its so sad that so many ignore the truth.(911)

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neo101

Guest
this is a subject i've been investigating for a while now and i have to say that there is so much evidence which points to 9/11 been carried out by the American Government its overwhelming. Not only does the official story not add up on certain issues, but we are expected to beleive that the laws of physics can be broken in order to fit with the official story. Please open your mind even if ur a skeptic. dont be ignorant..dont bury your head in the sand. This was a mass murder!!! Pick up a copy of The New Pearl Harbour by David Ray Griffin. Also check out www.letsroll911.org or www.911truth.org
thank you.
 
I actually agree with you.


www.prisonplanet.com

Search for martial law 3 the rise of the police state, or 911 the road to tyranny.

I had this debate here before, this thread will descend into chaos.

Maybe in 10 years time.
 
some of the background is factual but they make a bit of a leap of faith in connecting it all to 9/11
 
I don't know.

Why was building seven pulled WTF OMG?
 
zomg! It's neo, uncovering the conspiracy!

WHAT IS THE MATRIX?

NO ONE CAN BE TOLD ABOUT THE MATRIX - YOU MUST SEE IT FOR YOURSELF

Alright, joking aside, it seems unlikely that even the US government would do such a thing (yet!) - despite their history of atrocities they've never actually attacked themselves. And as Stern said, it doesn't quite add up. I find it far more likely - and somewhat more plausible - that they knew about it but did not act.
 
Sulkdodds said:
zomg! It's neo, uncovering the conspiracy!

WHAT IS THE MATRIX?

NO ONE CAN BE TOLD ABOUT THE MATRIX - YOU MUST SEE IT FOR YOURSELF

Alright, joking aside, it seems unlikely that even the US government would do such a thing (yet!) - despite their history of atrocities they've never actually attacked themselves. And as Stern said, it doesn't quite add up. I find it far more likely - and somewhat more plausible - that they knew about it but did not act.
Click to expand...

Theve gained so much. The building was imploded, the buildnings were built to withstand a jetplane impact.
 
Solaris said:
Theve gained so much. The building was imploded, the buildnings were built to withstand a jetplane impact.
Click to expand...
Which they did survive, if you havn't noticed they didn't come down right after the planes hit which really indicate they did the job. It was the intense heat from fires that melted the structure and caused it to collapse. Every legitimate engineer I have heard who studied what happened all agree that the fires from the planes fuel are what caused the Steel structure to heat to a point where the began to buckle causing all the weight above to finally come down.

People keep on saying stuff like "get your head out of the sand" but really it seems to me like most people who believe this are living in a fantasy world where they are trying to do whatever they can to prove to themselves that there is some evil government conspiracy around. Yes there are some facts that don't line up but if you were to study pretty much every single disaster that has ever occured that wasn't caused naturally you will probably always find facts that don't line up.
 
man I've seen so many documentaries by structural engineers that examined every last inch of the wtc collapse ..every last one of them concluded the same thing ...it was faulty fireproofing that led to the collapse, not an implosion, not a missle not even baby jesus himself

the most obvious reason why 9/11 couldnt have been planned: there was too much of a risk that it could have gone wrong and the conspiracy exposed ...no, the US is more about doing things quietly


edit: heh, Mullinator looks like we watched the same documentary
 
I don't particularly like Bush but these 9/11 conspiracy theories really don't make any sense at all.

Even taken at face value, can you imagine the logistics involved, the people it would have taken to plan such a thing? All the people it would require to keep quiet about it?

And if this was planned by the US Government why not go the whole hog and plant prove Iraq was involved, it wouldn't have been that difficult and would totally justify the Iraq war.
Why not plant WMD's inside of Iraq after they invaded? It could so easily have been done, compared to carrying out a terrorist act against your own people.

I prefer, like the last debate on this, to hold the opinion 9/11 was simply a dreadful terrorist act committed against a country caught with its pants down.
 
I'm not sure what to think about these things. One part of me says that not even the US government could commit such a barbaric act against their own citizens, but those videos/pics point at another thing.
 
The government hates us and wants only to destroy us.

Guys, our governments (or some of them anyway, at least America's) have our best interests at heart.
 
Ennui said:
Guys, our governments (or some of them anyway, at least America's) have our best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. I'd argue that the US government seems to have the best interests of rich Americans at heart.

Any way, good intentions mean nothing to me if you fall flat on your face and achieve the opposite.
 
first of all..the media sometimes outputs information in order to allow people to look and say "wow im glad TV sorted it all out!! i mean..THE MEDIA WOULDNT LIE. ye right.second of all...alot of people are subconcioudly fearful of what people would think if they thought other than the official story that was sold to us. Thirdly...THE twin towers, and bulding 7 were the first buildings IN HISTORY to fall "because of fire". This is a downright lie that they fell because the steel melted.Given that we were told that the fires were only hydrocarbon fires that burned at a maximum of 1,200 to 1,300 degrees when it takes BARE STEEL without any FIREPROOFING to melt at 3000 degrees. and also the "little" point that they left out in the official story that the fires were actually DIEING down..and to say that building 7 fell because of fire damage alone is well...BULLS**There are tons and tons of facts out there that the lazy HERD wont go and read up on because "TV TELLS THE TRUTH" if ur undecided PLEASE PLEASE read "The New Pearl Harbour"..written by a respected theologian. its NOT TRUE what were being told. WAKE UP
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE
 
Neo101 said:
first of all..the media sometimes outputs information in order to allow people to look and say "wow im glad TV sorted it all out!! i mean..THE MEDIA WOULDNT LIE. ye right.second of all...alot of people are subconcioudly fearful of what people would think if they thought other than the official story that was sold to us. Thirdly...THE twin towers, and bulding 7 were the first buildings IN HISTORY to fall "because of fire". This is a downright lie that they fell because the steel melted.Given that we were told that the fires were only hydrocarbon fires that burned at a maximum of 1,200 to 1,300 degrees when it takes BARE STEEL without any FIREPROOFING to melt at 3000 degrees. and also the "little" point that they left out in the official story that the fires were actually DIEING down..and to say that building 7 fell because of fire damage alone is well...BULLS**There are tons and tons of facts out there that the lazy HERD wont go and read up on because "TV TELLS THE TRUTH" if ur undecided PLEASE PLEASE read "The New Pearl Harbour"..written by a respected theologian. its NOT TRUE what were being told. WAKE UP
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE
Click to expand...

ok then do us a favour and list all the facts that dont add up and their sources saying it was intentional ...speculation gets you nowhere
 
THE MATRIX HAS YOU! :eek:

EDIT: I believe the building was signifigantly weakened after a plane crashed into it. It was designed to resist a crash sure...but designed to resist a crash where the plane was going half the speed (ie, coming in to land, low visibility, went off-course). It was also designed to resist a crash where the plane pilot had jetissoned his fuel to minimise damage. Unfortunately, when you double the speed you quadruple the kinetic energy...
 
Listen to the firefighters tapes.

They clearly say "We have the firers under control...BANG WTF BANG THIS WHOEL PLACE IS EXPLODING OMG ITS A F****G CONSPIRACY TO INVADE IRAQ!!!!" At least thats what I heard.
 
well another point i could make is how the US LIED in ordered to go to Iraq knowing that they would kill thousands to further the american empire in both ways of money and power. So why wouldnt they lie about 911 and kill thousands of people in order to use it as a pretext for war? and this terror war in order to take away your civil liberties while brainwashing you and bombarding you with the word FREEDOM while doing nothin but give you less freedoms.
 
I believe the Bush administration is more likely insane and misguided than genuinely evil.

I believe it far more likely that they knew the attack was coming, and did nothing.
 
Hitler did it.

F**k godwins law, Bush is growing more and more like him.
 
While I do not believe the US government planned and executed the attack. I'm like sulkodds not sure about wheather they knowlingly let it happen. I mean the PNAC did say they need a new pearle harbor, and the jetfighters would have normally not taken so long to go and take down the planes. There are some misconsistencies, about that the planes were recalled or that there was a n exercise just that day that distarcted them.

But then again this administration is know for it's incompetance, it may have just been that their incopetance.
 
There was a drill running on the same day, about the same thing happening. Thats why NORAD stood down. They knew it was happening, and made plans to ensure it did.
 
hmm.well have you read any of the other theories from ppl or media who ARENT under control of the government? apparently America can suspend the laws of physics when they want. I hate people who say " well the steel melted and the building fell". THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF STEEL GIRDERS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING. all of these would have to melt at precisely the same time. and also the fact the buiding collapsed to the ground in 10 seconds. THATS FREEFALL SPEED AND CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED USING EXPLOSIVES. by the way thats 10 floors per second. if you dropped a small rock the top of the building it would hit the ground at roughly the same time as the buildings collapsed 10 seconds. This is freefall speed. IMPOSSIBLE FOR A BUILDING TO FALL AT THIS SPEED WITHOUT ANOTHER TYPE OF EXTREME ENERGY>>>HENCE explosives. The answers are right in front of your face. if you dont want to live in ignorance and know the truth..investigate it yourlself. dont just have an opinion
 
there would be far too many people involved in a cover up for something like this not to get leaked. There must be something more than circumstantial evidence to support this ...till then it's just a nice little conspiracy that ties up every loose end in a nice little package ..reality doesnt work like that ..someone would have slipped by now


taking out nuns in el salvador using cia trained operatives is more their style ..not blowing up buildings and pining the blame on others. It's just too massive an undertaking when they could have used other means far less open to scrutiny
 
if ur interested go to letsroll911.org and scroll down to loose change parts 1 and 2. these have many interesting facts. that you wont see on Sky or Fox or CNN
 
Plus, they really don't tend to like to kill loads of their own people. Foreigners, sure, but Americans? The US government are far too blindly jingoistic for that methinks.
 
Every SECOND PHRASE is a CAPITALIZED PUNCH TO THE face.
This ends up MAKING YOU LOOK LIKE>>>>A CRAZYMAN.
 
Neo101 said:
hmm.well have you read any of the other theories from ppl or media who ARENT under control of the government? apparently America can suspend the laws of physics when they want. I hate people who say " well the steel melted and the building fell". THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF STEEL GIRDERS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING. all of these would have to melt at precisely the same time. and also the fact the buiding collapsed to the ground in 10 seconds. THATS FREEFALL SPEED AND CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED USING EXPLOSIVES. by the way thats 10 floors per second. if you dropped a small rock the top of the building it would hit the ground at roughly the same time as the buildings collapsed 10 seconds. This is freefall speed. IMPOSSIBLE FOR A BUILDING TO FALL AT THIS SPEED WITHOUT ANOTHER TYPE OF EXTREME ENERGY>>>HENCE explosives. The answers are right in front of your face. if you dont want to live in ignorance and know the truth..investigate it yourlself. dont just have an opinion
Click to expand...
No they wouldn't have to melt at precisely the same time, they just have to have been weakened to the point where they couldn't hold any more weight. That doesn't mean they all have to reach a certain point however, some could have been barely melted while eithers could have been almost gone. Unless you are a structural engineer you have absolutely no right to declare something as idiotic as "apparently America can suspend the laws of physics when they want." Sorry but get a degree in engineering or physics before you start making such idiotic remarks.

And no conspiracy theory websites are not legitimate sources of information on such things.
 
Hmm seems like some people have had a hit of the bong before they posted
 
They did make a shit load of money off this war, especially haloberton(spelling)
 
Neo101 said:
if ur interested go to letsroll911.org and scroll down to loose change parts 1 and 2. these have many interesting facts. that you wont see on Sky or Fox or CNN
Click to expand...

I dont read/watch fox/cnn/sky ...I do but with a grain of salt ..there's far more reliable sources outthere that arent pushing the "conspiracy agenda" that deal with REAL FACTS as opposed to speculative drivel ...again please post evidence and it's coresponding source ...shouldnt be too hard to do
 
Mecha said:
Every SECOND PHRASE is a CAPITALIZED PUNCH TO THE face.
This ends up MAKING YOU LOOK LIKE>>>>A CRAZYMAN.
Click to expand...

Maybe a FURRY stalker<<<CRAZYMAN??!?!
 
It doesnt claim to be a conspiracy theory website. Neither does David Ray Griffin who wrote an excellent book called the New Pearl Harbour. He's a highly respected theologian who started out as a skeptic (like myself).His book has raised some eye brows. By the way you dont need a degree to look up facts on buildings. They were also designed to suffer a hit from a Boeing 707.
Quote " they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." Senior structural engineer before the towers came down.

The fact that the jet fuel from the plane that hit the south tower vapuorized Outside the building after the initial hit.
I could go on and on and on. Over 40 facts that conflict with current teachings of science.
To dismiss such a crime so quickly without looking at ALL of the available evidence is silly.
 
Neo101 said:
It doesnt claim to be a conspiracy theory website. Neither does David Ray Griffin who wrote an excellent book called the New Pearl Harbour. He's a highly respected theologian who started out as a skeptic (like myself).His book has raised some eye brows. By the way you dont need a degree to look up facts on buildings. They were also designed to suffer a hit from a Boeing 707.
Quote " they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." Senior structural engineer before the towers came down.

The fact that the jet fuel from the plane that hit the south tower vapuorized Outside the building after the initial hit.
I could go on and on and on. Over 40 facts that conflict with current teachings of science.
To dismiss such a crime so quickly without looking at ALL of the available evidence is silly.
Click to expand...
No I don't need a degree to look up facts:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001304.html

Also start posting some sources, like where did you learn that fuel vaporized outside the building? How the hell could that happen? Its liquid, its flammable, and the plane went pretty deep into the building and created a lot of heat, how on earth could it not ignite?

Finally no one has answered the question yet, if this was a planned attack by the US government then why please tell me havn't they done it again? Support for Bush is at an all time low, Iraq has gone hay-wire, the rest of the world is really against the US right now. So please tell me if they had the will, the logistics, the ability to keep it secret, then why havn't they done it again? They have every reason to do it right now. Heck with the sheer number of people that have examined the debris don't you think at least someone would have let it out that extra explosions occured to hasten the buildings collapse?
 
well the fact that you can SEE most of it vapourising outside the building because it mainly only hits outside. and the fact that Jet fuel burns at a much lower degree level then needed to burn all of the large steel core that ran right to the top and down to the basement. Its a central steel shaft thats fortified heavily. If the buildings eventually began to collapse becase of fire (which would not have happened anyway because no other building in history of steel structure has fallen because of fire the building would have collapsed slowly piece by piece and much of the rest of this large core would have been left standing. it was almost convienient that each joint broke in the exact same place and were left at the exact same length as each other to be quickly shifted away. Read up on the immenseness of the steel core. from actual WTC plans no the 9/11 commision report which gives the wrong diagram.
 
look all im saying is look at some of the other facts. and you mite realise that all isnt what it seems.
 
Neo101 said:
well the fact that you can SEE most of it vapourising outside the building because it mainly only hits outside.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Both planes went right into the building from every video I have seen, any explosion I have seen on the outside was no where near large enough to be anywhere near all the fuel that was on board.

and the fact that Jet fuel burns at a much lower degree level then needed to burn all of the large steel core that ran right to the top and down to the basement.
Click to expand...
Now where did this little bit of information come from? Since when is a highly flammable substance not capable of burning hot enough to melt or at least weaken steel?

"However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections."
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Its a central steel shaft thats fortified heavily. If the buildings eventually began to collapse becase of fire (which would not have happened anyway because no other building in history of steel structure has fallen because of fire the building would have collapsed slowly piece by piece and much of the rest of this large core would have been left standing. it was almost convienient that each joint broke in the exact same place and were left at the exact same length as each other to be quickly shifted away.
Click to expand...
"When the planes struck on September 11, they took out between 31 and 36 of the 59 columns that ran across the face of One WTC and between 27 and 32 columns of the 59 girding Two WTC. Remarkably, neither building collapsed immediately, which experts attribute to the sheer size of the buildings and to the exterior columns' being placed very close together. But ultimately the buildings did suffer a progressive collapse--the domino effect that occurs when one or more support structures fail, causing one floor to fall into the next."
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001304.html

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground."
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Also yes the buildings were designed to take a plane impact, however the planes hit at approx 500 m/h which is far faster than the intended design of being able to take a plane travelling at landing speed.
 
Does everybody forget the first world trade center bombing? Was that like... a ploy by the united states government too? They obviously had a fixation with the buildings, and came back to try to finish the job, and succeeded.

Edit: NM... just not gonna bother with this BS.
 
no i believe extremists did try to bring it down in 93... good way for the government to use as a smokescreen for the second attack
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Charlie Sheen(Actor) questions the offical 9/11 story
2
Replies
77
Views
9K
K e r b e r o s
K e r b e r o s
Back
Top