911- The government did it
- Thread starter blacktroop
- Start date
Good Post Jedi
J
JUju2005
Guest
some crackers are waking up.Freeze said:
March 23, 2006 -- CHARLIE Sheen has joined the 9/11 gone-bonkers brigade. The "Two and a Half Men" star gave a bizarre interview on GGN Radio Network's conspiracy-minded "The Alex Jones Show," in which he suggested that the federal government was covering up what "really" happened. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with boxcutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions," Sheen said. "A couple of years ago, it was severely unpopular to talk about any of this. It feels like from the people I talk to, and the research I've done and around my circles, it feels like the worm is turning." Sheen said the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "controlled demolition." The out-there actor also expressed his disbelief over how one of the planes hit the Pentagon. "Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers . . . It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims, we owe it to everyone's life who was drastically altered, horrifically, that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.
source
JUju2005 said:some crackers are waking up.
March 23, 2006 -- CHARLIE Sheen has joined the 9/11 gone-bonkers brigade. The "Two and a Half Men" star gave a bizarre interview on GGN Radio Network's conspiracy-minded "The Alex Jones Show," in which he suggested that the federal government was covering up what "really" happened. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with boxcutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions," Sheen said. "A couple of years ago, it was severely unpopular to talk about any of this. It feels like from the people I talk to, and the research I've done and around my circles, it feels like the worm is turning." Sheen said the collapse of the Twin Towers looked like a "controlled demolition." The out-there actor also expressed his disbelief over how one of the planes hit the Pentagon. "Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers . . . It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims, we owe it to everyone's life who was drastically altered, horrifically, that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.
source
Yeah, I know. I posted an mp3 of the interview.
Here's the link.
http://rapidshare.de/files/16026281...erview.mp3.html
People will wake up when it is to late.
This 4 part news report from Fox News, is somewhat dated, but may shed some light on the whole "conspiracy theory". At one time it was said that none of the Jewish World Trade Center workers showed up for work on that fateful day, i wonder if there is any validity to that rumor.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Once again, total bullshit which is based upon the "disprove the negative" theory that anybody with half a brain should find laughable. For example, 7 World Trade Center was damaged from tons of debris falling on from several Hundred feet up. Since the building was biult with a similar frame to that of the Twin Towers, when it collapses, it "Pancakes", which is that the biulding is not supported by itself, but the frame which passes the load into the ground. So, when the system fails, it is most likely to have the floor that failed slap the one belowit, and so on and so on. That is why you see puffs coming out of the corners. It is NOT explosives. If they wanted to use explosives, they could have done so below ground, and not left evidence.
Does your pancake/waffle house theory work in reverse? If so, again watch closely, the blasts occur on the corners of the building, in sequence as they usually do in, a controlled demolition. To debunk your theory even further i will let you know that the Leaseholder of the building is on video tape (i will find it) stating that he told someone to "Pull " building 7; an industirial term for commencement of controlled demolition. Holla
[WM]http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV[/WM]
Since I'm not a demo specialist, I have to ask a question.
How long does it typically take for the demo people to install explosives in any building?
From the time the towers fell, to the time WTC 7 fell, how many hours?
You see where i'm going.
How long does it typically take for the demo people to install explosives in any building?
From the time the towers fell, to the time WTC 7 fell, how many hours?
You see where i'm going.
Makeherhappy said:
It takes weeks for demolition specialist to install explosives in buildings because the need to review the schematics and architecture then tear down walls to place the explosives in the proper place. And Firefighters don't do that. So when Larry Silverstein say he told the Firefighters to pull the building, they had to do it within hours. And they had to do it with the buildings on fire. That doesn't make sense. Building 7 was not in the debris field (according to the government) and they gave 3 different reasons way building 7 collapsed. And FEMA said they don't know why building 7 collapsed. The 911 commission omitted building 7 in there report.
Never in history has a building collapsed because or fire.
And the government said the 10,000 gallons of jetfuel burnt up in the fireball.
When the try to recreate the collapse in models of the buildings they would not collapses.
I've seen many buildings collapse from fire, althought i do not know of any other steel frame buildings off the top of my head. However, I've also never seen a steel frame building get hit by a damn near 400,000 airplane traveling at several hundred mile an hour almost fully loaded with fuel before either. And I know that several engineers said that the Towers were designed for such an impact, remember that they were wrong on other things about the tower as well, such as the amount of sway, and the wind resistance the elevators had to cope with. And engineers can be wrong, too. And the fuel did not completely burn on impact either. There were smoldering fires for weeks, that would flare up from time to time. And the same guy Silverstein who talked about "pulling" the building A: was referring to a fire dept. command to "pull out"(my homie of 30 years in NYFD), and B:said clearly that 7WTC was heavily damaged and on fire from the plane crash and collapse of the main towers.
Fuckallyall said:
Are you Serious?
Let me clarify "never in history has any steel structure completely collapse from fire!" Ask you firefighter friend!
Jetfuel is a hydrocarbon all hydrocarbons burn briefly when exposed to a oxygen environment. You can't even deny that fact. The government said it them selves.
And as far as your supposed steal frame structure collapsing from fire if you can't think of one off the top of you head. I'll wait, give me one (take all the time you need).
And no plane hit building 7, and the government said that building 7 was not in the debris field, and only had light damage (look at the pictures). Explain that!
As far as Larry Silverstein. He tried to change his comments after his quote on "PBS Rebuilding". And said the "firefighters", but there were no firefighters in the building. His statement makes no sense any other way.
As for you firefighter friend. It was the firefighters that released the tapes when the FBI lied and said they malfunctioned.
Did you hear the tapes? The fires were almost out. And many of them heard explosions. This tape is all over the internet.
And the fires burning for weeks is inconsistent with jet fuel. You just helped my argument buy admitting that the fires burns for weeks.
All three building fell at free fall speed this is impossible for a theoretically pancake collapse.
The government story of the collapse defies the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, THE LAW OF ENTHALPY, AND NEWTON'S FIRST LAW OF MOTION!!!!!
Nobody on this board will address this!!!!
If your so right then you should be able to collect from the ONE MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE, to disprove the experts that say explosives were used in the collapse of the towers.
Click the link! If your right collect your check.
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm
To those reading.
Watch him quit or give some excuse like "I don't have the time to answer all you questions or participate in the one million dollar challenge.
Freeze said:
I thought so. I'm no expert, but I have asked experts. They say about the same thing, depending on the type of structure. okay. If that is the case, that gives a strong case to someone knowing about this before hand. Because the damage that was done to WTC 7, wasn't enough for it to collapse. Nor would they have had enough time from after the smoke cleared, to when the building fell, to wire the entire building for a perfect demolition.
and I say again,
WAKE UP PEOPLE
Obviously, you are new to posting, if not to the board. I don't run nor quit on something I believe. Don't flatter yourself. Don't just read, understand. Here goes:Freeze said:
Fire can only burn when exposed to enough oxygen. When the planes hit, the explosions collapsed many floors and burned for a long period of time, as well as create tempatures that warp steel. When the steel warps, it weakens. The way the towers were constructed, the floors did not hold themselves up, but the outer pylons between the windows (which got taken out on impact) and a core of steel beams did. When enough went, the ENTIRE SYSTEM FAILED, NOT A SECTION. Therefore, the floors started to pancake. And when a 46 ton object (which is how much each floor was estimated to weigh without furniture etc.) falls over 12 feet (the distance between the floors), over and over again, it sounds like explosions. Also, since the outside girders supply so much of the support and supposed to be so strong, then why were so many of them taken out in the crashes ?
Even with this dynamic in place, the South Tower did fall to the side a little at first, showing the robustness of the system that was mentioned in previous entries on this post. See this page for pictures, maybe then you'll get it.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
And after the towers fell, there were fires smoldering for two reasons. One, there was no longer enough oxygen available to support a flame, so it just smoldered and simmered, especially considering the fact that the fuel fumes is what burns, not the liquid. Second, the fuel ignited materials that had a higher combustion point than usually exists in a building fire. And that was stated and agreed with. With the damage done to that building in that magnitude, it's amazing that the building stood as long as it did.
And please describe how the governments explanation defies the laws you were talking about, especially considering the the fact that the hotter a metal gets, the more pliable it becomes. Or is blacksmithing a fallacy as well ?
Now, where's my million dollars ?
fuckallyall- legitimate professors, engineering groups and others have come forward to deny the possibility of the existing collapse explanation
Building 7? how did it collapse in similar fashion?
your million dollars for what? regurgitating generic reasons with no specific breakdown that violates known laws of physics is not worthy of winning that prize
its totally fucked up that someone can offer that reward and no one in the world steps up to claim it- its free money right????????????
Building 7? how did it collapse in similar fashion?
your million dollars for what? regurgitating generic reasons with no specific breakdown that violates known laws of physics is not worthy of winning that prize
its totally fucked up that someone can offer that reward and no one in the world steps up to claim it- its free money right????????????
Yeah, and there have been others of identical stature who have affirmed the possibility.Makkonnen said:
Metal, especially steel, warps under heat and pressure. How is that NOT a physical law. If so, how do we weld of blacksmith steel? A frame buildings tend to pancake, how does that not make sense. Please post you evidence.
Don't always be so quick to take scientific opinion as fact. Remember, for years:
A. Physicists believed that curveballs were optical illusions.
B. Physicists believed that if a plane went faster than sound, it could just blow up.
C. Physicists said that Bumblebees could not fly, according to thier math, which led to the joke that "somebody should tell the Bumblebee".
D. 30 years ago climatologists said that because of the pollution we were putting up in the air, we were ceating another ice age. Many proposed putting soot on the Ice caps to help melt them so that the earth would warm up !
I think many are taking the confusion that came along with the event and making it into something it isn't.
Fuckallyall said:
Obviously your gonna believe anything that supports the governments "theory".
It's funny who that hit piece doesn't give temperatures and they say things like "very hot".
Your experts make claims but don't give scientific explanations.
And your hit piece keeps referring to the jet fuel burning for long periods of time. Hydrocarbons burns briefly period. The government didn't deny this.
Your hit piece said:
"Why did the building fall so quickly??The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance."
Answer:
They don't even answer the question. Just say some gibberious "Very quickly"? Show the formula that explains this impossibility.
Second they make the absurd comment the the columns were not designed to carry huge loads. They were the weight bearing beams in the building. They were some of the biggest in the world. 47, 16X37 inches and 4 inches thick of tungsten steel certified to ASTM E119, require to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. NIST report said the fires didn't exceed 250C to soften steel temperatures need to exceed 1100C.
Third if the I-beams carried the load instead of the columns, it still doesn't explain a near free fall collapse. Saying the columns can't carry the load explains the collapse it self not the speed.
Fourth For the pieces of the building to smash in to little pieces they have to slow down the collapse considerably. This defies Newton's third law of motion.
You said:
"When the planes hit, the explosions collapsed many floors and burned for a long period of time"
Answer:
45 minutes and 90 minutes, you call the a long time?
The Windsor Hotel burned for over 24 hours. And that was a raging inferno and it didn't collapse.
And the fires didn't rage. The firefighters confirmed that.
Your hit piece said:
"The only evidence so far are photographs and television footage. Whether failure was initiated at the perimeter columns or the core is unknown. The extent to which the internal parts were damaged during the collision may be evident in the rubble if any forensic investigation is conducted. Since the mass of the combined towers is close to 1000000 tons, finding evidence will be an enormous task."
Answer:
The problem is Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hired two large British construction management firms, to oversee the massive criminal destruction of evidence. The 911 families tried to get FEMA to stop Giuliani, but they didn't even though what he did was illegal. YOU DON'T FIND THAT SUSPICIOUS?
Why did they destroy the evidence? Why wont they release the video tapes of fight 77
Your hit piece said:
The gigantic dynamic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below is very much greater than the static load they were designed to resist.
Answer:
The floors below the impact forces that are intact would all take the force at the same time. And would give at its weakest point, That being the bottom floors. The first floor would be the first to collapse the building after the top portion collapses, because the first floor is carrying a static load of 500,000 tons of the structure when the floors bellow the hole would not have to deal with the weight of the floors below it. Therefor the "pancake should start from the bottom up. Not the top down. This has never happen before because it is impossible.
We can go at this all day the government can get enough experts to support their theories.
And I can go on debunking them.
I have a solution why don't you just put an end to this and collect your one million dollars.
One Million Dollar Challenge
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm
Last edited:
QUESTION:
For those who contend that the govenment did it, with respect
to the the twin towers, does the theory mean (1) that the
government somehow (how ever) rigged the towers for explosions,
(by whatever means) to collapse, fall, etc., and (2) that the
government was also complicit in the airplanes crashing into the
buildings as well ???
Just asking,
QueEx
For those who contend that the govenment did it, with respect
to the the twin towers, does the theory mean (1) that the
government somehow (how ever) rigged the towers for explosions,
(by whatever means) to collapse, fall, etc., and (2) that the
government was also complicit in the airplanes crashing into the
buildings as well ???
Just asking,
QueEx
maybe popular mechanics should win the money
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=yGreed said:
for some reason your link wouldnt work for me- anyway the article doesnt address the contest questions beyond fema and nist which are already held as questionable by many scholars
even the melted steel part doesnt explain the melted steel reports- although I dont see why 1700 degree burning jet fuel and other materials covered under tons of concrete dont add up to huge ovens capable of higher temperatures but I dont know
I thought this reply was interesting
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/1249302.html
PM Feedback said:
wtf? lol
I saw the PBS special breaking down the explanation of events and it seemed reasonable but I didnt whip out my calculator and reference materials regarding structural failure levels of steel girders lol - I dont know alot of legitimate scientists and engineering groups have called the explanation bullshit. It would seem easy enough for someone to take that million bucks if all is what it seems
the credit for the article goes:
reporting
benjamin chertoff, david coburn, michael connery, david enders, kevin haynes, kristin roth, tracy saelinger, erik sofge, and the editors of popular mechanics
at least 9 different writers for an article that spanned 11 pages in the magazine.
is the entire thing a lie because benjamin chertoff contributed to an article?
it makes sense that people who are prone to believe in conspiracy see a conspiracy in the popular mechanics article. makes me wonder why PM included his name in the first place if the point was to protect the government with a seemingly unbiased article.
as far as the rest, the point of the article was to address the most popular theories.
it was 11 pages and couldnt include everything.
the article was written in winter 2004 and published february 2005. i dont know when the "pools of melted steel at the base of the towers" theory manifested itself or how popular it was at the time, so i cant tell if they were avoiding it.
but the stories they did attack were not minor and obscure.
reporting
benjamin chertoff, david coburn, michael connery, david enders, kevin haynes, kristin roth, tracy saelinger, erik sofge, and the editors of popular mechanics
at least 9 different writers for an article that spanned 11 pages in the magazine.
is the entire thing a lie because benjamin chertoff contributed to an article?
it makes sense that people who are prone to believe in conspiracy see a conspiracy in the popular mechanics article. makes me wonder why PM included his name in the first place if the point was to protect the government with a seemingly unbiased article.
as far as the rest, the point of the article was to address the most popular theories.
it was 11 pages and couldnt include everything.
the article was written in winter 2004 and published february 2005. i dont know when the "pools of melted steel at the base of the towers" theory manifested itself or how popular it was at the time, so i cant tell if they were avoiding it.
but the stories they did attack were not minor and obscure.
QueEx said:
Good questions, IMHO
1. Yes, their were countless reports of people in and out of the building. But those are reports.
2. Yes, collateral damage is a bia.
Even a third one, our consistent involvement with UBL/OBL, what ever you want to call him, allowed us to place the blame on another individual.
Yoda said it best, "Hard to see, the darkside is."
Here are several eye witness accounts, uncensored and uncut from a German website. Should be a good source of factual information.
[FRAME]http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/[/FRAME]
[FRAME]http://www.google.com/language_tools[/FRAME]
[FRAME]http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/[/FRAME]
[FRAME]http://www.google.com/language_tools[/FRAME]
Last edited:
[WM]http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/Ask%20Questions%20Demand%20Answers!.wmv[/WM]
One of the things Ford Prefect had always found hardest to understand about human beings was their habit of continually stating and repeating the obvious, as in It's a nice day, or You're very tall, or Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you all right? At first Ford had formed a theory to account for this strange behavior. If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths probably seize up. After a few months' consideration and observation he abandoned this theory in favor of a new one. If they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working. After a while he abandoned this one as well as being obstructively cynical and decided he quite liked human beings after all, but he always remained desperately worried about the terrible number of things they didn't know about.--Douglas Adams
One of the things Ford Prefect had always found hardest to understand about human beings was their habit of continually stating and repeating the obvious, as in It's a nice day, or You're very tall, or Oh dear you seem to have fallen down a thirty-foot well, are you all right? At first Ford had formed a theory to account for this strange behavior. If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, he thought, their mouths probably seize up. After a few months' consideration and observation he abandoned this theory in favor of a new one. If they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working. After a while he abandoned this one as well as being obstructively cynical and decided he quite liked human beings after all, but he always remained desperately worried about the terrible number of things they didn't know about.--Douglas Adams
GET YOU HOT said:
GREAT POST!!!!
QueEx said:
It shows how the "media" stood down. This also helps me with what I'm working on.
Plus I don't understand how people can not question the official story. There is to much left in doubt. My father was an architect, he had worked on several buildings in downtown chicago, during the 60's and 70's. The story is not true.
