It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 17
274
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal.


And once again you are wrong, Bentham is NOT a peer reviewed journal - who peer reviewed his arrticle?

It is a pay to publish magazine -
www.libraryjournal.com...

"Cornell University librarian and graduate student Phil Davis successfully submitted a manuscript full of gibberish and credited to pseudonymous authors at The Center for Research in Applied Phrenology to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), which “claims to enforce peer-review.”

Davis chose the journal “[a]fter being spammed with invitations to publish in Bentham Science journals earlier this year.”"

"One commenter on Scholarly Kitchen, Jeppe Nicolaisen, wrote that he long ago withdrew from the TOISCIJ’s “so-called editorial board because I felt something was wrong” and said he was “a bit shocked” to see his name still on the board.

(Another Bentham editor resigned in April after Bentham published a controversial article about 9/11 without her knowledge.) "

"Davis received confirmation four months after submission not from an editor but from Sana Mokarram, the Assistant Manager of Publication, who requested that he pay the $800 author fee. He then retracted the manuscript, titled “Deconstructing Access Points.”"

So much for peer review. Also why didnt Jones test the chips in the absence of oxygen - a necesary test for thermite!




posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The reason why you don’t see physicists and experts commenting on the official story of the world trade center is because it would be career suicide for any of them to go against the governments review of how the events unfolded that day...There have been few professionals that came out against the official story, Steven Jones former BYU physics professor, and they have been scorned and attacked by their fellow colleagues....Why would physics professor Steven Jones make the claims he makes? What does he have to gain from it except the ridicule of people around the country? The reason why he investigates these attacks is because they don’t add up to him and as a scientist it’s his place to dig for facts and the truth behind a event....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Gotta love the NIST story supporters... they fight for what they truely belive dont they.


anyway. I have just one question for you if you think fire made these buildings collapse.


What is the melting point of steel. ???

it's 1300 Degrees up to 2400Deg.

have any of you ever welded one of these beams together.? or cut one in half?

It takes a torch and several hours to cut one of these beams with temps. of 3200deg - 3500deg that with a focused tip and pressure of 250psi.


so now how can you explain a fire creating that much focused heat? the jet fuel fires could not have gotten over 1800Deg.


edit on 6/26/2011 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





Do firemen typically investigate the rubble from a controlled demolition if this is a picture from somewhere else?

No, I am not sure if that was from something they did or was there already.




Like I said I don't know exactly why they did what they did, but the evidence is there to support the idea that our military shot down the flight.


Indeed there is, but that doesn't mean that the towers were a planned demo.




Photographic evidence shows that clearly it was just a few fires.


At what time? At which side? Id one photo clearly shows more intense damage then another, then the one with more intense damage is more reliable. There are pictures of entire chunks of the side of the building missing, pictures of the entire facade in flames. The fire may have began small, and from that time those pictures show it, but what about later? One picture in a timeline cannot be used to show your beliefs are true if pictures from the same timeline at a later time clearly show a worse condition. Ergo, it was not a simple fire.




Explain to me the physics and chemistry behind drywall turning into steel.


I'll just rip this off wikipedia




Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. Some "fuels" that can be used include aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron and others. One commonly-used fuel in thermite mixtures is aluminium, because of its high boiling point. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,III,IV) oxide and others


The "fuels" were readily available from the galvanization process of steel and other elements. The oxidizers are available in anything from pipes, to computer parts, to the Gypsum in dry wall, containing CaSO4·2H2O. These components, when induced to a flame like that in jet fuel, can mix together and form thermite-like reactions which release heat that can cause problems. In addition, the lack of similar fires in other sky scraper fires, can explain why the situation was so different from other towers, however the structure was perfectly capable of causing it.




Flames make calcium sulfate turn into iron? No way! You're just talking out of your ass dude


gee, I wonder where Iron could be taken from in a 100+ story sky scraper.




Yeah anybody with a few hours of research also knows that our government has committed and conspired to commit false flag terrorist attacks.


I went down the list you provided and found no provable false flags. While I have do doubt the last 5 or so presidents probably did such things, I don't think they would destroy an entire sky scrapper and kill thousands of people just to start a war that they ended up loosing anyway.




If one looks at history one can actually see that time and time again governments all across the globe have manipulated and lied to the people in order to gain support. That's exactly what 9/11 is, after the attacks we invaded the Middle East to fight a war on "terror", established the Patriot Act as if that actually will prevent terrorism, created the Department of Homeland Security, established a new foreign and domestic policy, and ended Habeas Corpus. The Patriot unconstitutionally spies on Americans in the name of protection against terrorism; how many terrorist attacks have we thwarted since it's establishment? Terrorists aren't the ones taking away our rights, I've never heard of Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda passing legislation to take away our Constitutional rights, that's our own damn government. The nameless "terrorists" aren't the people who Americans should be worried about, it's our own politicians who are terrorizing Americans.


And this is what makes no sense. You must explain to me how a government could so carefully construct a plan that would have been in the oven for over a decade, without any leaks and without any sort of failures, and yet after that, fail so miserably in actually gaining anything from it. The things you list as wins for the government are not wins, because the government has lost legitimacy through such actions. A government only gains when it can take freedoms and keep popular support. As anyone can see, the government has taken freedom, but has failed to keep popular support.

Why go through so much effort just to nail yourself into a coffin guaranteeing your own destruction within 20 years?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL



What is the melting point of steel. ???


Why would the steel have to melt for it to fail?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by -W1LL



What is the melting point of steel. ???


Why would the steel have to melt for it to fail?


They found pools of molten steel under towers 1, 2 and 7....I agree jet fuel can WEAKEN steel, but it definitely cant melt steel....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by -W1LL



What is the melting point of steel. ???


Why would the steel have to melt for it to fail?



the beams were cut and melted..

sagging beams in a localized part of the building would not cause a collapse.

and still not enough time or heat to weaken those beams enough. they were wrapped in fire proofing and concrete. built to withstand just such a problem of a plane hitting and causing a fire... just like the skyscraper in Chicago that burned for days and did NOT collapse.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I've never seen evidence that they definitely did. There are apocryphal accounts where people claim to have seen molten steel but nothing beyond that.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL


the beams were cut and melted..

sagging beams in a localized part of the building would not cause a collapse.

and still not enough time or heat to weaken those beams enough. they were wrapped in fire proofing and concrete. built to withstand just such a problem of a plane hitting and causing a fire... just like the skyscraper in Chicago that burned for days and did NOT collapse.


The beams were not cut and melted, except during the cleanup.

Can you show me evidence that sagging beams would not cause a collapse once significant structural damage had been caused by the aircraft?

The fireproofing had been at least partially removed by the impact. And the building in Chicago did not suffer a plane impact. If you can show me a building that has been hit by a plane in a similar manner and not fallen down then maybe you're onto something.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by jhn7537
 


I've never seen evidence that they definitely did. There are apocryphal accounts where people claim to have seen molten steel but nothing beyond that.


Have you happened to see the NASA thermal satelite photos that show the temperatures that were found at the site days, weeks, and months after the attacks....Temps were in excess of 2000 degrees, a temperature that a jet fueled fire can't cause.... Why not believe the eyewitness accounts from fire fighters who were there that day? They described it as like being in a foundry, what do they have to gain by saying that?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Sorry, you said they found molten steel. I assumed you would supply some evidence of this. High temperatures in themselves aren't indictive of molten steel, and are unsurprising given the length of time the fires burned in extremely favourable conditions.

As for the firemen's quotes - well, again, somebody saying it's hot does not equate to the presence of melted steel.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Sorry, you said they found molten steel. I assumed you would supply some evidence of this. High temperatures in themselves aren't indictive of molten steel, and are unsurprising given the length of time the fires burned in extremely favourable conditions.

As for the firemen's quotes - well, again, somebody saying it's hot does not equate to the presence of melted steel.


How can you explain the temperatures then??? How about the test conducted by Physicist Steven Jones, who found nano-thermite in the rubble? Why do you believe the OS over what the fireman who witnessed the event? Was the 9/11 commission there when the attacks happened? Did the 9/11 commission remove the debris or look for survivors? Believing NIST or the commission report over the fireman/rescuers who experienced this event is plain ignornat on your part....



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

At what time? At which side? Id one photo clearly shows more intense damage then another, then the one with more intense damage is more reliable. There are pictures of entire chunks of the side of the building missing, pictures of the entire facade in flames. The fire may have began small, and from that time those pictures show it, but what about later? One picture in a timeline cannot be used to show your beliefs are true if pictures from the same timeline at a later time clearly show a worse condition. Ergo, it was not a simple fire.
Post the damn pictures then! If you've viewed those images, find them again and post them for us to see! Every picture of the pre-collapse damage is nothing near the inferno which you describe, and I've found no images or video evidence to convince me otherwise.


No fires there


No fires on the right side either. The only noticeable damage is on the South side of the building, and a symmetrical collapse from damage isolated to that side of the building does not make sense.



3:30
Notice how every floor stays evenly spaced apart from each other as the buildings falls, meaning it's in free-fall. If it was truly pancaking, then the floors would be stacking on top of each other and that would clearly be visible in the collapse videos. Controlled demolition at it's finest.


The "fuels" were readily available from the galvanization process of steel and other elements. The oxidizers are available in anything from pipes, to computer parts, to the Gypsum in dry wall, containing CaSO4·2H2O. These components, when induced to a flame like that in jet fuel, can mix together and form thermite-like reactions which release heat that can cause problems. In addition, the lack of similar fires in other sky scraper fires, can explain why the situation was so different from other towers, however the structure was perfectly capable of causing it.
Translation: things in the building made the flames hotter. Analysis: Pseudoscientific bulls***, office fires do not melt steel.



If this hotel is still standing after that rager, then WTC7 was not brought down by fire.





I went down the list you provided and found no provable false flags. While I have do doubt the last 5 or so presidents probably did such things, I don't think they would destroy an entire sky scrapper and kill thousands of people just to start a war that they ended up loosing anyway.
Then what was this all about? Ended up losing? We're still there dude! What are you talking about losing, the war is still being fought.


And this is what makes no sense. You must explain to me how a government could so carefully construct a plan that would have been in the oven for over a decade, without any leaks and without any sort of failures, and yet after that, fail so miserably in actually gaining anything from it. The things you list as wins for the government are not wins, because the government has lost legitimacy through such actions. A government only gains when it can take freedoms and keep popular support. As anyone can see, the government has taken freedom, but has failed to keep popular support.

-- Enabling the passage of the Patriot Act I and II
-- Unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the name of terrorism
-- Established the Department of Homeland Security
-- The Invasion of the Middle East
-- A new foreign and domestic policy
-- Used to pass the Military Commissions Act which officially ended Habeus Corpus

Those are all things that our government gained as a result of 9/11. We're in the Middle East making money fighting a war. The Patriot Act, regardless of what people think of it and how many people oppose it, passed once and passed again. "As anyone can see, the government has taken freedom, but has failed to keep popular support.", it doesn't matter how many people support or oppose the things on that list, they still happened against our will!


Why go through so much effort just to nail yourself into a coffin guaranteeing your own destruction within 20 years?
Because I'd rather be aware of how American politics and our government works than live in a fairy tale world where corruption and lies do not exist. Get your head out of your ass dude, the evidence is all there and you're just in denial, resorting to appealing to common sense arguments to hide from the fact that our government bent us over and took advantage of us after 9/11.
edit on 26-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Sorry, you said they found molten steel. I assumed you would supply some evidence of this. High temperatures in themselves aren't indictive of molten steel, and are unsurprising given the length of time the fires burned in extremely favourable conditions.
Evidence of this exact thing has been presented in this thread! You're asking us to supply that which has already been supplied to you.

Page 15, post #3.
Page 14, post #16, video #2.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


And once again you are wrong, Bentham is NOT a peer reviewed journal - who peer reviewed his arrticle?
Ah how ignorant of me, I would think that something called a "peer-review Journal" is a peer review journal, that's my fault.



Also why didnt Jones test the chips in the absence of oxygen - a necesary test for thermite!
How am I supposed to know? Do you want me to call him and ask? I'm not the physicist, he is.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





Post the damn pictures then! If you've viewed those images, find them again and post them for us to see! Every picture of the pre-collapse damage is nothing near the inferno which you describe, and I've found no images or video evidence to convince me otherwise.


www.debunking911.com...

media.photobucket.com...

www.theseattlesinner.com...

femr2.ucoz.com...




Notice how every floor stays evenly spaced apart from each other as the buildings falls, meaning it's in free-fall. If it was truly pancaking, then the floors would be stacking on top of each other and that would clearly be visible in the collapse videos. Controlled demolition at it's finest.


This video shows the two-part (mostly) collapse of the building. At around :40, a large chunk of the building, the part on fire, collapses. You can see this from the sudden disappearance of the smoke from the top left side of the building. Having had a large chunk of its structure collapse, the rest is unstable, and proceeds to collapse around :47, after some very light swaying. This being a full 7 seconds after what appears to be the inner structure collapsing. Without a core, the floors destabilize and fail.







Translation: things in the building made the flames hotter. Analysis: Pseudoscientific bulls***, office fires do not melt steel.


How am I wrong and how is it pseudo science? I am not saying that happened. I am saying that the requirements for termite to be produced where readily available. Calling it pseudo science without a reason why and calling it bull without a reason why is not a valid reason for it being proven incorrect.




If this hotel is still standing after that rager, then WTC7 was not brought down by fire.


The fire was from fireworks and was not that intense. It was also built using a zinc-titanium alloy, very strong and fire resistant. I brought this building up before actually. It shows how fires can indeed have explosions from air pockets. But more importantly, the vast number of redundancies of the structure allowed it to keep up. It was not built in a minimalist style. You can see how it is angles to resist gravity, and indeed has fully redundant structures.

Please do not compare a building from 1967 with a an architectural masterpiece built in 2004.

Here, the style and system seen here were also used for the new WTC. See how the structure is triangulated and overly redundant?

upload.wikimedia.org...




Then what was this all about? Ended up losing? We're still there dude! What are you talking about losing, the war is still being fought.


It says right in the wiki entry that Kenedy fired the leadership responsible. I told you I know that this mentality originates from the 60s, but time after time again such people have been fired for such attempts. The reason is obvious. The type of people involved in such activities. However, their presence in the government does not mean they have no resistance, nor does it mean they would actually do such things. Many times the government cooks up a horrible thing, fires the people whom thought it up, but think about smaller scale versions of it and things that do not involve such large numbers of civilian deaths. Examples of this include the recent release of a DOD video talking about using a virus to shut down the God gene in the middle east. The DOD officials laughed at the idea and ridiculed the person presenting it, but in the end said it had merit and should be looked into.

I may hate the government, but I do trust them to make the right moral and ethical decisions. There's simply too many idealists still in the government to actually allow such things to happen. General Carter Ham, Ron Paul, and many others. These people are walls and as long as people like them live, such things just don't happen. I can think up horrible ways to kill people, that doesn't mean I would do them, nor does it mean I ever did do them. I spend a significant time every night in my dreams thinking of how to defend myself from bad people, often going into horrible things and ways. How one could torture most effectively to get an answer. Increase pain to a maximum. Such thoughts are wrong, but does not make me evil nor wrong. I would imagine the government is no different.




Those are all things that our government gained as a result of 9/11. We're in the Middle East making money fighting a war. The Patriot Act, regardless of what people think of it and how many people oppose it, passed once and passed again. "As anyone can see, the government has taken freedom, but has failed to keep popular support.", it doesn't matter how many people support or oppose the things on that list, they still happened against our will!


Actually it does matter that people support them. because when the government does make a move to take total power, as it traditionally does about every 50 years or so, it's usually popular support that enables such things or throws them aside. The government is just a bunch of people allowed support. The government has before, and will in the future, do such things as you mentioned. What matters is how they use it. The government had all the powers you listed during the Civil war, for example. Lincoln did those things. But he used it correctly. Now I am content to not care how much power the government "assumes" it had, but I do understand that the current reasons for doing it are, in affect, evil. But the fact of the matter is this. We are NOT making money in the middle east. Most of the oil goes to Asia and we have gained no wealth from it. The debt has exploded, and the economy is crashing. There is nothing to suggest anything they did has benefited them. As I've stated, the government IS collapsing at this moment. It's simply defunct as an organization. We see local governments increasing sovereignty every day.

It's like this. You can SAY you have powers xyz, but if the people disagree, you simply do not have them. The fact of the matter is that government is just an idea. An idea that often thinks and assumes powers, but when actually attempting to execute them, discovers it doesn't. The government could pass a bill tomorrow officially banning guns for the people. But that doesn't change the fact that I, as a person whom lives in a city, could easily acquire a gun at any time irregardless of what the government states is legal or not. The government says a lot, but until it stats doing a lot, I have no fear. Because. at least in America, when the government has ever tried to do a lot, it gets itself shot in the face and topples over. I simply don't see how the government has actually gained any concrete benefits from anything its done in the last decade.




Because I'd rather be aware of how American politics and our government works than live in a fairy tale world where corruption and lies do not exist. Get your head out of your ass dude, the evidence is all there and you're just in denial, resorting to appealing to common sense arguments to hide from the fact that our government bent us over and took advantage of us after 9/11.


But agree with you on that. That doesn't mean they orchestrated 9/11. Governments take advantage, and I'd be hard pressed to find any government that hasn't taken advantage of a disaster anywhere in time.

I do know corruption exists. As I told you, I don't even believe the government exists any more. I think it's a bunch of people in denial of their own obsolescence. They will be soon dead and gone.
edit on 26-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


www.debunking911.com...

media.photobucket.com...

www.theseattlesinner.com...

femr2.ucoz.com...
The south side fire damage does not explain the symmetrical collapse, it would not have fallen vertically if the damage is focused on the south side of the building. I'm sure you'll say it has something to do with the padding in the office chairs or the picture frame in Bob's office on floor 28 causing a chemical reaction which melted all of the steel columns at the same time.


Please do not compare a building from 1967 with a an architectural masterpiece built in 2004.
What about a building from 1974? Still not good enough? I'm sure you'll find some crucial difference like the type of brick used or the spacing of the balconies which you will determine as reason to void that building as an accurate comparison.



This video shows the two-part (mostly) collapse of the building. At around :40, a large chunk of the building, the part on fire, collapses. You can see this from the sudden disappearance of the smoke from the top left side of the building. Having had a large chunk of its structure collapse, the rest is unstable, and proceeds to collapse around :47, after some very light swaying. This being a full 7 seconds after what appears to be the inner structure collapsing. Without a core, the floors destabilize and fail.
That video is garbage, is just shows the same old thing we've seen 100 times: the symmetrical collapse of building 7. If that chunk of the building falling off of the south side was crucial to the buildings collapse, why did it not fall in the direction of the missing building? "after some very light swaying" -- that's the camera dude not the building.


How am I wrong and how is it pseudo science? I am not saying that happened. I am saying that the requirements for termite to be produced where readily available. Calling it pseudo science without a reason why and calling it bull without a reason why is not a valid reason for it being proven incorrect.
It's pseudoscience because you're saying that ordinary office materials which are not limited to WTC7 but present in many buildings that catch on fire caused the steel columns to melt. I stand by my statement: that is bulls***.


I may hate the government, but I do trust them to make the right moral and ethical decisions. There's simply too many idealists still in the government to actually allow such things to happen. General Carter Ham, Ron Paul, and many others. These people are walls and as long as people like them live, such things just don't happen. I can think up horrible ways to kill people, that doesn't mean I would do them, nor does it mean I ever did do them. I spend a significant time every night in my dreams thinking of how to defend myself from bad people, often going into horrible things and ways. How one could torture most effectively to get an answer. Increase pain to a maximum. Such thoughts are wrong, but does not make me evil nor wrong. I would imagine the government is no different.
Well there's your problem.


Actually it does matter that people support them. because when the government does make a move to take total power, as it traditionally does about every 50 years or so, it's usually popular support that enables such things or throws them aside. The government is just a bunch of people allowed support. The government has before, and will in the future, do such things as you mentioned. What matters is how they use it. The government had all the powers you listed during the Civil war, for example. Lincoln did those things. But he used it correctly. Now I am content to not care how much power the government "assumes" it had, but I do understand that the current reasons for doing it are, in affect, evil. But the fact of the matter is this. We are NOT making money in the middle east. Most of the oil goes to Asia and we have gained no wealth from it. The debt has exploded, and the economy is crashing. There is nothing to suggest anything they did has benefited them. As I've stated, the government IS collapsing at this moment. It's simply defunct as an organization. We see local governments increasing sovereignty every day.
Those bullets, guns, missiles, bombs, hummers, military bases, tanks, and other hi-tech equipment aren't going to build and buy themselves. War is profitable and people make money from it. "We see local governments increasing sovereignty every day"
Oh that's a good one. The federal government shows no respect for state and local level governments, and we're losing our individual power with each passing day not, gaining it.


It's like this. You can SAY you have powers xyz, but if the people disagree, you simply do not have them. The fact of the matter is that government is just an idea. An idea that often thinks and assumes powers, but when actually attempting to execute them, discovers it doesn't. The government could pass a bill tomorrow officially banning guns for the people. But that doesn't change the fact that I, as a person whom lives in a city, could easily acquire a gun at any time irregardless of what the government states is legal or not. The government says a lot, but until it stats doing a lot, I have no fear. Because. at least in America, when the government has ever tried to do a lot, it gets itself shot in the face and topples over. I simply don't see how the government has actually gained any concrete benefits from anything its done in the last decade.
Nah man it's like this: the government does what they want and doesn't give a **** what the people think or say. Why did Obama not withdraw troops from the Middle East like his campaign promised? The majority of people agree that we should get out of there, but he and his administration are in no hurry to listen to the public opinion, they act on their own independent of the people. The government is starting to do alot, and the big things that we should be outraged at are kept hidden from the public with mind-numbing media distractions.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





The south side fire damage does not explain the symmetrical collapse, it would not have fallen vertically if the damage is focused on the south side of the building. I'm sure you'll say it has something to do with the padding in the office chairs or the picture frame in Bob's office on floor 28 causing a chemical reaction which melted all of the steel columns at the same time.


It didn't collapse symmetrically. It bent, bowed, and spread.




What about a building from 1974? Still not good enough? I'm sure you'll find some crucial difference like the type of brick used or the spacing of the balconies which you will determine as reason to void that building as an accurate comparison.


Are you getting angry or something? The fact of the matter is that not all buildings are built the same. The building in the video is clearly not the same type of building. Look at the concrete, the structure. Do yourself a favor and take a modern architectural histories course.




That video is garbage, is just shows the same old thing we've seen 100 times: the symmetrical collapse of building 7. If that chunk of the building falling off of the south side was crucial to the buildings collapse, why did it not fall in the direction of the missing building? "after some very light swaying" -- that's the camera dude not the building.


It's not necessary for something to fall in the direction of the weakest part. If you've played very simple games like jumbling tower, you'd know that. a building falls to the point of least gravity resistance. If the part that falls first plays a role in keeping it from going the opposite way, it will fall the opposite way. The video clearly is not BS, and if you're two angry to admit it shows contrary to your claims, I recommend you take an hour to stop and think. It clearly shows a mass of the building falling a full 7 seconds before the fall. Also the camera is moving but that's not what I'm talking about. You can see it ever so slightly move and then fall down.




It's pseudoscience because you're saying that ordinary office materials which are not limited to WTC7 but present in many buildings that catch on fire caused the steel columns to melt. I stand by my statement: that is bulls***.


No, I'm saying that in the towers, fueled by jet fuel fires, thi sis plausible. The photographs I showed you more then compensate for the lack of jet fuel in WTC7. I am not saying thermite developed in WTC7. I am saying it was in the towers. WTC7 had enough structural damage and fire for it to fall down on its own.




Well there's your problem.


it's an opinion I am not using to enforce any speculation, where as you use your opinion that the government is evil to enforce your beliefs. This is called a religion, and is not viable scientific proof.




Those bullets, guns, missiles, bombs, hummers, military bases, tanks, and other hi-tech equipment aren't going to build and buy themselves. War is profitable and people make money from it. "We see local governments increasing sovereignty every day" Oh that's a good one. The federal government shows no respect for state and local level governments, and we're losing our individual power with each passing day not, gaining it.


For the companies, not the government. The companies could have all the money in the world. Without a government to buy them, they fail with the government. Have you even begged to ask why the government canceled the FCS program? Why they're looking for cheaper military gear like the LSAT Rifle? The government can no longer fund the military, so it is seeking a smaller role in situations and cheaper equipment.

There is a large difference between actual and theoretical power. I return to the Civil war as an example. During the Civil War, Lincoln pretty much was running a dictatorship no different than Nazi Germany, but the government did not actually use its theoretical power for the purposes of control and abuse of civilians. It used it to win the war and restore the republic. The only difference between Lincoln an Hitler is that Lincoln didn't kill millions of civilians. Likewise, today the difference between theoretical and actual power has not changed. Theoretically, the government today is no different in power and organization than the USSR. In practices, however, many areas of America are no different than Pakistan's tribal autonomous regions. many locations in America run their own laws, their own rules, and their own ways. I think of the inner city, where the gangs and police run their own game independent of Federal laws. I think of the Mexican border, where again many locals take rifles and kill border crosses irregardless of international law. I also think of the business world, where, again, people run their own show and their own games, independent of law. The fact of the matter is that Federal Government can make all the laws it wants, that doesn't mean their power exists in reality.




Nah man it's like this: the government does what they want and doesn't give a **** what the people think or say.


Which is why it has lost legitimacy and is dying.




Why did Obama not withdraw troops from the Middle East like his campaign promised?


Well he never promised a full withdraw, and we are withdrawing forces slowly.




The majority of people agree that we should get out of there, but he and his administration are in no hurry to listen to the public opinion, they act on their own independent of the people


And I act independently of the government quite often times, because where I live there are laws and rules made by the people and what the federal government says is irrelevant.




The government is starting to do alot, and the big things that we should be outraged at are kept hidden from the public with mind-numbing media distractions.


Most, if not all, news I see on this website I see on CNN, BBC, or Jon Stewart's show too. I haven't really seen any evidence of them hiding news. I have seen them bending news or just plain being wrong. But I can just Google search it and find the truth, so I really don't see how they are hiding it if it's literally 3 clicks away from the truth.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Great video put in laymans terms by Richard Gage for the common man.
edit on 26-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Great video put in laymans terms by Richard Gage


This video of Gage shows just how silly he actually is



This is the standard of research that he has done!




top topics



 
274
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join