Seriously! If you think you can, watch
this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9019040218879934757
Then if you can handle another 10 min:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4274783427889208406
Then ask yourself... can you get the truth from Mainstream Media anymore? What with Bill Oh Really on Foxed?
The control over Propaganda is worse now than in history! When you cannot get the truth about 911, or get the truth about anything you are supposed to be Patriotic for ...
When people are dieing on the other side of the World (yours & theirs), & nobody really knows the reasons why you are there, except for what you have been told...
You might as well live in a glass tube! Able to watch, but cannot reach out in any way & say STOP THAT!
The people you elect are corrupt & you know that! They lie & you know that too! They steal & you know that very well! Yet in the olden days, you had a voice! You could speak out in the Newspaper or on TV & you could make your voice heard!
Well you actually still can. HERE! Here I can show you that 911 was an inside job. Here I can show you that the USA does not care about Bin Laden & he probably is on the payroll! Here I can show you that Saddam was "set up"! Here I can link you to the truth & there is nothing those Networks or your Government can do about it!
The First Amendment lives right here on the Internet! Now all you have to do is to wake up & see it!
</dd></dl>
this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9019040218879934757
Then if you can handle another 10 min:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4274783427889208406
Then ask yourself... can you get the truth from Mainstream Media anymore? What with Bill Oh Really on Foxed?
The control over Propaganda is worse now than in history! When you cannot get the truth about 911, or get the truth about anything you are supposed to be Patriotic for ...
When people are dieing on the other side of the World (yours & theirs), & nobody really knows the reasons why you are there, except for what you have been told...
You might as well live in a glass tube! Able to watch, but cannot reach out in any way & say STOP THAT!
The people you elect are corrupt & you know that! They lie & you know that too! They steal & you know that very well! Yet in the olden days, you had a voice! You could speak out in the Newspaper or on TV & you could make your voice heard!
Well you actually still can. HERE! Here I can show you that 911 was an inside job. Here I can show you that the USA does not care about Bin Laden & he probably is on the payroll! Here I can show you that Saddam was "set up"! Here I can link you to the truth & there is nothing those Networks or your Government can do about it!
The First Amendment lives right here on the Internet! Now all you have to do is to wake up & see it!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 69
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum … c.php?2590
"...A 25-year-old college student was shot in the head after he, his mother, his sister and a friend left an Uptown restaurant. Michael Zebuhr, a Clemson PhD student, was critically wounded Saturday just seconds after two men approached his 55-year-old mother, Susanne Strong, and demanded her purse. The visitor from the state of Virginia complied with the robbers demands and handed them her purse. But then, apparently without provocation, one of the men turned his gun on Strong's son and shot him in the head. He died on Monday."
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article … yid=121215
Lying, of which propaganda is a type, is not.
If you believe something is true when you say it. You are not telling a lie.
If you believe something is false when you say it. You are telling a lie.
All the assertions in these films use unabashed hindsight to "connect the dots". They repeatedly claim that based on vague threats that were discussed before 9/11 someone should have stopped the attacks. Then there is the even more freakish theory that the government conspired to cause the attacks and even participated in the attacks. Controlled demolition is the most foolish and outright mentally Ill thought process to ever see the light of day.
It is unfortunate that you aren't the president. You could have looked at all the information and said Okay shut down all air travel and put the military on full alert. Scramble the fighter jets. When would you have done this? Sept 1st. 4th. 10th. The complete picture was only available on September 11th.
The continued insinuations of this being an "inside job" are becoming VERY VERY aggravating. You have NO proof. You DO have proof that airplanes hit the towers and the towers burned then fell to the ground. That is all.
i don't like bush.
but i don't think the bush administration created 9/11.
Talk about being blind! Ok David... put up or shut up! Explain how these buildings fell within 11 seconds & as I proved to you it could have nothing to do with elevators! Put up or shut up! I offer plenty of proof.
Prove to me the Govt had nothing to do with this! From the war games keeping all defences away, to the automatic defences not working at the Pentagon, to the lack of engines of a jet found there... Put up or shut up!
Explain Building #7 never hit by aircraft & yet imploding upon itself. How did that happen? Your evidence please... Put up or shut up!
If you want to live in a fantasy world where Bush never lies to you & everything is ok... that is fine, but don't come on here spouting that there is no evidence, when all we do is produce evidence & you produce squat! Put up or shut up!
I reccommend viewing this on full screen mode.
Notice when the dust plume is about the heighth of the building in the foreground there are large chuncks of debris flying at world trade 7.
Here is unaltered footage of a collaps notice the core still standing after the largest mass is already on the ground. It looks like a shadow in the dust cloud untill it starts to move. The core is the last large sections to hit the ground.
Look closely into the smoke and you will see what im talking about.
These 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists have their tin-foil hats pulled down too tight over their eggheads.
James, you are getting further and further out on the Leftist fringe with each and every posting. The stuff you say is the least Conservative stuff I've ever heard.
Well if you want to discuss the issue, you had better know what we are talking about first.
Watch this video:
9/11 Mysteries (video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Then you can watch David's & you can come up with your own "Bush Backing" decision as usual, if you can summon it.
Plain & simple David, the floors could not fall so quickly without detonation, & I doubt they could fall at all! Yet the central core self destructing is simple proof that there was detonation. There is no getting around that Building #7 was a controlled detonation. So what is your point? The planes did not do it, as I said.
There isn't a piece of steel on earth that could stand 800 feel tall in the configutation that the core was in without the floor trusses and th eouter tube to stabelize it. Even if it didn't have millions of tons of rubble laying against it at it's base. The cores were never designed to stsnd on their own.
Now let's analyze this shall we?
> Yes the Towers were built to withstand the airplane crash but not the fuel that burned from it? Isn't that like saying "The seat-belt was designed so that you would not be thrown from the car in a crash & killed, however it also would crush & kill anyone who wore one in a crash"?
> Again as pointed out in the MOVIE 911 Mystery, the steel's melting point was more than triple the temperature that the fire could have ever achieved! They had a fire that burned previously in the WTC that burned longer & hotter moving "vertically" between the floors. Why no structural damage then?
Yet even if you wanted to take this mans word for it (even though he is changing his tune from the MOVIE), what happened to Building #7? What happened at the Pentagon? There seems to be more facts here than "one man" changing his tune can dispute!
Now if I was in charge of the operation & there was a bunch of Video's coming out & people talking on the internet about the situation & the designer had even contributed to this story which was about to expose the operation... I think I would put a little pressure on this guy to change his tune!
Yet "nice try though" David. You now have my permission to believe that the Twin Towers could have fallen from an Airplane crash if you wish. Now all you have to do is explain how they fell faster than a bowling ball in free flight to totally convince me that it is possible, & then we just have all the other evidence of a "cover up" to examine.
Your concept of the infrastructure of those buildings is silly.
Educate yourself, then you can speak of reality.
I'm not trying to be snooty, I really think you should look into this.
During storms, many people in the WTC could feel the building sway, as it was designed for that. Yet if you wish to believe that the only 3 steel structures ever to collapse over impact & a fire were the Twin Towers & Building #7... I leave you in your Science Fantasy.
9/11 Mysteries (video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
BTW all you freaks who believe in conspiracy theories, go get a degree in architectural design and skyscraper construction. It would be so much more believable to those of us who use common sense if you did.
How does a building collapse at a faster rate & hit the ground than a bowling ball can fall in free fall from the same height?
Answer that!
9/11 Mysteries (video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Seriously, you're clearly not well educated about physics, which is fine. We don't all need to understand physical phenomena. But it really is necessary to understand some of the obvious flaws with the idea that those buildings "should" have collapsed. I'll give you one simple example, you said;
"Ever taken a coat hanger and tried to break a piece off? It isn't easy and some parts of it get very hot when twisted or bent enough. I can see how the steel supports reacted in the same way"
To break off a piece of coat hanger, or even build up enough heat to even notice, requires multiple severe distortions. A large column of steel would be no different. After a mere few degrees of bending there could not possibly a significant amount of heat generated, any more than bending a coat hanger a few degrees would.
You must realize that forming a strong opinion, to the point of calling others silly for disagreeing, without a much firmer grasp of at least basic physics is not wise. I am fairly well versed in physical principals and it took me roughly twenty hours of studying those buildings and the forces involved that day just to conclude that something was not right. Much more study of many forms of evidence has led me to conclude they were planted with prepositioned "cutter" charges in order to slice up the main columns and allow total collapse.
Then people will not come back with silly "coat hanger" arguments, because they will see clearly how futile this is.
I am quite used to these guys who wish to catch you "off guard" & make you run around like a chicken with your head cut off, disproving everything they come up with, only waiting for your first mistake or fumble to ridicule you.
Since they could do an easy amount of research themselves by watching the MOVIE, & finding that really simple to do, I would rather they do that FIRST... before they waist intelligent people's time running around on each silly point they bring up, showing them facts & links that all can be handled quite well by the MOVIE.
I understand, but I don't yet believe Travis is doing that. I think he really does not know how odd this event was, and is simply having a hard time imagining anyone would actually do such a horrible and outrageous thing.
I think it only makes sense that the Government would have to be involved, if for no other reason than the Head of Security (Bush's Brother) was in charge & would not have shut down the WTC beforehand (which was done) & evacuated it for an entire day, so that Bin Laden could place explosives in it. Yet if that is the case, or it was Silverstein that did it, obviously the Government again would have to allow it, as per the only opportunity for this to be done was when the WTC was shut down for that day under the orders of Bush's Brother.
The fires combined with the severe structural damage to the outer walls and the inner core. Each floor truss supported the concrete that was directly on top of it and all the furniture, computers etc. all the trusses working in harmony supported the entire floor. Taking out large sections of trusses would add immense weight to the remaining trusses. If you noticed in the second clip there are close up shots of the fires. The flames were the full height of the floor and leaping out of the side of the building and into the air a good distance. In one shot you can also see the effects of the wind blowing the flames.
Trusses vs. Beams. A truss is made of many small pieces of steel that are placed in precise configurations to maximize the strength of the whole unit. Heating a small area of the truss would allow the weight on top of the floor to stretch the reinforcing members of the truss. Once the reinforcing members start to stretch the ends of the trusses pull inward at each end adding a sideways load to the inner core and the outer walls.
Another difference, in most steel and concrete buildings the upright Columns are enclosed in concrete. Giving them additional protection against fire.
If the Core had been cut with explosives as your movie suggests they could not have stood for three seconds after the rest of the tower collapsed around them. Myth busted.
I think you need to seriously ask yourself why the select portions of video shown in the loose change movies were not allowed to play out. The only reason is they wanted to make a claim that explosives were used. If their fragile theory were disproved by their own video their whole conspiracy would crumble.
Someone who is seeking the truth looks at all the relevant evidence with an open mind.
The camera shook. The narrator suggests it was an explosion. I suggest it was the photographer putting his hand on the camera in order to zoom in. Sure enough the shot narrows in on the building.
World trade 7 begins to sag near the end. The narrator suggests it was because support columns were cut with explosives. The support columns were the outside wall of the building. They were destroyed by debris that was hurled form the towers. Fires raged in tower 7. Firefighters were pulled out of the building. The narrator suggests that demolition teams went up to the outside of the building and set explosive charges on the support columns.
1) I have watched controlled explosions/implosions. In those instances, the explosion takes place at the bottom of the structure, and the structure falls, with the top of the structure being the last to be destroyed. The low floors explode, then the building collapses... the higher the floor, the later they are destroyed. With the WTC, the structure from the top (damage) down was first to be destroyed. It appears the bottom was destroyed last. Why wouldn't a controlled explosion cause the bottom to be destroyed first ?
2) While the maker of the movie states his hobby is controlled destruction, why hasn't any licensed architects come forth? (if they have, I will stand corrected).
3) How can anyone who planned it, be assured that the people involved would not one day "spill the beans"?
Keep in mind there was no sprinkler system installed in the towers.
Any explanations to my inquiring mind are welcome.
The Custodian who was in the basement said the first explosion happened in the basement. He speaks of a person severely injured in the basement "before" the strike of the plane at the top of the towers. The basement explosion was enough to smash all the windows in the lobby & knock off the marble from the walls.
The Movie explains fully how the WTC was constructed & the movies explanation remains undisputed. You can try to dispute it if you please.
The people who were hired to kill Castro by Kennedy took years to spill the beans. As was the same with "Deep Throat" who foiled Nixon. Yet in these 2 cases "thousands" of American lives were not involved, & I am sure guilt for one might be a major motivator. Yet for sure anyone who would & could plan on killing all of these innocent people, would have no problem disposing of a whistle blower, especially if the entity responsible was high up in Government. Since 911 Mystery has never had airplay on Mainstream TV, & it obviously is something worth watching, it should be obvious that "some powers" have control over what Americans can watch on Prime Time TV. Therefore even if someone could get out the story... first they would be "ridiculed" as you should see by the comments here, second they would be dis - believed, & thirdly as I explained, they probably would end up dead.
There was a sprinkler system in both towers. The first plane took out that system on that floor, yet the fire fighter on tape said it was mainly contained. Two fire hoses should put it out.
The second plane did not take out the sprinklers. Yet it was the tower that got hit second that fell first.
Now if you wish to hear the Governments explanation, verbatim, read what David says, as that is what the Government says "word for word". Yet the fire never reached the temperature to melt the steel, the main support of the buildings was the Central Core which was not taken out by the planes. The floors were designed "each of them" to handle 10 times their maximum pressure, & so even if a floor fell, it would not affect the lower floors. Finally there is no way a building can fall upon itself with resistance, faster than a bowling ball can fall from the same height in free fall without controlled demolition.
Again, I don't discount anything, but still not sure.
I guess then that David's Video from ABC News is incorrect about the sprinklers. Watch it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2420028
If you watch the MOVIE, it tells you how controlled explosions happen. They take out the bottom support first & then implode from the top down. Are you sure you watched 911 Mystery?
9/11 Mysteries (video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Loose Change, 2nd Edition (Recut)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
David's Video is incorrect with regard to the sprinklers. I can personally attest to that. All I'm saying, is that if one issue in the video is incorrect (and I know for certain that it is), perhaps we should question what else is or is not correct.
I did not watch the ABC News video, and so I won't comment on anything I haven't seen. Maybe the government was involved, however, if the "evidence" has you stating that there were sprinklers, and there weren't, perhaps there are other things you (and I) are stating that are also wrong or misleading. At this point I really don't know what is real, and what isn't.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html
"Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes.
As Commissioner O'Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower's 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there".
The video clip which David presented is under 10 min & states the Governments side of the arguement. It talks of the sprinklers. Nothing has been fairly disputed in the MOVIE I gave you to watch or the second one I just gave you.
Therefore if the only video that can be disputed is the one that the Government will allow you to see, I find that even better for disproving the Governments side of things.
Now if you want to know more, in a "short clip" about the basement being blown out first & the people who have been silenced "by name" watch this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9019040218879934757
Thanks !
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=911+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&b=42&oid=64fa53aa199ed58c&rurl=www.alessandrobuzzi.it&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fvideo%2Fsearch%3Fp%3D911%2B%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8%26b%3D41
I reccommend viewing this on full screen mode.
Notice when the dust plume is about the heighth of the building in the foreground there are large chuncks of debris flying at world trade 7.
Here is unaltered footage of a collaps notice the core still standing after the largest mass is already on the ground. It looks like a shadow in the dust cloud untill it starts to move. The core is the last large sections to hit the ground. it starts leaning and eventually crumbles.
Your movie shows the structural components the outer walls. you don't see any explosive charges ttached to the columns. We know the core wasn't cut with explosives because it cou not have stood as long as it did.
Myth busted.
Now only would Building #7 be the first to fall "without even a fire" but from debris landing on it IN HISTORY... but to implode as it did? You would be a great one to sell a Bridge to! I would just need to change my name to George Bush.
You keep misusing the word Implode like it has some alternate meaning. The buildings collapsed they did not implode. An explosion is when a force drives material outward from the center. An implosion is when a force drives material inward. A good example of an implosion is when a cathode ray tube (Picture tube) of a television set is broken. The tube contains a vacuum and when the glass is sufficiently weakened it rushes inward to fill the vacuum. When all the pieces hit in the center they rebound and some will fly outward.
In controlled demolition they use the term implode incorrectly to describe the design and placement of the charges. Their desire is to fold the structures in upon them selves.
NO explosives are needed to fold a structure in upon it's self. I have used this method to demolish several two-story structures. The roof being too high and presenting too much risk to my men. The lateral support walls are stripped out and cables are connected to the center supports on each level the cables are pulled with a tractor and the center of the building starts falling while the outer walls stand upright.
Watch any video you wish and keep an eye on the antenna. It does not drop down the center of they building. You have seen core standing in the smoke until it falls under it's own weight. You have seen the damage to world trade 7 and you can see the fires. You insist they weren't serious enough to cause a collapse. But you have no ideal how serious they actually were.
Your black smoke theory is pure hogwash. Get a half a cup of kerosene and pore it on the ground. There is nothing to prevent it from getting enough oxygen to burn but there is still black smoke because it is not volatile enough to explode. Then take a small chunk of carpet and light it on fire. Watch the black smoke. Now try a chunk of rubber from a tire. Even though these things are entirely engulfed in flames they still produce black smoke. Take a few pieces of paper and put it on top of the carpet then light them. How about a ceiling tile from a suspended ceiling. A desk made of particleboard Formica, plastic computer parts, partitions that made up the cubicles.
Don't be confused by fire retardant materials. These materials are designed to slow the burning process they do not extinguish the fire. The purpose of fire retardant materials is to allow extra time for people to vacate they structure and fire fighters to arrive.
Your acceptance of your half-baked videos is a clear indicator that you don't want the truth. Watch them again. And tell me why they don't allow the entire sequence to play to the end. They didn't want you to see the core of the tower standing there after the rest of the building had hit the ground.
An explosion would mean that pieces went flying out (which they did)... some proof that there was one, but mainly the detentions were well placed enough that for the "most part" the WTC collapsed upon itself, leaving not much more than dust & pieces of metal, with the "tell tale" perfect edge & slanted cut in them as seen in any controlled demolition. I would call that for the most part an implosion.
Certainly you get some black smoke from kerosene or rubber burning, but if you look at the smoke in the WTC it is a major amount. As shown in the video of the building that burned for 3-4 days, yet did not collapse, it was a much hotter fire. Yet the structure was still strong enough to support a crane for rebuilding. Building #7 was obviously brought down by "controlled demolition" acting exactly in the way that any building does in any video during one. A main support buckles & then it implodes upon itself as it was designed to do.
Now anyone can see that themselves. Now we are not talking about 1 strange thing happening on 911. We are talking about several. From the "worst hit tower" & last hit tower falling first, to building #7, to the lack of evidence or video at the Pentagon, to the hijackers interviewed alive, to the missing gold at the WTC, to the war games being played on that day enabling no protection for the strike, to the previous warnings of an attack, to the quick conclusions of who did it, to the people in charge of security of the WTC (Bush's Brother), to the WTC being shut down previously to be "wired", to the inexperience of the pilot hijackers, to the cell phone calls that could not be made.
There is TOO MUCH that does not fit & VERY LITTLE you can explain away.
Now I am a salesman & I constantly have to deal with idiots who believe that "If it is too good to be true... it probably isn't" & constantly asking "what's the catch", as I know that what I sell nothing that has a catch, nor do I promote something that is too good to be true. Yet some of these idiots with their "closed minds" completely negate what I have for them, which will help them, simply because of their irrational fears that are unfounded. If you actually analyzed the amount of times people have been ripped off in their lives, I doubt most could not come up with more than once, but they turn their backs on 100's of opportunities simply because they are thinking "if it is too good to be true..." which is a pile of crap!
Yet in this case of 911 the only thing you see is a well played out Magic Trick, that without any analyzation looks to be what it is. Yet when presented with the facts that it is not what it is & so many instances, that I don't even cover them all... some closed minded people wish to believe in their President... even after he has been shown over & over again to lie & deceive!
Simply the whole thing was to create another Pearl Harbor to get a majority of American Sheep to go to war against people on a fallacy of stopping World Terrorism, which is laughable to say the least & clearly not the plan! Yet the plan got the sheep following! The only problem is that intelligent people are looking at it all & saying ... As Johnny Cochrane would say "IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE"! If the glove does not fit, you must acquit & in this case it is the whole scenario does not fit & so someone here is Lieing!
You aren't still spewing this disproven and disgraced nonsense, are you?
No one of any scientific status has taken up this cause. Just a bunch of Left Wing hacks........that's all. And they have been discredited so many times by so many people as to be irrelevant now.
No steel building has ever fallen in History before from fire... therefore fire is not a plausible explanation.
Lot's of scientists have taken up the cause. Many are outlined in the MOVIE. Nothing has been discredited & possibly you should see that by watching the MOVIE.
9/11 Mysteries (video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
So we know it wasn't weight that made them fall faster. The planes could not make the towers fall faster. That's what we know for sure.
The explosions are clearly visible. The windows were all blown out in the Lobby yet the windows closer to the planes were not blown out. There is no elevator that goes from the bottom to the top of the WTC & so fuel could not go down the elevators exploding anything in the lobby.
Now Charles if we could prove to you that the Terrorists wired the buildings with explosives... you would have no problem with it right? Yet since you know that would be impossible without it being an "inside job" you reject it & only for that reason! Let's face it! Your real problem here is believing it was an "inside job" & not how the towers fell now is it?