edit - some of these URLs are very very dodgy and not the place you should be expecting concrete evidence hahha batcave.net ffs
I can't be bothered to find the original articles because the list would become too long. Those links were from a quick Google search. Most of them point to real articles from mainstream media sources. The videos are real and legitimate. I only chose the other "dodgy" links because of the content of the pages themselves that summed up a lot of information into one place instead of having to find it separately.
Fuck, i have a lot to read later.... I will read it though.
One thing I dont believe in is that rediculous "killing" of OBL then randomly dumping the body at sea. The most wanted man on the planet for the past decade supposedly killed then dumped at sea to remove all evidence. Nah.
here is a good news read about the story behind the death of OBL
my god alot of work has been put into this haha. 9/11 was an inside job, the proof is there for all to see if you're willing to open you're eyes and look for it. Otherwise just believe what you're told and be a good little wooly animal Dan. BAAAAAA
About the jet fuel, it doesnt need to be hot enough to melt, it needs to be hot enough to weaken. Coupled with the physical damage from the plane going through the building it is highly likely some of the support was in a weakened state.
edit - some of these URLs are very very dodgy and not the place you should be expecting concrete evidence hahha batcave.net ffs
Yo Einstein how did Building 7 manage to fall? (In exactly the same way as 1 and 2). There wasnt even any jet fuel in that building... Let me guess? Rocks brought it down and made it collapse in 6 seconds?
About the jet fuel, it doesnt need to be hot enough to melt, it needs to be hot enough to weaken. Coupled with the physical damage from the plane going through the building it is highly likely some of the support was in a weakened state.
edit - some of these URLs are very very dodgy and not the place you should be expecting concrete evidence hahha batcave.net ffs
Yo Einstein how did Building 7 manage to fall? (In exactly the same way as 1 and 2). There wasnt even any jet fuel in that building... Let me guess? Rocks brought it down and made it collapse in 6 seconds?
Hmm building 7 that was 100 meters away from the collapse of 2 400+ meter buildings. The same tower that was photographed smoking and damaged from the fall of the North tower?
Yeh it was probably a controlled explosion that they decided to carry out seven hours later rather than instantly as the north tower fell to make it look more likely that it was caused by that.
They must have decided to light it on fire for 7 hours for a laugh before they brought it down ey mate.
Leave this to people who dont eat various chemicals every weekend mate, our brains still work
And those people saying fires couldnt cause this and dont burn hot enough to melt steel etc there is plenty of independent witnesses who saw that very thing, molten steel... a few examples
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3) A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center’s original designer saw “streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (pages 31-32) An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, “They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.” New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a “foundry” or like “lava”. A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano. An employee of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed “Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.” The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.” A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.“ A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
All sources are linked in each bullet point if you visit that site. There is also a lot of sources of people giving evidence of the opposite and controlled explosions in there.
Bottom line is none of us KNOW what happened and there is evidence for both sides. The only sheep in here are those who have decided they are certain of one side of the story.
Short of some high ranking official showing definitive proof that 9/11 was an inside job, you're technically correct. However, the sheer number of inconsistencies on that day puts a lot of us firmly in the Anti-OS camp.
It doesnt matter what you show people, if they dont want to believe it they simply wont, the fact that over a decade later we are still fighting the "war on terror" says all you really need to know about 9/11. Top it all off with the "We killed him and buried him at sea" story and the lies just get funnier and funnier.
Thermite was used to cut around each steel column of both towers. The Jet fuel that was carried with the initial impact of the planes would have burnt up immediately on impact, and the remaining fires would not have been capable of burning hot enough to melt steel. Now get this, who was running security of the World Trade Center Towers during September 11th?
I also want to point out that 6 months before Sept. 11th, Larry Silverstein made changes to the insurance he had for the Trade Center Towers. In doing so, He made a HUGE profit from the attacks. It was cheaper to allow someone to ride a plane into them then it would have been to Demolish them.
The thing is though people like to mention the whole jet fuel cant melt steel argument when it is widely reported by many many independent individuals, not only engineers that worked on the WTC but firemen, civilians and other experts that there was molten steel on the site until as late as december
a bit of thermite on some steel supports would not account for pools and flowing lakes of molten steel and the eyewitness reports saying they saw steel beams glowing red and slowly dripping
The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies, both the official and conspiracy side of the argument. Anyone who is 100% sided with either is an idiot.
Rohan I ask because I cut steel pretty regularily. You ever use an oxygen lance before? From the pics I saw, it looked 100% like a lance-cut. It burns perfectly straight, it burns slowly and it leaves a build-up of slag around where the cut was made. It also lets you cut from a distance, say, if youre trying to free up some rubble
I dont have an explanation for those rivers of molten steel, I'm not sure any one has seen a building like that explode before. Not much to base theories on.
The official story is blatantly full of shit, but you'll never get the truth if every one bandwagons the first conspiracy to arise.
Intelligent beings are keeping us busy like caddie with stupid clashing opinions. While they rule our world and life's open all your eyes up gather the facts state the truth and move on. When we assume theory's we become what they want us to be. Busy with non sense while they pull strings. Mark my words we are all fools to what is really going on.
I dont think you quite understand physics mate. Literally nothing broke the laws of physics no matter which side of the argument you look at.
No sir, I believe you are the one who does not understand the concept of physics. A steel framed building would never have dropped at free fall speeds in its own foot print, never, ever in a million years, to the sounds that the Commission report would have us think.
In reality, all three buildings were classic demolition style explosions and removal of the towers.
Newtons law of Motion for example: I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
There should have been force applied to the upper half of the building preventing it from falling in its own footprint, every engineer, physics professor, demolitions expert, all say the same thing. If the official story says it fell because the jetfuel heated the steal causing the floors to collapse creating a chain reaction, then the tower could have NEVER in a million years fallen at free fall speeds in its own footprint. The top half would have collapsed down then fallen over onto the street causing WAY more chaos then what was actually done.
My last ideal that it was explosives is this:
If the Jetfuel was hot enough to melt that steel causing the building collapse, how could human beings be found standing at the whole of impact, waving white cloth out trying to get help.
The jet fuel is hot enough to melt that steel but not hot enough to harm humans... Hmmmm
No you obviously know nothing about the laws of physics or you wouldnt be quoting them in this scenario, nothing about how they fell BROKE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Even if something is one in a trillion chance of happening, doesnt mean it breaks the laws of physics.
Things dont break the laws of physics hence them being the laws. The only known place in the universe where the laws of physics are thought to not apply is places like black holes
What you are trying to describe is a VERY unlikely event happening. If it was against the laws of physics then it wouldnt even be possible with controlled explosions. We cant just break these laws at will.
You have just utterly used the first law of thermodynamics wrong and totally ignored forces that are constantly applied to the upper half of the building.
Now like I said, this may have not been enough to cause the building to collapse and collapse the way it did. But whether controlled explosions caused it or not NO laws of physics wer broken.
I am not debating here whether it was controlled or not, even if I agreed that it was your post would still be wrong about physics going awol.
edit - changed my post slightly, also removed some abuse as it wasnt actually necessary haha
What you are trying to describe is a VERY unlikely event happening. If it was against the laws of physics then it wouldnt even be possible with controlled explosions. We cant just break these laws at will.
It is violating the laws only that if what the official story they said was true, the top portion of the towers MUST have met resistance while on its way down. To see one tower collapse in a free fall speed to the circumstances provided in the official report is astronomically impossible. Then to witness 3 in one day, what could be more impossible? This violates everything man knows to be true about the world around them, ask any demolition expert as I have, and they will tell you it was bombs.
Of course they met resistance, but with the weight of the top part of the tower the resistance could do nothing.
Judging by your posts it seems you dont quite understand the laws of physics. even if something is 10^10 chance of happening then it doesnt violate the laws of physics, and in an infinite time scale it will happen an infinite amount of times no matter how vast the odds are.
What happened was hugely improbable but well within the laws of physics.
Comments
http://intellihub.com/2013/03/27/osama-bin-laden-death-myth-continues-to-crumble-as-seal-team-six-speaks-out/
Dont ever go on jury duty.
Yeh it was probably a controlled explosion that they decided to carry out seven hours later rather than instantly as the north tower fell to make it look more likely that it was caused by that.
They must have decided to light it on fire for 7 hours for a laugh before they brought it down ey mate.
Leave this to people who dont eat various chemicals every weekend mate, our brains still work
And those people saying fires couldnt cause this and dont burn hot enough to melt steel etc there is plenty of independent witnesses who saw that very thing, molten steel... a few examples All sources are linked in each bullet point if you visit that site. There is also a lot of sources of people giving evidence of the opposite and controlled explosions in there.
Bottom line is none of us KNOW what happened and there is evidence for both sides. The only sheep in here are those who have decided they are certain of one side of the story.
WTC 8 , the owner of the building gave them the order to pull it.
Marvin Bush... yes, George Bush's little brother.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
a bit of thermite on some steel supports would not account for pools and flowing lakes of molten steel and the eyewitness reports saying they saw steel beams glowing red and slowly dripping
The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies, both the official and conspiracy side of the argument. Anyone who is 100% sided with either is an idiot.
I dont have an explanation for those rivers of molten steel, I'm not sure any one has seen a building like that explode before. Not much to base theories on.
The official story is blatantly full of shit, but you'll never get the truth if every one bandwagons the first conspiracy to arise.
http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vka7Da6e9LY
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread969760/pg1
Edit: Just saw Rohan's post earlier. Good stuff.
In reality, all three buildings were classic demolition style explosions and removal of the towers.
Newtons law of Motion for example:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
There should have been force applied to the upper half of the building preventing it from falling in its own footprint, every engineer, physics professor, demolitions expert, all say the same thing. If the official story says it fell because the jetfuel heated the steal causing the floors to collapse creating a chain reaction, then the tower could have NEVER in a million years fallen at free fall speeds in its own footprint. The top half would have collapsed down then fallen over onto the street causing WAY more chaos then what was actually done.
My last ideal that it was explosives is this:
If the Jetfuel was hot enough to melt that steel causing the building collapse, how could human beings be found standing at the whole of impact, waving white cloth out trying to get help.
The jet fuel is hot enough to melt that steel but not hot enough to harm humans... Hmmmm
Things dont break the laws of physics hence them being the laws. The only known place in the universe where the laws of physics are thought to not apply is places like black holes
What you are trying to describe is a VERY unlikely event happening. If it was against the laws of physics then it wouldnt even be possible with controlled explosions. We cant just break these laws at will.
You have just utterly used the first law of thermodynamics wrong and totally ignored forces that are constantly applied to the upper half of the building.
Now like I said, this may have not been enough to cause the building to collapse and collapse the way it did. But whether controlled explosions caused it or not NO laws of physics wer broken.
I am not debating here whether it was controlled or not, even if I agreed that it was your post would still be wrong about physics going awol.
edit - changed my post slightly, also removed some abuse as it wasnt actually necessary haha
Of course they met resistance, but with the weight of the top part of the tower the resistance could do nothing.
Judging by your posts it seems you dont quite understand the laws of physics. even if something is 10^10 chance of happening then it doesnt violate the laws of physics, and in an infinite time scale it will happen an infinite amount of times no matter how vast the odds are.
What happened was hugely improbable but well within the laws of physics.