9/11 - more evidence of an inside job

Yeah...you been chasin bears in the wilderness or summat then?...

so what was the maximum political effect?

a city ruined?  that really did a lot for new york city and the economy of the country.  you're such a stupid fuck, do you kno how much military contracters are losing out on because of the money being sucked up by the war???  they're spending billions on bullets instead of R&D, buying metal instead of paying engineers and the like.  Yea, that's doing a lot for the economy.    real good political move as well.

stupid fuck

9/11 is clearly a political lever or Bush wouldn't mention it repeatedly in every speech he's ever given since.  Besides, this is about the buildings and how they fell.  Keep on topic.

most americans are as moronic as you

I feel like a nanny for a kid with ADD.  Can we keep on topic?

i am.  you babble some nonsense, then i imitate

ADD is a another excuse........blame the parents.

Here is a little more somthing for zeros' 911 conspiracy report, this ones about the pentagon attack.

 

http://www.killsometime.com/animations/animation.asp?ID=91

great that you mention this justin, my mate who was in his final year of masters at the time of 9/11, went through great lengths to prove that the buildings didn't collapse through the plane collisions alone - I, for one out of more or less all , didnt believe him to start with, but time after time there has been evidence (of which fair enough I cant substantiate, but cant prove not otherwise) that the towers didnt simply collapse. 

For most of us, 9/11 is still one of the biggest events that have happened, or may happen throughout our lives, its probably not possible to know the absolute truth, but learning and taking in every angle (no matter the political agenda) helps understand the situation that wee bit better.

Structural damage + Pressure = Buildings fall down

Those planes took out like half of the floor along with the supporting beams when they hit AND exploded with hundreds of gallons of gas in their tanks I think that could do enough damage to take out a 50 story building.

 

click my penis

8====D

what's your point?

Ahhhh...I think you missed the point...its not the fact the buildings fell down...its the way the fell.....stack up some bricks....push the third one from the top...which way do they fall??? Thats right sideways....kinda the same with a building...you would expect that if it got hit some where near the top it would fall sideways....but those two feckers fell just like they do on ademo job.....why???....Hmmmmmmmmm

think about how you'd take that brick out.  if you pushed that brick out right quick, like pulling the table cloth from under the china, everything would pretty much stay in place.  combine that with a fire that could gut the inside and you have a collapse.  I think what a lot of you fail to realize is that the other buildings around it sustained MAJOR amounts of damage, some of them fell down and another was just finally torn down. these buildings kept a lot of debris from scattering, although u guys still dont kno shit about how far debris from the building was really falling. 

it doesn't look too big on tape, but debris being launched horizontally at 1000 feet up could easily make it a few miles across town i would assume by the time it hit the ground.  it's not like these things imploded perfectly, there was MAJOR damage to surrounding structures.

what am i saying?  the jews did it.    pretty good tho eh?  score another one for the kykes. 

scary stuff

Nuts, the sites' exceeded it's bandwidth

I've wondered many times about the pentagon hit... I wouldn't be surprised if 9/11 was some sort of military thing to gain support for war, or to give bush a fucking leg to stand on.

I have a documentary video recorded from TV shortly after 9/11 with the architect explaining how and why the towers fell and how they were originally designed to withstand a direct hit from a jet. The shock from the impact of the planes unfortunately blasted away the drywall insulation from all supports, the inferno softened the steel thus weakening the building.......Very interesting viewing,  if anybody wishes i can send a copy

I remember watching this documentary. Was it on Channel 5 by any chance.

 

I remembner watching it anyway. It was fucking interesting to say the least, and gave a good insight in to what went on inside the building after the jets hit and such.

 

 

Downie

I was about to call you all a bunch of paranoid freaks, but after watching that pentagon animation, how could you not suspect something dodgey about that?  As regards the twin towers, i have watched a documentary which explains pretty well how the initial imapact, and vast amount of burning fuel could have lead to the structures collapsing in the way that they did.

I have been sceptical of the whole 9/11 thing ever since it happened, and I do belive that there is a lot more than what is being said. Even at the time of seeing the Penta-gone get hit, I couldn't beleive it was hit buy a jumbo. In order to do that with a 757 you would need pretty much excellent landing skills to maintain that little amount of altitude and not to have to bank the plane and thereby planting a wing into the ground.

I remember there not being enough debree for it to be a 757, and that security vid can not be showing a 757 at all. With the length of a 757 the camera would have captured at least two frames with the plane on whether it be in flight or just before/after moment of impact. I would really like to see what those other cctv tapes have captured - especially as a 757 does not make a whoosh sound

However, I do agree with what some of Ilan is saying.. if it was an inside job, the amount of people who would need to be silenced one way or the other is enormous, and I really dont think ANY government would be capable of doing this. Also there have been a lot of eye witness testiments from people on the freeway that said it was a 757 etc, and the fallen lampposts.. COuld it be people being led by the main story or did people actually see a 757?

Back to the buildings, and I watched that documentary aswell. THe one thing that is blatently obvious is that the builing that got hit in the corner rather than straight on.. is that I would have thought that all the major damage would have been focused on that corner, and thereby that corner would be the weakest and it would have toppled rather than fall straight like it did.

yes, that is the "official story" as released in the reports.  The point of this is that the official story doesn't add up - that jet fuel and intense burning are just not physically capable of burning hot enough to melt structural steel, that the impact from a 767, a jet smaller than the 707 which the building was designed to withstand an impact from, just isn't heavy or strong enough to damage a building that badly, etc.  The building collapsed in just as much time as it would take in free-fall.  If we're to believe the pancake theory of each floor domino-effecting there would have been a lot of delay time as one floor fell on the next and had to break it, etc.  The building just fell as though it had turned to dust and crumbled from the top to bottom.  There would also be a huge, steel-reinforced core left in the center - where did it go?   They found pools of molten steel at the wreckage site weeks later under the rubble in the ground - once again jet fuel can't do that.   If you can make jet fuel melt steel in normal atmosphere, i'd like to see it.  If you've ever done any welding, just think how hot you have to get an oxy-acet torch before it will cut steel properly

I've always found the whole aviation fuel arguement a little hard to swallow. The company I work for, amongst other things, makes structural steelwork for buildings and whilst they're never on the scale of skyscrapers I know full well how tough and strong it is. I personally couldn't think that jet fuel wouldn't make much of an impact on the steel work we produce, never mind the the steelwork of the tradecentres.

Let also think on how liquid fuel burns. Unless you use a tank and a wick you never get it to burn for a long time. Pure liquid fuel, especially when distributed through the air, as it would be in when coming from ruptured fuel tanks in a plane crash would more explode than burn for a long period. You'd get big fire balls and that'd be it. Its the same when explosions are created for films; a big ball of flame, but very little residual burning. Fine there were a lot of furnishings in the towers but mainly they were built steel and fire retardant dry board.

Its obvious that your gagging to believe a conspiracy theory, but this was a bbc documentary, and they had various scientists and engineers explainf the floors in the world trade centre construction.  Its impossible to build a sky scraper which could with stand that sort of impact.  You can clear see parts of the steel structure when parts of the tower have collapsed.

there's more info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

I wouldn't say the BBC would swallow any "official story", i watched am excellent documentary on the BBC which explained the fact that al queda doesn't really exhist, and has been dreamed up by the neo-conservatives to keep us scared and in our place.

There may be some argument that the bush administration had prioor knowledge that something like this was going to happen, or maybe even failed to act on purpose.  But to suggest that they did it themselve, going as far as to place demolition charges, is just ludacrus