9/11 is NOT a Conspiracy!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
287

[quote]Evil Dude625 wrote:
if you call 9/11 a conspiracy you are an anti american fuck bag that has no heart shame or any other emotions[/quote]

Really? If you do not call 9/11 a conspiracy then you are saying one person simultaneously flew 4 commercial jet planes, with 3 of them striking their target, and at the same time subdued the crew and passengers of the same planes by use of weapons passed through security. Since you state you do not believe a conspiracy took place and assert the above quoted ignorance, then I am justified in calling YOU a lunatic.

Perhaps you should think before you write. Unfortunately your post which borders the height of ignorance cannot be written off as acting on emotion without intellect. You had time to think before hitting submit. It is just plain stupid.

I further assert that YOUR military is obligated to not question the government, and relies instead on YOU to question for them. You have nothing to offer in a logical discussion so you resort to name calling and grade school cussing to avoid presenting any facts.

If natural selection were in order, your gene pool would have been wiped out centuries ago.

288

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

I want to see proof that this security wing actually exists. Send me a link to a .gov site that shows it was set up.
[/quote]

You want to see a lot of proof, but you seem to offer very little. This is indicative of laziness where the subject wants information spoon fed to them instead of performing their own research and applying critical thought to the material. I will engage, but i am apprehensive at this point and warn you that you will be ignored if you do not begin to present intelligent, fact based, resource oriented arguments.

Ever hear about the Reagan Administration funding and training the same terrorists your government says attacked you on 9/11?

Perhaps you should look into the government’s training and funding of the Mujahideen.

AFGHANISTAN: IN DEFENSE OF SOVIET MILITARY ACTION

289

Great post Pete, there are some people in the truth movement that seem wacky and just say things without backing them up, but I am glad to be associated with someone as bright as you (even though its just on the internet).

290

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
BackInAction wrote:

I want to see proof that this security wing actually exists. Send me a link to a .gov site that shows it was set up.

You want to see a lot of proof, but you seem to offer very little. This is indicative of laziness where the subject wants information spoon fed to them instead of performing their own research and applying critical thought to the material. I will engage, but i am apprehensive at this point and warn you that you will be ignored if you do not begin to present intelligent, fact based, resource oriented arguments.

[/quote]
How could I supply proof if I couldn’t find anything through searches that a government wing exists? Next time, I’ll send my Google search history. Perhaps if you would have actually read my posts where I stated I couldn’t find anything, you would refrain from calling me lazy.

Ummm, no shit. When the Soviets were blowing the shit out of their country, we provided them weapons to fight them off. The Soviets did the same thing in Vietnam to us. That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s called support.

291

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Evil Dude625 wrote:
if you call 9/11 a conspiracy you are an anti american fuck bag that has no heart shame or any other emotions

Really? If you do not call 9/11 a conspiracy then you are saying one person simultaneously flew 4 commercial jet planes, with 3 of them striking their target, and at the same time subdued the crew and passengers of the same planes by use of weapons passed through security. Since you state you do not believe a conspiracy took place and assert the above quoted ignorance, then I am justified in calling YOU a lunatic.

[/quote]
You’ll have to explain that logic, cause that looks like crazy talk to me. There were multiple terrorists trained to fly the airplanes.

292

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
What is the cause of the collapse of WTC VII according to the “Official Story” and what is the source of that information?
[/quote]

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building’s south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[27][28]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[29] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[30][31] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6â??10, 13â??14, 19â??22, and 29â??30.[3] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[32] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[33] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[34] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[33][35] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. According to FEMA, structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse[6]; nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point.[15]

Source found on Wikipedia’s Notes section: 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia

293

I really don’t understand your logic, by your thinking you pose enough questions to someone they will say something questionable and you jump on it. Citing Wikipedia? Give me a break, if I tried to cite that in a grade 12 essay it wouldn’t fly, so using the information you copy and pasted from there does your argument no good because clearly you weren’t diligent enough to do some real research, you just typed in WTC 7 and clicked the first thing that came up. Why is WTC 7 not even included in the official explanation if they have nothing to hide? What part of this are you having problems grasping because it is very evident that there is very little we can say to sway you, but I know that a lot of people have problems believing that another human being could be that cold blooded and not care at all. If this is the case then I suggest you look at the past 100 years and look at the death toll, clearly we have no problem killing our fellow men and we continue to practice this. There isn’t anything we can say, so I hope your next post will tell me why you choose to ignore all the evidence and nit pick at every little mistake we might make.

294

[quote]nik133 wrote:
I really don’t understand your logic, by your thinking you pose enough questions to someone they will say something questionable and you jump on it. Citing Wikipedia? Give me a break, if I tried to cite that in a grade 12 essay it wouldn’t fly, so using the information you copy and pasted from there does your argument no good because clearly you weren’t diligent enough to do some real research, you just typed in WTC 7 and clicked the first thing that came up. Why is WTC 7 not even included in the official explanation if they have nothing to hide? What part of this are you having problems grasping because it is very evident that there is very little we can say to sway you, but I know that a lot of people have problems believing that another human being could be that cold blooded and not care at all. If this is the case then I suggest you look at the past 100 years and look at the death toll, clearly we have no problem killing our fellow men and we continue to practice this. There isn’t anything we can say, so I hope your next post will tell me why you choose to ignore all the evidence and nit pick at every little mistake we might make.[/quote]

If you look at the other poster’s question, he asked for the official report of what happened. I gave just that. In regards to wikipedia not being a good source of information, I would agree if sources weren’t provided. They are and I specified this in my post (“look at the notes section for notes”).

This looks like a pretty official to me…

[quote]
What part of this are you having problems grasping because it is very evident that there is very little we can say to sway you, but I know that a lot of people have problems believing that another human being could be that cold blooded and not care at all. If this is the case then I suggest you look at the past 100 years and look at the death toll, clearly we have no problem killing our fellow men and we continue to practice this. There isn’t anything we can say, so I hope your next post will tell me why you choose to ignore all the evidence and nit pick at every little mistake we might make.[/quote]

The history of mankind is full of violence. But it is also full of ignorance, misinformation, and lies to gain attention/personal power. I believe this to be one such event.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence that is completely irrefutable by authorities. Do you have any evidence that stands alone in the conviction that this is a conspiracy?

295

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
I really don’t understand your logic, by your thinking you pose enough questions to someone they will say something questionable and you jump on it. Citing Wikipedia? Give me a break, if I tried to cite that in a grade 12 essay it wouldn’t fly, so using the information you copy and pasted from there does your argument no good because clearly you weren’t diligent enough to do some real research, you just typed in WTC 7 and clicked the first thing that came up. Why is WTC 7 not even included in the official explanation if they have nothing to hide? What part of this are you having problems grasping because it is very evident that there is very little we can say to sway you, but I know that a lot of people have problems believing that another human being could be that cold blooded and not care at all. If this is the case then I suggest you look at the past 100 years and look at the death toll, clearly we have no problem killing our fellow men and we continue to practice this. There isn’t anything we can say, so I hope your next post will tell me why you choose to ignore all the evidence and nit pick at every little mistake we might make.

If you look at the other poster’s question, he asked for the official report of what happened. I gave just that. In regards to wikipedia not being a good source of information, I would agree if sources weren’t provided. They are and I specified this in my post (“look at the notes section for notes”).

Why is WTC 7 not even included in the official explanation if they have nothing to hide?

This looks like a pretty official to me…

What part of this are you having problems grasping because it is very evident that there is very little we can say to sway you, but I know that a lot of people have problems believing that another human being could be that cold blooded and not care at all. If this is the case then I suggest you look at the past 100 years and look at the death toll, clearly we have no problem killing our fellow men and we continue to practice this. There isn’t anything we can say, so I hope your next post will tell me why you choose to ignore all the evidence and nit pick at every little mistake we might make.

The history of mankind is full of violence. But it is also full of ignorance, misinformation, and lies to gain attention/personal power. I believe this to be one such event.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence that is completely irrefutable by authorities. Do you have any evidence that stands alone in the conviction that this is a conspiracy?[/quote]

Ok well I just ask you to watch these videos about WTC 7 and you come to your own conclusions as that is one building that cannot be denied was under controlled demolition:
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 1 of 2 - YouTube (Interview with man who went into WTC 7 and he is now dead)
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 2 of 2 - YouTube (Part 2 of interview)
Lowry Bridge Demolition - YouTube (Sound comparison between a controlled demolition and video recorded during 9/11 of explosions going off at WTC 7)
WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video - YouTube (WTC side by side with a controlled demolition

296

[quote]nik133 wrote:
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 1 of 2 - YouTube (Interview with man who went into WTC 7 and he is now dead)
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 2 of 2 - YouTube (Part 2 of interview)
Lowry Bridge Demolition - YouTube (Sound comparison between a controlled demolition and video recorded during 9/11 of explosions going off at WTC 7)
WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video - YouTube (WTC side by side with a controlled demolition[/quote]

The WTC 7 side by side video is very interesting. I thought it collapsed differently than that as the debris supposedly fell on part of it and scorched the building. The building doesn’t look burned at all.

That is the WTC 7 building, correct?

297

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 1 of 2 - YouTube (Interview with man who went into WTC 7 and he is now dead)
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 2 of 2 - YouTube (Part 2 of interview)
Lowry Bridge Demolition - YouTube (Sound comparison between a controlled demolition and video recorded during 9/11 of explosions going off at WTC 7)
WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video - YouTube (WTC side by side with a controlled demolition

The WTC 7 side by side video is very interesting. I thought it collapsed differently than that as the debris supposedly fell on part of it and scorched the building. The building doesn’t look burned at all.

That is the WTC 7 building, correct?[/quote]

Yep WTC 7, anyways if you want to, I posted a few pages back what the WTC 7 looked like while the fires were taking place and what a building in China looked like after it caught on fire,however it didn’t fall and the blaze was put out on page 8 (near the top of the page). I believe only 3 stories were reported to be on fire.

298

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
nik133 wrote:
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 1 of 2 - YouTube (Interview with man who went into WTC 7 and he is now dead)
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 2 of 2 - YouTube (Part 2 of interview)
Lowry Bridge Demolition - YouTube (Sound comparison between a controlled demolition and video recorded during 9/11 of explosions going off at WTC 7)
WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video - YouTube (WTC side by side with a controlled demolition

The WTC 7 side by side video is very interesting. I thought it collapsed differently than that as the debris supposedly fell on part of it and scorched the building. The building doesn’t look burned at all.

That is the WTC 7 building, correct?[/quote]

Also if you look at the overhead map I posted before it shows where the debris fields were around the collapsing towers. Building 7 is literally behind building 5 and 6 with a narrow path for debris to get between the buildings. Yet building 5 and 6 and even other buildings around the towers didn’t fall. Yet a building which is one row outside of the main debris field somehow suffers such structural damage and fire damage that it collapses like a building taken down with demolitions? Once you start putting all the peices together it just looks absolutely staged. Just take the building 7 info and run it all over in your head slowly. Look at the map, look at the videos. Look at the NIST first claiming building 7 never achieved freefall, then revising thier theory after getting hammered in a peer review conference. Now they state that building 7 achieved freefall for 2.4 second or something, but again if you watch the videos that debunk thier timing, you can see clearly that they have vastly miscalculated. But they don’t provide any evidence for thier theories, they just say things and expect people to believe it because “they are the experts and thats what we say”. So please please please look at the whole buildin 7 thing carefully and objectively, without getting into conspiracy theories or who could have done what and just with an open mind ask if it looks like it was a failed building do to extensive damage and out of control fires, or does it look like someone pulled the building.

V

299

Another Interesting theory to throw out is the no plane theory: This theory states that no planes were used. There are a number of things that back this theory up.

First if you look at the way the “plane” is eaten by both twin towers it is amazing, if anyone has ever seen a Boeing 767, you would know that they are very fragile in the sense that you can’t even have a 200 pound man walking on the wings, yet the pictures you see would have you believe that an entire plane was engulfed by the twin towers without any resistance and even the nose popping through the other side.

All the official reports have the plane traveling at over 500 MPH when it hits the twin towers, but it is impossible to fly at that speed at such a low altitude without losing control of the plane (which clearly doesn’t happen), a more likely speed is anywhere between 225-300 mph.

Another thing that I find weird is that the towers gave no resistance and just let the plane into them, there was no part of the plane that broke off or fell off when it entered a STEEL FRAME building, how is this possible when in all the plane crashes simulated or not the plane seems to disintegrate into 1000 little pieces? Also what about the flashes before the planes enter both buildings?

We won’t have conclusive evidence of what hit the first tower from videos, but what the hell hit the 2nd because clearly from the two videos it wasn’t a plane:

Here is the no plane theory film if you want to take a look at it,certainly this theory is a little more out there, however the film does have many valid points and many clips which you might have not seen before including eyewitnesses saying they saw a missile, or whatever it was it wasn’t a plane:

300

The movement is growing and we will get a real investigation into what really happened that day and prosecute the real criminals. For those that think the people that think this way are just a bunch of tin foil wearing nut jobs, here is an interview Jeffrey Steinberg who is the Counter Intelligence Director of the EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) saying 9/11 is an inside job:

301

[quote]nik133 wrote:

We won’t have conclusive evidence of what hit the first tower from videos, but what the hell hit the 2nd because clearly from the two videos it wasn’t a plane:

[/quote]

There is NOTHING clear about those two vidoes.

302

[quote]OBoile wrote:
nik133 wrote:

We won’t have conclusive evidence of what hit the first tower from videos, but what the hell hit the 2nd because clearly from the two videos it wasn’t a plane:

There is NOTHING clear about those two vidoes.[/quote]

Actually what is clear is that whatever you see in those videos is not a plane. It’s just an interesting theory, take it for what it is. Here is a film covering solely the Pentagon Attack:

303

[quote]nik133 wrote:
OBoile wrote:
nik133 wrote:

We won’t have conclusive evidence of what hit the first tower from videos, but what the hell hit the 2nd because clearly from the two videos it wasn’t a plane:

There is NOTHING clear about those two vidoes.

Actually what is clear is that whatever you see in those videos is not a plane. It’s just an interesting theory, take it for what it is. Here is a film covering solely the Pentagon Attack:

[/quote]

Actually, to me it kind of looked like a plane that had been deliberately made blurry. But what do I know?

304

[quote]OBoile wrote:
nik133 wrote:
OBoile wrote:
nik133 wrote:

We won’t have conclusive evidence of what hit the first tower from videos, but what the hell hit the 2nd because clearly from the two videos it wasn’t a plane:

There is NOTHING clear about those two vidoes.

Actually what is clear is that whatever you see in those videos is not a plane. It’s just an interesting theory, take it for what it is. Here is a film covering solely the Pentagon Attack:

Actually, to me it kind of looked like a plane that had been deliberately made blurry. But what do I know?[/quote]

Which video are you talking about? Because the 1st one was a live shot from a news channel and I don’t see why they would want to make it blurry?

305

Time to bump it up, it seems that every witness of whatever hit the Pentagon has come out and said that the plane took a different path, EVERY WITNESS.

Here is the documentary itself with the witness’s comments

306

Give it a rest, you’re not going to convince most sane people about this. Said it before, will say it again, go to www.tacticalforums.com and post this stuff, Kevin McClung will bounce you in a second. Real Navy SEALs, real metallurgists, real cops and firemen, not some clwons selling dvs running around pretending someone is following them.