911 NWO, LOOSING YOUR LIBERTIES

[shtfmilitia]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=99F4B78962E14616

[Stainless]

In the Army I carried a clearance which allowed me to be privy to certain items and I can tell you the story here proposes that there were a great number of people involved in this operation and cover-up including the people that took care of flying the drones and the extermination of the passengers of the planes and the media shut-down etc. This would require the involvement of several hundred people of all levels and would therefore create an insurmaountable security risk to the operation. This level of cover-up could not be done. There would be one person, or more that would have leaked the operation by now. This is not a closed room conspiracy document between a few people proposing an operation, this is and all out operation of forces.

I can tell you from experience in these types of operations, 6 1/2 years later someone would have leaked, and probably even wrote a book on their experience. Major cover-up = major money. A military person making $30k to destroy his own country and kill its people will talk to the media for a $2mil book deal.

[ZombieHunter_EKY]

I honestly believe that it was a number of groups and people involved. The idea of a one world government really scares me. Ever read Orwell's 1984. Folks before it is over with it will become reality.

[NECROMONGER]

The muslims made the attack

The sheeple on the three planes that hit their targets made it easy (civies should never resist an attack)

The gov did every thing in there red tape power NOT to prevent it (they could use this for power)



The answer is not all but most of EVERYBODY had a part in 911.

[BamaGunner]

wanna see something messed up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxo_UntbYA&NR=1

Early test runs of a military plane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdm02MSbXQ8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVFbTYX-tY&NR=1

UFO?

[Ltlabner]

All of the consipricy arguments regarding 911 leave me cold. All of the alleged "facts" are easily shot-down and sometimes down right laughable. Besides, if you have Rosie on your side screaming about the melting temps of steel, it should be a big hint that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Hint: steel doesn't have to completely melt to lose it's structural strength, only heated. Especially when that steel is already under temendous load. Once a significant number of steel supports fail under load and heat the building is doomed. One floor fails to the next, to the next, to the next.....

But without getting into all the various claims, IMO you have to go with Occums Razor here over the convoluted, contrived and downright made up stuff requried to believe Bush pulled off an opp of that size.

[yugoshooter]

All of the consipricy arguments regarding 911 leave me cold. All of the alleged "facts" are easily shot-down and sometimes down right laughable. Besides, if you have Rosie on your side screaming about the melting temps of steel, it should be a big hint that you are on the wrong side of the argument.

Hint: steel doesn't have to completely melt to lose it's structural strength, only heated. Especially when that steel is already under temendous load. Once a significant number of steel supports fail under load and heat the building is doomed. One floor fails to the next, to the next, to the next.....

But without getting into all the various claims, IMO you have to go with Occums Razor here over the convoluted, contrived and downright made up stuff requried to believe Bush pulled off an opp of that size. What about building 7 it was a reinforced bunker that had very little fire but still fell at free fall speed straight down. I could see a building melting some beams a little and it falling over sideways but not strait down at free fall speed. Besides the fires were not hot enough to even effect the massive steel beams in any of those buildings. Then there is the fact that other steel beamed buildings have burnt for a week and never fell!

[Ltlabner]

What about building 7 it was a reinforced bunker that had very little fire but still fell at free fall speed straight down. I could see a building melting some beams a little and it falling over sideways but not strait down at free fall speed. Besides the fires were not hot enough to even effect the massive steel beams in any of those buildings. Then there is the fact that other steel beamed buildings have burnt for a week and never fell!

Take a building, any building, and pelt it with thousands of tons of debris falling from hundreds of feet in the air and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it will be structurally compromised and collapse.

The whole "the fires are not hot enough" argument is lame at best. Basic physics says that steel beams under load lose strength at a given rate even at modest temps (say 300F to 800F). That is, indeed, hot enough to effect the strength of the beams. Add in the effects of massive, massive, massive shock loads from the impact of the aircraft along with increased load on all the surrounding beams from the missing ones and you end up with structural failures. It's all rather basic.

Give me evidence of another building, built in the same manner as the WTC, hit by the same aircraft loaded to the same weights that burned for a week and never fell. Otherwise you can't compare any old building that had a fire to the WTC situation. It's logically flawed to do so since the variables are different.

I don't want to get into a tit for tat because if you make all of the leaps in logic needed to believe a consipricy of that size there's no logic I'm going to be able to employ to change your mind. I believe there's lots of conspiricies out there, so I'm not polyanna, but the 911 conspricies are so chocked full of holes it makes cheese cloth look like armor plate.

[yugoshooter]

What about building 7 it was a reinforced bunker that had very little fire but still fell at free fall speed straight down. I could see a building melting some beams a little and it falling over sideways but not strait down at free fall speed. Besides the fires were not hot enough to even effect the massive steel beams in any of those buildings. Then there is the fact that other steel beamed buildings have burnt for a week and never fell!but the 911 conspricies are so chocked full of holes it makes cheese cloth look like armor plate.

.Your right the offical story is full of holes and it stinks like cheese cloth.

[PyroUSC]

Take a building, any building, and pelt it with thousands of tons of debris falling from hundreds of feet in the air and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it will be structurally compromised and collapse.

The whole "the fires are not hot enough" argument is lame at best. Basic physics says that steel beams under load lose strength at a given rate even at modest temps (say 300F to 800F). That is, indeed, hot enough to effect the strength of the beams. Add in the effects of massive, massive, massive shock loads from the impact of the aircraft along with increased load on all the surrounding beams from the missing ones and you end up with structural failures. It's all rather basic.

Give me evidence of another building, built in the same manner as the WTC, hit by the same aircraft loaded to the same weights that burned for a week and never fell. Otherwise you can't compare any old building that had a fire to the WTC situation. It's logically flawed to do so since the variables are different.

I don't want to get into a tit for tat because if you make all of the leaps in logic needed to believe a consipricy of that size there's no logic I'm going to be able to employ to change your mind. I believe there's lots of conspiricies out there, so I'm not polyanna, but the 911 conspricies are so chocked full of holes it makes cheese cloth look like armor plate.


What about the steel in the lower portion of the building that was not subjected to heat? The massive core columns were vertical, and would have remained standing or would have toppled outward in great lengths causing massive collateral damage. Instead all the steel miraculously fell into a neat pile, in convenient lengths that could be easily loaded on trucks.

"Take a building, any building, and pelt it with thousands of tons of debris falling from hundreds of feet in the air and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it will be structurally compromised and collapse."

No. It wouldn't. That is a ridiculous statement. Not that this is an apples to apples comparison, but my house, built of 2x4's and plywood was hit by a massive oak tree, 3ft in diameter and 80 feet tall, that fell accross the middle of the house. The roof crumpled and one exterior wall was crushed, but the interior walls and ceiling joists held. The fallen tree was actually held up by the house. The house did not spontaneously collapse from the impact. A building like building 7 is made of many, many interconnected steel beams. If any of them were damaged by falling debris or fire, the load is transferred to the remaining, intact members and the building stands. A collapse like is seen in the video results from a simultaneous failure of all critical members. This is only seen in a controlled demolition using high explosives. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

[Ltlabner]

No. It wouldn't. That is a ridiculous statement. Not that this is an apples to apples comparison, but my house, built of 2x4's and plywood was hit by a massive oak tree, 3ft in diameter and 80 feet tall, that fell accross the middle of the house. The roof crumpled and one exterior wall was crushed, but the interior walls and ceiling joists held. The fallen tree was actually held up by the house. The house did not spontaneously collapse from the impact. A building like building 7 is made of many, many interconnected steel beams. If any of them were damaged by falling debris or fire, the load is transferred to the remaining, intact members and the building stands. A collapse like is seen in the video results from a simultaneous failure of all critical members. This is only seen in a controlled demolition using high explosives. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Wow...if you actually want to compare a tree weighing several thousand pounds falling onto your wood framed house to a steel and concrete building being hit by thousands of TONS of debris falling from as much as nearly quarter mile in the air....

Well....then I guess we know who the fool is.

But I guess we also know how weak your argument actually is to have to resort to calling people "fools" if they don't subcribe to some wacked out theroy that makes zero sense.

If any of them were damaged by falling debris or fire, the load is transferred to the remaining, intact members and the building stands. A collapse like is seen in the video results from a simultaneous failure of all critical members. This is only seen in a controlled demolition using high explosives. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

You do understand that you can only load beams up to a certian point before they fail don't you? So yea, one or two beams being knocked out wouldn't likely cause a collapse. But the massive dammage caused by huge chunks of debris would cause MANY beams to fail transfering more and more load onto the adjacent beams, joists, gussets, etc. You can't transfer 50% of the load of a building to a mish-mash of connecting beams and expect them not to fail. And when they fail in such a manner....guess what? They typically let go (ie fail) in one spectacular big colapse (golly, almost like an explosion or something). So no, it doesn't *have* to be a controlled demolition.

Not to mention you have to factor in the massive shock loading of even a 100lbs piece of concrete slamming into a building from even 50 stories up. That energy has to go somewhere. Most of it gets transfered into the actual structure it his, however, that energy also gets transfered into the surrounding structure, bolts, connections, beams, etc. That ALSO adds to the load.

Hey, if you want to put your energy into a "theory" that wouldn't pass muster in a basic highschool logic class, go right ahead. There's plenty of other real conspiricies out there that have merrit and are worth exploring. Thers plenty of other real consipirices out there that are an actual threat to the US. I'd rather put my energy into chasing those down then going through all the mental gymnasitics required to piece together a "conspiricy theroy" about 911.

[PyroUSC]

Like I said, I know it isn't apples to apples.

All modern buildings have at least a 50% design factor for safety, so even overloaded most members would not fail.

There are many physicists and engineers that believe it was a controlled demolition, so it isn't simply an exercise in logic like you suggest. Apparently there is some disagreement among highly trained people in relevant fields.

I don't want to believe it, but I think the controlled demolition theory makes more sense than the official story. You can keep your head buried in the sand if you like.

[Ltlabner]

You can keep your head buried in the sand if you like.

Yea....head in sand.

Because I don't choose to subscribe to a fuzzy theory that makes no sense, obiously I'm just tooling around with my head in the sand.

Think I'll take the advice in your signature line and beg out now.

[shtfmilitia]

You can keep your head buried in the sand if you like.

Yea....head in sand.

Because I don't choose to subscribe to a fuzzy theory that makes no sense, obiously I'm just tooling around with my head in the sand.

Think I'll take the advice in your signature line and beg out now.

Im going to go out on a limb here and just say you probably did not Click the link at the Main post of this whole topic and watch any of the videos that have been around for over4 years ?

Just in case anyone else misses the link HERE IT IS AGAIN
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 8962E14616 (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=99F4B78962E14616)

Please watch them all THEN COMMENT "Thanks"

[PyroUSC]

Militia,
I've seen those links many times. On the discussion of thermite, I find most damning the pictures of steel wreckage with the ends cut at perfect 45 degree angles. I'm sure Abner will say that by some magic that can actually happen on several adjacent columns in a completely spontaneous building collapse.

Thats the problem with all the deniers that I've encountered, they REFUSE to look at the actual evidence. They have made up their minds and won't be convinced by facts.

My dad is a structural engineer who designed steel buildings for 20 years. I also have an engineering degree, although not in mechanical or structural. Even so, I've taken quite a few physics classes and statics and dynamics. Anyway, he and I spent many hours looking over the videos from different angles and we are both convinced that it was an inside job. Perhaps some day someone will come forward with first hand knowledge and speak the truth before he can be silenced by the NWO.

[yugoshooter]

Militia,
I've seen those links many times. On the discussion of thermite, I find most damning the pictures of steel wreckage with the ends cut at perfect 45 degree angles. I'm sure Abner will say that by some magic that can actually happen on several adjacent columns in a completely spontaneous building collapse.

Thats the problem with all the deniers that I've encountered, they REFUSE to look at the actual evidence. They have made up their minds and won't be convinced by facts.

My dad is a structural engineer who designed steel buildings for 20 years. I also have an engineering degree, although not in mechanical or structural. Even so, I've taken quite a few physics classes and statics and dynamics. Anyway, he and I spent many hours looking over the videos from different angles and we are both convinced that it was an inside job. Perhaps some day someone will come forward with first hand knowledge and speak the truth before he can be silenced by the NWO.As I said in another post on this subject."Some people you could give them a transcript with pics of the explosives being set and the still wont believe there is something very wrong with the official story" Thats why I wont argue with anyone about it anymore.

[Bad Droid]

I think I like this forum and its members too much to get into a heated debate about 9-11. I will comment on a few things and leave it at that.
1) I have a close family member who stood two blocks away and watched the whole thing unfold. He saw no extra explosions other than that of two enormous Passenger jets slamming into the buildings with damn near full tanks of Jet fuel. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767fam ... 0prod.html (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_300prod.html)
2) We have video of the towers from a police chopper, the tower tops are leaning, floors were collapsed and people were warned by that chopper that they were about to dump. This video is never shown with the conspiracy theorists videos.
3) Our enemy immediately took credit for doing these things to our country.

I gotta tell ya, I wouldn't put something like this past another country's officials but here in the states it seems like someone would have leaked all this buy now. If all these theories were true and the government was that good and that sneaky, how come the government hasn't shut these web sites down and dealt with their creators that have all of this info?
I'm not poking fun at anyone here, I think things like this should be looked at and should be questioned. I just believe that it would be a stretch for this administration as well as the last administrations to pull off anything beyond putting their shoes on the wrong feet.

[PyroUSC]

Droid,
1. All that proves is that your family member wasn't in on it. (Or perhaps they were and they are trying to keep you in the dark!) Oh yeah, your friend was about as close to the towers as building 7. Building 7 supposedly collapsed from damage from falling debris. Your family member should be dead from falling debris if you believe the official story.

2. I think it is entirely possible that a partial collapse of the building above the plane impact could have occurred without help of explosives. I just don't think it would have collapsed the remainder of undamaged building. Why didn't the upper floors topple sideways? They leaned a little but basically came straight down. I've played enough JENGA to know that wouldn't happen.

3. Our enemy? Who exactly is Osama Bin Laden? Personally I think he is a CIA puppet who does as he is told. I think him, Bush, and Cheney sip pina colatas together at camp david to this day. Arabs may have had a hand in the attack, and I don't deny that planes DID hit the buildings, but they had HELP to pull it off and the buildings had HELP to fall down. It was the "pearl harbor" for the 21st century and it worked like a charm.

[yugoshooter]

When I was in NY last Nov I had to take a local bus to Queens from Manhattan. Me and the bus driver got talking and he was a firefighter that was there that day. He was outside the towers and said he heard explosions underground and in the building right before they fell. He told me he quit the fire company because they told him not to talk about what he heard. If its true that he heard them I don't know but he did have pics of himself at the buildings that day in fireman clothes so I know for sure he was a fireman. I'm sure firefighters make more money in NY then bus drivers so why would he quit a higher paying job to drive a bus that would pay a lot less then he made. I ask him to be honest and tell me what he thought happened and in a whisper so the sheep on the bus wouldn't hear him he said in his opinion they were brought down on purpose.

[MOlivo]

I guess I must be a fool too then, as I have a hard time believing 9-11 was just some terrorist hijacking airplanes. Call me a sucker if you must, be after seeing zeitheigst(spelling)'s segment on 9-11, Im pretty convinced it was an inside job set-up to enable the patriot act, and well as further other agenda's (foreign war, ect).

[JJ ShortStroke]

if I was to become a Truther... would it Still be ok for me to call myself a Truther, but still not be sure what the Truth is?









ponderous man

[yugoshooter]

if I was to become a Truther... would it Still be ok for me to call myself a Truther, but still not be sure what the Truth is?









ponderous man Yes because a truther seeks the truth wants to know what it is and then forms their own opion if it is the truth or not. Does that make sense?

[JJ ShortStroke]

ya thx yougo

it was a rethorical question to guide people to that conclusion

[alpmco]

All modern buildings have at least a 50% design factor for safety,
What?? Where did that come from. Tall structures are designed differently from low squat buildings. I'm not a licensed P.E. but I have been designing and selling steel towers and structures for 14 years and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last year. Typically, tower structures use 1.2 safety factor. 20%. That is considering compression, tension, sheer and overturning moment. I have seen a tower fail and it is spectacular. All the little structural components begin to give way but the tower stays up. Then it hits the critical point and all the legs give way and buckle and collapse on themselves in a nice little pile. Unlike the Empire State Building (Which did survive an airplane crash) the WTC was basically a self supporting steel tower. The structure was supported by the outside steel structure.
Remember, Rosie O'Donald doesn't think steel can burn ...

Note: I did not address the main quesition of who I thought was responsible for the deed.

[Uncle Screwtape]

It was way to simple an operation for any .gov to be involved.





obl