Osama Bin Laden Dead!

[Steven]

Department of Defense Turns Nazi – Buys And Burns Every Copy of Book Revealing Evidence Of 9/11 Cover Up

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” John 8:32

[Webbo]

People were obviously jumping out the windows if they were close to the inferno, I dont recall seeing people jumping from the 2nd or 3rd floor windows where the fuel supposedly leaked too?

Do you think that maybe they managed to get down the stairs?

[Phube]

Do you think that maybe they managed to get down the stairs?

[MPH]

Department of Defense Turns Nazi – Buys And Burns Every Copy of Book Revealing Evidence Of 9/11 Cover Up

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” John 8:32

I dont see them trying to shut down all the websites that have the 'cover up evidence' on it....

[zubi]

Do you think that maybe they managed to get down the stairs?

ha epic fail my bad.

[zubi]

I dont see them trying to shut down all the websites that have the 'cover up evidence' on it....

You couldn't really shut them all down, that's just an obvious cover up within a cover up. Too many people follow the likes of Infowars, shutting down Alex Jones will result in protests and more 9/11 "truthers" to come out of hiding.

They probably hope that the general populous just see them as unpatriotic and anarchists, and hope they are too ignorant and arrogant to even read or listen to what they have to say.

After all...

[Zingari]

Nope.

the sheer heat generated from that inferno was so intense people were jumnping to their death to try and escape it. heated Steel loses strength. Simples.Added to the structural damage caused by the plane and you have however many millions of tons on its way down...

And stupidly, the steel used for the twin towers was not insulated and was a relatively light weight grade of steel.

I dont see whats so difficult for people to understand?

i

The uniformity , free fall speed and symmetric nature of all three of the collapses are the main sticking points .

surely if buildings are damaged with fires spread randomly , then surely the collapses won't look like any of the wtc buildings , they would fall assymetrically .and outwardly away from the structure below taking the path of easiest resistance

The only way the upper part of a building can fall in on itself, is if explosives are used to create a space for them to fall into .

The ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse (even if it were possible) would take a lot longer that 10 / 12 seconds as each floor collapsing would be slowed down by the one below

i don't know where the evidence that all three buildings were light weight steel comes from as all the information that i have is that they were massively over engineered

to withstand aircraft hits and 100 year storms

And people would be jumping out of buildings at much lower temps than that needed to weaken steel , (i doubt if anyone could withstand temperatures of 200 degrees let alone 1600 )so this point is not even valid

[marko]

i

The uniformity , free fall speed and symmetric nature of all three of the collapses are the main sticking points .

surely if buildings are damaged with fires spread randomly , then surely the collapses won't look like any of the wtc buildings , they would fall assymetrically .and outwardly away from the structure below taking the path of easiest resistance

The only way the upper part of a building can fall in on itself, is if explosives are used to create a space for them to fall into .

The ridiculous "pancake theory" collapse (even if it were possible) would take a lot longer that 10 / 12 seconds as each floor collapsing would be slowed down by the one below

i don't know where the evidence that all three buildings were light weight steel comes from as all the information that i have is that they were massively over engineered

to withstand aircraft hits and 100 year storms

And people would be jumping out of buildings at much lower temps than that needed to weaken steel , (i doubt if anyone could withstand temperatures of 200 degrees let alone 1600 )so this point is not even valid

So where are the sounds of the explosives going off?

Listen to these controlled demolition and there is clearly a huge noise when the explosive are set off, it's unmistakable would you not agree?

Controlled Demolition 1

skip to around 50 seconds

Then compare it to the WTC collapse - I personally can't hear any explosives being let off and if you think about the sheer amount of explosives it would need to bring down such a structure do you not concede that it would be possible to hear the detonation of the explosives?

WTC Collapse

skip to 1.15. You can hear people reactions on the street so explosions would be heard on the film.

skip to around 25 seconds for collapse. You can clearly hear the helicopter in the background so again, any explosives would be clearly audible above the chopper.

I would be interested in the views of the conspiracy theorists of why the WTC collapse sounds nothing like a controlled demolition.

EDIT: spelling

[Zingari]

who says there were no explosions ?

there are masses reports of explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

[Zingari]

here's a report of explosions from someone who was in wtc1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib4jlVMmyQ0

[marko]

Two of your videos contradict each other. The guy being interviewed said he felt an explosion BEFORE the planes impact and the news montage says AFTER - again with varying reports of time and frequency. Lets says all your reports are 100% correct for arguments - is it beyonds the realms of possibility that some terrorists has put a bomb in a van and parked it under the WTC, as a form of "insurance" if you will? They seem like a fairly determined bunch.

[BoneDog]

So where are the sounds of the explosives going off?

Here's some more. Loads of different firefighters and paramedics first hand evidence in here.

[Zingari]

Two of your videos contradict each other. The guy being interviewed said he felt an explosion BEFORE the planes impact and the news montage says AFTER - again with varying reports of time and frequency. Lets says all your reports are 100% correct for arguments - is it beyonds the realms of possibility that some terrorists has put a bomb in a van and parked it under the WTC, as a form of "insurance" if you will? They seem like a fairly determined bunch.

just think about that because it's a very good reason why the crime scene should not have been so hastily cleaned up and the scrap steel sent to china.

i realise the local area needed to be cleared but there must be hundred of acres of spare land to put the debris for examination by forensic experts

if someone had planted bombs into all 3 wtc building they must have had pretty good access and the security would need to have answered many embarrassing questions

who was head of security ?

step forward mr marvin bush ( brother of george )

suspicious ? no ?

oh well

[BoneDog]

Scientifically impossible? Thank you professor El Empty, but I'd rather trust Isaac Newton on this.

Force = Mass * Acceleration

A simple equation from my GCSE days but certainly correct, one you would do well to remember.

As MPH said steel loses integrity and strength the closer to its melting point it gets.

Newton would have also said that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at freefall speed wouldn't he?

The steel got nowhere near hot enough to lose strength. Where is the evidence for this? They cleared it up and no investigation was ever done to prove anything about the steel losing strength. From everything I've read about it I'm convinced that the fire never got anywhere near hot enough to start melting any steel. Many scientists agree with this. After the initial fireballs the fire was between 250 and 450 degrees. Steel is also a great heat conductor and many scientists have said that the vast size of the steel columns would have drastically reduced the temperature the beams could reach, especially in the short time the fires burned.

Many scientists say that even if the fires burned for another ten hours that the buildings still wouldn't have came down like they did.

(on a side note, that National Geographic documentary experiment with melting steel has already been debunked by scientists)

[MPH]

Newton would have also said that it was impossible for the buildings to fall at freefall speed wouldn't he?

The steel got nowhere near hot enough to lose strength. Where is the evidence for this? They cleared it up and no investigation was ever done to prove anything about the steel losing strength. From everything I've read about it I'm convinced that the fire never got anywhere near hot enough to start melting any steel. Many scientists agree with this. After the initial fireballs the fire was between 250 and 450 degrees. Steel is also a great heat conductor and many scientists have said that the vast size of the steel columns would have drastically reduced the temperature the beams could reach, especially in the short time the fires burned.

Many scientists say that even if the fires burned for another ten hours that the buildings still wouldn't have came down like they did.

(on a side note, that National Geographic documentary experiment with melting steel has already been debunked by scientists)

If you do not think there is evidence to prove it got hot enought to start losing its integrity then, due to the same missing evidence, as you call it, how can you be so sure it did NOT get that hot? How can You prove it didn't get that hot?

Besides, nowhere did I say the steel melted. If you read what I wrote again you will see that I said that the hotter steel gets the more strength it looses.

[Zingari]

If you do not think there is evidence to prove it got hot enought to start losing its integrity then, due to the same missing evidence, as you call it, how can you be so sure it did NOT get that hot? How can You prove it didn't get that hot?

the dense black smoke billowing out is a very good indication of oxygen starved fires

this is what a hot fire looks like , it burned for 19 hours and the building did not collapse or even distort

[Babylon]

Building collapsing makes large noise.... What a shocker.

Obviously a bomb

[Zingari]

Building collapsing makes large noise.... What a shocker.

Obviously a bomb

no , make that "lots of loud noises like bombs going off"

watch it again ( or maybe even watch it for the first time judging by your response )

[Babylon]

no , make that "lots of loud noises like bombs going off"

watch it again ( or maybe even watch it for the first time judging by your response )

The only this that video proves is that you are so desperate for a conspiracy you'll look for things that aren't even there.

a) you can't see the building to see the first movements.

b) a falling building will make noise.

c) stop posting shit and post some EVIDENCE, you know, stuff that wouldn't get laughed out of court or ridiculed under cross examination.

[Babylon]

the dense black smoke billowing out is a very good indication of oxygen starved fires

this is what a hot fire looks like , it burned for 19 hours and the building did not collapse or even distort

a) How high is that building?

b) What floors were the fires on?

c) Did it have a commercial airliner smash the shit out of it prior to the fire?

[Zingari]

a) How high is that building?

b) What floors were the fires on?

c) Did it have a commercial airliner smash the shit out of it prior to the fire?

a) Windsor tower Madrid is 32 floors high , not too dissimilar to wtc 7 at 47 floors , (or is there a critical amount of floors between 32 and 47 that makes a building so unstable due to fire that makes it liable to total freefall collapse ?)if so you ought to notify the construction industruy because i don't think that they are aware of it

b) all of them , it was engulfed in a raging inferno for between 19 and 22 hours, unlike the silly little sporadic fires in wtc7

c) no but then neither did wtc 7 ,

question d) the really important one !

did you hear of any reports of any bangs or loud bomb like explosions during the windsor tower inferno ?

no , thats probably why it didn't fall down

[Babylon]

a) Windsor tower Madrid is 32 floors high , not too dissimilar to wtc 7 at 47 floors

A third smaller = not too dissimilar? The smaller the building the less mass, the less downward force. Of course it makes a difference depending on the type of damage.

c) no but then neither did wtc 7 ,

So the Madrid one was his by debris of a massive building falling nearby then?

question d) the really important one !

did you hear of any reports of any bangs or loud bomb like explosions during the windsor tower inferno ?

no , thats probably why it didn't fall down

Errr.... more like it didn't fall and that's why it didn't make a noise.

[Zingari]

A third smaller = not too dissimilar? The smaller the building the less mass, the less downward force. Of course it makes a difference depending on the type of damage.

So the Madrid one was his by debris of a massive building falling nearby then?

Errr.... more like it didn't fall and that's why it didn't make a noise.

how many more times ?

a building hit by debris would not fall symmetrically at free-fall speed .

there was another building between the north tower and wtc 7 that suffered worse damage which remained standing ,but this was not lease owned by Silverstein who has the distinction of being the only man to have owned not 1 but all 3 of the steel framed buildings that have collapsed

err...the explosions were clearly heard prior to the collapses

[l444ry]

For these people who haven't heard or seen any evidence that disproves 9/11 was an inside job or that the moon landing was faked, you are obviously not trying. For everything that is stated for the conspiracy theory to be true it has been proven false. Eat a penis hamburger and chips and go back to searching for UFO's lads!!!

[Babylon]

there was another building between the north tower and wtc 7 that suffered worse damage which remained standing ,

And they were all smaller buildings.

From popular Mechanics Magazine....

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

err...the explosions were clearly heard prior to the collapses

And you offer a video where you can't even see the building as "evidence"?