And Now For Something *really* Off Topic


Status
Not open for further replies.

thespawned

Still Fresh
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
41
Okay... Now the following post may result in me getting kicked from the forum, depending on how this post is viewed. I would prefer any feedback / comments (positive or negative) on this thread to be conducted on a adult level, without the need to resort to petty flaming. If you disagree with what I am about to say I encourage you voice it, after all I am fighting for the freedom of speech, but lets please keep this civilised...

That sounded rather dramatic. Read on.

September 11th 2001 is a date that I am sure all of you are familar with. You can think back and remember what you saw on TV in the days and weeks following the event. The planes hitting the buildings, and all the government heads telling you it was Osama and the Bin Laden family. Subsequent wars with Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to be justified of the events on that day. And this "war on terror" is likely to escalate into Iran, Syria, North Korea and who knows where. What would you think if I told you that criminal elements within the United States government (federal / higher) level were solely responsible for the attacks, as a pretext to invade the Middle East, and destroy civil liberties at home.

Everything you have been told about 9/11 by the American government is a PROVABLE lie, and I will now document it.


What really hit the Pentagon​
This is probably the best place to start as it is one with the most blatent evidence. The offical story on 9/11 claims that United Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 commercial jet, crash landed into the bottom story of the Pentagon, killing all passengers and destroying a section of the Pentagon wall. This story cannot hold up when looking at the photographic evidence from that day:

(edited) click to see photo
photo 1
Figure 1: Can you see *any* wreckage from a Boeing 757


photo 2
Figure 2: This picture was taken *before* the outer wall collapsed, see any large impact holes? Remember that from wing tip to wing tip, a Boeing 757 is approx 122' in length...

photo 3
Figure 3: This picture was taken after the outer wall collapsed. The whole is no bigger than 70' in diameter.

What do these pictures show? For one there is NO wreckage, no debris, no engines, no cockpit, no luggage, bodies, nothing. Furthermore there is NO skidmarks on the lawn of the pentagon. Quite a feat huh?

Also, the outer wall of the Pentagon does not show anywhere close to the impact damage that would be associated with a commercial jet liner crashing into the pentagon.


WTC-7 & Larry Silverstein​
One of the single biggest pieces of evidence on the 9/11 coverup was comments made by World Trade Centre lease holder, Larry Silverstein. He owned the lease for all WTC buildings, and in May, 2001, took a record insurance policy out on the complex, specificly covering acts of terrorism.

On September 11th 2001 three towers collapsed, though attention is only ever focused on the twin towers. At 5.35pm WTC-7 (world trade centre building 7) collapsed, apparently from fire. Remember, no jet aircraft hit building 7. Here is what Larry Silverstein had to say about the collapse;
I er remember getting a call from the fire commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said "weve had such terrible loss of life here, maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it', and they made that decision, and we watched the building collapse"

Larry Silverstein is ON THE RECORD saying the building was 'pulled'. This is a phrase in the field of demolitions specificly concerning the destruction of a building.

For more on Larry Silverstein, including VIDEO of this statement, please visit:
More info on WTC-7 & Larry Silverstein



The collapse of the towers​
A huge problem in the official 9/11 story is the actual collapse of the building. Anyone with a simple knowledge of physics, when actually looking at the collapses scientificly will soon see how jet-fuel could never have destroyed the buildings.

Both twin towers had central steel columns. There were 47 steel columns in each tower, measuing 14" by 36". This is 1 foot by 3 foot.

Picture how big this is. And its all steel. And theres 47 of them. And the official story says that kerosene, which is a low tempreture burning hydrocarbon, was responsible for melting the steel super structure, causing, in the words of FEMA, a "pancake collapse". This is absolutly, physically impossible. When you observe the collapse of the buildings, you can even see the blast points happening perhaps 20-30 feet before the demolision wave. These are called "squibs", and are the tell tale sign of a controlled demolition.

For more on this, and the physics behind it, please visit:
More info on Twin Towers collapse



What I have just told you are three of the biggest pieces of evidence surrounding the coverup of 9/11. There are literally 100's of other pieces of evidence. I urge you to get informed, and figure out who has the motive for carrying out terror attacks.

Ask yourself this, if the terror threat is so great, then why dont we seen a small scale terrorist attack taking place on a weekly basis. And by small scale it could be as simple as placing a log on the tracks infront of an oncoming train.

Why do I care? Why should you care? Because I love freedom, and is sickens me that thousands of innocent people will die in order to suit a political agenda by the right-wing neo-cons. I am a true patriot, and although I am from the United Kingdom, and not the United States, I have what you would call true patriotism in my heart. To defend my country against enemies foreign AND *domestic*. The founding fathers wrote that for a very good reason!. Do not let government deceive you with their lies and manipuations, or you will end up the cannon fodder for the next war.

Thank you for reading this. Comments welcome (please keep them adult in their content...)

* (edited, changed embedded photos to links, made post to ugly!)
 
yes i saw a video about this a year ago
it had loads about this
cameras of petrol stations nearby
but i hate to say but if you did not take that photo
no one can be certain if its real? if its actuall the pentagon, mayby a set up picture.
i personally am a bit suspicous aswell
you can never trust the gov's, im not saying conspiracy's are everywhere, but there are things they do not want us to know
 
There is a lot of crap out there regarding the validity of this 'loose change' stuff.

A few things.
A jetliner wouldn't leave wing holes in a building, the wings are to weak etc.

ehh I don't really feel like copying and pasting more crap.
 
Interesting. Well, you have my back, I have recieved a report on this thread already but I will leave it open for intelligent discussion. That means daclassicgamingmaster, stay the fuck out and don't post in this thread again.
 
daclassicgamingmaster posted on May 30 2006 at 12:26 AM said:
yeah im sure this whole load of bullshit is real ;)
see this is why i said please keep your comments sensible. by showing the weakness of your arguement, "yeah im sure this whole load of bullshit is real" you give strength to my arguement.

i just hope you feel the same way when its your life that is threatened and you just sat back telling yourself "nothing to worry about, its all bullshit".

I know this has probably offended a lot of you. It should make you outraged. Then ask yourself WHY does this information make me feel so uncomfortable.

bottom line if the government has nothing to hide why do they act so guilty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok I'll make another post.

When that movie says that the 'detonation charges' are going off, that could easily be debris being shot out of the windows from the pressure.

There is no way all of the jet fuel was burned at impact.

I watched some thing on the history channel with engineers and computer scenarios on how the beams could have been sufficiently softened enough to give enough to start a chain reaction.

@Shikaku: I loled @ 'control mass media'
 
everyone calm down (yes rico you too)

sorry my comment was a bit blunt and so I appologize.

still, I think it's all garbage. But hey, that's just me.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
 
Rico posted on May 30 2006 at 12:28 AM said:
Interesting. Well, you have my back, I have recieved a report on this thread already but I will leave it open for intelligent discussion. That means daclassicgamingmaster, stay the fuck out and don't post in this thread again.

Thankyou guys. I dont mean to cause any flaming in this post. If we keep it all civilised then I will be happy.

@Shikaku
Good link. PNAC (the project for the new american century) is at the root of all this evil. Just a little quote from their white paper, "Rebuilding Americas Defences":

the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor

This is their words (their, being Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Pearl, Jeb Bush) not mine. This paper, Rebuilding Americas Defences was published in September 2000, a full year before the horrific events of 9/11. "A new pearl harbor" Well they certainly acheived that!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Name a government in power today that doesn't satisfy those '14 points' of facism.

edit : to the extent that you allow the US to be classified under them
i.e. the existence of a conservative news network doesn't = controlled mass media.
 
lintsniffer posted on May 30 2006 at 12:33 AM said:
I watched some thing on the history channel with engineers and computer scenarios on how the beams could have been sufficiently softened enough to give enough to start a chain reaction.

This doesnt explain how Building 7 was destroyed, as it was not hit by a jet liner, and had only two very small fires. For reference, the twin towers and WTC-7 are the ONLY modern steel skyscrapers that have collapsed from fire.

madrid_narrowweb__200x317.jpg


This is the Spanish Windsor building, burning with "100 foot white flames", built using modern grade construction steel (same at twin towers / building 7). It burned for 18 hours reaching most of its floors. Yet the steel super structure did not collapse.

This is because steel cannot melt at these tempretures. Hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough in order to reach melting point of steel.

Compare this to the small fires of WTC-7. Then why did Larry Silverstein say he "pulled it".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
they didn't blow it up.

'pull it' in context could easily mean pulling all firefighters, etc.

And if you think we are actually getting oil from being in iraq, you get your info from the 'communist news network'

Bush is so addicted to oil, right? So thats why he approved economic sanctions on Venezuela, the 4th largest exporter of crude oil the the US. We get more oil from North America than from the middle east. Why don't we invade mexico than? I'm sure they wouldn't mind.
 
lintsniffer posted on May 30 2006 at 12:46 AM said:
they didn't blow it up.

'pull it' in context could easily mean pulling all firefighters, etc.

And if you think we are actually getting oil from being in iraq, you get your info from the 'communist news network'

Bush is so addicted to oil, right? So thats why he approved economic sanctions on Venezuela, the 4th largest exporter of crude oil the the US. We get more oil from North America than from the middle east. Why don't we invade mexico than? I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

Read it again Lintsniffer.

"maybe the smartest thing to do is 'pull it', and they made that decision, and we watched the building collapse"

You want the video? Go here...
Link
VIDEO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lintsniffer posted on May 29 2006 at 05:46 PM said:
Why don't we invade mexico than? I'm sure they wouldn't mind.
Do you think this argument actually holds any water? "America wouldn't invade Iraq for oil because it hasn't invaded Canada or Mexico!" Why would you invade when they're giving it to you freely?

Also, the war for Iraq was likely not to export its oil to the U.S., but to control oil production in the region and keep the commies in China and potential rivals in the EU in check.

So thats why he approved economic sanctions on Venezuela, the 4th largest exporter of crude oil the the US.
The CIA also backed an attempted coup d'etat there. It failed. Economic sanctions in Venezuela have little to do with oil and more with protecting American hegemony in the region.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
who would use pull it to describe destroying a building. He could have meant that they pulled support and sat out and just watched it collapse (as opposed to trying to stop it from collapsing)
 
I'd just like to say one thing here folks;

My brother-in-law worked in 5 WTC, and saw the second plane hit. He also saw burning jet fuel billowing out of the lobby of North Tower ... yes, the lobby ...

We didn't know if he was alive or not for a good 6 hours after the attack ... my company also had several people that worked in both towers, all were killed.

It seems to me that you're now insinuating that the towers were not destroyed by the planes smashing into them, but rather from a missle (??) ... forgive me if that's not your intent, but it seems so to me. Do you personally know any of the Pentagon witnesses? How about the WTC? Talk to one of them ... ask them what they saw.

I was the one that reported this topic, because it's seriously fucking with me now ... for weeks after that attack, we could still smell the dead bodies at my in-laws' house because it was across the harbor from the Staten Island landfill (where they dumped the rubble).

I see no good coming from this topic.
 
TelcoLou posted on May 29 2006 at 07:59 PM said:
I'd just like to say one thing here folks;

My brother-in-law worked in 5 WTC, and saw the second plane hit. He also saw burning jet fuel billowing out of the lobby of North Tower ... yes, the lobby ...

We didn't know if he was alive or not for a good 6 hours after the attack ... my company also had several people that worked in both towers, all were killed.

It seems to me that you're now insinuating that the towers were not destroyed by the planes smashing into them, but rather from a missle (??) ... forgive me if that's not your intent, but it seems so to me. Do you personally know any of the Pentagon witnesses? How about the WTC? Talk to one of them ... ask them what they saw.

I was the one that reported this topic, because it's seriously fucking with me now ... for weeks after that attack, we could still smell the dead bodies at my in-laws' house because it was across the harbor from the Staten Island landfill (where they dumped the rubble).

I see no good coming from this topic.
he didn't say that a missle blew up the WTC at all, but there was speculation that a missle hit the pentagon, don't think he said that a missle hit there either, but he said there was evidence a 757 didn't hit the pentagon. I personaly see no good coming from this topic either but, if people talk intellegently I say just leave it open.

and to that person that said he got it from a communist news network, his source of information had multiple points of view and I'm not too sure why that would be communist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TelcoLou posted on May 30 2006 at 12:59 AM said:
I'd just like to say one thing here folks;

My brother-in-law worked in 5 WTC, and saw the second plane hit. He also saw burning jet fuel billowing out of the lobby of North Tower ... yes, the lobby ...

We didn't know if he was alive or not for a good 6 hours after the attack ... my company also had several people that worked in both towers, all were killed.

It seems to me that you're now insinuating that the towers were not destroyed by the planes smashing into them, but rather from a missle (??) ... forgive me if that's not your intent, but it seems so to me. Do you personally know any of the Pentagon witnesses? How about the WTC? Talk to one of them ... ask them what they saw.

I was the one that reported this topic, because it's seriously fucking with me now ... for weeks after that attack, we could still smell the dead bodies at my in-laws' house because it was across the harbor from the Staten Island landfill (where they dumped the rubble).

I see no good coming from this topic.
I am very sorry to hear that. I knew this topic would cause strong feelings from the some members, due to the horrific nature of that day. I cant imagine what you went through losing a loved one.

I am saying that the governments story does not add up, and with the Patriot Act you guys are so vunerable right now. Im afraid for your wonderful country. It has been hijacked by a bunch of criminals that couldnt care less about you, or any other american citizen, or anyone else for that matter. When Hitler firebombed the Reichstag building in 1933 to blame the communists, as a pretext for war. History repeats itself, and until we see the corruption and the lies we are destined to live through more horrors.

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center
Donald Rumsfeld, 12th October 2001.
Link,
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...01_t1012pm.html

For the record I believe that a missile hit the pentagon, and that controlled demolitions were utilized in the Twin Towers and WTC-7. For eyewitness testomony on the Twin Towers, William Rodriguez, a hero (awarded medal by Bush) has gone public stating that he heard multiple explosions, from inside the building. He was one of the last survivors pulled from the rubble, and has gone public on numerous occasions telling about the explosions.
Link to William Rodriguez story

*edit
For the record I am *not* saying that Flight 11 and Flight 175 did not hit the two towers, that occured, but was the smokescreen for the demolition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top