TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e Flash movie My brotha sent me this a while back. It has various photos of the pentagon. It argues there is a conspiracy/cover-up. i am not so sure about NYC attacks, they seem more likely to have been real, but the Pentagon? Where is the missing plane?

Unfortunately, things have been so obfuscated that we may never know what the real truth is.

The fact is that most real conspiracies are followed by disinformation campaigns which help to muddy the waters in the effort to stifle proper investigation.

quote:

A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association. - Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, p. 184

Re: Re: Re: while it's nothing conclusive, Dr. Reynolds does bring about some really

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 The keyword he asked was WHY. It's obvious they fell.

There are a million reasons/theories but none larger than hate.

Re: Re: Re: while it's nothing conclusive, Dr. Reynolds does bring about some really

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 The keyword he asked was WHY. It's obvious they fell.

I wasn't even going to bother answering such a foolish post.

Re: Re: Re: Re: while it's nothing conclusive, Dr. Reynolds does bring about some really

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r There are a million reasons/theories but none larger than hate.

I thought the official conclusion was that jet fuel brought those buildings down. But if you beg to differ I suppose hate has become a law of physics that has yet to be discovered or become explainable. If you can offer a formulaic approach as to how hate figures into the equation involving gravity, by all means enlighten us.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So a missle was timed to strike WTC 6 at the exact same moment that the South Tower was being struck by a plane? Amazing! It's all so clear to me now!! Why didn't I see the obvious before? Better yet; Why hasn't everyone, in a city of tens-of-thousands, reported seeing this missle as well? Well who cares; I'm a convert!! When do I get my free gift?vvv

Thats a cool clock, if i was to drop my IQ to the level of a slug, then maybe I would beleive that the gov had something to do with 9/11

but just so that you all will not think I am totally blinded, I do beleive that the present Administration used 9/11 to increase its hold on the nation, to lie and cheat to take the US to an ill fought war.

so

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: while it's nothing conclusive, Dr. Reynolds does bring about some

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 I thought the official conclusion was that jet fuel brought those buildings down. But if you beg to differ I suppose hate has become a law of physics that has yet to be discovered or become explainable. If you can offer a formulaic approach as to how hate figures into the equation involving gravity, by all means enlighten us.

Scuse me for being so abstract, but let's not suggest aloofness when there has been many posts regarding the subject at hand already. (That would be aloofness )

I do accept the official conclusion to answer your question however.

My suggestion of, 'hate' wasn't some enigmatic theory to the cause of the towers collapse as been suggested. It was more referring more to the undercurrent that lead to the act in the first place.
Of course the real reasons are as varied as the scientific reasoning and theories of the towers physical demise but I thought it pretty safe to suggest such a thing.
Sorry I lost yea on that one...

I would have just said I spoke in allegory.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 I would have just said I spoke in allegory.

I could have too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: while it's nothing conclusive, Dr. Reynolds does bring about some really

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I wasn't even going to bother answering such a foolish post.

Even fools should be given the benefit of doubt. After all we did believe the gov't at one point in our lives.

Some people will always believe the shadows on the cave wall are all the reality they know.

quote:

How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes? Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse. Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft? Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Avoiding the hard questions (A Miami Herald dot com article)

^^^

Another hard question...

Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?

In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood.
So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ^^^ Another hard question... Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?

And then we get back to the fact that the building never ignited to the degree required for steel to melt, as evident by the recorded communications of Batallion Chief Orio J. Palmer. He said that on the 78th floor there were only two small pockets of fire which could have been knocked out with two hose lines.

quote:

Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ^^^ Another hard question... Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?

"The fires going out, toss some more concrete on it."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted.

Or why there was red-hot molten steel in the sub basement more than a month afterwards.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...035#post5399035

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z "The fires going out, toss some more concrete on it."

Yea, I suppose the only thing in those towers were concrete...

Have you guys ever been camping and actually made a camp fire??
What do they tell you to do with the campfire before you leave and why?
Think about it people...

The 'red-hot molten steel in the sub basement more than a month afterwards' don't surprise me in the least Trancer-X, in fact that only gives validity to what I'm saying.

It's obvious it got pretty damn hot for the structural beams to bend and give way.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Have you guys ever been camping and actually made a camp fire?? What do they tell you to do with the campfire before you leave and why? Think about it people... The 'red-hot molten steel in the sub basement more than a month afterwards' don't surprise me in the least Trancer-X, in fact that only gives validity to what I'm saying. It's obvious it got pretty damn hot for the structural beams to bend and give way.

You pour water on the ashes so that embers don't fly into the woods and cause a forest fire. Just like when you're camping on the beach - you can just cover the fire with sand. Sand also puts it out by cutting off it's supply of oxygen. But I guess you just forgot that part.

Remember this - oxygen is one of the three components needed for combustion with the other two being fuel and heat.

So tell me, how did red-hot molten steel defy such amazing odds by staying in it's molten liquid form in an oxygen deprived, suffocatingly compacted environment which was under thousands of tons of pressure in a sub-basement level of the WTC complexes?

I think your conspiracy theory of the jet fuel melting the steel in the first place is further of a stretch than the one that says that controlled demolitions may have brought those buildings down. There was nothing in them that could have burned hot enough to melt steel in the first place - except maybe some high-explosive cutting charges.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's obvious it got pretty damn hot for the structural beams to bend and give way.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...603#post5404603

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You pour water on the ashes so that embers don't fly into the woods and cause a forest fire. Just like when you're camping on the beach - you can just cover the fire with sand. Sand also puts it out by cutting off it's supply of oxygen. But I guess you just forgot that part. Remember this - oxygen is one of the three components needed for combustion with the other two being fuel and heat. So tell me, how did red-hot molten steel defy such amazing odds by staying in it's molten liquid form in an oxygen deprived, suffocatingly compacted environment which was under thousands of tons of pressure in a sub-basement level of the WTC complexes?

There's an automatic assumption here that just because there were tons of rubble means somehow that ALL the oxygen was miraculously cut off.
I'm willing to bet that obviously, it wasn't and since they did find molten liquid, it only furthers my point.

quote:

I think your conspiracy theory of the jet fuel melting the steel in the first place is further of a stretch than the one that says that controlled demolitions may have brought those buildings down. There was nothing in them that could have burned hot enough to melt steel in the first place - except maybe some high-explosive cutting charges.

Except I never said it was the 'jet fuel' as was suggested by this:

quote:

How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

...in fact, quite the opposite, I questioned it myself:

quote:

In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood. So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted.

There's no way the jet fuel could have done that by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ^^^ Another hard question... Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn? In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood. So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted.

Then explain how WTC 7 collapsed.

That building was 40 or so stories high with no airliner impact damage.

Let's say we go with the official story that jet fuel and office supplies brought down both WTC 1 & 2. Let stick to that story for a minute.

How does someone explain WTC 7 collapsing with the same theory?

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Then explain how WTC 7 collapsed. That building was 40 or so stories high with no airliner impact damage. Let's say we go with the official story that jet fuel and office supplies brought down both WTC 1 & 2. Let stick to that story for a minute. How does someone explain WTC 7 collapsing with the same theory?

Well obviously little trained Bush gnomes set charges at predetermined, fragile structural points to explode only after the others collapsed.
Sheesh...

Just as an item of interest, here's a rare angle of the second plane striking the tower ... not the same french video of the first plane hitting.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/...RE_UNIQUE_VIDEO

quote:

WTC 9/11 SECOND HIT "VERY RARE UNIQUE VIDEO", THIS CLIP WILL STOP ALL THOSE CONSPIRACY VIDEOS ON THE NET ABOUT THE SECOND HIT COMING FROM A NON-AIRPLANE

I don't subscribe to the pod-plane theory myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Well obviously little trained Bush gnomes set charges at predetermined, fragile structural points to explode only after the others collapsed. Sheesh...

So you are saying WTC 7 was purposely demolished?

If you keep ignoring the question then you are actually saying it's true.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 So you are saying WTC 7 was purposely demolished? If you keep ignoring the question then you are actually saying it's true.

So you don't buy into the Bush-gnome theory then?

I don't know enough information yet to actually make an informed decision regarding that question.
I just thought the fact that it did actually fall was far more important than the reason why....

Bush was in office for about 8 months, the administration managed to make an elaborate conspiracy in that time? It's physically impossible.

You people are idiots. If there was a conspiracy, the democrats would be the first to point it out because both parties have agendas to make each other fail, which is why our country fails. There is a commission that has studied this, and there is no conspiracy. They have concluded that this was a failure on all levels, not just a failure of the executive branch.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.