The evolution of the 9/11 conspiracy theory

Search

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>The evolution of a conspiracy theory


</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO -->
<!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
_44802656_twintowers_ap226.jpg
A large number of Americans question what happened that day

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->It wasn't only the Twin Towers that collapsed on September 11. A third World Trade Center tower that wasn't hit by the planes also fell. As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.
9/11 is the conspiracy theory of the internet age.
Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million.
Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.
A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.
In the UK a survey by the BBC's The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a "wider conspiracy that included the American government". <!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>
o.gif
</TD><TD class=sibtbg>
start_quote_rb.gif
For very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day
end_quote_rb.gif



Dylan Avery
Director of Loose Change

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->
This summer will be a key moment for those who question the official explanation of what happened on 9/11, the self-styled "9/11 truth movement".
Nearly seven years after the terrible events of that September day, the US authorities are due to publish the final report on a third tower that also collapsed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, this 47-storey, 610-foot skyscraper was not hit by a plane.
<!-- S IANC --><!-- E IANC -->And Tower 7 has become a key issue for "truthers" like Dylan Avery, the director of the internet film about 9/11 called Loose Change.
"The truth movement is heavily centred on Building 7 and for very good reason a lot of people are very suspicious about what went down that day," he says.
<!-- S ILIN -->See World Trade Center 7's location
<!-- E ILIN -->

Avery points out that Tower 7 housed some unusual tenants: the CIA, the Secret Service, the Pentagon and the very agency meant to deal with disasters or terrorist attacks in New York - the Office of Emergency Management. And some people think Tower 7 was the place where a 9/11 conspiracy was hatched. <!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5>
o.gif
</TD><TD class=sibtbg>FIND OUT MORE...
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST
Visit <!-- S ILIN -->The Conspiracy Files<!-- E ILIN --> website or catch up using the <!-- S ILIN -->iPlayer<!-- E ILIN -->

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->
The official explanation is that ordinary fires were the main reason for the collapse of Tower 7. That makes this the first and only tall skyscraper in the world to have collapsed because of fire. Yet despite that all the thousands of tonnes of steel from the building were carted away and melted down.
The way official bodies have investigated Tower 7 at the World Trade Center has made some people think they're hiding something. It's destruction was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. An inquiry by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building for emergency generators. But its report said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed. That was in May 2002. <!-- Inline Embbeded Media --><!-- This is the embedded player component -->
<OBJECT id=bbc_emp_fmtj_embed_obj height=287 width=448 classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000>
























<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_3_3497/player.swf" width="448" height="287" id="bbc_emp_fmtj_embed_emb" name="embeddedPlayer_7481413" wmode="default" allowFullScreen="true" name="embeddedPlayer_7481413" flashvars="config=http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/config/default.xml?v7&companionSize=300x30&companionType=adi&preroll=&config_settings_suppressItemKind=advert, ident&config_settings_autoPlay=false&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Femp%2F7480000%2F7481400%2F7481413.xml&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav2&embedReferer=blockedReferrer&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_edition=Domestic&embedPageUrl=/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm&"/></OBJECT>
<!-- caption -->Conspiracy Files: Collapse of WTC 7
<!-- END - caption -->
<!-- end of the embedded player component --><!-- END of Inline Embedded Media -->
The task has now fallen to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) based at a sprawling campus near Washington DC. For more than 2 ½ years, scientists there have been studying Tower 7.
Inevitably the officials have been criticised for being slow and even of being frightened to publish.
But the lead investigator at NIST, who heads up their World Trade Center inquiry, Dr Shyam Sunder, says that 2 ½ years is typically how long an aeroplane crash investigation takes. He added that only in the last few years did they begin to hear criticism from the "truth" movement.
"It's only at the very end in 2005 that this group became more vocal and we found them coming to some of our meetings. But for a long time they were not even present¿ It wasn't the delay that really caused them, they just woke up one morning and decided to take this on as an issue."
Soul searching
In April 2005, the first thousand DVDs of Dylan Avery's Loose Change movie were pressed. It cost just $2,000 to make. It was a critical moment for the development of the movement. The makers of Loose Change claim it has now been viewed by more than a hundred million people.
Steven Jones, a former physics professor at Brigham Young University, who has become the leading academic voice in the movement, first watched a video of the collapse of Tower 7 in the spring of 2005. But when he did, he said he was taken aback as a physicist. <!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
_44802658_debris2_afp226_282.jpg
Will the theories ever be laid to rest?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->
The American architect Richard Gage's conversion came in 2006 when driving along he heard an independent radio station interviewing the theologian David Ray Griffin.
"I had to do some real soul searching and some research. And the more I discovered the more disturbed I became and realized I was looking for¿ the architects and the engineers."
Finding that they hadn't really entered the fray by then, Gage decided he had to act.
"It just came to me, I had to start an organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."
The fifth anniversary of 9/11 was a huge moment for "truthers". Under the media spotlight protests intensified, websites were spawned and internet films proliferated.
With the publicity also came the "debunkers", challenging the "truthers" at every stage.
After Loose Change came a website Screw Loose Change. And internet film 9/11 Mysteries was followed by Screw 9/11 Mysteries.
Conspiracy splits
And the "truthers" have fought back. When the US technology magazine Popular Mechanics launched a book called Debunking 9/11 Myths, it was countered with a book by David Ray Griffin called Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
Over time the scale of the alleged conspiracy has grown and grown, encompassing not just sections of the Bush administration, intelligence, but also the fire service, the police, first responders, official investigators, experts, the building's owner, and the media, and, oh yes, even the BBC. <!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
_44802657_bush_ap226.jpg
George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->
And over time schisms have opened up in the 9/11 "truth" movement.
So-called "no-planers" believe that commercial aeroplanes did not actually crash into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania. Some have suggested lasers from outer space were used.
"Planers" believe aeroplanes were used but argue that only controlled demolitions can explain the collapses of the World Trade Center towers.
Then there are the LIHOPs and MIHOPs. Most "truthers" are MIHOPs - they think the government Made It Happen On Purpose, planning and orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.
But LIHOPs believe the government just Let It Happen On Purpose, to allow them to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a clampdown on civil liberties.
Into this febrile atmosphere comes the final official report on 9/11. <!-- S IANC --><!-- E IANC -->
This summer we will find out whether NIST's report has answered the many questions that have been raised, or whether it will suffer the same fate as the Warren Commission on the assassination of President John F Kennedy and merely add fuel to the conspiracy theories. <!-- S IIMA -->
_44804444_wtc7_fires_inf466.gif


<!-- E IIMA --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
George Bush is Honorable

Dick Cheney defines the word Honesty

Karl Rove is a Real Patriot

Condi Rice is in many ways another Mother Teresa


THOSE THAT DARE QUESTION OUR GREAT LEADERS ARE DESTINED TO GO STRAIGHT TO HELL
 

Using Proxy IP from Europe
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
1,554
Tokens
Eek, da ya still believe the NIST's report "fires get hotter when shielded from the atmosphere" ?

Never got a straight answer from ya ( or any other right wingers on here) apart you believing it to be a " foundry effect".
 

"Things do not happen. Things are made to happen."
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
2,624
Tokens
Eek- is now a "truther"? I dont believe it. What is the world coming to?:lol:
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
I put it up 'cos the BBC finally started running with articles about troofer stuff.

This doesn't mean that my own visitors from the planet Zog theory is invalid.
 

Rx. Junior
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
5,533
Tokens
George Bush is Honorable

Dick Cheney defines the word Honesty

Karl Rove is a Real Patriot

Condi Rice is in many ways another Mother Teresa


THOSE THAT DARE QUESTION OUR GREAT LEADERS ARE DESTINED TO GO STRAIGHT TO HELL

Word on The Street is Richard Dreyfuss has just signed on to play Cheney, Scott Glen will be Rumsfeld and Thandie Newton will play ConTheMediaLies...Josh Brolin is George Bush...

Oliver Stone is a funny guy.....hahaha I can't wait...but wait a minute...who is going to play Bin Laden? Maybe he can play himself...??? hey who knows....

http://www.variety.com/VR1117979349.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073195/news#ni0240493
 

"Things do not happen. Things are made to happen."
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
2,624
Tokens
Ill play the "planted man on the street" that knew everything about how and why the buildings collapsed in vivid detail.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KnhuKKl5Fvw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KnhuKKl5Fvw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,892
Tokens
Eek, da ya still believe the NIST's report "fires get hotter when shielded from the atmosphere" ?

Never got a straight answer from ya ( or any other right wingers on here) apart you believing it to be a " foundry effect".

I answered you.

You never gave any proof that it was in fact "shielded from the atmosphere".

How would you know that?

Show us the oxygen readings so we don't have to take your word for it. :103631605
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
, TGBN, I answered you.

You never gave any proof that it was in fact "shielded from the atmosphere".

How would you know that?

Show us the oxygen readings so we don't have to take your word for it. :103631605

1) It doesn't matter that you answered her. She doesn't care.

2) Correct.

3) She wouldn't.

4) She doesn't have those oxygen readings and asks that you just take her word for it.

:howdy:
 

Banned
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
967
Tokens
OK so fire caused it? OK phew I was starting to think, ya know, after watching the very top floor collapse first, the rest of the building following down at free fall speed into its footprint, and hearing eyewitness testimony that they heard the countdown and were told to back up because its gonna blow, shit what was I thinking it kinda looked like a controlled demolition. My bad.







How dumb do they think we are? Pretty fuckin dumb, so dumb even the journalists reporting on this sickening white-wash probably believe it.



Just released on the 4th, another excellent documentary from Alex Jones: The 9/11 Chronicles: Part One, Truth Rising

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t-yscpNIxjI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t-yscpNIxjI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,892
Tokens
1) It doesn't matter that you answered her. She doesn't care.

2) Correct.

3) She wouldn't.

4) She doesn't have those oxygen readings and asks that you just take her word for it.

:howdy:

True dat.
 

"Things do not happen. Things are made to happen."
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
2,624
Tokens
<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 5523936" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>MR_MJ</TD><TD class=alt2>Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by barman
1) It doesn't matter that you answered her. She doesn't care.

2) Correct.

3) She wouldn't.

4) She doesn't have those oxygen readings and asks that you just take her word for it.

:howdy:

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
True dat. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Look - you either get the question or you dont.

Its a general question. Building fires are by nature oxygen starved because theyre in an enclosed area and once the oxygen dissapates you see the black smoke coming out of the towers. Thie dark smoke is a sign of O2 starvation. He doesnt have to give you "readings". Man are you guys disabled of what?
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
this is not rocket science boys

THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
<table align="right" border="0" cellspacing="5" width="225"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td> <hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="5"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="2"> Figure 3. A cutaway view of WTC structure.</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="5"> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="2"> Figure 4. A graphic illustration, from the USA Today newspaper web site, of the World Trade Center points of impact. Click on the image above to access the actual USA Today feature.</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td> <hr align="center" noshade="noshade" size="5"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.<sup>[SIZE=-1]2,3[/SIZE] </sup>It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.<sup>[SIZE=-1]4[/SIZE]</sup> This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.


----------------------------------------------------------------------



geez, a fuel rich fire which generates black smoke because there wasn't enough oxygen to burn all the fuel means "there was an implosion"? :think2:



:ohno::ohno::ohno:​

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
the Failure of Scientific Education

(truthers) have made a point of observing that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and therefore the fire in the main towers could not have caused the structure to yield and collapse. This is absurd. It is a kindergartener's level of science. It is ignorant of a reality that anyone who has had even one course in structural engineering or metallurgy will understand. The argument made that "other buildings have burned and not collapsed" is only marginally more sophisticated, sort of equivalent to saying that seeing an iceberg melts proves global warming. (Note that this is all written by a person who has no faith in government and is at least as suspicious about government motivations at any truther).
Here is the reality that most 19-year-old engineering students understand: Steel loses its strength rapidly with temperature, losing nearly all of its structural strength by 1000 degrees F, well below its melting point but also well below the temperature of burning jet fuel. For three years I designed piping and pressure vessel enclosures at a refinery. Many of the processes in a refinery crave heat and run better at elevated temperatures. In fact, what refineries can do, and how efficient they can be, is really limited by the strength of steel at high temperatures. Refineries end up being limited to process temperatures no higher than 600 to 800 degrees, and even then these require expensive special metallurgies. Anything higher requires a very expensive vessel lined with some sort of ceramic insulation material.
The strength curve of steel vs. temperature is dependent on the type of steel, but the curve below is about what I remember from my old textbooks. Note by 930 degrees the steel strength has dropped by half and in the next 100 degrees it halves again.

But the proof of what went wrong in WTC1 and WTC2 does not take a college education. You only have to look at building codes. Building codes generally require that structural steel members be coated with a fireproofing material.
As the critical temperature for steel is around 540°C (give or take, depending on whose country's test standards one reads at the time), and design basis fires reach this temperature within a few minutes, structural steel requires external insulation in order to prevent the steel from absorbing enough energy to reach this temperature. First, steel expands, when heated, and once enough energy has been absorbed, it softens and loses its structural integrity. This is easily prevented through the use of fireproofing.
 

"Things do not happen. Things are made to happen."
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
2,624
Tokens
People like Willie still think planes hit the towers. They call it a collapse and then wont say what kind. They are careful to avoid the "pancake theory" because there are no pancakes at the bottom. Only a fine snow like dust that cannot be attributed to a gravity driven collapse by any stretch of the imagination even a kooks like mine. The reason for this is simple- the floors were pulverized. The buldings were pulverized. They never collapsed. WTC7 was a controlled demo. The WTC1&2 were not. They were brought down in a different fashion as it can clearly be seen that both of the tall buildings disintegrated from the top down exploding outward as they fell while 7 just dropped.

Jist a thought Willie-


Funny that Ive NEVER in the hundred or so videos Ive seen of people who got out EVER heard them mention EVEN ONCE the unmistakeable stench of jet fuel. Jet fuel stinks to high heaven and according to sheeple like Willie it went down the elevator shafts and caused explosions far below the impact point of his "jets."

How do you explain this Willie? Can you explain this? No cop- no fireman- no man in the street ever mentions the smell of stinking jet fuel.

Its always the little things like this that give away the scam that was 9/11.

Explosions yes- Jets and jet fuel? No way Jose.

So your whole article that is based upon the existence of jet fuel is no longer a given as they would have you believe.

MMM-jet fuel- smells like hell but tastes great in koolaid :drink:
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
This 9/11 thing is now a religious cult in America.

...should fit right in with the rest of 'em...
:grandmais
 

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
24,884
Tokens
Wow I read the above post and have no desire to tell TR what to go do to himself. I think I am cured of my "anger issues!"
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
975
Tokens
I dont know about the buildings and fire but I think the US higher ups knew something was going to happen and did'nt try to stop it.

Apparently a lot of people knew something was going to happen and a lot knew excatly what was going to happen.

Also I found this pretty interesting Cheny had been trying for years to attack Iraq he tried talking clinton into it and that didnt work but when Bush got in he managed to talk him into it but they said the american public and the world would'nt go along with them going after Iraq and this is actually true Cheny wrote a memo to Bush about 1 year before 911 saying they needed a disaster bigger than pearl harbour and a year later they got it.

And without 911 no way they could of made a case for attacking Iraq.
 

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
No planes? I agree. I have discovered evidence that details Bigfoot was running a hologram projector.

Bigfoot was even in on the fake moon landings and was seen running from the levees in New Orleans.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
No planes? I agree. I have discovered evidence that details Bigfoot was running a hologram projector.

Bigfoot was even in on the fake moon landings and was seen running from the levees in New Orleans.

Yeah... All the video footage of planes, people on planes, funerals of
people on planes, first hand eye witnesses of planes hitting buildings
all 100% fake.

ROFLLLLLL
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,946
Messages
13,575,480
Members
100,886
Latest member
ranajeet
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com