Backdoor to finally exposing 9/11

Boy oh boy.

Very wide area? The area of the thruster? Even the faked videos of the landing clearly show material being ejected horizontally at high speed. Just doesnt match up with the photos. But enough about the moon.

Objects can fall faster if they are acclerated. Such as controlled demolition. Please explain the horizontal ejections, and the squibs, and the molten metal metal flowing before the collpase. All of this clearly documented, and totally consistent with thermite/thermate demoltion.

Why did tower 7 fall again. I missed that bit. Why did the BBC report tower 7 falling 25 minutes before it did?

Get you head out of the sand, or give back your disinfo payments. You're doing a crappy job.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by hmmmbeer]

[edit on 7/2/2010 by hmmmbeer]

One aspect I gave some thought though.

We went to the moon 5 times from '69 to '72.... 2010 and we have problems getting back?

reply to post by Kojack


Good on ya for at least thinking about it.

Consume as much as you can including official NASA stuff, and it will all come clear. Especially the first one - 11 - they had no idea if it would work. Whether the public would buy it. Grainy indirect TV footage (tv cameras had to film a monitor - not a live feed), losing contact prior to landing, Nixon having prepared and filmed his dead atrsonauts speech etc.

The debunking sites are interesting. Same with 9/11. Make a few crazy claims and debunk them. Ignore the real hard core stuff. Claim that the planes that hit the towers were CGI and debunk it. Thus all conspiracy folk are wackos.

The biggest danger with the moon hoax coming out is that people will start to question other things, such as 9/11.

I don't belong to any 9/11truth movement, and my opinion that it was indeed an inside job is based on what I seen or didn't see on television that morning. I didn't see the Airforce make any attempt to intercept the supposed hijacked planes. I did see three buildings, one of which had received very little damage, collapse into their own footprint in well executed implosions designed and set up by a highly skilled demolition crew. I suspect the explosives needed to set up those shots were stored in building 7, and the demo team accessed the twin towers via a tunnel or tunnels connecting them to that building. I'm sure most of us have heard who certain organizations were that were headquartered in building 7.

How can yout hink the lunar landing is fake? Do you REALLY think our countries biggest enemy that we were RACING to the moon would let us fake it? Surely they would have been able to tell if you went to the moon and SURELY they would have spoken up if we lied. Get real.


Do you really think Russia would just let the US get away with a whole big fake thing? What is the gain in faking the moon landing?

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
reply to post by Kojack

 

Good on ya for at least thinking about it.

Consume as much as you can including official NASA stuff, and it will all come clear. Especially the first one - 11 - they had no idea if it would work. Whether the public would buy it. Grainy indirect TV footage (tv cameras had to film a monitor - not a live feed), losing contact prior to landing, Nixon having prepared and filmed his dead atrsonauts speech etc.

The debunking sites are interesting. Same with 9/11. Make a few crazy claims and debunk them. Ignore the real hard core stuff. Claim that the planes that hit the towers were CGI and debunk it. Thus all conspiracy folk are wackos.

The biggest danger with the moon hoax coming out is that people will start to question other things, such as 9/11.

These people still believing the planes took down the tower amuse me when they defend it with hostility.

I didnt even need the 'loose change' video to awaken me to the truth lol; science told me something was very wrong when i started learning about metals in high school.

reply to post by A-E-I-Owned-You


Oh give it a break!

Use common sense, science and consider evidence, not hearsay. Do you believe the 9/11 OS? If not, which means they lied, clearly and deliberately, then they probably lied before.

No other country is even planning a manned moon mission. Too hard. never went.

reply to post by hmmmbeer


Oh right so one of the United States biggest enemies just let us get away with lying. The "space race" was just a giant coverup right!

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
Grainy indirect TV footage (tv cameras had to film a monitor - not a live feed),

what are you babbling about now? - Australia certainly got a live feed, why do you think they filmed a tv monitor?

losing contact prior to landing

when did they lose contact prior to landing?

Nixon having prepared and filmed his dead astronauts speech

he never filmed it, just had a speech prepared
www.encyclopedia.com...

which is called forward planning, nothing new there

The biggest danger with the moon hoax coming out is that people will start to question

the only thing being questioned by moon hoax proponents is their sanity! What makes you think the moon hoax is coming out?

I see you still have not visited the bad astronomy site, why is that?

ok, last post before you';re on my ignore list. Do your homework.

Please see: history.nasa.gov...

I have visisted that site - bad astronomy and debunked it. Landing on the moon is like parking a car. Exactly.

reply to post by Kojack



What did you learn about metals? That makes you think what you saw was not what happened!

reply to post by hmmmbeer


Why is it that people on here like yourself who believe in ufo's moon hoax 9/11 etc etc WHO all claim to be so open minded are so keen to put people on ignore who dont bow down to your way of thinking.
Nasa put people on the MOON we have seen the pictures they took we now have pictures taken by LRO that shows an object at the loction were the Apollo lander should be even evidence of the movement of Astronauts between experiments and the lander.
The craft were also tracked to the Moon by other countries even school children
Plenty of evidence re 9/11 ,I talk with Engineers re this every so often not ONE of the people I have talked with think the buildings were demolished these people design concrete and steel structures and laugh at the type of claims you make.
Show me how a piece of the Tower wall would be accelerated past freefall speed.
When a building is demolished you have months of planning weeks of prep work MAIN structural walls/ elements weakend by cutting or complete removal.
No large structure would be demolished from the top down for a start.
I notice you made no comment re first tower collapse and the fact that all the floors above impact area fall as one it can be seen on the videos.

Looking forward to your reply.

reply to post by wmd_2008


When did I say I beleiev in UFOs? Dont you dare put words in my mouth.

I have researched enough about 9/11 and looked at evidence to conclude 100% inside job. No doubt.

You on the hand look at a few photos and think wwow - we went to the moon. There are so many issues with the photos and the 'official story' it makes me laugh.

In both cases, there was a single trigger point that caught my attention. i did at first believe the OS, in both cases. Until someone pointed out the flaws with the pentagon hit. Oh boy - after that, it was denial for a while, then total grief as I discovered the horrors that the US Govt had done.

What triggered the moon research was a photo of the lander with no crater underneath - in fact not a spec of dust had been displaced. No dust in the lander pods either. Check out the photos of the lander pods of some unmanned projects - full of dust.

From there it gets worse. Backlighting, wildly non-parralel shadows (and dont point me to the debunking site - I have laughed enough today - landing on the moon is like parking a car eh!).
And the astronauts - what about them. National heroes went on to write books and tour schools and give majestic speeches. Or sit meekly and drink themselves into oblivion, become a monk and not talk to anyone. Got something to hide eh?

Over to you my friend.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Kojack

 

What did you learn about metals? That makes you think what you saw was not what happened!

i was 13, going on 14 in the 8th grade during 9/11, so i believed the story like everyone else

for a while, i kept questioning why didnt they use stronger steel that can resist temps of what the fuel burned at (1300 F) untill i learned about metals in the 11th grade and discovered they melt at 3000 F. wait, the jet fuel burned nowhere near the melting point, not even half and it already weakened the steel structure in 50 mins tops?

i had to come online and dig around more, something did not make sense. and then i had a pretty radical social studies teacher who taught us more # going on behind the scenes in DC. the way that man went on about Bush's agenda and whats really going on in regards to the war in iraq had me thinking about alot on what the gov't told us.

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
Do your homework.
Please see: history.nasa.gov...

nothing there about filming a tv screen - just where did you get that from?
nothing there about Nixon pre recording his speech - where did you get that from?
They lost data only.... nothing new there

I have visisted that site - bad astronomy and debunked it.

Link to where you have debunked it?

[edit on 7/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Why is it that people on here like yourself who believe in ufo's moon hoax 9/11 etc etc WHO all claim to be so open minded are so keen to put people on ignore who dont bow down to your way of thinking.

Funny that - they do that as they hate to see their pet conspiracy theory totally destroyed by the truth!

When a building is demolished you have months of planning weeks of prep work MAIN structural walls/ elements weakend by cutting or complete removal.

that is a fact that all the conspiracy theorists totally ignore - how was all this work done, and no one say anything at all

reply to post by Kojack

for a while, i kept questioning why didnt they use stronger steel that can resist temps of what the fuel burned at (1300 F) untill i learned about metals in the 11th grade and discovered they melt at 3000 F. wait, the jet fuel burned nowhere near the melting point, not even half and it already weakened the steel structure in 50 mins tops?

Did they tell you in class the part about how if you heat a metal it
becomes progessively weaker - or were you not paying attention that
day?

Steel heated to 1100 F is only half as strong as original metal, at 1500 F
it is 1/4 and at 1800 F only 1/10

Temps at the most intense of the fires were estimated at 1800 F

Problem is that the columns were supporting hundreds of thousands of tons
from floors above them - each column was loaded with thousands of pounds per foot. Under such forces the columns begin to "creep" and
sag out of plumb increasing the load forces on each column..

reply to post by thedman


Can you please then explain the heat transfer process in which this steel was heated to the same temperature as the hottest fire in the building? Thanks in advance.

"Temps at the most intense of the fires were estimated at 1800 F"

Oh really? How were so many people able to jump out of the Towers when being anywhere near those high temperatures they would have been burnt to a crisp?

Since jet fuel burns at about 1500 F in controlled open air conditions, how were these fires able to reach 1800 F in a relatively enclosed oxygen starved environment?

So you're claiming that in about one hour's time, these oxygen starved fires (check out the black smoke in the videos) were able to soften these massive steel columns and cause a collapse?

You know, next time I fry some dinner using my cast iron pan I better make sure it's not on the flame too long since it will start to soften and melt. Same goes with my barbecue.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]