[Vote] Who did 911?

[BlitzandBitz]

Official version?  The question is not whether people agree with all aspects of some "official version", but something entirely different.

It is about questioning the gigantic leap you made in your thinking between a comment by Rumsfield as to level of detail in transactions, to your presenting a theory of govenrment involvement in 911 to destroy records of 2T of transactions.  That ridiculous leap is the issue here.  That dog don't hunt.

And yes, accounting down to the transaction level is a product of very cheap computer memory.

Your colloquialisms sure are slicker than snot on a doorknob! Concluding that when 2.3 trillion dollars goes unaccounted for, that some or most of it may have been stolen is not a giant leap in logic, in fact when money goes missing that is usually the first thing people look at. Clearly there were many reasons for the 9/11 attacks, but pointing out one of the potential motives does not mean that was the only reason why it was perpetrated. Your failure in logic is your own inability to critically examine the inconsistencies of the 9/11 commission report because you are too busy "debunking".

It's not even "debunking."

I'm just trying to indicate that 8 annual entire budgets for the entire Defense department was not and is not "missing."  Keep in mind in this discussion that these budgets (which I doubt you have ever actually looked at, but please do) have black budgets right there laid out that way.    They don't have to tell you what they spent that money on, but you do get an idea of the size of those sub budgets.

You can't develop a conspiracy theory on it being an inside job by first, "making up" the word "missing" and then mis interpreting that word to allow for massive thievery that required a coverup.  That's ridiculous.  Look at the actual budgets and the actual things Rumsfield said and what he meant and you'll see.

So you have not "pointed out one of the potential motives."  Go ahead, point out some others that do make sense - be my guest.

That's the point.

The only ridiculous is spendulus

you still believe what the government shows you. so be it, hope that makes you sleep better
but am not swallowing that, and so is now most people of the world and all the families of people who perished in the 9/11... maybe they are wrong too. and the countless architect who proved that the free fall cannot happen because of jet fuel which has already burned out in the first 20-30 minutes of the crash, maybe they are wrong too, and rumsfeld saying a day before 9/11 that the pentagon cannot track 3.2 Trillion $. well maybe he was wrong too at that time. or he was drunk. then the countless other witnesses might be wrong too. and the person who "received" the passports of the hijackers from a man who ran right after giving him the passport, well maybe he was dreaming or he set up a lie. secret of the usa in wtc7 came to ash in a free fall from supposed heat from another building 1 football pitch away, well people who believe it was demolition, they might be wrong too. everybody is wrong except the people who governs usa and the specific companies directly involved with the president of that time, well they are right..

am i not right spendulus?

No, you have a rambling line of nonsense.  I've explained rumsfield.  You were wrong about steel, wrong about aluminum, wrong about light pieces of paper and plastic fluttering around, You were wrong about many other things.

Many of these things are based on chemistry and physics, so there isn't any "arguing" about them.

Basically you just need a warm comforting blanket inside which no Muslims do bad things, so you'd prefer a conspiracy where The Great Satan (USA) Did 911.

Oh, wait a minute.  There's that darn ISIS.   I guess there are some really evil people in the Muslim community.

Even the president of the ISIS USA has confirmed there are no Muslims in ISIS.

Do you have any proof of him saying this.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2977822-b85c-11e4-b6a5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Z5o51c67

Violent extremists in Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Islam, President Barack Obama said on Thursday, as he tried to separate the growing threat from terrorism in the Middle East from a discussion about religion.

Sounds more to me like he's just trying to cover the Muslim communities ass rather then saying isis isn't about Islam because its run by foreign governments.

[1715180556]

1715180556

[1715180556]

1715180556

[1715180556]

1715180556

[1715180556]

1715180556

[1715180556]

1715180556

[Spendulus]

but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?

This is an appeal to authority argument, premises unstated, experts unstated, facts scrambled.  Try to be more specific.

also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.



Obviously you've never used a torch and melted steel, or heated to red hot and then bent it easily.  This is not complicated.  You were wrong, jet fuel combustion can reach 4000F and steel melts in the mid 2200-2400F range.

when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?


There is no need for you to "ask questions" for which the answers can easily be googled.  Smoke varies in color, it is used by firefighters as a clue to what is going on inside the fire.

what causes white smoke?

More complete combustion typically yields no carbons in output therefore white.

why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?

Ever heard of elevator shafts?  Why are they sealed when a fire starts in a building?  Because fires rapidly move through elevator shafts.

how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?

What about it?  You want it to be quiet?


how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?

What do you expect, there to be no shock wave in the lobby?  1000 feet down from a 60 ton 500 mile per hour impact?

there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?

I personally don't care.

ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?

Because they didn't want to create a martyr?

why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.

Not interested in this.

how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?

Not interested.

why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?

If a building is structurally unsafe for use or not economic to rebuild, then destroy it of course.

how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.

1 football field away?   Let's work through some numbers.  Plane hits building at 84th floor, 97th floor - just say 1000 feet above ground.  Things take 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet.  Now the plane was going say 500 mph, if it hits the building how far do pieces fly horizontally before they hit the ground?

Unless they are slowed down by the impact...
500 * 5280/3600 = 733 feet per second

In other words, 8 seconds after impact they will hit the ground a mile away.  So what is 1 football field?

if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?

Look at war zones.  You'll see weird shit, untouched buildings right in middle of total devestation.


how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?

See above calculation.


ok so how about witnesses?

Yeah how about them?  Relatives of mine in New York tell me what they saw.  Like one that left WTC1 to go across the street to a Starbucks right before the plane hit.  Don't lecture people in the US about stuff like this.

euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?

Maybe some of them believe conspiracy theories. So what?

ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?

I haven't read the reports.  

did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?

Wow, what a nice guy.  Yes, I'd return the car, too.

[Netpyder]

but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?

This is an appeal to authority argument, premises unstated, experts unstated, facts scrambled.  Try to be more specific.

also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.



Obviously you've never used a torch and melted steel, or heated to red hot and then bent it easily.  This is not complicated.  You were wrong, jet fuel combustion can reach 4000F and steel melts in the mid 2200-2400F range.

when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?


There is no need for you to "ask questions" for which the answers can easily be googled.  Smoke varies in color, it is used by firefighters as a clue to what is going on inside the fire.

what causes white smoke?

More complete combustion typically yields no carbons in output therefore white.

why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?

Ever heard of elevator shafts?  Why are they sealed when a fire starts in a building?  Because fires rapidly move through elevator shafts.

how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?

What about it?  You want it to be quiet?


how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?

What do you expect, there to be no shock wave in the lobby?  1000 feet down from a 60 ton 500 mile per hour impact?

there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?

I personally don't care.

ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?

Because they didn't want to create a martyr?

why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.

Not interested in this.

how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?

Not interested.

why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?

If a building is structurally unsafe for use or not economic to rebuild, then destroy it of course.

how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.

1 football field away?   Let's work through some numbers.  Plane hits building at 84th floor, 97th floor - just say 1000 feet above ground.  Things take 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet.  Now the plane was going say 500 mph, if it hits the building how far do pieces fly horizontally before they hit the ground?

Unless they are slowed down by the impact...
500 * 5280/3600 = 733 feet per second

In other words, 8 seconds after impact they will hit the ground a mile away.  So what is 1 football field?

if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?

Look at war zones.  You'll see weird shit, untouched buildings right in middle of total devestation.


how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?

See above calculation.


ok so how about witnesses?

Yeah how about them?  Relatives of mine in New York tell me what they saw.  Like one that left WTC1 to go across the street to a Starbucks right before the plane hit.  Don't lecture people in the US about stuff like this.

euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?

Maybe some of them believe conspiracy theories. So what?

ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?

I haven't read the reports.  

did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?

Wow, what a nice guy.  Yes, I'd return the car, too.

everything is about your views and what you cant reply you are not interested.

i was excpecting answers based on experts analysis of it. backed with facts and proofs.

you are not an expert in demolition are you? nor a physicist. i would like answers based on their research. and please dont come foreward with NIST, we all know the story of NIST and GwBush as well as the security company with bush brother at head.

[BADecker]

The problem with the Twin Towers coming down is that there was no reason for it.

If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.

How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.

In the Towers, the short time that it took them to come down, was not nearly enough time to allow a sufficient amount of heat to penetrate the concrete so that it could affect the steel, since it wasn't blast furnace heat, but only standard burning heat. In addition, if there had been any significant amount of heat, the people standing in the crash-gaps on the Towers would have been burned to cinders long before the Towers could collapse. As it is, the people came down with the buildings, alive.

There is no report that shows how air could properly blow through the jet fuel to create high enough heat in the short time that it took the Towers to come down, to actually bring the Towers down. Why not? Because there wasn't enough time to heat the buildings sufficiently. And there wasn't any method whereby the air could mix with the fuel for the fuel to get sufficiently hot.

If the fires from the fuel brought the buildings down, it is time to evacuate New York high-rise buildings because they are improperly built, barely holding together as they sway in the wind, and are pure deathtraps.

The Towers would have to have been built much flimsier than they were for them to be brought down by fuel fires in this way.

[bumpk1nK]

What happened to the joos did it option? Why was it take down.

[Spendulus]

....
If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.

How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.

Paragraph 1 contradicts paragraph 2.  How nice.

In the Towers, the short time that it took them to come down, was not nearly enough time to allow a sufficient amount of heat to penetrate the concrete so that it could affect the steel, since it wasn't blast furnace heat, but only standard burning heat. In addition, if there had been any significant amount of heat, the people standing in the crash-gaps on the Towers would have been burned to cinders long before the Towers could collapse. As it is, the people came down with the buildings, alive.

There is no report that shows how air could properly blow through the jet fuel to create high enough heat in the short time that it took the Towers to come down, to actually bring the Towers down. Why not? Because there wasn't enough time to heat the buildings sufficiently. And there wasn't any method whereby the air could mix with the fuel for the fuel to get sufficiently hot.

If the fires from the fuel brought the buildings down, it is time to evacuate New York high-rise buildings because they are improperly built, barely holding together as they sway in the wind, and are pure deathtraps.

The Towers would have to have been built much flimsier than they were for them to be brought down by fuel fires in this way.

"Standard burning heat" is all it takes to turn iron red hot allowing it to have no more structural strength than mud.  Netpryer's question was about kerosene melting steel, this is easy.  Acetylene cutting torches melt steel everyday, by simply adding oxygen.   But that is not what is required to bring the structural framework down.  It is required to bring it up to about 1000F.  That's all.

http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fire_damage_assessment_of_hot_rolled_structural_steelwork

The second bolded item is what firefighters have been telling everybody for decades.

[Spendulus]

but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?

This is an appeal to authority argument, premises unstated, experts unstated, facts scrambled.  Try to be more specific.

also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.



Obviously you've never used a torch and melted steel, or heated to red hot and then bent it easily.  This is not complicated.  You were wrong, jet fuel combustion can reach 4000F and steel melts in the mid 2200-2400F range.

when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?


There is no need for you to "ask questions" for which the answers can easily be googled.  Smoke varies in color, it is used by firefighters as a clue to what is going on inside the fire.

what causes white smoke?

More complete combustion typically yields no carbons in output therefore white.

why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?

Ever heard of elevator shafts?  Why are they sealed when a fire starts in a building?  Because fires rapidly move through elevator shafts.

how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?

What about it?  You want it to be quiet?


how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?

What do you expect, there to be no shock wave in the lobby?  1000 feet down from a 60 ton 500 mile per hour impact?

there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?

I personally don't care.

ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?

Because they didn't want to create a martyr?

why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.

Not interested in this.

how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?

Not interested.

why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?

If a building is structurally unsafe for use or not economic to rebuild, then destroy it of course.

how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.

1 football field away?   Let's work through some numbers.  Plane hits building at 84th floor, 97th floor - just say 1000 feet above ground.  Things take 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet.  Now the plane was going say 500 mph, if it hits the building how far do pieces fly horizontally before they hit the ground?

Unless they are slowed down by the impact...
500 * 5280/3600 = 733 feet per second

In other words, 8 seconds after impact they will hit the ground a mile away.  So what is 1 football field?

if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?

Look at war zones.  You'll see weird shit, untouched buildings right in middle of total devestation.


how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?

See above calculation.


ok so how about witnesses?

Yeah how about them?  Relatives of mine in New York tell me what they saw.  Like one that left WTC1 to go across the street to a Starbucks right before the plane hit.  Don't lecture people in the US about stuff like this.

euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?

Maybe some of them believe conspiracy theories. So what?

ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?

I haven't read the reports.  

did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?

Wow, what a nice guy.  Yes, I'd return the car, too.

everything is about your views and what you cant reply you are not interested.

i was excpecting answers based on experts analysis of it. backed with facts and proofs.

you are not an expert in demolition are you? nor a physicist. i would like answers based on their research. and please dont come foreward with NIST, we all know the story of NIST and GwBush as well as the security company with bush brother at head.

What you are doing is what is called "Only seeking confirming evidence" on your personal beliefs.  Some of your questions I have no interest in.  None whatsoever.  Perhaps in your mind "Bin Laden looking different" is important to 911.  But that's way down deep in your paranoid conspiracy theory.  And it's a matter of opinion.You can't expect other people to pay attention to that. 

I've answered the questions above which do have answers.

Now, how about your assertions that something one or two football fields away couldn't possibly have been harmed by debris? 

Do you still maintain that is truth, or do you accept my answer?  Just like you pretty much have to accept an answer that kerosene will melt steel - well, unless you are a science denier.

[BADecker]

The problem with the Twin Towers coming down is that there was no reason for it.

If you can properly control jet fuel combustion, then and only then will its heat reach temperatures like 4,000 or 5,000 degrees. In order to get the fuel to reach these temps, you have to supply oxygen (not just air, which is only about 20% oxygen) at just the right mixture, and in just the right way. Additions of simple air to the fuel in ways that simply burn the fuel, will not do it.

How do we know this? We know it because it is very difficult for backyard mechanics to build a kiln, with a blower or bellows, that gets steel hot enough to melt. If it is done just right, it often takes hours to melt the steel with just the right concentrations of air blowing "through" the fuel.

In the Towers, the short time that it took them to come down, was not nearly enough time to allow a sufficient amount of heat to penetrate the concrete so that it could affect the steel, since it wasn't blast furnace heat, but only standard burning heat. In addition, if there had been any significant amount of heat, the people standing in the crash-gaps on the Towers would have been burned to cinders long before the Towers could collapse. As it is, the people came down with the buildings, alive.

There is no report that shows how air could properly blow through the jet fuel to create high enough heat in the short time that it took the Towers to come down, to actually bring the Towers down. Why not? Because there wasn't enough time to heat the buildings sufficiently. And there wasn't any method whereby the air could mix with the fuel for the fuel to get sufficiently hot.

If the fires from the fuel brought the buildings down, it is time to evacuate New York high-rise buildings because they are improperly built, barely holding together as they sway in the wind, and are pure deathtraps.

The Towers would have to have been built much flimsier than they were for them to be brought down by fuel fires in this way.

That's all a good and valid.

In addition the twin towers were designed to withstand strikes from very large planes. It is always possible that protections against things like that will fall short, but to knock down three buildings with two planes is a bit much.

Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 events. A person can argue and argue whether it is antisemitic, the evidence is what it is. A lot of it could be fabricated but what remains is still formidable.

But zios did not have a visible hand in the other events in other cities, nor in various setting up operations outside NYC that were discovered post 911.

The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events, probably acting under the control of some big shot zio in Israel. The evidence though implicates a lot of other big shots in other governments too though. Look at the actions of the director of Saudi 'intelligence', sorry, that needs half quotes, as well as the Saudi us ambassador. And other countries seem to have people peripherally involved at high levels, including the U.S.

The evidence seems to be that 911 was engineered by people from various countries and the evidence seems to show that the purpose of 911 was to draw or push the U.S. into Afghanistan. Anyone who knows anything about the Taliban would dismiss the logic used to justify the invasion. It makes no sense to invade Afghanistan since Afghanistan and the Taliban were not implicated in any part of 911. Bin laden supposedly passed through there, that is all.

So why would the U.S. be made to invade Afghanistan? Who would benefit?

Again, if you look at the players that are known, there is only one scenario so far that works. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102158/Heroin-production-Afghanistan-RISEN-61.html

Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence, but collectively their ties to the opium trade are not remarkable. Same can be said about Saudis, Americans and others who left 911 fingerprints.

Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. They are predictable and clumsy. Before 911 certain things happened that seem to have been deliberate pieces of evidence left that would implicate Zionists after the events took place. In other words some of the evidence for Zionist involvement was deliberately left.

Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the NYC part of the 912 events. They predictably started trying to cover up that evidence, explain it away, etc. In other words they were feeding a fire by fighting facts, basically oil on the fire. Worse, they decided to opportunistically add Iraq into the mix. Like "Hey, why not at least get some benefit from this". The so called neocons provided a framework to do that.

Anyway, in recent weeks people in the U.S. government has made tentative steps to start pointing the finger at the Saudis.

Is there evidence that some very high ranking Saudis were involved in 911? Overwhelming evidence.

And on and on. As various people and groups start to figure out what really happened on 911 they start maneuvering into a position to profit from it and the 'war on terror' and other nonsense that followed it.

But again the question here refers only to 911, not to all the events engineered afterwards by others to profit from it.

Saudi Arabia is the one to watch now as they slowly self destruct and their "allies" in the U.S. start trickling out secret reports about their 'involvement in 911'.

A huge amount of the world's heroin supply flows through airports in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both of those countries, ostensibly enemies, execute lots of people for drugs but there is too much evidence that the big heroin king pins in that region are Saudi princes and Iranian leaders who are untouchable.

So watch as more and more news starts coming about 'Saudis and 911'.

My point is to focus on something that easily shows that there is a whole lot more to 9/11 than meets the eye.

Who actually did it? The answer might be found in the question, Who actually runs the governments of the world? Yours is a more direct answer to the 9/11 question, and I accept it. However, it is difficult for folks to follow all the inside tracks of what you say.

There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.

Most people will hardly have a clue about the things that you say. But many people all over the world readily understand the mechanics of what I say.

Hopefully all people will see that 9/11 was an inside job to some extent at least. And that the part of it that was an "outside" job was not the simple thing that government would have us believe.

[wunkbone]

I personally don't blame the entire muslim community they are just one community like others and ravans and rakshas can be found everywhere

[harlenadler]

All you need to know about the topic is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

[Bitcoin Buyer Reload]

but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?

This is an appeal to authority argument, premises unstated, experts unstated, facts scrambled.  Try to be more specific.

also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.



Obviously you've never used a torch and melted steel, or heated to red hot and then bent it easily.  This is not complicated.  You were wrong, jet fuel combustion can reach 4000F and steel melts in the mid 2200-2400F range.

when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?


There is no need for you to "ask questions" for which the answers can easily be googled.  Smoke varies in color, it is used by firefighters as a clue to what is going on inside the fire.

what causes white smoke?

More complete combustion typically yields no carbons in output therefore white.

why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?

Ever heard of elevator shafts?  Why are they sealed when a fire starts in a building?  Because fires rapidly move through elevator shafts.

how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?

What about it?  You want it to be quiet?


how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?

What do you expect, there to be no shock wave in the lobby?  1000 feet down from a 60 ton 500 mile per hour impact?

there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?

I personally don't care.

ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?

Because they didn't want to create a martyr?

why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.

Not interested in this.

how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?

Not interested.

why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?

If a building is structurally unsafe for use or not economic to rebuild, then destroy it of course.

how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.

1 football field away?   Let's work through some numbers.  Plane hits building at 84th floor, 97th floor - just say 1000 feet above ground.  Things take 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet.  Now the plane was going say 500 mph, if it hits the building how far do pieces fly horizontally before they hit the ground?

Unless they are slowed down by the impact...
500 * 5280/3600 = 733 feet per second

In other words, 8 seconds after impact they will hit the ground a mile away.  So what is 1 football field?

if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?

Look at war zones.  You'll see weird shit, untouched buildings right in middle of total devestation.


how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?

See above calculation.


ok so how about witnesses?

Yeah how about them?  Relatives of mine in New York tell me what they saw.  Like one that left WTC1 to go across the street to a Starbucks right before the plane hit.  Don't lecture people in the US about stuff like this.

euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?

Maybe some of them believe conspiracy theories. So what?

ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?

I haven't read the reports.  

did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?

Wow, what a nice guy.  Yes, I'd return the car, too.

everything is about your views and what you cant reply you are not interested.

i was excpecting answers based on experts analysis of it. backed with facts and proofs.

you are not an expert in demolition are you? nor a physicist. i would like answers based on their research. and please dont come foreward with NIST, we all know the story of NIST and GwBush as well as the security company with bush brother at head.

What you are doing is what is called "Only seeking confirming evidence" on your personal beliefs.  Some of your questions I have no interest in.  None whatsoever.  Perhaps in your mind "Bin Laden looking different" is important to 911.  But that's way down deep in your paranoid conspiracy theory.  And it's a matter of opinion.You can't expect other people to pay attention to that. 

I've answered the questions above which do have answers.

Now, how about your assertions that something one or two football fields away couldn't possibly have been harmed by debris? 

Do you still maintain that is truth, or do you accept my answer?  Just like you pretty much have to accept an answer that kerosene will melt steel - well, unless you are a science denier.

the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real

[Spendulus]

......

the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real

If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing.  Just heat it at one point.

....
There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....

Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step.

[Spendulus]

....
Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 ....

The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events....
....
Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence,....

Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. .....

Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the .....

Wow, you are really a Jew-hater. 

[Netpyder]

......

the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real

If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing.  Just heat it at one point.

....
There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....

Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step.

here is the thing it didnt BEND, the steel completely melted, there is a difference between melting and bending steel.

[freakying99]

It was the fucking Muslim terrorists who did 9-11. I don't think there is much argument there. No one else. Just the Muslim terrorists.

[Spendulus]

......

the amount of kerosene needed to burn down a 140 storey building's steel makes your comment pretty much un real

If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing.  Just heat it at one point.

....
There are many people all over the place who understand the mechanics of combustion and heat transfer. Once we can show that the Towers most certainly couldn't have come down by the bit of burning fuel that might have happened to burn inside the buildings, then we can go on to the next step.
....

Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step.

here is the thing it didnt BEND, the steel completely melted, there is a difference between melting and bending steel.

And I already showed that a kerosene could melt steel.  No big deal.  But I would disagee that the "steel melted", at least the structural beams.  Because the building goes down when they lose strength, and that is a long time before they "melt". 

It was the fucking Muslim terrorists who did 9-11. I don't think there is much argument there. No one else. Just the Muslim terrorists.

Right.  What you are seeing in this thread and other similar ones on this forum over the last three years is active dis information campaigns.  Almost certainly funded by Islamic/poltical groups who seek to confuse the gullible.

[mladen00]

....
Looking further there does seem to be enough evidence that zios were involved in the NY part of the 911 ....

The evidence seems to be that a small group of zios were involved in the NYC events....
....
Zios, like many other groups, have a history oif using trickery and violence,....

Zios, above all, are stupid though, both in their violence and their trickery. .....

Why is this important? Zios reacted predictably after evidence came out linking them to the .....

Wow, you are really a Jew-hater. 

they are ''working'' on a new zionist country (Ukraine)....
zionist hater isnt Jew hater.
Jew's are good peoples, bud zion movement...

[Spendulus]

Right.  What you are seeing in this thread and other similar ones on this forum over the last three years is active dis information campaigns.  Almost certainly funded by Islamic/poltical groups who seek to confuse the gullible.

Which of the following facts do you dispute?

1) There is plenty of evidence that extremist young Muslims were involved in 911.

2) There is plenty of evidence that zionists have been trying to deflect evidence that young Zionists were involved in the NYC portion of 911.

3) Some of the evidence for Zionist participation is absurd but compelling. In other words it is ridiculous that such evidence would exist, but still it is strong evidence, for example http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579 from Sept 26, 2001. Remember even haaretz must obey the censor, especially at a time like that. The news was known to journalists in Israel. It was given to the censor. He or she approved it for haaretz.

4) Heroin is a multi billion dollar a year business and there are vast numbers of stories that strongly suggest a significant part of the trade is locked up by officials of numerous countries. Google CIA drugs and glance at the 5th article on each of the first 50 pages of results.

5) Heroin production shifted from the Vietnam region once that war ended to various other areas more agreeable, including Afghanistan. By the year 2000 most of the world's heroin came from Afghanistan.

6) In roughly July 2001 the Taliban announced that they had eradicated heroin. It was about to no longer exist as a street drug. There would be virtually zero supply internationally, within a short time.

7) Very quickly after Afghanistan was invaded the opium crop was started again and began increasing rapidly.

There were numerous theories about 911, none of which seemed to account for all of the evidence.

9) Perhaps the most notable aspect of the 'conspiracies' was not so much the conspiracies themselves but the aggressive stances taken by Zionists to clumsily distort evidence that some of those involved were Israelis. In other words the real story became not "multiple coordinated attacks on sept 11", but rather "what are the Zionists hiding about the NYC attacks, and what does that imply about the rest of the attacks".

The evidence does not point to "Zionists led 911".

The evidence does point to "Some powerful group with a stake specifically in Afghanistan agriculture, and group which had high level power in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries in Asia and Europe deliberately set up Zionists and some other groups in a way that would keep people guessing for years".

Frankly it sounds like total absolute bullshit.   It was no secret that Islamic terrorists were planning some sort of attack, at least one report said using aircraft.  However the US intelligence agencies did not know the exact timing and did not know the cities involved.  No question Israeli intelligence were around in a mad scramble to try to figure it all out.

Your conspiracy theory is not worth discussion.

[Netpyder]

Right.  What you are seeing in this thread and other similar ones on this forum over the last three years is active dis information campaigns.  Almost certainly funded by Islamic/poltical groups who seek to confuse the gullible.

Which of the following facts do you dispute?

1) There is plenty of evidence that extremist young Muslims were involved in 911.

2) There is plenty of evidence that zionists have been trying to deflect evidence that young Zionists were involved in the NYC portion of 911.

3) Some of the evidence for Zionist participation is absurd but compelling. In other words it is ridiculous that such evidence would exist, but still it is strong evidence, for example http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579 from Sept 26, 2001. Remember even haaretz must obey the censor, especially at a time like that. The news was known to journalists in Israel. It was given to the censor. He or she approved it for haaretz.

4) Heroin is a multi billion dollar a year business and there are vast numbers of stories that strongly suggest a significant part of the trade is locked up by officials of numerous countries. Google CIA drugs and glance at the 5th article on each of the first 50 pages of results.

5) Heroin production shifted from the Vietnam region once that war ended to various other areas more agreeable, including Afghanistan. By the year 2000 most of the world's heroin came from Afghanistan.

6) In roughly July 2001 the Taliban announced that they had eradicated heroin. It was about to no longer exist as a street drug. There would be virtually zero supply internationally, within a short time.

7) Very quickly after Afghanistan was invaded the opium crop was started again and began increasing rapidly.

There were numerous theories about 911, none of which seemed to account for all of the evidence.

9) Perhaps the most notable aspect of the 'conspiracies' was not so much the conspiracies themselves but the aggressive stances taken by Zionists to clumsily distort evidence that some of those involved were Israelis. In other words the real story became not "multiple coordinated attacks on sept 11", but rather "what are the Zionists hiding about the NYC attacks, and what does that imply about the rest of the attacks".

The evidence does not point to "Zionists led 911".

The evidence does point to "Some powerful group with a stake specifically in Afghanistan agriculture, and group which had high level power in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries in Asia and Europe deliberately set up Zionists and some other groups in a way that would keep people guessing for years".

Frankly it sounds like total absolute bullshit.   It was no secret that Islamic terrorists were planning some sort of attack, at least one report said using aircraft.  However the US intelligence agencies did not know the exact timing and did not know the cities involved.  No question Israeli intelligence were around in a mad scramble to try to figure it all out.

Your conspiracy theory is not worth discussion.

at least one report says and you think they are right ? on the opposite there are countless reports denying any relation of 9/11 to Islam and you deny that one?

eerybody is wrong only what spendulus believe is right is right, right?

[Aggressor66]

A top Iranian military commander has accused the United States of carrying out the 9/11 terror attacks in order to justify an invasion of the Middle East "with the goal of ruling it".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/911-iranian-general-accuses-us-of-organising-september-11-terror-attacks-10206942.html