“What about building 7?”

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Its good to have such a passion but more often than not a persons passion blinds them to the simplest of things.

let us see if we can turn that passion around.....

no, I can't lie..OS pushers have no passion, they have agenda......if they had passion they would defend using any means possible, at the first inkling of 'inside job', they should bend over backwards to faithfully support what they push....I did when I first heard of."inside job", I went to look for the evidence to shut these 'conspiracy theorist' up......and the more I uncovered, [head shake]....here I is!

....you can't tell me that EVERY OS pusher is ignorant of the most basic of science.....

..say it isn't so.......

a reply to: hgfbob

The argument cops came! Damn - you were right. Apparently I do have to provide you with any answer you ask for based on the rules of debate that you read on the internet somewhere. Or otherwise I go to jail and am not allowed any more tea.

So fire away. What is it I can help you with? Let's solve 9/11 once and for all!!!!

a reply to: JuniorDisco

The argument cops came! Damn - you were right. Apparently I do have to provide you with any answer you ask for based on the rules of debate that you read on the internet somewhere. Or otherwise I go to jail and am not allowed any more tea.



Let's solve 9/11 once and for all!!!






What is it I can help you with?

nothing at all, you have already proved that fact.


...now your dancing for me.

a reply to: hgfbob

So I'll try to get this straight again. You're on an internet forum demanding people provide you with answers to something you think you've discovered, except you don't want answers?

I have a feeling this whole thing is a bit more about you than it is about 9/11.

a reply to: hgfbob

....you can't tell me that EVERY OS pusher is ignorant of the most basic of science.....

Science has nothing to do with anything you want accomplished.

You can debate science all you want, your passion should directed towards politics and getting your feet in the political arena to get the ball rolling on getting the answers you seek.


Here JuniorDisco has now twice painted a very clear picture of exactly what you express by how you come across so aggressively.

This from this page

You're on an internet forum demanding people provide you with answers to something you think you've discovered, except you don't want answers? I have a feeling this whole thing is a bit more about you than it is about 9/11.

and this from the previous page

Nobody is under any obligation to give you anything, either from a moral, legal or practical point of view. If you think you have uncovered something monstrous then start publicising it, get it out there. Try to change minds. But for god's sake stop trying to lay down the rules of a fight you've already lost.

sum it up extremely well.

Another poster cantonear and the little interaction between you two over the last few pages really summed it up for me that either you have gone insane because an inside job is so clear to you yet you want others to prove things and simply cannot rationally debate without having to scream (using CAPS) so often or your agenda is just to troll 9/11 conspiracies for a much darker agenda that you may or may not be aware of.

I hope its insanity because 9/11 and the aftermath is a head f### and those wanting more answers because whats given doesn't add up in their books can get a little crazy, I know I did when I dove head deep into the conspiracy.

So in conclusion I hope your passion is that of an insane truther and if so that passion would be better served trying to get into the political arena somewhere and making moves that way.

Internet debating and a prolonged stint gets one no where other in an unhealthy state, you want change get out there and make change happen in the real world, although depending on the change you want make it could get you in even more trouble, like JFK perhaps.

although depending on the change you want make it could get you in even more trouble, like JFK perhaps.

I wonder if he believed in Nibiru?

From my observations it seems that after Nibiru failed to appear thread activity dropped off substantially.
I concluded the many conspiracy believers had cold water thrown in their face and are now sceptical of the wild claims made on sites like this.

In my life experience the would is quite linear and boring. There is no man behind the curtain.

a reply to: samkent

There is no man behind the curtain.

So you've had a peek behind it to see there is no man?

Or is no man the name of the man behind curtain?



Hey Nibiru could still make its way back, It tried its annual return but had issues taking the stage in 2013, this year not much heard from my end.

I suspect in the next couple of years we might get some Nibiru threads.

For me personally, i think building no. 7 is the key to getting to the truth behind the 9/11 attacks.

Let me just play Devil's Advocate moment, let's just say for that the WTC buildings did come down as a result of the planes hitting them.
How on earth did building 7 collapse? It certainly had nothing to do with the plane attacks on the two main towers that collapsed.

The owner of the WTC buildings was on record as saying 'pull it' regarding building no. 7. If you owned a group of buildings let alone the WTC buildings why on earth would you say to have it pulled down? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Is it any coincidence that the new owner of the WTC buildings had them insured for terrorist attacks of all things? Not fires, storms, earthquakes, but specifically terrorist attacks.

The payout he must have got from the insurance must have been very substantial to say the least.

And here's another thing, i believe (and correct me if i'm wrong) the WTC buildings were due for major repairs which would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions, what would make someone buy a bunch of buildings that were due for refurbishment? It's the equivelent of buying a house in need of major repairs.

One last thing i'd like to say, there will always be people that believe the 'official' government story regarding 9/11, that it was a group of rag tag terrorists lead by an old guy living in a cave (who by the way was visited by one of the headsof CIA just before 9/11) and was on a dialysis machine, hardly the leader of the most sohpisticated terror attacks in history), and that anyone who thinks differently is a conspiracy theorist or even a traitor.

Forget the fact that the offiicial story has so many holes in it, that the US governemnt didnt want a commision held at all and when they were forced to wanted Henry Kissinger to head it.

Forget that 9/11 lead to the Patriot Act that has lead to the erroding of US citizens' rights. And forget that 9/11 lead to two 10+ year long wars resulting in thousands of US soldier deaths, countless more injuries and countless of civillian deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But hey if the government says something it must be true right?

a reply to: marty344

It certainly had nothing to do with the plane attacks on the two main towers that collapsed.

certainly?


Like you said just before if planes brought down the towers why couldn't the falling towers have damage the surrounding buildings?

Is it any coincidence that the new owner of the WTC buildings had them insured for terrorist attacks of all things? Not fires, storms, earthquakes, but specifically terrorist attacks.

No, its in the center of the financial district so that alone makes it a terrorist target but also the fact that it was attacked in 93, so why wouldn't it be insured for terrorist attacks if the building were attacked in past in such a fashion?

The payout he must have got from the insurance must have been very substantial to say the least.

Yes, but was it substantial enough to cover his loses overall?

and that anyone who thinks differently is a conspiracy theorist or even a traitor.

Well yes the story given as what officially happened is a conspiracy, so any altering explanations are theories until proven as fact.

9/11 was a conspiracy, the conspiracy theories surrounding it need to have better evidence to be made into conspiracy fact like the story/explanation we have been given is.

There are many holes but all other explanations have even more when reviewed or less holes and make more sense but a lack of evidence which then goes of into speculation which is just talk and no action can be taken from speculations unless there is strong support or evidence.

So far all that has come from this is people getting richer and others getting insaner.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

the conspiracy theories surrounding it need to have better evidence

alternate theories are there because of the insufficient official claims.

PROVING the official claims will nullify ALL OTHER theories....

a concept you seem to be unable to grasp.

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: InhaleExhale

the conspiracy theories surrounding it need to have better evidence

alternate theories are there because of the insufficient official claims.

PROVING the official claims will nullify ALL OTHER theories....

a concept you seem to be unable to grasp.

So what your point?

What concepts don't I grasp?

How can the official claims be proved? like I said there are other theories that fit better just that the official story has the most supporting verifiable evidence.

The official claims are they had no knowledge, when its proven to a reasonable doubt that the Bush administration and other governments certainly did have foreknowledge of an attack in such a fashion.

What you cant grasp is that we are on the same side if its split between truthers and Osers, but your passion blinds you to that.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

How can the official claims be proved?

well gee......lets see.....Congress charged NIST to scientifically DETERMINE how and WHY three buildings fell on 9-11....

NCSTAR 1-1 xxiii "Determine how and why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following initial impacts and why and how WTC 7 collapsed....The NIST WTC investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231)

and within the parameters they were given, fire and impact damage, they found NO reason why they did.

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"

"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

as i have already post here....but seems people ignore what they don't want to hear.

The official claims are they had no knowledge

WRONG....that is not a claim, THAT'S an EXCUSE for incompetence.

the OS is FIRE and 2 planes COMPLETELY collapse 3 buildings on 9-11...each completing that task GLOBALLY and unified within seconds...

an act unseen from ANY building for ANY reason......except intentional..they collapse like we see the three did ALL the time...it's called 'controlled' collapse.

like I said there are other theories that fit better just that the official story

oh yea...ENTER the DISTRACTION of 'space beams'......'no planes'....and the Aug. morning briefing, cause that esplains it MUCH better huh!!!

they TRIED to get science to support the already in-place claims since day one....and it blew up in their face....with the 2005 NIST not finding any reason for collapse x 3 on 9-11...

so they stall for three years with NO resolve till the 2008 HYPOTHESIS crew, ignoring their own earlier science to formulate a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon, new science they refuse to prove through science.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at the 2008 NIST technical briefing

this video is from IN-BETWEEN the WTC7 rough draft, [to which thee is NO mention of the found acceleration equal to g.], and the final report, [which includes the found 105 vertical feet of global unified FFA occurring for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

that is their webcast video that was streamed live......why is it NOT on the NIST website???....why do ya think they REMOVED it???...answers kind of obvious huh.

go watch the video of the hypothesis crew trying to HIDE the found acceleration equal to g. with a claim it was a NEW form of thermal expansion that works at LOW TEMPS....to COMPLETELY remove...


105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support columns....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
office contents...
utilities....

and guess what else Shyam says during the video conference with a call-in-question by a high school physics professor whom brings up the EASILY measurable FFA that occurred for 105 feet....[still attempting to HIDE the FFA with BULL]...he states as a mater-of-factly....

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

see....even Shyam unwillingly supports what MUST occur BEFORE the event of acceleration EQUAL to g. can even take place....a 'clear path in which to CONSTANTLY accelerate.....and that occurred @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0seconds found by the 2005 NIST. 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse spent accelerating EQUAL to g.

...as found by the initial 2005 NIST...

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

Go open the NIST report to Fig 3-15 showing the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

that 2.3 second interval of collapse has ramifications within a scientific context.....mass accelerating EQUAL to g. can do NO WORK...the collapse is NOT causing collapse......mass is REMOVED in order TO collapse.

which is what ALL science states about the 2.3 second interval of collapse, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL"??? that NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers as seen in that global unified rate of acceleration in WTC7 m, 9.8m/s^2 ????
W can open ANY science/physics text, turn to the section on Gravitational Acceleration......."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....seems the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"



so again, an official claim that warm steel at one end of the building allowed mass to be removed by a new phenomenon of science they refuse to prove through science.

to recap....3 buildings totally globally collapsed on 9-11 and the SCIENTIFIC investigation charged to investigate did NOT find a scientific reason why they did, DIRECTLY contradicting the official claims since DAY ONE....oh but we can't have that now, can we, SOOooo they stall till the end if the Presidential term to come up with new science they refuse to prove thorough science......

just bully to people like you.....hey, but at least it supports the OS huh!!!!lmao!

What you cant grasp is that we are on the same side

liar....if that were true, you would welcome what I post showing complicity within a Gov. organization to further the agenda

a reply to: hgfbob

delete

Wow, cool stuff, i didn't realize people were posting on this thread, so i'm going to continue to contribute to it.

I think we can all agree the 9/11 attacks were very sad and affected many thousands of lives, not just Americans but those of Afghanis and Iraqis.

I can totally understand why the American people would want to believe the government's take on the 9/11 attacks. I mean if i were American (i am Australian) i'd probably want to believe thier take on it too.
After all the alternative, that the US knew about it (and there's plenty of evidence that they did, as i will show later), and did nothing to stop the attacks does not worth bare thinking about.

In terms of psychology its very normal for a victim, in this case a nation, when dealing with a traumatic experience to just go with the 'official' story and 'get on with life', rather than going and doing some hard research into what happened. After all if anyone God forbid, had thier parents murdered for instance, would they rather believe the official story that it was say, such and such that did (even though they said they didnt do it), or that it was someone a lot closer to home.

So i can totally understand why Americans want to beleive the 'official' story as told by the government, and not hear what dissenters have to say.

Okay, here's my question if it were NOT for 9/11, let's say for argument's sake it never happened (and i wish more than anything it didn't just like the killing of JFK), could the US have been justified into going into Iraq? I would say, of course not, the people would be like, why on earth would we go there for?
But because of 9/11 the Bush Administration, and i remember it as clear as day was able to mount the whole WMB case and make a link between Suddam Hussein and Bin Laden and therefore get the people on board.

Just a side question does anyone else see the absurdity of the US attacking Iraq for supposed WMDs when there are two countries that have long had WMDs pointed at the US, namely Russia and China?

Okay back to the 9/11 attacks. I'm just going to tell things that i've picked up along the way. So here we go. And i've no doubt a lot of this information has already been repeated elsewhere in the thread i don't see any harm in repeating it, if that is the case.
Lets start with the WTC buildings.
Witnesses say they saw what looked like a military plane before it hit the Tower and not a commercial airliner. If this is indeed the case then it could be explained by the fact that the US military does indeed have the technology to fly planes unmanned (as eerily portrayed in the pilot episode of the tv series The Lone Gunmen, which by the way was aired before 9/11 and had a story involving a plane being remotely controlled being directed at.....the WTC buildings), so its very feesible that military planes may very well have been used to fly into the WTC buildings and make it look like they were airliners filled with passengers).
In slow motion footage it appears as though there are 'quibs' (term used by building demolitionists) coming from the sides of the buildings as the buildings were collapsing, at freefall speeds. To me it looks like they came down the same way buildings come down when they are demolished.
Also correct me if i'm wrong but it has been reported that security was pulled from the buildings that day.
In the basement the janitor (who strangely was completely ingorned in the 9/11 Commission) says he heard a huge boom sound in the basement, which may very well have been a bomb.
Firefighters have also stated they heard what appeared to be bombs going off around the building.

And then there is Building no. 7 that so often gets so overlooked. Even if debri did fall onto it, how on earth would that cause the whole building to collapse? At most it would be completely banged up but still be standing. eg the foundations would still be intact.

Another thing i find very perculiar. It s been said they found one of highjackers passports just lying on the sidewalk. Does anyone really believe that a passport made out of flimsy paper could just appear on the sidewalk in enough good condition that it shows one of the highjackers identities? If i liken it to a court case and i'm on the jury i find it very hard that a passport could escape all that carnage and be intact, well enough to show the highjackers id.

But i've saved the best for last. Why is it they were never able to find the two blackboxes from the two planes (ironically called since theyre orange i believe). So thousands of volunteers shifted through all the ruble and they were never able to find the blackboxes? When has that ever happened before in aviation history, a plane or planes crashong without the blackboxes being recorded? Isn't that the whole point of them if a plane does go down investigators can open it up and find out how and why the planes crashed.
Surely if the US government wanted to nip in the bud any conspiracy theories they could have produced the blackboxes and proven to the world that the planes were indeed highjacked and flown into the WTC buildings.

The way i see it when investigating anything and looking at the official story one should look at what information is provided, but also what information is missing/not provided, case in point, no blackboxes which i have no doubt were indeed recovered.

Next i want to talk about the plane that was apparently highjacked and brought down, as a result of a scuffle between the passengers and the highjackers.
Notwithstanding it has been shown that calls could not have been made from those heights. Also one of the callers tells his mother that its him, and uses his full name, nobody talks like that, even in a stessful situation noone say its me then uses their first and last name. Same caller than sees, you do believe me don't you? Again people just don't say things like that.
Also people on the ground said that it didn't look like an airliner had crashed there.

Next i wish to discuss the Pentagon attack. It is clear that the whole in the pentagon is not big enough to be able to fit an airliner into.
Expert pilots have stated that the flight path made by the highjackers to reach the Pentagon, simply could not be done, certainly not by novice pilots.
Very strangely the day before, Donald Rumsfeld said that there was a huge hole in the budget regarding the Pentagon, and the area where the Pentagon was hit had held a lot of the financial records, may not mean anything but i thought i'd throw it in.
The debri at the front of the Pentagon does not appear to be that of an airliner having crashed. Perhaps another remotely controlled plane carrying a missile?
Also after everything that had gone down with the WTC buildings and the plane that was taken down and crashed, no jetfighters were ordered to take down this airliner?

Just some more tidbits of information then i will finish up. The famous montage of all the highjackers, most of them, around half were Saudi Arabian citizens, yet nothing was ever done about the Saudi connection?
Bin Laden him self a Saudi Arabian, yet his family were left alone as to where he might possible be?
The most sophisticated terror attacks in history were originated in one of the poorest countries of the world Afghanistan?
Bin Laden being visited by someone very high up in the CIA a few days before 9/11 just coinicidence?

Sorry, i've had to write another reply i guess i used up too many words.

George W Bush saying years later that he wasn't that interested in finding Bin Laden?

Bin Laden was indeed on the FBIs most wanted list but strangely enough on thier website, not for the WTC 9/11 attacks but for other terrorist attacks. When asked by a reporter they were told that the FBI didnt ahve sufficient evidence that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

This may not mean much but Bin Laden did release a statement that he was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that even if he wanted to his leaders would not permit it.

When Bin Laden was finally killed, his neighbours told BBC reporter that it wasnt Bin Laden, they more than anyone would know if it was him or not. Then we're lead to believe they just decided to dump his body into the ocean?? Without any independent work done on his body to indeed verify it was him.

And if Al Quid ea were indeed resposnible for the 9/11 attacks why on earth are they helping to support them in the middle east most notably in Syria helping the rebels against Assad's army.

We'll thats all from me. I do'nt consider myself a conspiracy theorist, i dont wear a tin foil hat, it's just that a lot of the 9/11 official story i find hard to believe, which lead me to look at other possibilities.

Do i think the US government knew an attack could happen on US soil? Yes. Why. Condalica Rice said in a Congress hearing that an attack on US soil could be possible.

I believe the FBI were hot on the tails of the assialnts but were told to stand down. A documentary was shown on tv about the FBI and 9/11 i wish i knew thye name of it.

Let me just end with one last tidbit. Put options (betting on a companies stocks dropping) skyrocketed before 9/11 as if peopleknew something was about to go down and it wa sgoing to affect United Airlines in particular, which it did.

I just find it so strange that the US having occupied Iraq for so many years and then leaving has left it to the thugs of ISIS to come in and kill thousands. So WMDs is a valid reason to invade but stopping cilvillians getting killed isnt?

That's all i have to say. I hope i've made a worthy contribution.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

How can the official claims be proved?

by allowing them to be peer reviewed......something yet undone.


and this is the official claim as to the collapse of WTC7.....NEW never before seen physics phenomenon, that never occurred before or since, only on that day.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing


where this new phenomenon REMOVES....105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
Interior partitions...
office contents...
utilities....

all before 1.74 seconds to allow the global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. @ 1.75 seconds to 4.0s.



a new phenomenon of science they refuse to prove through science.....just bully.


why don't you tell me all about LOW TEMP thermal expansion and how it creates conditions for continuous acceleration EQUAL to g.