Beginning Fad of the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Awe the Universal Blessing of the Internet, 96’ was the year. When Dick Cheney and Bush Sr. and the like were planning their post cold war wars of the 21st century.

They were confident and should have been, but now for the “Internet’s!” When 9/11 and similar plans were being made the Internet hadn’t been heard of or everyone was on 56k or 12 lb laptops. Today I can go to Wikipedia on my cell phone in 3 minutes and read about the history of Government sponsored terror and look at frames of missing pentagon jets…

9/11 remains the critical issue of planet Earth… it will spark a consciousness revolution like no other. All it takes is one person to take this topic seriously and the fire is spreading… the Internet is fucking them up. If a real investigation happens and Cheney and others must testify before congress and the world, Guess what?

The international community will jump on it and finally go public without fear and the American people will stand in awe and disbelief as their loving Big Brother is paraded before the world in an orange jumpsuit.

This can save the fucking planet oh-my God spark the revolution please God?
Jesus Who are you!?

2

One small criticism: I think the picture and the last sentence are too far apart.

3

[quote]pookie wrote:
One small criticism: I think the picture and the last sentence are too far apart.
[/quote]

Fair, But what about his use with God and The Iraq War?

I don’t get it, are we all in denial? It really makes me sick to see a man leap out of a 110 story building after witnessing individuals scream in pain as the fire melts the skin from their body or coming to a lasting realization that eiether your going to fall painfully to your death, or inhale nothing but rank smoke of burning flesh.

It is very obvious now, less than two in five (36%) Believe that the 9/11 Commission had “Answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th.” But two in Three (66%) New Yorkers called for a full investigation, to “still unanswered questions”
We’ve got Half of New York believing U.S Leaders had foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 Acts and “Consciously Failed” To act; 66% Call for a New Probe of Unanswered Questions by congress.

An example of how the Internet is taking this by storm and it’s happening, Whether you like it or not.

Video - 9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

South Park, Some may have seen it. When in History has there been a show basically supporting the fact of 9/11.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_bill_dou_061012_analyzing_south_park.htm

and “JustTheFacts” has literally backed up everything he says with some source, whether or not it is biased there still is something just about everything. The time is now, I am tired of watching these buildings fall and hearing the shock and scream of millions. We have been manipulated, we must face it, and we must act.

4

This is a good start for debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories.
http://www.911myths.com/

Popular Mechanics has recently released a book debunking conspiracy theories and the pseudo science behind them. Highly recommend it.

5

By the way, how many structural engineers and journals support the demolition theory? Care to name a Structural Engineer? Or, an engineering journal?

You know, in contrast to the plethora of Structural Engineers and journals that have demonstrated how the buildings collapsed.

6

Oh your so last week.

Journalist Paul Craig Roberts stated, “The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know.”[9] This is false. Popular Mechanics claims the building fell at less than free fall speed. Free fall speed would have been eight seconds, PM states that it fell at around 12-15 seconds.

Wake up use your fucking head, you make me sick you nazi.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Structural and civil engineering research

The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community.[69] Leading American structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse.[70]

The following are a few examples of the opinions expressed by structural engineers concerning the collapse:

* According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 ?F (593 ?C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 ?F (500 ?C), causing the floors above to buckle.
* Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.[71][72]
* Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, says Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting fire was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832?F (1000?C), high enough to cause structural failure.[73]
* Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[74] However, he added, "The building structure would still be there."[75]

    * Although some say there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 [76] pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however, the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.[77]
    * Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center.[78] Robertson says, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."
    * Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.[78]
7

[quote]ssn0 wrote:

Wake up use your fucking head, you make me sick you nazi.

[/quote]

Sloth is a Libertarian.

8

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Oh your so last week.

Journalist Paul Craig Roberts stated, “The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know.”[9] This is false. Popular Mechanics claims the building fell at less than free fall speed. Free fall speed would have been eight seconds, PM states that it fell at around 12-15 seconds.

Wake up use your fucking head, you make me sick you nazi.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Structural and civil engineering research

The jet crashes and fires have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community.[69] Leading American structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse.[70]

The following are a few examples of the opinions expressed by structural engineers concerning the collapse:

* According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 ?F (593 ?C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 ?F (500 ?C), causing the floors above to buckle.
* Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.[71][72]
* Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, says Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting fire was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832?F (1000?C), high enough to cause structural failure.[73]
* Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[74] However, he added, "The building structure would still be there."[75]

    * Although some say there is a large difference between the Boeing 707, which was popular when the WTC was built, and the Boeing 767s that hit the WTC, others describe the details which show this point to be irrelevant. While the 707 weighs around 330,000 [76] pounds including fuel, the Boeing 767 is about 20 % heavier; however, the fuel capacity is about the same for both aircraft. Still, the significant differences in cruise speeds suggests that a 707 would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.[77]
    * Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center.[78] Robertson says, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."
    * Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.[78]

[/quote]

So, in other words you can’t find a single structural engineer that agrees with you? Not even one?

9

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, in other words you can’t find a single structural engineer that agrees with you? Not even one?[/quote]

Your Correct. I’ve been wrong this whole time, I like doing this because its fun to fuck with the ‘bad brains’ such as yourself. Carry on continue your denial

10

“Did you know: one out of every four AMericans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Do you really think one-fourth of America is retarded?” ~Eric Cartman

“Umm… yea. Thats sounds about right.”
~Stan

11

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Your Correct. I’ve been wrong this whole time, I like doing this because its fun to fuck with the ‘bad brains’ such as yourself. Carry on continue your denial[/quote]

Quick question: Is there anything that would convince you that 9/11 was not a government backed action? What kind of proof would you require to accept that 9/11 was a terrorist attack that got missed by all the intelligence agencies?

12

[quote]pookie wrote:
Quick question: Is there anything that would convince you that 9/11 was not a government backed action? What kind of proof would you require to accept that 9/11 was a terrorist attack that got missed by all the intelligence agencies?
[/quote]

No you see you got me all wrong I’m already convinced, 9/11 Commission Report says it all. :slight_smile: Seriously though, nothing can convince me that this was not a Government Sponsored Attack. I’ve seen both “sides” however for me atleast I’ve come to a clearer understanding not because of my research done.

But rather the questions I’ve asked and the certain comments that have been made by individuals, and they’re reactions as Humans. To me, there are still alot of unanswered questions and right now a sheet has been pulled over the publics face.

Merely a powergrab no different from the blind public of the 20th Century, think fascism. We’re in a state of denial and under a blind Fascist.

13

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
“Did you know: one out of every four AMericans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? Do you really think one-fourth of America is retarded?” ~Eric Cartman

“Umm… yea. Thats sounds about right.”
~Stan[/quote]

Matt & Trey Creators of SP probably don’t want to get shot, or die in a planecrash. Besides, my tri’s are massive

14

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, in other words you can’t find a single structural engineer that agrees with you? Not even one?

Your Correct. I’ve been wrong this whole time, I like doing this because its fun to fuck with the ‘bad brains’ such as yourself. Carry on continue your denial[/quote]

Well, do you have a single stuctural engineer or related Journal that disagrees with the offical version? Do you have one that supports the demolition theory? Or, any other such theory? Surely, with all this evidence you must have at least one structural engineer.

15

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, in other words you can’t find a single structural engineer that agrees with you? Not even one?

Your Correct. I’ve been wrong this whole time, I like doing this because its fun to fuck with the ‘bad brains’ such as yourself. Carry on continue your denial

Well, do you have a single stuctural engineer or related Journal that disagrees with the offical version? Do you have one that support the demolition theory, or other such theory? Surely, with all this evidence you must have. You know of one.[/quote]

Ugh, I’ll be right with you. Let me Celebrate what may be the last day of my life.

16

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Seriously though, nothing can convince me that this was not a Government Sponsored Attack.[/quote]

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

[center]- Winston Churchill[/center]

17

[quote]pookie wrote:
ssn0 wrote:
Seriously though, nothing can convince me that this was not a Government Sponsored Attack.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

[center]- Winston Churchill[/center][/quote]

Only because I realize the situation and have compassion for each and everyone of you. Are we really in Hell?

18

19

20

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is a good start for debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories.
http://www.911myths.com/

Popular Mechanics has recently released a book debunking conspiracy theories and the pseudo science behind them. Highly recommend it.
[/quote]

The site does not do anything for debunking 9/11 conspiracies. Sure, it tries, but it fails miserably against anyone that has done any research into the incident and can think.

Lets look at one claim the website makes: “there was not enough time to lay explosives for demolition of the WTC buildings.”

If the buildings crashed from plane impact…then…the amount of stress from the plane impact equals building collapse.

It therefore logically follows the website maintains there was not enough time to lay explosives that would cause stress equal to a plane impact. The argument is false, there was plenty of time to lay explosives equal to the impact of the plane, and create a lot more heat.

You see, if a plane impact can cause the buildings to collapse, then you need no more explosives than what equals the stress of a plane impact.

But they argue it both ways:

  1. If explosives were used, it would require hours upon hours of elaborately planted explosives all over the building, pounds and pounds of explosives

but

  1. If a plane brings the building down, it only requires stress from the impact of a plane in one area, not strategically placed, not elaborate.

It cannot be both ways. If stress from a plane impact brought down the buildings, then stress equaling that of a plane impact would also bring down the buildings. That much demolition can be laid very quickly.

Lets think about this a little further:

Everything that is known about building demolition, even the explosives used, was developed by the military. The military are demolition experts.

False assertion: Demolition experts could not lay enough demolition to equal the stress of a plane impact in 24 hours.

Humor me for a moment and make believe for a second the government was in on 9/11, on some level. Now ask yourself who is, and has investigated 9/11? Thats right, the government.

Following this logic, the same entity that committed the crime is investigating the crime. Sounds to me like a good way to get away with the crime. The government says what can and cannot be released for the investigation. What to investigate and what to leave alone.

I have a conspiracy for you that you will probably believe. Ask yourself why you believe one conspiracy theory and ignore others.

Theory:
“Cigarette companies conspired to market cigarettes to minors.”

The cigarette companies deny it, yet many people believe it. Why is one conspiracy so easily accepted, while another one is so readily dismissed?