That {censored} moron that did that documentary couldn't explain a damned thing over public radio the next day.What a {censored} looser.

What? What documentary are you even referring to?! Your obvious chosen ignorance is all too apparent. You obviously did not watch any of my evidence because none of the videos were DOCUMENTARIES and none of them had only ONE expert.

[cringemaster]

Oh, yes, use that outdated and disproven argument. Smart Why will no one watch the History Channel videos?An individual kid and his friends. The kid narrating went to the army, but he wasn't even the one who researched most of the stuff. And how the hell does being in the Army make him an expert all of the sudden?First of all, I highly doubt that you do. Second of all, the guy who they interviewd was a long-time expert who was ON THE SCENE. Yes, THERE, for months. Not one piece of anything that would be from a controlled demolition and no evidence of one. I'm sure that your "expert" friend was there, too, bud. You obviously are not smarter than a five year old if you can't even get the name of the show correct. I'm baaaack.What? What documentary are you even referring to?! Your obvious chosen ignorance is all too apparent. You obviously did not watch any of my evidence because none of them were DOCUMENTARIES and none of them had only ONE expert.

Nice to see someone who could take the time to completely respond to and correct all of his ignorance. Personally, I'm sick of wasting my breath fighting this, but kudos to those of you who can.

[PSPHax0r9]

So History Channel actually had soldiers in Afghanistan, and Iraq? When did they enlist?

I'm sorry but you are so damn ignorant. BEING A SOLDIER DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT! Being trained and highly regarded and very good in your field of study MAKES YOU AN EXPERT.

They were US Army demolition experts?

Nooo...once again being in the Army does not make people experts or give them any more credibility at all. Period. In fact, that's the stupidest logic I've ever heard. Figures when it's come from a no-holds-bar fanatical Neo-liberitarian.

I am SOOOO sure that a news agency that is party owned by Rupert (Faux News) Murdock, and Disney has credibility. Yea. When pigs fly.

Now you make up your own facts, too. Figures. You and the Loose Change kid should hang out some time. History Channel is owned by GE, moron.

 

Rupert Murdoch owns:

NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS Television Holdings: * Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households. * Fox International: extensive worldwide cable and satellite networks include British Sky Broadcasting (40%); VOX, Germany (49.9%); Canal Fox, Latin America; FOXTEL, Australia (50%); STAR TV, Asia; IskyB, India; Bahasa Programming Ltd., Indonesia (50%); and News Broadcasting, Japan (80%). * The Golf Channel (33%). MEDIA HOLDINGS: * Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight. * 132 newspapers (113 in Australia alone) including the New York Post, the London Times and The Australian. * 25 magazines including TV Guide and The Weekly Standard. * HarperCollins books. OTHER HOLDINGS: * Sports: LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, National Rugby League. * Ansett Australia airlines, Ansett New Zealand airlines. * Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).

 

GE owns:

Television Holdings: * NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households. * NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise. * CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%). The "MS" in MSNBC means microsoft The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected. Other Holdings: * GE Consumer Electronics. * GE Power Systems: produces turbines for nuclear reactors and power plants. * GE Plastics: produces military hardware and nuclear power equipment. * GE Transportation Systems: runs diesel and electric trains.

That is sooo funny considering that most soldiers are voting for Ron Paul.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROFL!!!!!

LOL.

OMG, this seals it. You have shown everyone how incredibly disillusioned you are. RON PAUL IS NOT POPULAR EXCEPT ON THE INTERNET. HE WON'T WIN, AND NO MAJORITY OF ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE IS VOTING FOR HIM.

And nobody has of yet proved to me that a plane hit the pentagon.

You're right, so because no one took the time to personally hand you information on a platter (which you will just ignore anyway [you'd rather trust Loose Change kids in basement]), it must be a lie and it's all a conspiracy.