Israel did 911 - all key players named

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I don't get it. Just saying you promote a theory here, which is pure speculation at best and not supported by evidence-based science.

I'm a little confused now as I usually agree with you on many things. Why is this so unthinkable for you?

Thanks, I appreciate you have a questioning mind and what answers. I have done so much work in the 911 forums, usually under duress of agenda driven, emotion based negative poster's hammer, that I didn't book mark a lot of what I said. It gets tiring to re hash all the combined experience I have with materials and their destruction to make points about material science over and over. To answer your well intentioned post here would be off topic, I would have to search some threads way back to find some data I have brought in the past, and all that would be off topic in this "Israelis did it" thread.

Maybe the mods will allow it, maybe I'll be back today and be bogged down a while for a while putting it together. I appreciate the quest for truth as much as you…

I'll be back…

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks, much appreciated!

We may continue this discussion elsewhere if you like, this is obviously not the best thread for such a detailed analysis. Didn't intent to derail this topic with my questions anyway.
Since nobody replied to my other posting, I thought it would be ok to continue on this road. But now, as you mentioned it, I feel quite uncomfortable under this headline as well.

originally posted by: combatmaster

Larry "pull it" Silverstein

a reply to: DarthFazer

funniest thing ive read in this thread

a reply to: FlySolo
One thing i must correct you on is the title of the thread. According to OP, Israel didn't do 9/11, the Zionist Elite did 9/11. It would essentially be 2 different entities. Not the same entity.
This is why this thread is accused of Israel-bashing/anti israel basis, because essentially - it is! Unless you change the header, that is. And all the claims/writing in OP of Israel doing 9/11, when the vid clearly claims 'Zionist elite'!

My apologies for not responding to this earlier. Not making excuses but I am in three controversial threads atm.
The reason I say Israel is behind it, and make reference to Zionism but not "Jews or Jewish people", is because I thought I was making the distinction between the two. Otherwise I would have said the jews are responsible.

The video demonstrates all the key players who happen to be connected to Israel's elite (as well as US). Netanyahu is indeed head of the Zionist faction and the prime minister of Israel. So, it would go without saying that Israel is indeed behind 911 if all the dots are connected back. It would be no different than me saying Canada was behind 911 if the dots connected back to Harper. I would not say "canadians" however. So why would I say Jews? To specifically blame a nationality rather than the nation would be prejudice, bias, racist? Things of which I am not.

Question satisfactorily answered?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Most people have little appreciation for the energy of the impact by such large, hi velocity, fuel laden aircraft. Akin to worlds largest, intelligently guided, fuel bombs weighing hundred of tons, flying at hundreds of miles per hour, straight in to their targets. The best audio I've hear of this is in here at approximately 1:50… (Turn it up)Seeing the planes disappear into the building from a distance belies the fact that at those speeds with that much mass, huge cavities were opened inside the structure, collapsing several floors in the affected region, blowing out windows all around, and spraying atomized fuel everywhere, thousands of gallons of it, soaking everything and setting it alight, all at once.

Poof!, right? Now the fires begin to engulf the furniture, carpets, partitions, zerox and printer machines, paper, desks, chairs, etc., most of which is plastic and mild steel. Evidence that the fire is spreading all around the building on the floors affected is clear in plenty of images taken that day.

link to images

As the fires begin to grow and develop in the early stages, they begin to suck oxygen into them from all the blown out windows. This inrush of air through narrow slits begins to act like a Venturi in a carburetor having similar characteristics to how blast furnaces operate. Early steel melting was done in 'puddle furnaces' where air convection is drawn across lumps of iron to heat and melt. I did a post on that once. Can't believe I found it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As the fires intensified, consuming fuel soaked combustibles, the inrushing air accelerated providing the impetus to raise temperatures, and raise them steadily until either all fuel is consumed and the fires burn themselves out, the fire is put out, or the structure becomes compromised. Which is what happened, right at the site of the impacts. Visible here in the beginning of this video… (just view the beginning)Image of the collapse initiation from the video…

image

The evidence for melted metal (mainly comprised of the aluminum from the jet and mild thin gauge steel from office furnishings is evident in a motion stabilized video showing rivulets of molten metal pouring out of the corner of one building…Also this link of the molten metal buried in the rubble pile still hot, still molten weeks later.

link to article ad vids…

The thing about puddle furnaces is that all thats needed to melt iron is the inflow of air through a narrow opening, fuel, and an outflow from a cavity filled with something that burns hot and the metal to be melted. As long as the fires burn, the air rushes in and the temperature steadily increases.

At over a thousand feet that day the fires inside the twin towers burned unchecked, intensified by inrushing air from the rows of blown out windows, showing us how the steel structure could be compromised, and initiate the collapse.

If you followed the links, image and videos presented you can see how this unfolded right before everyones eyes. There was no need for thermite or demolition explosives, the impact itself, the unchecked fires and eventual collapse are right there.

a reply to: FlySolo

I know ur busy with threads so for getting back to me!

I just not so great with wording my thoughts... Darkghost worded it better here.

It may be better to say for example: a rogue faction of multiple governments (including Israel) have conspired etc etc.

Implying it was any one country per-se would mean a declaration of war. It would mean all citizens were in the know including the members of government. It may be seen as semantics. But it is more than just that!

a reply to: combatmaster

It may be better to say for example: a rogue faction of multiple governments (including Israel) have conspired etc etc.

To wordy for a title imo. My opinion is Israel is the brain child for this event because of the events which are unfolding today.

Implying it was any one country per-se would mean a declaration of war. It would mean all citizens were in the know including the members of government.

I don't believe all citizens would be in the know. But yes, it would be an act of war.

a reply to: intrptr

Intrptr,

I want to thank for your well worded post, and the videos
and pictures. Knowing they came from you, and you vetted
them means the world to me.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: intrptr

An oldie but a goodie

Reviewed the video. The narrative refers to mix of molten aluminum and "office furniture" pouring out the building but fails to take into account that when plastic burns it reduces to coke, the fuel for furnace hearths in steel melting is coke, born of coal. Plastic is made from oil also a hyrdro carbon and when burned , reduces to coke.

In the video, the molten metal pouring from the building is melted, that much is obvious. If we consider the conditions in the buildings that day, the inrushing air through blown out windows to feed the fires consisting mainly of plastic, steadily increasing temperatures reducing the plastic material to coke like white hot glowing embers.


This was not sufficient to "melt" the structural steel, but indeed compromise the floor truss mounts that supported the concrete floors, initiating collapse at the impact zone. It was a combination of impact, unchecked jet fuel on plastic fires, fed by forced air, that eventually weakened the supports, jussst enough to initiate collapse.

The burned material and steel buried in the rubble for weeks also behave like a steel melt in refineries. If they don't open the hearth and let the molten metal out, the temperature steadily rises until it destroys the hearth, melting through. They stop the process.

In the basement of the World trade center the heat was trapped and temperatures actually will rise just like in a hearth. Thats how they raise temperatures to melt steel.

See my lengthy post above…

a reply to: burntheships

Hi BTS, always a pleasure to hear from you.

Hopefully the mods over look my way off topic content, too.

a reply to: intrptr

I have also mentioned that iron in storage can generate temperatures high enough to start fires and I might add that there was a lot of steel buried in the rubble at ground zero.

a reply to: intrptr

I think he didn't say there was a mix of molten aluminum and "office furniture" pouring out the building. He said that's what NIST said. It was proven they don't mix at all.

This was not sufficient to "melt" the structural steel, but indeed compromise the floor truss mounts that supported the concrete floors, initiating collapse at the impact zone. It was a combination of impact, unchecked jet fuel on plastic fires, fed by forced air, that eventually weakened the supports, jussst enough to initiate collapse.

But areas were also cooling at the same time. Thereby allowing the steel to regain it's integrity

In the basement of the World trade center the heat was trapped and temperatures actually will rise just like in a hearth. Thats how they raise temperatures to melt steel.

In the rubble, oxygen depletion was calculated to be 1000x less than what is needed to keep a smolder.

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for the detailed reply my friend. I'm really with you there, nearly all the way. Common sense all over the place, but then you suddenly stop applying the same criticism to the official findings. As I pointed out earlier, we have not a single shred of proof for anything you mentioned in the Nist-coverup. Why oh why? What did I miss?

That's why I keep looking out for other indicators, there is a hell lot of material to find by now. You should take your time and glimpse into the findings of said dust-examination. And this time I don't mean concentrations etc. Remember how every official said the air was save to breathe?
Yap. They lied, it's highly hazardous due to all that asbestos and many people died from this. They simply died for another lie, chew on that! And now tell me we should stick to office-fires for three collapses into their own footprints without any factual evidence whatsoever. It would be madness if we consult Einsteins definition and we all ought to know that by now.

Let's just forget all that dust, asbestos and temperatures of office-fires for a brief moment. Did you ever look into insider-trading respectively the money-trail? I can't help myself... the more I discuss details of that day, the more it appears to me that we just obfuscate bigger matters whilst doing so.

Stay frosty!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: PublicOpinion
Most people have little appreciation for the energy of the impact by such large, hi velocity, fuel laden aircraft. Akin to worlds largest, intelligently guided, fuel bombs weighing hundred of tons, flying at hundreds of miles per hour, straight in to their targets. The best audio I've hear of this is in here at approximately 1:50… (Turn it up)

In addition to listening, you may want to have a good look at the segment in the video that you point out. Notice at 1:56 you will see (and clearly hear) at least 10 instant and simultaneous ejections of smoke coming from the building that was already hit. How anyone who's been researching this for years cannot see this is beyond me. These obvious explosions cover 5 floors and were timed to coincide with the impact of the second building, which was a little less than 2 seconds later. That impact was used as a cover to pre-weaken the first building with well placed explosives at the level where the planned "collapse" initiated. There are 4 of these explosions on the left side of the building that form almost a perfect square. What a coincidence... Oh, and notice that there is also an explosion on the very far right of the building at the exact same time. Any idea what all that might be? Surely you're not going to say that it was the jet fuel exploding again.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

Notice at 1:56 you will see (and clearly hear) at least 10 instant and simultaneous ejections of smoke coming from the building that was already hit. How anyone who's been researching this for years cannot see this is beyond me.

I see what you are describing. I attribute that to the shock wave of impact passing over the other building before the sound reaches the videographer. The camera is further away than the other tower.

In Steve's video we don't see the actual strike, just hear it. The camera is focused on the other building at the time, recording the initial shock wave as it propagates, then the sound reaches the sound mic.

I see how people would interpret that as something happening inside the building in the camera field of view.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Another hate Jews thread. .

No it is not about hating jews. Isreal identifys itself as a "jewish state" and that is why isreal often gets called "the jews" and "the zionists" ect

I dont see OP calling for hatred of jews , all jews , matsa balls , dradles and anything jewish no. Politically incorrect perhaps but far from a hate thread. Its not like all jews gathered at synogogues and plotted and carried out 9-11.

-DF

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: intrptr

I have also mentioned that iron in storage can generate temperatures high enough to start fires and I might add that there was a lot of steel buried in the rubble at ground zero.

Preheated steel and coals from whatever burned for an hour. Considering the buildings essentially collapsed straight down instead of falling to the side, most of the iron, pulverized concrete and other debris wound up in a pile in the basement, including enormous amounts of heat. Ever been to a Luau?

They bury coals and a pig, cooking it through and through. How many floors of the twin towers were engulfed in fire for an hour? Thats acres of stuff burnt to embers falling into the basement. The smoke seemed to rise up the whole time they were removing the pile.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

Notice at 1:56 you will see (and clearly hear) at least 10 instant and simultaneous ejections of smoke coming from the building that was already hit. How anyone who's been researching this for years cannot see this is beyond me.

I see what you are describing. I attribute that to the shock wave of impact passing over the other building before the sound reaches the videographer. The camera is further away than the other tower.

In Steve's video we don't see the actual strike, just hear it. The camera is focused on the other building at the time, recording the initial shock wave as it propagates, then the sound reaches the sound mic.

I see how people would interpret that as something happening inside the building in the camera field of view.

Are you being serious, because that makes hardly any sense to me.

soulwaxer

a reply to: DarthFazer

Politically incorrect perhaps but far from a hate thread.

One could equally state America did 9/11 as well, sounds more like collective punishment to me.

There would be less of a fuzz with "Zionists did 9/11".

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DarthFazer

Politically incorrect perhaps but far from a hate thread.

One could equally state America did 9/11 as well, sounds more like collective punishment to me.

There would be less of a fuzz with "Zionists did 9/11".

Precisely!

Most of the key people are US citizens too.

It was not Israel! The title must be re-worded!

a reply to: FlySolo

I think he didn't say there was a mix of molten aluminum and "office furniture" pouring out the building. He said that's what NIST said. It was proven they don't mix at all.

We saw molten metal pouring out the building, right? They said fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel girders, I agree. The buildings had thinner gauge steel in them in the form of office furniture, partitions, desks, chairs, wiring, plumbing, air ducts, etc.

Concluding there couldn't be molten steel from something else because the fires weren't hot enough denies the reality of what was captured on video. Thats molten metal. I saw it pouring out. Nothing else looks like that.

But areas were also cooling at the same time. Thereby allowing the steel to regain it's integrity

Some girders were blown away by the impact, some girders in the fire lost temper, some were later partially melted in the basement, but it wasn't the girders that 'melted' or gave way, it was the support brackets attached to the girders that supported the floor trusses that held up the concrete floors. All it took was one floor to collapse and the weight of all the floors above started to fall. Nothing could resist that enormous force. The pancake progressive collapse initiated on the floor most affected (weakened) by the combination of impact and heat from the fires.

The impact opened huge holes, jet fuel was an accelerant, the plastic from furnishings ignited all at once, the inrushing air fanned the flames, the fires burned this way for a full hour, steadily raising the temperatures inside the "furnace enclave". It was only a matter of time.

If you want conspiracy look at how they knew and planned for all this beforehand in order to bring the buildings down. Someone with the right engineering and materials science background could foresee the cataclysm ahead of time.

I did. (I know, subjective, no proof.) By the way, thanks for that video, it got a lot of things right.

Just remember they used the media as a source for claims the fires "melted steel". The guys in the video were right. The external girders weren't melted by the fire, just heated to 1300 degrees in places.

In the rubble, oxygen depletion was calculated to be 1000x less than what is needed to keep a smolder.

I doubt that. The fact is, metal melted in the basement. That could only happen if air was being fed into the pile somehow, which I think was possible considering the pile of debris was haphazard (like matchsticks), and what it was made of.

Plus we saw the smoke for days, weeks after? If some girders were heated to over a thousand degrees, piled up in a basement, and buried that would be like a hearth furnace. Molten metal was the result, like the firefighters saw.

Ever see this? Pay attention at the end to the description of what was in the basement and how it could add to the heat trapped there.