A 9-11 Conspiracy

Anyone who hasn't been convinced that the government had acts of complicity hasn’t been presented many facts or lack ability to comprehend basic science.

Anyone new to the 911 movement or those who have yet to open their eyes I want you read my post with an open mind and see whose theory is supported by science/history and whose is not.

First I must start with credibility of my claims. There are literally hundreds of experts now supporting the idea of government orchestration.

Ray McGovern - former presidential advisor and CIA analyst
Paul Craig Roberts - father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury
Andreas von Buelow - former German defense minister
David Shayler - former MI5 officer [the MI5 is British counter-intelligence and security]
Michael Meacher - former Blair cabinet member
Morgan Reynolds - former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term
Bob Bowman - Former head of Star Wars and air force colonel

This is just a scratch on the surface. You can see plenty of professors and other scholars at
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

Charlie Sheen was not the first one to come up with these theories. Many prominent figures have stated their beliefs for years but the mainstream media gave it no attention. The amount of members joining the movement in the past few months have been exponential and finally the word is reaching millions of Americans. Sheen was the catalyst to breaking the lid on major news outlets.


Let's look at WTC 1, 2 and 7. There are 11 well documented characteristics seen on all 3 buildings that have never before occurred to a steel structure from fires or supposed truss failure.

Sudden Onset
Straight Down
Near Free-Fall Speed
Total Collapse
Sliced Steel
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
Dust Clouds
Horizontal Ejections
Demolition Rings
Sounds Produced by Explosions
Molten Steel


All of these topics are covered in a good amount of depth on a research paper written by Professor David Ray Griffin here:
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Also, some visual proof to help reinforce these ideas.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96781308/K=WT...ibview.7_a.mpg
WTC 7 collapse showing the massive amount of demolition “squibs.” Notice how the outside section of the building is shooting materials out dozens of feet.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change
And here is an excellent documentary titled “Loose Change: 2nd edition” You can watch the entire film for free on Google Video. If you go 52 minutes into the movie you’ll see plenty of squibs and many different shots of the buildings coming down. The huge fireballs seen across entire floors right before the buildings collapse can be spotted in many videos. I highly recommend you view this movie, it covers many aspects of that day very well.


So, these buildings mark the first total collapses due to steel encountering fires. The first problem with this is that there have been hundreds of fires before that have lasted for many hours and never resulted in anything even remotely close to the behavior seen in buildings 1, 2 and 7.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...sor.fire.1.wmv
Now that’s a raging inferno, and shows what steel looks like when it finally weakens enough to collapse.

The argument of lacking fireproofing material or that jet fuels fires are much hotter are laughable. Steel has a melting point of 2750F. Jet Fuel fires at absolute maximum could not peak past 1800F. Not only that, but those extremely hot fires last no more then 10 minutes. Regular office fires run anywhere between 400-1200F depending on concentration and what is being ignited. Important to note is the mass amount of black smoke coming from WTC2 before it’s collapse. That is a clear sign of oxygen-deprived fires that are having a hard time surviving.

A major factor behind this poor fire is that the vast majority of jet fuel didn’t even impact WTC2. There are picture diagrams out there that show this in depth including the angles and such, but for your own basic proof just look at the monster fireball explosions made from the 2nd impact in comparison to the 1st. And yet despite these less then ideal fire burning conditions this building burned for much less time and fell first. The 2nd WTC burned for a mere 56 minutes (the 1st WTC burning for an hour and 42 minutes.) Clearly something is wrong here.

Next we must consider the power of the free fall speed argument. Galileo’s Law of Falling bodies states that all matter comes down at a certain rate. In the case of WTC 1 and 2 the rate of “free fall” (no resistance) is 9.2 seconds. The buildings have been officially stated by the 911 commission that collapse time was roughly 10 seconds.

So what’s the significance of this? If you pay attention to videos you can see the building falling as fast as the debris next to it. Now wait a minute.. there is so much undamaged structure down there, surely this isn’t possible. A pancake collapse by nature means it's taking out the lower floors by force but it falls at the rate of nothing being there. This problem cannot be overemphasized.

This video uses real-time physics to demonstrate the upward explosions noted at the WTC collapses and why they are impossible from a “pan cake” collapse. Also, consider the nature of the concrete, it is instantly pulverized and shot hundreds of feet out. Really hot beams weakening in on itself isn’t capable of turning concrete into dust. http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...projectile.avi

Finally there is the molten steel found with temperatures exceeding 2000F weeks after the buildings fell. Its existence at the WTC site was reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Never mind statements, just look at this picture!


(If the image is not showing here’s the link http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg )

Literally liquid pools of melted steel were found all over. Remember, melting point = 2750F for steel. So what would create this kind of damage to steel? Thermite. It’s temperatures can exceed 5000F and can be used to explain much of the behavior seen at the WTCs.

There is still much I did not cover, but here’s one last interesting note.. On Sept. 10th, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld stated that the government "cannot track 2.3 trillion in transactions." That's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Guess what didn’t make the news after 911?

The reasoning behind why the government would do this is a huge subject that I’m not about to touch. But just consider this, military spending is consuming 46% of our tax money. We’re spending $25,000 a second on war. (actual figure, not an exaggeration or speculation.) Not only that, but our government has no problem admitting to not knowing where a penny out of 2.2 trillion dollars was spent.

The first step for everyone is denial of the idea that the American Government is actually possible of such an event. I to did not first buy into “conspiracy theories” but after a bit of examination and applying some logic the evidence becomes obvious and the amount of support for this "conspiracy theory" is tremendous.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I'm actually curious, what does the melting point of steel have to do with mechanical faliure?

I spent a lot of time explaining temps because it proves that molten steel found in the remains is simply impossible to make with a measly jet fuel fire.

Quote:

He's saying that given the melting point of steel there's no possible way that the structure could've collapsed. The steel couldn't have possibly melted or failed enough to cause a structural collapse. Circumstancial evidence at best. Especially considering the remains of the building was sold as scrap very shortly after. Gee, I wonder why.

I've said it many times, these 3 buildings are the only examples of it. If the pancake theory was at all plausible the building still wouldn't have collapsed like it did. The outer part of the building would have collapsed leaving at least half of the 47-central support columns intact. The reason that pancake collapses are so invalid and never occur is because of the stress imposed on the building vs. what it's built to withstand.

Quote:

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowable. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

-Thomas W. Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems MIT



As you can see in the video of the inferno I posted before it takes a lot to make floors collapse from a fire and nothing resembling the WTCs occurred.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

the steel was just sitting there failing.

Well, let's examine what the official reports have to say.

Quote:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

Quote:

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

-FEMA Report, Chapter 2

The last part of that statement is really funny. It places the blame on regular isolated office fires that I've pointed out problems with. [Black Smoke, hardly any visible flames]

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

Did you even understand a quarter of what RR said.

I have my money on "no."

So why are you still posting.

Do you need to see it again?

Quote:

Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

-Thomas W. Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems MIT

In case you didn't know, 650C would be 1202F. That's considerably hotter then the majority of the fires in the building. If you missed it before, jet fuel couldn't possibly reach higher then 1800F, and that would be a small fraction of fires lasting no more then 10 minutes. [Mind you there is absolutely no proof to confirm temperatures ever got that high.] Even assuming that this some how did massive fatal damage to the steel that would not account for the behavior of WTC 7.

Most amazing jew boots

It is you who is not comprehending here, pal.

I was speaking idiomatically.

ok, let me try and state it a bit better.

Basically the official claims rely heavily on the idea that steel was extremely hot. Big fires that could have reached 1800F or possibly even more. Yet the fact remains that they have no samples to prove this which is what my official quote from NSIT said.

In any event, these hot fires quickly drop in temperature to a normal office fire. So the 10 minute exposure to a few hundred degrees is negligible, and again can't even be accounted for in the WTC7 building.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

I am going to spell it out for you.

I don't particularly give a shit about what you're saying. However, you care about what you are saying, and what is being said to you in this thread.

Someone is coming along (with far greater knowlege, trust me,) and disproving quite well what you're saying.

Copying and pasting the same shit over and over again and bolding some line is not going to help you.

Give up while you're behind.

You had a lot of talk there, but you gave absolutely no explanation. So if I'm being disproved I'd sure like to see it. You're simply ignoring everything stated that has some logic behind it. Get off RRs dick and learn to think for yourself.

Quote:

What part of "I don't give a shit" do you have a problem with understanding.

I was talking to Aardark, btw. You know, give clarification on that 2nd paragraph from before.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I like seeing retards run around in circles.

And I like a good train wreck.

You shouldn't look, but you keep on looking.

Circles huh? I think you've now cited me to RR same post a good 5 times now and still have no opinion of your own. You can't even point out what's so special there. If you paid any attention to my quotes you see I'm not worried about that 1300F figure he gives. Nor do I care for his logic of all of the fireproofing magically being blown off from plane impact. My quotes from experts completely contradict what a non-expert has to say.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

You also seem to forget some of your "experts" might have their own agendas. We are talking about people here.

Right, but two of the three quotes I have up there are from the official reports. They admit they have no proof of temperatures exceeding 600C (1112F). Further, FEMA states jet fuel fires are not enough to make a building collapse but the overall normal office fire is. Again, WTC2 only burned for 56 minutes.

Most amazing jew boots

I like seeing retards run around in circles.

There's nowhere I can't reach.