Israel did 911 - all key players named

a reply to: PublicOpinion

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.

Thats my point when it comes to analyzing the rubble. It loses sight of the bigger picture. But you asked me about it didn't you, you sly devil?

Believe me I know the media tells government lies to me, I don't believe anything they say. I know there were pollutants like asbestos, and particulates from the smoke and dust that covered most of Manhattan. I know they lied about that and people have died. Then theres the fighter jet response, lil bush in the classroom, airline stock, and all the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the endless wars started after 911…

So now chameleon, change color again…

originally posted by: soulwaxer

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

Wave your hand in front of a candle flame and get back to me.

a reply to: intrptr

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 [...].

Talking about inertia and Newtons first law...

"An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion
with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

We all saw the upper block topple to the side, didn't we? Every mind with a slight understanding of physics has to be boggled at this point.

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.

Nope. We are talking about a tiny difference in mass with regards to it's structural design specs. And then again, mind the over-engineering.

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So they're comparing a partially fueled 767 to a fully fueled 707. That's certainly not misleading. A 767-200 freighter carries 23,980 gallons fully fueled. A 707-320 carries 23,855 gallons when fully fueled.

So the total fuel of both aircraft is almost the same. Neither would have been fully fueled either, unless the 707 had just departed on a max range flight, which they didn't do often, because Gary limited passengers and cargo.

a reply to: intrptr

Thats my point when it comes to analyzing the rubble. It loses sight of the bigger picture. But you asked me about it didn't you, you sly devil?

That might be a good point if there wouldn't be some rather interesting... features... to be found in the dust. Don't get me wrong here, I have my reasons. Promise!
But if you could elaborate on how said picture got lost? I would be glad to explain myself in a more devilish way. Or I could actually learn something... nooooo.



Looks like we've achieved the first half of an agreement, at least from this side of the big lake. Don't get mad with me here, sceptic angel!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Nist stated something like 20 or 30% difference, not sure. Well within this over-engineering-thingy, innit? The original study got lost anyway, sad story.

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".

Umm do you understand this is directed at the Government of Isreal right ?

Isreal > government > Zionism

Oh dare not accuse a totalitarian regime of any wrong doing , a political movement should never face blame of any wrong doing in the face of evidence or be blamed for mass murder ya know ... The baath party , the nazi party , zionist party , All victims of hate speech.

please tell me you are being sarcastic , if i give you a quarter will you go back under your bridge ?

-DF

a reply to: DarthFazer


Likud-Block, so yes. Pretty spot on.
Just saying it would've caused less of a fuzz. Always good to be precise if you ask me.

But I wouldn't agree with the equalization of Israel > isreali gov and rather go out on a limb to state, that some israeli spies don't automatically represent the israeli gov either. It's a simplification of facts and I don't see any profound research proving this assumption.. yet.

Curious to see how this devolops, always good to be sceptic when people wanna sell books though.

a reply to: FlySolo

If you want even more in depth truth not found here, read Methodic Delusion by Rebekah Roth. I don't know her in any way. I purchased her book and read this thread, companion to theme, hits on truth.

The info in the OP thread is valid, compelling and SAF to the OP.



Isn't it about time disclosure of ALL truths begin? No matter the pain?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

We all saw the upper block topple to the side, didn't we? Every mind with a slight understanding of physics has to be boggled at this point.

More like tilted as it began to fall. Thats because unlike the other tower, that tower wasn't hit dead center, but at an oblique angle, punching out one corner of the building. Thats where the collapse initiated first. After the upper block of floors tilted it still fell pretty much straight down.

Not getting your application of Newtons law. What was defeated was the support of all the upper floors above the failure point. That enormous weight wasn't going to just hang there like the floating rocks in Avatar.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

That might be a good point if there wouldn't be some rather interesting... features... to be found in the dust. Don't get me wrong here, I have my reasons. Promise!

Ive elaborated enough for you . Now its your turn.

What about the "dusitification"?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: soulwaxer

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

Wave your hand in front of a candle flame and get back to me.

The towers are almost in the same plane perpendicular to the camera's angle of view (notice the sizable gap between the two towers, which are very near to each other). That in no way accounts for the 2 second delay between timed explosions in the first building and the impact of the plane into the second building.

Maybe you can draw exactly how you see this from a looking-down-perspective?

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

Maybe you can draw exactly how you see this from a looking-down-perspective?

I don't need to. The impact of the second plane is what causes the disturbance to the smoke and fires in the other tower. Thats only too obvious.

Like I said in the post the video appears in, most people haven't a clue about the energy involved in crashing a huge jet liner, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at hundreds of miles an hour into a skyscraper.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

Maybe you can draw exactly how you see this from a looking-down-perspective?

I don't need to. The impact of the second plane is what causes the disturbance to the smoke and fires in the other tower. Thats only too obvious.

Like I said in the post the video appears in, most people haven't a clue about the energy involved in crashing a huge jet liner, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at hundreds of miles an hour into a skyscraper.

I'm afraid you do, because that makes no sense at all. The second plane impacted the tower 2 seconds AFTER the timed explosions in the other building (listen to the audio of both events). Assuming that the plane was traveling at 500 mph, it would have been 487 yards out at the time of the timed explosion in the other building. This is really quite simple.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

"Both events"? Prove thats not an echo. The towers were 140 feet apart. The puff of wind was from the impact. Prove it was explosives.

Otherwise, done with this.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: intrptr



We all saw the upper block topple to the side, didn't we? Every mind with a slight understanding of physics has to be boggled at this point.

Sorry but it only boggles the mind of people that DON'T look at what is actually in front of them and have NO idea of STRUCTURAL DESIGN.

The North Tower hit first mid elevation high up fell second, LESS load above impact point.

The South Tower hit second fell first, LARGER load above impact area it was also struck CLOSER to the corner that's the cause of the tilt and due to the resistance of the undamaged steel on the other elevations that stopped the tilt and the colapse was vertical from that point.

a reply to: wmd_2008

The South Tower hit second fell first, LARGER load above impact area it was also struck CLOSER to the corner that's the cause of the tilt and due to the resistance of the undamaged steel on the other elevations that stopped the tilt and the colapse was vertical from that point.

Well then, looking at it logically, if the top block did somehow manage to arrest it lateral momentum or "tilt", then part of it was obviously overhanging the structure below and should have fallen to the ground more or less intact.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

"Both events"? Prove thats not an echo. The towers were 140 feet apart. The puff of wind was from the impact. Prove it was explosives.

Otherwise, done with this.

Proof that’s not an echo: An echo is always heard AFTER an initial sound which produces the echo and is quieter than the initial sound. In de video, the initial sound is from the much quieter timed explosions, and 2 seconds later we hear a much louder BOOM from the plane impacting the other building.

As for the explosions: Since you are not willing to produce a drawing of how you see this -for obvious reasons- allow me to enlighten you.

Here we see the timed explosions in the video you uploaded:



And here we see another angle of this event. Notice that most of the explosions we see in my first image are pointed TOWARDS the location of the plane impact and thus the “shock wave” you speak of. Objects affected by the blast of a shock wave tend to move away from that source. I hope I don’t have to explain this to you… Also notice how all the smoke that was already present is not affected by your "shock wave". The only change in smoke is the smoke blasting out of the windows towards the other building.


The reason I am calling the squibs of smoke “explosions” is because that’s exactly what they look like in a verified controlled demolition. If you have a better explanation for what they are, I'm still waiting:



If you need more help understanding these basic concepts I suggest you take a high-school class in physics, that should do it.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

I asked you to prove explosives, not "puffs of smoke".

In case you're having difficulty with the physics, you should (re)consider the explosive force of hundred ton airliners filled with jet fuel, impacting at hundreds of miles per hour, into a wall of steel.

Descritpives like impact, explosion, inferno and demolish, don't quite measure up.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

I asked you to prove explosives, not "puffs of smoke".

In case you're having difficulty with the physics, you should (re)consider the explosive force of hundred ton airliners filled with jet fuel, impacting at hundreds of miles per hour, into a wall of steel.

Descritpives like impact, explosion, inferno and demolish, don't quite measure up.

If not explosions, explain to me how they could be the result of a shock wave, which is what you say they are, and show me with some visual material how that would have worked because your words don't really say much at all.

soulwaxer