Killtown on 9/11

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
And guess what, all videos were taken down.


Then why in the post after yours is the video that shows that it was not a explosion in WTC 6?

Why lie and claim it was a explosion in WTC 6, when the video clearly shows it is the 2nd plane striking the WTC?

Why also falsely claim the video had been taken down?
edit on 1-7-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
9/11 doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Too big a job, to not be in-house. I'm not falling for it.

I couldn't find that video. Thanks mastermindkar. But, sorry still not going to convince me that the plane made that big of an explosion and it is near building 6.

Also, why would the GROUND shake before it doesn't hit the building? Then you have a one heck of a MASSIVE explosion. You don't see the plane do you?

edit on 1-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
Also, why would the GROUND shake before it doesn't hit the building?


try watching the video, and READING the explanation


. YOU DON"T SEE THE PLANE? DO YOU?


How about drawing a picture. draw wtc 6, draw in the location of the camera, draw in WTC 1 & 2.

now do some research and see where the plane hit the south tower, and you should understand

or if that is too hard for you look here
en.wikipedia.org...:911_-_FEMA_-_WTC_impacts_%28graphic%29.png


Um, where's the plane?


do what I wrote, and you should understand why you do not see the plane.


How do you know it wasn't from building 6?


Because there were no explosives used, and building 6 did not explode.
edit on 1-7-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor




I'm going to believe what I want and what I have seen, doesn't matter what kind of so-called proof that I put up anyway about explosives, it's not going to change your mind or anybody else's. So, do what you do. Not going to make difference. Have a nice night.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Manhater
 


Why is this story significant? Approx. 3000 people died on 9/11/2001. Think about this way. Select any 3000 people at random today. What are the chances that either a child or parent of one of those 3000 people will die within 5 years of the date they were selected? Put it this way, would you bet any of your own money that no one of the 3000 would lose a child or parent within 5 years, suspicious circumstances or otherwise?

Also, what were you looking for that you found this website? I see this here every now and then. Someone claims to have just been casually surfing the web and "happened" upon this interesting website and just asks everyone to take a look, supposedly an agenda-neutral request.


Relax Hooper,

The OP is still new to the site and trying to contribute, you don't need to shine the interrogation light right into their eyes. Lacking knowledge of Jack Ruby means the poster might also be younger than most.

From what I've seen any mention of someone questioning the OS of 9/11 you automatically launch in to attack mode.

Why not help the new member instead of being so aggressive and looking for an "alleged" agenda? Are you just trying to bait them?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
doesn't matter what kind of so-called proof that I put up anyway about explosives,


You got that right, all you can put up is "so called proof", you are unable to put up any real proof that explosives were used. - Even though the picture you posted claiming it was explosives at WTC 6 has been thoroughly debunked here, you still believe it shows explosives being used in WTC 6!!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I guess you would also say its impossible for the plane to make it all the way through the wtc and out the other side as well ?



Its okay if you do because I totally agree it is impossible considering that a bird does this to the nosecone of an airliner in a mid air collision.Considering that the nosecone is made of aluminum and the wtc is made of steel, its really quite impossible.


DO I SERIOUSLY HAVE TO BE YOUR GOOGLE ? ? ? ? ? ?

Also since you mention kinetic energy ... What is the mechanism for converting the vertical kinetic energy of gravity to horizontal kinetic energy sufficient to rip exterior framework sections apart and eject them 500 to 600 feet? I am sure you will have an answer for this as you are obviously an expert in the subject material, and I would love to see an expert such as yourself explain it,


So could you please answer the questions posed to you ?
edit on 1-7-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
I guess you would also say its impossible for the plane to make it all the way through the wtc and out the other side as well ?


Here we once again a truther posting garbage - just what makes you think that was the nose of the plane? What evidence do you have that shows it was the nose?

or are you going to run away from questions like other truthers?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Your not answering anything in my post , yet claim that someone is running from your questions ? What else could that possibly be besides the plane ? Is that office furniture coming out the side in your opinion ? Now do you want to go ahead and answer anything I asked you specifically. What is the mechanism for converting the vertical kinetic energy of gravity to horizontal kinetic energy sufficient to rip exterior framework sections apart and eject them 500 to 600 feet? Can you answer or are you just going to stick to 15 word responses that address nothing ? Seriously

ANSWER THE QUESTION
edit on 1-7-2011 by DrunkNinja because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
What else could that possibly be besides the plane


Who said it was not the plane? once again a truther gets very confused by the facts - you claimed it was the nose of the plane - something you are unable to prove, then make up a silly story that I claimed it was not the plane....

Try reading what you post, and thinking about it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Could we please do without the personal remarks and deal with the topic in a civil manner?

Thank you



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
But, sorry still not going to convince me that the plane made that big of an explosion

Really? Have you watched any video of the second plane impact at all during the past 10 years?

To help you out, here is a compilation video of all-known footage of the second plane impact, which will show you that there was a very large fireball:






Originally posted by Manhater
I'm going to believe what I want and what I have seen

You can run around all day long doing this if you like:




But when you start claiming deliberately false information such as "all videos were taken down", then you're going to be called out on it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
DO I SERIOUSLY HAVE TO BE YOUR GOOGLE ? ? ? ? ? ?

Do I have to be yours?



Originally posted by DrunkNinja
I guess you would also say its impossible for the plane to make it all the way through the wtc and out the other side as well ?

It would be. And there's no exit hole:




Any questions?



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Here' s an half of an article, that I researched and wrote about, about the molten metal steel. Silverstein Admits to using demolitions and explosions. I saw his interviews. There's your proof that explosives were set up. Comes out of the horses mouth. And, yet you still don't believe. Please note, that some stuff from the article may have been taken down. You WILL have to use the waybackmachine for some of the links.

*Also, China is now sending STEEL to build the bridge in San Francisco. Did you know that? Do you know where that STEEL came from? Probably the towers because the towers steel was shipped directly to China.


Molten Steel:

Now let's get familiar of what a [11] Controlled Demolition and what [12] Implosions look like. Look Familiar? Larry Silverstien the owner of WTC7 states with his own admission to [13] "PULL IT" not “PULL THEM” (Which is a known demolition term) on a live interview. There is no two ways about this. Silverstein and the Fireman gave the order to "Pull WTC 7". Fireman and construction workers know this term very well. [14] CDI which is a controlled demolition team were paid over seven hundred million to remove the steel. Did you know that they were also called in for the “Oklahoma Bombing” and brought that building down in less then 6 seconds? 8 Seconds WTC 1,2,4,5,6,7, towers. This is just basic math. Nothing hit tower 7 and nothing hit tower 6.

Now, What would cause ground zero to still be burning molten steel a month after the fact of the devastation? I'll even take this a couple more steps further. [15] From the AVIRIS data collections the [16] quoted from the U. S. Geological Survey “revealed on September 16, 2001 that a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF). Over 3 dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature were present in the core zone of the WTC.” [17] OHSA quoted “Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees.” Now after a month later the molten steel is still burning when the towers had already collapsed. Now the question is why? To cause the “EFFECT” of a Coal Scenario one can suggest that it might be a [18 ] “Blackbody” . Blackbody is “An object that can absorb and send off radiation with complete efficiency—that is, it reflects none of the radiation that falls on it. The higher the object’s temperature, the higher the frequency of the radiation it gives off”. To “CAUSE” the [19] Blast Furnace effect, According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [20] Blast Furnace ” is a furnace in which combustion is forced by a current of air that is under pressure”. The towers after the collision may cause a blast furnace stove effect. [21] U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 092447 filed August 11, 1979; Inventors Malone, William H.; Fischley, John; Anderson, Harry L.; Spirko, Edward J.; of the blast furnace stove quote " In the blast cycle, outside air is introduced at the bottom of the checker chamber and travels upwardly through the checkerwork absorbing the stored heat. This preheated combustion air then travels down through the combustion chamber exits the stove and enters the blast furnace." Let’s look at another inventor, [22] Inventor Claflin, H. Bruce U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 4,495,054 filed November 11, 1980; he had the "Method of Operating a Blast Furnace to Extract the Carbonaceous Oil and Gas from Bituminous Materials." Which could explain how it was controlled, vaporized and had volcanic like ashes in its own environment. As quoted by Claflin, H. Bruce comes another inventor. [23] Inventor R. S. Higgens " U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 158,709 filed June 12, 1980 "he reveals how, improved by minor modifications, zone controlled blast furnaces can be operated either as highly efficient hot metal producing blast furnaces utilizing heat and reducing gas produced externally to reduce their consumption of high-priced ecologically difficult to produce coke, or in an entirely different manner to produce maximum quantities of specification gases from low-cost sources such as low grade coal or lignite and recycled top gases. In gas mode operations, no coke is charged and the iron oxide charge is very small or zero. The amount of CO in the gas converted to CO.sub.2 in the reduction of iron oxides is small, improving the Btu content of the exit gases, and the heat that would have been employed to melt the iron is largely consumed in the endothermic reactions involved in reconverting recycled CO.sub.2 to CO and H.sub.2 O to H.sub.2 and CO." To sum it up, air, gases rose from the bottom of the towers traveling upwards then when it collapsed came back down faster then it should of. Creating a pressure of a blast effect. Making the clouds seem like a volcano just erupted and causing ground zero to molt for a month. The clouds alone looked like you were watching fireworks go off, [indication of explosives-Ever watch Munich?] Let’s take another look at the cloud formation of when the towers came down looks like a NASA Shuttle just lifted off. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. According to, “Newton's Law of Gravitation” those towers fell faster then gravity. Newton’s Law did however seem to coincide with the fact of how they burned. Like coals on a fire. In my finding it's just improbable and inconceivable. It is an undoubtedly fact that planes were used; no question about it but it is a major possibility planes were used in conjunction with demolition and should not be dismissed by one's demeanor. In my finding yes, demolitions were used in the towers.

Why else would Larry Silverstein pay seven hundred million dollars to a demolition team?

[11] Controlled Demolition
[12] Implosions
[13] Larry Silverstein "PULL IT" not “PULL THEM”
[14] CDI
[15] From the AVIRIS data collections
[16] quoted from the U. S. Geological Survey
[17] OHSA
[18 ] “Blackbody” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[19] Blast Furnace effect,
[20] “Blast Furnace” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[21] U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 092447 filed August 11, 1979; Inventors Malone, William H.; Fischley, John; Anderson, Harry L.; Spirko, Edward J.; of the blast furnace stove
[22] Inventor Claflin, H. Bruce
[23] Inventor R. S. Higgens " U.S. Pat. Application Ser. No. 158,709 filed June 12, 1980
edit on 1-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   


The cover-up would need to involve much more than simply "keying up" an alternate reality feed. "They" would need to ensure the silence of: 1) camera crews who saw something different than what was eventually shown on TV 2) news anchors with access to more than one feed at one time 3) production room people getting all the live feeds from the field 4) police in the air 5) people on the ground 6) etc.

From what I can recall on 911:

1) Not too many camera crews, if any, broadcasting live from the WTC on that day. Plenty of people connected to the media calling into the networks and providing initial witness verbals though. Even Bryant Gumble had one of those "What you're talking about Willis?" moments when one of the planted witnesses stated that she thought the crash was intentional.

2) The news anchors read a teleprompter; you only give them enough information that you want them to report. Not to say that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw weren't in obvious disbelief about what was going on and what they were selling.

3) What live feeds from the field? All the field stuff was pre-recorded, reviewed/censored and released (or not released) at a later date. You send a bunch of crews out, you record a bunch of material and after snipping away, you present your little edited movie to the blood thirsty masses.

4) There was a little more than just police in the air on 911.

5) At around 6:45-7:00 a.m, a witness saw a whole fleet of emergency vehicles heading in from I believe the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The Financial District is a very small area with small streets which can be closed down and isolated within a matter of 10-15 minutes by authorities. At the time, there were not too many ways to get in and out.



We need to keep in mind that the World Trade Center complex involved a different "just good enough" design sensibility because of the enormous size and cost of construction. When you combine that with the intensely corrupt construction industry in New Your during the time they were built -- fueled by organized crime and deep corruption in city, state, and federal building inspectors and permit agencies -- we most-certainly ended up with a sub-standard design being constructed with even more sub-standard materials and techniques.

Yep...the Towers were "just good enough" to survive a hotter than hell three hour fire in 1975, sustaining absolutely no structural damage. They were also "just good enough" to survive a rather violent and destructive van bombing to the foundation area in 1993. Also "just good enough" to withstand 150 MPH hurricane winds and multiple 707 airline strikes.

A structure of that size, such as a bridge, needs to be overdesigned to be deemed safe. At those weights and with NYC being a pretty windy city, you better make sure you know what you're doing. You make it sound like the materials were purchased from some second hand thrift store.

I agree with the claim that 911 occurred because of New York City corruption. However, I would point the finger at the Giuliani administration, instead of some obscure NYC Building Department employees in the '60's, who are all probably dead by now. How convenient. But, then again, dead man tell no tales.

The Twin Towers were anything but, sub-standard construction. They were state of the art, which means no expense was spared. You think that Japanese architect came cheap? You consider American steel and building ingenuity sub-standard?

Your excuse that these Towers collapsed because of shoddy design does not hold water because no other New York highrises have collapsed due to fire and this alleged shoddy design. How many other skyscrapers were built during this corrupt time in NYC? Why are all those other buildings holding up so well?

Why haven't these building been inspected and deemed unfit for occupancy? You think the involved insurance carriers would continue to underwrite these risks if they smelled anything of the sort you are claiming? They would drop coverage and literally shut them down overnight.



Why have we never seen anyone researching those anomalies using the raw footage rather that YouTube sources? So many of the "anomalies" can be explained away by the simple fact of multi-generational digital videos being used as the source.

Any idea of how to get a hold of this "raw footage", which I assume was all confiscated by authorities? Can we sign a petition or something? Maybe if we write a letter to them and say pretty please.

All of the anomalies on the compressed YouTube vides CANNOT be explained away due to digital artifacts. It appears that very few, if any, can be explained as such. There are those who can tell the difference between CGI and "convenient anomalies". Anomalies are random - they just don't pop up in so many places.



I also know that sequential structural failures of a very-large building, under intense load, can sound like explosions. Imagine -- for a moment, following the thought of shoddy construction -- that many welds of all the major external load-bearing steal were sub-standard, and less than "good enough" as the design originally dictated. As upper welds failed, and more stress was suddenly applied to lower welds, the breaking of the welds will sound explosive.

Are you saying a professional first responder such as a fireman would not know the difference between how a real explosion sounds and how a breaking weld connection sounds? Aren't they trained to be able to decipher certain sounds?

Are you also saying these welds were breaking during the collapse sequence? If so, what would cause these welds to break so easily? An oxygen starved fire? A few floors above collapsing?

Where were these weld connections which supposedly broke? On the facade or the inner support girder tube? What photographic or video evidence do you have that these welds broke, before, during or after the fact? Without evidence, the broken welds argument is much weaker than the explosives argument. Broken welds do not cause giant skyscrapers to be blown to smithereens.



edit on 1-7-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


the problem with that is it is not the nose of a plane exiting the building, the plane hits the tower, you see down one side of the tower the building being blown out from the inside and part of the explosion, on the opposite side of the tower at an angle you see the remainder of the dust/debris following the same line being blown out of the window, followed by an object with a wisp of smoke and then by the explosion. because the dust/debris are being blown with force through a window or maybe a couple, when they first exit they will be shaped like the window, ie flat at the top and bottom. a bit like when you force water through a hose pipe, the water nearer to the host pipe nozzle takes on the same shape as the hose pipe. this would of been easily seen if it were not engulfed in the explosion. it would of eventually exited and turned into a ball of dust with the heavier parts falling to the ground. but that does not happen because the explosion engulfs it either disrupting what would of happened or hiding it from view.

the only reason people think it is a nose out is because somebody gave it that label therefore thats what everybody sees, well not everybody.

edit to add: there is a simple method that can be done, i am sure it has been before. the size of the towers is well known, they are on record. the size of the nose for that particular plane is well known, it is recoded. measure the towers, then mesure the size of the 'nose out' then compare it to the size and shape of the nose of the plane in question.

edit on 1-7-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-7-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Pull It is not a term used in demolition. Sorry. Just isn't. Even when they got a chain wrapped around a building column they aren't going to say pull it.

$700,000,000 to a demolition team? Where is this coming from?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Manhater
 


Pull It is not a term used in demolition. Sorry. Just isn't. Even when they got a chain wrapped around a building column they aren't going to say pull it.

$700,000,000 to a demolition team? Where is this coming from?


I have to find it again. It's been awhile. It could be 7 Mil. Sorry, if I'm wrong on the amount. I wrote that ages ago in 2001.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Even when they got a chain wrapped around a building column they aren't going to say pull it.

Sure sounds like they are saying "pull it" to me:


Google Video Link



They are pulling Building 6. They could also have said "pull IT", meaning Building 6. Just like Silverstein said "pull it" or "pull Building 7". The word "it" is singular. Silverstein was talking specifically about Building 7 and that maybe the smartest thing to do was to pull IT, meaning pull Building 7.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant