What Really Happened on 9/11?

it's not theory if you can prove it.

all that post can be wrapped up in one small hour long DVD. "Loose Change 2nd Edition" contains tons of evidence for consideration, that extremist "Muslims" were not responsible for 911.

The first thing for consideration?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1



Second thing for consideration?

WTC7. Fell in under 7 seconds at the rate of freefall in a vacuum. Ie it fell faster than the laws of physics allowed. And did a plane hit it? No.

If the government truly had nothing to hide, why not simply release this video camera shot.



Simply search for Loose Change 2nd Edition on eB*y, or PM me an address and I'll send one out if you don't have eB*y.



All thats needed and wanted is a proper INDEPENDENT investigation.

Such as?

This thread proves this forum is an absolute waste of time to try to debate with whacko, leftist, liberals. You people truly take the cake. Needless to say, I did not read the entire first post. I read far enough to realize the people did not have enough mental capability to know that crumbling steel and other components of a high rise building of that magnitude are going to pop and explode when it collapses, duh.

Into micron fine dust powder? Simply from falling to the ground? No sir, that takes explosives. :wink:

drummerboy, I've got the first loosechange. I haven't seen the 2nd edition yet.

When are the real Americans going to prove us whako, trader, liberal, American haters wrong once and for all?

....or maybe we are the real Americans.

not me, I'm a Brit

PM me if you want Loose Change 2nd Edition. Or look on Ebay.

I have a friend who's got it i'll watch it with him.

Does it have anything on the "plane" that hit the pentagon?

Whacko theory no. 1
The buildings were "cut" with explosives

Well, the USEPA and the NYDEC and the NYC EPA had conducted significant sampling and air monitoring . The use of explosives leave a series of characteristic Nitrogen based compounds after detonation. To 9preumably cut this much building mass) a great deal of exlosives would have been needed. NO TRACES OF EXPLOSIVES WERE FOUND and they looked , you cant tell a GC "not to scan" its library to identify TICs (tentatively identified compounds) Why, cause the machines are audited for sequence batches and accuracy, so internals like clocks and computers (while they can be futzed with) would require that every technician in the EPA, DEC,NYC EPA would have been "in on it".
Thats too much to believe.
Even in the Civil war when Grant had finally taken command, he adopted a policy that Lincoln himself was generally kept out of the loop cause even Lincoln recognized that he had a "big mouth".

QED, youre all wet.

I'm interested in checking this out. Do you remember where you got the information from?

This is not a trick question. I would really like to check it out.

well, all monitoring data is kept by the EPA, the DEC and the city. I havea friend who runs the air toxics program for the PA DEP who told me about the mionitoring networks .
I hope you remember the news footage of all this monitoring equipment and the news stories.
As far as the building WTC-dropping faster than gravity could account, didnt this building come down later that day as a result of structural failure.

Ill get back to you on the plane in DC.

About the "plane" in DC and this is important.

Where is the damage from the wings? Where's the wreckage?

Maybe it was poltergeist. Someone should check and see if the towers were built on the site of a former graveyard.

preface : haven't read the whole thread.

a scientist from queen's university at kingston/ontario/canada (my hometown) was a member of the team investigating the collapse of the WTC from an engenineering point of view(i believe he is a specialist in "concrete" materials).
in an interview with the local paper he stated that in the teams' opinion - and that's all it could be, an opinion based upon research and material testing - , the very rapid disintegration of the WTC was due to the fact that it was never build to withstand the destructive forces experienced by the impact and the heat generated from the burning fuel. he described the WTC as a fairly "ordinary" building that , while it looked quite imposing, was nothing more than jazzed-up concrete building. he further stated that, if more extensive material strength testing would have been done at the time the building was erected, it would have been evident that it was not constructed to withstand any kind of major impact.

imo at the time the WTC was erected nobody would have been willing to pay for a building of sufficient strenght to withstand such an impact (who would have believed that a jetliner would be flown into the WTC).
i suppose it's somewhat like looking at a strong-looking building crumbling in an earth-quake. as a layperson i wonder why such buildings simply crumble, while other buildings that have a certain amount of flexibility remain relatively undamaged.

i seem to recell that in turkey many modern concrete buildings crumbled in an earthquake while much more frail-looking and older buildings remained standing. as was later reported, the new buildings were simple too rigid to allow any movement and were doomed to fail.

a layperson's opinion. hbg

on all types of explosives?

You need to have a word with Steve Jones, Professor at Brigham Young Uni, Utah. He would disagree.

theonly explosives that dont leave Nitrogen residues are
gunpowders
deflagration agents (we rarely use these )
nuclear devices

I dont know who Steve Jones is, but if he works with explosives hed agree with me.

Of course they coulda used fireworks.

All from cutting blast agents are Nitrogen based. (PETN), det chords etc.


I work in explosives all the time, even blasting caps are based on diazo compounds (trip bonded Nitrogens)

so then you'd know roughly how much power it takes to turn concrete into micron fine dust?

This is pretty good work. How long did it take you to do this? Please view my 911 topic (which is much shorter. I'am not saying that Zippo's post is to long i'am just saying that mine is shorter.) It focuses on the attack on the Pentagon.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70191&highlight=

I suggest everyone watch Dylan Avery's "Loose Change". It's available on google video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=Loose+Change

If you can refute any of these, I am all eyes.

You conspiracy nuts need to take a strong laxative and purge yourselves of your paranoia.

This is silly and only shows your myopia at full force. As we know it is far more easier to result to an ad hominem fallacy, than to actually engage in a discussion. It's far more easier to revert back into the prism of what you have been taught to be true since birth from every orifice of communication.

Conspiracies are recognzied in all legal systems. The definition of conspiracy itself implies secrecy. The nature of government is secret, therefore conspiracy is the tissie that connects it all. Furthermore the exectuve branch has no authority to declare war, yet this is what it has done since World War II. Who is lying, and why? After all, the warmongers would have you believe that conspiracies are things that only occur in banana republics, Communist nations or nowadays, among terrorists or nations who harbor terrorism. As Michael Parenti said in Dirty Truths, City Lights Books, 1996:

"Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists."

There is no such thing as conspiracies. Only paranoid nuts believe in those.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml