9/11 .Truth.

Russky wrote:

It reminds me arguing with a married blue piller, no offence.
I rest my case. Let’s agree to disagree

You claim that things I saw with my own eyes didn’t happen. You bring in some tinfoil hat bulls~~~ conspiracy theory crap you found on the internet that looks nothing like the building you claim they are (the f~~~ing color is even wrong). You espouse things showing a complete lack of structural engineering knowledge. And now you’re calling me “blue pill”?

Go f~~~ yourself.

There is a 9/11 conspiracy, but it’s not the one you internet tinfoil hat “9/11 was an inside job” fools keep babbling about. You idiots keep pointing at Building 7 as a “smoking gun”, but all that shows is you have no f~~~ing clue what happened that day. A plain, ordinary fire brought down Building 7. It brought it down because it was allowed to start small and then grow for a whole f~~~ing day. You let a building burn for a whole f~~~ing day and it’s going to come down. That’s what happens. Why was it allowed to grow? Because all the firefighting resources in the city just happened to be already busy trying to save lives or were themselves already dead under the rubble of the two giant f~~~ing towers that had already collapsed right next door. Collapsed because some muslim assholes crashed fully fueled commercial jetliners right into them.

No, the 9/11 conspiracy has nothing to do with building collapses. It’s all about documents and lies about documents. Because after 9/11 suddenly every single bit of evidence in any investigations that bankers and their ill gotten ilk didn’t want to see the light of day, including all the backups, somehow managed to have been “lost” in 9/11. Evidence that never should have been there in the first place. Evidence that never actually was. They didn’t need to blow up any buildings to do that. All they needed to do was lie under oath about it.

The government and the banking establishment didn’t do the 9/11 attacks. It didn’t need to. All it had to do was sit back and watch as a bunch of muslim assholes did all the work and then use the attacks as an excuse to bury any evidence they didn’t like and invade any country they wanted. The crime of 9/11 wasn’t that the attacks were an “inside job”, they weren’t. The crime was that the government let it happen and then used it as an excuse for it’s own malfeasance.

Russky wrote:

OK, tell me – what could have caused this waterfall of molten steel? Ask any blacksmith!

Where did you get this amazing superpower that lets you identify “molten steel” from a grainy digitally zoomed in crappy video? Most people would need some pretty heavy equipment to do that, such as reading the exact spectrum coming off the incandescent material.

Russky wrote:

Wallstreet wrote:

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!

OK, tell me – what could have caused this waterfall of molten steel? Ask any blacksmith!

<iframe width=”500″ height=”375″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/OmuzyWC60eE?feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

Point one, I did not say the fires did not produce molten steel. This is a strawman. I said steel does not have to melt to fail.

Point two, no one can identify what that is. Maybe molten steel, maybe another molten metal, could be a combination of a metal with embers in it.

Point three, fire causes structural steel to fail all the time!

Do all of you guys think I’m making this up by myself?
Maybe you should check out the website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth website
http://www.ae911truth.org/ who are backed by 2500+ engineers
But no, of course – I’m a tinfoil hat with no knowledge in physics or engineering and all of you are f~~~ing geniuses who know what’s up.
Keep living in that dream and pat yourselves on the back
All of you are so f~~~ing smart. And me? A f~~~ing conspiracy theorist. There.
Also- don’t forget to get married, it’s good for you and you’ll live longer and happier lives.
And keep trusting your government. It’s all the fault of boogie men in the caves. It’s all their fault
Government couldn’t do this to you – because they care about you. they really do.
It could happen somewhere in Soviet Russia – because government there is bad. But never in America. Because America is special and exceptional. And the government is greatest of all.
F~~~ yeah! Bomb all the dirka dirkas responsible for 9/11 USA USA

@sidecar- let’s get back to WTC7. So your don’t believe it was demolished because:
1) you claim the video is of a wrong building
2) you claim those are not explosions but windows shattering
3) it was on fire for hours without sprinklers
4) it fell on its footprint symmetrically because that was the way it was designed.
These are your points and you serious about them, right?
You know I can debunk all of these points right?

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry to break up the conversation. Was the plane they claimed the passengers resisted in, actually shot down then?

Nobody knows what happened. The crash site didn’t look like any passenger plane crash site seen before – there were no remains, no luggage, no seats, just a smoking hole in the ground. Some people claim it was a cruise missile, just like the one that hit the Pentagon. I’m not gonna lie – I have no clue.

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that makes me think is that in spite of heightened security, Why have they not been able to replicate anything anywhere near that scale?

Don’t you worry, with jihadi terror cells on US soil and North Korea launching satellites – I don’t think we’ll have to wait too much longer

Russky wrote:

1) you claim the video is of a wrong building

It sure as f~~~ doesn’t look like it to me. It’s the wrong facade and the wrong color. And I don’t trust any “found footage” from the internet anyways. It’s way too easy to fake.

Russky wrote:

2) you claim those are not explosions but windows shattering

Where’s the smoke from the detonations? Why are they popping in the pattern I would expect for deformation of the building face and not in any pattern I would expect for an intentional demolition? Those windows are following shear lines, not creating them. Take a look at an actual demolition some time. An intentional job sets the charges in specific impact lines all across a whole plane at once, almost always horizontal, not clusters along the points of maximum initial deformation. And just why the f~~~ would someone trying to take down a building put charges on the windows anyways? What did they think breaking windows on the outside would accomplish? If you want to take down a building you cut structural members in the core, not glass on the outside.

Russky wrote:

3) it was on fire for hours without sprinklers

The attacks happened around 9AM. I didn’t see the first plane hit but I saw the second. We were up on the roof watching the first tower burn when the second plane hit. That’s when it went from an “Oh s~~~!” day to a “What the f~~~ing f~~~?!” day. Then the towers collapsed. After the smoke sort of cleared from the collapse we watched it increase again as building 7 burned. We watched it burn for hours (though honestly we spent more time looking out for more planes – it was a f~~~ed up day). It burned all day. It collapsed from the fire at around 6PM. It WAS on fire for hours.

Russky wrote:

4) it fell on its footprint symmetrically because that was the way it was designed.

Building 7 didn’t collapse quite as cleanly as the towers, but it did drop pretty much straight down. It didn’t topple over if that’s what you are asking. It started dropping on the east side and in the middle and then it all went pretty much straight down. Or at least that’s how I remember it.

And yes, that is how skyscrapers are designed to fail. They are supposed to go straight down, not topple over like a giant domino and take out more buildings. If you’re ever interested in this subject, look up the panic that happened when someone took a second look at the designs for the citigroup building and discovered that it wasn’t designed to drop straight down after all. they only thought it was. They’re lucky they saw that back in the 70s because if they hadn’t gone in and fixed it it would have blown right over in 2012 with Hurricane Sandy.

Anonymous wrote:

There will be no traditional war with the jihadists.

^^this.

They’ve learned it’s easier and more effective to bankrupt the welfare state than attack it with suicide bombs.

sidecar wrote:

joller984 wrote:

There will be no traditional war with the jihadists.

^^this.

They’ve learned it’s easier and more effective to bankrupt the welfare state than attack it with suicide bombs.

Patience and attrition are deadly.

North Korea develops nuclear weapons to blackmail the West into giving them free oil and foreign aid. And we keep falling for it. Why shouldn’t the SOUTH KOREANS deal with and pay for this issue, including their own defense?

It’s just another mutually assured destruction scenario should the North launch a missile; the same stalemate as the US had with the Soviet Union.

As for 9/11, I’m an engineer, but not overly trusting of the government. Even so, I see no evidence of a controlled demolition, quite the opposite.

I’ve read the NIST report on 9/11, the leading hypothesis is the trusses expanded under the heat of the fire. The columns then bowed inward. This is a good link http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

As for WTC7, video footage is available of the raging fires and photographic evidence of the same buckling… So nothing to see here, move on.

9/11 certainly did greatly increase the size and scope of government — instead of getting out of other countries affairs — the correct approach, in my opinion — after a quick slaughter of Al Qaeda — we instead created entire new departments such as Homeland Security, TSA, etc. And of course, had we not interfered in Middle Eastern politics — i.e. no aid to Israel, Egypt, no supporting tyrants in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, no Gulf War 1 to keep the world save for Imirs — there would be no compelling reason to attack and kill us, any more than the reasons to attack and kill any other infidels throughout the world.

It’s a lot cheaper to eliminate all taxes on fracking domestically than it is to pay for all these foreign wars.