The Astral Pulse

(http://www.gothamist.com/images/2003_10_silversteinl.jpg) This butt hole Larry Silverstein gets the world trade centers insured two weeks before the attacks for 9 billion $ this guy needs to die

(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif) "They pulled it" Larry Silverstein

(http://home.arcor.de/hstore/img/911/woman_wtc.jpg)(http://www.soylentx.com/resserver.php?blogId=2&resource=surWTC.jpg&mode=medium) We are told that the WTC buildings came down due to the heat of the fires melting the steel inside the bulidings. So this woman has come from (I assume) 'above' the impact area (coming down to get out), heat rises (science 101) so how the hell does a woman get there? The fact is, the buildings were "Pulled" due to controlled demolition! and i expect that the explosives controllers were on the 23rd floor of WTC building 7! Now discuss this, ill try and answer questions. (been looking into it all)Fire fighters made it to the floors where the plane hit people where still alive this is the fist time building have colapsed from fire

(http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1055.jpg)

(http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wtc-7_1_.gif)

Thermite was used on the world Trade centers  :cry:  Short Video about Thermite  :evil: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=Thermite+WTC&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=Thermite+WTC&hl=en)

(http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/demolab/images/ironred.jpg)

http://www.chem.psu.edu/ncs/Halloween%20Show%202003/Thermite.jpg (http://www.chem.psu.edu/ncs/Halloween%20Show%202003/Thermite.jpg)

(http://www.explosive911analysis.com/D2.jpg)

(http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/MoltenCloseup1.JPG)

(http://www.explosive911analysis.com/D1.jpg)

(http://newmexico.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/05/thermitedibeamclose.jpgmid.jpg)

(http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg)

(http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentagonxox30.jpg) NO way LOL they take us for blind sheep which many of us are

(http://0911.site.voila.fr/compall.jpg) its so pathetic

9/11 was an inside job.

If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 08, 2006, 04:21:46
If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Its anti establishment and anti American to want to now what happend >? Govement is not your friend, this is most evident through there forghen police.  :? I consider my self more patriotic, and we must hold goverment accountable for there actions the whole point of govement or at least a democatic one is to serve the people not the corperations

(http://www.eqgen.nl/html/images/wtc1_people_enlarged.jpg) I find this pic carzy i mean a plane just came cashing in and people where still alive in the building at the floors where the planes hit. Death at the world trade center for this lady must of bin a horible thing. This is makes me angly the media is controled  :cry:

Ruhbert Murhdock must die  :lol:

(http://www.eqgen.nl/html/images/winsor2.jpg)

(http://www.eqgen.nl/html/images/winsorflames.jpg) (http://www.eqgen.nl/html/images/Caracas_fire.jpg)(http://www.eqgen.nl/html/images/Caracas.jpg) WTC towers and WTC 7 are the first iron building to crash down becouse of fire .... this is so disgusting

Anyone see where NIST has recently, and very explicitly, backed away from "pancake collapse" theory?

This government agency is the only one that had some access to the construction drawings, which are under lock and key, and is also keeping 1000's of photos and videos confiscated by FEMA at Ground Zero.

So now there apparently is no official explanation for how the Twin Towers collapsed to the ground. NIST has attemped to explain how each collapse started, but even structural engineers (ie Charles Pegelow and three other SE's with Scholars for 9/11 Truth) have been risking credibility to come out and demonstrate how NIST's conclusions on the initiations are based upon unsupported data. And as I've said, they've just recently stated that they do not support pancake collapse theory. They also have not defined any other global, meta-floor collapse mechanisms that can demonstrate the observed collapse features.

So how they collapsed to the ground as they did, from the standpoint of the only organization with the hard evidence, is just a big question mark at this point in time, some five years after the fact. They even had to outsource for WTC7. The 9/11 Commission Report wouldn't even mention that building.

Quote from: BadCookie on September 08, 2006, 12:59:33
Govement is not your friend

I found it funny you said that considering the picture you have for your avatar; However I do find the whole rather interesting I mean if the goverment truley did pull this off created everything then how safe are we really? how many deaths will there be before they stop? its all quite depressing :cry:

Quote from: GANAMOHA on September 08, 2006, 20:03:14
I found it funny you said that considering the picture you have for your avatar; However I do find the whole rather interesting I mean if the goverment truley did pull this off created everything then how safe are we really? how many deaths will there be before they stop? its all quite depressing :cry:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=Alex+jones&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=Alex+jones&hl=en) ALex jones for anyone who hasnt seen him

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 08, 2006, 04:21:46
If one leaves the propaganda spread by anti-establishment, anti-American proponents, and looks into the true science of the events, then one will see it was a tragic event. Not the biggest cover up in history by a nation who can't even keep secret their presidents' affairs or Governments corruptions.
I'd be interested to hear your critque of the points made here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Sorry Jingo, when looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint it could not have happened. Air plane fuel cannot burn at temperatures to melt reinforced steal (which was used in the construction of WTC). That alone is enough to explain what happened that day.
Buildings DO NOT collapse from fires which burn for a short time, that has been proven over and over in previous fires and explosions.

MisterJingo,


There are several criticisms of NIST's related release on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, here: http://www.st911.org/

Included are a critique by a licensed professional structural engineer of 30 years experience, also with a degree in mathematics (Charles Pegelow), as well as the results of an actual experiment by Dr. Steven Jones showing that at least one of the latest NIST claims is patently flase, and demonstrably so. Researcher Jim Hoffman, chemist Kevin Ryan, formerly of UL labs that certified the WTC steel, Dr. Jim Fetzer, and Sean Glazier have also posted rebuttals there.

I am not saying I have the answers, I simply don't see even half enough evidence to implicate the government in a conspiracy to blow up its own towers. I am open minded to other theories of the towers collapse – just not the rest of the grand conspiracy.

Suggesting this is a government conspiracy kind of suggests a relatively trivial political conspiracy. I don't think this was the case at all. I don't think Bush was an important figure in any of this. I don't think Rumsfeld or Condi were important figures, or any democrats or any other politicians for that matter. The only people that have gained, and gained enormously, are those that head off the corporations that produce for our military complex, and relate to resources located within the countries we are currently occupying as a direct result of the kicking-off of this so-called "War on Terror". These kinds of people have so much money and power in the world that they're effectively a collective monarchy. Fascism is when these groups gain significant influence over a governmental body. I think this is happening now. I don't think government is so much the problem, but military politics as guided by the corporations that make so many billions/trillions off these wars, and have infiltrated/lobbied their ways into influential positions in this country and abroad.

The alternative is that Muslim extremists infiltrated these buildings, and not only planted explosives, but also planted them in a very sophisticated way, and detonated them in an even more sophisticated fashion, which appears to me to have intentionally designed to make the collapses look natural (ie, the explosives are detonating in a progressive wave, and they even appear to have been initiated by silent incendiaries). Adding WTC7 to the equation, not only being relatively insignificant from a terrorists' perspective, but also housing several federal agencies, including CIA offices, seems to make this idea a little more improbable, to me at least. Not to mention the lack of claims of explosives-planting by terrorists if they were really to blame, and the federal reports that seem to intentionally ignore most all of the most key evidences in reaching their conclusions.

My 2 cents.

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 09, 2006, 11:18:49
I am not saying I have the answers, I simply don't see even half enough evidence to implicate the government in a conspiracy to blow up its own towers. I am open minded to other theories of the towers collapse – just not the rest of the grand conspiracy.

:lol: LOL the mind control of the media has worked well on you

Wake the hell up, Look at the patriot act the goverment wants to know what we look up on the net ! MSN and Yahhoo gave info to the goverment good thing google didnt  :evil: . Rember what bush sed if your not with us then your agenst us
(http://members.chello.at/astro-esoterik/illuminati/dollar.jpg)

Quote from: no_leaf_clover on September 09, 2006, 12:05:20
Suggesting this is a government conspiracy kind of suggests a relatively trivial political conspiracy. I don't think this was the case at all. I don't think Bush was an important figure in any of this. I don't think Rumsfeld or Condi were important figures, or any democrats or any other politicians for that matter. The only people that have gained, and gained enormously, are those that head off the corporations that produce for our military complex, and relate to resources located within the countries we are currently occupying as a direct result of the kicking-off of this so-called "War on Terror". These kinds of people have so much money and power in the world that they're effectively a collective monarchy. Fascism is when these groups gain significant influence over a governmental body. I think this is happening now. I don't think government is so much the problem, but military politics as guided by the corporations that make so many billions/trillions off these wars, and have infiltrated/lobbied their ways into influential positions in this country and abroad.

Most people who are advocates of such 9/11 conspiracies usually do put the blame at the governments door. This is why I posted as I thought this thread was coming from that direction too.
I can't deny some people have gained enormously from these events. But that is not proof enough to link them.
I'm not really a believer in the whole NWO conspiracies, as once again I see tenuous links trying to tie everything together. With the information floating around in today's world it's possible to link anyone to near anything tenuously.
I agree the War on Terror in a worrying thing, and although it seems to have been set off by 9/11 – I think it would have happened anyway under the current American government. 9/11 just happened to be a good excuse – another would have been found in it's absence.

Quote
The alternative is that Muslim extremists infiltrated these buildings, and not only planted explosives, but also planted them in a very sophisticated way, and detonated them in an even more sophisticated fashion, which appears to me to have intentionally designed to make the collapses look natural (ie, the explosives are detonating in a progressive wave, and they even appear to have been initiated by silent incendiaries). Adding WTC7 to the equation, not only being relatively insignificant from a terrorists' perspective, but also housing several federal agencies, including CIA offices, seems to make this idea a little more improbable, to me at least. Not to mention the lack of claims of explosives-planting by terrorists if they were really to blame, and the federal reports that seem to intentionally ignore most all of the most key evidences in reaching their conclusions.

To be honest, this hasn't really been of enough interest for me to look into it in detail. To make a proper conclusion as to if explosives were used at not, I'd need to look at everything. What floor the collapse started from, what floor these 'sparks' came from, how long after they appeared did the building collapse, where there any explosive noises prior to them appearing? If so how long before? etc. Also, I'd have to question where the explosives were placed (surely at the core structure?) and how that led the incendiaries to leak out of a window at the side of the building instead of filling any number of internal cavities, or falling down internal voids etc.
A lot of theories are stating the fact the building fell as it did (rather than toppling over) was proof of explosives,  yet others are saying the fact it fell how it did is proof sophisticated placements of explosives were used (hence stating terrorists couldn't have done such an act) – yet the buildings were built to fall how they did.
I just feel we haven't got all the answers – so we can't really make any definite statements.
If terrorists did plant explosives, perhaps there is secrecy around it because the government hasn't got all the answers yet.
I just find the prospect of certain American figures blowing up these towers, and only fringe elements challenging them with dubious evidence as unlikely as the prospect of terrorists planting bombs. I really do sit on the wall, but lean towards it being a tragic terrorist event – with the government not divulging all details. Unless some radical evidence presents itself to counter this, I'll sit where I am.

Quote from: BadCookie on September 09, 2006, 12:14:35
  :lol: LOL the mind control of the media has worked well on you

My mind is my own (as far as that can be said of mind). Blindly believing vast conspiracies on the evidence of a few photos and not reading anything but conspiracy theories into this event is being controlled in my opinion.

Quote
Wake the hell up, Look at the patriot act the goverment wants to know what we look up on the net ! MSN and Yahhoo gave info to the goverment good thing google didnt  :evil: . Rember what bush sed if your not with us then your agenst us

We have similar in the UK. I'm very much against the whole biometric ID cards and centralised DB – and I will leave the country if it ever comes into effect. What I do not do is read new world orders vying for global dominance into these ideas. I see them as very misguided ideas of a government out of touch with its populace. Such ideas usually have their roots in revenue than anything else – those in the UK look into Browns ideas for selling information for the proposed centralised DB to marketing companies etc.

Quote from: Mydral on September 09, 2006, 05:01:00
Sorry Jingo, when looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint it could not have happened. Air plane fuel cannot burn at temperatures to melt reinforced steal (which was used in the construction of WTC). That alone is enough to explain what happened that day.
Buildings DO NOT collapse from fires which burn for a short time, that has been proven over and over in previous fires and explosions.

Quote
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of crediblity, since the great mass of people will more easly fall victums to a great lie than to a small one" - Adolph Hitler  (Mein Kapf)

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."  Hermann Goering, a Nazi leader who was prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials 

These Quotes are very telling  8-)

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 09, 2006, 13:21:17
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.

As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).

Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.

Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.

Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened before?

Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.

Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."

In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!

Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB "Buzzy" Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 09, 2006, 13:11:02
What floor the collapse started from, what floor these 'sparks' came from,

The molten metal in question is from WTC2. WTC2's collapse initiated on the same floor the metal was pouring from.

Quotehow long after they appeared did the building collapse,

It first showed up just a few minutes prior, and at some point a pretty steady stream began. Then the building began collapsing.

You can see the molten metal is still pouring from the same place as WTC2 collapses in the image below:

(http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/7294/wtc2tilt03yz9.jpg)

It's dropping from the corner most facing the camera.

Quotewhere there any explosive noises prior to them appearing?

Yes, and no.

Thermite does not make explosive sounds, and its initiation is silent.

However, explosions were reported constantly throughout the fires, during the collapses, and even just seconds prior to impact in a basement explosion, shattering concrete, reported by several janitors working there at the time. A thread in the news media section links to a video clip of two explosions recording at least after the collapse of WTC2.

QuoteAlso, I'd have to question where the explosives were placed (surely at the core structure?) and how that led the incendiaries to leak out of a window at the side of the building instead of filling any number of internal cavities, or falling down internal voids etc.

A structural engineer I know and speak to regularly thinks that incendiaries would only have to be placed in the core structure on the mechanical floors, which were reinforced, and provided the above floors with more stability. You may come across engineers describing the WTC Towers as three buildings stacked one on top of another. When you see the light, windowless bands on the WTC Towers, those were the reinforced mechanical floors where each new set of floors would be "stacked" (more like solidly welded across multiple floors; very rigid cores, and very flexible perimeter/truss systems).

QuoteI just find the prospect of certain American figures blowing up these towers, and only fringe elements challenging them with dubious evidence as unlikely as the prospect of terrorists planting bombs.

The amount of scholars coming out against the official report is actually pretty staggering, in my opinion. Some 75 professors alone are on board with Scholars for 9/11 Truth alone, and that organization is even lacking the membership of a lot of other relevant people that agree with them, like the structural engineer above that I know personally (he isn't a member of S9/11T for reasons of not wanting to put his job at risk for his opinions -- understandable I suppose), a mechanical engineer that I know (that also isn't a member), researcher Jim Hoffman, LP SE Charles Pegelow, etc.   S9/11T lists its members and their expertises here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j234/0911site/traj2.jpg)
(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j234/0911site/pentagonhole.jpg)
(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j234/0911site/compmix2.jpg)
(http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentagonxox30.jpg)
(http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentagonxox5.jpg)
(http://0911.site.voila.fr/compall.jpg)
(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j234/0911site/pentanimxox1.gif)

All peaces of the puzzle dont fit in the offical story , its truly disgusting the media is totaly owned by the illumnati the only way to reach the masses. I hope google does not give the govement what then want  8-)

Jingo please explain to me what other "stuff" is stored in an office building so that it will burn at those temperatures. I never heard of rugs, curtains and paper burning at those temperatures.....
Get some steel, bang it up a bit, then put some cloth and paper over it. Then put gasoline over it. Then put it into a confined space (so the heat will get even more intense). Light it up and keep the fire going with more "curtains, rugs and paper" for the time the WTC burned.... guess what the steel won't melt  :-o :roll:

Oh and just listen to eye witnesses..... there was an explosion coming down the elevators, there was an explosion in the basement, etc.

I know the arguments against this are also strong... but there is more then just that event. Look at the Ibn Laden confession tape, its not even him on it.

The steel wouldn't have to melt, theoretically, but at the same time, even weakened steel won't just up and fail instantly, across a whole floor. Even if a whole floor of columns were heated to 600 C, it probably would not collapse. This is because steel structures are typically over-engineered with safety factors of more than 200%  (for example, the perimeter columns of the WTC had ratings of 500%, and the core columns had ratings of 225% -- could hold 5x and 2.25x their max expected loads without failing, respectively), and yet steel only loses half its strength at even 600 C. So even if all the columns lost half their strength, they were still over-engineered massively enough to hold all of their loads, or at least should have been.

600 degrees Celsius is a very high temperature for structural steel to reach from hydrocarbon fires. Both NIST and British Steel have done tests in the past where steel members (smaller than the WTC columns if I'm not mistaken) were covered in so much hydrocarbon material that insane amounts of heat were put out, something like approaching half a million watts or something ridiculous like that, and in a very short amount of time. The steel heated to over 600 C, but would go no further. It appears furnace-like circumstances must be produced (ie, extremely confined space, pre-heated air being pumped in, etc.) for steel to be heated much above 600 C.

It's also useful to remember that open-atmosphere hydrocarbon fires will burn at a maximum of around 825 C depending on altitude, with perfect fuel-to-air ratio. The WTC fires were producing very sooty smoke most of time, giving good indication that this temperature was not sustained. Let's say the fires burned at around 700 C. Temperature is one thing, heat is another. For example, you can melt part of a beam with extreme temperatures, but unless you have similarly extreme gross heat output, the rest of the beam is going to be fine because the total energy available is not enough to take out the whole column. It's like a candle versus a campfire: candle will probably burn hotter, but the campfire will put out MUCH more heat. Not because it's hotter (temperature), but because the total energy being radiated (heat) is much greater.

At 700 C, the heat being radiated would not only be absorbed by steel (which is itself an excellent heat sink), but also carried away in the smoke and absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, the concrete slabs, even office materials, and laws of thermodynamics state that energy is always lost in transfer. In this case it probably would have been considerable when we're only looking at the steel, because the steel columns were far from the only masses around to absorb heat from a 700 C or so, sooty fire.


NIST, in its report, states that no samples of steel from the WTC were found that were heated to more than 250 C. The steel that did reach 250 C consisted of two sections of core columns, out of couple hundred samples or so. This seems pretty in line with the above, but NIST also goes on to assume that most all of the steel on a given floor was heated to 600 C or above nonetheless. This is despite the fact that 600 C steel glows dull red in broad daylight, not to mention that they hadn't found a single sample indicating such heating the first place.

So, just some commentary on heating steel. Again, it wouldn't have to melt, but steel structures are still very resilient against fires anyway.

(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspots-compare.jpg)
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_heat4.jpg)
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_metal3.jpg)
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns_small.jpg)
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/wtc-r09.091601.usgs-thermal.jpg)

:cry: Son of a grump

(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif)
(http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-20.jpg%3Cbr%20/%3E%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-23a.jpg)[/img] did the steel in the one melt too  :lol:

What do I think of the pictures? They remind me of a very sad event, and I feel sorry for the people still suffering as a result.

I also feel sorry for the 40,000 people killed in auto accidents every year in the US.

I feel sorry for the 4.9 Million deaths caused by TOBACCO worldwide every year.

I really feel sorry for the projected 10 million deaths per year projected for 2030.

You want to complain about something? Why don't you target the Tobacco industry?

Quote from: BadCookie on September 09, 2006, 21:33:39
All peaces of the puzzle dont fit in the offical story , its truly disgusting the media is totaly owned by the illumnati the only way to reach the masses. I hope google does not give the govement what then want  8-)

I haven't got time to reply to everything yet, but something I will not agree on is the pentagon conspiracies. please read the following link in full, and at least the following 20 pages. It will answer all your questions:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Quote from: Mydral on September 09, 2006, 22:56:37
Jingo please explain to me what other "stuff" is stored in an office building so that it will burn at those temperatures. I never heard of rugs, curtains and paper burning at those temperatures.....
Get some steel, bang it up a bit, then put some cloth and paper over it. Then put gasoline over it. Then put it into a confined space (so the heat will get even more intense). Light it up and keep the fire going with more "curtains, rugs and paper" for the time the WTC burned.... guess what the steel won't melt  :-o :roll:

Well if a standard house fire can reach temperatures of 1000-1100 in a few minutes of starting, why is it so unfeasible to think that a fire fuelled by jet fuel and stoked by winds funnelling through the destroyed sections can reach slightly higher?
Google house fire temperatures, or phone your local fire department if you don't believe this.

Quote
Oh and just listen to eye witnesses..... there was an explosion coming down the elevators, there was an explosion in the basement, etc.

There are a lot of reasons for explosions, as mentioned in other threads recently.

Quote
I know the arguments against this are also strong... but there is more then just that event. Look at the Ibn Laden confession tape, its not even him on it.

I agree there is a lot of very dodgy stuff going on around the periphery of these events. But such things could be people utilising 9/11 to achieve goals that they wouldn't have been able to before it. This happens a lot in the UK, bad events being used to hide slightly less severe events. 

Quote from: no_leaf_clover on September 09, 2006, 21:16:24
The molten metal in question is from WTC2. WTC2's collapse initiated on the same floor the metal was pouring from.

I haven't really followed these events to be honest. But is there conclusive evidence this substance isn't either ignited jet fuel, or other liquefied substances raining out of the building? Is there anything which proves it has to be molten metal?

Quote
A structural engineer I know and speak to regularly thinks that incendiaries would only have to be placed in the core structure on the mechanical floors, which were reinforced, and provided the above floors with more stability. You may come across engineers describing the WTC Towers as three buildings stacked one on top of another. When you see the light, windowless bands on the WTC Towers, those were the reinforced mechanical floors where each new set of floors would be "stacked" (more like solidly welded across multiple floors; very rigid cores, and very flexible perimeter/truss systems).

Has there been any estimation on how much thermite would be needed, where it would be located, and projected estimates of how long it would take from detonation to collapse? I'd be interested to see anything like that.

Quote
The amount of scholars coming out against the official report is actually pretty staggering, in my opinion. Some 75 professors alone are on board with Scholars for 9/11 Truth alone, and that organization is even lacking the membership of a lot of other relevant people that agree with them, like the structural engineer above that I know personally (he isn't a member of S9/11T for reasons of not wanting to put his job at risk for his opinions -- understandable I suppose), a mechanical engineer that I know (that also isn't a member), researcher Jim Hoffman, LP SE Charles Pegelow, etc.   S9/11T lists its members and their expertises here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

I've read a fair few people are backing such theories – I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

Quote
The steel wouldn't have to melt, theoretically, but at the same time, even weakened steel won't just up and fail instantly, across a whole floor. Even if a whole floor of columns were heated to 600 C, it probably would not collapse.

Looking at the picture here:

(http://img475.imageshack.us/img475/7294/wtc2tilt03yz9.jpg)

It doesn't seem like uniform collapse, looking at the angle of the falling upper part of the tower. Has there been any kind of estimates on how much of the steel support would have to fail or be weakend to cause collapse – taking into account the sheer tonnage of the upper floors?

I also thought it was strange when the towers collapsed, but it's a very unusual scenario, the damage to the structure caused by the impact, the weight of the planes, the fires, it's not impossible.

Was the other tower empty? That one that wasn't hit by the planes. If it was then you solved your dilemma.

Quote from: MisterJingo on September 10, 2006, 08:35:55
But is there conclusive evidence this substance isn't either ignited jet fuel, or other liquefied substances raining out of the building? Is there anything which proves it has to be molten metal?

If jet fuel were on fire it wouldn't just be glowing. It would be on fire. Same goes for any other hydrocarbons when they burn. Embers glow, but don't glow yellow, or in broad daylight, or slop around like a liquid. Molten steel will do all three.

QuoteHas there been any estimation on how much thermite would be needed, where it would be located, and projected estimates of how long it would take from detonation to collapse? I'd be interested to see anything like that.

Basic thermite would take a few seconds to cut through something, depending on how big it is. Special thermites with chemical additives, like sulfur, barium, etc., are different. Thermites with very small particles of aluminum and iron oxide, called "nano-thermites" or "superthermites", react much more quickly. Added sulfur also makes the reaction take place more quickly. Both of those would also require less thermite, to eat through the same amount of material. Professor Jones offers more information on these substances in his paper (just do a Google search and it should come up quickly).

QuoteIt doesn't seem like uniform collapse, looking at the angle of the falling upper part of the tower.

Here's a picture from later in that collapse:

(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/3710/tower4hxdq4.jpg)

The top began tilting, then the tilting stopped when the building began falling straight down. This would be when the cutter charges kicked in to allow a very straight collapse. Otherwise, the law of conservation of angular momentum would have held up, and the cap would have continued tilting as it just had been.

QuoteHas there been any kind of estimates on how much of the steel support would have to fail or be weakend to cause collapse – taking into account the sheer tonnage of the upper floors?

I can do some real quick based on the safety factor ratings, if you want. NIST never did them, because doing so would indicate inadequacies in their report. With a safety factor of 5 (the perimeter columns), one column could support five times its max expected live load. With ideal redistribution of weight (ie, via the hat trusses at the tops of the buildings, etc.), you could take out as many as 4 out of every 5 perimeter columns on a single floor before that floor would fail. For the core it was less, with a rating of 2.25 for its columns, averaged I suppose. So that's how you would go about doing it.

Quote from: AndrewTheSinger
Was the other tower empty? That one that wasn't hit by the planes. If it was then you solved your dilemma.

"Empty" how? Structurally empty, or empty of people and floor loads?

It was supposed to have been one of the most reinforced buildings in the world. Instead of all steel like the Towers (allegedly) were (depends on who you source -- designers called the Towers' cores "reinforced" from time to time; makes you wonder), WTC7 was undeniably constructed with a reinforced concrete structure, like most high-rises.

Empty of people. Because if it was, then they could have exploded that one building since everything was lost already, it would be harmless and profitable (if it's right that you said that they had a 9 billion dollars insurance). Easier to believe than a government planning genocide against it's own people, though it's just as unlikely.

Also, many are forgetting that for the towers to crumble the weight and impact of the plane would just have to destroy a single floor, after one is down then the mass will increase and take one after another, just like seen on the video. Domino effect, not thermite.

Quote from: AndrewTheSinger on September 10, 2006, 22:13:23
Empty of people. Because if it was, then they could have exploded that one building since everything was lost already, it would be harmless and profitable (if it's right that you said that they had a 9 billion dollars insurance). Easier to believe than a government planning genocide against it's own people, though it's just as unlikely.

Yeah, it was evacuated, and only one person died. But how many innocents have we killed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to push military campaigns and agendas? Look at the whole Vietnam war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked (as recently detailed in an NSA release), and as a result, millions of people died. In Afghanistan alone, more innocents have died, several-fold, than died on 9/11. What's the difference, do you think? Are Americans too sacred to be killed, just as we're too sacred to send to war? Are we worth more? Less fun to kill? Our military carpet bombs cities in the Mid-East.

It takes time to rig buildings, too. That's the thing with Building 7: if any explosives were placed, they would have to be placed before 9/11. Before the placing, planning has to be done, on paper, as to where everything will have to go to ensure complete destruction, and prevent the building from falling in a wrong direction onto other buildings.

QuoteAlso, many are forgetting that for the towers to crumble the weight and impact of the plane would just have to destroy a single floor, after one is down then the mass will increase and take one after another, just like seen on the video. Domino effect, not thermite.

Take into account the fact that around 80% to 90% of the building fell outwards, and out of the footprints, and the above won't work. If the floors simply fell one onto another, you wouldn't have seen so much crap flying out with such great force the whole way down, without the collapse wave so much as slowing down as it descended on heavier and heavier columns.

I'm not from Usa. As an outsider I see these acts with great despise. I was speaking specifically about this incident and based on the informations that I've been shown. Maybe if the bombings in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan had the same coverage and impact to the world's eye as the terrorist attack to the wtc some things would start to change for real. This is not a question of Americans and Arabs or Israeli and Palestinian, it's a question of world's health and sanity.

I can tell one thing about all this, that probably no one has said or wants to say, but even then you will know it's true. Suicide rates have increased everywhere in the world after these events, and I'm not talking about suicide bombers.

(http://www.worldterrorism.nl/wordpress/wp-content/images/wtc7cd.gif)(http://www.worldterrorism.nl/wordpress/wp-content/images/wtc7charges.gif)

(http://www.adhd-design.com/www.worldterrorism.nl/wordpress/wp-content/images/implosion.gif)

LOL America has bin high jacked but not by people with plastic nives and box cuters

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/)  just in Hugo Chavez says the US may have dun it  ..

Let me ask you this.  YOu say that there were other explosives, and blah, blah, blah. so that the towers would implode rather than fall over.  What would be the point?  If the government, illuminati, or what ever shadow government you want to blame this on, WHY WORRY ABOUT HOW IT FALLS?  Why would they care if they were willing to spend the money and kill the people anyway?  Why?  Why rig it so that it falls straight down doing less damage rather than tipping over and spreading the devistation?

Give a valid reason for that and I might reconsider your point.

Quote from: cainam_nazier on September 16, 2006, 14:18:58
Let me ask you this.  YOu say that there were other explosives, and blah, blah, blah. so that the towers would implode rather than fall over.  What would be the point?  If the government, illuminati, or what ever shadow government you want to blame this on, WHY WORRY ABOUT HOW IT FALLS?  Why would they care if they were willing to spend the money and kill the people anyway?  Why?  Why rig it so that it falls straight down doing less damage rather than tipping over and spreading the devistation?

Give a valid reason for that and I might reconsider your point.

Lets open are minds and take a trip down history lane :-o  this stuff in so interesting to understand why i would recomend watching all parts. I will make a thread about how the FEDs are a privetly held for profit organization that is rapeing the american people
Part Onehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1585562142333161866&q=WTC+1993 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1585562142333161866&q=WTC+1993)

Part
twohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=WTC+1993 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=WTC+1993)

Part
three http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7594751368248957785&q=WTC+1993 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7594751368248957785&q=WTC+1993)

Part
Four
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3336794743906850633&q=WTC+1993 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3336794743906850633&q=WTC+1993)

part
Fivehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307458672511591841&q=WTC+1993 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307458672511591841&q=WTC+1993)

Look at how one sided this Neocon Zionist propiganda can be http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1211228663574416724&q=obsession+duration%3Along (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1211228663574416724&q=obsession+duration%3Along)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>11 mins "they are anit Zionist and anti american" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Neocon Zionist lap dog lol

A link to a zionist web site http://www.azm.org/ (http://www.azm.org/)

Quote from: cainam_nazier on September 16, 2006, 14:18:58
WHY WORRY ABOUT HOW IT FALLS?  Why would they care if they were willing to spend the money and kill the people anyway?  Why?  Why rig it so that it falls straight down doing less damage rather than tipping over and spreading the devistation?

I don't think the objective was ever "let's kill as many people and do as much damage as we can!"

Compared to how many people actually worked at the Twin Towers (tens of thousands), not that many actually died in the collapses (not to downplay the number of casualties, just putting into perspective). The planes were also only 1/4 full each, whereas they would normally be full by many accounts. The section of the Pentagon hit was under construction and pretty much vacant. So I mean, as far as a military psy-op of this magnitude, they were pretty efficient, and didn't really kill as many people as they could have, or do as much damage as they could have. Only enough to get the job done, you could say.

And think about it: our military top brass orders to have people killed all the time, in military strikes here and there and what-have-you. It's only the American citizen aspect that seems so unbelievable to us, though we understand and have no problem with them killing so many foreign civilians. "Collateral damage." It's what they do, when it comes down to it. Doesn't mean their whole objective is to only kill people.

Quote from: no_leaf_clover on September 11, 2006, 01:57:46
Our military carpet bombs cities in the Mid-East.

LMAO. where did you get this info? I think you're exagerating just a bit.  :wink:

LOL frickin seriously.  No matter how you dice it this is horrible excrement..... Who cares whos responsible.  3000 people died.   Can you comprehend that?  Imagine going to work and the next thing you know your forced to choose either a fiery death of pain or diving swan style out of a 100+ story building and smacking concrete so hard you bounce off creating a snap so loud its like a shotgun.  bonk you.  Its a tragedy no matter how you dice it.  You have your US government milking it for everything its worth and your muslim extremists using it as a spirng board to domination/political goals/whatever and its sickening.  ITS bonking SICKENING.  I sat at work and caught a glimpse of a video clip of a man diving down 100 stories..... flipping around in the air current plummeting to his death.  THATS what its about. 

I agree with Knightlight that looking to conspiracy theories or pointing the finger at this organisation or that is not the point. What's done is done! It's in the past now so the best thing we can do is learn from it, and not continually re-hash it looking for some other organisation to blame.

Bottom line, thousands of people died because of beliefs based upon fear. Beliefs that we're right and they're wrong. You choose who we are and who they are, because until we all surrender our fear based beliefs and learn to truly love ourselves and be rid of these  religions and belief systems that propagate fear, then it makes no difference who we are and who they are.

Blessings,
James.

Quote from: James S on September 17, 2006, 07:02:41
I agree with Knightlight that looking to conspiracy theories or pointing the finger at this organisation or that is not the point. What's done is done! It's in the past now so the best thing we can do is learn from it, and not continually re-hash it looking for some other organisation to blame.

Bottom line, thousands of people died because of beliefs based upon fear. Beliefs that we're right and they're wrong. You choose who we are and who they are, because until we all surrender our fear based beliefs and learn to truly love ourselves and be rid of these  religions and belief systems that propagate fear, then it makes no difference who we are and who they are.

Blessings,
James.

Yes but only american lives count  :lol:, The US armed forces have killed more than 100,000 people  :| they dont count

Good stuff bad cookie. Thermite plasma some serious stuff. Uhh ya.
I have no real idea of what happened there. But i do feel a bit strange about the entire thing. the fact we have yet to do one single thing to the guy "responsible" because we had to jump into iraq first was even more whack.
Wish i was still in the military at least to have just a bit more info.
Just dont forget the government is a puppet. They dont even pull the big strings anymore. The wealthiest organizations in the world dont even have the United states as one anymore. It would be the Catholic church and than the top 5 companies in the world that are intertwined so much with secret societies and family names that have been around for so long those are the true source. To bad we did not have a clause in our constitution that says when things get to rediculous the PEOPLE can take over again like its supposed to be. :wink: 

That my friend is only a matter of the people all getting tired of the situation at the same time.  There is actually a formal process written into the constitution on how we as a people can request a change of government.

(http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-small.1055.jpg)

Look at those large chunks of material shooting away from the building in that small jet of smoke. Where did those pieces of debris come from if the destroyed parts of the building are still 5-6 floors above? Think about it: if it wasn't an explosion that forced that material out the window, then somehow the debris field accelerated through the undestroyed floors and popped out of those two windows.

Another point of view for you http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=WTC+demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=WTC+demolition)

On this one look closely at you will see a blow out about 25 floors below the collapse http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1798029680029341757&q=WTC+collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1798029680029341757&q=WTC+collapse)

I have never seen this video before but it gives you a very good look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2027968455917231364&q=WTC+collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2027968455917231364&q=WTC+collapse) NO WAY THESE BULDING CAME DOWN FROM FIRE!!  :cry:



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572&q=WTC+collapse (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5061514770009171572&q=WTC+collapse) WOW thermite visible in this one

Quote from: cainam_nazier on September 23, 2006, 12:32:20
That my friend is only a matter of the people all getting tired of the situation at the same time.  There is actually a formal process written into the constitution on how we as a people can request a change of government.

If it was only that easy (http://www.systemwars.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)

Although i have some experiance in explosives. I have very little experiance in demolition. So i could say well yes an impact like that would possibly send out other debri from secondary explosions or from massive amounts of concusion. But in the end im only applying what i do know for sure. And like i said no experiance in demolition. 

Quote from: Enoch on September 24, 2006, 20:51:06
Although i have some experiance in explosives. I have very little experiance in demolition. So i could say well yes an impact like that would possibly send out other debri from secondary explosions or from massive amounts of concusion. But in the end im only applying what i do know for sure. And like i said no experiance in demolition. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px6F8zAhQ1c&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px6F8zAhQ1c&mode=related&search=)

It is important to realize that 9/11 was not just the twin towers. We are also told that a plane crashed into the pentagon. If you look at photos from that day, it is quite evident that a plane did not hit the pentagon. A plane with two 6-tonne engines, wings and a tail leaves nothing more than a single hole? Not to mention there is absolutely no wreckage of a plane at all. Same deal with the plane that crashed into the forest that was "headed for the whitehouse". The way the buildings come down in 9/11 is definately suspiscious but speculating on it is trivial. The facts with the other two are undeniable. There were no planes. Check out this link for a shot of the pentagon http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-fire-width.jpg Source out your own as well. There is no plane wreckage, or definite hole where a plane hit. Now if they are dodgy then it creates greater reason to believe that the twin towers were also faked. Or perhaps it was merely a coincidence.

First we invade Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction. Now we are in there to restore peace? Find "terrorists"? Are you seriously buying this? Africa has been starving for decades. What has been done in St Orleans since hurricane Katrina? What about people linving in Columbia? Call me an idiot, but I think the governments agenda revolves around the oil. 9/11 just gave Bush an excuse to invade Iraq.

It is my OPPINION that the Bush Administration is abusing it's power. This is no "War on Terror". This is a fight for the oil. A fight for more power. Regardless of 9/11, there is definately an issue that need to be adressed.

Personally, I find the 9/11 conspiracy theory very convincing. However, the truth will not change. We live in a very scary world if it is true.

The agenda is more than oil. It was also to create HomelandSecurity. That scares me more than any terrorist. One huge controlling entity... :?
The ability to destroy the constitution lies with homeland security and its already started with spying on all of us.

Indeed. There currently no governments that are ethically responsible enough to run the planet. America seems to be trying though.

Quote from: Awakened_Mind on September 26, 2006, 23:09:30
It is important to realize that 9/11 was not just the twin towers. We are also told that a plane crashed into the pentagon. If you look at photos from that day, it is quite evident that a plane did not hit the pentagon. A plane with two 6-tonne engines, wings and a tail leaves nothing more than a single hole?

There was a lot more than a hole. Please look at the pictures again. 3 walls of a very heavily reinforced building were penetrated and their internal structures destroyed.

Quote
Not to mention there is absolutely no wreckage of a plane at all.

There's lots of wreckage which matches that of the place which hit. Please look at the photos again and you can even compare the pieces.

Please look at the following link and read at least the first 20 pages if you want to find the truth rather than a conspiracy:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

A lot of conspiracy sites and movies either miss out entire areas of evidence and facts, and either purposefully misinterpret facts to fit their agenda or downright lie. I've even seen one video of the plane hitting the pentagon had been edited to back up one 'theory'.

While there might be a lot of misinformation out there, and we might not have received the whole truth. A lot of conspiracy theories are bending a few facts to fit their story and leaving a lot out. Anyone who is interested in the truth, keep an open mind and read all the facts out there – this might require some searching as it's scattered about all over the net.

Having read all the facts, what do you think MasterJingo?

The problem is finding facts. If you believe that it was a terrorist attack or not. Anyone can say "this is what happened" and its still just a made up lie. In reality who cares? Does it advance you as a person in any way whatsoever to know? Can we do anything about it even if it was a hoax by our own government to create homelandsecurity Hell no we cant. The entire problem lies with there being people that think we need to classify information as classified, secret, top secret...LOL what a load of excrement. The only things that should be allowed covered up in this whole damn world is IMMEDIATE military plans period. What because we are not part of the government  we cant handle the truth, we are just young children that need our hands held. Classified information is bull excrement. There should be NO secrets from the general population and if there are the people responsible need to be in prison. Hell even this is a waste we need an entire new system a complete overhaul. The wicked, materialistic, greedy, rulers have gone on long enough. Any time you can apply all ten commandments and all seven deadly sins to your government and say yes they have broke all of them...its time for change...So this one incident this new bovine excrement is just another drop in a bucket that has overflowed long ago. I pray for all the 9-11 victims and its unfortunate that we live in such a dishonost society we cant just mourn for them and take the PROPER steps to eliminate the people who did it....We cannot find bin laden my butt. We can see a dime from space and read the date. and we cannot find him? BS.   

Enoch, I enjoyed reading that. Cheers.

-Awakened_Mind

Quote from: Awakened_Mind on September 26, 2006, 23:09:30
If you look at photos from that day, it is quite evident that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

I wouldn't be so sure. I used to think the crash scene there looked awfully funny too, but then I found videos online of government and NASA tests (but what's the difference? :P), like one where they sent some jet into a concrete wall at hundreds of miles per hour.

The plane totally disintegrated.

Here's a video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5810017935113152604&q=jet+concrete+wall&hl=en

On 9/11, similar jet could have impacted the Pentagon, which had a facade constructed of reinforced concrete, truck-bomb resistant, at several hundred miles per hour. Again, watch the video I just linked to. Total destruction. The engines, the heaviest parts of the plane that should have made it the farthest, would have busted the facade if anything, and mostly likely did if there was a plane (notice the lowest damage extends only so far as the engines would have, approximately), but other than that, the rest of the body of a 757 is thin aluminum, titanium bars in the wings, etc. Nothing that wouldn't be totally messed up in an impact like that.

I have a great respect for opposing oppinions. Without them, mine have no meaning. The evidence in that video is a very sound argument, it makes the pentagon imapct seem more plausible. What actually happened to the pentagon on 9/11 is still ambiguous. It would be so much easier if the government released the footage from the 3 surveilence cameras they conviscated (to assist in investigation) to the internet.

Pentagon aside. What do you suppose happened to the plane that was headed for the white house and crashed into the forest? Many planes have smashed into mountains, forests, the ground etc before and left a significant amount of debree.

9/11 as I said remains ambiguous. What is clear though Enoch pretty much emphasized.

-Awakened_Mind

No plane crashed in the forrest, coz no plane were found, however they found a huge crater wich was caused most probably by a missile. I have heard that there were fiberoptic cable on that spot. Now why would anyone want to destroy underground fiberoptics?. Cut off transactions perhaps. Maybe there is an invisible war going on between the NWO gang and an opposing force. If that is so then we might have a chance escape total enslavement.

Hey Arn,

Got any sources for the fiber optic cable running through where the crater was?

If there was one, I doubt it was to cut off any transactions or anything, as it wouldn't be hard to find another way around a downed cable, and data would probably just be re-routed around and get to where it was going anyway. If this fiber optic cable wasn't linked between any two public LANs or LANs with internet connections, I wouldn't be surprised.

Here are jet crashes.

(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/plane_crash_cnn.jpg)(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/ebersol_crash_small.jpg)

The fireballs/resulting fires from jet crashes (for a while, anyway) are very fuel-rich, for obvious reasons. Remember the WTC and Pentagon impact photos? Those would be fuel-rich explosions, from so much jet fuel. Produces thick black smoke, flame, all that.

These, on the other hand, are clouds produced from ordinance blasts:

(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/ordnance_sd.jpg)(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/ordnance_tvnz.jpg)

And here's a photo taken by a Pennsylvanian on Sept. 11:

(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/plume_val1.jpg)


Ordinance blasts are set on the ground, which is why your statement of there being fiber optic cables running through there is interesting to me. Any sources for it would be appreciated.

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/united-93-coverup-cia-pentagon-psyops-exposed

I didn't find anything about the fiberoptics but i'm sure I read it somewhere, don't remember where.
The above link points out  some good stuff tho

I think if the concern of this issue grows strong enough there will be an independent inquiry instead of just speculation. Something that is a little more conclusive surely would have to be undertaken. September 11, IMO, has worked more in the favor of America than Alqaeda. I'm sure they are losing more men and are no where near as confident in victory as an army funded by tax dollars of an entire country.

Why would someone believe that bombing America is in no way going to provoke an attack? Isn't the whole reason they are taking such extreme measures because we "invade" their country for no reason? I mean they are not targetting people in Antarctica are they. This isn't some extermination of all who do not believe in Ulla. So what is giving us a reason going to do? Out matched in strategy, weaponry and finance... what the hell are these people thinking anyway? Trying to sneak explosives onto a plain after a huge increase in airport security after 9/11!?

Whatever the truth is, I don't know which is harder to believe. The fact that a government would ever commit such a crime against it's own, or the stupidity of these terrorists.

-AM

I am in South Africa but on the day, 9/11, I watched with horror on CNN LIVE, which we used to get here back then B4 satellite TV arrived. There was one thing I DID notice. One shot that was repeated over and over again was the one where the first plane hit that was taken by a member of the public on his vid cam. I was struck by the fact that, as he panned the cam to look at the plane coming down, I saw LOTS of emergency personnel there. Now, what were they doing there BEFORE the fact??? That struck me as odd.... (and later I heard the story that the US Gov had been warned but chose to ignore the warnings... so....).
Were they there because they knew beforehand??? How did they know??? Lots of questions and not enough answers and I guess we will never know the full truth... (well, at least for 100 years, anyhow... :-)

Haven't heard anything about first-responders being there early, but FEMA was there on 9/10. Same agency that gets chewed for being so tardy with Katrina is a day early for 9/11, apparently. This is according to Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and has been confirmed by FEMA itself if I'm not mistaken, that there was supposed to be a bio-terror "drill" in Manhattan on Sept. 12, so FEMA arrived on Sept. 10th and started setting up a command center, which they then immediately put into use the next morning. Of course, after the collapses, the area was closed off, all steel and other criminal evidence was made off-limits, photo and video were confiscated (some ten thousand + pics and vids of the day still not released to this day), construction drawings for the buildings and other valuable information put under lock and key or destroyed or scrapped and sent to China.

Pretty coincidental on its own, but also consider that NORAD also had several wargames that morning, before the attacks, that redirected interceptors from the Northeast to over Canada and Alaska, and wargames that confused RADAR operators and other NORAD and FAA individuals, preventing scramblings and interceptions of planes that would have otherwise have been physically tracked (with interceptors) ASAP, as per SOP. And, an NRO exercise that morning simulating a plane flying into their HQ building, not too far from the Pentagon, which also caused much confusion that morning.

Pretty wild coincidences, right?

I do not believe in coincidences... question answered???  :-D

Quote from: no_leaf_clover on October 03, 2006, 11:46:00
Haven't heard anything about first-responders being there early, but FEMA was there on 9/10. Same agency that gets chewed for being so tardy with Katrina is a day early for 9/11, apparently. This is according to Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and has been confirmed by FEMA itself if I'm not mistaken, that there was supposed to be a bio-terror "drill" in Manhattan on Sept. 12, so FEMA arrived on Sept. 10th and started setting up a command center, which they then immediately put into use the next morning. Of course, after the collapses, the area was closed off, all steel and other criminal evidence was made off-limits, photo and video were confiscated (some ten thousand + pics and vids of the day still not released to this day), construction drawings for the buildings and other valuable information put under lock and key or destroyed or scrapped and sent to China.

Pretty coincidental on its own, but also consider that NORAD also had several wargames that morning, before the attacks, that redirected interceptors from the Northeast to over Canada and Alaska, and wargames that confused RADAR operators and other NORAD and FAA individuals, preventing scramblings and interceptions of planes that would have otherwise have been physically tracked (with interceptors) ASAP, as per SOP. And, an NRO exercise that morning simulating a plane flying into their HQ building, not too far from the Pentagon, which also caused much confusion that morning.

Pretty wild coincidences, right?

I read about that. Seems that terrorists penetrated the whole system  :-o

So who was responsible and why?

Quote from: whiterose on October 10, 2006, 13:03:02
So who was responsible and why?

Check this out, from Mike Ruppert, a former LAPD investigator and whistleblower of the corruption he encountered from various intelligence agencies in LA.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=truth+lies+9%2F11

It's over two hours, but he presents a lot of information. "Why" is a question that requires an historical background coming from the end of the Cold War.

mmmm, not convinced.  There's always a bottom line - as in bottom line who? and bottom line why?.  It seems to me that exponents of this theory are just throwing masses of information into the pot making it impossible (maybe deliberately so) to maintain a sense of clarity.  I'm no idiot but I think it would be possible to spend weeks or maybe months sifting through supposed evidence, without coming any closer to finding my bottom line.

Well why not spend two hours on that video then?

What it ultimately comes down to is the US needed to be in the Mid-East to support its economy, immediately. The justification for this, what allowed us to IMMEDIATELY go to the Mid-East with new, supermassive military budgets and reasons to spend galore, was 9/11. The economy was sliding in the months before, certain illegal industries were faltering because of Taliban involvement in Afghanistan (this is where Ruppert comes in, he's an ex narcotics officer and investigator), and needed to be secured.

Since the US invasion of Afganistan, and later Iraq, not only has our military budget skyrocketed, military and oil corporation profits skyrocketed, but opium production supporting BILLIONS of dollars in illegal drug trade has risen in Afghanistan by some 9000% or more, since the Taliban began killing off opium in late 2000. It comes back to money, and keeping our economy afloat.

It was said by PNAC: We needed a new Pearl Harbor.

It was said in the Grand Chess Board: Americans needed to perceive an immediate external threat to justify Mid-East occupation.

We got it.

Even if you don't think the government itself did it (I think patsies WERE involved), there were MANY warnings, specific warnings, from Russia, the Mossad, etc., saying terror attack, soon, WTC. All ignored. Put options on UA and AA. Ignored. All of these things suggesting insider knowledge, foreknowledge, IGNORING the forewarnings.

Again, watch the above video.

Afghanistan seems to be a bit of a smoke screen in all this.  It seems to me that if America really did feel that it desperatley had to get a massive military deployment in the middle east increasing defence budgets etc etc.. then it wouldn't have needed a war on terror, but could simply have used it's pretext for invading Iraq, WMD,s.  Anyone with half a brain knows that trying to link Iraq with Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, indeed a Saddam led Iraq is probably the last place they would be welcome, but many people believed Saddam did have WMD's.  So would a manufactured war on terror really have been needed as a pretext? I don't think so.

What you think doesn't really matter, does it?

Mike Ruppert presents evidence the above video. He presents his credentials as a criminal investigator at the beginning, and is also offering a cash reward for anyone that disproves any of his documentation, which he offers throughout the presentation.

BYU's Prof. Emeritus of Physics Steven Jones also has a lecture on the WTC collapse (best available information imo) on Google video if you want to watch that for further objective analysis of what happened.

What i think matters exactly the same amount as what you think, doesn't it?

I was under the impression that someone had started a topic which they wished to be discussed by anyone, irrespective of their point of view.  or was it just intended for your sheep like followers, who are willing to massage your ego by believing in any conspiracy theory however outrageous.  There are real conspiracies out there you know, like global warming and the pollution of the planet.  Why don't you turn your time and energies to convincing more people about the dangers of them!

Quote from: whiterose on October 10, 2006, 17:25:26
What i think matters exactly the same amount as what you think, doesn't it?

I was under the impression that someone had started a topic which they wished to be discussed by anyone, irrespective of their point of view.  or was it just intended for your sheep like followers, who are willing to massage your ego by believing in any conspiracy theory however outrageous.

Noice.

Quote from: whiterose on October 10, 2006, 17:25:26
I was under the impression that someone had started a topic which they wished to be discussed by anyone, irrespective of their point of view.

Sure, but again, what you think is irrelevant. Everything that followed in this last post was the same. You have to realize that I have seen this stuff debated into very fine details in regards to physics and various fields of engineering, and you stating what you think to me honestly isn't very impressive, understandably, as you post nothing of substance. Just how you feel about the facts, or as Colbert would put it, truthiness.

For the third time I refer you to the objective information available from the sources I've posted above.

Quote from: no_leaf_clover on October 11, 2006, 20:03:13or as Colbert would put it, truthiness.

Stephen Colbert = God.

Nice post.

I agree with your point that what I think, and indeed what you think is irrelevant, in so much as there are a set of facts that cannot be changed however much you would like them to be. 

I don't think I'll take you up on your offer of viewing your "objective" information as I'm somewhat bored with this conversation, and continuing it can only further inflate your sense of self importance.

I understand Colbert was partially deaf, and as I said in my previous post there are important issues that we all need to face.  so please don't be completely deaf to these and waste your life with this foolish quest for your unholy grail.