9/11 consipracy movie

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
EVERY and i mean EVERY link you just posted, rapes your theory, and i mean RAPES your theory that thermite/explosives cause molten steel...

steel stays molten for a VERY short period.

what you have here is a case of FIRES causing STEEL to MELT. how hard is that to understand?

how long would explosions keep steel melted?

the answer: minutes. not weeks.

Why does molten steel discount explosives were used? Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government. Who says thermite + other explosives weren't used?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: noto12ious
A puff of smoke rises...and is not considered debris. Debris (dark colored) actually falls off the right side of the building, downwards. I provided many links as evidence...go look at them again.

dense enough smoke certainly does go downward. ever seen a diesel truck take off from a stop?

additionally, THERE IS SOMETHING POURING OUT OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT BUILDING AND GOING DOWNWARD FOR THE WHOLE GODDAMNED VIDEO. again, are you completely blind?

You seriously need to get some glasses...or a bigger monitor. Debris can clearly be seen falling downwards..off the right side of the building...at the speed of gravity...faster than the slow moving smoke

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg

at the speed of gravity... you dont know physics do you.

NOTHING can fall at the speed of gravity... NOTHING. its physically impossible unless we are talking about an air free special tank...

It's a figure of speech, troll... point is the debris falls much faster than the smoke is moving

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
EVERY and i mean EVERY link you just posted, rapes your theory, and i mean RAPES your theory that thermite/explosives cause molten steel...

steel stays molten for a VERY short period.

what you have here is a case of FIRES causing STEEL to MELT. how hard is that to understand?

how long would explosions keep steel melted?

the answer: minutes. not weeks.

Why does molten steel discount explosives were used? Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government. Who says thermite + other explosives weren't used?

wait... wtf??? someone needs to smack you upside your head... there is NO WAY to keep steel molten WITHOUT fire...

wtf are you saying? your digging a BIG hole right now in terms of your own believeability.

so now you are saying that explosives kept steel molten for weeks? or did fires keep them molten? how would YOU keep steel molten? how do steel mills keep steel molten?

:roll:

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
EVERY and i mean EVERY link you just posted, rapes your theory, and i mean RAPES your theory that thermite/explosives cause molten steel...

steel stays molten for a VERY short period.

what you have here is a case of FIRES causing STEEL to MELT. how hard is that to understand?

how long would explosions keep steel melted?

the answer: minutes. not weeks.

Why does molten steel discount explosives were used? Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government. Who says thermite + other explosives weren't used?

wait... wtf??? someone needs to smack you upside your head... there is NO WAY to keep steel molten WITHOUT fire...

wtf are you saying? your digging a BIG hole right now in terms of your own believeability.

so now you are saying that explosives kept steel molten for weeks? or did fires keep them molten? how would YOU keep steel molten? how do steel mills keep steel molten?

:roll:

Who are you to talk of credibility? You were proven dead wrong when you tried to call me out about your Pentagon claim. You even threatened to leave this thread because of your claim, which you then admitted you were clearly mistaken :laugh:

Where did I say explosives kept steel molten for weeks? I've clearly stated numerous times nobody has a concrete answer. One possibility is again, thermite:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
EVERY and i mean EVERY link you just posted, rapes your theory, and i mean RAPES your theory that thermite/explosives cause molten steel...

steel stays molten for a VERY short period.

what you have here is a case of FIRES causing STEEL to MELT. how hard is that to understand?

how long would explosions keep steel melted?

the answer: minutes. not weeks.

Why does molten steel discount explosives were used? Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government. Who says thermite + other explosives weren't used?

wait... wtf??? someone needs to smack you upside your head... there is NO WAY to keep steel molten WITHOUT fire...

wtf are you saying? your digging a BIG hole right now in terms of your own believeability.

so now you are saying that explosives kept steel molten for weeks? or did fires keep them molten? how would YOU keep steel molten? how do steel mills keep steel molten?

:roll:

Who are you to talk of credibility? You were proven dead wrong when you tried to call me out about your Pentagon claim. You even threatened to leave this thread because of your claim, which you then admitted you were clearly mistaken :laugh:

Where did I say explosives kept steel molten for weeks? I've clearly stated numerous times nobody has a concrete answer. One possibility is again, thermite:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

yes, what kept it molten though, there is only ONE way to keep steel molten.. if there was another... im sure it would be used.

 

[Acanthus]

No mikemike, its obvious because the there are no public governement documents released yet that Fire couldnt possibly keep steel in a liquid form.

Like ive said earlier in this thread. People in the 1st century understood the concept, but its foreign to Noto12ious with a modern education.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
EVERY and i mean EVERY link you just posted, rapes your theory, and i mean RAPES your theory that thermite/explosives cause molten steel...

steel stays molten for a VERY short period.

what you have here is a case of FIRES causing STEEL to MELT. how hard is that to understand?

how long would explosions keep steel melted?

the answer: minutes. not weeks.

Why does molten steel discount explosives were used? Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government. Who says thermite + other explosives weren't used?

wait... wtf??? someone needs to smack you upside your head... there is NO WAY to keep steel molten WITHOUT fire...

wtf are you saying? your digging a BIG hole right now in terms of your own believeability.

so now you are saying that explosives kept steel molten for weeks? or did fires keep them molten? how would YOU keep steel molten? how do steel mills keep steel molten?

:roll:

Who are you to talk of credibility? You were proven dead wrong when you tried to call me out about your Pentagon claim. You even threatened to leave this thread because of your claim, which you then admitted you were clearly mistaken :laugh:

Where did I say explosives kept steel molten for weeks? I've clearly stated numerous times nobody has a concrete answer. One possibility is again, thermite:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Ahhhhhh so now thermite stays hot for weeks and doesnt burn out in MINUTES?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
EVERY and i mean EVERY link you just posted, rapes your theory, and i mean RAPES your theory that thermite/explosives cause molten steel...

steel stays molten for a VERY short period.

what you have here is a case of FIRES causing STEEL to MELT. how hard is that to understand?

how long would explosions keep steel melted?

the answer: minutes. not weeks.

Why does molten steel discount explosives were used? Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government. Who says thermite + other explosives weren't used?

wait... wtf??? someone needs to smack you upside your head... there is NO WAY to keep steel molten WITHOUT fire...

wtf are you saying? your digging a BIG hole right now in terms of your own believeability.

so now you are saying that explosives kept steel molten for weeks? or did fires keep them molten? how would YOU keep steel molten? how do steel mills keep steel molten?

:roll:

Who are you to talk of credibility? You were proven dead wrong when you tried to call me out about your Pentagon claim. You even threatened to leave this thread because of your claim, which you then admitted you were clearly mistaken :laugh:

Where did I say explosives kept steel molten for weeks? I've clearly stated numerous times nobody has a concrete answer. One possibility is again, thermite:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Ahhhhhh so now thermite stays hot for weeks and doesnt burn out in MINUTES?

I think you?re missing the point. Again, what kept the fires raging hot in an oxygen starved environment MONTHS after 9/11? What made the fires hot enough that melted steel in the first place? Well? Where?s that government report?

Now, when did I ever say fires weren?t needed? I?ve bolded statements I made previously , since you obviously missed something so simple?and I?ve been saying the same thing throughout various threads Great job intentionally mixing up the facts and intentionally trying to spin my words, though :thumbsdown: Looks like you?re getting desperate mikey. Again, the bolded statements refer to each other ("fires" refers to jetfuel fires, as admitted by NIST...and it's what I've already stated in numerous posts in this thread):

?Fact is, all of those links raise good questions as to what could actually keep molten steel red hot for months after 9/11 (and what could actually melt steel in the first place). Certainly not the result of fires, as admitted by the government.?



Interesting, another mystery the government can?t answer? same mystery with the numerous pre collapse explosions ?how convenient for government to ignore such critical issues Then again, it was the 9/11 Omission Report. Anybody know where WTC7 was mentioned in that report? :laugh:

 

[noto12ious]

Some ongoing research about the identity of the supposed hijackers (and other conflicting reports):

http://valis.cjb.cc/hijackers.html

Interesting to note the lack of security footage:

But the lack of cameras has prevented the FBI from definitively identifying the men who boarded two jumbo jets and later used them to decimate the World Trade Center towers in New York, killing thousands.

``It's not rocket science,'' said Michael Taylor, president of the Boston-based American International Security Corp. ``Convenience stores employ them, why wouldn't Massport?''

The shortcoming is underscored by the fact that the much-smaller Portland International Jetport in Maine was able to capture images of suspected hijackers Mohammed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari on camera as they strolled through a checkpoint to fly to Boston the morning of the attacks.

``You have names (of hijackers), but the FBI has said it hasn't been able to match the faces of those who were on the flights,'' said Charles Slepian, a New York security consultant.

``Who boarded at Logan? You don't have pictures, and that's a problem. And are those suspects the ones who actually got on at Logan or are they still alive (somewhere)? Who knows? That's one of the big questions the cameras would have been able to answer.''

 

[0roo0roo]

let me tell u a secret. there is no middle east!!

its all a fabrication to keep us scared!

 

[noto12ious]

A Conspiracy? Nah. Couldn't be...just a bunch of coincidences! :laugh:

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2...oincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Who warned us? Well,

The Taliban
The Germans
The Russians
The Egyptians
The French
The British
The Israelis
The Moroccans
Arab intelligence agencies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di...rd.php?az=view_all&address=104x1375723

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
A Conspiracy? Nah. Couldn't be...just a bunch of coincidences! :laugh:

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2...oincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Who warned us? Well,

The Taliban
The Germans
The Russians
The Egyptians
The French
The British
The Israelis
The Moroccans
Arab intelligence agencies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di...rd.php?az=view_all&address=104x1375723

Yeah pretty much the whole world knew we would be attacked. Including us. We didnt know where, when, or how. Just who and why.

So we are off steel again?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: noto12ious
A Conspiracy? Nah. Couldn't be...just a bunch of coincidences! :laugh:

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11:
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2...oincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Who warned us? Well,

The Taliban
The Germans
The Russians
The Egyptians
The French
The British
The Israelis
The Moroccans
Arab intelligence agencies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di...rd.php?az=view_all&address=104x1375723

Yeah pretty much the whole world knew we would be attacked. Including us. We didnt know where, when, or how. Just who and why.

So we are off steel again?

Sure we did.

4. On September 10, 2001, high-ranking Pentagon officials cancelled travel plans for the morning of September 11.

From Newsweek: ?On Sept. 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.?

5. On September 10, 2001, San Francisco?s mayor was warned against flying to New York the next morning.

Around 10:00 PM on September 10--not exactly business hours--San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was advised to use extreme caution if flying the next morning to New York City. Brown refuses to say exactly who gave him the prescient warning, citing only ?my security people at the airport.? Source: San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2672/pg1/


Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan?s ISI, must not have authorized an al Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11, because I didn?t read anything about him in the official report

....

That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2...oincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html



I guess that answers the "where, when, or how" question. And there's so much more No wonder you keep trying to go back to the steel issue...since nobody, not even the government, can come up with a definitive reason for WTC melted steel.

I like this one:

That Lt Col Steve Butler, Vice Chancellor for student affairs of the Defense Language Institute during Alghamdi's terms, was disciplined, removed from his post and threatened with court martial when he wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain," is the least that should have happened for such disrespect shown his Commander in Chief.

Man, what was I thinking...they were all just coincidences! :laugh:

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
One more great find by 9/11 blogger: http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/pakistan-bribed-911-commission.html
and 9/11 Truth.org: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060313080211207

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1653318,0035.htm

Pakistan gave tens of thousands of dollars through its lobbyists in the United States to members of the 9/11 inquiry commission to convince them to drop anti-Pakistan findings from the report, according to Islamabad daily The Friday Times (TFT). The news report said this was disclosed by Foreign Office officials to the Public Accounts Committee at a secret meeting held last Tuesday.

The final 9/11 commission report only mentioned that ?The country?s vast unpoliced regions make Pakistan attractive to extremists seeking refuge ? Almost all the 9/11 attackers travelled the north-south nexus of Kandahar?Quetta?Karachi.? It recommended that the US should help President Pervez Musharraf with a comprehensive aid effort for Pakistan.

Now Pakistan Foreign Ministry sources have reportedly told TFT that the 9/11 commission left out information damaging to Pakistan from its report after commission members were paid to do so. The TFT story cites Foreign Ministry sources as saying ?dramatic changes? were made in the final draft of the report after a meeting between lobbyists and Commission members.

The story emerged after the Pakistan Public Accounts Committee grilled Foreign Ministry officials about millions of dollars given to lobbyists for unknown reasons.

The Foreign Office has defended the decision to hire lobbyists in the US, saying ? rightly ? that it is a common practice.



Other articles about it:
http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=282600&sid=SAS&ssid=
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp
The original The Friday Times article:
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8928


Now the million dollar question is: why did Pakistan bribe the 911 commision?
You can do a search in google: http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=9%2...0%2C000%22&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=
39 900 results to choose from.
I give you the shocking answer for free: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
Did it work? Read this article to know how this was related by the 9/11 commission:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO409A.html
Now you understand why the 9/11 commission report is a cover-up. You are ready to watch all the documentaries listed on the first page of this thread with an open mind: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=38&threadid=1762379


By the way...did you notice? The CIA controlled mass-media (according to the director of the CIA himself in a Senate hearing in the '70s) censored all this. 1984.

I missed this the first time around...but good reads re: Pakistan and the 9/11 Commission.

 

[noto12ious]

More footage of obvious demolition squibs:

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/911_WT..._stream_of_flashes_and_smoke_puffs.wmv


File shown at speed 100%, 50%, 25%
http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=74617

 

[MikeMike]

ok so here goes, if that footage wasnt as shaky, i would try and figure out what levels those floors were, but since i cant, i shall state this.

The WTC used what were known as local elevators in combination with 2 main elevators, this allowed for faster access to the higher floors.

as this image shows
you get an idea of where the elevators were located.

Air, when combined with a pancaking effect, must be released somewhere, follow the path of the elevators down, out the doors, and boom, you have your dust explosions right out the windows.

where is the common sense?

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ok so here goes, if that footage wasnt as shaky, i would try and figure out what levels those floors were, but since i cant, i shall state this.

The WTC used what were known as local elevators in combination with 2 main elevators, this allowed for faster access to the higher floors.

as this image shows
you get an idea of where the elevators were located.

Air, when combined with a pancaking effect, must be released somewhere, follow the path of the elevators down, out the doors, and boom, you have your dust explosions right out the windows.

where is the common sense?

You can actually use the "pause" button to determine the floor levels.

http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/demolition.wave.170.jpg
Notice the lower demolition squib is shown first (as seen in Loose Change 2nd Edition), while the upper demolition squib appears a few seconds later. So much for the pancaking theory

 

[MikeMike]

what "lower" squib are you talking about?

your image gives no idea about time or anything.

and no, i CANT press pause because anytime i DID, the image was blurred.

and every time i watched that second vid, the explosions occur from top to bottom.

if i had a video editor i would edit it, and circle it JUST for you.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
what "lower" squib are you talking about?

your image gives no idea about time or anything.

and no, i CANT press pause because anytime i DID, the image was blurred.

and every time i watched that second vid, the explosions occur from top to bottom.

if i had a video editor i would edit it, and circle it JUST for you.

The lower squib is cleary shown appearing first...as shown in Loose Change 2nd Edition.
The upper squib is clearly shown appearing a few seconds later...as shown again in Loose Change 2nd Edition.

It's obvious you haven't even bothered watching the film about the detonation squibs... so why do you bother commenting? what a joke.

So much for the pancaking theory.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/demolition.wave.170.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...9923762628848&q=loose+change+2&pl=true
(Time frame 52:13 - 52:25)

 

[MikeMike]

i have watched this video
http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=74617

the upper left goes first, then lower left, then lower center.

i might have missed one, but at no point does a lower one go first.

and there is a HUGE error in the google vid you posted.

it ISOLATES your view, aka: you can NOT see any area other than the supposed "explosions"

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
i have watched this video
http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=74617

the upper left goes first, then lower left, then lower center.

i might have missed one, but at no point does a lower one go first.

and there is a HUGE error in the google vid you posted.

it ISOLATES your view, aka: you can NOT see any area other than the supposed "explosions"

LOL at you trying to sidestep this image and video. This is the THIRD time I'm showing this to you.

So much for the pancaking theory.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/demolition.wave.170.jpg

The lower squib is cleary shown appearing first...as shown in Loose Change 2nd Edition.
The upper squib is clearly shown appearing a few seconds later...as shown again in Loose Change 2nd Edition.

Video here: (Time frame 52:13 - 52:25)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...9923762628848&q=loose+change+2&pl=true

 

[MikeMike]

lmao. you are hilarious dude.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
lmao. you are hilarious dude.

Yeah, I guess that basically destroys your panacking theory as an explanation for those demolition squibs.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
lmao. you are hilarious dude.

Yeah, I guess that basically destroys your panacking theory as an explanation for those demolition squibs.

no, i watch all the vids u post, i still dont see it, so you repost them, again.

ugh. you run in circles, and most conspiracy theorists do.

 

[noto12ious]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: noto12ious

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
lmao. you are hilarious dude.

Yeah, I guess that basically destroys your panacking theory as an explanation for those demolition squibs.

no, i watch all the vids u post, i still dont see it, so you repost them, again.

ugh. you run in circles, and most conspiracy theorists do.

Classic case of you being in denial...you refuse to address anything that absolutely DESTROYS your pancake theory

Here it is a 4th time, just to kick you down one more time

So much for the pancaking theory.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/demolition.wave.170.jpg

The lower squib is cleary shown appearing first...as shown in Loose Change 2nd Edition.
The upper squib is clearly shown appearing a few seconds later...as shown again in Loose Change 2nd Edition.

Video here: (Time frame 52:13 - 52:25)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...9923762628848&q=loose+change+2&pl=true