Bush Administration Official Says 911 Is "inside Job"

[fckthis 0]

Also, the first tower that falls isnt convincing enough to make me believe that was controlled. The 2nd tower and the WTC 7 though, are a different story.I think the reason these psuedo documentaries are so convincing, is because most people who have watched it, myself included, don't know enough concerning burning temperatures, physics and facts, to refute the claims. So instead, alot of us just believe what they say, because it "sounds" right. It goes both ways though.

[timwakefield 68]

I think the reason these psuedo documentaries are so convincing, is because most people who have watched it, myself included, don't know enough concerning burning temperatures, physics and facts, to refute the claims. So instead, alot of us just believe what they say, because it "sounds" right. It goes both ways though.

Well another thing which is misleading in the loose change film is that he keeps talking about the melting point of the metal beams. The only thing is, they don't need to actually melt to cause a collapse, they just need to bend.

[Oneeydjaq 0]

Well another thing which is misleading in the loose change film is that he keeps talking about the melting point of the metal beams. The only thing is, they don't need to actually melt to cause a collapse, they just need to bend.

Can we get a ruling on the temperature required to bend steel?

[timwakefield 68]

Can we get a ruling on the temperature required to bend steel?

I think that'll depend on they type of steel, the amount of pressure applied, etc.

[Oneeydjaq 0]

I think that'll depend on they type of steel, the amount of pressure applied, etc.

Of course but I am sure that information is out there.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Of course but I am sure that information is out there.

I have seen steel girders colapse from a regular old office fire.

[Jeepster80125 0]

So instead, alot of us just believe what they say, because it "sounds" right. It goes both ways though.

Actually, I don't think it does go both ways. You guys have presented Loose Change among other evidence to suppossedly prove your case or compell others to see things your way. I have presented a thorough article from a credited science magazine regarding your conspiracy theories, as well as researched, footnoted evidence of the fallicies in Loose Change. Where is your evidence or argument that proves wrong the things I bring to the table? It isn't about crazy ideas going both ways, it is about ignorance on the part of certain people because they believe what they hear without challenging things, or just being retarded. Get it?This is a perfect example of how dumb some people are. Why shouldn't everyone investigate and research what they here? Why are so many people so lazy that they don't challenge what people say?

Of course but I am sure that information is out there.

That information is out there, and it's even in this thread. I wish people would read the entire thread before posting. But oh well. I'll make it easy for you.EDIT: from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.htmlRead my posts a couple of pages back. Then you might know what is going on."Melted" SteelCLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.""Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[fckthis 0]

The reason we're even having a debate about 9/11 still is proof enough that some ppl believe everything they see. The reason there's so much controversy, is because some evidence contradicts other evidence. Like take this for example. From what Ive read, there is a standard airforce plan to intercept hijacked planes, 30 minutes after the plane's cabin stops responding. According to reports, the plane was hijacked for more than 30 minutes, but the airforce did not attempt to intercept the planes.I have no idea to the actual validity of the airforce procedures, but I havent seen evidence refuting this standard process either.

[Jeepster80125 0]

The reason we're even having a debate about 9/11 still is proof enough that some ppl believe everything they see. The reason there's so much controversy, is because some evidence contradicts other evidence. Like take this for example. From what Ive read, there is a standard airforce plan to intercept hijacked planes, 30 minutes after the plane's cabin stops responding. According to reports, the plane was hijacked for more than 30 minutes, but the airforce did not attempt to intercept the planes.I have no idea to the actual validity of the airforce procedures, but I havent seen evidence refuting this standard process either.

For anyone with half a brain to even consider this anything but "something you heard from a friend who's mom's ex-boyfriend's brother who knew someone who knows for sure" you need to cite your sources. Please don't try to have a rational conversation or argument unless you can provide more than heresay as evidence. Why don't you find out where you got this information?I would like to know where you read this. Cite your source please. This is exactly why people like you are a waste of time. You are trying to present a belief as fact when you can't cite a source. If you would listen to what other's have to say and look at why they say that, then maybe you wouldn't look so foolish, ignorant, or lazy. You pick one. Page fucking three of the Popular Mechanics site I have linked numerous times specifically addresses the question that you just posed. Which tells anyone paying attention that you don't care about listening or doing your own research. You should go ahead and not post about this subject, since it is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Unless you want to argue that PopSci isn't a credible source?For you, Captain Lazy Ass...from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...?page=3&c=yIntercepts Not RoutineCLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

[fckthis 0]

No idea why you're so irate. Im giving a generic example. You dont get the point, and trying to argue it into your brain is useless.

[Jeepster80125 0]

No idea why you're so irate. Im giving a generic example. You dont get the point, and trying to argue it into your brain is useless.

I'm not irate. You are voicing your beliefs about how events unfolded. You are wrong. Your "generic example" is wrong, and I just showed you why. What is the point, that lots of weird things happened that day? I agree, it was a weird day. But you are stating that certain things happened, and you are wrong. I'm not asking you to argue with me, I am simply trying to see where you get your information that you depend upon to make the arguments you are making and to back up your beliefs. I don't really feel like you are ready to discuss what happened, you just came to make a few posts about something you don't really understand. Do you have any more "generic examples" of what you think happened? Any other conspiracies or bat **** crazy ideas that you want to post? Because I will happily discuss whatever topic regarding it that you want to, but you have to be educated on the subject, otherwise I might as well go try to teach a blind man to play dodgeball.Good luck.

[pockets 0]

The reason we're even having a debate about 9/11 still is proof enough that some ppl believe everything they see. The reason there's so much controversy, is because some evidence contradicts other evidence. Like take this for example. From what Ive read, there is a standard airforce plan to intercept hijacked planes, 30 minutes after the plane's cabin stops responding. According to reports, the plane was hijacked for more than 30 minutes, but the airforce did not attempt to intercept the planes.I have no idea to the actual validity of the airforce procedures, but I havent seen evidence refuting this standard process either.

One time, a guy on the street told me that Nebraska is protected by an invisible forcefield that repels radiation, making nuclear bombs useless, but only in Nebraska.I have no evidence of this, but I also have no evidence that it isn't true!

[Wingmaster05 0]

Page fucking three of the Popular Mechanics site I have linked numerous times specifically addresses the question that you just posed. Which tells anyone paying attention that you don't care about listening or doing your own research. You should go ahead and not post about this subject, since it is painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Unless you want to argue that PopSci isn't a credible source?For you, Captain Lazy Ass...from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...?page=3&c=yIntercepts Not RoutineCLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.

You ahve linked it numerous times, yet haven't read the thread, clearly, because i covered this on page 2. Anway,Your BOLDED fact that you seem to think covers the entire military section of 911 is a downright falsehood.It's clever of them to tell you it's "fact", though, so you will take their word.(And again, this may come off as sarcastic, but it's not. I applaud people such as yourselfs, whether or not you have honest intentions of finding the truth, because it is your skepticism that leads more people into the concept of state sponsored terrorism.)popular mechanics article discussion

Intercepts Not RoutineThis section quotes the following excerpt from OilEmpire.us: It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes. It then dismisses this 'claim' with the following sweeping 'fact': In the decade before 9/11 NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!

published report here

"If he hears anything that indicates difficulty in the skies, we begin the staff work to scramble," Martin said. Before Sept. 11, the FAA had to telephone NORAD about any possible hijackings.From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

Also, don't forget that the military (NORAD/NEADS) is on their 7th, i repeat, 7th, version of events regarding the planes and how NORAD reacted that day. 7th. And each version of events brings about a more convoluted sequence then the last one. Please god someone tell me this sticks out to you?

[Wingmaster05 0]

Actually, I don't think it does go both ways. You guys have presented Loose Change among other evidence to suppossedly prove your case or compell others to see things your way. I have presented a thorough article from a credited science magazine regarding your conspiracy theories, as well as researched, footnoted evidence of the fallicies in Loose Change. Where is your evidence or argument that proves wrong the things I bring to the table? It isn't about crazy ideas going both ways, it is about ignorance on the part of certain people because they believe what they hear without challenging things, or just being retarded. Get it?This is a perfect example of how dumb some people are. Why shouldn't everyone investigate and research what they here? Why are so many people so lazy that they don't challenge what people say?That information is out there, and it's even in this thread. I wish people would read the entire thread before posting. But oh well. I'll make it easy for you.EDIT: from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.htmlRead my posts a couple of pages back. Then you might know what is going on."Melted" SteelCLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,"

No, but explanation of the running molten metal at the WTC? either melted steel (which we both agree isn't it), or thermite/ate. thermate

You can read his paper on this online

[Golden 2]

This thread, other than giving me a headache, maked me really wish that there was a political forum on this site.

[Wingmaster05 0]

This thread, other than giving me a headache, maked me really wish that there was a political forum on this site.

indeed. but who would read it?

[Wingmaster05 0]

Once again, it's simple. World Trade Center 7 is a perfect starter into this.

Listen to the beginning. "Hello? Oh, we're gettin' ready to pull building 6."Pull is a common demolition term used when destroying buildings. as you see here.Silverstein clearly knew what was going on, and when he said "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it... and they made that decision to pull" he was NOT talking about "the firefighters" as he so claimed well after the fact. Pulling firefighters would've been said as "pull THEM" or "pull the firefighters".And of course, this leads to the point that it takes many days to set up and plan a demolition. you see?

[Wingmaster05 0]

911 victims' families want reinvestigation

[Spademan 94]

If anyone hasn't read this thread I'll catch you up on the important parts.OP: Look at all this evidence I have that I AM FUCKING FOX MULDER BABY: youtube.link1 youtube.link2 youtube.link3.Someone who can think, (SWCT): Uhm, that's all grainy video wierdness made by nutjobs.OP: No, no, look, on one of the pages of these fringe crackjob sites is a Phd in the mating habits of ducks. He studied duck mating habits for 25 years and is a Dr, so, he must for sure be the real science deal when it comes to the goverment and pyshics.Fckthis: Dino-sores killed Jesus. It's be proven because I read it somewhere some time I think.SWCT: No they didn't.Fckthis: Ok, maybe they didn't. I just learned to read a few minutes ago and I just read something (WOW, this is FUN, I should have learned earlier) that kind of makes it look like Dino-sores didn't kill Jesus. I'm just saying that there's all kinds of evidence out there for everything so we can't ever come to any sort of conclusion about anything whatsoever at any time for any reason at all ever, not ever because, well, not every single thing I see in moving pictures does agree in every single detail about anything.SuitedUp: I concur, I don't know but I know that whatever I'm being told isn't true.OP: youtube.link x 10. <----- This clearly shows that I am indeed Fox Mulder, finder of the truth and you all should be like me.SWCT: CreditedSourcedScholarlyScience.link x 10... Alright, how do you counter these sources?Fckthis: Look, nobody believed that eating your own poop caused miraculous resprouting of severed limbs because the just didn't want to look at the evidence and go against what they've been told. I didn't even believe it until I read it somewhere at some time I think.Random asshat: WHAT THE FUZUCK ARE DINO-SORES LOL!?OP: Good point.SWCT: Eating poop does not heal limbs.Fckthis: Ok, I just googled eating poop and I couldn't find what I read so I'm going to back off that point. Anyway, it just goes to show that evidence can go both ways. Also, I've decided to just drop it because I don't care if eating poop heals limbs, so who cares?OP: youtube.link x 30. Just LEARN. Open your eyes and follow me to the promised land. The Truth Is Out There. I just made up that phrase, looks pretty cool I think.Spademan: [Funny stuff]-------------------------------------------You're all caught up.

[rsmbox 1]

One time, a guy on the street told me that Nebraska is protected by an invisible forcefield that repels radiation, making nuclear bombs useless, but only in Nebraska.

sounds good to me

[BeaverStyle 1]

Do you have any idea how ****ing busy I am? And you've just wasted my time. NH, doucheclown.

You obviously have enough free time to respond to a thread w/ a meaningless comment.NH sir.

[rookie2619 0]

I just saw the 1 hour documentary for the 1st time & WOW!!!! I remember seeing all the news coverage when it happened & remember thinking "I dont see the plane in the wreckage of the pentagon" & "wheres the plane in that field in pittsburgh". I could never see the wreckage of the plane like in other plane crashes we had seen over the years. I am thinking about it know though.WOW!!!

[BeaverStyle 1]

OK, skipping over a lot of meaningless arguments... I think anyone with any bit of common sense can realize that there is no WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH that a Boeing 767 hit the Pentagon.No Friekin' Way.If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to argue my position.

[Mattnxtc 0]

OK, skipping over a lot of meaningless arguments... I think anyone with any bit of common sense can realize that there is no WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH that a Boeing 767 hit the Pentagon.No Friekin' Way.If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to argue my position.

I think most would agree that the pentagon is a very sketchy situation...until the pentagon actually releases the video instead of 5 random frames...there will always be disasgreement

[Wingmaster05 0]

I think most would agree that the pentagon is a very sketchy situation...until the pentagon actually releases the video instead of 5 random frames...there will always be disasgreement

Yes, most... Some people, as you certainly saw in this thread, will assume the government is right pretty much every time. And let's not forget that the Pentagon has over 60 video cameras that are either their own or others that they have confiscated. They claim these videos only caught the aftermath, not the actual accident. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

I just saw the 1 hour documentary for the 1st time & WOW!!!! I remember seeing all the news coverage when it happened & remember thinking "I dont see the plane in the wreckage of the pentagon" & "wheres the plane in that field in pittsburgh". I could never see the wreckage of the plane like in other plane crashes we had seen over the years. I am thinking about it know though.WOW!!!

Watch Terrorstorm and see not only a look into 911 but the 7/7 bombings of London and how they were also false flag operations. then watch the money masters video to get a peak at the suspected culprits of these false flag op's.