An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

reply to post by Yankee451


thank you for your reply..

a few minor problems the steel that is on the outside of the building was hollow and not built to take the impact of a jet liner... however the entire building and its main support columns inside were.
the structure on the outside was not the main support for the towers and the design of the building had this in mind, that is why the building needed help collapsing into its own footprint.


the pictures you posted. to me actually show the plane hit as the diagram shows and how most people witnessed the plane hitting. steel and Alum. are both metals you send a solid mass at those speeds into a unsupported metal structure it is sure to cause some damage the wings are filled with the mass of fuel that is a large impact that building would have to withstand and I dont think something like that could be replicated with a UAV or a missle or rocket.
never mind the video evidence there is far too much eyewitness evidence saying that there were planes that struck the wtc towers that day. and that there were explosions that were heard and felt after the planes hit and while the buildings were imploding.


can jet airplanes or any airplane bring down a skyscraper? NO and there have been other instances of planes hitting skyscrapers penetrating the outer wall burning for hours and hours.
never has a building Imploded (yes imploded as if nothing was holding the BLDG up) because of fire or a plane crashing into the BLdg.
to say no planes hit the towers that day seems like another dis-info campaign.


this thread is a perfect example of disinfo from both sides of this ridiculous argument.
truther or Gov. story believer either way you look at it THEY have us fighting on two sides just like our corrupt voting system nothing gets solved only more useless bickering.



Bottom line if those planes and fires are what brought down the twin towers why did each and every floor UNDER the impact collapse into rubble and dust.

keep in mind what it takes to cut steel beams of that size. many hours of cutting with a concentrated mixture of oxyacetylene. that burns at a temp of 6000*F
open air burning temp of jet fuel 500-599*F

at the end of the day the people who lived through 9-11 KNOW what they experienced, and the bottom line is we the people are being lied to by our leaders. and those leaders are more concerned with their paychecks than the lives of all the people lost on that day. even the 1st responders who rushed into a wall of toxic dust to help whomever they could are being left in agonizing slow deaths with no medical help whatsoever.



to finish off my post I would like to say this is my opinion based on only the facts about this 9-11 lie. everything i have said can be backed up or proven and has been proven in scale model experiments...

I cannot say the same for the Official story. in fact they had nothing but problems when trying to prove their theory by recreating the events that happened that day.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Do you know for sure when that photograph was taken? How many bounces would it take to knock out that wheel? I mean, c'mon.

It's plausible so cant be ruled out that what amuses me about you guys you think the strangest things can happen no planes beam weapons floors taken out but you rule that this may have hit the ground rolled or slid as not possible.

So, they're not dropping then? Is that what all these gyrations are about? The only people I see bringing up beam weapons are folks too timid to back up their bluster with some sort of coherent argument.

I can understand how you'd feel about posting on LetsRoll, especially considering all the adolescent rantings I've absorbed from you, but I assure you, I'll give you a much more respectful welcome there than you've given me here.

reply to post by -W1LL


Thank you for your reply.

Your response is a perfect example of someone who is repeating what they are told.

Can you tell me what the motives were for 911?

reply to post by -W1LL

the structure on the outside was not the main support for the towers and the design of the building had this in mind, that is why the building needed help collapsing into its own footprint.

That doesn't agree with the design plans. All the floors were supported by trusses. The trusses attached to the inner core and the exterior steel. Someone called it a tube in tube design. The exterior carried about 40% of the total load.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek

 

And you have any evidence of how that happened?

Pathetic, Gen. I expected so much more. Aren't you supposed to be some big, bad editor or some #?

When do I get some of my questions answered anyway, or do you want to bring up straw and concrete blocks again?

You claim that they staged the shot. Ok, prove it. Show some evidence. Other than that, you are just talking out the backside. Nothing to back it up = BS. Personal incredulity is not evidence.

They have been answered. Apparently you fail to understand how some objects dont have an issue penetrating another object, when layman logic believes that it shouldnt happen, (Ie wood through concrete, wood through stel, aluminum wing through a steel column). Too bad you dont understand what an example is.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by -W1LL

 

the structure on the outside was not the main support for the towers and the design of the building had this in mind, that is why the building needed help collapsing into its own footprint.

That doesn't agree with the design plans. All the floors were supported by trusses. The trusses attached to the inner core and the exterior steel. Someone called it a tube in tube design. The exterior carried about 40% of the total load.

not sure what youre saying if the outer steel held 40%... that would leave 60% for the inner columns. 60% seems to be more support than 40%.

yes the exterior did support the Floors but it was a combined effort that wrapped around the entire floor the damage to the outer supports was only localized to one side of the building. the other three sides and center supports were still holding as intended by the designers.

srry. yankee I don't respond to insults. facts are facts.

reply to post by GenRadek


No, its your evidence. show me how it's not staged.

6 dozen stories, and the wheel is just sitting there as evidence of a plane?

Where is this panel now?

Can you prove what day that picture was taken, besides using a digital time stamp that can be manipulated?

How far would that panel need to fall to shatter the concrete? One story?

How far would it need to tumble for it to be twisted and bent?

How far would it need to tumble to dislodge that wheel?

Can you provide some evidence that a wheel could punch out a whole multi-ton wall panel in it's entirety, snapping all the bolts, yet not significantly bending where the wheel impacted it?

Originally posted by -W1LL

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by -W1LL

 

the structure on the outside was not the main support for the towers and the design of the building had this in mind, that is why the building needed help collapsing into its own footprint.

That doesn't agree with the design plans. All the floors were supported by trusses. The trusses attached to the inner core and the exterior steel. Someone called it a tube in tube design. The exterior carried about 40% of the total load.

srry. yankee I don't respond to insults. facts are facts.

I was no more insulting than you were.

So does that mean you don't know what the motives were?

I mean no offense, but researching a crime without knowing the motive is tough.

The real motives likely included, but were not limited to:

1. Destroy evidence of institutional lawlessness in government, finance, military and business.
2. Silence investigations into the above.
3. Demolish the white elephants known as the Twin Towers.
4. Provide pretext for world war and hegemony in the guise of the Global War on Terrorism.
5. Allow the continuation of a culture of plunder and corruption

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.scribd.com...

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek

 

No, its your evidence. show me how it's not staged.

Do they give conspiracy believers a course in Argument from ignorance??

it seems to be a pretty normal tactic - confronted with verifiable & credible evidence that doesn't suite them they all seem to resort to "you can't prove it isn't true" or some variation thereof - doesn't matter what conspiracy - it's jsut stock standard!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Why don't you answer a question once in a while. Here's my last post to you. You guys normally drop a little snide remark and then scurry off without standing your ground.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Care to respond?

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Greetings and en garde...

I think the question should be whether AQ ever stopped working for the CIA to begin with.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

Ah......begging the question - wonderful - this is the fastest I've ever seen a CT resort to a well known logical fallacy.

Let's not actually establish that AQ works for the CIA - let's jsut say that it is true.

I now fully expect a wave of illogical "connect the dots" drivel including repitition of the speculation/myth about OBL being paid by the USA via the CIA .........blah, blah, blah....

do you have any actually verifiable evidence, or are we gonna have to sit through more diatribes of people telling me stuff that they "know", and is "obvsious"....but they somehow can't actually provide any credible info to prove??

I'm betting it's the later.....still

Are you saying the CIA didn't train and finance the Mujahideen,

Not at all - why would I say that??

and that al Qaeda isn't a CIA fabrication whose role is to foment trouble so the USA can come in and "save the day?"

Yep..and now onto your "supporting" quotes:

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed and trained by the United States [Central Intelligence Agency] (CIA) during the administrations of Jimmy Carter[39] and Ronald Reagan

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's a pretty good article about it from the father of John Walker Lindh

At that time, the Taliban governed most of Afghanistan, and were engaged in a long-running civil war against a Russian-backed insurgency known euphemistically as the Northern Alliance. John was quickly accepted as a volunteer soldier, and received two months of infantry training in a Taliban military camp before being dispatched to the front lines.

These young soldiers performed heroically in the defeat of the Soviet Union. Their cause was openly supported by the American government itself, particularly during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, who took office two weeks before John's birth in early 1981.

The training camp in Afghanistan where the Ansar received their infantry training was funded by Osama bin Laden, who also visited the camp on a regular basis. He was regarded by the volunteer soldiers as a hero in the struggle against the Soviet Union. These soldiers did not suspect Bin Laden's involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out in secret. John himself sat through speeches by Bin Laden in the camp on two occasions, and actually met Bin Laden on the second such occasion. John has said he found him unimpressive.

www.guardian.co.uk...

as i said - I do not doubt that the CIA supported the Mujahadeen, and even the Taliban indirectly - but of course none of your quotes actually refer to AQ......

BBC documentary Al CIADUH doesn't exist
www.youtube.com...

Your GoogleFu skills are slipping Gaul guy, that's just scratching the surface

so a BBC documentary about a guy who CLAIMS AQ does not exist -

There is no such thing as "al Qaeda", there is no one on earth who calls himself a member of "al Qaeda". "al Qaeda" is a term made up by the U.S. government to be applied to anyone killed during in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

which is obviously palpably drivel, since we have a large number of groups who call or have called themselves by names such as "AQ in Afghanistan", or AQ in Iraq, etc

And here's the transcript of an interview with OBL from a Al Jazeera journalist in 2001 - how the OBL adopted the name "Al Qaeda" - from OBL himself.....

The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed.

It's on page 8......

Sorry for the delay - your post was so ridiculously lacking in actual evidence that I didn't think you were serious, but since you complained that I didn't answer the question I've decided to make it patently obvious that it is not my google-fu that is lacking

so - how many more logical fallacies instead of actual evidence to support your claims??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

BIN LADEN’S BEGINNINGS
As anyone who has bothered to read this far certainly knows by now, bin Laden is the heir to Saudi construction fortune who, at least since the early 1990s, has used that money to finance countless attacks on U.S. interests and those of its Arab allies around the world.

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.

What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

So "unclassified" information we have about his humble beginnings is fairly damning. Gosh. What does the classified information hold?

Nothing nefarious, I'm sure.

reply to post by Yankee451


I have no idea what hte classified info holds - but making suggestions that it holds exactly what you think it holds, and calling that some sort of evidence, is just ridiculous.

"we dont' know what they arent' telling us, therefore it must be exactly what we think it is" ??

CT's refuse to see the speciousness of such an "argument" - they even claim it as some sort of moral high ground and then usually descend to argument from ignorance statements "well you cant' prove that it isn't true" - aand claim that as proof positive - all the time forgetting that their so called proof is actually the fact that they do not know what the information is at all!

It's stunning in it's illogic and self-deception, and far better fits the definition bill of "disinformation" than any verifiable evidence offered in rebuttal.

Are you going to do any better??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I see! Well, you told me!

Al Qaeda is not just some CIA creation which was designed to go rogue then? That was all just disinformation?

Yes...yes, that changes everything.

reply to post by Yankee451


Ah......well ....anothe tactic - you've moved on from logical errors to sarcasm! Well done for having sufficient adaptability to abandon a loosing play!

But of course sarcasm isn't evidence either.

If you choose to believe the talking head who offers no credible, verifiable evidence for his claims, against multiple strands of evidence directly contradicting it from all around the world, from multiple sources including the head of the organisation himself and all levels down, then that's your chioce.

But then you shouldn't act so upset when people such as me say you're wrong because the vast weights of evidence shows you are wrong, and point out the multiple problems with your "evidence".

Maintaining a stoic resistance against the weight of evidence may help you feel like a martyr or something.....but it still doesn't change that weight of evidence one little bit.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek

 

And you have any evidence of how that happened?

Pathetic, Gen. I expected so much more. Aren't you supposed to be some big, bad editor or some #?

When do I get some of my questions answered anyway, or do you want to bring up straw and concrete blocks again?

You claim that they staged the shot. Ok, prove it. Show some evidence. Other than that, you are just talking out the backside. Nothing to back it up = BS. Personal incredulity is not evidence.

They have been answered. Apparently you fail to understand how some objects dont have an issue penetrating another object, when layman logic believes that it shouldnt happen, (Ie wood through concrete, wood through stel, aluminum wing through a steel column). Too bad you dont understand what an example is.

Care to explain how 116ton 757 jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.?


Cause the government can't.. they expect people like you (who don't know jack about construction) to drink the koolaid with ease.


I'll be waiting.


Oh , and feel free to twist and cut 'n paste my post.

reply to post by dilly1


No-one says the aircraft pulverised the building tho - so your request to show how it happened is another case of begging the question - inventing a question about something that did not happen in the first place, and then claiming "victory" when no-one can answer .....

It's a typical attempt to sidetrack from verifiable evidence from the believers of hte 9/11 hoax - you cannot actually discuss anything factual, because all eth factual info says you are wrong, so you have to go to inference, assertions, and even fantasy.

It's a bit sad that people can still think like you

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dilly1

 

No-one says the aircraft pulverised the building tho - so your request to show how it happened is another case of begging the question - inventing a question about something that did not happen in the first place, and then claiming "victory" when no-one can answer .....

It's a typical attempt to sidetrack from verifiable evidence from the believers of hte 9/11 hoax - you cannot actually discuss anything factual, because all eth factual info says you are wrong, so you have to go to inference, assertions, and even fantasy.

It's a bit sad that people can still think like you

I guess what your trying to say is you don't know jack about construction. Right? Figured

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Aw shucks Gaul, how many sources do you want to brush aside?

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after. This video documentary is off the hook…

polidics.com...

He begins with vital heavily documented background information about 9/11 already covered above. It explained we needed cover for our "war on terrorism." Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda provided it as "Enemy Number One" and his network, hiding the fact he and thousands of Mujahideen fighters were recruited for the largest ever CIA operation in the 1980s. They were organized, financed and sent to "destabili(ze) the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, but (more importantly) destroy...the Soviet Union." CIA's Milton Beardman once explained "If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

In fact, we did, using Pakistan's Military Intelligence ISI as intermediary, so bin Laden and Mujahideen fighters weren't aware who their real paymaster was or why they were recruited. ISI played a crucial role for Washington in the 1980s. Then, from the end of the Cold War to the present, it's been "the launch pad for CIA covert operations in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans" turning Bosnia into a "militant Islamic base" and later Kosovo with help from NATO and Washington. This isn't speculation. It's fact. The ISI-Osama-al Qaeda-Taliban nexus is a matter of public record, but the "American people have been consciously and deliberately deceived (about it) by their government."

www.rense.com...

996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, "I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden."

articles.latimes.com...

On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward.

www.wanttoknow.info...

reply to post by GenRadek


Anything? Come on Gen, gimme the low down...how much did those panels weigh? How much energy would it have if it fell from what, about a quarter mile?

If it hit something on the way down, where's that debris? Where are the thousands of witnesses...I don't see any, but I do see a burning car in one shot, and an American Flag in the other...smacks of propaganda don't you think?

If that panel hit the ground flat, as it's shown in the photograph, I would think you'd see evidence of that in the street...you know a crater.

if it hit one end first, I'd think it would impale into the ground, that's a lot of energy, as WMD would say...

But it sure looks like it was simply laid in the street, pummeled with a sledge hammer and had a beat up jet tire stuck into it before snapping a couple of photos of it. Call me crazy.