9/11 Again..

Steeb: This is a good discussion including many images, of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Russky: No, jet fuel didn’t burn for ‘one second’. Having worked in the petrochemical industry my entire life, I can attest to this. And being involved in large ‘pool’ hydrocarbon/oil fires. There isn’t enough air or contacting between air and fuel, for a pool of fuel to burn instantly. That is why, when you burn, say, liquid fuel oil #4/bunker fuel, in a boiler, you must inject it into an air-atomizing nozzle, to disperse it into tiny droplets so that it will burn. Furthermore, if all the jet fuel DID combust in one second it would have been a massive EXPLOSION. If you don’t believe me, try to make a bomb out of jet fuel. And you’re not allowed to use compressed air, compressed Oxygen, or liquid Oxygen. You CAN have an explosion in the HEADSPACE above a hydrocarbon, if the fuel: air mixture is in the flammable window. But you won’t explode the rest of the liquid in the tank (though you WILL likely have a raging fire instantly after the explosion!). This is also evidenced by the air flow patterns and thermal imaging. VERY light hydrocarbons WILL explode (BLEVEs) — e.g. take a look at a video of a propane tank farm fire. Gasoline is also quite volatile, though much less so than LPG, and of course, jet fuel, even less volatile still.

As for ‘molten steel’, it’s nonsense. There ARE indications of molten aluminum from the aircraft frame. http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm Its color and other properties, indicate it was not steel.

‘No other steel structures collapsing under fire’ is also mythology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk If you understand the physics of thermal expansion with temperature, you will understand why this is nonsensical.

Most Americans don’t know about Mohammad Mosaddegh because the schools and the media rarely talk about him. In a sane world, he would be an important historical figure. He was a very important part of the history of American international relations. I’m saying that the American masses should not be blamed for their lack of info. It isn’t their fault.

Was the Roman Empire good? Well … it was good for the Roman elites. To the lower classes, the Roman Empire was a nightmare. You can learn about that in the New Testament.

I don’t think that Roman culture was entirely bad. Ancient Rome wasn’t always an empire. That’s where things went south.

Furthermore, I don’t believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. The American elites provoked the attacks but they did not carry out the attacks themselves. An inside job like that would have involved too many people. There likely would have been a whistleblower.

FrankOne wrote:

FrankOne

Participant
530
Rusky: I guess we can agree to disagree on 9/11. I am not really seeing a massive amount of ‘fishy stuff’.

So you’re saying you completely agree with official story and there is nothing fishy about it? Can you name something maybe? Anything that doesn’t add up? something that made you go hmm ))
like explosions in bldg 7 before it went down?

FrankOne wrote:

Rusky: I guess we can agree to disagree on 9/11. I am not really seeing a massive amount of ‘fishy stuff’.

To me, what is ‘fishy’ is the response AFTER 9/11. i.e. Georgie Bush starting the Iraq war, claiming Sadam was accumulating WMD to give to terrorists! WTF! Sadam never had any links to Al Qaeda; supporting terrorism against the US would be suicidal. And of course, there were no WMD. If he wanted to look for WMD he could have just looked in the arsenals of the US, its allies, AND its enemies. After all, if a nuclear warhead isn’t a ‘WMD’, what is?

We lost almost 5,000 Americans in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqis have died thanks to Bush and his henchman Dick (head) Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Donald Duck Dumbsfeld, etc.

It’s hard to believe ISOLATIONISTS ruled in the Republican Party before WWII. They didn’t want to engage in FDR’s war.

Uinatherium: Yes, unfortunately, the mass media rarely cover the arc of history, or run multi-part stories on, say, the history of US involvement in the Middle East. And certainly Mosaddegh is important. One big issue I have with America being the world’s policeman, is that it tends to create and sustain police states. We’ve supported many, many evil regimes and dictators.

As for the 9/11 conspiracies, the WTC had been a target in the past: Islamic extremist Ramzi Yousef attempted to blow it up in 1993, and failed, with his basement truck bomb. Ramzi was inept compared to, say, domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols who blew up the Murrah building (and numerous, likely un-indicted co-conspirators of ‘Elohim City’) with their ANFO bomb. The 9/11 attacks 8 years later, were much better planned and executed than the 1993 attack. My skepticism of these conspiracies is mainly because they attempt to throw a bunch of ‘facts’ about the attacks that don’t pan out or stick. The ‘jet fuel doesn’t melt steel’ one is one of the most common examples. I’d encourage people to read the 9/11 report and make their own judgments.

F one. You want a red pill for 911? Please just start by looking up the video of the BBC screen shot RPB posted. It’s time stamped. There is more, and you sound like a smart guy. I was taught to take time and be able to defend both sides of an issue equally as possible. I have even, in the past, “become” a feminist for three weeks in an effort to understand. It’s the best way I know to form an opinion.

Allah Akbar

Jim01 wrote:

if they had planned it then they would have managed to f~~~ the whole thing up rather than have it go so well to plan

They did mess it up in so many ways, but the people are blind to those mess ups because the cognitive dissonance is so big – they are invested in the lie and will never believe betrayal like that is even possible, even though the facts are staring right in their faces.

It’s like some husbands who refuse to even contemplate that their wife is cheating on them when it’s already common knowledge.

Do you remember the phrase, “Where were you when JFK was assassinated?” The same question can be asked about the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 for my generation. I remember getting up early in the morning to drive to a taxi station. It was my first day on the job as a taxi driver in Los Angeles. I saw the news report about the terrorist attack on television. New York City was in chaos. When I got to work, everyone looked like they were in a trance. We were one of the few people who were allowed to drive near LAX (airport) to pick up passengers.

It seemed like the 1990s brought about an era of doom. There was a World Trade Center attack in 1993. You’d think that attack would make the U.S. government scrutinize foreign visa applicants from nations known to produce terrorists, huh? But the U.S. government is run by highly educated idiots who REACT TO PROBLEMS instead of preventing problems. After that, we had the Branch Davidian standoff that ended horribly. Then the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. Then the Columbine High School massacre. That whole decade was stressful for me to witness—one bad event after another. The icing on the cake was: President Clinton promoting the future prosperity that would come from NAFTA. Meanwhile, factories were being shut down and China was exporting more and more goods to the USA. The deregulation of our banking system would later become the coup de grace during the last years of the (George W.) Bush Administration.

It seems to me that the billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq could’ve been used to provide education grants, a modern WPA program to put unemployed Americans to work, and health clinics for people who couldn’t afford health insurance. It makes me upset that a large portion of the money spent on that war was used to enrich the executives of defense companies and other companies who received war contracts despite their outrageous expense accounts. Many of the services that were provided for U.S. soldiers could’ve been done much cheaper—if we hired U.S. soldiers to do them!

The amount of government spending, job losses, and business scandals during the Bush/Obama Administrations was just outrageous. Hard-working Americans were losing their pensions. Soldiers were doing several combat tours back to back. There was no clear objective to declare victory in Iraq or Afghanistan. It was just war, war, war. Trillions of dollars have been spent with one trillion added to the national debt each year. Yet the 2016 presidential candidates promise us a future of economic prosperity.

If you’re into the defense and investment banking industries, you’re going to win the game—thanks to the politicians that serve you. Most Americans are going to lose while voting for crony capitalists in Washington D.C. The alternative to hard work and intelligence is: having friends in high places rigging the system in your favor.

Or, the money could have been used for whatever INDIVIDUALS want. If we weren’t taxed, we’d each individually choose: More education, a house, a car, investments, charity. I’m all for infrastructure but let the USERS pay. I’d like to see more privatized roads and paying highway/road fees, based on miles driven. One of the few areas I favor more funding, albeit by users.

Why must the choice always be framed as HOW government should spend a significant fraction of GDP, instead of WHETHER government should spend a significant fraction of GDP?

Does government create jobs, or does the private sector create jobs?

Jim01: Yes, most government efforts to hide something on a large scale, often fail. The atomic bombs designs, quickly fell into the hands of our enemies due to spies. Iran-Contra was revealed. The Democrats would have loved to uncover a plot led by George Bush, and would have used it to discredit him.