-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
9/11=insidejob...this is for you
- Thread starter lnvanry
- Start date
Pepper said:
Did you even read what I said? It has nothing to do with that.
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
You should read that Pepper. That article is well referenced, and he has since conducted a study on rubble that tested positive for thermate, the commercially implemented version of thermite, which can easily cut through steel and is frequently used in controlled demolition.
It has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, and he doesn't refute the fact that planes hit the WTC towers, as some have speculated.
You should read that Pepper. That article is well referenced, and he has since conducted a study on rubble that tested positive for thermate, the commercially implemented version of thermite, which can easily cut through steel and is frequently used in controlled demolition.
It has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, and he doesn't refute the fact that planes hit the WTC towers, as some have speculated.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Regarding the quotes of people saying they saw a boeing, there are also just as many witnesses saying they saw a missle or even a small plane.
Here's an intersting fact: 15 drills were being run on the morning of 9/11. That's more drills at one time than any other time in American history, which just so happened to paralize air defenses and other responses. Even in the months before 9/11 NORAD ran drills simulating hijacked planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon. Yet on 9/11, over an hour went by and none of the planes could be intercepted even though NORAD has the ability to intercept planes within 5 minutes anywhere in the U.S.
Here's an intersting fact: 15 drills were being run on the morning of 9/11. That's more drills at one time than any other time in American history, which just so happened to paralize air defenses and other responses. Even in the months before 9/11 NORAD ran drills simulating hijacked planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon. Yet on 9/11, over an hour went by and none of the planes could be intercepted even though NORAD has the ability to intercept planes within 5 minutes anywhere in the U.S.
911=InsideJob said:
source?
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
FishOrCutBait said:
These drills and wargames ordered by high level govt officials which included hijacked planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon, both months before 9/11, and on the morning of 9/11 which helped parallyze NORAD.
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm
brogers said:
It isn't necessarily the government that did it. The reason people point to certain people in the government is because the motivation is largely there.
At the same time, though, you already believe it was pulled off by people who have far less capability than the governemnt. Not to mention that is a cop-out to avoid reading what evidence there is that something is being hidden from us.
This shit needs a real investigation, not one where massive loads of evidence are withheld from the investigating agencies, and one that includes a more thorough investigation into why the towers collapsed. The NIST refuted FEMA's assesment, and admittedly, manipulated data in their computer models to make their theory pan out.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Probably thought i was gone, but this thread I could not let go!
Any body who can really think for themselves could see reguardless of this being an inside job or not, that neither the twin towers nor building 7(being it was 5 to 8 blocks away) could fall down the way tha they did.
The twin towers were hit by two planes near the top of the buildings.
(1) the air up there is thin, meaning less oxygen for the fire.
(2) more wind is located at that height, meaning with the amount of given oxygen and stronger winds the fire has a lower chance of reaching high tempatures and speading.
Now with that being known lets look at how the buildings fell.
(1) as said before the buildings were hit near the top. How does the building fall from the bottom?
(2) as far as building 7 how does it fall when it was the building the furthest away from all surrounding buildings.
You all need to think. You don't need a physics major to tell you this. These things we've been tought in science class. Even just the basics are good enough, the rest are just details.
Any body who can really think for themselves could see reguardless of this being an inside job or not, that neither the twin towers nor building 7(being it was 5 to 8 blocks away) could fall down the way tha they did.
The twin towers were hit by two planes near the top of the buildings.
(1) the air up there is thin, meaning less oxygen for the fire.
(2) more wind is located at that height, meaning with the amount of given oxygen and stronger winds the fire has a lower chance of reaching high tempatures and speading.
Now with that being known lets look at how the buildings fell.
(1) as said before the buildings were hit near the top. How does the building fall from the bottom?
(2) as far as building 7 how does it fall when it was the building the furthest away from all surrounding buildings.
You all need to think. You don't need a physics major to tell you this. These things we've been tought in science class. Even just the basics are good enough, the rest are just details.
It wouldn't suprise me one way or the other. 
Some people have way to much faith in the government, and the government could give a fuck less about them.
Some people have way to much faith in the government, and the government could give a fuck less about them.
BigDyl said:It wouldn't suprise me one way or the other.
Some people have way to much faith in the government, and the government could give a fuck less about them.
I just think it's funny how people don't contest the information I provided, they just deem it as completely nutty conspiracy theory. It's something that "can't be." Just look at the evidence. There is a good chance some form of controlled demolition was used, at least on tower 7.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
CowPimp, you are correct. I don't even try to argue against it. No more than I would try to argue with someone who said the earth was flat. I'd just chuckle, nod and move on. I may make a sarcastic argument here and there, but to really try to refute the "evidence" would dignify the theory. The 911 theories don't deserve a rebuttal. They are absurd.
For some reason, some people want to believe this stuff. They are so far off the path of logical thinking that there is really no way to approach them.
For some reason, some people want to believe this stuff. They are so far off the path of logical thinking that there is really no way to approach them.
Pepper said:By the way, you are getting the same reaction that Christians get when they dare suggest that evolution is unproven.
The difference here is that science doesn't provide any recourse for the Christians who believe such a theory; the Christian's theory on the current state of the human being goes against science. Science is the basis for what I believe here. Forensic science has uncovered evidence of the existence of a comercially patented substance used to cut through structural steel during demolition in the wreckage of building 7.
I'm sorry the but the science behind FEMA and NIST's theories don't pan out. The NIST's report disagrees with FEMA's, and they altered the data to make their own theory prove true. Not to mention they stopped analyzing the data at the state in which the buildings were primed to collapse, when the actual collapse is of great importance.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
My problem with the conspiracy nuts is that every odd event, every event that may not be 100% explained, every event there is incosistentcy...the gaps in knowledge are filled with whack theories.
The norm that the "simplist explaination tends to be the correct one" goes out the window. The assumption is a conspiracy, then they go to work to fill in the gaps with the "evidence." Then they turn to people like me and accuse me of being a government shill b/c won't follow them as they tilt at windmills.
911 is looking at photos of the 757 landing gear and STILL maintains no 757 hit the building. What are you supposed to say to someone like that? Keep posting links?
The norm that the "simplist explaination tends to be the correct one" goes out the window. The assumption is a conspiracy, then they go to work to fill in the gaps with the "evidence." Then they turn to people like me and accuse me of being a government shill b/c won't follow them as they tilt at windmills.
911 is looking at photos of the 757 landing gear and STILL maintains no 757 hit the building. What are you supposed to say to someone like that? Keep posting links?
Pepper said:
I'm not arguing that, am I? Don't let the lack of credible support behind one theory discount another.
Pepper said:
That's part of it. I'm also saying there is sufficient evidence pointing to the demolition theory, particularly in building 7. There is now forensic evidence to support it.
Now, there are other things that are very fishy surrounding the whole incident, but it is largely circumstantial. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I would like the information that is being withheld from the American public released. It could potentially containt the keys to uncovering a lot of unanswered questions behind the incident.
Another fact that bothers me is that a confirmed 5 (And another unconfirmed 2) of the supposed hi-jackers on their list of 19 have actually been interviewed by the BBC and the Guardian since 9-11. How?
bigbricks said:
are you kidding me? a commercial jet loaded with fuel slammed into both buildings at 300+ MPH. It wasnt just a little car bomb, it was a GUIDED MISSILE. The second plane almost went entirely through the second fucking building.
Do you have any idea how big the WTC was? it was ENORMOUS. if you sat in a car parked right outside the building and tried to see the top of it, you couldnt. it was that tall. That amount of debris falling down on everything below for blocks is going to cause catastrophic damage. have you ever seen a building like that uncontrollably collapse before, much less two of them in the same day?? My guess is no, so you have no idea what kind of damage two of those enormous buildings couldve caused when they came crashing down. That kind of shit was new to all of us, suddenly now everyone is an expert.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
Pepper said:
Yeah, its kind of like the theory of Jesus Christ isn't it?
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 14,833
- Reaction score
- 1,676
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 43
- Location
- In my imagination.
Pepper said:
Lawl...you know exactly what it means.
The WTC had structural redundancies designed to withstand the impact of any airplane.fUnc17 said:
I'm glad this kind of talk is still going on. The technical minutia that goes along with this discussion is interesting.
My dissatisfaction w/ 9/11 attacks stems from the general framework of the events themselves. I posted this before but here it is:
Four planes get hijacked simultaneously while on FAA radar--this is unprecedented in US history. Some of these planes breach the most heavily protected airspace in the world: Washington DC and NY, NY.
The planes are tracked for over 35 minutes until the first crashes into the WTC.
No american fighters are scrambled (there are many air bases in the NE). The president isn't notified until after the second plane hits the WTC.
1/2 hour after the first plane hit the WTC, Bush finally makes a public statement. 5 minutes after that statement, another plan hits the pentagon. Still, no fighters were scrambled.
All of this was due to incompetence allegedly, yet no one was reprimanded or fired.
Afterwards Bush/Cheney ask Congress NOT to investigate the antecedents of the attack.
Can anyone see why a reasonable person might have questions about the official storyline?
Don't forget the hours of videotape and thounsands of photographs that are still being withheld from the genreal public. Does that mean anything necessarily, no, but it's questionable.
There's the fact that the largest drill concerning hijacking planes ever was being conducted on that date. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think an investigation is warranted.
FEMA's theory about the building collapse were later deemed implausible by the NIST's report. The NIST's theories ultimately required being toyed with by implementing unrealistic data in order to prove them "plausible." I find this odd.
No study of the buildings once they reached a state primed for collapse is also strange. You must consider the collapse of all three buildings, particularly building 7, should be very chaotic and random, yet exhibit the signs of controlled demolition. The chances of this occuring are astronomically low.
WTC7 is the first steel-framed building in history to collapse as a result of fires. Remember, this building was not hit by a plane. I know, there are firsts for everything, but I still feel it is an interesting fact when compiled together with the rest of the evidence.
There were pools of molten metal in the rubble and proof of evaporation after the attacks. This is not physically possible as a result of fires from jet fuel. The fires themselves don't even reach the temperatures that the steel would have to reach necessary to turn them molten and cause evaporation. Then you have to consider the fact that the fuel was only burning for a matter of minutes, the continued fires were burning office materials, and the temperatures reached when these items are ignited are nowhere near that of the temperature of burning jet fuel. To add to this, as I've already said, forensic evidence is now out there showing that there was the existence of a substance that is used in controlled demolitions to rapidly slice through structural steel in order to allow for a "clean" building demolition. This substance produces molten iron as a byproduct of its chemical reaction.
Multiple eyewitness accounts saw evidence of controlled demolition in the towers. There were flashes and explosions on the lower floors of the building before it collapsed up top.
Again, a further investigation is certainly called for in my opinion.
There's the fact that the largest drill concerning hijacking planes ever was being conducted on that date. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think an investigation is warranted.
FEMA's theory about the building collapse were later deemed implausible by the NIST's report. The NIST's theories ultimately required being toyed with by implementing unrealistic data in order to prove them "plausible." I find this odd.
No study of the buildings once they reached a state primed for collapse is also strange. You must consider the collapse of all three buildings, particularly building 7, should be very chaotic and random, yet exhibit the signs of controlled demolition. The chances of this occuring are astronomically low.
WTC7 is the first steel-framed building in history to collapse as a result of fires. Remember, this building was not hit by a plane. I know, there are firsts for everything, but I still feel it is an interesting fact when compiled together with the rest of the evidence.
There were pools of molten metal in the rubble and proof of evaporation after the attacks. This is not physically possible as a result of fires from jet fuel. The fires themselves don't even reach the temperatures that the steel would have to reach necessary to turn them molten and cause evaporation. Then you have to consider the fact that the fuel was only burning for a matter of minutes, the continued fires were burning office materials, and the temperatures reached when these items are ignited are nowhere near that of the temperature of burning jet fuel. To add to this, as I've already said, forensic evidence is now out there showing that there was the existence of a substance that is used in controlled demolitions to rapidly slice through structural steel in order to allow for a "clean" building demolition. This substance produces molten iron as a byproduct of its chemical reaction.
Multiple eyewitness accounts saw evidence of controlled demolition in the towers. There were flashes and explosions on the lower floors of the building before it collapsed up top.
Again, a further investigation is certainly called for in my opinion.
Cowpimp,
Those are some interesting findings. The forensic evidence aside, I still cannot reconcile the fact that our government watched the hijackings from inception to crash and did NOTHING! For about an hour--No calls, no e-mails, no smoke signals...no warnings of any type to anyone. Just sit back and watch it happen.
Error and/or incompetence is not good enough to explain that kind of debacle.
Those are some interesting findings. The forensic evidence aside, I still cannot reconcile the fact that our government watched the hijackings from inception to crash and did NOTHING! For about an hour--No calls, no e-mails, no smoke signals...no warnings of any type to anyone. Just sit back and watch it happen.
Error and/or incompetence is not good enough to explain that kind of debacle.
911, I'm not smart enough to debunk any of these theories, and I don't want to believe them, but these threads are interesting.
