want sources? I give you #@% sources!

[Atomic_Piggy]

Where exactly are you getting the above info (the stuff in the quote box) from? You have provided no evidence, as until you post a source, you are making it up as far as I am concerned.

 

[W4d5Y]

First, there is enough sites that deal with this stuff, you gotta ask them.
Second, what info are you exactely refering to?
If you want sources that verify these accounts, or my "claims" as you might call them, then GOOGLE THEM, BUCKHEAD!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

First, there is enough sites that deal with this stuff, you gotta ask them.

No, you are the one trying to prove those points, why the hell should I waste my time looking up crackpot theories that have been disproved time and time again?

Second, what info are you exactely refering to?

Uh, the stuff in the quotebox. Like I said.

If you want sources that verify these accounts, or my "claims" as you might call them, then GOOGLE THEM, BUCKHEAD!

See my first point. It is up to you to verify your claims.

 

[Solaris]

Ban this ****ing tool he has no concept of what it means to be reasonable.

 

[.Wolf.]

Spoiler

i totally agree though.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Spoiler

Uh...

 

[W4d5Y]

http://www.abudis.net/flight93.html <there is some stuff compiled, for example the witness testimony about the mystery plane
www.pilotsfor911truth.org

2 Russian air to air missiles brought down a Korean 747 in 1983. That aircraft had cockpit voice recordings by the crew for two more minutes after the sound of the first explosion was heard. This verifies that a 747 (which is larger than Flight 93, a 757) would not be destroyed in the air when struck by a Russian air to air missile.

http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_ke007.htm

Someone close to me was involved in the improvements of air to air missiles after Vietnam war and various weapon systems during the cold war (primarily on the target tracking part and not explosive part) but he does not believe any air to air missile has the ability to blow a 757 to pieces. The mission of the missile is not to destroy the airplane, but to simply render it out of service by destroying its target's power plant or disrupt its flight. This way, the missile can be agile and fast. If missile was fired it would simply hit one of the two engines on 757. But given the size of the aircraft, it would remain in flight for a short period of time.

that is a mail the author of this site alleges to have received:
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_shoot_down.html

I think it is vital one compare the final flight height of ka 007 to ua 93, in relation to the respective time they stayed up in the air, while we have determine wether we take the five minute period given by seismographic data or the nine minute period given by the congressional comission.
(picture that the 911 explosion call from 93 was done at 9:58)


searching...

about the mystery plane, again, you can look the data up, flight 93 sites should cover the 93 mystery plane,
flight 77 witness accounts also cover the c-130,
I think the e4-b was reported in the media, remember?
"just ten minutes ago there was a white plane up in the sky over washington. Now you don't have any planes in that area, this is restricted airspace, no reason to believe there should be anything there, but the secret service was very concerned, pointing up at the sky."
dunno which station that quote is from, however, I remember there was a shot from a documentary where the plane's shape was clearly visible, and the plane that would closest match its shape would be an e-3b.
Also known as The flying pentagon.
I think it was up in the air by that time because of the global guardian wargame, which usually occurs anualy, however 2001 was the only year in which they had this wargame running in september.

Anyway, it is actually illegal that this plane was over washington at that point, both because of the airspace restriction and the order to ground planes.


Sorry, I can't do any research or look for sources know because I have to obide...chronical restrictions.

Please, I beg you, check the data yourself, and tell me wether that matches or wether you have some debunking for that. Bye.
I just don't have fecken time to do any research now, I get a whole lot of problems otherwise.

 

[Solaris]

???

No-one at any point has said the plane was shot down. Why are you telling us it wasn't?

Are you, in all truth, 12 years old?

 

[Absinthe]

We all know that flooding post after post of assorted junk one's collected is convincing.

At least try to organize your posts to a reasonable amount.

 

[-Psy-]

It was Jesus I tell ya. You think he looks so innocent but you haven't seen him on a Saturday night down at the Holey Gayle.

 

[W4d5Y]

Concerning my age, no, I am 16 years old and have an iq of "something above 130" (that's something a test I did blurted out), but I reckon you will resume with assaulting me concerning how I could be so stupid to question the government's official version of 9/11 while being 16 years old.

And sorry if all of this....nutjob crap? is unorganized and lacks any kind of structure, there's just too much on my mind.

 

[Nemesis6]

W4, the nutjob crap you refer to doesn't get anymore organized than as you have presented it. That is the problem and the burden of proof: Conspiracy theorists like to think that they're all working towards finding the "truth", but the fact that there are so many websites offering "truth" on 9/11 is proof that they're all bullshit and that there is no definitive alternative "truth" on what happened 9/11. Some believe that the planes were actually remote controlled drones, and some ****ing assholes believe that the people on the planes are most likely alive today.

Disclaimer before I say this: I'm only 19.

What I'm gonna say: You're only 16. How the heck can you possibly know more about this than scientists who are experts in these kinds of things, people who have spent most of their careers building buildings, and firefighters participating in the extinction of fire therein, or airplane experts? You do not have proper credentials to challenge anything they say, and even the people who do come up with anything are discredited because even if people actually look at what they have to present, we all know what happened and no amount of websites containg 911X.com (X being Truth, congress, whatever words sounds noble) is gonna change that. And the ironic thing is: These people stick to the same crap. In essence, they're not doing research, they're just regurgitating bullshit spewed by others, much like you are. Repeating something someone else told you doesn't make you any more right than other people, it just means you're too weak-minded to do any research for yourself. And, of course, if you were, that would pretty much make you an asshole.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Just close this thread. W4d5Y clearly doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, and is trying to argue points that have been flattened time and time again.

 

[W4d5Y]

Look, I didn't believe they actually had such a big complicity in the whole thing to be able to determine where the target was and place bombs in it, for the bigger bodycount and psychological effect.
That simply was too farfetched.
But then, you start wondering, what are all these accounts of explosions?
Sure, some of them are debris and jumpers crashing onto the streets, but what about those inside the buildings?
We know there were definite explosive events, and the news even covered that the police thought they had discovered a suspicious vehicle which could have a connection to possible "secondary devices".

A little thought: If they were all explainable, then why don't such events occure more often?
Figure that with any high-rise fire, accounts of possible bombs and a theoretical terrorist attack should surface in the news. But do you remember such a time?
It oddly appears as if the world trade center somehow was the only high-rise on the planet that would feature such explosions.

On that day, not only did quite a few people believe this looked "like" a controlled demolition, but also did experts and the authorities assume that there was charges set as the "coup de gras" to bring the buildings down...

oh, a nice site on 9/11 truth, debunking and nonsense/disinformation:
http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html
probably worth checking out.
It also flames scholars for truth, if that pleases you.

a serious approach at the suggestion that the government knowingly failed to take action against the looming danger:
http://punchandbrodie.com/leo/911.php
really worth reading.

Oh by the way, I just read the wtc 7 entry on debunking 911...
yeah, definitely well researched.
Finally somebody offers some info about the location of the fuel depots...
They definitely would have cought fire, but still I can't comprehend my "8th grade physics", meaning why the 80 collumns only slightly sagged into the location of the most damaged collumns, those located near the crack on the fassade facing ground zero
but instead all collapsed rather instantly.
So I still doubt a fuel explosion could be substitutionary to a proper demolition charge, because fuel explodes much less aggressive than actual explosive agents.
It's the hollywood-style kind of explosion. The exothermic reaction is not that forceful due to the lack of a shockwave since fuel isn't designed to rapidly explode if incinerated. The overall destruction has to be based on the amount of oil, too.

And still, since I doubt that fuel alone could initiate the failure of any of the collumns, once the collapse, which was initiated at one of the lower stories (still consistent with the generators' locations though), started off, why would there only be a small difference in the timing of the collapse of the collumns that were most damaged and those further off that zone?
This is evident by the crink during the collapse.
Now that means the building didn't collapse perfectly symmetrical, but, logically, started off with a structural failure at the most heavily damaged areas.

However, why didn't the outer collumns and walls visibly sag into their direction?
Instead, they remained lined up parallel, instead of being actually pulled inwards.




My two cents, which probably will turn out wrong, but anyway, yes, I read the firemens' quotes about how they feared the building might collapse and how many engines they had dispatched in that area.
But that kinda confuses me, because there were statements that there was "no firefighting at building 7." by various officials.

That's something the conspiracy theorists grab onto because of silverstein's statement, which supposedly refered to the withdrawal of firefighters in that building and/or area.

Anyway, the whole building 7 matter is quite funny because it is both consistent with a natural collapse as it is consistent with a controlled demolition.

I guess I'll have to have a look at all of the statements regarding 7 again, just to determine wether they had firefighters in the area, or wether they just generally had firefighters pulled out of the vincinity of that building.


Anyway, here some really funny stuff:
http://liberalblogging.blogspot.com/2007/09/911-first-responder-heard-wtc-7.html

That's a story covered on that blog, I just googled for the story and chose the link for the next page covering that story that wasn't inforwars or prisonplanet, since you guys apparently hate anybody who can predict a terrorist plot two months in advance.


Okay, so, back to 1 and 2, I thought the demolitions were farfetched, however, I was most extremely intrigued and both skeptic about various accounts of odd explosive events. And the official hypothesis about secondary devices. And other possible physical paradoxons about its fires and its collapse.

Oh yeah, something else that really shocked me was the conclusion of a 72-hour long meeting of avionic professionals, which was that the planes couldn't have been piloted by those about whom the 9/11 comission told us did.

That is kinda difficult to imagine, because that would imply that all the phone-calls were in fact somehow faked, or at least don't add up with that conclusion.

But plausible or not, it has to be concidered a possibility.
However, I still have to read the whole article posted about that story that I cought up somewhere, dunno where exactely however. *sigh* What would we do without google...



//edit:
Some IMPORTANT ten things we learned in 2004!
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/ten-things-we-learned-in-2004-about.html

 

[Solaris]

Look I don't give a shit what your blogs say. I'm not going to read a single link you post till you construct a reasonable and well sourced argument that is coherent and makes clear points and claims.

 

[99.vikram]

......

Everything you said boils down to "these facts about 9/11 are debatable!"

But what's the "truth" that you're trying to make us see? Because if you don't have a good theory of your own, there's nothing to debate here.

 

[W4d5Y]

Okay, my own thoughts?
I suspect it is possible that the (other three) planes, except united 93 of course, on 9/11 could have been intercepted.
Because I am too lazy to explain that myself, I give you the timeline:

While Flights 11 and 175 were in the air, two F-15s were circling in a 150-mile chunk of air space off the coast of Long Island as ordered. Pilot Major Daniel Nash reported seeing a plume of smoke over Manhattan even though he was 70 miles away, and couldn't recall being told about the North Tower strike. After the second Tower was hit at 9:03, the pilots were ordered to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they did that for the next four hours. 4

At 8:52 AM two F-15s from the 102nd Fighter Wing of Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts were scrambled and airborne. These were the first jets scrambled, 38 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked. But the pilots were not informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the WTC nor that Flight 175 had turned and was heading straight toward New York City. According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Although the F-15s had enough time to reach the World Trade Center, simple calculations using NORAD's own numbers reveal that the fighters were flying at only 24% of their top speeds.

At 9 AM the Pentagon moved its alert status up one notch from normal to Alpha. It stayed at Alpha until after the Pentagon strike.

A few minutes after 9:03, according to the official story, the Secret Service called Andrews Air Force Base, located 11 miles southeast of the Pentagon, with instructions to get some F-16s armed and ready to fly. Missiles were still being loaded onto the F-16's when the Pentagon was hit over half an hour later. 5

At 9:09, NORAD ordered Langley Air Force Base, in Hampden, Virginia, to put F-16s on battle stations alert. The order to scramble was not given until around 9:25. 6 At 9:30, the two and possibly three F-16s were finally airborne and en route to the Pentagon. 7 They were armed with Sidewinder missiles and authorized to shoot down civilian aircraft. At 9:49 the F-16s reached the Pentagon, around 15 minutes after the Pentagon strike. Simple calculations reveal that the F-16s could have reached the Pentagon before the assault, but also flew at an average of 24% of their top speeds.

At 10:01 AM the command center in Rome, N.Y., prompted by communications from the FAA, ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio, to scramble F-16 fighters. 8 Unlike many other bases, Swanton had no fighters on stand-by alert status. Yet it managed to put jets in the air 16 minutes later.

Many more people than myself believe (half of new york, about 70% of america, half of the victims' families, many more names than those that I can name here are listed HERE: http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#welz)
that under normal circumstances, without procedure obstructions by third parties,
the world trade towers would still stand, thousands of people at civil liberties wouldn't have been killed off and the hijackers maybe never would have gotten to even board the planes.


about http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#welz, since you wish that I explain my very own opinion here on myself (is this a court hearing or why am I being treated like that?) while detesting to check out some seriously interesting pages, I will just list the statistics of http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#welz
here:
members are
110 Government employees
240 Engineers and Architects
60 Pilots and Aviation Professionals
160 Professors
190 9/11 Survivors and its victims' families
100 People from Entertainment and Media


Guess what? They're all crackpot paranoids!
But you knew it all along, didn't you?
Suuuure you did! Come on, big boy, give me your anti-nutjob-crackpot-paranoid-conspiracy-nut-smile!

Now you can go to all these people and show it to them!
How much better than them you know!
How desasterously wrong they are to even dare question the official version of how the events of 9/11 unfolded!


Okay, now my two cents...
(as you already know) I basically share the same idea as most:
The government actively interfered with the prevention of the looming attacks,
being the one who profited from it most and allowing the attacks to take place,
just like the others times history showed us, that governments will do anything to enforce what they think is best for their people, or themselves.

Operation Northwoods,
Reichstagsbrand,
Tonking incident,
Pearl Harbour.

If you should concider having a look at the aerospace defense status on that day, that should be pretty interesting.

The wargames,
the missing fighters,
the lies about the trackability of the hijacked planes,
Mineta's testimony before congress and Cheney's job on 9/11,
The flight recorders.


And out of them all, the damnest darn thing still is "the orders".
What were they?
The orders which Cheney confirmed to be still standing by the time he was informed "the plane" was approaching the pentagon.

Was it about shooting it down?
Then why would the guy who had informed him about "the plane" being "ten miles out"
ask him wether he wanted to shoot the plane down or not?

Picture yourself in the presidential emergency bunker.

You're walking up to the vice-president of the united states to report there's a plane coming in and is only ten miles off its target, which presumably is washington and maybe the white house in specific, which would be the building you're currently located in.
Now assuming the orders were to shoot that plane down, why would you be fcuking asking him wether he might reconcider that order if you know there's a plane that could come right after you???

And if it was the order, why would they have to scramble jets from langley, virginia if there was three f-16s located in washington, just 13 miles off the pentagon, which is evident by a page from a governmental site, which is viewable in an internet-archive.


About the world trade center: If fires, 600? degrees hot, could kick off a collapse of the top of the respective tower, then why does the collapse ignore Newton's laws??!

Figure: The section of the towers that came down was everything above the 77th floor in the south and above the 93rd floor in the north tower.
How could these collapsing sections, which were only 17 and 33 storeys of a total of 110 stories cause the complete collapse of the building if the concrete in the towers was pulverized?

Why this is so important is because by the pulverization, we see that the tower basically desintegrated itself, turning everything into dust that isn't necessarily part of the trusses or collumn sections.

This is explained by newton's laws, because and object, which lives out a force on another object suffers just as much force as the other one does.

Means, if you hit somebody on the head, your fist will expirience as much energy as your opponents head does.

Now, because of that I assume, there was much energy taken from the actual collapse, because not only was the kinetic energy of the falling debris, that allegedly toppled the rest of the building below it, reduced since we have to subtract the kinetic energy posed by the concrete, which wasn't available since it immediately pulverized,

BUT! also a lot of physical work that was converted in the collapse was consumed in the pulverization of the concrete.


So, how could it be enough energy was brought up to destroy the complete tower?


After all, basically it wasn't really the tower that was collapsing, but it only horizontal trusses (the six core collumns can't be really taking into account since they were positioned vertical, whereby they couldn't unleash the biggest energy during a collapse)

Now, you'll have to see not how much the initial section of the building that collapsed weighted but how much the structural steel components in that section weighted.

Also, I believe at least a third of the building should have survived the collapse, because at some point the collapse would be halted by the reduced amount of energy and the friction the lower tower sections posed against the falling metal beams.

 

[Solaris]

Okay, my own thoughts?
I suspect it is possible that the (other three) planes, except united 93 of course, on 9/11 could have been intercepted.
Because I am too lazy to explain that myself, I give you the timeline:

No source, so fail. Good start.

Many more people than myself believe (half of new york, about 70% of america, half of the victims' families, many more names than those that I can name here are listed HERE: http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#welz)
that under normal circumstances, without procedure obstructions by third parties,
the world trade towers would still stand, thousands of people at civil liberties wouldn't have been killed off and the hijackers maybe never would have gotten to even board the planes.

That adds no credence to the truthfulness of your claims. I don't give a **** how many people subscribe to this retarded idea, it's still wrong until proven otherwise.

about http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#welz, since you wish that I explain my very own opinion here on myself (is this a court hearing or why am I being treated like that?) while detesting to check out some seriously interesting pages, I will just list the statistics of http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#welz
here:
members are
110 Government employees
240 Engineers and Architects
60 Pilots and Aviation Professionals
160 Professors
190 9/11 Survivors and its victims' families
100 People from Entertainment and Media

I don't care, I want reasoned debate not a list of people.

Guess what? They're all crackpot paranoids!
But you knew it all along, didn't you?
Suuuure you did! Come on, big boy, give me your anti-nutjob-crackpot-paranoid-conspiracy-nut-smile!

Just gtfo and stop writing like a ****tard. There's absolutely no chance of sensible debate when you troll like that.

Now you can go to all these people and show it to them!
How much better than them you know!
How desasterously wrong they are to even dare question the official version of how the events of 9/11 unfolded!

Rhetoric bullshit.

Operation Northwoods,
Reichstagsbrand,
Tonking incident,
Pearl Harbour.

Mc donalds
Chicken con carni
Waterworld

If you should concider having a look at the aerospace defense status on that day, that should be pretty interesting.

I'd rather not.

The wargames,
the missing fighters,
the lies about the trackability of the hijacked planes,
Mineta's testimony before congress and Cheney's job on 9/11,
The flight recorders.

1
2
3
4
abcdefg
now I can count to 3

And out of them all, the damnest darn thing still is "the orders".
What were they?
The orders which Cheney confirmed to be still standing by the time he was informed "the plane" was approaching the pentagon.

??? Your assuming people have a ****ing clue what you are on about. We don't.

Was it about shooting it down?
Then why would the guy who had informed him about "the plane" being "ten miles out"
ask him wether he wanted to shoot the plane down or not?

Shooting what down?
Stop putting things in quotation marks with no source or saying who said it "****tard"

Picture yourself in the presidential emergency bunker.


You're walking up to the vice-president of the united states to report there's a plane coming in and is only ten miles off its target, which presumably is washington and maybe the white house in specific, which would be the building you're currently located in.
Now assuming the orders were to shoot that plane down, why would you be fcuking asking him wether he might reconcider that order if you know there's a plane that could come right after you???

And if it was the order, why would they have to scramble jets from langley, virginia if there was three f-16s located in washington, just 13 miles off the pentagon, which is evident by a page from a governmental site, which is viewable in an internet-archive.

Then ****ing show us this, don't just say a source exists.

About the world trade center: If fires, 600? degrees hot, could kick off a collapse of the top of the respective tower, then why does the collapse ignore Newton's laws??!

The don't. You don't know shit about Newtons laws.

Figure: The section of the towers that came down was everything above the 77th floor in the south and above the 93rd floor in the north tower.
How could these collapsing sections, which were only 17 and 33 storeys of a total of 110 stories cause the complete collapse of the building if the concrete in the towers was pulverized?

Gremlins.

Why this is so important is because by the pulverization, we see that the tower basically desintegrated itself, turning everything into dust that isn't necessarily part of the trusses or collumn sections.

This is explained by newton's laws, because and object, which lives out a force on another object suffers just as much force as the other one does.

Means, if you hit somebody on the head, your fist will expirience as much energy as your opponents head does.

You don't have a ****ing clue what you are talking about.

What law, Newton discovered alot of them. Stop the psuedo science bullshit

Now, because of that I assume, there was much energy taken from the actual collapse, because not only was the kinetic energy of the falling debris, that allegedly toppled the rest of the building below it, reduced since we have to subtract the kinetic energy posed by the concrete, which wasn't available since it immediately pulverized,

BUT! also a lot of physical work that was converted in the collapse was consumed in the pulverization of the concrete.

face palm

So, how could it be enough energy was brought up to destroy the complete tower?

Someone obviously divided by 0

ollapsing, but it only horizontal trusses (the six core collumns can't be really taking into account since they were positioned vertical, whereby they couldn't unleash the biggest energy during a collapse)

After all, basically it wasn't really the tower that was c
Now, you'll have to see not how much the initial section of the building that collapsed weighted but how much the structural steel components in that section weighted.

Also, I believe at least a third of the building should have survived the collapse, because at some point the collapse would be halted by the reduced amount of energy and the friction the lower tower sections posed against the falling metal beams.

This isn't even worth trying.

 

[$kelet0r]

It's a shame you can't post pics in this section because I wanted to post my beloved tin foil hat picture
W4d5Y of Munich, Bavaria, Germany. There are others who are convinced they know the truth and want everyone else to know how righteous they are. They're known as Mormons. Religious mania is irrational escapism, and that is what this is - the babbling about the 'truth' according to someone else.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Stuff

Exactly.

 

[golden_fang]

Solaris don't even bother anymore man..it's just a hassle with people like that.

 

[99.vikram]

About the world trade center: If fires, 600? degrees hot, could kick off a collapse of the top of the respective tower, then why does the collapse ignore Newton's laws??!

Newton's laws are inaccurate. Use the theory of General Relativity that accounts for the curvature of space-time and the possibility of curled up higher dimensions smaller than Planck's length, and it immediately makes sense. In addition, the vibration of the plane's left wing must have set up resonant air vibrations that caused harmonic oscillations in the trusses.
IT ALL FITS!!!!!111!1!

/SARCASM

 

[simonjedi]

wait if your from germany, why the hell do you care?

 

[W4d5Y]

I do care because I realize that totalitarianism is not constricted to the USof A, Canada or england (france, if you like).

It is a normal occurance that those who have power will eventually try to undermine democracy, democratic rights, respective constitutions and take away our civil rights only to solidify their basis of power.

It has been like that for ages.
Think of Hermann G?ring:

"Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

That should put it straight.

It requires to create fear and hystery among the people to incite a common, fashistoid opinion that sweeps the masses.


Just a little gimmick:
a poem my great grand-father did, as far as I know, this is the version closest to the original:

First they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist

Next they came for the Catholics
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Catholic

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

All these rules of politics and my desire to protect ourselves from a possible looming fashist police-state empire turn me into something probably more radical than people I know of.

I look at 9/11, at 7/7, at our german interior ministre, our own anti-"terror" politics (imagine, there's more finds for "terror" on google than there is for "terrorism". Doesn't this indicate something?) and think "holy shit, we're riding straight into their arms!"


"They" are members of whatever conspiracy might be taking place.
Name your choice, freemasons and especially illuminati are not the real threat, it is such groups like the bohemian grove and the bilderberger group, skull&bones, the federal reserve, council of foreign relations.

Anything that is a tool or an origin for all of this fashism going on right now.

Benjamin Israeli once stated, that the common believe that politicians were all different kinds of people, was false.
Politicians are always they same, they allow themselves to be corrupted, to play into the hands of profit-interests, to only care for themselves and their friends and not the people who seek their protection.

Such "Playground-style" organizations like the bohemian grove especially are a danger to our respective motherland's souveregnity as a whole mass of politicians are more and more assimilated to a general idea, a general sense of identification,
developing bonds between members of different governments, more and more equaling one country to another, one country's leaders playing into the hands of another's leaders.

Sheesh, can you imagine how baffled I was when I learned that Helmut Schmidt, a former Chancellor of germany, suggested the g8 meetings be held under exception of the public in an "fireplace-environment".

Sounds like "leave the mighty people alone, they're trying to do their anti-democratic work, trying to kill off your freedoms, and don't want to be disturbed by news-coverage of their private sessions."

Guess why I think Schmidt is a facken nazi and fashist?
He is in fact a member of the trilateral comission, the council of foreign relations AND had attended Bilderberger meetings.
Just like Bill Clinton.
And his beloved wife.

Just imagine how many wealthy AND powerful people are sitting there!?

Take the bohemian grove, they even have roots to a nazi death cult, there's a huuuuge list of people who were in place of very important positions and had access to this place which only 200 exclusively male persons per year have access to.

* George W. Bush
* Dick Cheney
* Donald Rumsfeld
* Karl Rove
* George Herbert Walker Bush
* Bill Clinton
* Ronald Reagan
* Jimmy Carter (this guy swore he'd never insult anybody who claims to have seen a flying saucer because he himself had seen one)
* Gerald Ford
* Richard Nixon
* Dwight D. Eisenhower (too bad, after all it was him who warned us about "unwarranted influence, wether sought or unsought" by the military industrial complex)
* Harry Truman
* Herbert Hoover
* Calvin Coolidge
* William Howard Taft
* Theodore Roosevelt
* Jeb Bush (lol dude this guy resigned from a security company which had a contract on the world trade center on september the 10th, 2001)
* Henry Kissinger
* George Shultz
* Earl Warren
* Robert Kennedy (duh, let's not talk about rockefeller)
* David Rockefeller
* David Rockefeller, Jr.
* Nelson Rockefeller
* James Wolfensohn
* Alan Greenspan (yay, didn't his interest rates threaten the value of the US dollar?)
* Paul Volcker
* Colin Powell
* Jack Welch
* David Packard
* Riley P. Bechtel (Hmm, not much to say here, only that bechtel is military contractor as far as I know)
* Henry Ford II
* Prince Philip
* John Major
* Helmut Schmidt (<german fashist and world-dominance-lover!)
* Lee Kuan Yew
* James A. Baker III
* Newt Gingrich
* Arnold Schwarzenegger (also a fashist. War-mongering austrian.)
* Bob Novak
* Malcolm Forbes
* David S. Broder
* Neil Armstrong (gosh, remember how his buddy Buzz Aldrin talked about ufo expiriences aboard appollo 11?)
* Mark Twain (wtf)
* Francis Ford Coppola (wtf)
* Charlton Heston
* Clint Eastwood (WTF, who's next? Chuck Norris??)
* Walter Cronkite
* Erling Finch Week (thank god, the list is over.)





Politicians are corrupted with power because they are human and succumb to the human nature to be selfish;
you don't really believe nobody's gonna try to gradually undermine civil liberties and democracy?
Waita sec, just look at our world today!

George Bush has already signed enough (partly classfied) executive orders (and just signed the military comission act (I think it was called like that) this year) to take power once a "catastrophic emergency" occurs.


Remember how the congress would pass the patriot act, without reading it, only thirteen days after 9/11, but how could they have possibly cared to read it in such a situation, while the complete document was a hundred pages long?



other stuff:

No source, so fail. Good start.

Shooting what down?
Stop putting things in quotation marks with no source or saying who said it "****tard"

I just gave you one a few posts away, but why are you complaining I would make it all up if you refuse to check facts that I even give you the url for?

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

official source: http://www.911commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

definitly tin-foil-hat free.

Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line.

source: wikipedia

Huh? Didn't I assume this all along? Or why are you assuming I know "shit about newton's laws" *uses quotation mark*

Gremlins.

elves.

You don't have a ****ing clue what you are talking about.

What law, Newton discovered alot of them. Stop the psuedo science bullshit

I was referring to his third law of mechanics in special.

This isn't even worth trying.

you cannot rule something out, unless you discount it by scientific standards.

So, how could it be enough energy was brought up to destroy the complete tower?

Someone obviously divided by 0

okay, let's check it out again:

-energy was consumed to throw steel beams outwards of the towers
-potential kinetic energy was lost because the weight of concrete and interior environment was lost since
-it all was vaporized, which again energy was necessary for to be accomplished
-while of course the process of pulveriazation of concrete surely does slow you down
-the tower poses friction, even though the collapse only took 11 seconds, yet we can see it did because otherwise steel beams wouldn' have fallen outwards of the collapsing structure but simply would have went straight down







So I care because I have reason to be bothered. It's not as if september the eleventh didn't affect our current global and domestic political situation, did it?

No matter wether the american government carried it all out themselves, wether they obstructed standard intelligence counter-measures against terrorism, or wether they actually didn't know anything at all, which is more, more, more than unlikely.

Concider how fast they were able to track all of the hijackers down and pinpoint their mastermind Osama Bin Laden.
It was on the day of 9/11 itself.

They somehow managed to find a qu'raan and a flight manual in the trunk of one of the rented cars the hijackers used, while it is unimaginable how such terrorists could be so naive to leave such a huge paper trail behind.

Like this:

Mohamed Atta, one of the key organizers among the 19 hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, left behind a five-page handwritten document in Arabic that includes Islamic prayers, instructions for a last night of life and practical reminders to bring "knives, your will, IDs, your passport" and, finally, "to make sure that nobody is following you."

FBI investigators, who found the writings in Atta's luggage, which did not make it onto his flight, are not sure of the author's identity -- whether it was Atta, another hijacker or someone else.

They simply were lucky that day and fortunately/ just happened to find all this stuff, which was found just in time to turn half of the world into rabid islamophobes, relieving our minds of all common sense, steering us straight into war after war, for oil and gaspipelines, if nothing else to make money out of was available.

 

[kirovman]

Well done, you've managed to combine all the conspiracy theories of the past 2000 years into one.

http://www.jacobsm.com/grassy.gif

 

[Absinthe]

This has plunged into the deep end of lunacy.

 

[Raziaar]

Well done, you've managed to combine all the conspiracy theories of the past 2000 years into one.

I laughed.

 

[Solaris]

What the **** is this, really this is a ****ing joke it makes me laugh and then cry:

-energy was consumed to throw steel beams outwards of the towers
-potential kinetic energy was lost because the weight of concrete and interior environment was lost since
-it all was vaporized, which again energy was necessary for to be accomplished
-while of course the process of pulveriazation of concrete surely does slow you down
-the tower poses friction, even though the collapse only took 11 seconds, yet we can see it did because otherwise steel beams wouldn' have fallen outwards of the collapsing structure but simply would have went straight down

You are listing the "forces" that would have stopped the tower falling, so ****ing what. Gravity was obviously greater. Using ****ing words like kinetic energy like that is bullshit. Get in a proper physics class, say that to your teacher, you will be laughed out of the room.

 

[Mr Stabby]

This website explains everything http://truthism.com/

 

[kirovman]

Yes, gravity is a September 11th conspiracy.

If there weren't bombs in the towers, they would have fallen upwards into the sky.

 

[Glirk Dient]

This can't be for real. I seriously hope wadsy isn't this dumb. Seriously no one can believe half that crap and say it with a straight face. Honestly anyone with any level of education is smart enough to see past the idiotic conspiracy theories. Seriously, how can anyone be so dumb.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Bullshit, most of which is pulled out of my ass

Hahahahhahahashahhahaah...

You're not funny.

 

[W4d5Y]

Look, potential energy equals m*g*h (as for our german physics classes),
kinetic energy was .5m*v^2,

meaning the towers's debris could unleash as much physical work as would be required to get the 100,000 tons of concrete and steel and what else was brought up to erect a 110-storey skyscraper.

Kinetic energy equals half the mass of an object multiplied by its speed squared.

If you drive twice as fast with your car, the final collapse will result four times worse.



See, what surprised me was the idea that a seventeen storey high block of steel and concrete could penetrate the whole tower.

As for the concrete, I meant that part of the potential energy from the repectively 20 and 30 storey large sections of the towers that collapsed was consumed for turning about every piece of concrete that encountered the *initial* cascade's way,
now even if more and more steal beams were set loose and more potential energy was contineously used, just as contineously was a percentage of that energy necessary to turn a total of a few ****en thousand tons of concrete into dust.

You can't compare the collapsing sections to a huge solid object, that would go straight through the whole tower, no, that section actually (contineously growing section) that would collapse would even desintegrate its own concrete components.

There's a whole lot of mass that would add to kinetic energy that was lost there.

 

[99.vikram]

POTENTIAL KINETIC ENERGY

Does not compute.

EDIT: So you meant mechanical energy :|

It's still a worthless point, because you haven't actually got any hard numbers to work with.

 

[W4d5Y]

We call it potential in german, because it sounds cool there.

Not any hard numbers, although you must agree the typical simulations we see of the pancake collapse, trusses failing and thereby whole concrete floors banging on another are false, because these concrete floors at some point simply vanish.

And if the trusses fail, it means we don't have this huge object rushing down obliterating everything in its path but rather different kinds of energy vectors, because the trusses are loose and most likely not attached to one another anymore.

 

[Nemesis6]

Have a look at this simulation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

 

[W4d5Y]

"We got a witness that said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7 and 8, that's tower two."
-some dude talking onto a walkie-talkie, couldn't yet find the guy who said this
(was an excerpt from the video "9/11 coiincidences, I think that was, just thought I should mention this here)


The simulation sure does show how the plane probably penetrated the core collumns, however, it neither shows the collapse mechanism of the tower northe damage done by the fire which would have been necessary to further weaken the core structure

//edit:
In this video clip, a firefighter states "this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"

Another firefighter, in the second floor of the stairwell of one of the Twin Towers, said that described the wind was "fierce" and almost lifted his body, and he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off.

And a third firefighter described a "rush of air going up" when he was between the first and second floors when the building began to fall.

sources: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.debris.up.the.stairs.wmv
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067003116X/greaterthingsboo/102-1285919-2410516
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067003116X/greaterthingsboo/102-1285919-2410516


other quotes (which I already made you aware of, hopefully):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk

 

[Nemesis6]

Please stop quoting 9/11 conspiracy blogs. They're not credible. In essence, some guy who allegedly said something is not proof.

 

[W4d5Y]

I quoted firemen. Does that count as conspiracy theory?
Well, you wish, because the term conspiracy theory is your excuse for not having to believe anything serious.

I gave you the frigging source.
What else do you want?
I can give you the source about the guy who was a security-worker in wtc 7 who said there had been an explosive event on the 6th floor of wtc 7 before either of the towers collapsed,
there's enough accounts of "weird flashes", I already showed you those, most of them are by firemen who were the ones closest to the towers and therefor had the best point of observation.
You have one account about a fireball errecting out of the basement as the tower collapsed from the top down.

Such an event on the ground floor couldn't have been caputured by camera, so don't tell me you should have seen something on tv.

Oh yes, did I tell you that firemen -are by nature- prone to outright lie?
Even though they are giving their 9/11 credentials to somebody?

 

[Solaris]

Please for the ****ing love of god someone get mechagodzilla to sort this ****wit out.