3 US congressmen outing 9/11 secrets!

They have signed a petition for a new investigation. Notice the apparent lack of it saying. "This was an inside job and we know it. Assholes"

There are no physicists among structural engineers. These two are very different things. I know you want to believe to just take real science 101 and then know everything but that's not how it works.
 


Tell me what hyperbole is called on your fallacy cheat sheet. Not that i care. Jet fuel burns at up to 900°+C. At roughly 700°C Steel gets significantly weaker. It changes phase.

They took the airplane hit with minimal damage. They didn't take the heat. Life is tough for those who don't believe in physics.

Here's something i figured out without moving there. Thailand is part of the sub tropical climate zone. It tends to be really hot and humid. I know people who wouldn't believe it til they went there. I just looked at a map real hard. That's how you gather information. Unable to have abstract thought, you need to touch with your very own hands or its a lie. Intelligence is not for everyone. Just leave it to us nerds. You go play conspiracy
 
Dear Nerds,

Jet fuel, steel melting, thermite, etc. really doesn't matter in this debate. The buildings fell down, lots of innocent people, friends and family died that day and for what reason?

I think that's the real issue here...WHY? It's ok to debate the evidence presented to us by all sides of the debate as to how the towers fell down, but ultimately that's not what really matters.

WHY is what matters. Is it because Al Qaida thinks Americans should die for their sins? Muslims vs. Christians/Jews/Catholics/Muslims? Maybe. Insurance money in the BILLIONS? Maybe. Saudi Arabia for some fucking reason? Maybe.

I don't have the answer and you know what...neither do you! Your argument is based on what the government wants you to believe. Our questions are simply questions and if the same conclusion is made by asking those questions and the government isn't/wasn't hiding anything then that's fucking fantastic!



Ask yourself, can you honestly say you can believe everything the US government or any other countries government tells you?
 
The reason we care about hard evidence is because the government can't make it up. It's a concept that's difficult to swallow because it excludes retards from the process. But it works. Sorry bro.
 
The reason for the massive differences in damage to the buildings are basic fucking physics equations. Like seriously, 8th or 9th grade equations. 11th grade physics courses if you're really retarded. If you can't understand this very basic shit, you have no business commenting on what caused a Jenga tower to fall over, much less what caused a couple of massive buildings to collapse.
So I'm the retarded one, yet you're the one arguing that the building would be knocked OVER, which no one believes that it was.

After the 2 planes hit, they sat there for a long time before something else brought those 3 buildings down. If you want to believe that it was the jet fuel on those 2 relatively tiny airplanes, which would be like a drop of ink polluting an ocean, fine, go ahead and believe that horseshit but don't attribute the difference to the heaviness and speed of the plane knocking the building sideways.

That's the kind of disconnect that makes one sound like a retard.


They have signed a petition for a new investigation. Notice the apparent lack of it saying. "This was an inside job and we know it. Assholes"
I did not claim they said it was an inside job, I claim that they say that the story given by the 9/11 commission is physically impossible.

If you click on those signers' "profile" links, you'll see most every one of them say so, and some even going as far as to mention an inside job too.


There are no physicists among structural engineers. These two are very different things. I know you want to believe to just take real science 101 and then know everything but that's not how it works.
1. You read the profile of all 2200 of them? Lol. :drinkup:
2. Structural engineers wouldn't be good people to ask about this structural engineering issue?

The more I think about it, the less useful a physicists' opinion would be in this situation. They can talk about change in phase states all they want, but there wasn't enough kerosene on those (relatively) tiny planes to change much of the structures' state to do damage to more than a few floors.


Intelligence is not for everyone. Just leave it to us nerds. You go play conspiracy
What an awesome debater you are; quickly getting to the real issue here on the subject of structural engineering.

I feel sorry for you; anyone who resorts to such unproductive, direct Ad Hom attack has already lost the argument but will never realize why. :uhoh2:
 
I think that's the real issue here...WHY? It's ok to debate the evidence presented to us by all sides of the debate as to how the towers fell down, but ultimately that's not what really matters.
...
I don't have the answer and you know what...neither do you! Your argument is based on what the government wants you to believe.
'Why' is important too, as any detective will show you, but I'll take documented facts over motive first, for the reason notwayne mentioned.

If no one agrees what the documented facts are, because for instance, let's say someone decided to close off the crime scene and ship 100% of the evidence to a landfill in China, and arrest all of the independent investigators that came to the scene too, then perhaps motive is as much evidence as we're going to get.

In that case, Cui Buono was obviously the MIC, as stated in PNAC's pre-existing proposal to do exactly what unfolded. No single individual benefited more than Cheney, although money wasn't likely the only motivator.

There was also the extremely obvious $2.3 Trillion that went missing the very day before that has conveniently been forgotten about since:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVpSBUgbxBU]Donald Rumsfeld announces 2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon on September 10th 2001 - YouTube[/ame]

I don't see any motives for anyone else, on the whole planet, that are as strong as those coming from the executive branch of the USG. Does anyone else?
 

Please stop talking like there's a consensus among physics and structural engineers that the official account is impossible. Quite the opposite, for every qualified engineer saying there was a demolition, there are probably around 500 who say it was just the planes. American Society of Civil Engineers, Britain's Institution of Civil Engineers and countless other universities conducted studies and all concluded that the initial damage exacerbated by burning jet fuel brought the buildings down.

From your posts I understand that you have a very limited grasp on even the most elementary physics concepts. So I really wonder how you could feel confident enough to claim that most of the civil/structural engineers in the world are wrong.
 
My favorite part:

..
So I'm the retarded one, yet you're the one arguing that the building would be knocked OVER, which no one believes that it was.

After the 2 planes hit, they sat there for a long time before something else brought those 3 buildings down. If you want to believe that it was the jet fuel on those 2 relatively tiny airplanes, which would be like a drop of ink polluting an ocean, fine, go ahead and believe that horseshit but don't attribute the difference to the heaviness and speed of the plane knocking the building sideways.

You are so clueless about things that you think the weight/speed comparison between the planes that hit WTC and the Empire State is meaningless since the buildings weren't knocked over. Let me explain to you the concept of kinetic energy.

When the planes enter those buildings and stay there, they deposit tons of kinetic energy which damages the buildings. If like statelizard says the planes that hit WTC are 6 times the weight of the plane that hit the Empire State, that's 6 times the kinetic energy.

If they were three times as fast as the ones that hit the Empire state, that's 9 times the kinetic energy. Combined with the weight, 9x6=54 so each plane that hit WTC had FIFTY FOUR times the kinetic energy and thus did 54 times more damage than was done to the Empire State building.
 
Why are you guys arguing about this? Everyone knows it was a UFO with shape shifting lizards.

Much like this guy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2mjs_gdMAI]Obama's Reptilian Secret Service Spotted AIPAC Conference 3 Angles (HD) - YouTube[/ame]
 
My favorite part:



You are so clueless about things that you think the weight/speed comparison between the planes that hit WTC and the Empire State is meaningless since the buildings weren't knocked over. Let me explain to you the concept of kinetic energy.

When the planes enter those buildings and stay there, they deposit tons of kinetic energy which damages the buildings. If like statelizard says the planes that hit WTC are 6 times the weight of the plane that hit the Empire State, that's 6 times the kinetic energy.

If they were three times as fast as the ones that hit the Empire state, that's 9 times the kinetic energy. Combined with the weight, 9x6=54 so each plane that hit WTC had FIFTY FOUR times the kinetic energy and thus did 54 times more damage than was done to the Empire State building.

No matter how many facts you present to Luke, he's just going to dismiss them if they don't confirm his bias. As far as Luke's ego is concerned, Luke knows what he's talking about.

Also Luke: it's really cute how you call something a "theory" when it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis in the scientific world.
 
Anything in those 28 pages will be nearly useless, and only a revelation to dolts that believed EVERY FUCKING LINE of the official story.

It might contain a few nuggets of truth, at most. Even if it does, it won't mean there isn't more truth. The fact that the 9-11 commission had to censored at all is just laughable.
 
Please stop talking like there's a consensus among physics and structural engineers that the official account is impossible. Quite the opposite, for every qualified engineer saying there was a demolition, there are probably around 500 who say it was just the planes.
Alright smartass; I've shown you my list of accountable people with the proper credentials to judge this topic, time for you to show us yours.

Let's see you produce a real list of over 2,200 PEOPLE (not organizations that claim to speak for people) that are structural engineers and agree that the 2 airplanes alone with no extra force whatsoever took down all three buildings on the WTC plaza that day.

If not, consider that you may have just been marketed to. :zzwhip:

If they were three times as fast as the ones that hit the Empire state, that's 9 times the kinetic energy. Combined with the weight, 9x6=54 so each plane that hit WTC had FIFTY FOUR times the kinetic energy and thus did 54 times more damage than was done to the Empire State building.
BWAHAHAHAHA.... Priceless.

You called me clueless, quoting my reason that he was being the moron, and then you made the exact same mistake he did! After I spelled it out in detail! Lulz...

How do I put this in terms that you can absorb? I really want to quote Newton's 1st law of motion to you, but It's clear that this will go over your head.

You are trying to impress upon me the power of a force that simply did not take the towers down. If these planes had hit much harder, the towers would have fallen over sideways... They didn't, and they stayed standing.

It's that staying standing part that is the issue here. Their lateral damage was not enough to weaken the structure enough to fold nor break, I think we can all agree.

So now we get to put all talk of that lateral destruction down and talk about the thing that did the vertical damage to them... Apparently some kind of jetfuel fire, right?

Bottom line: The fire =/= the impact.

Is that clear now? Need pictures or something else to figure this great mystery out? I know a few good graphic artists on here if you do...
 
So now we get to put all talk of that lateral destruction down and talk about the thing that did the vertical damage to them... Apparently some kind of jetfuel fire, right?

1. lateral impact damages supports for the floors above the impact
2. jet fuel fire causes the supports to collapse
3. upper floors collapse on the damaged supports, the rest of the structure couldn't handle the impact of a 15 story building being dropped on it from above.
4. down it goes

is this crazy?
 
proxy


Seems legit.
 
You are trying to impress upon me the power of a force that simply did not take the towers down. If these planes had hit much harder, the towers would have fallen over sideways... They didn't, and they stayed standing.

It's that staying standing part that is the issue here. Their lateral damage was not enough to weaken the structure enough to fold nor break, I think we can all agree.

So now we get to put all talk of that lateral destruction down and talk about the thing that did the vertical damage to them... Apparently some kind of jetfuel fire, right?

Bottom line: The fire =/= the impact.

Is that clear now? Need pictures or something else to figure this great mystery out? I know a few good graphic artists on here if you do...

I called you clueless because of your assumption "since the planes did not knock the buildings down it must have been something else".

You sound as if there needs to be only one single reason why the towers collapsed. When people say the jet fuel burning weakened the integrity of the steel, that's one reason for the towers coming down. Alone it might not have been enough.

The initial damage done to the towers due to a fucking 767 hitting them at full speed is also a factor and that's what I'm trying to tell you. You did see the plane hit the building and nearly (but not quite) come out of the other side, right? And you don't understand why it maaaaybe might have caused some damage?

Simple 1/2mv^2 shows that the planes had 54 times the kinetic energy the Empire State planes had. They hit the building and nothing came out. Meaning ALL of that energy has been deposited in the tower in the form of instant structural damage PLUS an instant, huge rise in temperature.


So now we get to put all talk of that lateral destruction down and talk about the thing that did the vertical damage to them... Apparently some kind of jetfuel fire, right?

Lol what kind of science is this "lateral destruction" and "vertical damage"? The "vertical damage" to the building was done by the building itself. What happened is; 767 enters building at top speed, causing massive immediate damage. These same floors then go on to burn in jet fuel for 50/100 minutes. The combined effect finally weakens the steel, supporting the building, to the point that it cannot hold the weight of the huge structure above it (I don't know how many floors). The support fails on the levels that the plane/fires did the most damage to, and the 20 floors above crush them, meaning they go down. Obviously the kinetic energy of a 20 story building coming down is far too much to handle, and the rest of the building comes down.
 
American Society of Civil Engineers, Britain's Institution of Civil Engineers and countless other universities conducted studies and all concluded that the initial damage exacerbated by burning jet fuel brought the buildings down.

Luke mentioned "3 buildings", so if you are also counting WTC 7 as one of "the buildings", then your statement would not be entirely accurate.

FEMA, with help from the American Society of Civil Engineers, produced a report that stated the following in regards to WTC 7 :

"...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."


NIST was then left as the research leaders and six years later :

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand...

Collapse of the World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


These same floors then go on to burn in jet fuel for 50/100 minutes.

According to FEMA (via above wiki link) :

"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."



Love this thread!

trek_hmm.gif
 
Looking back in hindsight, if it was somehow designed to commit massive insurance fraud, allow for some insider trading, expand unprecedented control over citizens through massive spending programs, create perpetual, for profit wars for well connected insiders or create a patriotic frenzy and gain overwhelming support for invading the majority of the middle-east - or maybe something more sinister...

Than that was one hell of a job.

Not that anyone high-up would be smart enough to think about it.

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

[Link With Formatting]
Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror Washington's Blog
For example:

A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred)

As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. (While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed as a serious proposal for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads fortunately prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan)

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing

An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton says that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq (and see this)

According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".

Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA.

Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers

At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament sawplain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.

And this is not just ancient history:

Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - toldthe Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

I don't claim to know what happened. But looking back through history, and particularly who benefited from 9/11, the obvious benefactors here were the hijackers. The promise of provoking relentless bombings and brutal attacks against their friends and family (plus, hey, virgins) definitely outweighs any possible hidden agendas.

And the Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, militarized police state and perpetual wars are obviously for the benefit and safety of the American people.
 
No matter how many facts you present to Luke, he's just going to dismiss them if they don't confirm his bias. As far as Luke's ego is concerned, Luke knows what he's talking about.

Also Luke: it's really cute how you call something a "theory" when it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis in the scientific world.

Not being falsifiable is a prerequisite for a statement to be called theory by him
 
How do I put this in terms that you can absorb? I really want to quote Newton's 1st law of motion to you, but It's clear that this will go over your head.

You are trying to impress upon me the power of a force that simply did not take the towers down. If these planes had hit much harder, the towers would have fallen over sideways... They didn't, and they stayed standing

Being arrogant about physics is my job, not yours.

Here's Newtons firstborn

Moving plane moves unless force.

You don't know what that means and that's ok. What it doesn't mean is that a really fast plane would topple a mountain over. That's like saying if someone slapped your arm really hard with a needle, it would break. Or something. I don't know. Your counter intuitive thoughts are really strange. The plane passes right through the tower like the sword passes through flesh. It doesn't deposit energy. That's the point. The plane evaporates because it's mostly hollow. Im really done with explaining such simple concepts to you.

The impressive part is that you really think you're right about that. Any infant playing with Legos could prove you wrong but you can't quit shouting conspiracy. Maybe the Mercury in vaccinations turned you stupid?