I'm pretty sure this building is going to collapse - Sharjah Skyscraper!

reply to post by SimontheMagus

It's fairly easy to cover up something as massive as 911 when you control the whole damn 3-ring circus.

I assume you mean the media.

Supposedly Rupert Murdock controlled the media (If you ask truthers). Well look where he is now. He can't even control his underlings wiretaping news story. If there was any story he would want to control this would be the one.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


A lot of people have "talked".

Show me one who has definitive proof of a wide-ranging government conspiracy behind 9/11 - one who was involved in it.

Or get lost

reply to post by SimontheMagus

A lot of people have "talked". They're all over the Internet.

Please. No one talked. As in, "I planted explosives in the World Trade Center towers on June 1, 2001". But there are a lot of people who "talked" as in, "here's my theory about how 9/11 was an inside job and I once worked for the government so I must be right".

They get shouted off the MSM by the likes of talking-head imbecile Bill O-Reilly.

So its all Bill O'Reilly fault, huh? Thats a new one.

It's fairly easy to cover up something as massive as 911 when you control the whole damn 3-ring circus.

I hate to even ask, but who do you think controls every media outlet on the planet Earth?

Only those at the top needed to know what was really going on.

How about the guys who planted the explosives? The guys that bumped off all the passengers? Planted airplane parts at the Pentagon? etc., etc.

Those below them in the pyramid chain of command were simply lied to, like for instance NORAD who stood down thinking they were drills.

You, of course, have some evidence that operators at NORAD were told it was all a drill and they could "stand down"? And please don't post a link to that one guy that asked if this was real world or an exercise.

You're not real. Get real. Or get lost.

Thats right! Lets get this going! On to the investigations! Its only been 11 years.

I gave Bill O'Reilly as an example you obfuscating troll.

90 percent of the main stream media on "planet Earth" is now owned by five men.

Get it?

I was thinking this thread might get 2-3 flags at best and some eye rolls from the OS'ers, but over 50 flags? I guess I hit some nerves, very surprising.

I wasn't trying to compare Sharjah building with WTC 1 and 2, I am aware planes, or cartoon missiles, hit the towers, but nothing hit Building 7, or as Rumsfeld calls it, "Building what??"

Oklahoma city bombing looked like Godzilla stepped on that building, compared to debris damage from building 7, OK city building should have collapsed within hours, going by OS logic. That building had to be demo'd though, building 7 just needed to have a few office fires to bring it straight down though?

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
but nothing hit Building 7"

This is simply untrue.

Fiery debris rained down from WTC 1 and 2 and slammed through WTC 7. Without a working water main, the fire sprinklers were unable to contain the fire and it eventually went down.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

I was thinking this thread might get 2-3 flags at best and some eye rolls from the OS'ers, but over 50 flags? I guess I hit some nerves, very surprising.

I wouldn't get too excited about 56 flags.

blocula's threads get a lot of flags: one of blocula's crazy threads and he doesn't have any proof for his crazy theories.

reply to post by 4hero

Jet Fuel Jet Fuel is a type of aviation fuel designed for use in jet-engined aircraft. The most common fuel is an unleaded/paraffin oil-based fuel classified as JET A-1, which is produced to an internationally standardized set of specifications. In the United States only, a version of JET A-1 known as JET A is also used. The only other jet fuel that is commonly used in civilian aviation is called JET B. JET B is a fuel in the naptha-kerosene region that is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance. However, JET B's lighter composition makes it more dangerous to handle, and it is thus restricted only to areas where its cold-weather characteristics are absolutely necessary.

JET A-1

Flash point......................................................................38C
Auto-ignition temperature..................................................210 C
Freezing point..................................................................-47C
Open air burning temperatures...........................................260C-315C
Maximum burning temperature...........................................980C (1796F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F)..................................................... 0.775-0.840 kg/L

www.mepetroleum.com...


What I do not know is what fuel were they using, considering this was in Sept in the northeast, were they using the more "dangerous to handle" B for cold weather areas?

reply to post by SimontheMagus

90 percent of the main stream media on "planet Earth" is now owned by five men.

And just who are these five?

Do they also control the media in...
Iran
Norh Korea
China
Russia

Do these same five own 90% of TV stations and radio stations?


90% is a tall mountain.

But in reality you are lying through your teeth.
You know you are lying because you have never researched the ownership in other countries.
You know you are lying because you know that in the US there are laws limiting ownership of TV, radio, and newspapers.

That's one reason I keep coming back here.
People lying through there teeth just to stir the pot.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I gave Bill O'Reilly as an example you obfuscating troll.

90 percent of the main stream media on "planet Earth" is now owned by five men.

Get it?

I notice you keep using that qualifier "main stream" media. As there is no official definition as to what is and what is not included in the "main stream" I supposed you can simply call whatever those five men own the "main stream media" and then disqualify everything else. Convenient.

So if a story is printed or published or broadcast on an outlet not controlled by the five man gang then it doesn't count, huh?

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I was thinking this thread might get 2-3 flags at best and some eye rolls from the OS'ers, but over 50 flags? I guess I hit some nerves, very surprising.

I wouldn't get too excited about 56 flags.

blocula's threads get a lot of flags: one of blocula's crazy threads and he doesn't have any proof for his crazy theories.

That thread is boss! I remember that Aliens spying on us through cat's eyes thread too, got like 200 or so flags. And my well written, well thought out threads get less than 10 flags, so do many other members' who put a lot of effort into their threads, IsaacKoi comes to mind in the UFO section.

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
but nothing hit Building 7"

This is simply untrue.

Fiery debris rained down from WTC 1 and 2 and slammed through WTC 7. Without a working water main, the fire sprinklers were unable to contain the fire and it eventually went down.

When I said nothing, I meant no "planes" hit it. I mentioned the debris hitting it.
And for the record, I'm betting you could use gasoline on every floor of building 7, ignite the fuel, and let it burn away for a day... at the end of that day, all that would be left would be a "standing" structure like this Sharjah building, a skeletal structure, intact.

ETA- Here's what building 7 should have done if it was so damaged by falling debris. The intact structure would hold together, there wouldn't be a simultaneous failure in all the steel encased in concrete couplers...

reply to post by 4hero

Also The Marriott Hotel (WTC3) was directly in the firing line being the closest building to the towers, it did not suffer a complete collapse, even after a large amount of debris fell onto it.

Oh this one is easy. I know why it didn’t collapse.
It's because the debris falling on it was fake. Right?

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Thank you for taking the time to post information from a responsible source.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I gave Bill O'Reilly as an example you obfuscating troll.

90 percent of the main stream media on "planet Earth" is now owned by five men.

Get it?

I notice you keep using that qualifier "main stream" media. As there is no official definition as to what is and what is not included in the "main stream" I supposed you can simply call whatever those five men own the "main stream media" and then disqualify everything else. Convenient.

So if a story is printed or published or broadcast on an outlet not controlled by the five man gang then it doesn't count, huh?

Define convenient.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

That thread is boss! I remember that Aliens spying on us through cat's eyes thread too, got like 200 or so flags. And my well written, well thought out threads get less than 10 flags, so do many other members' who put a lot of effort into their threads, IsaacKoi comes to mind in the UFO section.

It is a sad fact. Many quality threads get zero attention, while a total nutjob theory brings the bats out of the belfries.
Not saying that I believe the premise here on this thread, though.

I am not an OS'er, but I am not a truther. I think the govt was aware of a terrorist plot, did nothing to stop it and used it to their advantage.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

That thread is boss! I remember that Aliens spying on us through cat's eyes thread too, got like 200 or so flags. And my well written, well thought out threads get less than 10 flags, so do many other members' who put a lot of effort into their threads, IsaacKoi comes to mind in the UFO section.

It is a sad fact. Many quality threads get zero attention, while a total nutjob theory brings the bats out of the belfries.
Not saying that I believe the premise here on this thread, though.

I am not an OS'er, but I am not a truther. I think the govt was aware of a terrorist plot, did nothing to stop it and used it to their advantage.

At the very least...

Arguing with some of these people here is like arguing with a garage door opener.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

90 percent of the main stream media on "planet Earth" is now owned by five men.

Even if this were true - and it's obviously not - you'd probably need the other ten per cent if you were to keep 9/11 quiet.

And I assume you think that Rupert Murdoch is an actor?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The barriers to entry for the "perfect evidence" are mighty high. That "magic airplane" fuel would have burnt out in 15 - 30 minutes. And it certainly cannot send streams of molten steel down the stairway as the firefighters described.

Could you please back this statement up with sources? I've never heard it before and it sounds ridiculous.

You can listen to the Architects for 9/11 truth; LINK

If you can actually watch the whole thing, and perhaps dip into the MIT professor doubts the official investigation; LINK -- then you might change your opinion if you are open to it.

I've found that people just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT -- because it totally destroys your mental paradigm of what it is to be "free" and in America -- land of the noble and brave.

I have to wonder if you are really ready to listen -- because it took me two seconds to search for "911 Firemen report molten metal" and we've got eyewitness testimony's and firemen with names and no financial or career incentives to make these stories up; LINK


The NIST theory is that fire caused a pillar to collapse -- and the chain reaction of that failure caused 144 other pillar's to collapse such that the building went straight down. But HOW can a building start collapsing at the top when the fires are at the base? There was no damage on the top floor -- it should have started collapsing near the compromised pillar (if the ridiculous theory had any validity at all), and then THAT lack of support would have caused.

So you've seen NO EVIDENCE -- if you watch these three video clips, then I don't think you can make that statement. A couple thousand TOP LEVEL architects and engineers, MIT professors, and eyewitness reports from firefighters on the scene -- doesn't look like a bunch of weirdos to me.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

You can listen to the Architects for 9/11 truth;

Pass.

If you can actually watch the whole thing, and perhaps dip into the MIT professor doubts the official investigation; LINK -- then you might change your opinion if you are open to it.

And what if you listen to it and come to the conclusion that is a bunch of junk, will you be willing to listen to that? Or is this just a one-way street?

I've found that people just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT -- because it totally destroys your mental paradigm of what it is to be "free" and in America -- land of the noble and brave.

No, what you found was that people just don't believe it because its nonsense - so you attribute that to a failing on their part - not yours.

I have to wonder if you are really ready to listen -- because it took me two seconds to search for "911 Firemen report molten metal" and we've got eyewitness testimony's and firemen with names and no financial or career incentives to make these stories up;

Fireman talking about streams of molten metal flowing down the stairways? Where?

The NIST theory is that fire caused a pillar to collapse -- and the chain reaction of that failure caused 144 other pillar's to collapse such that the building went straight down. But HOW can a building start collapsing at the top when the fires are at the base? There was no damage on the top floor -- it should have started collapsing near the compromised pillar (if the ridiculous theory had any validity at all), and then THAT lack of support would have caused.

You do realize that we only have video of the top portion of the building at the time of collapse, correct? So if you only see the top half then, of course, it looks that way.

So you've seen NO EVIDENCE....

Nope.

-- if you watch these three video clips, then I don't think you can make that statement.

Bet I can.

A couple thousand TOP LEVEL architects and engineers, MIT professors, and eyewitness reports from firefighters on the scene -- doesn't look like a bunch of weirdos to me.

No wait - TOP LEVEL architects and engineers? Where? As far as I can see its just the marginal self proclaimed pseudo experts at that website. Tell you what, find me one engineer that has put their stamp on an official demolition plan that thinks 9/11 was an inside job and maybe I'll listen.

As for the firemen - cherry picking quotes and assigning conclusions accordingly is not nice.

reply to post by hooper


Great debunking there.

-Look at this evidence!
- Pass... so where's this evidence? I see none.

-Check out these links.
- No, it's all nonsense.



Everyone has seen the clips of the firemen talking about channels of molten steel flowing, if you haven't, then you are like 1% into investigating 9/11. Go research then come back when you're willing to drop some cognitive dissonance.

Here you go...