now before i show u guys this, i would like to note that i'm not a liberal, im not a conservative, i do not favor kerry's ideals over bush's ideals (they both serve the same people, doesnt matter who won that staged election because they'd both send the country down the shitter, they're both skull & bones members etc.). now i will prolly step on a lot of toes with this post. ive played in mob server a long while back, and ive made sort of friends here(remember Little_Dude, or TheGreatEqualizer?). i respect you all, but there is something that needs to get out. you guys will ferociously deny what i post here, but if u do the research, ull find out that what i m about to tell u is true. ive devoted the last 6 months of my life to the 9/11 Truth movement and ive spent countless days analyzing the events of 9/11, photos, footage, etc. I'm really good in physics, and i am a very smart person, most of all, i always keep an open mind. now after seeing fahrenheit 9/11, i did not cheer. michael moore is a fat liberal piece of shit out to try to get money from the liberals by taking small territory from the truth movement. f911 was liberal propaganda, nothing more, and i know that as well as u know that, and it probably did more to hurt the movement than help it. the truth goes beyond fahrenheit 9/11's anti-bush propaganda about bush and bin laden being friends. now that's not a lie that they were friends, and about the oil pipeline and all that, but f911 was bullshit propaganda because it focused more on bashing bush than the truth. please, keep an open mind when reading this, your first reaction will be undoubtedly that im a conspiracy nutjob who believes whatever the media tells me. i do not. i do not hear this from the mainstream media. the mainstream media is controlled, and i do not believe a word of it, whether it's what u guys call liberal or conservative. i take no part in it. now, i present to you, the truth of 9/11.
one more note, please look up anything and everything i say. dont believe it from my mouth, look it up urself. research everything i say so that u know it's fact and that im not just making it up.
before i present the truth, i'd like to try to open ur minds a little bit with some historical examples of governments attacking their people for political gain. on february 27th, 1933, hitler burned down his own reichstag building and blamed the communists. he was able to obtain full dictatorial powers, and just like from 9/11, the people were more than willing to give up their rights for security from the internal threat of the communists, which were eliminated shortly after the reichstag fire. after this, the people were enslaved. you all know how the rest of WW II played out.
on another post someone mentioned pearl harbor being roosevelt's fault. not necessarily, but popular to contrary belief, even the history channel has no admitted that roosevelt knew of pearl harbor ahead of time. the american navy cracked the japanese naval codes and intercepted messages months ahead of time stating details about the attack.
possibly the most incriminating piece of historical evidence is a document called Operation Northwoods. It was thought up in 1962 and it detailed hijacking/blowing up American aircraft, killing marines at guantanomo bay, even a "Remember the Maine" incident on american ships, all as a pretext to go to war with cuba. if u do not believe this document exists, u can look it up in the government archives by the following steps:
1. go to http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/
2. click on the yellow "Search" button torwards the upper left side
3. search for "Northwoods" and hit go
4. click on the first hit, "Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"
5. click on all images
6. jump to page 23
7. read pages 138-142 of the document
next, bill clinton was a douchebag as stated in a previous thread, because WTC bombing in 1993 and OKC bombing in 95 were both inside jobs as well. OKC bombing was more clear cut than 9/11. there were local news reports and eye witness reports of 2 unexploded devices inside the building that were removed by the ATF. not to mention an analysis of the damage shows it was blown OUTWARDS and not INWARDS, and amonium nitrate is NOT a powerful explosive, not powerful enough to do that much damage from across the street. you can look this one up too, you'll find tons of info about this.
one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens. i wonder y. the man who blew the whistle on this, John O'neil resigned from the CIA after going public. unfortunately, he was hired a few weeks after that to work in the twin towers, and he died on his first day on the job, september 11th, 2001. look this one up because this sounds something to strange to be true, but it is.
now, onto 9/11.
When a crime is committed, any TRUE investigator will look at who has the motive. now on 9/11, we were TOLD the criminals who committed the crime were arab terrorists. when you search arab/muslim terrorists, you find no real motive. you find the bs motive that the media fed us of "they're jealous of our freedom... they dont like america...". well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government. why the hell would they attack people that founded them, funded, and trained them? answer: they wouldnt. bin laden was a CIA asset. he's not gonna attack his long time business partner and friend. that notion is absurd. now let's look at possible motives for the government: to get more profits from war, to further the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and Wolfowitz Doctrine (you can look them both up online) policies that clearly state we need a war in iraq and afghanistan and this would be sped up by a "pearl harbor" event... to get MORE control over us (PATRIOT ACT![1 and 2]), to further the police state, bring us one step closer to a dictatorship... the motives for an attack by the government are endless.
now let's focus on the actual events of that day. to be successful without the government's help, the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar. they KNOW if a plane goes off course, in which case they would send fighters within minutes to investigate. what we have here on 9/11 is 2 planes simultaneously wandering off course, and yet, no fighters. the first plane was off course (COMPLETELY) for 40 minutes, the next one was off course for 70 minutes, then the pentagon plane was off course for about 40 mins as well. no fighters sent for these 3 planes. now we have examples such as payne stewart (remember, the golfer guy whose plane got off course a few years ago?) whose plane was off course for only about 15-20 mins when fighters arrived. that's a small cessna plane. these are huge boeing 757/767 jet passenger liners off course for 40-70 minutes. no fighters. those terrorists must've been something to defeat the american airspace, eh?
next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th. coincidence? i think not. what we have here is the clear LIE stating that fire burning for only 56 minutes at 3/4 the way up the tower was enough to weaken the steel enough. jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt! in other words, those towers would not have collapsed had they not had the help of something: DEMOLITION CHARGES.
your first reaction is "how the hell can they put demolition charges into the tower without anyone noticing?" answer: easily. on the weekend of september 8-9, there was a powerdown in the WTC and engineers were seen walking in and out of the towers all weekend long. what better time to put demolition charges in? there is none. if you watch different videos of the towers collapsing, you can SEE the demolition charges. you can see... just watch the towers collapse it looks like they explode outward, and u can see in certain places the buildings popping out floor by floor, along with testimony from firefighters saying that they saw the towers start poppin out floor by floor. ill link up to a webpage with good video clearly showing the demo charges
the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon, leaving barely any wreckage at all, because most of the ALUMINUM wreckage "burnt up". gimme a freakin break. burnt up? metal doesnt "burn up". metal melts (not to mention that jet fuel doesnt even reach a temperature high enough to melt aluminum) but it doesnt burn up. yet if u look at pictures of the pentagon... you see no wreckage... and the way it collapsed (that section), if u look at the adjacent section, it looks like a CROSS-SECTION, perfectly cut like a hot knife through butter. now to disect the lie about flying inches above the cars: if you flew a boeing 757 inches above a highway, it would rip all the cars off the highway and throw them like a leaf in wind. and even with all of that, the "plane" still managed to puch neatly through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and 3 rings of the pentagon going in a complete straight line... without the wings being found anywhere (there was only a 12x14 foot hole made by the plane that struck the pentagon, where are the wings?). the only thing that can punch that neatly throught that much steel reinforced concrete is depleted uranium, or in english, a missile.
the next event was the plane crashing in shanksville pennsylvania. remember that todd beamer story about "let's roll!" and how they heroically wrestled the terrorists and brought the plane down? well, quoth donald rumsfeld while talking to the soldiers in Iraq on december 25th, 2004: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, -> SHOT DOWN THE PLANE OVER PENNSYLVANIA <- and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." mis-spoke/slipped my ass. he wouldn't have said that if it didnt happen. now y the cover up? who knows. but that's a clear lie.
the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum? answer: demolition charges. we KNOW this for a fact. the main reason is because of Larry Silverstein's (landlord of the WTC) admission that the firefighters said they couldn't contain the fires so they had to "pull it", controlled demolition terms for "pulling" the thing that starts the demolition. demo charges need to be put in place ahead of time, days ahead of time. controlled demolitions take WEEKS of planning, so those charges had to be in place prior to that day. now also, the building falls as if it's not even hitting the ground... it falls only .2 of a second slower than a FREE-FALLING OBJECT IN A VACUM, that is, without air resistance. now think, when this thing comes down it has a lot of resistance. all of those steel beams... air resistance. .2 slower. you cannot have a collapse of that speed without demolition charges.
there's plenty of evidence right there. here are some
sites:
www.prisonplanet.com/911.html <-- best archival source
www.infowars.com
www.propagandamatrix.com
www.letsroll911.org
www.reopen911.org (go to the bottom and get ur free 4
hour DVD about 9/11)
www.911busters.com
dont forget guys, PLEASE LOOK THIS STUFF UP. i hope you are all open-minded people, and i hope you will all look this up before telling me it's completely ridiculous and that im just a conspiracy nut. the truth is out there... look it up. i dont want to here anyone saying it is completely ridiculous if they havent looked up everything ive said with the sources ive given. thanx for all being open-minded!
Full Version: What REALLY happened on 9/11
I knew about the Pentagon cover up but I didn't realize this also involved the WTC.
Conspiracy theories abound....
I skimmed briefly over much of your post but from what I could gather there was mention of demo charges placed in the WTC and NORAD missing (or ignoring) planes in the sky.
There are several different theories as to what happened to the WTC, the Pentagon, and the flight that was overtaken in Pennsylvania (can't remember the number). Most or all of which have been debunked by a recent article in the latest issue of Popular Mechanics.
I had seen a website about the Pentagon attack in particular that struck my interest and had me questioning what happened, but this also was addressed in that article. If you're interested in truth I suggest you read it.
I skimmed briefly over much of your post but from what I could gather there was mention of demo charges placed in the WTC and NORAD missing (or ignoring) planes in the sky.
There are several different theories as to what happened to the WTC, the Pentagon, and the flight that was overtaken in Pennsylvania (can't remember the number). Most or all of which have been debunked by a recent article in the latest issue of Popular Mechanics.
I had seen a website about the Pentagon attack in particular that struck my interest and had me questioning what happened, but this also was addressed in that article. If you're interested in truth I suggest you read it.
ahhh to hell with that article... we people at letsroll911.org proved that article a farce. if u wanna know more, go to the forums at www.letsroll911.org, there are TONS of posts out the PM article, ive read it, it brings up some good points to the untrained mind, but we at letsroll basically countered that article and put it flat. that PM article basically makes a "straw man" of lies and attacks it. ive already sent this e-mail to them, because 3 of the things it states in that article are 100% proven false. here's the email:
like i said, we at letsroll911.org have ripped apart that article for the farce that is. trust me, i know all about it.
there are just 3 100% lies in there, and since there's three, most likely there's more. i dont remember eveything that was in the article, but a lot of the things it states aren't even claims of us from the truth movement, although i dont have the article on me right now.
QUOTE
I'm sure you get a lot of conspiracy theorists
e-mailing you about your 9/11 article (btw we hate
that term).
My name is Eric Idelson and I'm 15 years old and
really involved with 9/11 Truth. Now, if it wasn't
11:40 PM on a teusday night, i would write a rebuttle
article. But for now, i will point out 3 critical
pieces of evidence that you have quite wrong in your
article. these things are indisputable.
1. Larry Silverstein (Landlord to the WTC at the time
of the attacks) admitted that the firefighters told
him they couldn't contain the fires, so they had to
"pull it" (which means take it down using controlled
demolition)... look up "Larry Silverstein "Pull it""
on google and watch the video. irrefutable.
2. on December 25th, 2004, Donald Rumsfeld while
giving a speech in Iraq, mentioned that the plane was
shot down over pennsylvania. it was later said it was
a "slip"... but why would that be on his mind if it
didn't happen? Do conspiracy theorists really concern
the government that much? if we're just theories, we
wouldn't. (look up Donald Rumsfeld "plane shot down"
on google)
3. you're article claims that there was a 75 foot
whole in the pentagon made my the plane crash. this is
false. there was a 65 ft. hole in the pentagon only
AFTER the section collapsed. here is a site i found
(first good result that demonstrates my point) that
clearly shows there is no 75 foot hole in the pentagon
before the section collapsed... if there was... the
whole would be bigger than the collapsed section
(interesting):
http://pentagonpictures.brad.com/ <-- do you see a 75
foot hole? i dont.
please revise your article and double check it.
thank you,
Eric Idelson
e-mailing you about your 9/11 article (btw we hate
that term).
My name is Eric Idelson and I'm 15 years old and
really involved with 9/11 Truth. Now, if it wasn't
11:40 PM on a teusday night, i would write a rebuttle
article. But for now, i will point out 3 critical
pieces of evidence that you have quite wrong in your
article. these things are indisputable.
1. Larry Silverstein (Landlord to the WTC at the time
of the attacks) admitted that the firefighters told
him they couldn't contain the fires, so they had to
"pull it" (which means take it down using controlled
demolition)... look up "Larry Silverstein "Pull it""
on google and watch the video. irrefutable.
2. on December 25th, 2004, Donald Rumsfeld while
giving a speech in Iraq, mentioned that the plane was
shot down over pennsylvania. it was later said it was
a "slip"... but why would that be on his mind if it
didn't happen? Do conspiracy theorists really concern
the government that much? if we're just theories, we
wouldn't. (look up Donald Rumsfeld "plane shot down"
on google)
3. you're article claims that there was a 75 foot
whole in the pentagon made my the plane crash. this is
false. there was a 65 ft. hole in the pentagon only
AFTER the section collapsed. here is a site i found
(first good result that demonstrates my point) that
clearly shows there is no 75 foot hole in the pentagon
before the section collapsed... if there was... the
whole would be bigger than the collapsed section
(interesting):
http://pentagonpictures.brad.com/ <-- do you see a 75
foot hole? i dont.
please revise your article and double check it.
thank you,
Eric Idelson
like i said, we at letsroll911.org have ripped apart that article for the farce that is. trust me, i know all about it.
there are just 3 100% lies in there, and since there's three, most likely there's more. i dont remember eveything that was in the article, but a lot of the things it states aren't even claims of us from the truth movement, although i dont have the article on me right now.
oh goody a debate.
unfortunately I've not the time to reply right now but be sure to check back in a few days.
I can't wait to get into part 2 & 3
unfortunately I've not the time to reply right now but be sure to check back in a few days.
I can't wait to get into part 2 & 3
The quote from Rumsfeld proves absolutely nothing, not to mention there is no evidence the plane was shot down.
By your own logic since the PM article had an error or two in it and that made it a "straw man of lies", wouldn't that make these all these theories the same thing for selectively leaving in/out evidence or other information?
BTW I'm not posting out of political motivations or an unwavering love for the Bush administration and gov't in general, just skepticism.
By your own logic since the PM article had an error or two in it and that made it a "straw man of lies", wouldn't that make these all these theories the same thing for selectively leaving in/out evidence or other information?
BTW I'm not posting out of political motivations or an unwavering love for the Bush administration and gov't in general, just skepticism.
well those arent the only things... being as i guess u can call me an "expert" on the events of 9/11, many things that article attacks arethings that a lot of ppl in the movement dont even support... that's what i mean by a strawman. and it has the same mind controlling statements like calling it ridiculous conspiracy theories and what not... if u do the research you'll find that the conspiracy theories are more likely to have happened than the official story... and yes the rumsfeld quote does prove something, because he wouldnt be THAT concerned with the plane being shot down if it didnt happen... just my 2 cents. thnx for the feedback guys.
btw, if you'd like, go to www.letsroll911.org and on many of the forums there (including the WTC ones) youll find threads about the PM article... we've all ripped it apart already =)
btw, if you'd like, go to www.letsroll911.org and on many of the forums there (including the WTC ones) youll find threads about the PM article... we've all ripped it apart already =)
I still don't agree that Rumsfeld's quote means anything without any evidence.
I never once thought the article in PM was an "attack" at all. How did you all come to that conclusion?
I never once thought the article in PM was an "attack" at all. How did you all come to that conclusion?
wow... i have never read such BS in my life. the heat from the fuel would have "weakened" structure in its self. remember when you seen the plane hit the towers the plane tore apart the intregerty of the towers, the fire ball was the vapor the fuel gives off fuel itsself dont burn vapor does. second, no fireman would use controled demolitions to bring a structure under control. anyone not in a specialized turnout gear would not be able to deal with the effects the jet fuel unleashed. normal firemans gear is able to with stand avg heat of 1500 degrees. with that said in mind at 400 deg mostly everything becomes combustible. from personal experience at at those temps the helmet starts to burn up the face shield melts and the reflectors melt off, the nomex hood starts to burn your face and your sweat vaporizes and gives you a steam burn. thats when you know its time to haul ass. now the suits the airport FD uses are a much higher rated and reflect much more heat. up to i believe 2500-3000 degrees. more then enough to melt the steel. the men and women that died in the fire (firemen) knew they were in for a bad battle and probally knew they were not leaving in any sortof good condition. seeing there gear was only able to with stand the lower heat temp. i know i would have. besides it took them at least 10 min to get to the floors which took 10 min off their bottle and left them with 20 min of air. so they had 10 min of air to save life in. they knew their fate. i dont like people shitting on my brothers that died...it really pisses me off. 
edit....do i believe the gov hides shit...yes....anything about 911...no
edit....do i believe the gov hides shit...yes....anything about 911...no
alright first of all, the evidence we have for flight 93 being shot down is many eyewitness reports saying they saw a fireball in the sky before the plane went down, and u have the wreckage that was strewn over many square miles, not consistent with just a crash. not to mention todd beamer, the "let's roll!" hero spent the last few minutes of his life on the phone with an operator from i believe AT&T, not his pregnant wife (what a douchebag :/)... that's what i heard... yet from what i also hear the idea of being able to call ppl on a cell phone from an airplane at 5,000 or so feet is traveling that speed is impossible... that's little evidence yes, but rumsfeld's admission clears that up.
now as for the towers, just look in the news. look at the madrid fire. that fire was 100x worse than that of the twin towers, and 100x worse than that of building 7. if u do not believe there was any coverup at all, do some research, look at building 7 of the WTC, look at its collapse, and look at it right before the collapse. there are barely any fires, compare that to the madrid skyscaper that was nearly completely engulfed in flames hotter than those at the WTC for twice as long as the fire in building 7, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE. dont forget, building 7 was not hit by any plane and was 200 yards away from the towers, yet it collapsed. BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7. BUILDING SEVEN HAD A FEW SCATTERED SMALL FIRES, YET THE WHOLE BUILDING COLLAPSED WHEN THE BUILDING IN MADRID, OLDER AND LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM A FIRE THAT ENGULFED THE WHOLE BUILDING FOR DAYS. think about that. that by itself, not to mention larry silverstein's admission is more than proof that there was some type of cover up on 9/11.
now as for the towers, just look in the news. look at the madrid fire. that fire was 100x worse than that of the twin towers, and 100x worse than that of building 7. if u do not believe there was any coverup at all, do some research, look at building 7 of the WTC, look at its collapse, and look at it right before the collapse. there are barely any fires, compare that to the madrid skyscaper that was nearly completely engulfed in flames hotter than those at the WTC for twice as long as the fire in building 7, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE. dont forget, building 7 was not hit by any plane and was 200 yards away from the towers, yet it collapsed. BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7. BUILDING SEVEN HAD A FEW SCATTERED SMALL FIRES, YET THE WHOLE BUILDING COLLAPSED WHEN THE BUILDING IN MADRID, OLDER AND LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM A FIRE THAT ENGULFED THE WHOLE BUILDING FOR DAYS. think about that. that by itself, not to mention larry silverstein's admission is more than proof that there was some type of cover up on 9/11.
QUOTE(D. Silver @ 02/15/05 8:37am)
i dont like people shitting on my brothers that died...it really pisses me off.
i am NOT shitting on your brothers who died. 9/11 bothers me more than almost any other event in history, along with the two wars that came of it. i admire our veterans, and i feel sorrow for everyone that died on 9/11. but me trying to get the truth out so that the REAL evildoers may some day be brought to justice is NOT shitting on your brothers. think about it, if someone had a stroke and died, so you thought, then someone told you he was poisoned by another person instead, how is that shitting on the person that died? it's not, he's merely telling you the truth. me and the rest of the 9/11 Truth commmunity are trying to tell you guys the truth. we respect the people that died more than your government does. your government doesnt care, we do.
QUOTE(Too Exclusive @ 02/15/05 3:40pm)
now as for the towers, just look in the news. look at the madrid fire. that fire was 100x worse than that of the twin towers, and 100x worse than that of building 7. if u do not believe there was any coverup at all, do some research, look at building 7 of the WTC, look at its collapse, and look at it right before the collapse. there are barely any fires, compare that to the madrid skyscaper that was nearly completely engulfed in flames hotter than those at the WTC for twice as long as the fire in building 7, yet it DID NOT COLLAPSE. dont forget, building 7 was not hit by any plane and was 200 yards away from the towers, yet it collapsed. BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7. BUILDING SEVEN HAD A FEW SCATTERED SMALL FIRES, YET THE WHOLE BUILDING COLLAPSED WHEN THE BUILDING IN MADRID, OLDER AND LESS TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM A FIRE THAT ENGULFED THE WHOLE BUILDING FOR DAYS. think about that. that by itself, not to mention larry silverstein's admission is more than proof that there was some type of cover up on 9/11.
wow you really dont know shit. being a fireman for a few years i have seen solid concrete boil, the side walks bubble 10 feet away, bricks explode, steel melt like ice. im no hero, i left the FD 8 months ago. the steel used inall WTC was cheap steel but you know that. you also know the mere force of a 80 ton plane fully fueled carrying air cargo and tons of people going full speed into a building completely clearing 7 stories dead center of a building. but you know that. but wait you know better
oh the madrid tower.... didnt have a plane ram the fucking thing at 500 miles an hour.... oh but ur talking about wtc 7 yeah i forgot the 2 towers that fell on it wouldnt have had shit to do with it right? i mean they only found pieces of hip bone on top of buildings blocks away. 
ur comment about building 7 can prove itself wrong by simply watching video of the collapses. the towers did NOT fall on building 7. building 7 was about 200 yards away from the towers. just as close was the taller, thinner hilton hotel, yet that was not damaged, there was no fire in it. y not?
and if u were a fireman, you'd know that steal has to be 2800 degrees fahrenheit to melt, and you'd know that a fire burning a fuel that does not contain a source of oxygen inside it can not burn greater than 1800 degrees fahrenheit, because the fire needs to get the oxygen from the surrounding environment, which is y fires big enough can generate hurricane-force winds, because it's sucking so much oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere. more oxygen = hotter fire can go. at 1800 degrees fire is blue. no fires at the WTC were blue.
and if u were a fireman, you'd know that steal has to be 2800 degrees fahrenheit to melt, and you'd know that a fire burning a fuel that does not contain a source of oxygen inside it can not burn greater than 1800 degrees fahrenheit, because the fire needs to get the oxygen from the surrounding environment, which is y fires big enough can generate hurricane-force winds, because it's sucking so much oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere. more oxygen = hotter fire can go. at 1800 degrees fire is blue. no fires at the WTC were blue.
ask your questions here...
http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
how about not. according to snopes, aluminum can just burn up and turn into nothing. that's not true. it can melt, and at 4000 degrees fahrenheit it turns into a gas, but burn up? no.
im just saying, im not certain you are using your obviously very intelligent mind to ponder the right things in life. the energy you spend thinking about a conspiracy theory that, in actuality, probably holds no water, would be better spent in AP courses in school so that when you get to college to study to become a scientist who eventually figures out what cures all viruses, your time wont be squandered on garbage.
wow... see i thought you did ur home work. the steel failed becauce of the impact of the plane. along with the heat generated in the fire(s) as a result. the fire proofing (foam) that was used on the truss and structural beams was inadaquate. the steel was second rate so were the rivits. jet fuel burns at 1900c.... anyways, the heat from the fire is increased because of the reflective properitys of steel and cement. you have to remember many stories were taken out of the building. decreaseing the intregerity of the building. the plane went clean through the building. landing gear was found on the other side of the building. anyways click here
im really sick so i care less if my spelling is off, forgive that
im really sick so i care less if my spelling is off, forgive that
well what about building 7? NO PLANE HIT THAT. agian... no plane hit building 7. jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1000 degrees fahrenheit, not 1900c... that would be enough to melt steel... and if u do some research on hydrocarbons, given the amount of oxygen in our atmostphere, a fire can not reach higher than 1800 degrees fahrenheit. im in school and the bell just rang for next period, so ill continue this when i get home.
it isnt a matter of just a fire. there was an airplane that cut through the very steel that held the towers together. did you read the link provided by solid or are you too eager to believe what a web site of unkowns has molded your mind into believeing?
too,
you are being taken captive by a group with an agenda that has blossmed into a monster. beware of those who tell you what to think, as you say our government has done.
think about this, which is easier? to make a country, a world, believe something that is not, or to make a small eager, anonymous group of interneters follow?
you are being taken captive by a group with an agenda that has blossmed into a monster. beware of those who tell you what to think, as you say our government has done.
think about this, which is easier? to make a country, a world, believe something that is not, or to make a small eager, anonymous group of interneters follow?
QUOTE(Too Exclusive @ 02/16/05 9:43am)
jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1000 degrees fahrenheit, not 1900c... that would be enough to melt steel...
dont know for sure i looked at 5 sites and all had diffrent temps. 1900c is the more common.
QUOTE
and if u do some research on hydrocarbons, given the amount of oxygen in our atmostphere, a fire can not reach higher than 1800 degrees fahrenheit.
wrong you are just going by the fuel its self. i have seen concrete fucking boil by an arsonist using hosehold chemicals. dont tell me it cannot reach more then 1800f. planes dont carry dangerous goods, and im going to look int the properites of what exactly the plane is made of. does it contain manesium or borium? any class 5 metals. i know it cannot carry that on the cargo hold so that i will look into. (ps...certian metals dont need oxyen to catch fire, they
burn under water 
)now i called my x-cheif something i would not normally have done. but you seem hell bent on contaminiating the minds of some poor sap. so here is what i concluded. look at this site, it is a very reputable site written and contributed to by the NFPA (seting standards in fire safty for consumers and frie protection) and Various fire cheifs and departments from around the country. they have no outside pressure to muddle the findings.
firecheif.com
bring it.
the reason i say flight 800 was taken down by the navy war ships off long island is the day it happened 2 men were (older men) 1 ww2 vet and a vietnam vet saw a missile shoot up and take down the plane. now im not big on conspirciy theories but the ntsb said the fuel tanks ruptured taking the cockpit off which made the plane climb 3000 feet before plumeting into the ground. common sense tells you the loss of the aerodymanics and the force of the air going into the cabin would have slowed the plane and it would have fell like a brick. the navy was doing cruse missile testing in that area (strange cuz so far as i know they dont test missiles off NYC). another theory is that osama and friends were planning to take the plane down by flying a cessena loaded with exlosives(? tiny plane) into the jet. they made a statemet of sorts the day before. the navy tried to take the plane civilan craft down by firing a missile and the missile clipped the plane taking it out. that also is by popular belief according to radar of that time frame. do i think the gov may have fucked up? maybe but maybe the terrorists got their way and brought it down. no one knows and i dont think the gov. knows either. i have seen home video (cannot find it now) of a tomahawk missile flyingside by side no more then a few feet from a pass. airline. that makes me wonder, but i dont believe it was deliberate.
my guess is that "the movement" hasnt actually addressed anything that may be hinder their argument. that site you provided seems to pretty much explain the collapse as i would have thought it to happen.
thanks.
too, instead of believing an internet "movement", investigate the movement themselves. i would bet there are suprisingly more holes and agendas than you have first seemed to realize.
thanks.
too, instead of believing an internet "movement", investigate the movement themselves. i would bet there are suprisingly more holes and agendas than you have first seemed to realize.
what u mean holes? the movement is not 1 group of ppl somewhere in one place. it's a whole bunch of different types of ppl scattered throughout the nation... probably millions of ppl are part of the movement. many have their own radio shows (Alex Jones and Jack Blood for example)... millions of ppl listen to alex jones... he reads government documents and shit that state lots about what's goin on that ppl dont know about. you should seriously take a look around infowars.com and prisonplanet.com. look at rense.com too. these arent ppl that are trying to "brainwash" me. i know shit loads about politics, and i have 140 IQ. anything im told i will look up and research thoroughly before believing. right now i have 2 different versions of an event. ive been presented evidence from both... but there's more evidence and logic and historical support to support govt involvement, and if u say uv been listening to the news, you'll know that prior knowledge of 9/11 by now is 100% positive.
whoa, didn't expect to see a topic like this posted here, but I have seen the "In Plane Site" movie and it will blow your mind. A friend gave it to me and I don't know how america let this sh*t slide! I can't believe that both planes that hit the wtc had missiles or something attached, but that obvious explosion before the plane hits the building CAN NOT be explained. It's not a reflection, it's clearly a red/yellow explosion before impact! hey if ANYONE wants a copy of this movie please give me your address and i'll more than happily ship you one! Don't just hate on people for gettin the word out, IF YOU had researched and seen this stuff for yourself, you would realize there are many questions that NEED answering. Your government has lied to you and I seriously suggest you take 10 minutes out of your life researching it. I've spent more than 3 years now on this stuff, THERE IS NO WAY we didn't at least see the attack coming. in my opinion, but please check for yourself!
one more quick thing, the INTERNET is the only place left of free speech. There is a lot of garbage out there but just as much good stuff. Do you see the war in Iran/Syria/N.Korea building up? Go ahead and watch your foxnews and live in CONSTANT fear, ever seen how a dog acts when it gets beaten enough times? Do your own research, and DON'T just go to foxnews.com or cnn.com!!
Thats truly ridiculous, and yes you are a nut. Shame on you. You bring disgrace upon yourself and your family for dishonoring the victims and heros of 9-11 with your paranoid rhetoric. I sincerely hope that you are not so misguided that you can't respect the fact that tens of thousands of men have died to protect your right to be a moron.
OK PEOPLE LISTEN UP!! Here is your 10 minutes of research right in front of your face. Read it, DO NOT skim it as I also did, I mean who really wants to read ALL this stuff. But I promise you, this is your red pill!
Have you ever second-guessed the plot of the September 11th day attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon? The media tells us it was an act of terrorism, that a plane hit the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George Bush assured us it was Al Qaida terrorists acting on orders from Osama Bin Laden when he stated, “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” Is our faithful American President, who is sworn to protect us, telling us the truth or is he blatantly lying to us to keep us vulnerable to anti-constitutional Bills and Laws that take away our freedoms and liberties?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC, 5/1/01]
1996-2001: Federal authorities were aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01]
Aug 1998: CIA intelligence reports that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC (World Trade Center). [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Hill), 9/18/02]
1998-2000: On three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the attack can’t go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01] CIA officer in charge of Al Qaeda: White House repeatedly refused to eliminate bin Laden [Los Angeles Times, 12/4/04]
2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the WTC. Another is the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04] [Military District of Washington, 11/3/00] [New York Times, 10/3/01
2000-2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top senators say that if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02
Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01]
Sept 10, 2001: “Newsweek has learned a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/01, fifth to the last paragraph]
Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01]
Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was all set for an exercise on Sept 11th at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [AP, 8/22/02]
Sept 11, 2001: Warren Buffett, the second richest man on Earth [BBC, 6/22/01], schedules an event at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. A group of business leaders attend, including at least one who would otherwise have died in the WTC. [SF Business Times, 2/1/02] President Bush flies to this same base that day. [CNN, 9/12/01]
Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02]
Sept 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden's family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [NY Times, 9/30/01][Boston Globe, 9/20/01]
(http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all saw the news or read it in the newspaper of what happened on the frightful day of September 11th. CNN tells us sources from the F.B.I. say all four planes had been hijacked. President Bush tells CNN, “ Make no mistake; the U.S will hunt down and punish those responsible for theses cowardly acts.” FOX 11 news’ headlines were, “F.B.I. investigates: Planes hijacked before crashing into WTC’s,” “Plane crashes into Pentagon.” All news media coverage’s say it was terrorists responsible for the attacks.
First we go to the Pentagon, how it was attacked and why. I am sure every single picture you have seen of the Pentagon on the news or in books has captions by it saying something like “ plane crashes into Pentagon,” with the explanation of, “It was a result of terrorism.” The key words in this explanation are “plane” and “terrorism.” Did any of those pictures that you might have seen by any chance have a plane inside the Pentagon? The answer is no, none of them did not have any evidence of a plane crash. If yes, then why is the roof still intact, and where is the destroyed plane debris? Americans Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:43 EST. The width of the impact was 65 feet across and 73 feet high. According to the F.A.A. a Boeing 757 is 124 feet across from wingtip to wingtip, and 44 feet from tail wing to bottom. Now how does a 124-foot wide object make a perfect impact hole of 65 feet across? We were told the plane crash made an explosion so hot it fatigued the steel. That exact plane embarked on a Trans Continental flight, which means a significant amount of fuel would have been left over, 8,600 gallons to be exact. The F.A.A. said a fuel size of 8,600 gallons had a B.T.U. rate of 86,000,000. They said with the power of the explosion and the velocity of the plane it should have pancaked the entire Pentagon. Title 40 of the Code Regulation Laws clearly state:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[RCRA-2002-0034; FRL-7573-6]
RIN 2050-AE91
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Location Restrictions for Airport Safety
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Technical amendment.
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the location restriction section in the
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), in order to add a note
providing information about landfill siting requirements enacted in the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(Ford Act)
(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2003/October/Day-15/f25934.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant amount of fuel would have been spilled to cause this code to go in effect, but it did not. Now to the surveillance of the Pentagon. Only one camera was on security at that time, which seems kind of odd due to the fact that the Pentagon is suppose to be the safest building in America. A local gas station caught extraordinary footage of a missile shaped object entering the building, which was confiscated minutes after the incident. Doesn’t the hole in the Pentagon look a lot like a missile-damaged building? Now to the second key word, “terrorism.” Would terrorists really want to destroy special government documents in that particular site at that particular time? Coincidently that part of the Pentagon was under renovation. The documents in the Pentagon were to be released to the public. The documents contained exclusive material of how the C.I.A. abused their powers. If these documents were to be released it would have shattered our trust, or what we had left of it toward our C.I.A. Now you can see that this was not the act of a few terrorists, but the acts of a deceitful government.
Now to the World Trade Centers. Our media explains it as “an act of terror”, that all the planes were “hijacked”. At 8:45 EST American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north tower, at 9:03 EST American Airlines flight 175 slammed into the south tower. The north tower was the first to collapse. Isn’t the collapsing of the Towers very much similar to that of a controlled demolition? Planned demolitions take months to set up, which beams to place charges on, and the order of the detonation and such. The Fire Department of New York and the New York Police Department seem to think so. Louis Cacchioli, a 51-year-old firefighter assigned to Engine 47 on 9/11/01, was asked to comment on September 11th in People Magazine on September 24th 2001, pg. 24. He went on to say; “ We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane had hit… on our last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the buildings”. Other firefighters said, “ We made it at least 2 blocks away, and floor by floor there were detonators, boom, boom, boom, in succession”. The New York Police Department commented also in saying, “ To me it sounded like a bomb”. Now were in a persons right mind does this sound like coincidence. Each plane that crashed into the towers was clearly visible. On impact, both of the planes blinked a flash of light right before hitting the World Trade Centers. Under the fuselage of the planes there was weird obstructed shape that looked like a pod of some kind. Could the flash be a reflection?
The answer is no, it cannot. Every single angle of the plane that was taken shows this flash of light, so you can single out the reflection theory. The purpose of that object was to ignite the 10,000 gallons of fuel as it hit the tower. How can one plane take down millions of tons of concrete and steel? It cannot. Both towers were taken down by planned demolition charges.
At 10:00 EST, American Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We were told that pilots who took it over crashed the plane, but flight 93 was shot down. The pilots had overtaken the remote control autopilot controlled by the government. Eyewitnesses say there was a military plane following flight 93. Donald Rumsfeld spoke out against this and said, “ once we learned our plane was taken over I made the order to have it be shot down, it was a Presidential decision.” He did not cover it up, but said it was a “ Presidential decision”, which that was the right thing to do.
We finally come to the big question “ Why?” Through all of this research and explanation you may or may not believe this irrefutable evidence of what really happened on September 11th. To you understanding before you were told that terrorists were to blame and that we were at war with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeida. To your understanding now your government is to blame and we are at war with ourselves. You ask yourself, “ Why would our government do this to it’s own people?” the truth is, they don’t care of you, they care of your freedom, but not in a good way. I am sure you have heard of the Patriot Act that was passed during Bill Clinton’s notorious reign. The act was, in the event of a national tragedy or state of emergency, for all American citizens to give up their rights by handing the government the key to their lives legally. It would seem that they needed this act to be passed in order to take away our rights with probable cause. If not, it would have made the government look foolish in taking away our rights without reason. The best way for an artificial government to flex their powers is to keep the American people stupid. That’s how it worked in the days of King George and that’s how it works today. We are slowly being striped of our rights, the rights that were signed by our Founding Fore Fathers on July 4th 1776. To let this tyranny continue is imprudent. We have failed as American Citizens.
-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
~ Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,
Have you ever second-guessed the plot of the September 11th day attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon? The media tells us it was an act of terrorism, that a plane hit the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George Bush assured us it was Al Qaida terrorists acting on orders from Osama Bin Laden when he stated, “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.” Is our faithful American President, who is sworn to protect us, telling us the truth or is he blatantly lying to us to keep us vulnerable to anti-constitutional Bills and Laws that take away our freedoms and liberties?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC, 5/1/01]
1996-2001: Federal authorities were aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden were receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confessed that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01]
Aug 1998: CIA intelligence reports that Arab terrorists are planning to fly a bomb-laden aircraft into the WTC (World Trade Center). [New York Times, 9/19/02, Senate Intelligence Committee (Witness Hill), 9/18/02]
1998-2000: On three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the attack can’t go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01] CIA officer in charge of Al Qaeda: White House repeatedly refused to eliminate bin Laden [Los Angeles Times, 12/4/04]
2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the WTC. Another is the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04] [Military District of Washington, 11/3/00] [New York Times, 10/3/01
2000-2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top senators say that if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02
Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01]
Sept 10, 2001: “Newsweek has learned a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." [Newsweek, 9/24/01, fifth to the last paragraph]
Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01]
Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was all set for an exercise on Sept 11th at 9 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [AP, 8/22/02]
Sept 11, 2001: Warren Buffett, the second richest man on Earth [BBC, 6/22/01], schedules an event at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. A group of business leaders attend, including at least one who would otherwise have died in the WTC. [SF Business Times, 2/1/02] President Bush flies to this same base that day. [CNN, 9/12/01]
Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a "shadow government" is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02]
Sept 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden's family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [NY Times, 9/30/01][Boston Globe, 9/20/01]
(http://www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline2pg)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all saw the news or read it in the newspaper of what happened on the frightful day of September 11th. CNN tells us sources from the F.B.I. say all four planes had been hijacked. President Bush tells CNN, “ Make no mistake; the U.S will hunt down and punish those responsible for theses cowardly acts.” FOX 11 news’ headlines were, “F.B.I. investigates: Planes hijacked before crashing into WTC’s,” “Plane crashes into Pentagon.” All news media coverage’s say it was terrorists responsible for the attacks.
First we go to the Pentagon, how it was attacked and why. I am sure every single picture you have seen of the Pentagon on the news or in books has captions by it saying something like “ plane crashes into Pentagon,” with the explanation of, “It was a result of terrorism.” The key words in this explanation are “plane” and “terrorism.” Did any of those pictures that you might have seen by any chance have a plane inside the Pentagon? The answer is no, none of them did not have any evidence of a plane crash. If yes, then why is the roof still intact, and where is the destroyed plane debris? Americans Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:43 EST. The width of the impact was 65 feet across and 73 feet high. According to the F.A.A. a Boeing 757 is 124 feet across from wingtip to wingtip, and 44 feet from tail wing to bottom. Now how does a 124-foot wide object make a perfect impact hole of 65 feet across? We were told the plane crash made an explosion so hot it fatigued the steel. That exact plane embarked on a Trans Continental flight, which means a significant amount of fuel would have been left over, 8,600 gallons to be exact. The F.A.A. said a fuel size of 8,600 gallons had a B.T.U. rate of 86,000,000. They said with the power of the explosion and the velocity of the plane it should have pancaked the entire Pentagon. Title 40 of the Code Regulation Laws clearly state:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[RCRA-2002-0034; FRL-7573-6]
RIN 2050-AE91
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Location Restrictions for Airport Safety
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Technical amendment.
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the location restriction section in the
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), in order to add a note
providing information about landfill siting requirements enacted in the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(Ford Act)
(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2003/October/Day-15/f25934.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant amount of fuel would have been spilled to cause this code to go in effect, but it did not. Now to the surveillance of the Pentagon. Only one camera was on security at that time, which seems kind of odd due to the fact that the Pentagon is suppose to be the safest building in America. A local gas station caught extraordinary footage of a missile shaped object entering the building, which was confiscated minutes after the incident. Doesn’t the hole in the Pentagon look a lot like a missile-damaged building? Now to the second key word, “terrorism.” Would terrorists really want to destroy special government documents in that particular site at that particular time? Coincidently that part of the Pentagon was under renovation. The documents in the Pentagon were to be released to the public. The documents contained exclusive material of how the C.I.A. abused their powers. If these documents were to be released it would have shattered our trust, or what we had left of it toward our C.I.A. Now you can see that this was not the act of a few terrorists, but the acts of a deceitful government.
Now to the World Trade Centers. Our media explains it as “an act of terror”, that all the planes were “hijacked”. At 8:45 EST American Airlines Flight 11 hit the north tower, at 9:03 EST American Airlines flight 175 slammed into the south tower. The north tower was the first to collapse. Isn’t the collapsing of the Towers very much similar to that of a controlled demolition? Planned demolitions take months to set up, which beams to place charges on, and the order of the detonation and such. The Fire Department of New York and the New York Police Department seem to think so. Louis Cacchioli, a 51-year-old firefighter assigned to Engine 47 on 9/11/01, was asked to comment on September 11th in People Magazine on September 24th 2001, pg. 24. He went on to say; “ We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane had hit… on our last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the buildings”. Other firefighters said, “ We made it at least 2 blocks away, and floor by floor there were detonators, boom, boom, boom, in succession”. The New York Police Department commented also in saying, “ To me it sounded like a bomb”. Now were in a persons right mind does this sound like coincidence. Each plane that crashed into the towers was clearly visible. On impact, both of the planes blinked a flash of light right before hitting the World Trade Centers. Under the fuselage of the planes there was weird obstructed shape that looked like a pod of some kind. Could the flash be a reflection?
The answer is no, it cannot. Every single angle of the plane that was taken shows this flash of light, so you can single out the reflection theory. The purpose of that object was to ignite the 10,000 gallons of fuel as it hit the tower. How can one plane take down millions of tons of concrete and steel? It cannot. Both towers were taken down by planned demolition charges.
At 10:00 EST, American Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We were told that pilots who took it over crashed the plane, but flight 93 was shot down. The pilots had overtaken the remote control autopilot controlled by the government. Eyewitnesses say there was a military plane following flight 93. Donald Rumsfeld spoke out against this and said, “ once we learned our plane was taken over I made the order to have it be shot down, it was a Presidential decision.” He did not cover it up, but said it was a “ Presidential decision”, which that was the right thing to do.
We finally come to the big question “ Why?” Through all of this research and explanation you may or may not believe this irrefutable evidence of what really happened on September 11th. To you understanding before you were told that terrorists were to blame and that we were at war with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeida. To your understanding now your government is to blame and we are at war with ourselves. You ask yourself, “ Why would our government do this to it’s own people?” the truth is, they don’t care of you, they care of your freedom, but not in a good way. I am sure you have heard of the Patriot Act that was passed during Bill Clinton’s notorious reign. The act was, in the event of a national tragedy or state of emergency, for all American citizens to give up their rights by handing the government the key to their lives legally. It would seem that they needed this act to be passed in order to take away our rights with probable cause. If not, it would have made the government look foolish in taking away our rights without reason. The best way for an artificial government to flex their powers is to keep the American people stupid. That’s how it worked in the days of King George and that’s how it works today. We are slowly being striped of our rights, the rights that were signed by our Founding Fore Fathers on July 4th 1776. To let this tyranny continue is imprudent. We have failed as American Citizens.
-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
~ Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,
hey man, i've been nice but the 2 of you are complete fucking idiots. the pentagon is highly reinforced. i mean its the super structure of milt. intel. it may very well hold properities that are left out to avg. people, for security sake. but to be blunt, where do yous get this shit? and BELIEVE IT! its people like yous that make headlines for valentines day suicide plots. im not a tough guy but your feeding kids this shit and if i ever met you id knock ur lights out. promise that shit . every attempt to confuse the population is to side with terrorist thoughts, which you are, dirtys the flag. get on board son, get with the winning team. everyone knew and has knowen that we will be waging war with more of the middle east. syria and N korea and probally SA. do i give a shit. no. the reason why, the gov. would not have done a act to kill countless people, is the whole gov would have to be evil. someone would come forward, some one would do whats right and the gov. would have fallen and every gov. offical would be swinging from the street lights.
get a grip
get a clue
you want to bring down the intregerity of the american war machine, which has captured terrorist cells in MY NEIGHBORHOOD. the lackawana 6, if you ever told that shit to someone in my family expecially my kids you would need to keep that towel on ur head a little more to stop the bleeding.
and no im not angry, but fuck ur life up. dont try and brain wash us. we have young players here and hope that the crazy shit you spew dont afflict them. we got soilders being killed and injured for your right to say that. people are getting beheaded and you spew its our fault. to me you a fucking terrorist, and u sure are no better. i have a very open mind and i have seen read most of what you posted but sorry to say my 8 yo is smarter then that.
guess ill stop my rant...but you know what we all have properganda filling our heads, but ill stick to the shit thats gonna help my country, my men, and my family.
GOD BLESS THE USA AND THE SOILDERS THAT PROTECT HER!
now go fuck ur self...
. every attempt to confuse the population is to side with terrorist thoughts, which you are, dirtys the flag. get on board son, get with the winning team. everyone knew and has knowen that we will be waging war with more of the middle east. syria and N korea and probally SA. do i give a shit. no. the reason why, the gov. would not have done a act to kill countless people, is the whole gov would have to be evil. someone would come forward, some one would do whats right and the gov. would have fallen and every gov. offical would be swinging from the street lights. get a grip
get a clue
you want to bring down the intregerity of the american war machine, which has captured terrorist cells in MY NEIGHBORHOOD. the lackawana 6, if you ever told that shit to someone in my family expecially my kids you would need to keep that towel on ur head a little more to stop the bleeding.
and no im not angry, but fuck ur life up. dont try and brain wash us. we have young players here and hope that the crazy shit you spew dont afflict them. we got soilders being killed and injured for your right to say that. people are getting beheaded and you spew its our fault. to me you a fucking terrorist, and u sure are no better. i have a very open mind and i have seen read most of what you posted but sorry to say my 8 yo is smarter then that.
guess ill stop my rant...but you know what we all have properganda filling our heads, but ill stick to the shit thats gonna help my country, my men, and my family.
GOD BLESS THE USA AND THE SOILDERS THAT PROTECT HER!
now go fuck ur self...
here's a question for you... did u see any footage of the plane hit the pentagon? no you didnt (other than 5 tiny grainy ass frames that dont show a plane at all).
here's another question... y do u trust the government so damn much? im sorry, but knowing that they thought shit like northwoods up in the past, that makes me lose trust in them. you did look at northwoods right?
here's another question... y do u trust the government so damn much? im sorry, but knowing that they thought shit like northwoods up in the past, that makes me lose trust in them. you did look at northwoods right?
and ive talked to the mother of a high-ranking captain killed in Iraq and she feels the same way i do. she's experienced govt evil first hand... she's had her phone tapped, mail screened, email checked and she's constantly tracked and harrassed... she's even been threatened for her life to stfu about the truth, because she's a really smart woman... so in ur world she's disgracing her son's death. her son was also against the war and if he were here he'd be proud of her trying to get the truth out. disgracing the ppl who died my ass. i <3 my troops, and i admire them to the fullest, i just dont like the war they're fighting... i think it's bullshit and a waste of troops' lives, and our money.
Instead of going to some wacked out off the wall site, why not go somewhere like snopes and see what they have to say about 9/11 and the Pentagon.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Oh but wait, you probably won't read it because I'm sure they are controlled by the government.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Oh but wait, you probably won't read it because I'm sure they are controlled by the government.
i didnt have to see a plane hit the pentagon. while fox news was reporting a problem at the mall a fire or something on the morning of 9-11 they were on the expressway and interviewing people and a various motorists stated that the plane was low and superfast. it rocked his truck and almost took out the light pole. do i believe that. yes it was min after the attack. your young, my post was not really ment to you, more to the asses that have warped ur mind. there has to a contigency plan for everything. even the scary shit. im on board with the us gov for one reason. we have never been safe in any country in the world. alot of countries want to kill americans. i am safe here. we might be fucked up, but go live in turkey or pre-war iraq. hell go walk through france and ur more likely to get spit on then get a smile. why cuz ur american. pick ur poision, and enjoy.
well i keep an open mind. if u didnt notice i already commented about that snopes article (i read it a long time ago). aluminum can't "burn up". it can turn into gas at 4,000 or so degrees fahrenheit, but it cant burn up. that's such bullshit. the PM article has more merit than that snopes article.
You spout off a lot of crap, but you never back it up with anything. Why not give me a site that tells me what hte temp is that aluminum burns or melts or whatever the hell it does. I'm not talking some site like www.holyshittheusgovsucksOMGLOL.ze or anything like that either.
QUOTE(Too Exclusive @ 02/14/05 7:23pm)
now before i show u guys this, i would like to note that i'm not a liberal, im not a conservative, i do not favor kerry's ideals over bush's ideals (they both serve the same people, doesnt matter who won that staged election because they'd both send the country down the shitter, they're both skull & bones members etc.). now i will prolly step on a lot of toes with this post. ive played in mob server a long while back, and ive made sort of friends here(remember Little_Dude, or TheGreatEqualizer?). i respect you all, but there is something that needs to get out. you guys will ferociously deny what i post here, but if u do the research, ull find out that what i m about to tell u is true. ive devoted the last 6 months of my life to the 9/11 Truth movement and ive spent countless days analyzing the events of 9/11, photos, footage, etc. I'm really good in physics, and i am a very smart person, most of all, i always keep an open mind. now after seeing fahrenheit 9/11, i did not cheer. michael moore is a fat liberal piece of shit out to try to get money from the liberals by taking small territory from the truth movement. f911 was liberal propaganda, nothing more, and i know that as well as u know that, and it probably did more to hurt the movement than help it. the truth goes beyond fahrenheit 9/11's anti-bush propaganda about bush and bin laden being friends. now that's not a lie that they were friends, and about the oil pipeline and all that, but f911 was bullshit propaganda because it focused more on bashing bush than the truth. please, keep an open mind when reading this, your first reaction will be undoubtedly that im a conspiracy nutjob who believes whatever the media tells me. i do not. i do not hear this from the mainstream media. the mainstream media is controlled, and i do not believe a word of it, whether it's what u guys call liberal or conservative. i take no part in it. now, i present to you, the truth of 9/11.
one more note, please look up anything and everything i say. dont believe it from my mouth, look it up urself. research everything i say so that u know it's fact and that im not just making it up.
before i present the truth, i'd like to try to open ur minds a little bit with some historical examples of governments attacking their people for political gain. on february 27th, 1933, hitler burned down his own reichstag building and blamed the communists. he was able to obtain full dictatorial powers, and just like from 9/11, the people were more than willing to give up their rights for security from the internal threat of the communists, which were eliminated shortly after the reichstag fire. after this, the people were enslaved. you all know how the rest of WW II played out.
on another post someone mentioned pearl harbor being roosevelt's fault. not necessarily, but popular to contrary belief, even the history channel has no admitted that roosevelt knew of pearl harbor ahead of time. the american navy cracked the japanese naval codes and intercepted messages months ahead of time stating details about the attack.
possibly the most incriminating piece of historical evidence is a document called Operation Northwoods. It was thought up in 1962 and it detailed hijacking/blowing up American aircraft, killing marines at guantanomo bay, even a "Remember the Maine" incident on american ships, all as a pretext to go to war with cuba. if u do not believe this document exists, u can look it up in the government archives by the following steps:
1. go to http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/
2. click on the yellow "Search" button torwards the upper left side
3. search for "Northwoods" and hit go
4. click on the first hit, "Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"
5. click on all images
6. jump to page 23
7. read pages 138-142 of the document
next, bill clinton was a douchebag as stated in a previous thread, because WTC bombing in 1993 and OKC bombing in 95 were both inside jobs as well. OKC bombing was more clear cut than 9/11. there were local news reports and eye witness reports of 2 unexploded devices inside the building that were removed by the ATF. not to mention an analysis of the damage shows it was blown OUTWARDS and not INWARDS, and amonium nitrate is NOT a powerful explosive, not powerful enough to do that much damage from across the street. you can look this one up too, you'll find tons of info about this.
one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens. i wonder y. the man who blew the whistle on this, John O'neil resigned from the CIA after going public. unfortunately, he was hired a few weeks after that to work in the twin towers, and he died on his first day on the job, september 11th, 2001. look this one up because this sounds something to strange to be true, but it is.
now, onto 9/11.
When a crime is committed, any TRUE investigator will look at who has the motive. now on 9/11, we were TOLD the criminals who committed the crime were arab terrorists. when you search arab/muslim terrorists, you find no real motive. you find the bs motive that the media fed us of "they're jealous of our freedom... they dont like america...". well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government. why the hell would they attack people that founded them, funded, and trained them? answer: they wouldnt. bin laden was a CIA asset. he's not gonna attack his long time business partner and friend. that notion is absurd. now let's look at possible motives for the government: to get more profits from war, to further the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and Wolfowitz Doctrine (you can look them both up online) policies that clearly state we need a war in iraq and afghanistan and this would be sped up by a "pearl harbor" event... to get MORE control over us (PATRIOT ACT![1 and 2]), to further the police state, bring us one step closer to a dictatorship... the motives for an attack by the government are endless.
now let's focus on the actual events of that day. to be successful without the government's help, the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar. they KNOW if a plane goes off course, in which case they would send fighters within minutes to investigate. what we have here on 9/11 is 2 planes simultaneously wandering off course, and yet, no fighters. the first plane was off course (COMPLETELY) for 40 minutes, the next one was off course for 70 minutes, then the pentagon plane was off course for about 40 mins as well. no fighters sent for these 3 planes. now we have examples such as payne stewart (remember, the golfer guy whose plane got off course a few years ago?) whose plane was off course for only about 15-20 mins when fighters arrived. that's a small cessna plane. these are huge boeing 757/767 jet passenger liners off course for 40-70 minutes. no fighters. those terrorists must've been something to defeat the american airspace, eh?
next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th. coincidence? i think not. what we have here is the clear LIE stating that fire burning for only 56 minutes at 3/4 the way up the tower was enough to weaken the steel enough. jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt! in other words, those towers would not have collapsed had they not had the help of something: DEMOLITION CHARGES.
your first reaction is "how the hell can they put demolition charges into the tower without anyone noticing?" answer: easily. on the weekend of september 8-9, there was a powerdown in the WTC and engineers were seen walking in and out of the towers all weekend long. what better time to put demolition charges in? there is none. if you watch different videos of the towers collapsing, you can SEE the demolition charges. you can see... just watch the towers collapse it looks like they explode outward, and u can see in certain places the buildings popping out floor by floor, along with testimony from firefighters saying that they saw the towers start poppin out floor by floor. ill link up to a webpage with good video clearly showing the demo charges
the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon, leaving barely any wreckage at all, because most of the ALUMINUM wreckage "burnt up". gimme a freakin break. burnt up? metal doesnt "burn up". metal melts (not to mention that jet fuel doesnt even reach a temperature high enough to melt aluminum) but it doesnt burn up. yet if u look at pictures of the pentagon... you see no wreckage... and the way it collapsed (that section), if u look at the adjacent section, it looks like a CROSS-SECTION, perfectly cut like a hot knife through butter. now to disect the lie about flying inches above the cars: if you flew a boeing 757 inches above a highway, it would rip all the cars off the highway and throw them like a leaf in wind. and even with all of that, the "plane" still managed to puch neatly through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and 3 rings of the pentagon going in a complete straight line... without the wings being found anywhere (there was only a 12x14 foot hole made by the plane that struck the pentagon, where are the wings?). the only thing that can punch that neatly throught that much steel reinforced concrete is depleted uranium, or in english, a missile.
the next event was the plane crashing in shanksville pennsylvania. remember that todd beamer story about "let's roll!" and how they heroically wrestled the terrorists and brought the plane down? well, quoth donald rumsfeld while talking to the soldiers in Iraq on december 25th, 2004: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, -> SHOT DOWN THE PLANE OVER PENNSYLVANIA <- and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." mis-spoke/slipped my ass. he wouldn't have said that if it didnt happen. now y the cover up? who knows. but that's a clear lie.
the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum? answer: demolition charges. we KNOW this for a fact. the main reason is because of Larry Silverstein's (landlord of the WTC) admission that the firefighters said they couldn't contain the fires so they had to "pull it", controlled demolition terms for "pulling" the thing that starts the demolition. demo charges need to be put in place ahead of time, days ahead of time. controlled demolitions take WEEKS of planning, so those charges had to be in place prior to that day. now also, the building falls as if it's not even hitting the ground... it falls only .2 of a second slower than a FREE-FALLING OBJECT IN A VACUM, that is, without air resistance. now think, when this thing comes down it has a lot of resistance. all of those steel beams... air resistance. .2 slower. you cannot have a collapse of that speed without demolition charges.
there's plenty of evidence right there. here are some
sites:
www.prisonplanet.com/911.html <-- best archival source
www.infowars.com
www.propagandamatrix.com
www.letsroll911.org
www.reopen911.org (go to the bottom and get ur free 4
hour DVD about 9/11)
www.911busters.com
dont forget guys, PLEASE LOOK THIS STUFF UP. i hope you are all open-minded people, and i hope you will all look this up before telling me it's completely ridiculous and that im just a conspiracy nut. the truth is out there... look it up. i dont want to here anyone saying it is completely ridiculous if they havent looked up everything ive said with the sources ive given. thanx for all being open-minded!
one more note, please look up anything and everything i say. dont believe it from my mouth, look it up urself. research everything i say so that u know it's fact and that im not just making it up.
before i present the truth, i'd like to try to open ur minds a little bit with some historical examples of governments attacking their people for political gain. on february 27th, 1933, hitler burned down his own reichstag building and blamed the communists. he was able to obtain full dictatorial powers, and just like from 9/11, the people were more than willing to give up their rights for security from the internal threat of the communists, which were eliminated shortly after the reichstag fire. after this, the people were enslaved. you all know how the rest of WW II played out.
on another post someone mentioned pearl harbor being roosevelt's fault. not necessarily, but popular to contrary belief, even the history channel has no admitted that roosevelt knew of pearl harbor ahead of time. the american navy cracked the japanese naval codes and intercepted messages months ahead of time stating details about the attack.
possibly the most incriminating piece of historical evidence is a document called Operation Northwoods. It was thought up in 1962 and it detailed hijacking/blowing up American aircraft, killing marines at guantanomo bay, even a "Remember the Maine" incident on american ships, all as a pretext to go to war with cuba. if u do not believe this document exists, u can look it up in the government archives by the following steps:
1. go to http://www.archives.gov/research_room/arc/
2. click on the yellow "Search" button torwards the upper left side
3. search for "Northwoods" and hit go
4. click on the first hit, "Northwoods, U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"
5. click on all images
6. jump to page 23
7. read pages 138-142 of the document
next, bill clinton was a douchebag as stated in a previous thread, because WTC bombing in 1993 and OKC bombing in 95 were both inside jobs as well. OKC bombing was more clear cut than 9/11. there were local news reports and eye witness reports of 2 unexploded devices inside the building that were removed by the ATF. not to mention an analysis of the damage shows it was blown OUTWARDS and not INWARDS, and amonium nitrate is NOT a powerful explosive, not powerful enough to do that much damage from across the street. you can look this one up too, you'll find tons of info about this.
one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens. i wonder y. the man who blew the whistle on this, John O'neil resigned from the CIA after going public. unfortunately, he was hired a few weeks after that to work in the twin towers, and he died on his first day on the job, september 11th, 2001. look this one up because this sounds something to strange to be true, but it is.
now, onto 9/11.
When a crime is committed, any TRUE investigator will look at who has the motive. now on 9/11, we were TOLD the criminals who committed the crime were arab terrorists. when you search arab/muslim terrorists, you find no real motive. you find the bs motive that the media fed us of "they're jealous of our freedom... they dont like america...". well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government. why the hell would they attack people that founded them, funded, and trained them? answer: they wouldnt. bin laden was a CIA asset. he's not gonna attack his long time business partner and friend. that notion is absurd. now let's look at possible motives for the government: to get more profits from war, to further the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and Wolfowitz Doctrine (you can look them both up online) policies that clearly state we need a war in iraq and afghanistan and this would be sped up by a "pearl harbor" event... to get MORE control over us (PATRIOT ACT![1 and 2]), to further the police state, bring us one step closer to a dictatorship... the motives for an attack by the government are endless.
now let's focus on the actual events of that day. to be successful without the government's help, the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar. they KNOW if a plane goes off course, in which case they would send fighters within minutes to investigate. what we have here on 9/11 is 2 planes simultaneously wandering off course, and yet, no fighters. the first plane was off course (COMPLETELY) for 40 minutes, the next one was off course for 70 minutes, then the pentagon plane was off course for about 40 mins as well. no fighters sent for these 3 planes. now we have examples such as payne stewart (remember, the golfer guy whose plane got off course a few years ago?) whose plane was off course for only about 15-20 mins when fighters arrived. that's a small cessna plane. these are huge boeing 757/767 jet passenger liners off course for 40-70 minutes. no fighters. those terrorists must've been something to defeat the american airspace, eh?
next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th. coincidence? i think not. what we have here is the clear LIE stating that fire burning for only 56 minutes at 3/4 the way up the tower was enough to weaken the steel enough. jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt! in other words, those towers would not have collapsed had they not had the help of something: DEMOLITION CHARGES.
your first reaction is "how the hell can they put demolition charges into the tower without anyone noticing?" answer: easily. on the weekend of september 8-9, there was a powerdown in the WTC and engineers were seen walking in and out of the towers all weekend long. what better time to put demolition charges in? there is none. if you watch different videos of the towers collapsing, you can SEE the demolition charges. you can see... just watch the towers collapse it looks like they explode outward, and u can see in certain places the buildings popping out floor by floor, along with testimony from firefighters saying that they saw the towers start poppin out floor by floor. ill link up to a webpage with good video clearly showing the demo charges
the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon, leaving barely any wreckage at all, because most of the ALUMINUM wreckage "burnt up". gimme a freakin break. burnt up? metal doesnt "burn up". metal melts (not to mention that jet fuel doesnt even reach a temperature high enough to melt aluminum) but it doesnt burn up. yet if u look at pictures of the pentagon... you see no wreckage... and the way it collapsed (that section), if u look at the adjacent section, it looks like a CROSS-SECTION, perfectly cut like a hot knife through butter. now to disect the lie about flying inches above the cars: if you flew a boeing 757 inches above a highway, it would rip all the cars off the highway and throw them like a leaf in wind. and even with all of that, the "plane" still managed to puch neatly through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and 3 rings of the pentagon going in a complete straight line... without the wings being found anywhere (there was only a 12x14 foot hole made by the plane that struck the pentagon, where are the wings?). the only thing that can punch that neatly throught that much steel reinforced concrete is depleted uranium, or in english, a missile.
the next event was the plane crashing in shanksville pennsylvania. remember that todd beamer story about "let's roll!" and how they heroically wrestled the terrorists and brought the plane down? well, quoth donald rumsfeld while talking to the soldiers in Iraq on december 25th, 2004: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, -> SHOT DOWN THE PLANE OVER PENNSYLVANIA <- and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." mis-spoke/slipped my ass. he wouldn't have said that if it didnt happen. now y the cover up? who knows. but that's a clear lie.
the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum? answer: demolition charges. we KNOW this for a fact. the main reason is because of Larry Silverstein's (landlord of the WTC) admission that the firefighters said they couldn't contain the fires so they had to "pull it", controlled demolition terms for "pulling" the thing that starts the demolition. demo charges need to be put in place ahead of time, days ahead of time. controlled demolitions take WEEKS of planning, so those charges had to be in place prior to that day. now also, the building falls as if it's not even hitting the ground... it falls only .2 of a second slower than a FREE-FALLING OBJECT IN A VACUM, that is, without air resistance. now think, when this thing comes down it has a lot of resistance. all of those steel beams... air resistance. .2 slower. you cannot have a collapse of that speed without demolition charges.
there's plenty of evidence right there. here are some
sites:
www.prisonplanet.com/911.html <-- best archival source
www.infowars.com
www.propagandamatrix.com
www.letsroll911.org
www.reopen911.org (go to the bottom and get ur free 4
hour DVD about 9/11)
www.911busters.com
dont forget guys, PLEASE LOOK THIS STUFF UP. i hope you are all open-minded people, and i hope you will all look this up before telling me it's completely ridiculous and that im just a conspiracy nut. the truth is out there... look it up. i dont want to here anyone saying it is completely ridiculous if they havent looked up everything ive said with the sources ive given. thanx for all being open-minded!
I have tried to keep an open mind but i'm not gonna lie to you MOST of what you said makes no sense, is an opinion, or is just another random statement that can't be proved.
As Silver already pointed out jet fuel can and does burn up to 2000 degrees(look it up). Steel melts at ohh say 3000 degrees. Next you need to look at the WTC design to understand why it collapsed.
Heres a very simple way to look at it. There are 4 main rods one in each corner of the building. Each floor is "hooked" into those 4 steel rods. Then the building is "wrapped" in steel to compress everything together. The building is designed so the 4 outer rods support the weight of the floors instead the floors supporting the weight of one another. In was specifically designed that way because there was the 10 ton plane that flew into the Empire State building.
Now we have a 165 ton jet fly into the building. When the plane hit the building it took at least one of the main support rods. So you have 3 rods remaining to support the weight of the floor and the jet. On top of that you have a fire heating up the rods. Eventually the rods were hot enough to bend which caused the whole floor with the jet to fall down. So you have this gigantic weight falling down to the next floor. Now this is were your explosions come in. Take a contrete block for example. Now put it under extreme pressure. The contrete EXPLODES into dust. This is exactly what you see in the videos off the building when it collapses. Each floor falls on top of another crushing it THUS CAUSING EVERYTHING TO EXPLODE OUTWARD. So the building collapses in a straight line just LIKE IT WAS INTENDED to do if an airplane crashed into it.
Now the airplane that crashed in Pennsilvania was not shot down. Just look the crash site. If an airplane was shot in mid air the explose alone would have scattered the pieces around in a couple of mile radius. Now did you see parts and piece of the plane scattered around nicely everywhere? Neither did I.
As for NORAD there was NO excuse for letting that second plane fly into the building.
At the moment I am out of time but I will continue this later on.
also the fact that we found no WMD's doesnt give much merit to the CIA. i knew there were no WMDs for a long ass time.
now like i said, ive heard eyewitness reports saying they saw a small plane like one that seats 8-12 passengers. and the 5 frames released show something looking more like a missile than a boeing 757... not to mention it's so much smaller, but also there's also some kind of trail... and since jet aircraft dont make trails at such a low altitude it had to be something else. not to mention that if it was a jet then the turbulence would've blown the cars off the highway. there was a UA demonstration video somewhere where a truck drove into the paht of a jet engine and got THROWN about a 100 yards like a leaf. honestly, if the plane was flying that low, all the cars would've been blown off the highway by the jetblast. and also i wanna know wtf happened to the wings :/ there was only a 15-20 ft hole at first, yet there were no wings... and they WOULD have shorn off because there was no other opening for the wings to fit in.
answer that for me.
now like i said, ive heard eyewitness reports saying they saw a small plane like one that seats 8-12 passengers. and the 5 frames released show something looking more like a missile than a boeing 757... not to mention it's so much smaller, but also there's also some kind of trail... and since jet aircraft dont make trails at such a low altitude it had to be something else. not to mention that if it was a jet then the turbulence would've blown the cars off the highway. there was a UA demonstration video somewhere where a truck drove into the paht of a jet engine and got THROWN about a 100 yards like a leaf. honestly, if the plane was flying that low, all the cars would've been blown off the highway by the jetblast. and also i wanna know wtf happened to the wings :/ there was only a 15-20 ft hole at first, yet there were no wings... and they WOULD have shorn off because there was no other opening for the wings to fit in.
answer that for me.
You heard eye witness reports huh. From where? Did you talk to these people first hand? Or was this taken from one of those dumbass sites you go to? Again, please show me where you get this info from. Don't say, teh intraw3b d00d, no shit shirlock, give me a specific url that doesn't require me to click through a bunch of shit to find it.
he did read the article blk put up. the plane does not have enough force to blow anything off the road, just a good rocking...
you underestimate me. i know the WTC design. you're also forgetting about the 47 steel columns in its core. they held most of the weight of the towers. the rest was supported by the walls. i have looked up the temperature of burning kerosene (jet fuel). most sources cite it between 600c-800c, which is 1000-1200 fahrenheit. i actually have something ive come across that has detailed mathematical calculations, but it's possibly biased. im going to show it to my physics teacher tomorrow and see if he can verify its validity.
http://www.the7thfire.com/jet-fuel-WTC.htm
btw, the plane is 80 tons, not 165.
as for flight 93, i heard reports of wreckage that was scattered throughout. and i believe something rumsfeld said for once. rumsfeld admitted it, period.
http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/materials/elements.php
melting point 660°C = 1220 degrees fahrenheit (F = (9/5)c+32)
boiling point (point aluminum would turn into a gas) 2467°C = 4472.6 degrees fahrenheit.
o lemme guess, nasa's riddled with conspiracy theories too?
http://www.the7thfire.com/jet-fuel-WTC.htm
btw, the plane is 80 tons, not 165.
as for flight 93, i heard reports of wreckage that was scattered throughout. and i believe something rumsfeld said for once. rumsfeld admitted it, period.
QUOTE(blk96gt @ 02/16/05 4:18pm)
You spout off a lot of crap, but you never back it up with anything. Why not give me a site that tells me what hte temp is that aluminum burns or melts or whatever the hell it does. I'm not talking some site like www.holyshittheusgovsucksOMGLOL.ze or anything like that either.
do you believe nasa's website about the melting and boiling points of aluminum?http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/materials/elements.php
melting point 660°C = 1220 degrees fahrenheit (F = (9/5)c+32)
boiling point (point aluminum would turn into a gas) 2467°C = 4472.6 degrees fahrenheit.
o lemme guess, nasa's riddled with conspiracy theories too?
QUOTE(D. Silver @ 02/16/05 4:30pm)
he did read the article blk put up. the plane does not have enough force to blow anything off the road, just a good rocking...
http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index...&JAS_File_id=53
let that UA video prove that wrong.
QUOTE(Too Exclusive @ 02/16/05 4:43pm)
o lemme guess, nasa's riddled with conspiracy theories too?
Are you a dumbass? I'm not the one who thinks all government organizations are all filled with propaganda, so why the hell would you say that at the end.
QUOTE
Prof. Ted Kranthammer of Pennsylvania State University estimates jet fuel temperatures ranged from 1,000-3,000°F. At 1,000°F steel loses up to half of its tensile strength and starts to buckle and deform, and at 1,400°F it retains only 10-20% of its overall strength.
from the article i provided eariler.
first hand
80 Tons? Come on now, use your head for once.
767 Specs
Note 450,000 maximum take off weight. Here let me convert that for you. Thats 204 metric tons. Most "experts" said the plane was 185tons. Some said that that it was as low as 165. Since I'm no expert I gave you 165 to be on the safe side.
Just because Rumsfeld said it and you believe it doesnt make it true.
Look at the pictures of the crash site. Don't tell me what other people saw or think happened look at them yourself. Now find some pictures of airplanes that have been shot down in mid air.
I think its safe to say that you don't know shit other then for the crap that you have seen on those websites.
767 Specs
Note 450,000 maximum take off weight. Here let me convert that for you. Thats 204 metric tons. Most "experts" said the plane was 185tons. Some said that that it was as low as 165. Since I'm no expert I gave you 165 to be on the safe side.
Just because Rumsfeld said it and you believe it doesnt make it true.
Look at the pictures of the crash site. Don't tell me what other people saw or think happened look at them yourself. Now find some pictures of airplanes that have been shot down in mid air.
I think its safe to say that you don't know shit other then for the crap that you have seen on those websites.
here's a REAL conspiricy that you can get lost in.
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html
http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html
maybe it was 180 tons... ill have to check that out. but if it is 180 tons that further proves the pentagon theory for lack of substantial wreckage... there are photos documenting a total of about 1 ton of wreckage... not 180...
there was also a clip on howard stern one time about flight 93 being shot down, maybe i can dig that up somewhere.
there was also a clip on howard stern one time about flight 93 being shot down, maybe i can dig that up somewhere.
Alright you must be borderline retarted because I'm talking about the WTC not the pentagon. WE ALL KNOW that there was no 767 flying into the Pentagon, ITS OLD NEWS. So please stay on the subject or will that take you another 6 six months of yourlife to put together.
QUOTE(ScarFace @ 02/16/05 6:23pm)
Alright you must be borderline retarted because I'm talking about the WTC not the pentagon. WE ALL KNOW that there was no 767 flying into the Pentagon, ITS OLD NEWS. So please stay on the subject or will that take you another 6 six months of yourlife to put together.
i am on subject... and btw noone believes a missile hit the pgon here. i made one small reference to it. then i went back to flight 93... it's not like i completely went off topic... chill dude. and if 140 IQ is borderline retarted then we must live in a fucking smart world...
iq means squat...i have a high iq actually higher then that (not much). i dont consider myself smart.
1st let me ask a few questions so we know where you stand.
Do you think Elvis is alive and working at a carwash in Tulsa?
Do you think the Moon Landing was staged and never really happened?
Do you belive the world is secretly ran by the Illuminati?
You tell people to keep an open mind but at the same time you announce you have your own agenda
With that statement right there you show your mind is already made up while you tell everyone else to keep an open mind.
Moving right along to the good old "Operation Northwoods"
Every government conspiracy nut clutches to this one document as their shinning example
Most of the sites which promote conspiracy theories either misquote the "Operation Northwoods" paper, which by the way is very funny seeing as how the full document can be viewed on the web, or they completely exaggerate what it was.
For example with full support of the joint chiefs of staff.. untrue
I find it very interesting the person who 1st broke the story about the Operation Northwoods breif was doing a conspicary story on the NSA and made the brief a large part of his book before admitting the brief had nothing to do with the NSA.
As damning as the brief is, keep it in perspective.
It wasn't done by the joint cheifs of staff it was made by the cheif of staff Lemnitzer, who by the way lost his posistion not long after giving the plan to McNamara for approval, which was turned down cold.
So lets put this in perspective.
Here are the facts
This one paper out of 1000's
Nothing became of it
Lemnitzer was told in no uncertain terms no action like this would be taken
Lemnitzer lost his position over it
Yet.... The conspiracy nuts cling to this as proof of covert government conspiracies.
Most of the sites that deal with this kind of stuff take bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence, wrap it in a nice presentation and call it overwhelming proof.
If you take a more common sense approach you'll see that your logic or your information is faulty on several points.
Here is a list of all Executive Orders signed by Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/
Do a google search for "Executive Order W199i" and you'll find 100's of site talking about this fantom order but not a signle site which can link to it.
Don't you find that a little strange seeing as how every single Executive Order is available on the web?
For that matter, Executive Orders are assigned in numerological order, Bushes 1st Executive Order was 13198. His last one was 13224. There are no letters used so tell me again about order W199i.
More later
Do you think Elvis is alive and working at a carwash in Tulsa?
Do you think the Moon Landing was staged and never really happened?
Do you belive the world is secretly ran by the Illuminati?
You tell people to keep an open mind but at the same time you announce you have your own agenda
QUOTE
we people at letsroll911.org proved that article a farce
With that statement right there you show your mind is already made up while you tell everyone else to keep an open mind.
Moving right along to the good old "Operation Northwoods"
Every government conspiracy nut clutches to this one document as their shinning example
Most of the sites which promote conspiracy theories either misquote the "Operation Northwoods" paper, which by the way is very funny seeing as how the full document can be viewed on the web, or they completely exaggerate what it was.
For example with full support of the joint chiefs of staff.. untrue
I find it very interesting the person who 1st broke the story about the Operation Northwoods breif was doing a conspicary story on the NSA and made the brief a large part of his book before admitting the brief had nothing to do with the NSA.
As damning as the brief is, keep it in perspective.
It wasn't done by the joint cheifs of staff it was made by the cheif of staff Lemnitzer, who by the way lost his posistion not long after giving the plan to McNamara for approval, which was turned down cold.
So lets put this in perspective.
Here are the facts
This one paper out of 1000's
Nothing became of it
Lemnitzer was told in no uncertain terms no action like this would be taken
Lemnitzer lost his position over it
Yet.... The conspiracy nuts cling to this as proof of covert government conspiracies.
Most of the sites that deal with this kind of stuff take bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence, wrap it in a nice presentation and call it overwhelming proof.
If you take a more common sense approach you'll see that your logic or your information is faulty on several points.
QUOTE
one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens..
Here is a list of all Executive Orders signed by Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/
Do a google search for "Executive Order W199i" and you'll find 100's of site talking about this fantom order but not a signle site which can link to it.
Don't you find that a little strange seeing as how every single Executive Order is available on the web?
For that matter, Executive Orders are assigned in numerological order, Bushes 1st Executive Order was 13198. His last one was 13224. There are no letters used so tell me again about order W199i.
More later
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.