A top Iranian military commander has accused the United States of carrying out the 9/11 terror attacks in order to justify an invasion of the Middle East "with the goal of ruling it".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/911-iranian-general-accuses-us-of-organising-september-11-terror-attacks-10206942.html
Topic: [Vote] Who did 911? - page 39. (Read 63040 times)
....
Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 ....
The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events....
....
Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence,....
Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. .....
Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the .....
Wow, you are really a Jew-hater. Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 ....
The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events....
....
Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence,....
Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. .....
Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the .....
they are ''working'' on a new zionist country (Ukraine)....
zionist hater isnt Jew hater.
Jew's are good peoples, bud zion movement...
......
the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real
If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing. Just heat it at one point.the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real
....
There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....
Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step.There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....
here is the thing it didnt BEND, the steel completely melted, there is a difference between melting and bending steel.
It was the fucking Muslim terrorists who did 9-11. I don't think there is much argument there. No one else. Just the Muslim terrorists.
Right. What you are seeing in this thread and other similar ones on this forum over the last three years is active dis information campaigns. Almost certainly funded by Islamic/poltical groups who seek to confuse the gullible.
It was the fucking Muslim terrorists who did 9-11. I don't think there is much argument there. No one else. Just the Muslim terrorists.
......
the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real
If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing. Just heat it at one point.the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real
....
There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....
Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step.There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....
here is the thing it didnt BEND, the steel completely melted, there is a difference between melting and bending steel.
....
Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 ....
The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events....
....
Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence,....
Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. .....
Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the .....
Wow, you are really a Jew-hater. Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 ....
The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events....
....
Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence,....
Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. .....
Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the .....
......
the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real
If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing. Just heat it at one point.the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real
....
There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....
Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step. There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....
I personally don't blame the entire muslim community they are just one community like others and ravans and rakshas can be found everywhere
....
If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.
How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.
If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.
How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.
Paragraph 1 contradicts paragraph 2. How nice.
In the Towers, the short time that it took them to come down, was not nearly enough time to allow a sufficient amount of heat to penetrate the concrete so that it could affect the steel, since it wasn't blast furnace heat, but only standard burning heat. In addition, if there had been any significant amount of heat, the people standing in the crash-gaps on the Towers would have been burned to cinders long before the Towers could collapse. As it is, the people came down with the buildings, alive.
There is no report that shows how air could properly blow through the jet fuel to create high enough heat in the short time that it took the Towers to come down, to actually bring the Towers down. Why not? Because there wasn't enough time to heat the buildings sufficiently. And there wasn't any method whereby the air could mix with the fuel for the fuel to get sufficiently hot.
If the fires from the fuel brought the buildings down, it is time to evacuate New York high-rise buildings because they are improperly built, barely holding together as they sway in the wind, and are pure deathtraps.
The Towers would have to have been built much flimsier than they were for them to be brought down by fuel fires in this way.
http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork
The second bolded item is what firefighters have been telling everybody for decades.
What happened to the joos did it option? Why was it take down.
The problem with the Twin Towers coming down is that there was no reason for it.
If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.
How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.
In the Towers, the short time that it took them to come down, was not nearly enough time to allow a sufficient amount of heat to penetrate the concrete so that it could affect the steel, since it wasn't blast furnace heat, but only standard burning heat. In addition, if there had been any significant amount of heat, the people standing in the crash-gaps on the Towers would have been burned to cinders long before the Towers could collapse. As it is, the people came down with the buildings, alive.
There is no report that shows how air could properly blow through the jet fuel to create high enough heat in the short time that it took the Towers to come down, to actually bring the Towers down. Why not? Because there wasn't enough time to heat the buildings sufficiently. And there wasn't any method whereby the air could mix with the fuel for the fuel to get sufficiently hot.
If the fires from the fuel brought the buildings down, it is time to evacuate New York high-rise buildings because they are improperly built, barely holding together as they sway in the wind, and are pure deathtraps.
The Towers would have to have been built much flimsier than they were for them to be brought down by fuel fires in this way.
If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.
How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.
In the Towers, the short time that it took them to come down, was not nearly enough time to allow a sufficient amount of heat to penetrate the concrete so that it could affect the steel, since it wasn't blast furnace heat, but only standard burning heat. In addition, if there had been any significant amount of heat, the people standing in the crash-gaps on the Towers would have been burned to cinders long before the Towers could collapse. As it is, the people came down with the buildings, alive.
There is no report that shows how air could properly blow through the jet fuel to create high enough heat in the short time that it took the Towers to come down, to actually bring the Towers down. Why not? Because there wasn't enough time to heat the buildings sufficiently. And there wasn't any method whereby the air could mix with the fuel for the fuel to get sufficiently hot.
If the fires from the fuel brought the buildings down, it is time to evacuate New York high-rise buildings because they are improperly built, barely holding together as they sway in the wind, and are pure deathtraps.
The Towers would have to have been built much flimsier than they were for them to be brought down by fuel fires in this way.
but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?
This is an appeal to authority argument, premises unstated, experts unstated, facts scrambled. Try to be more specific.
also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.
Obviously you've never used a torch and melted steel, or heated to red hot and then bent it easily. This is not complicated. You were wrong, jet fuel combustion can reach 4000F and steel melts in the mid 2200-2400F range.
when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?
There is no need for you to "ask questions" for which the answers can easily be googled. Smoke varies in color, it is used by firefighters as a clue to what is going on inside the fire.
what causes white smoke?
More complete combustion typically yields no carbons in output therefore white.
why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?
Ever heard of elevator shafts? Why are they sealed when a fire starts in a building? Because fires rapidly move through elevator shafts.
how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?
What about it? You want it to be quiet?
how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?
What do you expect, there to be no shock wave in the lobby? 1000 feet down from a 60 ton 500 mile per hour impact?
there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?
I personally don't care.
ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?
Because they didn't want to create a martyr?
why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.
Not interested in this.
how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?
Not interested.
why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?
If a building is structurally unsafe for use or not economic to rebuild, then destroy it of course.
how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.
1 football field away?
Let's work through some numbers. Plane hits building at 84th floor, 97th floor - just say 1000 feet above ground. Things take 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet. Now the plane was going say 500 mph, if it hits the building how far do pieces fly horizontally before they hit the ground?Unless they are slowed down by the impact...
500 * 5280/3600 = 733 feet per second
In other words, 8 seconds after impact they will hit the ground a mile away. So what is 1 football field?
if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?
Look at war zones. You'll see weird shit, untouched buildings right in middle of total devestation.
how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?
See above calculation.
ok so how about witnesses?
Yeah how about them? Relatives of mine in New York tell me what they saw. Like one that left WTC1 to go across the street to a Starbucks right before the plane hit. Don't lecture people in the US about stuff like this.
euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?
Maybe some of them believe conspiracy theories. So what?
ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?
I haven't read the reports.
did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?
Wow, what a nice guy. Yes, I'd return the car, too.
Official version? The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.
It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions. That ridiculous leap is the issue here. That dog don't hunt.
And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.
It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions. That ridiculous leap is the issue here. That dog don't hunt.
And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.
Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".
I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing." Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way. They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.
You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup. That's ridiculous. Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.
So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives." Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.
That's the point.
The only ridiculous is spendulus
you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..
am i not right spendulus?
No, you have a rambling line of nonsense. I've explained rumsfield. You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.
Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.
Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.
Oh, wait a minute. There's that darn ISIS. I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.
Do you have any proof of him saying this.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2977822-b85c-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Z5o51c67
Quote
Violent extremists in Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Islam, President Barack Obama said on Thursday, as he tried to separate the growing threat from terrorism in the Middle East from a discussion about religion.
Sounds more to me like he's just trying to cover the Muslim communities ass rather then saying isis isn't about Islam because its run by foreign governments.
Jump to: