That 911 is very, very, likely to be an inside job is really very simple. No need for even the recent fire-fighter reports of explosions which clearly suggest this. No need for very complicated details and complicated theory either. There is (unless we are in denial or blind) the simple yet indisputable evidence.
Free-fall
It is not possible for the WTC buildings to fall down at anywhere near free-fall (or the speed of something falling through the air) unless deliberately demolished. Think about it. Concrete and steel falling through concrete and steel has got to take much longer than concrete and steel falling through the air!
On top of that, unless deliberately demolished the chances against a building falling down into its own footprint are astronomical.
Those who support the official story say that the towers fell 'like a pack of cards' due to 'pancake' theory but if we have even the slightest commonsense, we know that it simply defies logic (and the laws of physics), for those buildings to come down at anywhere near free-fall - unless the material is blown out of the way so as to offer very little resistance.
It is NOT POSSIBLE for those towers to come down at anywhere near the speed they did, if they came down by a 'normal' fall. Why do people have a problem understanding this simple logic? If something is not possible, it is impossible. This is the like-it-or-not commonsense of physics and we can wish all we like that the official story is true but it won’t change the fact that the laws involving free-fall show that the official story makes no sense at all – its nonsense.
Molten Steel
On both sides of the argument it has been agreed that it was not possible for the steel to melt because of the fires at the World Trade Center, yet at the same time we could see molten steel pouring out of the side of the building!
This molten metal was not aluminium as some are saying because hot aluminium doesn't glow the same and the colour and brightness of the therefore molten steel, indicates that it was hotter than the dull red-orange fires.
Whether aluminiumn or steel is not the real point being made here when I say that anything getting to a higher temperature than the supposed source of heat is again, impossible and it should therefore be obvious that something else was involved other than planes crashing and the heat of those fires. This strongly suggests that Thermate was used... the residue of which chemical reaction has been found. I kid you not.
But those who believe the official story say that the evidence which points to Thermate (which contains sulphur) is a ‘mystery.’ Mystery, indeed. The ‘fingerprint’ of which shows that Thermate was used? I would like to know how many people have been convicted of murder on much less evidence!
There should be no dispute over the fact that the official story simply cannot be true. But perhaps my sentences are too long for some and (no matter how I try to put it) some still believe the official story, despite all the evidence against it.
Then we get those who say, "well, it happened a while ago now" as though this is an excuse to not look any further ... ignoring the fact that many thousands of people have been murdered on the basis of 911 which was used to ‘justify’ the so-called 'war on terror' - by using the terror of war!
What kind of logic says we can stop war and terror by causing more war and terror? What kind of logic says that the official story about 911 can be true, regardless of the mounting and obvious evidence against it? I am so sick of people being ignorant, who defy both commonsense and logic and it is high time for them to wake up!
To find more details and get closer to the truth behind any attack, we need to know at least two things. 1) Know thyself and 2) Know thy enemy. Apparently, many people don’t have much of a clue about either… 1) They don’t know themselves and are in denial and 2) they have no idea about who the real enemy is and what he is capable of doing.
How many times have stop-war people said that wars are orchestrated? Hello? Even after saying that wars are orchestrated, many still refuse to join dots to get a wider picture.
The wasted lives of thousands of victims on 9-11 and many more thousands through wars which have been waged in the name of 9-11, deserve to be honoured with the truth, not a pack of lies which come through controlled media onto a gullible public.
You want to stop war? If the truth about 911 was more fully known by the public, it would expose and blow wide open the whole conspiracy of why we are having these wars! The bottom line is this. Unless more people make efforts to expose what really happened on 9-11, we have little chance of stopping an evil war agenda that murders millions of people for money and power.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: legal challenge?
rodin wrote:
Agreed esp. about freefall
Can we not mount a legal challenge?
I hope we can. If I had the means I would spend every last penny to expose 9-11 for what it is. Where is peoples' conscience? Apart from bringing the guilty to justice, the fate of the world could depend on exposing 9-11 and if anyone who does have the means to mount a legal challenge, they should do so. Even if such an attempt only brings it to the publics' attention, it may tip the balance and do a lot of good.
What about getting celebrity 911 truthers to step up to the plate?
Or a fundraising campaign?
Are there any legal minds on the forum that could
1) figger out who to sue for complicity
2) how to frame a case
etc etc etc
I would fancy my chances in court explaining how freefall=demolition in layman's terms... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: blow wide open the whole conspiracy
truthseeker john wrote:
http://truthspeakout.blogspot.com/
Molten Steel
On both sides of the argument it has been agreed that it was not possible for the steel to melt because of the fires at the World Trade Center, yet at the same time we could see molten steel pouring out of the side of the building!
This molten metal was not aluminium as some are saying because hot aluminium doesn't glow the same and the colour and brightness of the therefore molten steel, indicates that it was hotter than the dull red-orange fires.
Whether aluminiumn or steel is not the real point being made here when I say that anything getting to a higher temperature than the supposed source of heat is again, impossible and it should therefore be obvious that something else was involved other than planes crashing and the heat of those fires. This strongly suggests that Thermate was used... the residue of which chemical reaction has been found. I kid you not.
John
It was molten lead that flowed out of the 81st floor of the South Tower. It originated in the racks of lead batteries housed on this floor to provide backup power for the computers of Fujii Bank (this information was communicated by an ex-employee of Fujji Bank to Christopher Bollyn)
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
Steel melted by thermate is thoroughly debunked at
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
As for Steven Jones detecting the sulphur residue left from the exothermic reaction between thermate and aluminium and , this is total baloney. What he found in a dust sample taken from a house 100 metres from WTC2 were iron particles containing sulphur. He did not prove that the latter came from thermate. It could have originated in many materials, such as the CaSO4 present in gypsum wallboard, which reacts with aluminium according to:
3CaSO4 + 2Al = 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2.
Here is a scientific paper that demonstrates plausible sources for the sulphur whose presence Jones wrongly ascribes to thermate:
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
Moreover, the fact that the iron particles he found were spherical does not mean that they had to be melted by thermate. High explosives also achieve very briefly very high temperatures that would melt iron particles blasted from steel columns and girders.
Some of you people who readily accept the tall stories from someone like Jones merely because you assume he knows what he is talking about, being a professor, should do your own research first and check whether he does. You will discover that his work is riddled with ad hoc assumptions and errors.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: blow wide open the whole conspiracy
Micpsi wrote:
truthseeker john wrote:
http://truthspeakout.blogspot.com/
Molten Steel
On both sides of the argument it has been agreed that it was not possible for the steel to melt because of the fires at the World Trade Center, yet at the same time we could see molten steel pouring out of the side of the building!
This molten metal was not aluminium as some are saying because hot aluminium doesn't glow the same and the colour and brightness of the therefore molten steel, indicates that it was hotter than the dull red-orange fires.
Whether aluminiumn or steel is not the real point being made here when I say that anything getting to a higher temperature than the supposed source of heat is again, impossible and it should therefore be obvious that something else was involved other than planes crashing and the heat of those fires. This strongly suggests that Thermate was used... the residue of which chemical reaction has been found. I kid you not.
John
It was molten lead that flowed out of the 81st floor of the South Tower. It originated in the racks of lead batteries housed on this floor to provide backup power for the computers of Fujii Bank (this information was communicated by an ex-employee of Fujji Bank to Christopher Bollyn)
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
Steel melted by thermate is thoroughly debunked at
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
As for Steven Jones detecting the sulphur residue left from the exothermic reaction between thermate and aluminium and , this is total baloney. What he found in a dust sample taken from a house 100 metres from WTC2 were iron particles containing sulphur. He did not prove that the latter came from thermate. It could have originated in many materials, such as the CaSO4 present in gypsum wallboard, which reacts with aluminium according to:
3CaSO4 + 2Al = 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2.
Here is a scientific paper that demonstrates plausible sources for the sulphur whose presence Jones wrongly ascribes to thermate:
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
Moreover, the fact that the iron particles he found were spherical does not mean that they had to be melted by thermate. High explosives also achieve very briefly very high temperatures that would melt iron particles blasted from steel columns and girders.
Some of you people who readily accept the tall stories from someone like Jones merely because you assume he knows what he is talking about, being a professor, should do your own research first and check whether he does. You will discover that his work is riddled with ad hoc assumptions and errors.
God, you politically biased people will say anything to dispute the facts. First it was alluminium, then when this idea isn't working, it's lead from batteries! Well they must have been some hell big batteries don't you think? Don't you think?! Talk about ad hoc assumptions and errors!
Now watch my lips...
Whether aluminiumn or steel or lead is not the real point being made here when I say that ANYTHING getting to a higher temperature than the supposed source of heat is impossible. And we don't need to be a professor to know this basic law of physics.
Quote:
gypsum wallboard, which reacts with aluminium....
Try it. Build a fire and get some wallboard and some alluminium and throw them on the fire. If anything it would tend to put the fire out!
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: Re: blow wide open the whole conspiracy
Micpsi wrote:
It could have originated in many materials, such as the CaSO4 present in gypsum wallboard, which reacts with aluminium according to:
3CaSO4 + 2Al = 3CaO + Al2O3 + 3SO2.
Oh really? But wait a minute FEMA, Mispi has identified the explanation! He apparently thinks that sulphur came out of wall-board and that this sulphur plus alluminium plus steel, like magic all powder themselves and without contamination and in the correct proportions and to the correct fineness produced a Thermate reaction! Yet at the same time he thinks that the explanation of the molten metal was some melted lead from batteries!
It may be difficult for some to grasp, so lets keep it simple... I gave only two examples that show that the official story cannot be true. Just two.
1) Free-fall and 2) the molten metal which was at a higher temperature than ordinary fires can achieve. If it is impossible for just one of these to happen (other than through controlled demolition), the fact remains that it is impossible for the official story to be true.
When all the evidence is pointing in the same direction, it would seem therefore, that beyond 'reasonable doubt' the official story simply cannot be true.
"Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding....."
""Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless," he (Fetzer) added, "they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon."
Last edited by truthseeker john on Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject:
blackcat wrote:
Quote:
unless deliberately demolished the chances against a building falling down into its own footprint are astronomical. "
"A" building!! Could you relate that sentence to WTC building 7 please?
Blackcat and lockerbie, let me clarify. Although towers 1 & 2 caused damage to other buildings, it can be said that all three towers fell into their own footprint - towers 7, 1 & 2 did not topple over sideways.
Last edited by truthseeker john on Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
to collapse within your own footprint would be to have the derbis fall within the perimeter, they fall in, an implosion. towers 1 and 2 didn't which makes sense since getting a building of that scale to collapse like that is pretty damn difficult. big tall things have great difficulty falling within their own perimeter.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject:
lockerbie wrote:
to collapse within your own footprint would be to have the derbis fall within the perimeter, they fall in, an implosion. towers 1 and 2 didn't which makes sense since getting a building of that scale to collapse like that is pretty damn difficult. big tall things have great difficulty falling within their own perimeter.
You are splitting hairs. The point is that it is very unlikely indeed for any of those towers to come down vertically unless they were demolished to do so.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
