9/11 .Truth.

The buildings went down, no doubt. One of my cousins was on a tug that pushed a barge from down here to up there and witnessed the whole thing live himself plus on my own flying trips into Newark one could not help but notice the gaps in The City’s skyline.

The government knew about the plot being fomented and used it to further the NWO cause. Supposedly, they were advised about those goat f~~~ers in that Florida flight school wanting to learn to fly but not very interested in learning how to land. I love flying, but feeling those wheels touch the runway is always a relief kind of like landing on a beach after paddling back from 3 miles offshore.

WTC7 and The Patriot act being conveniently rolled out so quickly were quite fishy to me.

All I know is that the feral government does not give a flying rat’s ass about the average American or anyone else in the World that is not an oligarch.

sidecar wrote:

in the case of the WTC those weeks were spent back in the 1960s, years before the foundations were even dug.

Supposedly the kind of explosives involved in such a demolition have to be used within a month or two, or they degrade and become useless.

Rennie wrote:

sidecar wrote:

in the case of the WTC those weeks were spent back in the 1960s, years before the foundations were even dug.

Supposedly the kind of explosives involved in such a demolition have to be used within a month or two, or they degrade and become useless.

Re-reading his post, I think he suggests the blueprints themselves were designed in such a way, so buildings would structurally fail in symmetry. I don’t even know how to respond

I watched the second plane hit the tower on a big screen TV.

It happened, the details are still open IMHO.

I’m kinda meh on Isreal but when I saw the video of the Palestinian filth dancing with joy that maybe upto 100k human beings had been killed, I wanted to buy a case of bullets for the Isreal army.

I am tired of the mantra that jet fuel can’t melt steel as proof of a conspiracy.

From From Jefferson Lab and melting temp of steel>

Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

For example, I have several 4 foot long, steel hot dog roasters I use while camping. They are fairly heavy duty with thick wooden handles. After roasting some marshmallows, I left one resting on a rock suspended over the campfire to burn off the residue. I forgot about it for a while, then noticed it was starting to glow red and sag a little.

My campfire is not hot enough to melt steel either, but it was hot enough to affect the integrity visibly.

Russky wrote:

Are you saying all skyscrapers come pre-wired with explosives in case they need to be brought down?

Rennie wrote:

Supposedly the kind of explosives involved in such a demolition have to be used within a month or two, or they degrade and become useless.

No explosives are needed. With enough time and a hacksaw you could bring one of these building down. It would take a f~~~load lot of time, and you would be bringing it down upon yourself, but when it eventually comes down it will drop straight down into itself. Just like it was designed to do.

Oh, and for the record, you don’t have to melt the steel framing of a building to bring it down. You just need to bring enough framing members near enough to their plastic deformation temperature that the load on them causes them to yield. I don’t know what yield temperature the WTC towers were rated at, but for some buildings this can be as low as 500C, which is pretty damn low. I mean your average boy scout marshmallow campfire is at least 800C at the center. If it’s a liquid fueled fire where the fuel is splashed onto the steel the effect is magnified because the heat gets transferred directly into the metal.

Honestly, if you have the time and you know what you’re doing it’s disturbingly easy to bring down a modern skyscraper. Slamming a fully fueled commercial jet into one is total amateur hour bulls~~~, but despite what people claim is actually more than enough to do the job.

Russky wrote:

@sidecar – watch the video of building 7 I posted above and tell me with a straight face it wasn’t demolished using explosives
again

I learned long ago not to trust any video footage found on the internet without extreme corroboration. Next you’ll be telling us bigfoot is real.

While that does look like a controlled demolition, that is not one of the old WTC towers. It doesn’t look anything like them.

And on closer inspection, it doesn’t even look like a controlled demolition. What it actually looks like are tempered glass panels failing as the outer curtain of the building buckles immediately prior to its collapse. Haven’t you ever seen tempered glass fail?

Seriously, why would you fall for such an obvious hoax?

– no planes hit it, there was no jet fuel, and nobody used hacksaws on it. It just fell to the ground for no apparent reason

N~~~~~ I f~~~ing saw the second plane hit with my own f~~~ing eyes so don’t be f~~~ing telling me that “no planes hit it” s~~~. I was f~~~ing there.

Building 7 was a 47 story skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11 “due to office fires”
There were no planes, barely any damage and no kerosene there.
The video shows it. Plenty of other videos showing the same thing. Google it

I am not surprised you never heard of it – most people didn’t
But it is a master key to unraveling the whole charade

Look, I don’t want to make enemies here, and I will shut up if you don’t want to hear about it. I have nothing to prove. But I tell you, that 9/11 was the biggest red pill I ever swallowed in my lifetime, so I thought some of you could be more susceptible than others to drop the propaganda and open your eyes to what happened. No offence. Just trying to help. Don’t kill the messenger

This reminds me of arguing with a married blue piller about women
I rest my case. Let’s agree to disagree, You know I love you sidecar. Let’s put our differences aside
At least now you know about WTC#7 controversy. It’s a start

Oh god, 9/11 truth…

Fire does not have to melt steel. That is a fallacy. Steel weakens as it heats up. Get it hot enough and the load on it will cause it to fail, ask any fire protection engineer. Ask any black smith!

If anyone knows what sectional density is, figure the sectional density of a loaded Boeing 767/757 and it is very nearly equivelant to an AP round fired by a battleship!

The floor trusses were bolted to the core and perimeter columns. Bolted! The perimeter columns were made of quarter-inch steel plate welded to form a hollow box column. They were joined vertically by bolts! The sheer strength of bolts is not that high, I have seen wood expand and cause bolts to break! And it is quarter-inch steel, fairly sure several hundred pounds travelling at a few hundred miles per hour would sheer that steel.

Concrete was not used in the building except as flooring.