What brought the towers down???

[RickyJ]

It just doesn't make any sense how Zarquawi was anything other than a terrorist. Why would anyone work for an agency who will just kill him sometime in the future? Who would be that dumb?

This guy was. How much do they pay you to post your government spin here?

[azxcvbnm321]

So there are terrorists? Then it wouldn't it make sense that terrorists like Zarquawi attacked the United States and want to kill us? So this war is real then? Checkmate folks.

[RickyJ]

your foolish videos of how the Towers fell.
Attacking the videos now are you? How foolish can you be?

[RickyJ]

So there are terrorists?

Yep, they are called the elite. If you don't know who they are do a google search on Federal Reserve.

[Veritas]

Then it wouldn't it make sense that terrorists like Zarquawi attacked the United States and want to kill us?

Why do you suppose these terrorists would want to attack the United States and "kill us"?

[slvrbugjim]

azxcvbnm321 (http://goldismoney.info/forums/member.php?u=759)

are you 12 years old?? Seems like you do not have a brain, but OK Cukku, Duuuu, there are terrorists and there is water in the ocean. Wow, you are so very deep, thanks.

As an idiot that does nothing more than read USA Today, you are more of an idiot than any idiot I have ever seen. Learn to think for your self, unless you are simply a government shill, in this case go away, forever. I really feel sorry for your family.

[slvrbugjim]

Attacking the videos now are you? How foolish can you be?

Yes do not look at the videos, do not look at the man behind the curtain, We are here to help you, do not worry, your government loves you>>>Just come in and stop resisting, stop thinking with your brain, just comply, yes thats it, move along here, nothing going on, we would never hurt you, we would never lie, trust us!!!

[azxcvbnm321]

Why do you suppose these terrorists would want to attack the United States and "kill us"?

Because we're not a country under Sharia law. Because we allow our women to go outside and show their faces. Because we allow alcohol and other vices in our society. Because we're not like them. How many times do they have to say this? How many times do they have to bomb and murder before you understand.


And of course no one can answer my questions or fault my logic. I guess this is closed unless someone can come up with an actual answer to what I've stated above. I know it's hard to face logic, but wake up and face the truth, there are people out there who want to kill us and those are the same people who took out the Towers. That's why none of you dare to venture into Iraq or Gaza. If your conspiracy is true, there's no reason why you should be targetted, why you have anything to fear, it's all fake and set up. But you know the truth. You know that you will be kidnapped and beheaded. You know there is no conspiracy, only a bunch of terrorists who want us dead.

[RickyJ]

...there are people out there who want to kill us and those are the same people who took out the Towers.
This is correct. But you don't have slightest clue who brought down the towers. You believe the very government that would arrest people for merely taking pictures of ground zero. The very people who sold and melted the evidence down as fast as possible. The very people who obstructed any meaningful investigation of the evidence of 9/11 at every turn. You believe the fake video of Osama saying he did it. You believe it despite the fact it is clear it was not Osama at all, but an imposter.

With you it's all blame the Muslims for 9/11 despite the lack of evidence of their involvement in it. There is NO credible evidence that Muslims had ANYTHING significant to do with 911, yet that doesn't stop you from saying so, does it? The government told you so, so it must be true, right? The government doesn't need to prove anything to you, no, you believe whatever they say without them ever having to prove anything! Hitler loved people like you, all despots would.

[Large Sarge]

Actually, steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire.

McCormick Place Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place) is one example.

The McCormick Place Roof Collapse

The Most-Cited Example of a Fire-Induced Collapse of a Steel Structure

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire_s.jpg (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire.jpg)
Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings totally collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples) defenders of the theory frequently cite the McCormick roof collapse incident.
McCormick Place is a warehouse-type building that housed a large exhibition hall. It had a long-span roof supported by web trusses. When a fire broke out in an exhibition with many flammable displays it rapidly spread, and a portion of the roof collapsed within 30 minutes.
Comparisons of the McCormick Place incident to the collapses of the Twin Towers are sometimes made because the floor diaphragms (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html) on that constituted most tenant-space floors in the Towers were also supported by web trusses.
The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html)'s endorsing the column failure theory (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/columns.html) to the exclusion of the truss failure theory (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/trusses.html).

Furthermore, the comparisons of the roof trusses of McCormick Place to the floor trusses of the Twin Towers is limited by the following facts:
The floor trusses were insulated, unlike the roof trusses.
The floor trusses spanned at most 60 feet, apparently much shorter than the roof trusses.
The floor trusses had to support the floor loads of the concrete slabs and office furniture, whereas the roof trusses only had to support snow loading.

The Madrid fire had 3 floors collapse, due to fire.

Here is a picture of your Mcormack fire afterwards, looks a little different than WTC, notice supporting walls still standing

http://www.chipublib.org/images/disasters/mccormick_fire.jpg

[Large Sarge]

Because we're not a country under Sharia law. Because we allow our women to go outside and show their faces. Because we allow alcohol and other vices in our society. Because we're not like them. How many times do they have to say this? How many times do they have to bomb and murder before you understand.


And of course no one can answer my questions or fault my logic. I guess this is closed unless someone can come up with an actual answer to what I've stated above. I know it's hard to face logic, but wake up and face the truth, there are people out there who want to kill us and those are the same people who took out the Towers. That's why none of you dare to venture into Iraq or Gaza. If your conspiracy is true, there's no reason why you should be targetted, why you have anything to fear, it's all fake and set up. But you know the truth. You know that you will be kidnapped and beheaded. You know there is no conspiracy, only a bunch of terrorists who want us dead.

a Few points to remember, we never saw any actual video footage of passengers boarding any of the flights(they chose not to release that info), so who was really on them? , just passenger manifests tell us.

also, it has been alluded that Al Quaeda is indirectly funded by the CIA (like in the 80's), through an intermediary the ISI, there was some suggestions that these were drug runners of the CIA (Al Quaeda), they were patsies.
if they were even on the planes

[bigjon]

Because we're not a country under Sharia law. Because we allow our women to go outside and show their faces. Because we allow alcohol and other vices in our society. Because we're not like them. How many times do they have to say this? How many times do they have to bomb and murder before you understand.


And of course no one can answer my questions or fault my logic. I guess this is closed unless someone can come up with an actual answer to what I've stated above. I know it's hard to face logic, but wake up and face the truth, there are people out there who want to kill us and those are the same people who took out the Towers. That's why none of you dare to venture into Iraq or Gaza. If your conspiracy is true, there's no reason why you should be targetted, why you have anything to fear, it's all fake and set up. But you know the truth. You know that you will be kidnapped and beheaded. You know there is no conspiracy, only a bunch of terrorists who want us dead.

You are looking in the wrong place again, the Arab's don't own all of our newspapers, radio and boob tube stations, publishers and hollywierd movies houses. The Zionists who are the main beneficiaries of this "reichstag fire called 9/11" are the ones you should be using your "logic" on.

They show pictures of people with bombs strapped to them and you are so simple that you accept what they tell you and you are so proud of your "logic" that you can't see who the real enemy is... it is the Zionist criminals.

There are no suicide bombers, just more of the usual, by way of deception bombers.

The people doing the beheading could be, Mossad agents, who have gained much more than the poor Arabs. Many of the photos depicting the beheadings showed that those doing it were also wearing rings... something that is forbidden in the muslim religon.

[Large Sarge]

The most obvious point I see in the discussion is the Explosive CT's pulpit pounding that there is only two sides to the issues, pro gov/TPTB and red pill awareness. They fail to see any third party interlopers that insist the status quo of over-stated durability of building design.

As a matter of fact, the Explosive CTs will only parrot the engineering status quo but won't hesitate to question any other engineering source that debunks the official Explosives theory.

Double standard political BS is what I call it.


.

plenty of disinfo agents out there, spreading BS

there is only one true story halo, and it does not involve 3 simultaneous building failures

the truth is the truth.

[runcible]

Here is a picture of your Mcormack fire afterwards, looks a little different than WTC, notice supporting walls still standing

That wasn't my point -- I was rebutting the belief that a steel frame building can collapse in a fire (and I believe that picture showed that the roof did collapse).

Now, admittedly, McCormick is only a few stories tall. WTC #1 & #2 were 110 floors tall, WTC #7 was 47 floors tall. That's a lot more force involved.

Its your turn now. I suggest bringing up the 32-floor Windsor tower in Madrid, and how it survived a 24 hour fire with only a partial collapse. Here's a link (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm). You may also want to play the 22 story Ronan Point Apartments (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JPCFEV000019000002000172000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) disaster, which survived an explosion with only a partial collapse. However, Madrid is steel-reinforced concrete, so you could claim it was a steel-framed building (like some CT sites do), while the Ronan Point Apartments were precast concrete. Also, considering the damage a gas explosion in an apartment did to the Ronan Point Apartments, I wouldn't want to claim that building as proof that a fueled 767 flown into a skyscraper couldn't lead to a collapse.

If you dislike either of those possibilities, there is always switching to ad hominem attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) or accusing me of being a gov't disinformation agent.

[Large Sarge]

Its your turn now. I suggest bringing up the 32-floor Windsor tower in Madrid, and how it survived a 24 hour fire with only a partial collapse. Here's a link (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm). You may also want to play the 22 story Ronan Point Apartments (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JPCFEV000019000002000172000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) disaster, which survived an explosion with only a partial collapse. However, Madrid is steel-reinforced concrete, so you could claim it was a steel-framed building (like some CT sites do), while the Ronan Point Apartments were precast concrete. Also, considering the damage a gas explosion in an apartment did to the Ronan Point Apartments, I wouldn't want to claim that building as proof that a fueled 767 flown into a skyscraper couldn't lead to a collapse.
.

I used the Madrid fire to support my own (professor Jones, and all others in the 911 truth movement) theory.

The Madrid fire adds nothing to your case, 3 floors partially collapsed after 24 hours of intense burning. (total building engulfed in flames)

yet we have 110, 110, and 47 floors that collapse after a few hours of burning, fire on a few floors.

if you are going to give supporting evidence, try and do it for your side, the govt has enough problems with their story, they do not need sincere supporters helping the truth get out.

[Large Sarge]

here is your Ronan Apartment story: ( A natural gas explosion) that caused a couple floors to collapse, notice another partial collapse. plus it says the whole building was not upto code when built. and even with that we only get a partial collapse

(Accepted 16 January 2004)
In the early morning hours of May 16, 1968, the occupant of apartment 90 on the 18th floor of the 22-story Ronan Point apartment tower, in London, lit a match to brew her morning cup of tea. The resulting gas explosion initiated a partial collapse of the structure that killed four people and injured 17 (one of whom subsequently died). On investigation, the apartment tower was found to be deeply flawed in both design and construction. The existing building codes were found to be inadequate for ensuring the safety and integrity of high-rise precast concrete apartment buildings. The Larsen–Nielson building system, intended for buildings with only six stories, had been extended past the point of safety. The tower consisted of precast panels joined together without a structural frame. The connections relied, in large part, on friction. The apartment tower lacked alternate load paths to redistribute forces in the event of a partial collapse. When the structure was dismantled, investigators found appallingly poor workmanship at the critical connections between the panels. Subsequently, building codes in many countries have adopted structural integrity or "robustness" provisions that may be directly traced to the Ronan Point collapse.

[slvrbugjim]

If you dislike either of those possibilities, there is always switching to ad hominem attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) or accusing me of being a gov't disinformation agent.


yes well, you valiant attempt to protect the government story and to protect those that did this attack on 911 is suspect at best, most are not quite so sure what it is that you would receive by protecting the government and its flimsy conspiracy theory.

[Halophyte]

Halophyte

Your repeated references to "CT's" is a dead ringer for a government shill, just so you know that we know, your attempt to defend this government and those that carried out this attack does not go un noticed either.


slvrbugjim

Your repeated references to "government shill" is a dead ringer for a docu-drama lapdog. If you only had a clue about what I "defend" and what I "question" ...

[Halophyte]

This guy was. How much do they pay you to post your government spin here?


Does it pay better to shill for CT books and video sales ?


.

[Halophyte]

plenty of disinfo agents out there, spreading BS

there is only one true story halo, ....


And don't question the exact count by count, point by point, inuendo by inuendo docu-drama plot or you're crusified by the "true believers" ...

And yes, the true believers are the only true "patriots " ... every one else is just an enemy agent, a NWO shill for TPTB !!!





sieg heil !

[RickyJ]

Does it pay better to shill for CT books and video sales ?


.
You know the answer to that, don't you wise one? There is a reason they sell well, it's becasue they offer more of something the government doesn't most of the time, something called the truth.

[Halophyte]

When people get caught between lies, the govcrats or the docu-drama sellers, they'll reach for anything that resembles truth.

When the monetary bankster system failed in 1923, the people of Germany reached for a new "truth" ... and it's unlikely leader ...

[slvrbugjim]

slvrbugjim

Your repeated references to "government shill" is a dead ringer for a docu-drama lapdog. If you only had a clue about what I "defend" and what I "question" ...

Once again, your passonate defense of the government and their official fairy tail on 911 speaks for itself as we can all see here.

[runcible]

yes well, you valiant attempt to protect the government story and to protect those that did this attack on 911 is suspect at best, most are not quite so sure what it is that you would receive by protecting the government and its flimsy conspiracy theory.

Some people find the gov'ts story to be more credible than the CT demolition scenarios.

Why this is a hard concept for you to understand?

[slvrbugjim]

Some people find the gov'ts story to be more credible than the CT demolition scenarios.

Why this is a hard concept for you to understand?

This is difficult to believe, that anyone that carefully looks at the evidence could in any way accept the official story regarding WTC 7?

Ignorace and stupidity are the only excuse I would understand. If you and Halo love and trust the government story on this, we wish you the best, however, many of us that look very carefully at the science smell a rat, and if you are so very interested in defending this crap, you are suspect as well, This obviously is only an opinion, but I have gone up against more than my share of shills on many sites as well.

[slvrbugjim]

For anyone that is interested in knowing more and doing your own research here is a good place to start, thousands of links, forums and blogs on 911 truth.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html


Notice GIM is in fact listed here, cool

Forums

9/11 Eyewitness (http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=2)
9/11 Files (http://unsungwar.com/forums/)
9/11 Truther (YBBS (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14))
Above Top Secret (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/118/pg1/srtpages)
Al Ciada (http://alciada.net/forum.php?sid=193603f571d15818f4977587446ccfb6)
Anti-Neocons (http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewforum.php?f=9&sid=662f911b8dc298cef441ea81b87f2d80)
Cannabis Culture (http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=conspire&page=&view=&sb=5&o=)
Cerebellum (http://www.cerebellumink.com/forum2/viewforum.php?f=8)
Chemtrail Central (http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/forum6.html)
Conspiracy Central (http://control-alt-delete.ca/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=68795b442811f47aeb4062731ff9e294)
Conspiracy Research (http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/forums/9-11-Research-f7.html)
Cooperative Research (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/forum.jsp)
David Icke (http://www.davidickeforum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=477534036e542d4d438ffc59d9b0c76f)
Deadline Live (http://www.phpbbserver.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=5&mforum=jackblood)
Debate Politics (http://www.debatepolitics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125)
Documentaries.WS (http://www.documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?10)
Flame Song (http://www.flamesong.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1)
Gold is Money (http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/f135-conspiracies.html)
Jim Marrs (http://www.jimmarrs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4)
Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/index.php?f=196)
Liberty Forum (http://www.libertyforum.org/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&page=&view=&sb=&o=)
Loose Change (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx)
Mike Malloy (http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewforum.php?f=6)
My Pet Goat (http://www.mypetgoat.tv/forums/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=f0dbebc6cac7d5204ad95a5cd6b95b81)
Nine Eleven (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/)
NWO Watcher (http://nwowatcher.com/smf/index.php?board=18.0)
Pentagon Strike (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/forum/index.php)
PhysOrg (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=12)
Physics 9/11 (http://physics911.ca/forum/)
Progressive Independent (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=110&page=)
Pravda (http://engforum.pravda.ru/forumdisplay.php3?forumid=21)
Randi Rhodes Show (http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showforum=127)
Revolutionist (http://therevolutionist.hyperboards.com/index.php?action=view_board&board_id=6)
Revere Radio Network (http://revereradionetwork.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=111)
Right to Think (http://www.righttothink.com/index.php?h=0&pf=0&c=19&sid=9ca43270876fb5d29c5bbd89d3de0110)
Rigorous Intuition (http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm17)
Scam (http://www.scam.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
Signs of the Times (http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/index.php)
Team 8+ (http://www.team8plus.org/forum.php)
TV News Lies (http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=7)
Unexplained Mysteries (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showforum=11)
United 93 (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9&sid=c95f0c66472043fcdee2455ed6d339e7)


If you are on the fence or somewhat questioning the official story it is your duty to find the truth.


"non cooperation with evil is our sacred duty"
Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless corrupt. ...

Ghandi

[Dude]

I posted this earlier. One of Jones' 13 reasons...debunked easily. I have plausable explainations (more plausable, IMO, than the secretive efforts of 100's involved in an explosives CT) for the other 12, but this below is crystal clear. If you do not see how Jones should not even be offering this up as some kind of melted steel proof, you are brainwashed. Soon, Jones will have you direct depositing your paychecks into his account. This is the shortest and easiest one of the 13 to understand. Tell me what you think regarding the text below.

A Jones clip:
Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability.

My clip debunking Jones:
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. This substance is grayish. Dare I say SILVER? One thing it's not, and that's black.
Jones writes:"This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".

The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me. I still wouldn't CONCLUDE it's aluminum. But as I said, the evidence points to it.
The colormeansnothing. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed it's color.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf) it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?


Jones says something I can't help but find incredible... "If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."


The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner.

[RickyJ]

Some people find the gov'ts story to be more credible than the CT demolition scenarios.

Why this is a hard concept for you to understand?
It's not hard to understand considering that many people in the USA have a below 100 IQ. What is hard to understand is why anyone with above average intelligence would believe such a story from the government? That is very hard to understand indeed, unless of course they are liars and nothing more than shills for the government, then it is completely understandable.

[Halophyte]

Does above average IQ equal ad hoc jerk-off ?

[azxcvbnm321]

All the conspiracies depend on "doubts" but have no evidence themselves. There are no pictures of the so-called explosives, no other evidence that explosives were set. In a court, which side would win? The side with evidence of planes flying into the buildings, or the side with no evidence at all of explosives?

Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm sure someone else can answer this question here. How could it be possible for explosives to be set in a planned demolition without thousands of people who work in the building not to notice? I assume that the explosives would have to be placed at multiple points at support structures on every floor. And we're talking about enough explosives to bring down a steel building, so they have to be pretty big. How is it that no one notices? See, the "offical" story makes MUCH MORE sense. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to pull off what the conspiracy theories say without someone noticing.