The thing is Xtrm, while the pancake theory is possible, and all the things you’ve explained so far, the thing that gets me is that even if it collapsed by pancake....a) like you said, there would still be significant support structures still standing, and b) how did the whole building basically melt and disintegrate into tiny little pieces, leaving liquid molten at the core, that was still measured at over 1600C weeks after 9/11.
FEMA admitted the jet fuel extinguishd after 10 mins. Black smoke rising because the fire was suffocating without oxygen to keep it going. So it petered out after 10 mins. Yet, somehow long after the fire was out, somehow the whole structure melted within seconds right down to the very core, which is hundreds of feet below street level.
Plus if you’ve ever seen that english tv science show where they lite up a bucket of thermite that’s sitting above a car hood and within a couple of seconds the whole engine block melted to the ground. And how this scientist was showing the exact same orange/white molten flame, like volcona lava, in that thermite car hood video and the video of 9/11.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
Oops!, BBC was half an hour too early reporting on WTC7 collapse
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.
This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.
9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.
What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.
Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.
So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.
Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.
No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
Umm 9/11 happend between 8 and 10 a.m in the morning. There is like a 6 hour time difference from London so if it happend at lets say 10 then it would only be 4 in London so I dont know what you are trying to say.
--- <iframe src=“http://gamercard.xbox.com/REPLACE-THIS-WITH-YOUR-GAMERTAG.card” scrolling=“no” frameBorder=“0” height=“140” width=“204”>Put your gamertag here too.</iframe>
http://www.myspace.com/linkious
Dont forget that Bush is on record as saying on the day of the attacks that he saw the first building get hit by a plane on TV. Which was impossible, because NO tv networks were even there when the first building got hit. Only footage is people who had hand-held tourist cameras.
So how did Bush see the first building get hit? It could only be possible that he and his govt/intel were aware there was a strike set to occur and had their own cameras watching and waiting for the event to occur.
The second strike timed perfectly to coincide with every major and minor tv network there live to record and beam the images live across the world.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
Aaron McKay wrote:
Umm 9/11 happend between 8 and 10 a.m in the morning. There is like a 6 hour time difference from London so if it happend at lets say 10 then it would only be 4 in London so I dont know what you are trying to say.
The time difference between NY and London is 5 hours. The Twin towers collapsed between 8 and 10 am NY time. But building 7, the other one, collapsed much later, at 5:20 pm NY time.
Anyway, it’s got nothing to do with the time difference. All it’s saying is that at 4:57 pm NY time, an English reporter in NY covering the event reported live on BBC UK, that building 7 collapsed. But building 7 didnt collapse till 5:20 pm NY time. So 23 minutes before it even collapsed, an English reporter in NY was reporting live back to the UK that building 7 had collapsed!
How would she know??!! They had inside information it was going to happen before it did! Impossible anyone would know it would collapse unless it was controlled demolition set up before that day.
Then, realizing what huge mistake they’d just done, the BBC network shut off the live broadcast.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
Aaron McKay wrote:
It only takes seconds for news reporters to get to the scene so you are not making any sense now.
Aaron! NO TV NETWORK WAS AT THE WTC BEFORE the first plane hit! NONE. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for George Bush to have seen a TV telecast of the first plane ACTUALLY HITTING the first tower. No footage exists of the first plane strike, except what people were recording on their camcorders that morning as tourists. All that stuff isn’t TV telecast stuff.
It means Bush and his govt already had a private camera network set up, as they were sitting in the class waiting to go in and talk to the kids. It means they set the whole thing up.
Look how badly Bush even acts when pretending to be told that the SECOND plane hit. He looks so fake. Nodding as tho concerned. If he truly had no idea, his eyes woulda popped out, he woulda shaken, and cried. Instead he’s hiding a grin.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
Well done tuscan. Good questions. I cant believe anyone in the world 100% believes the govt didnt do it, or had a hand in it. I find it even more improbable that ANYONE would look at all the footage and evidence of 9/11 and not feel that there was something suspicious about it at least.
Like, Aaron, for instance. He cannot even allow it to enter his mind that the US pres, the US govt, the US intel, are involved in any way. He just cant believe it, too unbelievable. Too HUGE a thing to be true. So, he thinks, therefore it isnt true. But he provides no factual data to prove his case.
What’s weird is that all the wild theories come from those who try to explain how the govt didnt do it! Or the poor arguments like, “they just didnt do it, ok”. That’s no evidence or argument. That’s just the inability to even consider something could be true.
What people still cant understand is that the commission investigating 9/11, already FOUND that the US govt/intel knew all along when it was going to happen, where, and what day. That they’d been tracking the terrorists for months. And that on the day of the attacks, the govt/intel deliberately stood down people to allow the strikes to occur. This is already been documented.
Another thing to consider is that, something like NINE of the supposed terrorists are actually alive and well! They seriously are alive. They’ve gone on TV. In the commission, which the govt quickly stopped just as it started, was the criticism that how could the FBI declare these 19 arabs did it, etc, when 9 of them are still alive??
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
I know i saw it in England and it’s amazing to think the Americans arnt rioting there are so many facts missing, so many lies being said.
Just three days ago they had a opisite view on t.v. here in England trying to debunk the conspiracy but if anything it made it more of a conspiracy.
They tried to show the plain going into the pentagon but it looked more like a little bird than a plane all my friends think its time for the truth and bush should stand up and be counted.
But i dont think the Americns have it in them they rely
on there govement so much and believe all they say.
Dare i say it and its not true about all Americans but
they tend to vote for Dumbasses in there govement and think
there good enogh to run a powerfull country like the US.
Me personaly i think they will lap up the crap the
the govement say then this will drag on for decades like
Roswell (i know bad example) but you know what i mean.
Well, it would be insane to allow Bush another term. He’s just out for his own personal gains. Has so many agendas going on, and they all relate to the destruction of civil liberties.
Hey Xtrm, download this pdf, it’s got a full report relating to the WTC, the molten metal etc, done by an 'expert', but I’d like your opinion on it.
I agree fundamentally with the notion that things being suspicious is not necessarily guilt.
I also agree that information and evidence are two separate thing. However, I’d like to point out that some of that information goes beyond mere information, and proposes 'evidence'. It’s circumstantial. Or it’s well-founded in history, procedure, or logic.
So, my train of thought on the whole 911 thing would run as follows...
For instance, to me, the govt/intel willfully standing down people, ordering jet fighters stationed 9 mins away from the pentagon, to go on wild goose chases...that’s all proven that the govt willfully neglected their procedures. It wasn’t accidental. Things like the govt/intel destroying evidence and confiscating/destroying air-traffic recordings and surveillance camera footage....that’s all proven that the govt willfully broke the laws of convention/procedure. It’s against the law.
Things like the lawn, the hole at the end of the pentagon C wall, the debris at the pentagon consistent with a small one-engine craft, not a twin 9-foot engined Boeing, the flight path across structures/buildings, all these are further bits of information that are indicative of something suspicious.
Things like Bush on record saying he saw the first plane hit on tv, perhaps indicative of intel/govt already pre-aware and had their own cameras waiting, things like the BBC reporting WTC7 collapsing 20 mins before it did, things like this are indicative that something is fishy.
Things like 9 hijackers reportedly still alive, thats fishy.
Things like the professional opinion of engineers/scientists saying that no steel structure has ever before or since melted/crumbled from a fire and/or plane is fishy. Especially when FEMA admits that the fire stopped after 10 mins. Especially when experts say that jet fuel can only burn at 1,000C yet it would take 2,000C for steel structures to melt all the way down to the core, and leave molten pools in the 1600C range 5 weeks after the collapse, and how that’s all highly unlikely if it was just a plane and jet fuel...things like this add to the suspicion.
Etc etc.
To me, tho it’s not all evidence, it’s all indicative of a cover-up. And if the Govt forces the closure of a commision inquiry that was starting to uncover all these lies and inconsistencies, and refuses to re-open the case, while also confiscating and destroying evidence, then this is where I start believing prior 'smoking gun' that something’s being covered up, therefore that the govt/intel are involved.
To me, the hard cold evidence is key, but we cant get that until a proper legit investigation is allowed to run its course. Sometimes, with a JFK, the investigation runs its full course but the verdict is still suspicious/consistent with a cover-up. Each case is different. But the mere willfulness of confiscating/destroying evidence and the premature closure of and refusal to re-open a commision, to me, is fairly damning IMO.
It’s interesting that many people can agree that they can see all the Bush post-911 actions, relating to oil, opium, weapons, construction contracts, patriot acts, martial law, perversion of the consitution and bill of rights, etc, as all being connivingly 'justified' upon that one 911 incident. Because when you see the means and the end, IMO, it puts 2 and 2 together. Why would 911 occur, why would a govt either deliberately allow it to go off or have a hand in it, and what did the govt/intel gain BECAUSE of it?
It’s a way to build circumstantial evidence, suspicious information, and an MO to a point where an independent commission investigation is justified. To deny that only adds fuel to cover-up.
The bottom line is that a cover-up as such HAS and IS occuring. The guilt or extent of involvement, the details of the collapse etc, they’re all clouded in secrecy and not being allowed transparency.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
gg wrote:
Well, it would be insane to allow Bush another term. He’s just out for his own personal gains. Has so many agendas going on, and they all relate to the destruction of civil liberties.
Hey Xtrm, download this pdf, it’s got a full report relating to the WTC, the molten metal etc, done by an 'expert', but I’d like your opinion on it.
gg wrote:
Well, it would be insane to allow Bush another term. He’s just out for his own personal gains. Has so many agendas going on, and they all relate to the destruction of civil liberties.
Hey Xtrm, download this pdf, it’s got a full report relating to the WTC, the molten metal etc, done by an 'expert', but I’d like your opinion on it.
»
Off-Topic
» Re-Opening 9/11
ok I’m off for real now.
I wear SKITTLES666’s finger like a hat...
