IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
> Loose Change, A video that will change everything you thought about 9/11
CaldMagi
post Dec 7 2005, 03:02 PM
Post #101


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 4 2005, 07:13 AM) [snapback]1018037[/snapback]

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.


They actualy did have a video of the plane hitting the pentagon.

Why won't "they" show us?

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

You do not need to reach the melting point of steel for it to become structurally unsound

We know, we know. You are like a broken record.

This post has been edited by CaldMagi: Dec 7 2005, 03:02 PM


--------------------
QUOTE(psychø)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Dec 7 2005, 05:53 PM
Post #102


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/...l_harbored.html
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.

And,

http://www.oilempire.us/eugene.html
"We need a new Pearl Harbor"
A year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century, a think tank composed of most of the key officials of the Bush administration, wrote a report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that urged the US to take over the world, starting with the oil rich areas of the Middle East. The PNAC's members stated that this would probably require a "new Pearl Harbor" to enable.
The televised nature of the 9/11 images provided a form of "shock and awe" broadcast world wide. It is obvious, yet uncomfortable to acknowledge, that without 9/11, the PNAC's goals of taking over the Middle East would have been impossible to accomplish. The psychological shock of 9/11 -- not the false claims of Saddam Hussein's mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction -- is what gave the Bush team the "political capital" required for the seizure of Iraq's oil fields, the second largest on Earth.


--------------------
QUOTE(psychø)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 7 2005, 06:21 PM
Post #103


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



You still have to ask why though?

You gain some oil fields, woohoo! But you can't control them because the local people hate you and you can't spare troops to help out.

Multple theatres? The US has difficulty in Afganistan and Iraq at the moment, it could never take over the world, even with it's superior firepower.
To control the world you need troops, troops willing to go around the world. I don't see that even being something the US can dream of now. Their army is useless at everything except smashing a retreating army to bits. They can't do peacekeeping, they can barely control a few oilfields. There is simply no way they could ever take over large parts of the world.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OptimumPx
post Dec 7 2005, 06:37 PM
Post #104


Basket Case
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 262
Joined: 25-August 04
From: North Carolina
Member No.: 1,168



Oh goody, the American Free Press (America's last real newspaper, if they do say so themselves), a totally un-biased source with headlines like CONGRESS IN POCKET OF BIG OIL and CHENEY BENT ON INSANE PLAN TO NUKE IRAN. Yep, totally trustworthy. As is a website titled 'Oil Empire.' Both of these are obviously nothing more then Bush bashing sites. dry.gif

Anyway, on to the articles. So your saying a report written a year before 9/11 (Before Bush was President, he wasn't sworn in yet) told the US Government how to take over the world? Ya...um...like I said before, the US Government doesn't even work well together on good days, much less in something like this.

Anyway:
QUOTE
Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different to other conservative foreign policy assessments of the past. American conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of unfair conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by left wing politics.

Besides that, one quote in one document (the new Pearl Harbor quote) isn't proof that the US Government did anything.

Your really saying that this one document convinced everyone in the Government and Military to blow up 3 skyscrapers, knock a hole in the side of a government building, and smash an airplane into an empty field? Then made them actually work together (The CIA and FBI can’t even investigate the same thing without fighting little turf wars over it) to cause it to happen, and still have everyone involved from the highest power to the lowest intern keep completely and utterly quite and not say a word?

It basically sums up to this...is the weather nice in that little dream world? dry.gif


--------------------
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CaldMagi
post Dec 7 2005, 07:22 PM
Post #105


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 17-April 05
Member No.: 11,541



People were asking as to why the U.S. Government would gain from orchestrating a terrorist attack against it's own citizens, or what they would gain from letting a terrorist attack happen... I answered.

I never said what I posted was proof of the U.S. Government being behind the attacks, nor did I say it was proof of the U.S. Government having sinister plans. If I did, I challenge you to quote me where I said I did claim to have proof of those things.

You, just like Qdeath, are like a broken record. How many times have you the CIA and FBI don't work together all too well? Besides, it is no proof of whether or not the U.S. Government was involved in the attacks on 9/11.

The U.S. wanted to transorm U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination. Whether or not they are capable of creating such an imperialistic force or not is not relevent to this discussion. They tried didn't they?

One last thing.. Thanks for calling my sources rubbish. I bet it would've been better if a posted a link to some fucking biased blogist who thinks he knows it all, eh?

This post has been edited by CaldMagi: Dec 7 2005, 07:23 PM


--------------------
QUOTE(psychø)
And don't write stuff about me in your sig which i have never said how about u quote what i say or leave it out all together
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Dec 7 2005, 08:10 PM
Post #106


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 7 2005, 11:40 AM) [snapback]1021644[/snapback]

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 4 2005, 07:13 AM) [snapback]1018037[/snapback]

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.


They actualy did have a video of the plane hitting the pentagon.

Why won't "they" show us?


they did show it to us, about a week or two after 9/11..
QUOTE

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

You do not need to reach the melting point of steel for it to become structurally unsound

We know, we know. You are like a broken record.


Then why do you insist that an airplane itself couldnt have taken the towers down?


QUOTE

People were asking as to why the U.S. Government would gain from orchestrating a terrorist attack against it's own citizens, or what they would gain from letting a terrorist attack happen... I answered.


Where? I havnt seen an answer yet

QUOTE

The U.S. wanted to transorm U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination. Whether or not they are capable of creating such an imperialistic force or not is not relevent to this discussion. They tried didn't they?


No silly.

Is that why Donald Rumsfield is trying to build a smaller, sleeker, faster army that can be deployed on a minutes notice? So our military can be a impericalistic force of world domination?

No silly.

Oh wait, O.o, is this the answer? becuase they want to become an imperialistic force? O.o. How did 9/11 help that.. we moved into Afganistan and Iraq? Thats hardly imperialistic. Hell, we don't even have the will to make russia stop selling arms to China or Iran... and without that, i fail to see how we can become anything close to imperialistic.
That would require a LARGE, very large, army, something like China is ammassing.

This post has been edited by Qdeathstar: Dec 7 2005, 08:15 PM


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 7 2005, 08:11 PM
Post #107


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



Umm i think you're taking it a bit personally.

The sources you posted might not be unbiased. But i doubt anyone could find an unbiased source for this topic, they just don't exist.

The fact the US government wants a super-powerful massive armed forces says it all about them really. As has been proven in Iraq, having all the guns in the world won't help in todays modern warfare. You're not fighting a country these days. You are fighting a guerilla war against trained terrorists who are willing to die for their cause.
But the US can't seem to understand this and they just decide they need a new stealth fighter or ray-gun instead.
The US might be the most powerful country in the world, but they just don't understand the nature of warfare these days. For this reason they are not the powerful force people think they are.
And as a result any plan by some New World Order is foiled from the start.
I doubt the US would do this, or the PEarlk Harbour stuff. They are just not intelligent enough to do this and get away with it or be successful as a result of such action
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Dec 7 2005, 08:16 PM
Post #108


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



THEY DONT WANT A LARGE ARMY. THATS WHAT THEY HAVE NOW. THEY ARE TRYING TOP BUILD A SLEEKER, FASTER, SMALLER ARMY.

For godsake.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 7 2005, 08:34 PM
Post #109


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



What the hell does it matter if they want it sleeker or more powerful or even to have every man armed with a laser-gun! The fact is that it won't make a bit of difference.
The US will still go about like it rules the world, trying to kill or destry what they don't like but ultimately making a big mess because they have no idea what the hell they are doing.
The US has never hosted a proper invasion, they don't know how to fight one. Or at least they don't know what to do after they've smashed the place to bits.
Having the biggest army in the world armed to the teeth with high-tech gear is no longer the key to winning in this day. Look at Iraq, the US are being slaughtered by a bunch of rebels armed with AK-47's and a few pound of C4. Their super-tanks and planes mean nothing in this sort of warfare. Nor do super-high-tech weapons.
What they need is troops trained to look after a place after an attack, to make friends with those they "free" and to control looting and rebelions. They don't have a clue what to do in Iraq and it clearly shows.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NTC187
post Dec 7 2005, 09:48 PM
Post #110


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Australia
Member No.: 28



Well after watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night, have had a slight change in opinion, I still think the government wasnt behind the wole 9/11 attacks, but I think they could've done more about them than what they did, like go after Osama right after the attacks took place, not 2 months after, and how they went after Suddam Hussein who posed no terrorist threat to America and who wasnt responsible for 9/11, because the Bush/Bin Laden families are actually very close.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obama
post Dec 8 2005, 07:49 PM
Post #111


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 8-February 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 9,459



theres one 9/11 movie that has details that say there was bombs in the building and a missile hit the pentagon
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GTA_PlAyA_728
post Dec 8 2005, 08:39 PM
Post #112


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 3-August 04
From: Chicago
Member No.: 269



QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 7 2005, 04:12 PM) [snapback]1021943[/snapback]

What the hell does it matter if they want it sleeker or more powerful or even to have every man armed with a laser-gun! The fact is that it won't make a bit of difference.
The US will still go about like it rules the world, trying to kill or destry what they don't like but ultimately making a big mess because they have no idea what the hell they are doing.
The US has never hosted a proper invasion, they don't know how to fight one. Or at least they don't know what to do after they've smashed the place to bits.
Having the biggest army in the world armed to the teeth with high-tech gear is no longer the key to winning in this day. Look at Iraq, the US are being slaughtered by a bunch of rebels armed with AK-47's and a few pound of C4. Their super-tanks and planes mean nothing in this sort of warfare. Nor do super-high-tech weapons.
What they need is troops trained to look after a place after an attack, to make friends with those they "free" and to control looting and rebelions. They don't have a clue what to do in Iraq and it clearly shows.


Are you kidding me? How do they not have control over what they are doing? Only 2,000 soldiers have died in the passed 3 years in Iraq. Thats less then .1% of US troops their. More people have died in one battle in other wars then in this whole war. And your saying that they dont know what their doing? Dont you think more soldiers wouldeve died if they didnt have everything "under control?" Iraq isnt even that bad if you would stop believeing CNN and actually researched about it. All of northern Iraq is fine with no problems at all. Its just Middle and southern Iraq that has all the terrorists and shit.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 8 2005, 08:56 PM
Post #113


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



Yes but the middle and southern areas are most heavily populated and as a result most important.
Plus, add in all the 1000's of civilian casualties that are a result of the unchecked terrorist attacks and it really doesn't look like the place is under control.
Trust me, i don't get my news from CNN. I have actually talked to peopel from there online and asked them what they think and what is going on. If anyone thinks the US is doing well over there or is in control then they are gravely mistaken.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NTC187
post Dec 8 2005, 09:09 PM
Post #114


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Australia
Member No.: 28



"No building in history has ever collapsed as a result of a fire"

9/11 had an Aeroplane, a 100 tonne piece of machinery, flown into the building about 30 or so floors down from the top of the building, that would mean that the plane would've done most of the damage, not the fire, crashing through steel beams and doing quite some damage, then the fire and explosion from the planes jet fuel would've topped it off.

Where the plane hit, would've left the structure unsound in that area, and when that part gave way, the 30 or what ever it was floors above, would've fallen straight down ontop of it.

It amazes me how these people seem to forget how a plane was actually flown into the building, and that there wasnt just a fire that was started, otherwise the building would'nt have collapsed.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GTA_PlAyA_728
post Dec 8 2005, 09:59 PM
Post #115


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 3-August 04
From: Chicago
Member No.: 269



QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 8 2005, 04:34 PM) [snapback]1022723[/snapback]

Yes but the middle and southern areas are most heavily populated and as a result most important.
Plus, add in all the 1000's of civilian casualties that are a result of the unchecked terrorist attacks and it really doesn't look like the place is under control.
Trust me, i don't get my news from CNN. I have actually talked to peopel from there online and asked them what they think and what is going on. If anyone thinks the US is doing well over there or is in control then they are gravely mistaken.


Their have only been 25,000 civilian casualties since 2001. Does that sound like a big number to you? Only if you didnt know that their were 3 million civilian casualties in vietnam. And A LOT more during WWII.

Anybody in Iraq that disagrees with the war is a crackhead. Saddam Hussein was killing millions of inocent people before the US came for no reason. Now what would they rather have in Iraq? Would they rather have millions of people being killed by an evil dictator or 25,000 being killed trying to stop him?

My whole family is from Iraq and I know plenty of people who are from their and family members i talk on the phone to that are actually their and they say that they support the war.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rocka91
post Dec 9 2005, 01:52 AM
Post #116


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 21-June 05
From: Milwaukee WI
Member No.: 15,676



oh man, i would so love to download this, but I have a slow internet. I guess I'll read thru the responses of the members I guess.


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Dec 9 2005, 03:09 AM
Post #117


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



I watched the hole thing.. The flash, was to blurry to make anything of, and some of the angles seemd to contradict his point. YES there was a flash, but i couldnt tell if it was before or after the plane hit.

In addition, later in the movie, when the narrator is talking about the flashes seen at the first 7-10 stories, some one intervied said that for a controlled demolition to take place (and the presumption was that the twin towers were contolled demolition) you'd need to take out the bottom. SO it doesnt make since to shoot a missile on one of the upper floors..

The misterious thing on the bottom of the plane... good be a shadow.. cant tell... its hardly conclusive, ANd it's logical for boeing not to want to release information about their planes specs, IN DETAIL, which was what the narrator claimed he asked for.

Next thing I remember, is that he said was that their was an explosion in the lobby, and that if that was caused by jet fuel going into the elevators, it would have caused soot to cover the lobby, but that their was no soot, instead their was fine white power. First of all, how does he know this information? is he an expert in explosives? i think not.

In anycase, lets assume what he claimes is true, later in the movie, he narrates an article that someone had wrote in which the claim the lobby was "filled with soot".

SO which is it, filled with soot or not?


Regarding the pentagon... It seems to be people HEARD a missile, but SAW i plane. The text going back and forth was "I sall a private jet", "Im sure itwas a missle, it sounded like a missle" "it looked like a 737" "It was so loud it was like a missle"

So, no one saw a missile, they thought they heard one. But people did see a plane.

In addition, evidence for why the cars wouild have been flipped over is flimsy.

1. Thats probably the worst case scenerio. A car parked direclty behind the engines, which are running at maximum potential.

The problem with this is, that the plan was 25 feet ABOVE (Not to the side as in the example video) the cars, and it was pointing nose down, meaning that the most of the thurst would be exhausted upwards, away from the cars. In addition, theirs no reason to believe that the engines were operating at maximum potentia thrust. Objects accelerate at 9.87 metters per seconds due to gravity without thurst, so you dont need a whole lot of thrust to get going at 500mph or whatever the speed as.

In addition, it made clames about what "sliding on the ground" should look like... It would be niceto assume that the planes landed exactly the same and stuff, but thats not how it works. If the plane hit the ground 3 feet beforethe building, their wouldnt be a huge gouge in the earth, and you cant see the ground in the pictures they provided anyway because of all the foam from putting out the fire... totaly bogus...



--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
0bs3n3
post Dec 9 2005, 05:40 AM
Post #118


Leece
**

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 26-September 05
From: Aussie Land
Member No.: 24,792



QUOTE(N.T.C @ Dec 9 2005, 09:47 AM) [snapback]1022730[/snapback]

"No building in history has ever collapsed as a result of a fire"

9/11 had an Aeroplane, a 100 tonne piece of machinery, flown into the building about 30 or so floors down from the top of the building, that would mean that the plane would've done most of the damage, not the fire, crashing through steel beams and doing quite some damage, then the fire and explosion from the planes jet fuel would've topped it off.

Where the plane hit, would've left the structure unsound in that area, and when that part gave way, the 30 or what ever it was floors above, would've fallen straight down ontop of it.

It amazes me how these people seem to forget how a plane was actually flown into the building, and that there wasnt just a fire that was started, otherwise the building would'nt have collapsed.

Yes, finally somebody realises this is just a propaganda tape. And how could you beleive those people who say they heard a missile coming towards the pentagon. They're regular citizens, as if they've ever heard a cruise missle.

This post has been edited by Homero: Dec 9 2005, 05:43 AM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lord Steve0
post Dec 9 2005, 06:43 PM
Post #119


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 26-August 05
From: Aberdeen
Member No.: 23,580



Yes there are so many problems with things in that video.

1) The explosion in the loby. There was no soot, i've seen footage of the loby (made by those 2 french guys who were with the FDNY). The windows were blown to bits and there were a few people on fire there as well though they didn't film that for obvious reasons (you can hear the people though). The guys in the loby said it was fuel, or at least a blast of heat that came down the lift shafts. Any white powder could just be dust blown out of the lifts.

2) Did people see a plane or a missile? Most say they saw a plane. In fact nearly all people there say that. But some people say they heard a missile. Like Homero says, so they know what a missile sounds like? Cruise missiles are powerful too, but are they powerful enough to take out the entire side of the biggest office building in the world? I saw those bombings in Iraq on the news, those missiles had trouble blowing up small buildings in one go, the side of the pentagon is very large.

3) The flashes. These are way too blurry to make out for real. It could be anything, sun glaring off metal (are AA planes not silver?), glass breaking in windows, a glitch on the tape?

4) A controlled demolition would start att the base, and you'd need bombs on every floor too or it would not be controlled as it fell. Controlled demolitions require well placed specialist explosives, not just a few pounds of C4 shoved in a vending machine or wherever they are measnt to hide a bomb up there.

I'll add more to this later maybe.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Samurai_tbag
post Dec 10 2005, 09:20 PM
Post #120


Upstanding Citizen


Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 12-November 04
From: Brighton, UK
Member No.: 5,211



QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

1) The explosion in the loby. There was no soot, i've seen footage of the loby (made by those 2 french guys who were with the FDNY). The windows were blown to bits and there were a few people on fire there as well though they didn't film that for obvious reasons (you can hear the people though). The guys in the loby said it was fuel, or at least a blast of heat that came down the lift shafts. Any white powder could just be dust blown out of the lifts.

Fuel? I take it you mean Kerosene, Incase your scientificaly uncertain with the 'Cracking' of Crued Oil, Kerosene requires its carbon bonds to be alterd, It is obtained from the fractional distillation of petroleum at 150 °C and 275 °C (carbon chains from the C12 to C15 range). This 'reaction' so to speak removes its sulfur, this along with the fact it has been treated with Merox asures the fact that when the Kerosene ignites the chemical reaction from its liquid state to its extremely flamable gas state is almost instant. Also Kerosene goes up, as does fire. There is no way that the fuel could have fallen 90 floors and still be burning. You may say the Kerosene alone could cause some heavy burn well thats incorrect, Kerosene that has been treated with Merox (Which all planes require) is unreactive to the most sensetive of human skin such as eyes. As for the dust, know it couldnt have been 'Jet Fuel' bursting down the shafts, Kerosene wont build a pressure powerful enoough to blow the lobby up, prehaps it did go in the lift shafts, the chances are it would blow open the doors but not break marble off walls, that is seismic activity (Underground explosions). The dust that would be found if it was the Kerosene would have been burnt up at 1600degrees. Not to mention it would be bigger peices, explossive dust is thin tinted orange.

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

2) Did people see a plane or a missile? Most say they saw a plane. In fact nearly all people there say that. But some people say they heard a missile. Like Homero says, so they know what a missile sounds like? Cruise missiles are powerful too, but are they powerful enough to take out the entire side of the biggest office building in the world? I saw those bombings in Iraq on the news, those missiles had trouble blowing up small buildings in one go, the side of the pentagon is very large.

If a missle didn't hit the building what did? Im affraid that the pentagon is already known, people arent stupid that was no boeing, no commercial plane, 2 6ton engines gone? Please, don't give me that. That is bullshit. In regard about you 'missile' people know what a missile sounds like, it sounds like a firework x10, a plane sounds like a plane, you can't deflect from the fact that america are hiding things, not to mention Area 51. What's to say that they have missiles which can reach Mach20 speeds and that can level a small town. All the people that have been in there claim that the tehnology down there is beyond human comprehenshion. However I belive im drifting aside, you reply with what else could have hit it except for a small military jet or prehaps a missile.

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

3) The flashes. These are way too blurry to make out for real. It could be anything, sun glaring off metal (are AA planes not silver?), glass breaking in windows, a glitch on the tape?

How could it be the sun, it was filmed from various angles... The planes were coming in from different angles and im affraid that the flash is -Clearly- visable, you can even make it out in the reflection of the fusilage.

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

4) A controlled demolition would start att the base, and you'd need bombs on every floor too or it would not be controlled as it fell. Controlled demolitions require well placed specialist explosives, not just a few pounds of C4 shoved in a vending machine or wherever they are measnt to hide a bomb up there.

Did you even watch this documentary, otherwise you must have missed a lot that was said. Various people mentioned that the building was evacuated numberous times for 'Securit'y reasons. Is it mearly a coinsidence that the bomb sinffing dogs where also removed prior the attack and also security systems were down. Doesnt that hint something?

Couple this with the fact that 9 of the 19 Hi-Jackers are still alive, one of the Hi-Jackers passport fell out of his pocket, flew through a 1600degree fireball and landed in te streets of Manhatten yet the planes black boxes were destroyed. The fact that you can see small explosions beneath as the tower falls. The fact that all physicians asked have all said that the top part of the tower would fall, not the whole building. The fact seismic waves were received in a quarry 21 miles away (Correct if Im wrong) 9 seconds before it fell. The fact that George Bush's brother was head of security. The fact that no parts of plain debris were found in the pentagon except that of other planes. If america have coverd such things, they won't ever admit to it.

This post has been edited by Samurai_tbag: Dec 10 2005, 09:23 PM


--------------------
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2014 - 08:22 PM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4