9/11 exposed?

A place to rant about politics, life, or just anything you damn well feel like telling others.
User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Post by Dragon_Cooler » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:47 am

i personally would be interested in seeing videos that are against this video and these facts, just to see what they have to say.
Image

Mortious
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:48 am

Post by Mortious » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:50 am

Dragon_Cooler wrote:i personally would be interested in seeing videos that are against this video and these facts, just to see what they have to say.
I have yet to see any video that counters this video, everything I have found have been website based.

-mogwai
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: st. louis, mo
Contact:

Post by -mogwai » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:54 am

the bowing could not have have caused the building to collapse the way it did...
Image

Mortious
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:48 am

Post by Mortious » Mon Mar 20, 2006 10:57 am

-mogwai wrote:the bowing could not have have caused the building to collapse the way it did...
So what your saying is an anti Bush site, that is questioning the 9/11 attacks is wrong?

-mogwai
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: st. louis, mo
Contact:

Post by -mogwai » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:03 am

i skimmed through the link you posted about the debunking of the 'loose change' documentary. you posted a link that disputes some of the things mentioned in the first edition of 'loose change'... there were things that were being talked about that were never mentioned in the video that i posted ('loose change, 2nd edition'). the film i posted addresses much of the counter-arguments made about the first edition of the film.
Image

-mogwai
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: st. louis, mo
Contact:

Post by -mogwai » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:09 am

Mortious wrote:
-mogwai wrote:the bowing could not have have caused the building to collapse the way it did...
So what your saying is an anti Bush site, that is questioning the 9/11 attacks is wrong?
i'm saying that they're not addressing the concept of smoke and mirrors. the art of deception is to make people think that something happened because of something that didn't cause it.

the bowing could have contributed to the top of the building falling, but not the entire building. the deception lies in the fact that the plane crashing into the building would obviously cause structural distortion at that general area... by causing damage there, which may or may not cause the top portion of the tower to tumble, by setting off detonator charges all the way down, it makes it appear that the building collapsed due to the crash and not the charges.
Image

User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Post by Dragon_Cooler » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:16 am

in all three of those sites they talk about other things that could have happend to both WTC and PENT. none of which include scientific evidence with numbers or pictures or video to prove other wise.

I am trying to keep an open mind about this, but as i said before the fact of the matter is(with me being somewhat of a physics/science person) those biuldings could not have come down that fast without help. AND the damage to the PENT. is not right for a commercial airliner. Seriously wouldnt there be more outside the pentagon than some sheetmetal and a tire and hardly even a part of an engine.

ALL in all give me video/number proof that a plane did hit the pent. and jet fuel brought down the WTC
Image

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:20 am

you'll never get that proof, we will never knew who killed JFK, and if this is a planned event it just goes to show you how well our government is working.

If they pulled one over us that means they pulled it on the entire world. with thousands of people at ground zero, media, and normal people with digital cameras and phones. It also means they attacked other countries with no real reason at all. If it didn't happen the way we were first told I hope we never find out the truth because the world can't handle it if that video is correct.

Mortious
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:48 am

Post by Mortious » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:37 am

Dragon_Cooler wrote:in all three of those sites they talk about other things that could have happend to both WTC and PENT. none of which include scientific evidence with numbers or pictures or video to prove other wise.

I am trying to keep an open mind about this, but as i said before the fact of the matter is(with me being somewhat of a physics/science person) those biuldings could not have come down that fast without help. AND the damage to the PENT. is not right for a commercial airliner. Seriously wouldnt there be more outside the pentagon than some sheetmetal and a tire and hardly even a part of an engine.

ALL in all give me video/number proof that a plane did hit the pent. and jet fuel brought down the WTC
Here is a link to a popularmechanics post on this. Take it as you will:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=4&c=y

Mortious
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:48 am

Post by Mortious » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:40 am

Apoptosis wrote:you'll never get that proof, we will never knew who killed JFK, and if this is a planned event it just goes to show you how well our government is working.

If they pulled one over us that means they pulled it on the entire world. with thousands of people at ground zero, media, and normal people with digital cameras and phones. It also means they attacked other countries with no real reason at all. If it didn't happen the way we were first told I hope we never find out the truth because the world can't handle it if that video is correct.
I agree with you Apop, I don't think we will ever know the full extent of what is true or not, the problem is there are too many opinions floating around to ever know.

User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminati » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:54 am

I agree with Morious that the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled explosions. The explosions would have had to been made on the main exterior structure of the building (like in the other controlled explosions shown in the film). The immense air pressure created by each story falling flat on to the next floor would eventually be strong enough to blow out windows. I think that is what we are seeing as the plumes ejecting from the towers as they are coming down.

As for the rest of the film; no comment, yet. :)
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook

User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Post by Dragon_Cooler » Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:21 pm

i love how these sites are refuting refutable things. like how the "plane" hit the pentagon, (BTW notice how every person is a governmental official that is sayin this stuff) none of them talk about how it was possible for a 757 was able to penatrate all layers of the pentagon.

Also most of the fuel was burned up when the planes crashed into the WTC. There wasnt enough fuel for them to travel down and create that much damage. If they want to "hide the myths" they need to cover all the "opinions" not just a couple. I also like the fact that all these are covered in major magazines/articles (i.e. nbc, abc, fox) where most of the people read them. Sounds like more brainwashing to me. LOL
Illuminati wrote:I agree with Morious that the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled explosions. The explosions would have had to been made on the main exterior structure of the building (like in the other controlled explosions shown in the film). The immense air pressure created by each story falling flat on to the next floor would eventually be strong enough to blow out windows. I think that is what we are seeing as the plumes ejecting from the towers as they are coming down.

As for the rest of the film; no comment, yet. :)
how does that explain the fire and puffs out the windows 100s of floors down as it is falling
Image

Mortious
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:48 am

Post by Mortious » Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:29 pm

Dragon_Cooler wrote:Also most of the fuel was burned up when the planes crashed into the WTC. There wasnt enough fuel for them to travel down and create that much damage.
Where did that come out?

Lets look at this for a moment...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767fam ... 0prod.html

The 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel with a max range of 6,600. Flight 175 was bound from Boston to LA, a non stop flight, so they are going to have at least 4000 miles worth the fuel on board.

Your telling me that an hour (from roughly 8am to 9:03am) into an almost 4 hour flight, this A/C is almost out of fuel?

I highly doubt that, unless of course your telling me the ground crew and refueling service was in on this too, and only loaded enough fuel for them to get to NY.\

Edited to add: I think I mis-read your post Dragon, are you saying the above or saying when the crash happen the fuel burned up?

User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminati » Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:42 pm

Dragon_Cooler wrote:
Illuminati wrote:I agree with Morious that the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled explosions. The explosions would have had to been made on the main exterior structure of the building (like in the other controlled explosions shown in the film). The immense air pressure created by each story falling flat on to the next floor would eventually be strong enough to blow out windows. I think that is what we are seeing as the plumes ejecting from the towers as they are coming down.

As for the rest of the film; no comment, yet. :)
how does that explain the fire and puffs out the windows 100s of floors down as it is falling
If I recall, each tower was 110 stories each. The puffs out the windows shown in the film were no more than 10-20 floors down from the collapse as the building was falling (I'll watch it again tonight to make sure). I'm sure the internal structure and floors were falling internally ahead of the external structure. This is why the puffs out the windows are ahead of the collapse.
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook

User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Post by Dragon_Cooler » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:38 pm

Mortious wrote:
Dragon_Cooler wrote:Also most of the fuel was burned up when the planes crashed into the WTC. There wasnt enough fuel for them to travel down and create that much damage.
Where did that come out?

Lets look at this for a moment...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767fam ... 0prod.html

The 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel with a max range of 6,600. Flight 175 was bound from Boston to LA, a non stop flight, so they are going to have at least 4000 miles worth the fuel on board.

Your telling me that an hour (from roughly 8am to 9:03am) into an almost 4 hour flight, this A/C is almost out of fuel?

I highly doubt that, unless of course your telling me the ground crew and refueling service was in on this too, and only loaded enough fuel for them to get to NY.\

Edited to add: I think I mis-read your post Dragon, are you saying the above or saying when the crash happen the fuel burned up?
YES. LOL i was going to say... LOL whaaaa

yeah the big fireball when it hit the building wasnt from sparks of metal against concrete. LOL

OK well lets say not all the fuel went up in that fireball, are you going to tell me enough leaked out and travel down the "shafts" and created something like the matrix lobby scene when they detinated that bomb? Get my point?
Illuminati wrote:
Dragon_Cooler wrote:
Illuminati wrote:I agree with Morious that the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled explosions. The explosions would have had to been made on the main exterior structure of the building (like in the other controlled explosions shown in the film). The immense air pressure created by each story falling flat on to the next floor would eventually be strong enough to blow out windows. I think that is what we are seeing as the plumes ejecting from the towers as they are coming down.

As for the rest of the film; no comment, yet. :)
how does that explain the fire and puffs out the windows 100s of floors down as it is falling
If I recall, each tower was 110 stories each. The puffs out the windows shown in the film were no more than 10-20 floors down from the collapse as the building was falling (I'll watch it again tonight to make sure). I'm sure the internal structure and floors were falling internally ahead of the external structure. This is why the puffs out the windows are ahead of the collapse.
I know, sorry i exagerated the floors, but even if it was "air pressure and the floors" air and concrete couldnt be doing damage like that, that many floors down and create fireballs blowing out the window.

I guess we would have to look at the strucutre and see where exactly those fireballs are and see if they are any where next to support beams and concrete trussles or something.
Image

Mortious
Legit Fanatic
Legit Fanatic
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:48 am

Post by Mortious » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:20 pm

Dragon, ya sorry about mis-reading your post, happens...

The only thing I have to say about explosions taking down the WTC is this.

I spent 9 years in the USAF, my job title was a Munitions Systems Specalist, for the slow people, I built bombs. Now I never set charges to drop a building, but I worked with everything a demo crew would work with, to include det chord, charges, squibs, shaped charges...

I have seen enough videos on buildings get imploded, and what goes into creating the matrix of charges. Not only do they have to drill into concrete supports, but most supporting girders have to be cut.

I would expect if this were to be the case, that someone (I would guess more than 1 person) working in the towers would question the drilling into concrete supports, and cutting of support girders.

Not only that, but with the amount of floors that would need to be wired, there would be alot of wall renovations to hide det chord, again something that I think someone would have already come out and said "Ya I saw a bunch of workers tearing up <insert item here>".

As for the concrete. How many floors were above each impact point? How much did that section weigh? I have seen concrete powdered due to me dropping a 2000 pound inert bomb on the pad, I would assume the same thing could get factored into this.

Now I am no way stating Im an expert in building demolition, but some things just don't add up that convince me it was a controled detonation that dropped the WTCs.

User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:

Post by Dragon_Cooler » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:47 pm

very strong supporting evidence!! I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. LOL Either way the truth needs to come out with as many lives that were lost! Something isnt right about the whole thing..

Anyone goign to go see the movie flight 93 when it comes out?? I think its a hunk of junk not even worth the dollar theaters.
Image

-mogwai
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: st. louis, mo
Contact:

Post by -mogwai » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:22 pm

Mortious wrote:
Dragon_Cooler wrote:Also most of the fuel was burned up when the planes crashed into the WTC. There wasnt enough fuel for them to travel down and create that much damage.
Where did that come out?

Lets look at this for a moment...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767fam ... 0prod.html

The 767 can carry 23,980 gallons of fuel with a max range of 6,600. Flight 175 was bound from Boston to LA, a non stop flight, so they are going to have at least 4000 miles worth the fuel on board.

Your telling me that an hour (from roughly 8am to 9:03am) into an almost 4 hour flight, this A/C is almost out of fuel?

I highly doubt that, unless of course your telling me the ground crew and refueling service was in on this too, and only loaded enough fuel for them to get to NY.\

Edited to add: I think I mis-read your post Dragon, are you saying the above or saying when the crash happen the fuel burned up?
what he meant was that the fuel burned up outside of the building. all the fuel didn't stay contained on the floors. it created a fireball outside of the building.
Image

-mogwai
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:16 pm
Location: st. louis, mo
Contact:

Post by -mogwai » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:26 pm

Illuminati wrote:I agree with Morious that the WTC towers were not brought down by controlled explosions. The explosions would have had to been made on the main exterior structure of the building (like in the other controlled explosions shown in the film). The immense air pressure created by each story falling flat on to the next floor would eventually be strong enough to blow out windows. I think that is what we are seeing as the plumes ejecting from the towers as they are coming down.

As for the rest of the film; no comment, yet. :)
i think they proved (in another video i posted) that the pancake theory would not have worked towards how the buildings fell based on the way they were constructed. there was no evidence of pancaking (what illuminati was talking about) being involved.
Image

User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33922
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:39 pm

I vote to rebuild the towers and fly another plane into them ;) With no real people involved to see what happens... Sad, but this is the only thing that can prove or not prove it all.

Post Reply