New 9/11 Conspiracy video

I found a new video on the 911 Conspiracy which I thought was an interesting one. You should really watch it. It's a bit long, but some of the facts and information is pretty mind blowing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en-CA


Let me know what you think.

 

Note for USMC

Ya, the video is about an hour and a half but WORTH every second!
Check it out!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
9/11 was an inside job!
.

 

I hesitated to click on this link and now I know why. I watched about 5 minutes and realized it says nothing that hasn't been refuted by 100s of experts -- not some "demolition hobbyists".

Having only watched a few minutes, I am still pretty confident that he goes on to say that "Evil King George" did this to create a police state. If he wanted to create a police state, do you think he would allow this filth to pollute the internet? If he's willing to kill 3,000 people to secure his agenda, what's a few more to him?

How about instead of going link for link with each other instead if actually reading up on and debating the real issues, we carry on with something worthwhile?

 

Perhaps this one may be easyer to watch all the way through

http://www.911researchers.com/node/241




As the 'comment' at the above mentioned link is relatively brief, it is useful to post it here. It states:

_________________

" The material on this video constitutes evidence; formally admissible in any grand jury or trial proceeding, or any international tribunal.
Recall that radio-broadcasters who pumped out fake news to rev up the massacres in Rwanda were arrested and tried.

Likewise with the National Socialists, ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and publicist Julius Streicher, both of whom were hanged at Nuremberg.
Not for murder but for their propaganda and media work.

The individuals on these tapes, and others such as FOX's Eric Shawn are indictable for fraud, RICO and obstruction of justice; possibly as accessories to murder ex post facto, and perhaps treason.
In those cases where foreknowledge can be demonstrated, these people should be tried for murder and treason outright.

The persons performing on these "news" videos are dead meat and they know it.
Watch for some early heart attacks, tragic car accidents and a few plane mishaps....

They are choice cuts of meat as potentiial witnesses; to incriminate the next level higher up. Therefore the perps have to view them as expendable.
If they were smart, they would be publicly demanding "witnesss protection" measures right now."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
9/11 was an inside job!
.

 

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1362&postcount=3

"How about instead of going link for link with each other instead of actually reading up on and debating the real issues, we carry on with something worthwhile?"

 

OK, I attack the physics of the "official" 9/11 report

Physics Item #1
> A kitchen gadget ... aprox 10" long flexable plastic handle with a little stainless steel weight at one end. Its used for breaking up ice cubes, to use it you hold an ice cube in the palm of your hand and with the other hand swing the "hammer" to hit the ice cube, and the ice cube breaks without hurting your hand, if you made the same motion without an icecube in your hand, you could bruse your hand. OUCH!
This proves that breaking something uses up energy.

Physics item #2
> Find a location with either a concrete or stone deck, and place a glass bottle on the deck and then drop a brick on it, the bottle breaks obviously.
Now get a bucket of sand the same weight as the brick and dump the sand on a bottle of the same kind. What is the result?

Physics Item #3
> use an expendable stainless steel fork for this demonstration. Hold it by the handle and expose the tines to fire, note that it takes time for the fork to heat up to the point of feeling it in the handle. Point, it takes time to heat an object throughout.


Note about Steel Framed buildings - Picture the hypothetical 110 story office tower and if one could teleport to the roof of the building tens of thosands of tons of rocks, the structure would be loaded down and this load would be distributed throughout the building such that if there where a weak link at say the south east corner of the 37th floor, the breakage would start at the weak link.


I bring up these little "Mr Wizard" demonstrations to make a point.

The point of Physics item #1 is that if upon starting the collapse of the WTC, the falling mass of the upper floors caused the huge ammount of breakage of material, (Note cloud of pulverized concrete) how could there be enough energy remaining to break the structure of the floors below?

Look at the Video of the WTC towers collapsing, note that the very first thing happening is a huge cloud of pulverized concrete around the upper floors of the WTC.
The breakage of of the floors is seen to be complete on a floor by floor basis, all the way down. If the very top of the building has had most of its mass in concrete pulverized, would it not then act more like the sand dumped on the glass bottle in example #2? That is be much less prone to produce breakage of the floor below(?)

The fires that aledgedly contributed to the collapse of the WTC where NOT all over the building, they indeed where localized and heat would have to travel along the length of steel beams to heat the entire structure, (given time to acomplish this...) Please note also that paper burns at 451 deg F and part of the blame for the collapse is given to the burning office materials (paper being the most common amoung these.) Note also that various items of office furnature have fire safety ratings because there has been a consciousness to safety in the workplace these days. I am VERY skeptical of the claim that buring office furnature/paper/or? added significant fuel to an inferno that caused the collapse of the WTC. The question remains as to just what exactly did cause the collapse(?)

The idea that tousands of welds and joints would have to fail right on "Q" to acheve the mode of collapse demonstrated on 9/11/2001 is just plain nutz!

There is something else at work here, not one or even two, but THREE buildings collapsed straight down at near free fall speed, thats un-natural!


Also note that the "logic" of the official explanation of what happened at the PENTAGON shakes out as follows.

A Boeing 757 would have to hit the Pentagon, punch a hole in the wall and at the same time shatter the aircraft into bits small enough to enter the hole, and then the vast majority of the aircraft bits would have to not only continue on well enough to enter the building, but to penetrate two more rings of the building! Not only that, but to achive the goal of having the vast majority of the aircraft enter the building, the jet fuel explosion would have to delay untill the aircraft was ( at least for the most part...) inside the building. If say the jet fuel explosion had gone off while the tail section of the 757 was still outside the Pentagon, there would be substantial pieces of the aircraft on the Pentagon lawn.


Also, sorry about the acusation that "USMC" is paid by the GOV.
I have no way of knowing, and speculation is futile.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
9/11 was an inside job.

 

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Well, I do receive my paycheck from the United States Department of the Navy, so technically, I am being paid by the government.

 

As long as your "job description" doesn't include propagada....

Ok, you can produce references from people who have gone on record supporting the "official" explanation of what happened 9/11/2001

The following is a list of people who do NOT believe the "official" explanation:
Maj Gen Albert Stubblebine (two star General)
has gone on record - "Flt 77 did NOT hit the PENTAGON."
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret)
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army

Dr. Robert Bowman Lt. Colonel (Ret)
Dr. James Fetzer Capt. (Ret)
Dr. Steven Jones
Dr. Virginia Deane Abernethy Ph.D.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, PhD
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, PhD
Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, PhD
Dr. David L. Griscom, PhD
Dr. Melvin A. Goodman, PhD
Dr. William G. Weaver, JD, PhD

Senator Max Cleland
Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Rep. Curt Weldon
Rep. Cynthia McKinney

Now back to me, I'm an applied physics geek.
and the whole 9/11/2001 scene stinks big-time!

WHY is it that Buildings 5 & 6 where damaged but did NOT collapse like the towers and WTC7?
WHY is it that at NO time in the past has fire caused the collapse of a steel framed building? and ya, planes hit the towers but WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane.

Do you have PERFECT trust in the Bush administration?
If the various videos that where confiscated on 9/11 only show an aircraft crashing into the PENTAGON whats the big deal? we saw videos of a plane crashing into the WTC ... so whats up with hiding the video of the PENTAGON crash (unless maybe it was NOT a Boening 757)

Also to revisit a point, Cheney has NO respect for the LAW and I give as an example the "hunting accedent" he made local law enforcement wait untill he was ready to see them, NOT right after the "accedent" and given the same time_delay but done by "Joe Nobody" the police would have a warrent out for this guys arrest on at the very least obstruction of justice charges if not attempted murder.

You are a Marine, right, you have had small arms training (no?)
In small arms training the instructor stresses the fact that you (the guy with the firearm) have CONTROL, to shoot or not shoot, use your eyes and use your head and don't shoot unless you know what your target is!

If an officer where to tell you to go into a village an kill all the women & children, would you do it? ... at what point will you draw the line and stand down?

People kevtch a lot about how bad Clinton was, and I can agree on a lot of points, he strayed big-time when he got "involved" with Monica (and then lied about it) and Congress was right on to demad justice. HOWEVER.... let us NOT overlook the transgressions of this current administration.

For one thing ... a Commander in Chief who sits on his ass in a photo-op while this nation is under attack is UNACEPTABLE!

<ok, rant mode off....>
.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
9/11 was an inside job!
.

 

So? What makes someone like the racist/rabid anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney's opinion more valuable than mine? And don't even get me going w/ Maj. Ritter. It's somewhere that I just don't want to go.

Well I'm much more of a history guy than a physics one, so my info. is from Popular Mechanics:

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.

No, I don't have perfect trust in any form of government.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

Really, who cares? Clinton has potential to dozens of murders, Ted Kennedy killed someone, Robert Byrd was in the KKK, I mean come on. He shot his friend by accident. Give the guy a break.

Not exactly like that, but fair enough.

Well first, I am an officer. But to answer your question "yes". One, for discipline. When troops start disobeying orders not only does the mission fail and the war become a lost cause, but further, the entire military dissolves and the sense of national security goes with it.

Second, when you join the military you have to trust that you are being sent on missions for a higher, more noble cause. If killing a village of civilians in Africa means saving an entire region in America from being slaughtered, then I will carry out the mission. Yes, it's tough but the one thing I want to say to you is that you don't know very much about how the military operates; there are things that happen in the military (both ways) that we are not allowed to disclose. You can't fight a war like the way were fighting in Iraq and expect to win. Now I'm done talking about this with you before I say too much.

 

as a taxpayer I am VERY concerned that we pay big bucks for a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT that FAILED to defend the PENTAGON on 9/11/2001
that + the fact that our Commander in Chief sat on his ass in a photo op while Manhattan burned ... not good at all!

Its also highly suspisious that all three WTC buildings that collapsed did so in a VERY corherant manner. It was all too neat, too regular .. just like CONTROLED DEMOLITION.

Picture this if you will .. A tall steel framed office tower and by some means
(possibly a meteor from space...) lands a hammer blow on the top of said tower,
now, since in its static condition, all of the welds & joits of said tower are carrying their share of the load, an overload condition would be felt throughout the structure. So if there just happened to be a weak link at the southeast corner of the 37th floor.... would it not be logical that you would see the chaos of weak link failures and not the cohearant orderly collapse observed in not just 1 building that day, or even 2 buildings, but THREE buildings did the same sort of orderly collapse! Thats un-natural!


9/11 = Reichstag fire!

 

I found this on another forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA

It looks like foreknowledge to me.