9/11 truth now!

OK, so a Swiss Army officer wrote a book about guerrilla warfare, and the book was incorporated into the curricula at various military schools and academies. Thanks for providing this neat little factoid. I just don't see how it provides any kind of evidence that "the Swiss" are terrorists and that they go around blowing up buidings.

There was an incident that occurred a long time ago. Greenpeace was alleged to have been involved in the planting of a bomb on board a ship, and one of the bombers was said to have been a Frenchman; but of course, even if ALL of the bombers were French nationals, their nationality isn't relevant because they were acting as members of Greenpeace and not as Frenchmen ! So, instead of saying that "the French" blew up a ship all those years ago, it would be much more accurate if you said that Greenpeace blew up a ship.

Well ... maybe I should have said that ALMOST NOBODY goes around blowing up buildings except for Zionists and others who are likely in the employ of Zionists. I've seen those old Reuters press releases which state that Hamas was originally funded by Israel. Israel apparently goes out of its way to create its own enemies. Israel needs enemies so that it can justify not only its own military incursions, but also the military incursions of its US proxy mercenary force.

Black September and its alleged mastermind-ringleader ("abu Nidal" ??) are both of Middle Eastern origin. In much the same way, "Hamas" and "Al Qaeda" also happen to be of Middle Eastern origin. All of the really horrendous terrorist attacks all seem to be closely related to Israel or to its alleged enemies.

I doubt that Puerto Rican terrorists are going around planting roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. unless they're getting paid to do so by wealthy financiers.

One point that reasonable people can all agree on is that the international terrorist problem emanates primarily from Israel and the Middle East.

McVeigh was a classic patsy. He didn't stand to gain anything by bombing the Murrah building. No, I didn't know him, but so what ? The people who condemned McVeigh didn't seem to know him, either.

There's no hint of martial law ? Are you joking ? Didn't you catch the recent events which took place in Pittsburgh ? The march toward international warfare and domestic tryanny was (and is) a slow, a tedious, and a gradual process, and it probably has its beginnings in the 19th Century. You should read a book by Archibald M. Ramsey. The title of the book is "The Nameless War." Ramsey was a close confidant of Neville Chamberlain.

 

Greenpeace was apparently the victim and not the perpetrator of the attack.

The perpetrators were allegedly agents or members of the French government.

OK ... so I made a mistake.

I'm wondering if this could have been an isolated incident because you hardly ever hear about terrorism coming from the French.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/10/commander_of_1985_french_bombing_of

 

just a little fact for you. The Air force had trained for a attack like 9/11 for years, and in 2000 they had something like 23 simulated drills for the same scenario. Hijacked commercial airline coming for a city, ALL 23 times they were successful and fighter planes were there in minutes. But on 9/11 they were not why? Because they were told is was still a drill. Listen to radio chatter that day, they were not sure if it was real. They were getting dozens of messages all at the same time, most of them were false. It’s almost as if someone wanted them to fail. The same thing happened with that subway bombing in London few years later. They were simulating a scenario of an explosion on the SAME tunnel, and the SAME time, one the SAME day as it actually happened. So when it did, there was again that delay in response.

Just makes you think. A little too much coincidence huh?
My personal opinion, no doubt 9/11 was planned. Look at those buildings. That is a controlled demolition ask any engineer. And why are there no remains of any air craft yet there is chemical residue at the trade center sites, the SAME chemicals used in a controled demolition.

 

I've also heard that those buildings were built to withstand accidental plane crash. Made a great excuse to attempt to (slowly but surely) conquer countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria. Those countries resources and power all under American control. I think that that was music to somebody's ears.

 

Holy shit you people are still really this dumb.

1. Planning only works when you have advanced warning of something about to happen, 90 seconds isn't really enough time to get fighter jets into the air. Hmm, lets see, why would they train for an attack on the world trade scenario, oh hey, how about because it freakin happened the decade beforehand too.

2. The chemicals used in demolition are used in a lot of things, you'd be surprised what can be used as an explosive and oxidizer, hell simple sugar and potassium together can be quite explosive.

2. Go back and read the thread, or at least this
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5710584&postcount=26

3.http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

4. Ask most engineers and they'll actually say it was a structural failure. In fact most of these conspiracies are done by people with little knowledge of engineering and with no science to back it up.

 

Please be warned that you'll be placing yourself at the risk of being "disappeared" in the middle of the night if you dare to express even the mildest form of disagreement with the government's official propaganda (as so eloquently expressed by the junk magazine "Popular Mechanics"). So ... if you'd like to do what's best for yourself, YOU SIMPLY HAVE GOT TO STOP THINKING FOR YOURSELF and you simply MUST accept whatever the government says. If you hold an advanced degree in engineering, just remember that the government is monitoring all of your internet communications, and you will be among the first to be detained once the roundups begin.

 

Now that the "fire hypothesis" has been torn completely asunder, thanks to its many inherent defects and weaknesses ... now we're being told that it was actually a "structural failure" which caused those three (3) gigantic skyscrapers to disintegrate into dust in a matter of seconds. It now turns out that the fire was totally irrelevant, but now they're telling us that it was actually the "force of impact" which caused the observed result to take place. Yeah, it must have been the "force of impact" which caused those buildings to explode. No ... it wasn't the fire that did it ... it was actually a couple of silly pieces of flying aluminum which took down those three (3) enormous buildings.
That's right ... aviation-grade aluminum is actually a much much stronger material than reinforced construction-grade steel !

9-11 was the greatest miracle that ever happened since the days of the Maccabees and the burning of that oil in the Menorah !

 

Do you even read the thread or is your head so far up your ass your eyes are covered in permanent shit? Fire causes steel to weaken, weakened steel couldn't support the weight of giant skyscraper, gravity caused millions upon millions of tons of metal and other things to come crashing down on each other. Fuckin go take physics or something.

 

This absolute stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Ignorance is not an excuse because this extends far beyond ignorance. It is a deliberate ignoring of the facts.

There are no weaknesses to the fire theory.

The fire explanation still stands because that is what happened. Fire does weaken steel and it does not have to reach the melting point. The rocking motion of the tower from the impact would cause stress on the joints which bear the load of the structure. So, the result of the rocking combined with the weakened steel would cause the collapse at the load bearing points. It really is a no-brainer as to the possibility. Further, even if something burns at temperature "A" it is quite possible to heat things up beyond the temperature "A". So, even mentioning that the jet fuel would burn at a temperature less than that of melting steel would not prove anything even if the argument were that the steel had melted. But, it isn't the argument and thus is a straw man. Finally, if you have ever seen photographs and studies about tornadoes then you would know that weaker materials can have remarkable penetrating power at high speeds.

 

I have quite an extensive background in mathematics and physics including thermodynamics. I do think for myself. The arguments that they have made are solid. You are the one asking everyone else tostop thinking for themselves and to believe that you are right. I find that comical.

 

No, there are not. There are people making false claims who really do not know what they are talking about. That is the source of these conspiracies.

We do know the truth about this. People just don't want to admit it because they want so much to blame America for everything.

 

There are so many weaknesses in the fire theory that I can't even begin to list them all. The fire theory has already been bludgeoned into the grave where it rightfully belongs, via the application of ordinary logic and reasoning. I am not going to keep on repeating myself ad nauseum. I will leave that up to you, so maybe, just maybe, if you keep on repeating those same old worn-out lies, and if you continue doing so as often as possible, then maybe, just maybe, you will finally manage to convince yourself that the lies are actually true.

No, that isn't what happened, it's what was ALLEGED to have happened.

I get the impression that you've never been employed as a welder, nor have you ever had the opportunity to weaken steel with an oxy-acetylene welding torch. Any welder is going to tell you that your argument is absurd and simplistic. I am going to tell you that your argument falls under the heading of "sophistry." You can only weaken steel after you've applied exactly the right amount of heat for exactly the right amount of time. An oxy-acetylene welding torch is the DIRECT application of heat; what the world witnessed on 9-11 was the exact opposite of that: i.e. it was an INDIRECT application of heat. More specifically, it was the addition of a relatively small amount of heat to an enormous matrix of heavy construction-grade steel. Heat CAN weaken steel, but the odds of it doing so in such a brief span of time through the indirect application of heat, with such a weak fire present and with such a sparse amount of fuel present, and in such a gigantic skyscraper, no less, are "slim to none."

I've got news for you .... those towers were always rocking back and forth slightly because they were designed to do just that, and they were rocking back and forth for approx. three decades or so. In other words, those buildings were made to rock back and forth. The force of impact from those relatively tiny and weak-bodied aluminum aircraft didn't make those buildings rock back and forth any more than they normally would have under the stress of a gale-force wind. The joints along the outer perimeter which held up the floors (trusses) could have given way under the stress of impact, at least hypothetically, but there was simply too much bulk in the central cores. The central cores were solid and resilient, and they were designed to easily withstand the impact of a large passenger jet. It was the central cores which held up the towers and not the joints at the trusses.

 

I've got news for you, if you think impact from an airplane weighing several tons going 150mph is weak, you got physics issues.

And welding? What the hell, welding is a direct application of heat to a specific point in a piece of metal to mold it in a certain way. This has nothing to do with raging flames inside a building. Go home buddy.

 

The same principles of physics that apply to welding can also be applied to a burning steel building. On the morning of 9-11, there were simply no "raging flames" that were either STRONG ENOUGH or which lasted anywhere near LONG ENOUGH to have brought about a weakening of those heavy steel girders.

 

The flames seen from the outside seem to point to otherwise.

But anyways, the heat directly from said flames and the heat that would begin gather in what is basically a very tall box is more then enough to weaken the structural support systems and load bearing points enough to cause the tower to collapse, especially after the weakening from initial impact.

You've done NOTHING to back up your theory that's based on science or engineering

 

the government is so incompetent.. president can't get a blowjob in his office and keep it a secret, but somehow they're able to pull off this huge conspiracy and nobody leaks it? Nobody exposes the secrets? Have you ever seen the amount of work that goes INTO a controlled demolition? How do you propose that a whole crew was able to rig the TALLEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD for controlled demolition in TOTAL secrecy?

 

Also what would be the point in demolishing them, a good majority of people died before the buildings fell, and I think the planes flying into the buildings and the gaping holes and fire damage that would be left would get the point across. Unless it was some giant insurance scam of course. But I say insurance because all these crazy paranoid delusions remind me of all the people who started to believe the Titanic was sunk for insurance reasons after a show on it came out vs the fact it just happened to hit an iceberg and had a little bit of damage spread out over the right amount of area.

 

The 9/11 conspiracy is really a dumb idea. It was terrorists, plain and simple.

 

As I recall the incident, everybody was gaping at their television sets in disbelief when a second passenger plane seemingly came out of nowhere and struck the World Trade Center (the first tower that was hit by a passenger plane that morning, wasn't captured on live television). There was a bright orange fireball at the point of impact, but the fireball didn't last very long at all. The fireball was all but gone in just a short matter of seconds, only to be replaced by a dark billowing cloud of thick black smoke. The fireball was short-lived, and as the photographic evidence clearly indicates, the fireball didn't last anywhere near long enough to have caused any thermal weakening of the "load bearing points." In fact, a large portion of the fireball was seen burning in the air outside of the building just before it petered out.

The load bearing points were located just about EVERYWHERE in those three (3) gigantic skyscrapers, so it kind of gets me to wondering if you really know what the hell it is that you're talking about when you refer to the "load bearing points." I get the impression that you're referring to the means of attachment which held the building's skeletal framework together. Now, the bolts holding the trusses to the flooring were constructed of a highly-rated steel, and they were much much stronger than anything that was on board a Boeing 767, with the possible exception of the engines, so even if we postulate that the force of impact was sufficient to have caused the onset of structural failure in certain isolated sections of those three (3) enormous skyscrapers, resulting in a partial structural collapse in those areas that were most immediately affected by the force of impact, we are still left without a viable method of explaining WHY THERE WAS A UNIFORM FAILURE IN EACH AND EVERY LOAD-BEARING BOLT OR JOINT IN ALL OF THOSE AREAS THAT WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THE FORCE OF IMPACT of those airplanes; that is, unless we postulate that the World Trade Center was "pre-wired" or "pre-treated" ahead of time with some type of special chemical compound such as thermite or thermate.

I can post articles by engineers if you like, not that I expect that it's ever going to convince anyone that we've been slaughtering Arabs all these years for no good reason.

 

I am NOT going to agree with the assertion that the terrorists were Arabs or Moslems.