Mossad did 9/11. Period.

[pixelsmith]

The National Geographic documentary (that demolishes most of the 9/11 Truther myths), put down some jet fuel in a pit and heated a steel beam above it. After about 2 minutes the temperature exceeded 2000 degrees fahrenheit (which I find rather hot!) and at around 4 minutes the steel beam bent and failed.

Here is the link:

It's also interesting to watch the lame explanations of the hapless Truthers.

Any sane questions?

Tie this one beam together with several others along with the crossbeams and cover them with metal sheeting and 4 to 5 inches of concrete and bolt that sheeting to all beams every few inches, then secure all that to the 47 core columns and place them all in an oxygen starved environment and see what happens. My guess is the fire will burn out as it almost did as reported by firemen who reached the impact zone and said there were "small pockets of fire" and they could "knock it down with one line". Remember that a good share of the fuel exploded outside the towers and it is highly doubtful there were pools of fuel over a foot deep on the floor. This "test" is about as bogus as it gets and proves nothing other than with a LOT of oxygen you can get fuel up to 2000 degrees. Heck I can do that with CHARCOAL.

Is this your PROOF of a catastrophic failure? You can not be serious.

---------- Post added at 01:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 AM ----------

Sure, just as soon as you specify the reason you need my credentials. I haven't proclaimed anything that requires my credentials on this topic. Strange.

No matter, we do not need any input from you anyway. I know you are just doing your job. PLEASE carry on. You will no doubt help me in the long run.

 

[Jose Collado]

Oh....my....god. It's finally happened. Someone has mentioned FEMA! Time to tune out.

 

[pixelsmith]

How can you say that jet fuel "does not burn very hot" when I showed you direct evidence that such fires exceed 2000 degrees F?

I said that in context to where the fuel was located, on an office floor, spread very thin, in an oxygen starved environment.

---------- Post added at 01:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 AM ----------

I am talking (in this case) about you saying that investigators were denied access to the blueprints of the WTC.
I showed testimony by the investigators that directly disputes this.

I missed your posting. I will go back and review.
Have you looked at them? Do you know how the buildings were constructed? If you did, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[paraschtick]

Paraschtick,

First off, your question is flawed. Your contention that EVERYTHING ELSE was turned to dust may have some rhetorical value if your audience is undemanding but it is far from the truth. Why the passport survived is just one of those things that happened. Like when a bullet hits the sheriff's badge and deflects away or when someone gets struck by lightning twice.

Woah ... well that answers everything to me. Them ay-rabs must just have been incredibly unlucky. So I guess you also believe that the nice clean bullet found on JFK's stretcher after he was shot just appeared from nowhere then ...

[there is a brand of very weak beer here in New Zealand called "Tui" ... and their advertising catchphrase is "Yeah, right" ... ... I think this is strangely appropriate in this case.]

 

[pixelsmith]

Oh....my....god. It's finally happened. Someone has mentioned FEMA! Time to tune out.

FEMA was right on the ball... a day early to be exact.

Jose you admit you are not qualified to comment, yet you continue to comment and throw around insults like the "pixel's tin foil hat" stuff and "Alex Jones is a fucktard" stuff and yet you do not get reprimanded. Could the Mods please help out here? We are trying to keep this civil and Jose is instigating and agitating. I would be more than happy to discuss this with him but he makes it very difficult with his continual snide remarks.

Some of us actually care about the lives lost that day. Some of us "will never forget 9/11".

 

[Jose Collado]

FEMA was right on the ball... a day early to be exact.

Jose you admit you are not qualified to comment, yet you continue to comment and throw around insults like the "pixel's tin foil hat" stuff and "Alex Jones is a fucktard" stuff and yet you do not get reprimanded.

I'm not qualified to comment about what exactly?

Uh dude...in my honest opinion, Alex Jones is a fucktard. That's common knowledge. Besides, you said it, not me. I just can't find the post where I clearly state "pixel's tin foil hat." Again, that came from you, not me.

Please don't cry "victim" here pixelsmith. If we bother to scroll to the beginning it's clear you chimed in with your typical instigative techniques to get an argument after I mentioned this was going to open a can of worms. Guess what? You decided to throw the worms into that open can with your first comment.

If people really cared about the victims then this topic would be closed instead of allowing it to continue down the gurgler. You have also been a part of it's spiral downward so please, don't call "victim" on this one.

 

[pixelsmith]

Uh dude...in my honest opinion, Alex Jones is a fucktard. That's common knowledge. Besides, you said it, not me. I just can't find the post where I clearly state "pixel's tin foil hat." Again, that came from you, not me.

these comments were cleverly disguised in the "reason for edit" areas.

Last edited by Jose Collado; 03-25-2010 at 01:42 AM. Reason: deleted mention of Pixelsmith's tinfoil hat
Last edited by Jose Collado; 03-26-2010 at 02:00 AM. Reason: Removed mention of Alex Jones being a complete fucktard and the leader of the fucktard club.

I will not engage you any further. You are only trying to shut this topic down.

 

[Jose Collado]

I will not engage you any further. You are only trying to shut this topic down.

You have an "ignore" feature. Feel free to use it.

 

[Kieran]

Fight or flight. You can't answer a few questions so you run away. I have many more questions for you. I have worked with forging steel, I have worked with reading blueprints, I have studied this since 9/11. I have answers to any questions you may have. Yet... when you are challenged, you flee.

That you would run away so quickly when challenged pretty much sums up your knowledge on the events on 9/11. ZIP NADA NOTHING.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Irishseekers tucked tail and ran. Ok who is next? Lance, Jose, Paul?

Steel structured buildings can not fall into the path of most resistance unless forced that way. If fires weakened these very tall towers, you would have seen an asymmetrical collapse. These were very solid structures. A very simple analogy for you guys would be a bon fire. Ever see one instantly collapse? No. They crumble one way, then another way, and slowly burn up, and a bon fire does not have logs bolted to each other with redundant cross bracing with core columns, exterior columns and such. These towers were subjected to similar heat of a hard wood bon fire and should have collapsed in a similar fashion. No fires completely engulfed a whole floor so the heat could not have been evenly distributed. The towers should have tipped to one side if anything, and not have fallen in a symmetrical fashion. You can plainly see the black smoke billowing out of the top. This is a sign of a cold fire. Not near enough to cause the WHOLE building to fall at nearly free fall speed. In fact the only way it didnt fall at free fall was wind resistance. The failure of these buildings should not have happened at all, and for sure not into their own neat footprint.

I have to respond. I never tucked tail and ran Pixel. I wrote a post and you didn't even respond to the points that i outlined. You posted other stuff to do with 9/11 just to avoid this and 1 You gave no opposing argument to how Demolitions could have gone of within the top floors of the tower's. Until you do this, i will avoid this thread.

I'm here close to an hour and you haven't responded with your opposing argument. Have you any rebuttal to give or as i expected you have no answer for me.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

Paraschtick,

First off, your question is flawed. Your contention that EVERYTHING ELSE was turned to dust may have some rhetorical value if your audience is undemanding but it is far from the truth. Why the passport survived is just one of those things that happened. Like when a bullet hits the sheriff's badge and deflects away or when someone gets struck by lightning twice.

Normal folks call it a coincidence but for conspiracy buffs there is no such thing.

Millions of pieces of debris fell. The hijacker was in the front of the plane maybe and his passport was propelled through? I don't know. But it doesn't automatically say inside job to me.

Edit:

Some additional research reveals that at least one piece of (paper) mail, unrelated to the hijackers, survived the crash as well:

A NATION CHALLENGED - AFTERMATH - A NATION CHALLENGED - AFTERMATH - One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound - NYTimes.com

It was someone's monthly payment to a vacation club. What conspiracy can we attach to this?

Pixel asked:



I am talking (in this case) about you saying that investigators were denied access to the blueprints of the WTC.
I showed testimony by the investigators that directly disputes this.
Do I need to paint a picture for you?

Please, I have tried to ask clear and concise questions like:

How can you say that jet fuel "does not burn very hot" when I showed you direct evidence that such fires exceed 2000 degrees F?

A question I have now asked at least twice and you have ignored.

Can someone please tell me if I am being unclear?

I don't see how asking you 3 questions will be faster since you have failed in many posts to even answer 1.

Lance

Your not been unclear Lance. People like Pixel expect me to answer his points. But he doesn't give us the same respect back. I asked him nicely to give me an alternative to how demolitions could have gone off. Still waiting. If he does, i will gladly counter what he says next.

 

[pixelsmith]

Your not been unclear Lance. People like Pixel expect me to answer his points. But he doesn't give us the same respect back. I asked him nicely to give me an alternative to how demolitions could have gone off. Still waiting. If he does, i will gladly counter what he says next.

Sorry if I didnt answer a question. I have been stretched pretty thin here and sometimes do not get to read previous posts. You ask for an alternative to how demolitions could have gone off. Alternative to what? It would have been very easy to wire the building with Marvin in charge of security. There were numerous unusual power downs, there were upgrades to wiring infrastructure, numerous vacant floors and offices, etc etc. I understand there is a paintable thermite (altho I haven't confirmed that) that could have been utilized as well. Fact is that there were unusual things happening in the year(s) leading up to 9/11.
As far as building 7, that would have been easy to wire. They did a complete overhaul of that building to accommodate a bunkered command post in case of a outside terror attack. My guess Rudy didn't use it because he knew it wasn't an outside terror attack and was actually informed that the building was going to be pulled. It was basically a fortified, reenforced bunker within a building yet it fell at free fall speed (initially) into a tidy little pile from a few office fires. If these buildings fell according to the official story then we need to condemn 99% of the buildings in use today and re write the building codes.

I have no idea how it was actually done. It is painfully obvious it was not from cold burning fires.
If that didn't answer your question, please let me know.

 

[SarkozyAide]

Speaking of Building 7, there is a video out there, don't have time to seek it out just now, which very clearly shows a white window washers platform on the north side of building 7, slowly ascending the building during the course of the attacks. It starts out down on one of the lower floors and makes it's way up. Don't you think that if you were aware of an attack on your complex that you would hit the "get this thing on the ground now!!" button instead of taking the time to creep all the way back up a 47 story building?? Very weird.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I stay away from "debates" on this subject with "truthers" because I've learned from hard experience that there's no real debating with them. As Stan Friedman would say, in another context, they are the epitome of the mantra "don't bother me with the facts, because my mind is made up."

What gets me angry, however, is when one of them suggests that they're the only ones who really care about what happened on 9/11. A statement like that - which was made in this thread - simply illustrates their intellectual bankruptcy, at least on this issue.

There's also a strong element of implied cultural bias in the "truther" line of "thinking" - it had to be a conspiracy, they will say, because surely a bunch of motley "ay-rabs" couldn't bring down those buildings, and fly those planes, and... well, heck, do any of it - so we must have done it, with a massive conspiracy that would have involved hundreds, and probably thousands of people, from the top to the bottom.

The sad part is that there was a conspiracy, but it gets lost in the "truther" silliness. The real conspiracy occurred after 9/11, when the Bush government, along with its allies in Europe (Blair et al), took advantage of the tragedy to launch a war on Iraq. Frankly, knowing what we know now about that, a very good case could be made under international law to bring Bush, Blair, Cheney, Powell, et al to book as war criminals, for planning and waging an aggressive war - but that doesn't get discussed in polite circles, because the "truthers" have poisoned the well. It's easy to dismiss the real conspiracy, because they've linked it so inextricably to their fantasy.

And that's the real crime.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Here on the lower 48, a few of the liberal talk show hosts do take the war crimes issue seriously, particularly in matters involving the former vice president. They also continue to speak of the Supreme Court's questionable decision in the case that essentially elected "W" president in 2001.

 

[SgtRock]

So says Dr Alan Sobrowsky ex "Head of Studies" at the US Army War College and a 10 year US Marine Corps veteran.

[ps Alan Sobrowsky is Jewish ... so please don't lay any anti-semitism nonsense with him there.]

I'm curious, does the tin foil chafe your forehead?

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Frankly, knowing what we know now about that, a very good case could be made under international law to bring Bush, Blair, Cheney, Powell, et al to book as war criminals, for planning and waging an aggressive war - but that doesn't get discussed in polite circles, because the "truthers" have poisoned the well. It's easy to dismiss the real conspiracy, because they've linked it so inextricably to their fantasy.

And that's the real crime.

I challenge anyone that thinks the Bush Administration or even the current Administration should be brought up on war charges to put their ass on the ground in Iraq and ask a friggin Iraqi how they feel about it. I love it how all these people that have never set foor in Middle East seem to think they are epxerts on how things go down there. All those Americans that think all of this is made up to forward some kind of political agenda should go take a stroll through the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or the tribal areas in Yemen and see how much of this is made up.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I'm curious, does the tin foil chafe your forehead?

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------



I challenge anyone that thinks the Bush Administration or even the current Administration should be brought up on war charges to put their ass on the ground in Iraq and ask a friggin Iraqi how they feel about it. I love it how all these people that have never set foor in Middle East seem to think they are epxerts on how things go down there. All those Americans that think all of this is made up to forward some kind of political agenda should go take a stroll through the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or the tribal areas in Yemen and see how much of this is made up.

The great thing about being a centrist like me is that you wind up getting harangued by true believers on both sides of the extremist aisle.

You seem to think you know a lot about what's going on over there. Perhaps you do, perhaps you don't - but that has nothing to do with the issue I raised, namely whether the war in Iraq was legal under international law, a subject I guarantee you I know a lot more about than you, and for which I suspect I have a greater respect as well.

There are rules to war, and peace, and how nations govern their relations with other nations. Breach them and you are a war criminal. I would encourage you have a look at those rules, and then explain to me how the war in Iraq was justified. If you could make specific reference to the applicable legal standards, charters and treaties, that would be really helpful.

Good luck with that.

PK

 

[pixelsmith]

...I stay away from "debates" on this subject with "truthers"...

Paul if this was meant as a derogatory term then you should be reprimanded. I have pretty thick skin so I will choose to take it as a compliment. I do want the truth to come out about 9/11 and I do know it did not go down as the official explanation would have us believe.

I also object to the derogatory Tin Foil Hat references thrown around here. By rights EVERYONE here could/should be labeled as such for participating on a paranormal/UFO forum.

SgtRock

I challenge anyone that thinks the Bush Administration or even the current Administration should be brought up on war charges to put their ass on the ground in Iraq and ask a friggin Iraqi how they feel about it. I love it how all these people that have never set foor in Middle East seem to think they are epxerts on how things go down there. All those Americans that think all of this is made up to forward some kind of political agenda should go take a stroll through the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or the tribal areas in Yemen and see how much of this is made up.

SgtRock, The Brave Men and Women who are serving in the Middle East were lied to. We have no business being there. Brush up on previous false flag operations and you will see what I am talking about. I lost a lot of friends in Viet Nam and as we now know from declassified documents, the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation designed to get us into that god awful war. Also be sure to google Operation Northwoods, and of course most recently 7/7 and 9/11. False Flag operations are even listed in Military training manuals as viable options for engaging the enemy.... I wonder who really IS the enemy?

 

[paraschtick]

Paul if this was meant as a derogatory term then you should be reprimanded. I have pretty thick skin so I will choose to take it as a compliment. I do want the truth to come out about 9/11 and I do know it did not go down as the official explanation would have us believe ...

pixelsmith,

There really is no point arguing with people like this. For this same reason Dr Paul Craig Roberts has just gotten out of the fight for truth over 9/11 etc.. He believes that he can say no more, do no more. If people are not going to listen and just go on believing whatever they want to believe, then you cannot change their minds. You just can't make them listen. You'll continue bashing your head on a brick wall until you do yourself some real damage.

So for those people who continue to berate us "truthers" (yes we ACTUALLY want the REAL truth about 9/11 to come out NOT what the mainstream media says it is ... we're really not mad people, believe you me) and "tin foil hat wearers" (ahhh an old one but a goodie don't you think? ... strange how people to right of the spectrum always throw insults like that at the rest of us) here are another couple of podcasts:

(a) Heres the ex "Head of Studies" at the US Army War College ie not a fruitcake at all, Dr Alan Sabrosky reiterating what he said in an earlier interview about 9/11:

http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Dr.Alan.Sobrosky/TiU.TFC.SMITH.OGNIR.Dr.Alan.Sabrosky.29-03-2010.mp3

and

(b) An interview on The Ugly Truth podcast with Gordon Duff, senior editor of veteranstoday.com, former UN diplomat, and defense contractor ... who also says that Israel did 9/11:

http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/mf/web/xwwbjt/uglytruth24MAR2010tourneyduff2.mp3

paraschtick out

 

[Kieran]

Sorry if I didnt answer a question. I have been stretched pretty thin here and sometimes do not get to read previous posts. You ask for an alternative to how demolitions could have gone off. Alternative to what? It would have been very easy to wire the building with Marvin in charge of security. There were numerous unusual power downs, there were upgrades to wiring infrastructure, numerous vacant floors and offices, etc etc. I understand there is a paintable thermite (altho I haven't confirmed that) that could have been utilized as well. Fact is that there were unusual things happening in the year(s) leading up to 9/11.
As far as building 7, that would have been easy to wire. They did a complete overhaul of that building to accommodate a bunkered command post in case of a outside terror attack. My guess Rudy didn't use it because he knew it wasn't an outside terror attack and was actually informed that the building was going to be pulled. It was basically a fortified, reenforced bunker within a building yet it fell at free fall speed (initially) into a tidy little pile from a few office fires. If these buildings fell according to the official story then we need to condemn 99% of the buildings in use today and re write the building codes.

I have no idea how it was actually done. It is painfully obvious it was not from cold burning fires.
If that didn't answer your question, please let me know.

Again Pixel what i asked it not a trick question. How in the hell could demolitions survive the fire within the top floors of the twin towers. Your purposing a theory to how demolition's could have been set and planted all fantasy nonsense, but the facts are the towers collapsed from the top down . Which based on this fact, the Demolitions would have without a doubt not have worked or gone off prematurely. So Pixel, This is fact not fantasy' there is no known explosive anywhere in the world or Demolition that can survive; when that location is full of fire and reaching to temperatures above 1500c or more.

 

[pixelsmith]

... but the facts are the towers collapsed from the top down...

Again you show how little you know about the events on 9/11. The verified facts via eye witness and video documentation are, there were massive explosions in the sub levels and ground floor lobbies of WTC 1,2 and 7. To make that very clear for some of you, sub levels and ground floor lobbies are WELL below the tops of the buildings.

 

[cottonzway]

I stay away from "debates" on this subject with "truthers" because I've learned from hard experience that there's no real debating with them. As Stan Friedman would say, in another context, they are the epitome of the mantra "don't bother me with the facts, because my mind is made up."

What gets me angry, however, is when one of them suggests that they're the only ones who really care about what happened on 9/11. A statement like that - which was made in this thread - simply illustrates their intellectual bankruptcy, at least on this issue.

There's also a strong element of implied cultural bias in the "truther" line of "thinking" - it had to be a conspiracy, they will say, because surely a bunch of motley "ay-rabs" couldn't bring down those buildings, and fly those planes, and... well, heck, do any of it - so we must have done it, with a massive conspiracy that would have involved hundreds, and probably thousands of people, from the top to the bottom.

The sad part is that there was a conspiracy, but it gets lost in the "truther" silliness. The real conspiracy occurred after 9/11, when the Bush government, along with its allies in Europe (Blair et al), took advantage of the tragedy to launch a war on Iraq. Frankly, knowing what we know now about that, a very good case could be made under international law to bring Bush, Blair, Cheney, Powell, et al to book as war criminals, for planning and waging an aggressive war - but that doesn't get discussed in polite circles, because the "truthers" have poisoned the well. It's easy to dismiss the real conspiracy, because they've linked it so inextricably to their fantasy.

And that's the real crime.

Paul, as I read your comments on 9/11 I really do think you seem to box the whole arguement into conspiracies about bombs, buildings, and planes. It doesn't seem like you are framing this in a manner of "debate" (your quoutations meaning there is no debate). You have come to a conclusion that those concepts are invalid, thus shut down, grouped every idea into that, and closed your mind on this topic.

That is flawed IMO. If I am incorrect in this, please say so. There are more options then "9/11 was an inside job!" and "9/11 was done by 19 hijackers under the orders of OBL." You don't have to make mentions of views about controlled demolitions or whatever to be able to have a real, rational discussion about the many details about the whole 9/11 event.

I take VERY SERIOUS what actual government and military personell who had direct involvement prior to and up to the 9/11 events. They have nothing to gain by it. Yet memebers of Army Intel. and the FBI have made comments about situations that are deeply concerning to me in having the "official" story hold water. The fact that what their shared, which could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, was not important enough for the 9/11 Commission Panel to include it in their final report is unacceptable to me. Hell, it's unacceptable to them as 6/10 panel members have shared their concerns after the fact of what they submitted as FACT to the American people (and the world). I have to ask you this, have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report?

I have to say your comment about people thinking there are "hundreds, and probably thousands of people involved, from top to bottom" is really awful strawman. Who here is saying that? If you heard it from other people before, fine, but that kind of only goes to my comment in the first paragraph. I don't at all believe that to be true. Infact, I have no clue how many people were involved or who they were. I don't assume I have answers, just a hell of a lot more questions.

Often people make the comments (wrongfully so) that people don't care about 9/11 because they are not open to other ideas to discuss what may of happened. Part of this is because it happens the other way around. How many times have you heard someone say to a "truther"; "You are disrespecting the dead!" when a debate is going on? Very often this happens. That offends me because I personally got to meet some of the first responders in NYC. I see them with oxygen tanks on their side as they are dying from what was in the dust and have been left for dead. Heros one day and traitors left to die the next day when they speak their mind on a topic they lived though that caused them lost friends and family members. I've looked into their eyes and shook their hands. Yet so many people treat them like shit and use the tired "troofer" attack on them.

I assure you I am aware of the lead up to the Iraq war. I am an avid student of foreign policy. You are correct in a lot of what you are saying there. Maybe all of it. I just think you are a smart guy that shut down on this topic because you see no validity into conspiracies about bombs, buildings, and planes. Hopefully you take that into consideration.