9/11 consipracy movie

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

/Shrug

Norman Mineta destroys the bubble you live in.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1824136&enterthread=y

My bubble in the universe is called "Earth".

Welcome.

You're all talk...but nothing factual

Interesting...more facts to destroy the bubble you live in:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

No wonder they lied about Weapons of Mass Deception.

This has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, stay on subject.

Sure it does... it's falls under the "motive" category that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen...as a pretext for war in Iraq.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there were no precollapse explosions, and seismograph data backs that up.

what's going to be more reliable, a seismograph or a person in the most confusing and hectic day of their life?

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

not only is the image broken, but the people who own that seismograph have said that the interpretation based on that image is completely wrong, because the scale used is far too large.
don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy, though

dont worry noto12ous has said that reporter X is part of CIA, reporty Y is the cousins brother of reportereX;s sisters husband and Reporty Z is the best friends roomate fo reporters X's girlfriend whose virginity he took in 1999. so they are all related to the conspiracy..

(im drunk, but thats the best typing i ahve)

LMAO at the doubters who still deny explosions. The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG! Also, the Popular Mechanics article has conflicts of interests to the truth, as pointed out in this thread and other threads. Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Popular Mechanics also has heavy ties to the CIA, as already pointed out in numerous threads. Notice Popular Mechanics doesn't dare address the numerous pre collapse explosions or molten steel issue? Haha.

Huge pre collapse explosions did happen... that's not even up for debate. Too many reporters and witnesses on the ground coroborate that...many said those pre collapse explosions shook the ground Cameras and audio picked up those pre collapse explosions as well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
12 seconds before WTC1 collapse, the tripod shakes, debris falls off the right side of the building

It corrobarotes with this:

911 Eyewitness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
Time frame 52:50 - 55:10, numerous explosions can be heard, and white smoke can be seen rising from the streets before WTC1 collapse

More corroboration of pre collapse explosions:
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...floor26th_firefighter_high_quality.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
The first minute of this clip includes more eyewitness testimonies of huge explosions before the collapses

http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
Explosion in the basement levels BEFORE the planes struck.


Again, LOL at the people in denial about precollapse explosions. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill use your debating technique, wheres your government report saying it didn't?

Government's Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

So, what caused "rivers of molten steel" ?
It sure wasn't fires, as admitted by the government Where's your report Acanthus?

1. That isn't a link.
2. He said the jet fuel in the tower didnt melt the steel, which i have posted probably 5 dozen times now. Yet here we are again with you trolling and asking the exact same questions I have already answered.
3. At no point does it say in your one sentance and probably lopsided cherrypicked quote (thats why you wont link it) that the steel didnt melt from fire. That quote is clearly referring to the steel melting from the jet fuel while the towers were standing.

Why should I link anything when YOU still haven't linked anything to support your intial claim? Frank Gayle is quoted on numerous sites. Now, you still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that fire melted WTC steel. The thing is, you can't find any links supporting your ridiculous theory. :laugh: Do that first, then I'll link Frank Gayle's words.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
You're all talk...but nothing factual

Interesting...more facts to destroy the bubble you live in:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

No wonder they lied about Weapons of Mass Deception.

You don't just have one belief, you probably believe in the typical set of conspiracy theorist beliefs such as:

1: 9/11 was a government conspiracy
2. We didn't really land on the moon
3. Big Oil bought the rights to a car that runs on water
4. Black helicopters
5. Aliens at area 51

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious
You're all talk...but nothing factual

Interesting...more facts to destroy the bubble you live in:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

No wonder they lied about Weapons of Mass Deception.

You don't just have one belief, you probably believe in the typical set of conspiracy theorist beliefs such as:

1: 9/11 was a government conspiracy
2. We didn't really land on the moon
3. Big Oil bought the rights to a car that runs on water
4. Black helicopters
5. Aliens at area 51

Now you're getting desperate. Funny how you won't address any of the facts or the article I just posted #1 is true.... #2-5? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there were no precollapse explosions, and seismograph data backs that up.

what's going to be more reliable, a seismograph or a person in the most confusing and hectic day of their life?

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

not only is the image broken, but the people who own that seismograph have said that the interpretation based on that image is completely wrong, because the scale used is far too large.
don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy, though

dont worry noto12ous has said that reporter X is part of CIA, reporty Y is the cousins brother of reportereX;s sisters husband and Reporty Z is the best friends roomate fo reporters X's girlfriend whose virginity he took in 1999. so they are all related to the conspiracy..

(im drunk, but thats the best typing i ahve)

LMAO at the doubters who still deny explosions. The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG! Also, the Popular Mechanics article has conflicts of interests to the truth, as pointed out in this thread and other threads. Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Popular Mechanics also has heavy ties to the CIA, as already pointed out in numerous threads. Notice Popular Mechanics doesn't dare address the numerous pre collapse explosions or molten steel issue? Haha.

Huge pre collapse explosions did happen... that's not even up for debate. Too many reporters and witnesses on the ground coroborate that...many said those pre collapse explosions shook the ground Cameras and audio picked up those pre collapse explosions as well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
12 seconds before WTC1 collapse, the tripod shakes, debris falls off the right side of the building

It corrobarotes with this:

911 Eyewitness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
Time frame 52:50 - 55:10, numerous explosions can be heard, and white smoke can be seen rising from the streets before WTC1 collapse

More corroboration of pre collapse explosions:
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...floor26th_firefighter_high_quality.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
The first minute of this clip includes more eyewitness testimonies of huge explosions before the collapses

http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
Explosion in the basement levels BEFORE the planes struck.


Again, LOL at the people in denial about precollapse explosions. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill use your debating technique, wheres your government report saying it didn't?

Government's Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

So, what caused "rivers of molten steel" ?
It sure wasn't fires, as admitted by the government Where's your report Acanthus?

1. That isn't a link.
2. He said the jet fuel in the tower didnt melt the steel, which i have posted probably 5 dozen times now. Yet here we are again with you trolling and asking the exact same questions I have already answered.
3. At no point does it say in your one sentance and probably lopsided cherrypicked quote (thats why you wont link it) that the steel didnt melt from fire. That quote is clearly referring to the steel melting from the jet fuel while the towers were standing.

Why should I link anything when YOU still haven't linked anything to support your intial claim? Frank Gayle is quoted on numerous sites. Now, you still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that fire melted WTC steel. The thing is, you can't find any links supporting your ridiculous theory. :laugh: Do that first, then I'll link Frank Gayle's words.

Oh here we go, please link your unprovable but plausible point and then ill link my rediculous claim?

Your doctor in the quote there claims the steel never melted at all in that context. How does that explain rivers of molten steel?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there were no precollapse explosions, and seismograph data backs that up.

what's going to be more reliable, a seismograph or a person in the most confusing and hectic day of their life?

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

not only is the image broken, but the people who own that seismograph have said that the interpretation based on that image is completely wrong, because the scale used is far too large.
don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy, though

dont worry noto12ous has said that reporter X is part of CIA, reporty Y is the cousins brother of reportereX;s sisters husband and Reporty Z is the best friends roomate fo reporters X's girlfriend whose virginity he took in 1999. so they are all related to the conspiracy..

(im drunk, but thats the best typing i ahve)

LMAO at the doubters who still deny explosions. The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG! Also, the Popular Mechanics article has conflicts of interests to the truth, as pointed out in this thread and other threads. Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Popular Mechanics also has heavy ties to the CIA, as already pointed out in numerous threads. Notice Popular Mechanics doesn't dare address the numerous pre collapse explosions or molten steel issue? Haha.

Huge pre collapse explosions did happen... that's not even up for debate. Too many reporters and witnesses on the ground coroborate that...many said those pre collapse explosions shook the ground Cameras and audio picked up those pre collapse explosions as well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
12 seconds before WTC1 collapse, the tripod shakes, debris falls off the right side of the building

It corrobarotes with this:

911 Eyewitness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
Time frame 52:50 - 55:10, numerous explosions can be heard, and white smoke can be seen rising from the streets before WTC1 collapse

More corroboration of pre collapse explosions:
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...floor26th_firefighter_high_quality.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
The first minute of this clip includes more eyewitness testimonies of huge explosions before the collapses

http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
Explosion in the basement levels BEFORE the planes struck.


Again, LOL at the people in denial about precollapse explosions. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill use your debating technique, wheres your government report saying it didn't?

Government's Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

So, what caused "rivers of molten steel" ?
It sure wasn't fires, as admitted by the government Where's your report Acanthus?

1. That isn't a link.
2. He said the jet fuel in the tower didnt melt the steel, which i have posted probably 5 dozen times now. Yet here we are again with you trolling and asking the exact same questions I have already answered.
3. At no point does it say in your one sentance and probably lopsided cherrypicked quote (thats why you wont link it) that the steel didnt melt from fire. That quote is clearly referring to the steel melting from the jet fuel while the towers were standing.

Why should I link anything when YOU still haven't linked anything to support your intial claim? Frank Gayle is quoted on numerous sites. Now, you still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that fire melted WTC steel. The thing is, you can't find any links supporting your ridiculous theory. :laugh: Do that first, then I'll link Frank Gayle's words.

Oh here we go, please link your unprovable but plausible point and then ill link my rediculous claim?

Your doctor in the quote there claims the steel never melted at all in that context. How does that explain rivers of molten steel?

Look at how you're stalling. You can't find any links to back up your theory! LOL.
You're the one who claimed fires melted the steel... so why aren't you backing up that claim?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

/Shrug

Norman Mineta destroys the bubble you live in.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1824136&enterthread=y

My bubble in the universe is called "Earth".

Welcome.

You're all talk...but nothing factual

Interesting...more facts to destroy the bubble you live in:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

No wonder they lied about Weapons of Mass Deception.

This has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, stay on subject.

Sure it does... it's falls under the "motive" category that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen...as a pretext for war in Iraq.

The military has strategies for invading and occupying pretty much every nation in the world, and strategies for rebuilding those nations.

It is well known that the revenue for rebuilding iraq should a conflict occur was to use the oil.

It really does have nothing to do with the topic at hand, please stay on subject so this thread doesnt make it to 400,000 posts of you repeating yourself or changing the subject when it gets hard for your little theory to materialize anymore.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there were no precollapse explosions, and seismograph data backs that up.

what's going to be more reliable, a seismograph or a person in the most confusing and hectic day of their life?

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

not only is the image broken, but the people who own that seismograph have said that the interpretation based on that image is completely wrong, because the scale used is far too large.
don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy, though

dont worry noto12ous has said that reporter X is part of CIA, reporty Y is the cousins brother of reportereX;s sisters husband and Reporty Z is the best friends roomate fo reporters X's girlfriend whose virginity he took in 1999. so they are all related to the conspiracy..

(im drunk, but thats the best typing i ahve)

LMAO at the doubters who still deny explosions. The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG! Also, the Popular Mechanics article has conflicts of interests to the truth, as pointed out in this thread and other threads. Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Popular Mechanics also has heavy ties to the CIA, as already pointed out in numerous threads. Notice Popular Mechanics doesn't dare address the numerous pre collapse explosions or molten steel issue? Haha.

Huge pre collapse explosions did happen... that's not even up for debate. Too many reporters and witnesses on the ground coroborate that...many said those pre collapse explosions shook the ground Cameras and audio picked up those pre collapse explosions as well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
12 seconds before WTC1 collapse, the tripod shakes, debris falls off the right side of the building

It corrobarotes with this:

911 Eyewitness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
Time frame 52:50 - 55:10, numerous explosions can be heard, and white smoke can be seen rising from the streets before WTC1 collapse

More corroboration of pre collapse explosions:
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...floor26th_firefighter_high_quality.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
The first minute of this clip includes more eyewitness testimonies of huge explosions before the collapses

http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
Explosion in the basement levels BEFORE the planes struck.


Again, LOL at the people in denial about precollapse explosions. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill use your debating technique, wheres your government report saying it didn't?

Government's Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

So, what caused "rivers of molten steel" ?
It sure wasn't fires, as admitted by the government Where's your report Acanthus?

1. That isn't a link.
2. He said the jet fuel in the tower didnt melt the steel, which i have posted probably 5 dozen times now. Yet here we are again with you trolling and asking the exact same questions I have already answered.
3. At no point does it say in your one sentance and probably lopsided cherrypicked quote (thats why you wont link it) that the steel didnt melt from fire. That quote is clearly referring to the steel melting from the jet fuel while the towers were standing.

Why should I link anything when YOU still haven't linked anything to support your intial claim? Frank Gayle is quoted on numerous sites. Now, you still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that fire melted WTC steel. The thing is, you can't find any links supporting your ridiculous theory. :laugh: Do that first, then I'll link Frank Gayle's words.

Oh here we go, please link your unprovable but plausible point and then ill link my rediculous claim?

Your doctor in the quote there claims the steel never melted at all in that context. How does that explain rivers of molten steel?

wow, i was SO on with my response...

and look, he even DID it. he did EXACTLY what was expected.

if everyonne that was related to someone in the CIA/Govt/Pentagon was in on the conspiracy, i would KNOW about it, one of my cousins is a HIGH ranking official, and i will tell you straight up, it was NOT a conspiracy.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: noto12ious

/Shrug

Norman Mineta destroys the bubble you live in.
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1824136&enterthread=y

My bubble in the universe is called "Earth".

Welcome.

You're all talk...but nothing factual

Interesting...more facts to destroy the bubble you live in:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm

No wonder they lied about Weapons of Mass Deception.

This has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, stay on subject.

Sure it does... it's falls under the "motive" category that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen...as a pretext for war in Iraq.

The military has strategies for invading and occupying pretty much every nation in the world, and strategies for rebuilding those nations.

It is well known that the revenue for rebuilding iraq should a conflict occur was to use the oil.

It really does have nothing to do with the topic at hand, please stay on subject so this thread doesnt make it to 400,000 posts of you repeating yourself or changing the subject when it gets hard for your little theory to materialize anymore.

No matter how hard you try to spin it, 9/11 was used a pretext for war in Iraq... and the motive for allowing 9/11 to happen is even more evident in that article You still can't find a link for your rediculous "fires melted WTC steel" theory.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there were no precollapse explosions, and seismograph data backs that up.

what's going to be more reliable, a seismograph or a person in the most confusing and hectic day of their life?

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

not only is the image broken, but the people who own that seismograph have said that the interpretation based on that image is completely wrong, because the scale used is far too large.
don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy, though

dont worry noto12ous has said that reporter X is part of CIA, reporty Y is the cousins brother of reportereX;s sisters husband and Reporty Z is the best friends roomate fo reporters X's girlfriend whose virginity he took in 1999. so they are all related to the conspiracy..

(im drunk, but thats the best typing i ahve)

LMAO at the doubters who still deny explosions. The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG! Also, the Popular Mechanics article has conflicts of interests to the truth, as pointed out in this thread and other threads. Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Popular Mechanics also has heavy ties to the CIA, as already pointed out in numerous threads. Notice Popular Mechanics doesn't dare address the numerous pre collapse explosions or molten steel issue? Haha.

Huge pre collapse explosions did happen... that's not even up for debate. Too many reporters and witnesses on the ground coroborate that...many said those pre collapse explosions shook the ground Cameras and audio picked up those pre collapse explosions as well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
12 seconds before WTC1 collapse, the tripod shakes, debris falls off the right side of the building

It corrobarotes with this:

911 Eyewitness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
Time frame 52:50 - 55:10, numerous explosions can be heard, and white smoke can be seen rising from the streets before WTC1 collapse

More corroboration of pre collapse explosions:
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...floor26th_firefighter_high_quality.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
The first minute of this clip includes more eyewitness testimonies of huge explosions before the collapses

http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
Explosion in the basement levels BEFORE the planes struck.


Again, LOL at the people in denial about precollapse explosions. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill use your debating technique, wheres your government report saying it didn't?

Government's Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

So, what caused "rivers of molten steel" ?
It sure wasn't fires, as admitted by the government Where's your report Acanthus?

1. That isn't a link.
2. He said the jet fuel in the tower didnt melt the steel, which i have posted probably 5 dozen times now. Yet here we are again with you trolling and asking the exact same questions I have already answered.
3. At no point does it say in your one sentance and probably lopsided cherrypicked quote (thats why you wont link it) that the steel didnt melt from fire. That quote is clearly referring to the steel melting from the jet fuel while the towers were standing.

Why should I link anything when YOU still haven't linked anything to support your intial claim? Frank Gayle is quoted on numerous sites. Now, you still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that fire melted WTC steel. The thing is, you can't find any links supporting your ridiculous theory. :laugh: Do that first, then I'll link Frank Gayle's words.

Oh here we go, please link your unprovable but plausible point and then ill link my rediculous claim?

Your doctor in the quote there claims the steel never melted at all in that context. How does that explain rivers of molten steel?

wow, i was SO on with my response...

and look, he even DID it. he did EXACTLY what was expected.

if everyonne that was related to someone in the CIA/Govt/Pentagon was in on the conspiracy, i would KNOW about it, one of my cousins is a HIGH ranking official, and i will tell you straight up, it was NOT a conspiracy.

Yeah, I pretty much shot down the sad attempts to deny pre collapse explosions "because they didn't register on seismographs". The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG.

Of course I'm going to point out the heavy ties Popular Mechanics has to the government... just in case other readers have missed it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: ElFenix
there were no precollapse explosions, and seismograph data backs that up.

what's going to be more reliable, a seismograph or a person in the most confusing and hectic day of their life?

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!

This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

not only is the image broken, but the people who own that seismograph have said that the interpretation based on that image is completely wrong, because the scale used is far too large.
don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy, though

dont worry noto12ous has said that reporter X is part of CIA, reporty Y is the cousins brother of reportereX;s sisters husband and Reporty Z is the best friends roomate fo reporters X's girlfriend whose virginity he took in 1999. so they are all related to the conspiracy..

(im drunk, but thats the best typing i ahve)

LMAO at the doubters who still deny explosions. The 1993 Truck Bombing at WTC did not register on seismographs either. GG! Also, the Popular Mechanics article has conflicts of interests to the truth, as pointed out in this thread and other threads. Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Popular Mechanics also has heavy ties to the CIA, as already pointed out in numerous threads. Notice Popular Mechanics doesn't dare address the numerous pre collapse explosions or molten steel issue? Haha.

Huge pre collapse explosions did happen... that's not even up for debate. Too many reporters and witnesses on the ground coroborate that...many said those pre collapse explosions shook the ground Cameras and audio picked up those pre collapse explosions as well.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
12 seconds before WTC1 collapse, the tripod shakes, debris falls off the right side of the building

It corrobarotes with this:

911 Eyewitness
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
Time frame 52:50 - 55:10, numerous explosions can be heard, and white smoke can be seen rising from the streets before WTC1 collapse

More corroboration of pre collapse explosions:
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vide...floor26th_firefighter_high_quality.wmv

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
The first minute of this clip includes more eyewitness testimonies of huge explosions before the collapses

http://www.911proof.com/resources/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv
Explosion in the basement levels BEFORE the planes struck.


Again, LOL at the people in denial about precollapse explosions. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ill use your debating technique, wheres your government report saying it didn't?

Government's Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

So, what caused "rivers of molten steel" ?
It sure wasn't fires, as admitted by the government Where's your report Acanthus?

1. That isn't a link.
2. He said the jet fuel in the tower didnt melt the steel, which i have posted probably 5 dozen times now. Yet here we are again with you trolling and asking the exact same questions I have already answered.
3. At no point does it say in your one sentance and probably lopsided cherrypicked quote (thats why you wont link it) that the steel didnt melt from fire. That quote is clearly referring to the steel melting from the jet fuel while the towers were standing.

Why should I link anything when YOU still haven't linked anything to support your intial claim? Frank Gayle is quoted on numerous sites. Now, you still haven't provided any proof to back up your claim that fire melted WTC steel. The thing is, you can't find any links supporting your ridiculous theory. :laugh: Do that first, then I'll link Frank Gayle's words.

Oh here we go, please link your unprovable but plausible point and then ill link my rediculous claim?

Your doctor in the quote there claims the steel never melted at all in that context. How does that explain rivers of molten steel?

Look at how you're stalling. You can't find any links to back up your theory! LOL.
You're the one who claimed fires melted the steel... so why aren't you backing up that claim?

Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

People in the 1st century understood this concept, hell even earlier than that if you wanna go back to bronze working. But a person with a modern education cant accept it as a possibility.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

Haha...you're not looking because no report exists. Best part is you can't even admit that.
According to you a steel mill works the same way as an oxygen deprived WTC debris. Again, you need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, and all independent researchers...because they're still trying to figure out what melted the steel

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

Haha...you're not looking because no report exists. Best part is you can't even admit that.
According to you a steel mill works the same way as an oxygen deprived WTC debris. Again, you need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, and all independent researchers...because they're still trying to figure out what melted the steel

I never claimed there was a government report at any point in this thread. You are nitpicking something i never claimed.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

because they're still trying to figure out what melted the steel

obviously since they are still confused... they werent in on the conspiracy were they... now tell me how that works...

you just destroyed your own theory.


see how random quoting effects the actual saying?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

Haha...you're not looking because no report exists. Best part is you can't even admit that.
According to you a steel mill works the same way as an oxygen deprived WTC debris. Again, you need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, and all independent researchers...because they're still trying to figure out what melted the steel

I never claimed there was a government report at any point in this thread. You are nitpicking something i never claimed.

Haha.
Fact remains no report government report exists (or independent report for that matter) that supports your rediculous theory. That's why you refuse to look for one... and you can't back up your theory.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

Haha...you're not looking because no report exists. Best part is you can't even admit that.
According to you a steel mill works the same way as an oxygen deprived WTC debris. Again, you need to forward your findings to NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, and all independent researchers...because they're still trying to figure out what melted the steel

I never claimed there was a government report at any point in this thread. You are nitpicking something i never claimed.

/Shrug.
Fact remains no report government report exists (or independent report for that matter) that supports your rediculous theory. That's why you refuse to look for one.

ahaha, this is funny... you calling his theory rediculous.

absolutely hilarious.

because, you know... your theory is SOOOOOOO plausible...:roll:

and you can keep saying the gov't had planned different things...

i guarantee somewhere in the gov't right now, they are making plans of how to invade antartica if someone attempts to inhabit and claim it as theres, and then make threats to the U.S....

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Lmao, ok.

WHAT DO YOU USE IN A STEEL MILL TO MELT STEEL?!?!?!

Coal, Oil, NG, or electricity.

3 of those 4 fuels were present at the WTC in significant amounts.

HOW DOES A PUDDLING FURNACE IN A STEEL MILL WORK!?

It works by dramatically increasing the temperature by TRAPPING THE HEAT expirated by the fuel.

This is how STEEL MILLS which efficiently try to melt steel work.

See any similarities?

Kerosene in a completely OPEN FLAME cant burn hot enough to melt steel. However, Kerosene in a TRAPPED environment can.

Furthermore, In the rubble the heat had weeks to build up, so if it didnt melt while the towers were standing (i dont believe it did, but it may have) all reasonable signs point to this scenario.

This isnt complex.

In other words, you can't find a single official government report whatsoever that any type of fire melted the steel at WTC. Just admit it.

Im not looking, you can if you want.

because they're still trying to figure out what melted the steel

obviously since they are still confused... they werent in on the conspiracy were they... now tell me how that works...

you just destroyed your own theory.


see how random quoting effects the actual saying?

Not sure where you're going with this...all of my points still stand

 

[Acanthus]

People at MIT seem to agree with the governments theory.

You know, the top tech school in the world?

Text

Read the part about the fires, where an MIT Prof concludes that the temperature of the fires exceeded 1000C.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
People at MIT seem to agree with the governments theory.

You know, the top tech school in the world?

Text

noto12ous' reply:

its a gov't funded school... hence the reports... :roll:

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
People at MIT seem to agree with the governments theory.

You know, the top tech school in the world?

Text

People at MIT and BYU disagree. Time to reopen the investigation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: Acanthus
People at MIT seem to agree with the governments theory.

You know, the top tech school in the world?

Text

People at MIT and BYU disagree. Time to reopen the investigation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

yes, because BYU, is full of top engineering students in the world...

 

[Acanthus]

Read the part about the fires, where an MIT Prof concludes that the temperature of the fires exceeded 1000C.

 

[Tom]

I'm not going to read thee whole thread, but what is this talk about "melted" steel ?

If it is referring to the ceiling trusses, you don't have to "melt" steel for heat to weaken it.

I remeber a NOVA or FRONTLINE show, where they had a very detailed explanation of how the fire retardent foam applied to the girders was insufficently applied. If you think about that for a second and realize that the reason the foam was there to begin with is because it was known that an ordinary fire could weaken the trusses.

Frankly, there is no mystery in the whole 9/11 episode.