The Truth Behind 911...a must see...long but good!

DavidLin

Active member
Nov 18, 2004
194
49
28
I personally don't believe the towers could come down the way they did without a little bit of help from explosives. This really isn't the issue anymore, people can believe or not. However, regardless of this aspect of this whole war with Iraq, everything else seems to be quite a sham. You guys on the above posts mentioned that osama bin laden did blah blah this and that before 911 and claimed he did it. My question is, what the hell does osama bin laden have to do with Iraq? Afghanistan was supposed to be the target, and that was a cakewalk. If your going to go and track someone down for bringing down the towers, wouldn't you be looking for the guy suspected of doing it, instead of sidetracking and going into a country with a leader(albeit a hated one) that has consistently and ruthlessly killed any and all terrorist organizations in his country? Not saying that Saddam was a great guy or anything, but he had his motives for killing terrorists organizations, he pretty much killed anyone that had the potential to organize any form of resistance with guns and bombs. Different motives, but the results were the same, Iraq had remained consistently terrorist free throughout Saddam's rule. Isn't that a lot better than the terrorist, carbombing, radical extremist hotbed Iraq has turned into now? Every report and investigation into whether Iraq had WMD's and whether Saddam had connections with Osama came out negative.
Yea sure, Cheney and rumsfeld and co. really thought the US was going to be greeted as liberators. I have no background in politics, i read the news from time to time, EVEN I would have deduced that the US would encounter significant resistance going into Iraq. Bush is spoon fed advice by some of the sleaziest, cunning and intelligent men in the world. Is anyone dumb enough to really think they didn't figure out that the US would not be wanted as a presence in the middle east? The US built a couple of landing strips in peaceful US friendly Saudi Arabia and people started blowing themselves up in protest. Yet for some magical reason, sending troops into Iraq, one of the only semi developed nations of the muslim world would somehow not piss off the muslims.
Motive is a very important thing to establish. In Saddams defence, I would say the dude had no motive whatsoever to create WMD's or anything of the sort. This is a guy that spends every morning looking over his shoulders to see if there might be a rogue general/assistant/prostitute that might be in to kill him. The dude has spent the better part of his life being paranoid about this stuff. Does anyone think a guy like that is going to even bother to risk provoking the US? Put yourself in Saddam's shoes, you run a freaking country, are rich beyond many peoples means, can get all the pussy you want, u can kill any man that pisses u off and you own palaces, mansions and luxury cars. Does anyone think a man with that much would wake up one morning and say "hey, I got an idea, lets create some WMD's and really piss off the US and the international community. I totally forgot how they kicked my ass last time I had a war with them, maybe this time I'll win. I mean, I just have a couple of rabbles of AK47 toting poorly trained troops, against the most technologically advanced army in the world? NO problem!"
Motive, I repeat, is a very important thing to establish. Bush campaigned with more money than any president in history has ever campaigned with. Despite this fact, he only narrowly won the election (whether he really won is still up for grabs). Where did he get this unprecedented amount of money? Well, lets see who his friends are. Its already been well established that his family is in the oil business. His grandpapa and past generations were or were connected with some of the biggest arms dealers in the world. Many significant campaign funds have been connected to powerful people, connected to the biggest weapons manufacturers in the US. While we may never be able to establish that everything leading up to Iraq was a sham, I'm sure most of you will certainly agree, that Bush and his friends sure are profiting handsomely from it. That much is true, so its either by very very good luck on their part, or someone stacked the cards.
One more thing though, Personally, I'm not a poor man, I have a strong family background and will be richer than the vast majority of those brave soldiers fighting giving arm and limb for their country. There is no way that I could possibly understand their plight. What I do know is, that it is from those ranks of the population that you will get the majority of the "emotional support" for people like president Bush. These are the dudes that will be seen on TV saying stuff like "we believe in our president, we are the US, we will spread democracy, capitalism, Christianity to better our fellow man(regardless if they want it or not) we'll police the world, hoooorrraaah!" I call them emotional support because these people, believe so firmly that their government and country is so great that they'll give their hearts and souls to do things that they think are protecting it. The other kind of support for people like pres bush are the dudes that are getting something out of it, i.e. rich people and the lower ranks of such.
I personally feel very badly for the poor folk out there coming back with their limbs blown off and whatnots. Being the person I am, I understand that their is a dividing line between those that have it, and those that don't. Some may work hard or by luck get it, but most won't. This is an unfair world, and I wouldn't sacrifice a limb to lose what I have. These poor folk not only will never have it, but are on their way back with a few limbs gone, a psychiatric problem, a government that will skimp as much as they can off their medical bills and probably have lost a girlfriend or divorced a wife for good measure. That is what you get for what you believe. So, hopefully not whilst their ex wives or girlfriends are being banged by the rich guy across town to pay the bills, some of these poor, brave, steadfast and horribly misinformed segment of the population will realize they are cannon fodder to make an already rich man, even richer.
 

edmontonsubbie

Edmontonsubbie
Apr 22, 2006
1,307
19
38
113
uh...Edmonton.
holy shit...

....I didn't even stop to see if any of that made sense. I'm sure it did. That was one long honking paragraph. I will say...you are right...I am wrong...whatever you said.

eddie.
 

edmontonsubbie

Edmontonsubbie
Apr 22, 2006
1,307
19
38
113
uh...Edmonton.
I don't trust or put faith anything the media, government, or my ex-husband tells me.

I may not know the truth, but I know their main motivation in dealing with me is to manipulate me to get what they want.
ahhhh....very wise....ALL behaviour is causal....is causal a word?...uh, yeah, but not applicable here. I withdraw the word.

caus·al adj. Of, involving, or constituting a cause: a causal relationship between scarcity of goods and higher prices. Indicative of or expressing a cause.

In any event, people don't do shit without a reason. Being a natural born optimist, I believe they do it to enhance another's life!....hahahahahahahahahahahahaha....sorry, couldn't resist.

Go, Oilers, go!
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,087
91
48
I personally don't believe the towers could come down the way they did without a little bit of help from explosives. I personally feel very badly for the poor folk out there coming back with their limbs blown off and whatnots. Being the person I am, I understand that their is a dividing line between those that have it, and those that don't. Some may work hard or by luck get it, but most won't. This is an unfair world, and I wouldn't sacrifice a limb to lose what I have. These poor folk not only will never have it, but are on their way back with a few limbs gone, a psychiatric problem, a government that will skimp as much as they can off their medical bills and probably have lost a girlfriend or divorced a wife for good measure. That is what you get for what you believe. So, hopefully not whilst their ex wives or girlfriends are being banged by the rich guy across town to pay the bills, some of these poor, brave, steadfast and horribly misinformed segment of the population will realize they are cannon fodder to make an already rich man, even richer.
David, one of the best posts I have ever read on perb! Well done!

The one thing I will say about Canadians, we aren't as ignorant and moronic as the glossy eyed, flag waving freaks, from the good olde U S of A!

Please watch the vid and give me your comments, if time permits.
 

henryhill

Witness-Protection
Jan 10, 2006
411
0
16
No doubt in my mind that the United States government knew about the attacks in NYC ahead of time. Whether or not the planes were hijacked by Terrorists is kind of irrelevant now isn't it. CIA, FBI and White House all knew about plans to use airplanes as weapons and did nothing to prevent it.


Just my opinion. I am not looking to argue.
 

DavidLin

Active member
Nov 18, 2004
194
49
28
Thanks bud. Here is a another video (short video) that will exemplify how ridiculous it is to think that 2 jets and 1 hour of burning could bring down the two towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=gAoZtngJE58

The highlight is: In Madrid/Spain a much smaller building was set ablaze for 24 HOURS straight with flames bright enough to light up the entire city around it. In the morning, it was still standing with its steel frame intact. The towers burned slightly for 1 hour and the entire damn thing came crashing down. Mind you, the twin towers were designed to withstand earthquakes, bombings etc.... The Madrid building was just a regular apartment building.
 

twoblues

New member
Apr 25, 2006
816
1
0
North Vancouver
Not that I'm educated in the matter, but comparing what happened to the twin towers to an apartment fire in Madrid is not really adequate.

Twin towers = Planes flying at a few hundred miles per hour, loaded with jet fuel (which burns hotter) and crashing sideways into a building.

They may be earthquake proof, but earthquakes don't hit more than halfway up a building and do not carry jet fuel. Also, when the mid section of a building is structurally weakened and the weight of the upper floors suddenly pushes downwards, I'd imagine that that might cause some problems.
 

SethBrundle

Member
Jan 28, 2006
57
0
6
How about the B-25 bomber that crashed into the empire state building in 1945. Oh and it didnt collapse. hmmmm
 

tangowango

New member
Mar 15, 2007
44
0
0
How about the B-25 bomber that crashed into the empire state building in 1945. Oh and it didnt collapse. hmmmm
Compare the size of a B-25 vs the size of a B-767

Compare the speed of a B-25 vs the size of a B-767

Compare the fuel load of a B-25 vs the size of a B-767

Also, bear in mind that the Empire State building is built like a tank, the old school of building, not this new age stuff they are doing
 

DavidLin

Active member
Nov 18, 2004
194
49
28
Not that I'm educated in the matter, but comparing what happened to the twin towers to an apartment fire in Madrid is not really adequate.

Twin towers = Planes flying at a few hundred miles per hour, loaded with jet fuel (which burns hotter) and crashing sideways into a building.

They may be earthquake proof, but earthquakes don't hit more than halfway up a building and do not carry jet fuel. Also, when the mid section of a building is structurally weakened and the weight of the upper floors suddenly pushes downwards, I'd imagine that that might cause some problems.
The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fuel (jetplane fuel) fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

This combined with the fact that a B-52 bomber crashing into the Empire State building with no collapsing of the building really boggles the mind doesn't it? I'm sure a B-52 bomber would probably generate a similar impact on a building, if not greater.
 

SethBrundle

Member
Jan 28, 2006
57
0
6
Compare the size of a B-25 vs the size of a B-767

Compare the speed of a B-25 vs the size of a B-767

Compare the fuel load of a B-25 vs the size of a B-767

Also, bear in mind that the Empire State building is built like a tank, the old school of building, not this new age stuff they are doing

ok good point. I guess it's not impossible for a plane to collapse a building. WT1, WT2, WT7. Oh wait no plane hit WT7. :p
 

InTheBum

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2004
3,087
91
48
The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fuel (jetplane fuel) fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

This combined with the fact that a B-52 bomber crashing into the Empire State building with no collapsing of the building really boggles the mind doesn't it? I'm sure a B-52 bomber would probably generate a similar impact on a building, if not greater.
David, all points discussed above are pointed out in the video link I posted, and then some...

Not to mention, the World Trade was built to withstand the impact of a 707...which is comparable to a 767...

Other points:

Why are squibs going off as the buildings come down?

Why was there an explosion from the basement moments before they came down and multiple smaller blasts throughout the building?

Why were the main support columns cut at a perfectly 45 degree angle, inwards, just like during a demolition?

Why was tower 7 brought down so quickly?

Why did the power get shut down the weekend before 911...something which was never done...shutting down all security cameras for hours?
 

LonelyGhost

Telefunkin
Apr 26, 2004
3,935
0
0
any idiot can test this theory with a beer can.

step 1: drink beer
step 2: stand on beer can ... empty, thin-walled beer can
can support even your fat ass.
step 3: put tiny dent in can with your finger.
step 4: try standing on beer can now ...







it will collapse.

Same with World Trade Towers ... once the 'integrity' of the structure
was compromised, it was primed to collapse ... and eventually the
concrete and glass, which are susceptible to heat, dried, cracked
and collapsed ...

it was not the weight of each floor that overloaded the structure
from there, but the speed of each floor dropping increases the force
to greater than the simple weight of each floor.

as each floor collapses the force increases until the building crumples
like a beer can.

end of conspiracy.
 

twoblues

New member
Apr 25, 2006
816
1
0
North Vancouver
Same with World Trade Towers ... once the 'integrity' of the structure
was compromised, it was primed to collapse ... and eventually the
concrete and glass, which are susceptible to heat, dried, cracked
and collapsed ...

it was not the weight of each floor that overloaded the structure
from there, but the speed of each floor dropping increases the force
to greater than the simple weight of each floor.

as each floor collapses the force increases until the building crumples
like a beer can.

end of conspiracy.
That's my opinion too. I don't really care if other people believe that there is a whole conspiracy. They say I have my head up my A** and I say they have tin foil on their windows and a little extra tin foil hat. This argument will go back and forth.

The only reason they argue for a conspiracy is to find a reason to bash the States. Then again, I'm just an apathetic individual who doesn't give a rat's behind how it happened.
 

ThighMan

It's in the name
Jan 19, 2005
345
0
0
Everywhere
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fuel (jetplane fuel) fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
DavidLin, where did you dig up this crap. First of, the fire in the trade center was not oxygen-starved. That much jet fuel falling down the utility shafts, and other vertical corridors in the building will fully atomize and mix with the air. Also, the combustion temperature of jet fuel (which in case you don't know is just kerosene) is between 2500F and 3000F when it is burned at atmospheric pressures. How do I know this - I design power stations for a living and kerosene and diesel are common fuels used in power stations boilers. As for the melting point of steel, steel does not need to melt to fail. It only needs to be heated to its yield temperature and then it will bend and buckle. Depending on how much weight and pressure the steel is under, this can be as low as 800F.

Next time check your facts rather than just relying on what someone else quotes.
 

SilkyJohnson

Banned
Jan 16, 2007
535
0
0
Oh and Willie Rodriquez (janitor for 20 years at wtc) felt a LOUD explosion knock him UP OUT OF HIS CHAIR, UP, UP... While sitting in his BASEMENT OFFICE. He then went downstairs to find several employees burnt with there skin blown off there arms. Then they heard a low boom from ABOVE (the plane obviously) They then ran to lobby. Willie had master key so he SINGLE HANDEDLY opened the doors on the way up to let the firefighters do threre thing. Willie said "I heard too many explosions to count" the firefighters said "It looked like the plane hit the lobby" Just before the tower collapsed Willie was in the lobby then BANG BANG BANG BANG building comes down and he dives under a fire truck.

No photo shop, no science issues, just what happened. WAKE UP U MINDLESS DRONES
 

ThighMan

It's in the name
Jan 19, 2005
345
0
0
Everywhere
when Hiroshima was NUKED the STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS are still there........... LOL and u think jet fuel is hotter LOL
Boy talk about ignorance. The buildings your are talking about were subject to the blast, not the heat of the nuclear explosion as they were far enough away from the center of the explosion. Most of fire at Hiroshima was burning wood and paper. Steel can take a lot of impact force from a blast, it cannot take a lot of high temperature heat. You obviously do not know shit either. Go talk to any structural engineer and learn something before you make these wild comments that have no factual basis.
 

ThighMan

It's in the name
Jan 19, 2005
345
0
0
Everywhere
"It looked like the plane hit the lobby"
And of course jet fuel pouring down the shafts to the lobby and burning makes no mess what so ever.

Just before the tower collapsed Willie was in the lobby then BANG BANG BANG BANG building comes down and he dives under a fire truck.
And again, a building subject to structural colapse with one floor falling down on the next does so quietly.

Oh and Willie Rodriquez (janitor for 20 years at wtc)
And this Willie Rodriquez is a structural engineer who knows all about the dynamics of building collapse, but of course would perfer to work as a janitor.

What a joke. Some people will believe any crap they are fed despite scientic evidence to the contrary ... LOL
 

SilkyJohnson

Banned
Jan 16, 2007
535
0
0
the buildings elevator shafts are air tight and no shaft goes straight from top to bottom. the towers are 3 sections on top of each other. so 1 shaft goes to section 1 then u go to section 2 then to section 3 not 1 straight to 3. u cant catch an elevator at the lobby for the sky lobby.

so if the building wasnt sunbject to heat. how'd all the ppl vaporize and leave there shadows burnt on the ground????
 
Vancouver Escorts