An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Yankee451


Seems they had about ten years to wire the buildings for explosives.

But dont you know that all explosives have a short shelf life once in the field? Explosives tend to grow unstable, lose their explosive ability, decompose, and lose effectiveness over time. You cannot rig a building and wait years, expecting the explosives to go off without a hitch. The rigging, wiring, blasting caps, all have to be maintained because they too, degrade over time. Constant maintenance would be required to make sure the darn things dont go off or degrade to the point where a sudden gust of wind wouldnt set off the charges prematurely.

What about the inspectors? Wouldn't they notice something amiss? Or are they now added to list of "in on it"? How large is this list going to be?

if you had read the article you would have seen that they didn't say anything about planting the thermite or anything of the sort.....it was talking about the PLANS for demoing the building.....

Originally posted by MamaJ
There have been so many people like George Carlin who honestly think this was a cover up as well. Many many Hollywood stars have come out to speak their opinion and have not been murdered or committed suicide.

BUT...there are also the others....who have either committed "suicide" or been in a "plane crash" that knew something they were not supposed to tell.

Its pretty obvious that all these Arab men with their chatter, schooling and the fact the Government KNEW they were planning such an event....its plain as day this was planned....and not planned by some crazy guys who just learned how to fly a plane.

I mean....come on now!~

there's just too much evidence out there that makes sense.....the official story doesn't even make a bit of sense...the funny thing is, these people in charge of covering up the real stories, including the obama certificate, are not thinking very hard about it...but, since they own the media they can present it in any way they want and the shallow hals out there will eat it up hook line and sinker.....

reply to post by -W1LL


Well no matter how the details are spun, the reinforced message I am hearing from this is that there were foreign hijackers who crashed planes into the buildings. The timing is interesting too. I somehow believe that this is the first of the many similar stories we'll be fed until the 10th anniversary of those horrendous murders.

reply to post by GenRadek

What about the inspectors? Wouldn't they notice something amiss? Or are they now added to list of "in on it"? How large is this list going to be?

The list is as large as it needs to be. If you find it easier to believe aluminum wings can slice hardened structural steel, the size of the list isn't the problem here.

Or if you think that Kerosene can burn hot enough to bring the steel to slumping point good luck with that!
The laws of physics are immutable in regards to what occurred that day.
It is obvious that whole official explanation doesnt cut it....doesnt even begin to.....
The people who make this crap up are stupider than the rubes they are trying to convince.
doesnt work well that way.
The truth will out.
It is a guarantee.you or i may not hear the real story but our grandkids may....
Personally id like to know what the FBI was doing with Hani Hanjour before the attack.
They set him up out west in california i hear....apartment etc.....
This alone is enough to make me flinch....

reply to post by Yankee451

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says they can is either lying or a fool.

Are the men killed in these WW2 ships lying or fools? Most of the planes were made of wood.

Year
Date Ship
1944 Oct. 25 St. Lo (CVE-63) (escort carrier) [8]
Nov. 1 Abner Read (DD-526) (destroyer)
Nov. 27 SC-744 (submarine chaser)
Dec. 5 LSM-20 (landing ship, medium)
Dec. 7 Mahan (DD-364) (destroyer)
Dec. 7 LSM-318 (landing ship, medium)
Dec. 7 Ward (APD-16) (high-speed transport)
Dec. 10 William S. Ladd (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec. 10 PT-323 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec. 11 Reid (DD-369) (destroyer)
Dec. 15 LST-472 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 15 LST-738 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 18 PT-300 (motor torpedo boat)
Dec. 21 LST-460 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 21 LST-749 (landing ship, tank)
Dec. 28 John Burke (Liberty cargo ship)
Dec. 30 Porcupine (IX-126) (auxiliary tanker)
1945 Jan. 4 Ommaney Bay (CVE-79) (escort carrier)
Jan. 5 Lewis L. Dyche (Liberty cargo ship)
Jan. 6 Long (DMS-12) (high-speed minesweeper)
Feb. 21 Bismark Sea (CVE-21) (escort carrier)
Apr. 6 Bush (DD-529) (destroyer)
Apr. 6 Colhoun (DD-801) (destroyer)
Apr. 6 Emmons (DMS-22) (high-speed minesweeper)
Apr. 6 Hobbs Victory (cargo ship)
Apr. 6 Logan Victory (cargo ship)
Apr. 7 LST-447 (landing ship, tank) [9]
Apr. 12 Mannert L. Abele (DD-733) (destroyer)
Apr. 12 LCS(L)(3)-33 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III)) [10]
Apr. 16 Pringle (DD-477) (destroyer)
Apr. 22 Swallow (AM-65) (minesweeper)
Apr. 22 LCS(L)(3)-15 (landing craft, support (large) (Mk. III))
Apr. 27 Canada Victory (cargo ship)
May 3 Little (DD-803) (destroyer)
May 3 LSM(R)-195 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 4 Morrison (DD-560) (destroyer)
May 4 Luce (DD-522) (destroyer)
May 4 LSM(R)-190 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 4 LSM(R)-194 (landing ship, medium (rocket))
May 25 Bates (APD-47) (high-speed transport)
May 25 LSM-135 (landing ship, medium)
May 28 Drexler (DD-741) (destroyer)
June 10 William D. Porter (DD-579) (destroyer)
June 16 Twiggs (DD-591) (destroyer)
June 21 LSM-59 (landing ship, medium)
June 21 Barry (APD-29) (high-speed transport) [11]
July 29 Callaghan (DD-792) (destroyer) [12]


Which is it?

reply to post by samkent


We're talking about structural steel, each column of the dozens of columns sliced was shaped like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c19ee58eb20.jpg[/atsimg]

Good grief man, why are you talking about ships?

wtc.nist.gov...

i dont think aluminium would cut the steel, but i bet that it would bend the crap of it. thermite would just heat it up enough to collapse on its self.

As someone else said - the article is pure speculation:

Clarke speculates—and readily admits he cannot prove—that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in Southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda.

so there's nothing here whatsoever about the CIA blowing up buildings - no - it is speculation that they failed to recruit some spies inside AQ.

Now what would be the actual problem with the CIA recruiting agents within AQ??

Failing to do so & then covering up seems stupid......but then y'all seem pretty happy that the CIA is stupid, so that part isn't a problem either......

Anyone who thinks that the "official line" is that the heat made the floor beams too weak to hold the weight doesn't actually understand the "official" report in the first place.

and anyone that thinks that a strong aluminium structure at high velocity can't bend steel beams that are not designed to take that much load in a small area to breaking point also has a poor understanding of physics, metalurgy and the behaviour of solids.

And of course we all expect all those shortcomings from the so-called "truthers" by now!

reply to post by NISMOALTI


Missiles can explain the gash, thermite can explain the showers of sparks, the bright flashes, and the popping explosions...

letsrollforums.com...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Greetings and en garde...

I think the question should be whether AQ ever stopped working for the CIA to begin with.

It seems like the truth will eventually spill out about this, and there are people in high places positioning themselves for the fallout. If you believe the official story of 9/11, I want to sell used cars to you.

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Yankee451


Seems they had about ten years to wire the buildings for explosives.

But dont you know that all explosives have a short shelf life once in the field? Explosives tend to grow unstable, lose their explosive ability, decompose, and lose effectiveness over time. You cannot rig a building and wait years, expecting the explosives to go off without a hitch. The rigging, wiring, blasting caps, all have to be maintained because they too, degrade over time. Constant maintenance would be required to make sure the darn things dont go off or degrade to the point where a sudden gust of wind wouldnt set off the charges prematurely.

What about the inspectors? Wouldn't they notice something amiss? Or are they now added to list of "in on it"? How large is this list going to be?

if you had read the article you would have seen that they didn't say anything about planting the thermite or anything of the sort.....it was talking about the PLANS for demoing the building.....

I was responding to his direct idea that they had 10 years to wire the building.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Greetings and en garde...

I think the question should be whether AQ ever stopped working for the CIA to begin with.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

Ah......begging the question - wonderful - this is the fastest I've ever seen a CT resort to a well known logical fallacy.

Let's not actually establish that AQ works for the CIA - let's jsut say that it is true.

I now fully expect a wave of illogical "connect the dots" drivel including repitition of the speculation/myth about OBL being paid by the USA via the CIA .........blah, blah, blah....

do you have any actually verifiable evidence, or are we gonna have to sit through more diatribes of people telling me stuff that they "know", and is "obvsious"....but they somehow can't actually provide any credible info to prove??

I'm betting it's the later.....still

New : No
Explosive : In the literal sense
True : Definitely

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Greetings and en garde...

I think the question should be whether AQ ever stopped working for the CIA to begin with.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

Ah......begging the question - wonderful - this is the fastest I've ever seen a CT resort to a well known logical fallacy.

Let's not actually establish that AQ works for the CIA - let's jsut say that it is true.

I now fully expect a wave of illogical "connect the dots" drivel including repitition of the speculation/myth about OBL being paid by the USA via the CIA .........blah, blah, blah....

do you have any actually verifiable evidence, or are we gonna have to sit through more diatribes of people telling me stuff that they "know", and is "obvsious"....but they somehow can't actually provide any credible info to prove??

I'm betting it's the later.....still

Are you saying the CIA didn't train and finance the Mujahideen, and that al Qaeda isn't a CIA fabrication whose role is to foment trouble so the USA can come in and "save the day?"

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed and trained by the United States [Central Intelligence Agency] (CIA) during the administrations of Jimmy Carter[39] and Ronald Reagan

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's a pretty good article about it from the father of John Walker Lindh

At that time, the Taliban governed most of Afghanistan, and were engaged in a long-running civil war against a Russian-backed insurgency known euphemistically as the Northern Alliance. John was quickly accepted as a volunteer soldier, and received two months of infantry training in a Taliban military camp before being dispatched to the front lines.

These young soldiers performed heroically in the defeat of the Soviet Union. Their cause was openly supported by the American government itself, particularly during the administration of President Ronald Reagan, who took office two weeks before John's birth in early 1981.

The training camp in Afghanistan where the Ansar received their infantry training was funded by Osama bin Laden, who also visited the camp on a regular basis. He was regarded by the volunteer soldiers as a hero in the struggle against the Soviet Union. These soldiers did not suspect Bin Laden's involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out in secret. John himself sat through speeches by Bin Laden in the camp on two occasions, and actually met Bin Laden on the second such occasion. John has said he found him unimpressive.

www.guardian.co.uk...

BBC documentary Al CIADUH doesn't exist
www.youtube.com...

Your GoogleFu skills are slipping Gaul guy, that's just scratching the surface

Clarke's theory makes sense the CIA lost track of Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi,they would never to that.Although we sholud be on the lookout for any revisions to the OS that will undoubtedly crop up as we approach the 10th anniversary.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Yankee451


Seems they had about ten years to wire the buildings for explosives.

But dont you know that all explosives have a short shelf life once in the field? Explosives tend to grow unstable, lose their explosive ability, decompose, and lose effectiveness over time. You cannot rig a building and wait years, expecting the explosives to go off without a hitch. The rigging, wiring, blasting caps, all have to be maintained because they too, degrade over time. Constant maintenance would be required to make sure the darn things dont go off or degrade to the point where a sudden gust of wind wouldnt set off the charges prematurely.

What about the inspectors? Wouldn't they notice something amiss? Or are they now added to list of "in on it"? How large is this list going to be?

From the IME (Institute of Explosive Maker's Website)

Additionally, other newer explosive materials contain inhibitors and/or stabilizers that lengthen the shelf life of the products. Some explosive products now contain TNT, Composition "B", Pentolite, Tetryl, RDX, PETN and other military type explosives which are extremely stable over a wide range of conditions for a long period of time. Many of these products have virtually unlimited shelf life.

IME Website

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the theory, just doing my bit to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Well no matter how the details are spun, the reinforced message I am hearing from this is that there were foreign hijackers who crashed planes into the buildings. The timing is interesting too. I somehow believe that this is the first of the many similar stories we'll be fed until the 10th anniversary of those horrendous murders.

or maybe they are simply reinforcing the official version, in preparation for a possible upcoming false flag on sep11th 2011?

it worked for prince shrub, so they think it'll work for king oreo.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
do you have any actually verifiable evidence, ...?

you are being naive, foolish or cynical here. everyone who studies the 9 11 conspiracy knows for an indisputable fact, that there is no evidence: the steel and all the remnants were sold off for scrap or otherwise disappeared, immediately after; completely and totally unexamined.

y'know, whats known as tampering with the evidence.

so who is really begging the question here?
yet another faux pas on your part, monsieur poulet,

reply to post by ecoparity


I dont doubt in a controlled setting they would be stable, but how well would they last out of the packaging, rigged up, exposed to the elements?