• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

This Sums Up 9-11 in 5 Minutes

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

manxman said:
i watched 10mins of selective editing that was enough for me.
Click to expand...

LMAO but you can watch/read hours of selective editing of main stream media telling you what to believe...and you do! nice.

don't bother commenting anymore on stuff you know zero about.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

you DO realize how absurd your last comment was don't you?
 
manxman said:
What i realise is i wasted my time replying and will not be making the same mistake anymore.
Click to expand...

Thank you! It is frustrating when people like you and Angelo chime in with out knowing what you are talking about.
 
pixelsmith said:
you have to realize our government answers to a higher government that has no problem killing millions of people. (war) The military industrial complex and the central banks are our government. Jefferson and Eisenhower among many others warned us of the very scenario we are currently in. [/COLOR][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Yeah, I do agree with that pixel. The military industrial complex, and the now privately owned Federal Reserve does NOT have any probelm letting the "little people" die for their profits.

But I have seen NO credible evidence they had anything to do with 9/11.
 
exo_doc said:
Yeah, I do agree with that pixel. The military industrial complex, and the now privately owned Federal Reserve does NOT have any probelm letting the "little people" die for their profits.

But I have seen NO credible evidence they had anything to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

and I have seen no credible evidence bin laden had anything to do with 9/11 either. he was not even wanted by the FBI for 9/11 crimes.
 
pixelsmith said:
obviously they were hearing things. the Mayor didnt hear the explosions because he was in his terrorist attack command center that was built within building 7... oh wait... he was told to leave his command center because there was an office fire about to level that structure.

---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

the believers of the official story here will not comment on this video because these first responders and people who were IN the building are all lying. the videos that captured the audio of the explosions are all fake as well... any comments on this video Angelo?

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

nothing like a bit of truth from actual witnesses to silence the skeptics here. i can't believe there are no comments yet on trainedobservers video...wtf?

but telling the truth can be deadly..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=bvay28lZiHU&NR=1

the public being sold the lie by main stream media..
Click to expand...




What this video is showing is NOT .....NOT demolition explosives!!!
ANY engineer will tell you:
1. When the steel girders heated up from the burning jet fuel, they softened!
2. All that weight of the upper floors caused a sudden catastrophic structural failure when the steel starting losing integrity.
3. As those floors collapsed, the AIR in all those open spaces were being rapidly compressed!!!
4. That air HAD TO GO SOMEWHERE!
5. The air got shot out on all sides blowing debris away from the collapse---MAKING IT ONLY RESEMBLE EXPLOSIONS!!!! Compressed air has a GREAT deal of force!

A little common sense, and a review of the collapse video proves this out!
Any more of this "demolition" crap just proves a person has NO idea what they are talking about!
 
goggsmackay said:
...but we are supposed to believe that one of the hijackers' passports managed to avoid pulverisation, intense explosion and heat and find itself some distance away, unharmed? COME ON!
Click to expand...

No, you are supposed to believe that TWO hijackers passports made it down to the street with some soiling and burned edges. Google for images. As I've watched a couple of the aftermath videos recently I'm struck by the incredible amount of paper and just trash littering the streets along with the coating of ash that was on everything in sight. They were quite fortunate that these documents survived both the explosion and inferno of the crash along with the building collapsing on them and spewing tons of concrete and plaster dust for blocks. I find that utterly amazing. But since I am not stupid or bat-shit crazy, I find it completely acceptable and beyond question.

Ok, I will amend that. I have that wrong. Only ONE passport survived and was found in the street. Another was found in a suitcase that didn't make on the plane. My bad. Apologies and drinks all around. It doesn't make it sound any more likely though.
 
exo_doc said:
What this video is showing is NOT .....NOT demolition explosives!!!
ANY engineer will tell you:
1. When the steel girders heated up from the burning jet fuel, they softened!
2. All that weight of the upper floors caused a sudden catastrophic structural failure when the steel starting losing integrity.
3. As those floors collapsed, the AIR in all those open spaces were being rapidly compressed!!!
4. That air HAD TO GO SOMEWHERE!
5. The air got shot out on all sides blowing debris away from the collapse---MAKING IT ONLY RESEMBLE EXPLOSIONS!!!! Compressed air has a GREAT deal of force!

A little common sense, and a review of the collapse video proves this out!
Any more of this "demolition" crap just proves a person has NO idea what they are talking about!
Click to expand...

did you not see most of the fuel burn up outside the building? do you know how long it would take to "soften" those huge girders and columns?

why didnt WTC 3,4,5,6 catastrophically fail? 5 and 6 were definitely damaged worse than 1,2 and 7.

so the squibs we see in controlled demolitions are different than we see on 9/11?

what pulverized the concrete in mid air?

where did the thermite residue come from?

where did the molten IRON come from?

I suggest you and others here need to check out a few web sites.

9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack
AE911Truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ----------

how does jet fuel create molten iron? soften maybe... melt, no way.

 
I'm well aware there are more than a few questions that have remained unanswered by the "official" 9/11 explanation. However, it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as "thermite residue" per se. Thermite simply causes metal to oxidize (i.e. burn) at extremely high temperatures, and the "residue" that remains after iron oxidization is more commonly known as rust - which itself is not something that would be particularly surprizing to find on an iron girder after being exposed to the elements and a great deal of water.

Unfortunately, the claims of "thermite detonation" or the alleged existance of "super thermite" as an explanation for the collapse of the towers is where the conspiracy folks veer off into la-la land. While thermite has many industrial and military uses, controlled detonation simply is not one of them. Thermite by its very nature is difficult to ignite and very unpredictable when it does. Not to mention that it burns at excess of 2000 degrees Centigrade, and if one were to ignite as much as was allegedly used to bring down the WTC, the resultant heat blast would have turned most of Lower Manhattan into a fireball in a matter of minutes.

As such, the more realistic explaination that the kenetic energy transferred from a 300,000 lbs aircraft directly impacting the tower's superstructure at 500 miles an hour weakend the tower, and the internal fire caused from the jet fuel igniting the contents of the towers themselves further weakening the iron further until it collapsed under its own weight seems much more plausible to me. Normal housefires burn at around 1300 degrees F and this is without the use of several hundred gallons of accelerant.
 
Anubis said:
I'm well aware there are more than a few questions that have remained unanswered by the "official" 9/11 explanation. However, it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as "thermite residue" per se. Thermite simply causes metal to oxidize (i.e. burn) at extremely high temperatures, and the "residue" that remains after iron oxidization is more commonly known as rust - which itself is not something that would be particularly surprizing to find on an iron girder after being exposed to the elements and a great deal of water.

Unfortunately, the claims of "thermite detonation" or the alleged existance of "super thermite" as an explanation for the collapse of the towers is where the conspiracy folks veer off into la-la land. While thermite has many industrial and military uses, controlled detonation simply is not one of them. Thermite by its very nature is difficult to ignite and very unpredictable when it does. Not to mention that it burns at excess of 2000 degrees Centigrade, and if one were to ignite as much as was allegedly used to bring down the WTC, the resultant heat blast would have turned most of Lower Manhattan into a fireball in a matter of minutes.

As such, the more realistic explaination that the kenetic energy transferred from a 300,000 lbs aircraft directly impacting the tower's superstructure at 500 miles an hour weakend the tower, and the internal fire caused from the jet fuel igniting the contents of the towers themselves further weakening the iron further until it collapsed under its own weight seems much more plausible to me. Normal housefires burn at around 1300 degrees F and this is without the use of several hundred gallons of accelerant.
Click to expand...

I posted some videos in the Building 7 thread that demonstrate ​top down demolition where the weight of upper floors are used to crush the building to the ground. It appears that this was exactly what the perpetrators were going for by crashing the planes into areas of the buildings that they did. It's remarkable that they succeeded in bringing both towers plus a third building down with this method given how the twin towers were constructed.

When you step back from all this though, and just look at the incredible perfect storm of circumstances that had to occur that allowed them to successfully hijack the planes, penetrate one of the most secure air spaces in the country, strike three buildings in very strategic places, and cause the top down collapse of the two towers, the collapse of WTC7 (an apparent unintended but very critical blow), and so forth. It just boogles the mind and stretches the imagination. I remain skeptical of the official conspiracy story along with every other 911 conspiracy story I've heard so far.
 
Anubis said:
I'm well aware there are more than a few questions that have remained unanswered by the "official" 9/11 explanation. However, it should be pointed out that there is no such thing as "thermite residue" per se. Thermite simply causes metal to oxidize (i.e. burn) at extremely high temperatures, and the "residue" that remains after iron oxidization is more commonly known as rust - which itself is not something that would be particularly surprizing to find on an iron girder after being exposed to the elements and a great deal of water.

Unfortunately, the claims of "thermite detonation" or the alleged existance of "super thermite" as an explanation for the collapse of the towers is where the conspiracy folks veer off into la-la land. While thermite has many industrial and military uses, controlled detonation simply is not one of them. Thermite by its very nature is difficult to ignite and very unpredictable when it does. Not to mention that it burns at excess of 2000 degrees Centigrade, and if one were to ignite as much as was allegedly used to bring down the WTC, the resultant heat blast would have turned most of Lower Manhattan into a fireball in a matter of minutes.

As such, the more realistic explaination that the kenetic energy transferred from a 300,000 lbs aircraft directly impacting the tower's superstructure at 500 miles an hour weakend the tower, and the internal fire caused from the jet fuel igniting the contents of the towers themselves further weakening the iron further until it collapsed under its own weight seems much more plausible to me. Normal housefires burn at around 1300 degrees F and this is without the use of several hundred gallons of accelerant.
Click to expand...

the thermite residue consists of microspheres of iron that had to have been molten then formed into spheres in the air. there was also ACTIVE thermitic material in the form of red and grey chips were also found in the dust as well. Anubis I would be intereted in knowing where you think these chips came from? one of the by products of nano thermite is iron... molten iron was found "flowing like a foundry" in the basements of the 3 WTC buildings as reported by firemen and rescue workers. jet fuel can NOT melt iron or steel.
 
Ron Collins said:
It seems to contain some plausible explanations.
Click to expand...

That is a lot to digest. I've just skimmed it and it contains some things I've read elsewhere. Yes, I think molten aluminum from the plane is a plausible explanation for at least some of the molten metal if not all of it. If the buildings were compromised and fell in the manner described does that mean that these buildings were a great deal less safe than anyone imagined? I wonder if building codes been changed as a result.

If we remove the argument about whether the planes had some assistance in bringing down the buildings from consideration entirely and discard any speculation about possible additional conspirators or their motivations, do the events as described in the official story leading up to the impacts seem plausible? It seems ...well miraculous to have been pulled off in the manner we are told it was. As a military operation it was incredibly successful. I mean, we fly our A-Team in to kill an old man in a dump and loose our hi-tech helicopter in the process. I still say something stinks about the whole thing from beginning to end.
 
throw out all information and theories and you still have the recent discovery of the active grey/red thermite chips. why would those be in the dust?
 
Do they, wheres the peer reviewed publication i can read about that doozy of a claim in then, thermite chips, i bet they are nothing more than untested, unproven, un reviewed shite.
 
All right, for all you 9/11 conspiracy buffs, let's say YOU ARE RIGHT. 9/11 was an inside job, the jets were flown by the CIA either through agents or remote control.
Let's further say there WERE explosives in the Twin Towers AND Building 7.
And to top it off, concrete facts proving the Shrub and his cronies actually planned and implemented the whole thing suddenly appear.

WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?

The deed is done. 10 years gone.

NO ONE would be prosecuted!
Bush, Chainy, and their ilk would STILL WALK FREE!
Yeah, there would be a lot of harumph-harumphing, and yelling and screaming and threatenings.
Probably even some riots.

BUT NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.

Why not pour your energy into something constructive? Like taking the world back from the Super-Elite Rich that have everyone by the balls?
Maybe then the world would be a half decent place.
 
Back
Top