Phoenix

50 conspiracy nutjobs

i didnt want to tax anyones brain power so i saved them the effort

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

jact

You seriously need a new hobby man.

__________________
Free agent

Tempest

Have you got some "proof" that "pull the building" is a term used to use explosives to take down a building?

Phoenix

sure how about tons of demolition experts and professionals claiming that is what it is

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

ADL Colin

"breaking the laws of physics". Well, I have a degree in physics from Yale. What is your claim as to what was not "according to the laws of physics" and why? You seem to be discussing engineering questions more than physics questions. I don't think anyone has much experience in blowing up 100+ or whatever story buildings. I've seen two buildings hit by jets in my life. They both collapsed. What would an "ordinary collapse" of a 100 story building look like? I can't believe you even claim to know.

BTW. About the FOX news jokes. I don't watch TV news. Void of content.

You remind me of someone.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

The Duck

Dont get hung up on stuff that takes focus from the bullet proof evidence. The building's collapse was an implosion exhibiting all of the features of a standard controlled demolition..

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

ADL Colin

Right back at ya, babe.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Tempest

I asked you to provide me some proof... cause I read some stuff where the demolition guys said it's NOT a term they use.

The Duck

You have a physics degree from Yale, and you fail to see how impossible it would be for planes to bring down steel frame and column buildings. Man, I dont know what to say.

Here is an essay from a physics professor that I find very interesting http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf.

Also I recommend viewing some of Dr David Ray Griffins lectures, really good logic approach to the whole thing and its hard to deny the evidence he presents. Just have a look, with an open unbiased mind.

I do not understand how the official story can make sense to anyone who have studied the alternative theories, especially not if they have a degree in physics. It must be mind control and brainwashing.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

Phoenix

ah so y ou have a degree in physics from yale?

congrats...now then brother....tell us how the building managed to fall at G

what happened to the resistance?
also...since the building was impacted on the side...how did it manage to fall compltely into itself..where i think most people expected it to fall sideways or at the very least..since it was all demolished from the fire..how come the top part of the tower didnt fall over...it was missing whole sections of steel..why didnt it lean one way and then go over?


how did explosions reach the basement and ground floors? there was no direct tube like an elevator shaft or anything.

please explain in phsyics terms and save the image posting to others

please also explain how normal steel is melted into red hot piles in the basement
and why it b ursts into flames weeks after almost no oxygen for weeks

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

Tempest

Is there any proof that a building that's undergone the type of damage those ones did would NEVER come down in a way that resembled a controlled explosion?

.
.
.
I just want to know the TRUTH, no matter what it is.

ADL Colin

Which of these statements does not belong? Which one is most likely fake?

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God," - Osama (1998)

?As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.? ? Osama (2001)

"After a little while they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center." "The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it." ? Osama (2001)

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

The Duck

Read this about the pullit remark http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

Phoenix

i usually give people the benefit of the doubt..but i dont think this ass clown has a physics degree from anywhere

he probably has a Physical diploma..lol

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

The Duck

I recommend you watch the documentary 911 mysteries, its on google video and on the site in my sig. Watch that one to get an overall grasp on the whole deal and then you can dive into the scientific essays and the lectures. I recommend lectures by Dr David Ray Griffin and Stephen E. Jones.

911 mysteries will answer alot of your questions.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

Peaches

You have to be kidding. Colin has been around this biz forever, and it's quite well known he has a degree from Yale.

Good grief. Now there's a conspiracy theory about people's educations.

The Duck

Yeah, disputing the laws of physics is probably something someone who had a degree like that would do.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

The Duck

View these 2 clips, they explain how brainwashing and mind control works and shows how these methods where applied on the events of 911.

http://www.911truthdatabase.com/content/view/64/27/

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

Phoenix

why the fuck would that be a conspiracy theory?

i dont give a fuck what he thinks

but when you have to say..i have a degree in physics from yale

i want you to back it up with some thought on the subject matter

how can he possibly have graduated a free thinker if he can't see the truth in front of his own eyes.


perhaps it is just easier to buy the "official story"

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

Tempest

ok... well once again, someone is taking a term and using it in a manner that's not exactly the same... i.e. that page links to 2 pages to attempt to "prove" that "pull" or "pull it" is used to refer to demolishing a building.. but it's not.. It's used to refer to a subsequent action within an explosion in order to get the buildings to collapse into itself etc. or to setup other things to "pull" part of the building or columns etc. in a specific direction... but it's NOT used to refer to the overall context of demolishing a building.

I have the same issue with those that say "pull" is used to refer to "pulling" the firemen out... one of the people trying to discredit the demolition theory did the same thing and gave tons of proof that "pull" is used to refer to pulling the firemen... But I didn't see one example in his "proof" where pull it was used in the same context. So once again, someone in this discussion taking information and twisting it for his own agenda.

It's funny because I was reading up about this a few days back when I saw that clip of Kerry where he seems to be confirming the explosion theory.. but so far I still haven't come accross any "conclusive" proof... If anything, things like what I've pointed out above appear to discredit the conspiracy people.

ADL Colin

Freefall would take about 9 seconds.

The published range of the fall time ranges between 8 and 18 seconds.

You're just picking a number you like and saying the acceleration of the top floor was G.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

The Duck

The psychiatrists and psychologists mentioned in the article in the link below have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial.

http://www.911truthdatabase.com/content/view/63/28/

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

ADL Colin

Yes. That's it. Your open-mindedness has lead you to "the truth that is out there" and everyone who disagrees with you has obviously been mind-controlled and brainwashed.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Phoenix

you check any video you like from the day

the maximum time you will be able to give the towers falling is about ten seconds


18 seconds is way out

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

The Duck

What the fuck are you talking about published range fall time differences. Check out all the videos and take the time with your watch. Even if it was 18 seconds, that does not explain anything.

9.4 seconds fall time is my calculation for the north tower, the south is similar.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

Rochard

The 9/11 attack on the US was seen in person by thousands of people in person and many more on live TV. With any event that has ever taken place, people can witness the same thing and walk away with different stories about what happened. Last weekend my buddy and I were cruising down the freeway and saw what seemed to be a late 1960s Lincoln. While talking about it later we discovered he thought it was gray and I thought it was black. How can two people think the same car was different colors?

Here's my responses to your bullshit..... Oddly enough, I'm reading a book about how 9/11 was set up by our government.

Buildings collapsed at free fall rate - no resistance

The top of the building fell, bringing down all of the weight on top of it.

Experts agree it is scientifically impossible that fire could have brought down the WTC towers 1 and 2 or building 7

Fire didn't bring down the buildings. Not sure what you saw that morning, but I saw two very large fucking planes - HUGE planes - plow into the two towers. The damage to the structure itself might have been enough to bring down the towers, but it didn't. The combination of the original impact, the resulting fireball, the damage to the structure itself, and multiple fires on many floors is what brought down the buildings.

Have you ever been to the WTC? I have. The entire building is an airlock. When you go outside at that height, the wind whips around. Imagine having a fire that high up with the wind flaming the flames.

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. But it suffered damage from debris falling, was on fire also, and not to mention both towers fell and it's debris covered the entire area.

Many eyewitnesses from all perspectives reported multiple explosions at the scene.

There were multiple explosions at many different levels of both WTC towers. On one of them (or perhaps both) some of the elevators shot down to the main lobby and created a fireball in the main lobby. This happened on multiple floors, and I'm willing to guess on any floor where there was a "sky lobby".

Video evidence clearly shows explosions as the buildings (1 & 2) collapse

I watch for this every time I see footage of the towers falling and I do in fact see something. It sort of looks like a puff of smoke. This "puff of smoke" could be nearly anything. Perhaps it's debris from above; Perhaps's it's some kind of a gas or water line exploding as the building above it starts falling. Hell, perhaps it's the steel or concrete giving way as millions of tons of crap fell on it and it couldn't hold the weight.

Larry Silverstein used demolition term when he talked of building 7 "we made that decision to pull the building"

I have no idea who Larry Silverstein is and frankly I don't care. I read this statement as "we've decided to pull all personel from this building because, duh, it's on fire".

Reliable eye-witnesses such as former janitor William Rodriguez heard explosions in the basement before the first plane hit.

This has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure what this chap or his buddies heard, but it could have been anything. And being as it happened before the plane hit, well, doesn't mean anything. If it happened before the plane hit it didn't bring down the building.

Substantial insider trading around 911 has never been properly investigated.

We should look into this. I think a two year study of trading patterns over the past ten years will reveal many things about how Jewish companies and other companies operate. The thought line here is that a number of Jewish companies did some odd trading deals the day before 9/11. I'm sure that if it's looked into, tens of thousands of companies of interest - Jewish and otherwise - didn't do anything special that day or the day before.

Several of the apparent hijackers have been found to be alive.

Yes.

I don't think we are sure exactly who each and every one of them are. It's entirely possible that we have wrong information on some of them.

NORAD did not respond to normal standard operating procedure due to high level government interference related to drills taking place on 911.

What would be normal standard operating procedure be in the event that multiple plans are hijacked and rammed into tall buildings at multiple locations? Seems to me this wasn't a miltiary thing but a Federal Government thing, being as planes are run by the FFA. And when the FAA called the Military they said "well, you guys need to get some planes up or something".

Also seems to me there was a lot of confusion about which planes were hijacked, where they were, and their status.

My god, if you beleive this was the work of anyone other than terrorists.... bring something to the table that can't be quickly explained away by simple logic already.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

The Duck

If you had a physics degree Colin and where not in total denial you should be teaching us, not the other way around.

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

ADL Colin

Well, here is a paper by the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So I guess you don't know what to say about THAT either.

Well, I know what to say about that and I already said it. No one has any experience in blowing up 100 story buildings.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Brad

I have one question to everyone here who thinks that the government is telling the truth about 9/11...

Where is Osama Bin Laden?

I would venture to guess that if the government really wanted to find him they could.

So, is Osama Bin Laden really just a real life Keyser Soze? I think so.

Oh and also to those who keep arguing here, why don't you take the time to evaluate the evidence before chiming in and screaming conspiracy? Maybe you may learn something. You will sit in front of your computer all day but do you even open your eyes and use the internet for what is it designed for (beyond porn)?

__________________

jonesonyou

where is the next attack?

__________________

Completely Real Amateur girls doing awesome things! Signup to promote Nebraskacoeds Today!
Hit me up on ICQ/AIM 473324556/jasonnecoeds for exclusive content to promote with! And any ?'s

Phoenix

Buildings collapsed at free fall rate - no resistance

The top of the building fell, bringing down all of the weight on top of it.

haha ok Rochard..a huuge piece of building fell neatly into itself instead of falling over like a tree does when you cut a tiny wedge out of it.
then it pancaked the floors beneath it all without offering any resistance.
if it had pancaked i think the fall would have taken about 11-12 seconds

each floor would have slowed the fall

Experts agree it is scientifically impossible that fire could have brought down the WTC towers 1 and 2 or building 7

i agree with them...fire didnt bring down the towers..massive explosives which were laid months and the weekend before were used instead....eye witnesses exist that saw men laying new"internet wiring" through the building the weekend of.

also the planes hit a steel mesh..sort of like sticking your hand through your screen window...fuck all happens to the whole screen.

also all the jetfuel ignited on impact..what do you think that huge fireball was from? aliens?

and rochard building 7 was chalk full of rico files and SEC fraud investigations and manyother things some people in pwoer wanted to go away....it came down for those reasons

Many eyewitnesses from all perspectives reported multiple explosions at the scene.

yes many are credible..not too mention many are burned and have burns on their bodies from these explosions as they were going on...not too mention the phone calls from the people inside the towers saying..something is blowing up underneath us


too busy to respond to the other "points" y ou brought up



Please if you are going to offer evidence..please give evidence that a 4th grade physics student wont laugh at....mind you yale graduates eat it up.

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

The Duck

Rochard in italics, my respons below.


The top of the building fell, bringing down all of the weight on top of it.

This would take 4-5 minutes, now the tower fell in free fall speed without any resistance beneath meaning the lower floors where already gone.

Fire didn't bring down the buildings. Not sure what you saw that morning, but I saw two very large fucking planes - HUGE planes - plow into the two towers. The damage to the structure itself might have been enough to bring down the towers, but it didn't. The combination of the original impact, the resulting fireball, the damage to the structure itself, and multiple fires on many floors is what brought down the buildings.

Have you ever been to the WTC? I have. The entire building is an airlock. When you go outside at that height, the wind whips around. Imagine having a fire that high up with the wind flaming the flames.

The towers where designed to withstand several hits by planes equal to the size of those that hit them on 911. Fire cannot melt steel under no circumstances and it cannot weaken it in such a short period of time.

There are examples of buildings of lower quality construction that have burned for many many hours without collapsing.

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. But it suffered damage from debris falling, was on fire also, and not to mention both towers fell and it's debris covered the entire area.

Building 7 had minor fires over 2 floors, there are lots of picture evidence to prove it. That in no way explains the perfect implosion of the entire building. It just doesnt make any sense at all.

There were multiple explosions at many different levels of both WTC towers. On one of them (or perhaps both) some of the elevators shot down to the main lobby and created a fireball in the main lobby. This happened on multiple floors, and I'm willing to guess on any floor where there was a "sky lobby".

Witnesses say they heard explosions in sequences, firefighters, nearby civilians and others have all suggested this. There are just too many witness reports of explosions in different places in the towers to discard.

Seismic data even shows explosions right BEFORE the planes hit the towers.

I watch for this every time I see footage of the towers falling and I do in fact see something. It sort of looks like a puff of smoke. This "puff of smoke" could be nearly anything. Perhaps it's debris from above; Perhaps's it's some kind of a gas or water line exploding as the building above it starts falling. Hell, perhaps it's the steel or concrete giving way as millions of tons of crap fell on it and it couldn't hold the weight.

If you look at videos of controlled demolition, these puffs are always there in the exact same fashion as on the world trade center towers.


I have no idea who Larry Silverstein is and frankly I don't care. I read this statement as "we've decided to pull all personel from this building because, duh, it's on fire".

Do some research, he owned the place and got HUGE sums of insurance money. He insured the building right before 911 specifically covering acts of terrorism.

This has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure what this chap or his buddies heard, but it could have been anything. And being as it happened before the plane hit, well, doesn't mean anything. If it happened before the plane hit it didn't bring down the building.

Of course it mean something, this suggests they took out the base support. See the comment on the seismic data above.

We should look into this. I think a two year study of trading patterns over the past ten years will reveal many things about how Jewish companies and other companies operate. The thought line here is that a number of Jewish companies did some odd trading deals the day before 9/11. I'm sure that if it's looked into, tens of thousands of companies of interest - Jewish and otherwise - didn't do anything special that day or the day before.

This really does not need an explanation, even you suggest something fishy is going on.


I don't think we are sure exactly who each and every one of them are. It's entirely possible that we have wrong information on some of them.

Oh yeah? They say they found their passports. And its pretty bad if they accuse innocent people about acts of terrorism.

What would be normal standard operating procedure be in the event that multiple plans are hijacked and rammed into tall buildings at multiple locations? Seems to me this wasn't a miltiary thing but a Federal Government thing, being as planes are run by the FFA. And when the FAA called the Military they said "well, you guys need to get some planes up or something".

If you look into the standard procedures of the involved parties you will see that if everything was in order, they would have intercepted the planes. People who worked with this stuff suggest it is impossible to explain the situation in any way other than a standdown.


Anything else?

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

ADL Colin

Denial about what? I don't know anything useful about the physics of a 110 story building getting hit by a plane. There are plenty of papers that have been published with all kinds of interesting hypotheses but none of these people have actually went and flown jets into 10 buildings in order to get a better and real understanding of the phenomena. If you want to cherry pick the papers you agree with and ignore the rest do so but you are doing just that.

Even in something as simple as the physics of baseball you can discover a lot with a wind tunnel and some balls.

There ain't no WTC tower plus a jet wind-tunnel.

Saying something is possible or not possible about such a structural problem seems to me to be absurd. There are plenty enough good papers out there on it - but they all have a heavy element of conjecture. The paper by the MIT professor is aptly titled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation". Speculation there is plenty of here.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Rochard

Shit. I opened up a can of worms.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;12525972]Buildings collapsed at free fall rate - no resistance


haha ok Rochard..a huuge piece of building fell neatly into itself instead of falling over like a tree does when you cut a tiny wedge out of it.
then it pancaked the floors beneath it all without offering any resistance.
if it had pancaked i think the fall would have taken about 11-12 seconds

each floor would have slowed the fall

I never saw a building fall over. If it happened at the base I could see this happening, but this isn't the case. It happened up top, and the top of the building fell onto the lower floors.

fire didnt bring down the towers..massive explosives which were laid months and the weekend before were used instead....eye witnesses exist that saw men laying new"internet wiring" through the building the weekend of.

The WTC Towers were huge; Hundreds of thousands of peple worked in them. I'm sure they had an entire department who did nothing but wire up that building.

also the planes hit a steel mesh..sort of like sticking your hand through your screen window...fuck all happens to the whole screen.

I can't argue this point. I can't compare the WTC towers to my screen window.

also all the jetfuel ignited on impact..what do you think that huge fireball was from? aliens?

I'm pretty sure that when a jet liner crashes into a building it blows up.

and rochard building 7 was chalk full of rico files and SEC fraud investigations and manyother things some people in pwoer wanted to go away....it came down for those reasons

This may be true. However, if a few hundred million tons of concrete and steel fall around my house..... AND my house was on fire I'm pretty sure it would fall down too.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Phoenix

the whole damn building was a heat sink....the fire did almost nothing to the integrity of the building

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

Phoenix

Gonzalez cleared the Bush family of wrong doing in the 80's when the USA was tryint to label them as organised crime


how quickly people forget

the kennedy's took over all theatres in a record short time..lol

gangsters and politics go together like honey and bread

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

stickyfingerz

Links to said proof of a non kook website nature? lol

Rochard

My responses in red.....


The top of the building fell, bringing down all of the weight on top of it.

This would take 4-5 minutes, now the tower fell in free fall speed without any resistance beneath meaning the lower floors where already gone.

Fire didn't bring down the buildings. Not sure what you saw that morning, but I saw two very large fucking planes - HUGE planes - plow into the two towers. The damage to the structure itself might have been enough to bring down the towers, but it didn't. The combination of the original impact, the resulting fireball, the damage to the structure itself, and multiple fires on many floors is what brought down the buildings.

Have you ever been to the WTC? I have. The entire building is an airlock. When you go outside at that height, the wind whips around. Imagine having a fire that high up with the wind flaming the flames.

The towers where designed to withstand several hits by planes equal to the size of those that hit them on 911. Fire cannot melt steel under no circumstances and it cannot weaken it in such a short period of time.

There are examples of buildings of lower quality construction that have burned for many many hours without collapsing.

The buildings were designed to withstand impacts high up in the tower with a plane full of fuel. Well, that didn't seem to work too well. I've read what they planned for and I don't think anyone could have planned for this.

And yes, lesser buildings have have similar impacts - The Empire State Building had a WWII bomber crash into it.

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. But it suffered damage from debris falling, was on fire also, and not to mention both towers fell and it's debris covered the entire area.

Building 7 had minor fires over 2 floors, there are lots of picture evidence to prove it. That in no way explains the perfect implosion of the entire building. It just doesnt make any sense at all.

During the 1989 Loma Preta earthquake in San Francisco the Bay Bridge fell as well as other bridges. Do you mean to tell me that the falling of the two towers, being hit by hundreds of tons of debris isnt' enough to sink that building? If one of the World Trade Center towers fell next to my house it would be burried in rubble - and my hous would fall.

There were multiple explosions at many different levels of both WTC towers. On one of them (or perhaps both) some of the elevators shot down to the main lobby and created a fireball in the main lobby. This happened on multiple floors, and I'm willing to guess on any floor where there was a "sky lobby".

Witnesses say they heard explosions in sequences, firefighters, nearby civilians and others have all suggested this. There are just too many witness reports of explosions in different places in the towers to discard.

Seismic data even shows explosions right BEFORE the planes hit the towers.

I have never heard of this.

I watch for this every time I see footage of the towers falling and I do in fact see something. It sort of looks like a puff of smoke. This "puff of smoke" could be nearly anything. Perhaps it's debris from above; Perhaps's it's some kind of a gas or water line exploding as the building above it starts falling. Hell, perhaps it's the steel or concrete giving way as millions of tons of crap fell on it and it couldn't hold the weight.

If you look at videos of controlled demolition, these puffs are always there in the exact same fashion as on the world trade center towers.

They are. Like I said, the building was falling. I dont have an degree in engineering but it sounds reasonable to me that if hundreds of tons of concrete and steel above a certain joint... that somewhere something is gonna shift and shift hard.


I have no idea who Larry Silverstein is and frankly I don't care. I read this statement as "we've decided to pull all personel from this building because, duh, it's on fire".

Do some research, he owned the place and got HUGE sums of insurance money. He insured the building right before 911 specifically covering acts of terrorism.

That's right, I remember now. I haven't heard this but it doesn't mean much to me.

This has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure what this chap or his buddies heard, but it could have been anything. And being as it happened before the plane hit, well, doesn't mean anything. If it happened before the plane hit it didn't bring down the building.

Of course it mean something, this suggests they took out the base support. See the comment on the seismic data above.

I'd love to hear more about this.

We should look into this. I think a two year study of trading patterns over the past ten years will reveal many things about how Jewish companies and other companies operate. The thought line here is that a number of Jewish companies did some odd trading deals the day before 9/11. I'm sure that if it's looked into, tens of thousands of companies of interest - Jewish and otherwise - didn't do anything special that day or the day before.

This really does not need an explanation, even you suggest something fishy is going on.

It's easy to swtich stats around. You can say "thirty jewish companies made odd trades that day". But what they don't say is that there are forty thousand jewsish owned companies who did nothing that day, and the fact that on any given day or week ten thousand jewish companies make similar trades.


I don't think we are sure exactly who each and every one of them are. It's entirely possible that we have wrong information on some of them.

Oh yeah? They say they found their passports. And its pretty bad if they accuse innocent people about acts of terrorism.

The found passportes which they used to enter the country. These passports were created by which govenment? Not like you can't fake any of those. In fact, it's not like the US government can't fake those too.

What would be normal standard operating procedure be in the event that multiple plans are hijacked and rammed into tall buildings at multiple locations? Seems to me this wasn't a miltiary thing but a Federal Government thing, being as planes are run by the FFA. And when the FAA called the Military they said "well, you guys need to get some planes up or something".

If you look into the standard procedures of the involved parties you will see that if everything was in order, they would have intercepted the planes. People who worked with this stuff suggest it is impossible to explain the situation in any way other than a standdown.

Seems to me our military on 9/11 wasn't paying any attention to any of this. This was being handled by the FAA. I mean, even the FAA didn't have any clue there was a problem until after the first planes hit. By then it was pretty much over.

I just watched a show about 9/11 the other day. The guy from the FAA calls up NORAD (or whatever it was) and says "I think you guys need to scramble some planes or something".

I don't think the military had any idea what to do, and the fact that it all happened so fast and there was a lack of information / incorrect information caused them to pretty much do nothing.


Anything else?

How about a backrub?

[/QUOTE]

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Phoenix

huch yuck yuck

man did you think that one up all by yourself?

__________________
Skype Phoenixskype1
Telegram PhoenixBrad
https://quantads.io

Rochard

Guys..... I surely don't support Bush here. He needs to go - big time. But if you think Bush and his buddies were able to pull this off without anyone else knowing.... your giving him / them way too much credit.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

PAR

Phone call from PUMPITOUT.COM to Controlled Demolitions Inc:

PUMPITOUT: Is this Controlled Demolitions?
CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS INC: Yes it is.
PIO: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to breifly just to just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
PIO:I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok what type of term?
PIO: Well if you were in the demolition business and you said the term "Pull it", I was wondering exactly what that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
PIO: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm. Hold on a minute.
PIO: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
PIO: Yes.
CDI: Pull it is when they actually pull it down.
PIO: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.

Audio: http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls...emolitions.mp3

And here's an excerpt from an interview with controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who has almost twenty years experience performing CDs, also confirming that "Pull it" is a controlled demolition term:

This is work of man. This is a hired job. [Larry Silverstein] said it himself. You hear him saying "Pull it" down.

Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

I think it's long overdue that Mr. Silverstein get up in front of a courtroom under oath and explain exactly what he meant when he said...

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

-Building 7 owner Larry Silverstein in the 2002 PBS documentary "America Rebuilds"

Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

Thanks to PUMPITOUT.COM for all the great info

ronaldo

http://www.911myths.com/

Interesting site I hadn't seen before.

L-Pink

I really would like to know how building #7 came down.

In a time when the media has round-the-clock coverage of so much trivial shit I am amazed of the lack of inquiry. If Silverstein owned a used car lot and was rippoing people off 60 minutes would be all over him.

ADL Colin

Only an hour til the office closes. I hope someone says "footprint" again.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

The Duck

[/QUOTE]

The smoking gun is building 7, im not going to go into the massive amount of evidence that it was brought down by controlled demolition. But if you really want to know whats going on that is the first thing to research. There is no good explanation whatsoever to why it collapsed and the 911 commision report totally ignored it altogether. And the whole Silverstein ordeal is just, unbelievable.

Just look at the goddamn video of wtv 7 collapsing, it looks just like all those controlled demolition videos. They say it was because the structure was weakened by fires, well I have seen tons of images of wtc 7 and there are small fires on two floors. It just doesnt make any sense at all and they wont explain it.

What is it you americans say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

__________________
Skype Horusmaia
ICQ 41555245
Email [email protected]

bushwacker

[QUOTE=ADL Colin;12526286]Only an hour til the office closes. I hope someone says "footprint" again.[/QUOTE

Dirty Dane

Its called gravity... but if you look at the fall, the debrise outside the buildings fall faster than the core.

Yeah thats true, but there were several other factors than fire.

Its quite normal with explosions with such heavy fires, and when so much energy is released.

Even if he meant, and also explained it later, to pull out the firemen, the demolition term "pull" does not mean to bring down a building among experts. "Pull" means to keep one building away from another with cables, when tearing it down. And why should he give a demolition order to a fireman?

Everyone was confused that day, and even if he is reliable, is it sure that he heard an explosion?

Maybe they have investigated it and didn't find anything. No reason to make it public then.

Really? Where? And more important; why haven't they contacted a TV-network or something? That would put an end to Bush.

If one person can do it, anyone can.

And what does that prove? Its not the first time in history allied become enemy.

Wars can never be justified. Its just necessary sometimes. Bill Clinton could have eliminated Bin Laden, but didn't. Unfortunately, preventing war can look even more unjustified.

PAR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
Several of the apparent hijackers have been found to be alive.

Really? Where? And more important; why haven't they contacted a TV-network or something? That would put an end to Bush.

Well they did contact the media yes the "main stream media".. And it didnt' do shit to Bush or change anyones mind people just looked away from the facts.

Abdul Aziz Al-Omari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)

The identities of two men with same name have been cobbled together to create an FBI "terrorist". Both are Alive!

The first has the same name, the same birth date as one of the FBI "terrorists" but has no idea how to fly.

The second has the name Abdul Rahman Al-Omari and a different birth date, but is the person pictured by the FBI and is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines.

Here are some quotes from the world's media concerning them.

Omari Number 1

"A Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft." - ABCNews

"I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this." - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

"The name (listed by the FBI) is my name and the birth date is the same as mine, but I am not the one who bombed the World Trade Center in New York," Abdul Aziz Al-Omari told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.

"Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case" - New York Times

"Saudi Embassy officials in Washington have challenged his identity. They say a Saudi electrical engineer named Abdul Aziz Al-Omari had his passport and other papers stolen in 1996 in Denver when he was a student and reported the theft to police there at the time." - BBC

"Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months." - Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 (translate)

Omari Number 2

Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the American media.

"Abdul Aziz Al-Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines" - BBC 23rd September 2001

"A pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking ­ as well as being dead ­ and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation." - Independent 17th September 2001

This Al-Omari lives with his wife and four children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saeed Al-Ghamdi (Flight 93) (Trained Pilot)

"Saeed Al-Ghamdi is one of three hijackers that US officials have said are linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network." - BBC

No BBC! Mr. Al-Ghamdi is still alive and well and at his job for Tunis Air.

"I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks." - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

"Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Al-Ghamdi." - BBC 23rd September 2001

"Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months." - Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 (translate)

"..... not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington." - Saudi embassy




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waleed Al-Shehri (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)

"A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Al-Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline." On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack." - Daily Trust 24th September 2001.

"He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco." - Telegraph

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well." - BBC 23rd September 2001.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93)

"I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked." He had never lost his passport and found it "very worrying" that his identity appeared to have been "stolen" and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his "possible residence" was Delray Beach in Florida." - Telegraph 23rd September 2001




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salem Al-Hazmi (Flight 77)

"Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon." - Telegraph 23rd September 2001.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Khalid Al-Mihdhar (Flight 77)

"Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

"..... there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar may also be alive." - BBC 23rd September 2001

from: http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news...73_comment.php

stickyfingerz

Dirty Dane

The confusion about the names, which was common arabic names, occured right after the attack. They also occured before the release of photos on 27th September. After that, you hear nothing.
If they were alive, they would have stepped forward on TV later to show their faces. But they didn't.