[Closed] A thousand 9/11s...

Deeply sceptical of those peddling books on shocking subjects...

Not really

I watched the 9/11 programme on 4 last night. The footage of the 2nd plane hitting the tower, in particular, is still as shocking as it was at the time

[img] [/img]

911000?

818.181818 recurring, surely?

Deeply sceptical of those peddling books on shocking subjects...

Where in the article is he peddling books?

It's those peddling wars you have to worry about...

I thought this was going to be about a Porsche rally 🙁

I was expecting Porsches too 🙁

Not often I agree with JHJ but I do think there is [i]some[/i] truth in what that article says.

Giving your population a common enemy and something to fear is a good way to maintain control and pass laws or actions that would be rejected in "peace time".

9/11 was an atrocity but I remember people calling for nukes to be used in retaliation to "turn the desert to glass" - for those people a thousand 9/11s is entirely justified 🙁

well spotted great ape that surely can't be a coincidence.

Eighty-one is the square of 9 and the fourth power of 3. Like all powers of three, 81 is a perfect totient number. It is a heptagonal number and a centered octagonal number. It is also a tribonacci number, and an open meandric number. 81 is the ninth member of the Mian-Chowla sequence.

In base 10, it is a Harshad number, and one of three non-trivial numbers (the other two are 1458 and 1729) which, when its digits are added together, produces a sum which, when multiplied by its reversed self, yields the original number:

8 + 1 = 9
9 × 9 = 81

818 is also an area code in california

"The Valley" -- the San Fernando Valley that encompasses the northern portion of the City of Los Angeles (although it constantly wants to secede). Known for Valley Girls ("yeah, like gag me with a spoon... as if!"), the Galleria and a climate significantly hotter than the other side of the hill and thus rivaling Hell. Also the porn capital of the Western Hemisphere.

should keep jivebunny busy for a while

Exactly, and that's why only a blind and would fail to see the link between the two.

a link between 8 and 1?

7? as in 7/7?

Makes you think...

Remember....it was the USA that was responsible for 9/11.

Remember....it was the USA that was responsible for 9/11.

Well, I'm convinced.

The thing with 9/11 is there is no way the fuel in the planes could have caused that much damage, however when you add in all the chemicals the planes were carrying to create chem trails then it becomes much more probable.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

And you can't light petrol by dropping a lit fag on it. So you really do have to question the "official" version of events.

What about fire?

Planes cannot slice through steel and concrete so the commentator tells me as I watch a plane slice through steel and concrete...makes you think eh

Loons who try to deny any planes hit the towers are a sorry reflection on how decades of lies by governments can lead to complete mistrust of reality.

Speaking of planes not hitting towers, WTC7 didn't even need any jet fuel...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

😆

Junkyard - lazarus

Planes cannot slice through steel and concrete so the commentator tells me as I watch a plane slice through steel and concrete...makes you think eh

br />

What's the debunk for the second point he makes? Video processing artifact?

Edit: nothing as clever as that, the narrator on the video is obviously a moron with no knowledge of the layout of the area:

As some one who used to work in WTC 2 in the mid to late 90's and knows people who were directly affected by this it always amuses me when these threads come up, the things some of you guys do to amuse yourselves.

I think South Park covered this much better than any of you conspiracy nuts, who seemed to have multiplied in numbers since easy access to hi resolution camera phones put a stop to UFO and Big Foot stories.

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

And you can't light petrol by dropping a lit fag on it. So you really do have to question the "official" version of events.

What about fire?

The official report is flawed but 'proper' experts worked out the reason for the hot, hot heat and explosions which led to the towers collapse. Sadly the official report wasn't altered to include the probable cause as it would have made the writers of the original report look a bit stoopid.

It was a massive mistake going into Afghanistan - I assume the west knew the position of the al-qaeda training camps so why did they just not use their hi-tech weaponry to target them and make a show of strength without the huge civilian casualties than have since resulted?

I bet the long term consequences of that action would have been widely better than were we are now.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I was of the same opinion at the start of that war, and I am not some left-wing, Corbyn-loving, goddam pinko...

Loons who try to deny any planes hit the towers are a sorry reflection...

Some folk will beleive any old claptrap. Loons, eh?

Some reptilians seem to miss the satirical nature of these threads.

JHJ does seem to be talking sense this time. It's not really a conspiracy theory to note that innocent people get killed when you go to war, and 9/11 was used as the basis for starting a lot of recent fighting.

The fighting has tended only to recruit more to the terrorist's ranks, unsurprisingly. But hey, at least the governments involved can be seen to be "doing something".

[img] [/img]

"Hi there, I have no real clue what I'm talking about or have I ever studied anything relevant to building collapse or a jet careering into the side of a building that was never meant to withstand a plane full of fuel - but I made a video about it because I have no problem trampling over people's grief in the search for (my moronic) truth"

It's not a game of "who has it worse" and perhaps if everyone put as much effort into realising this and treating everyone equally we wouldn't have to mark any atrocities with an anniversary

so you all saying... Porsche conspired to bring down the two towers to boost 9/11 sales once a year?

Rip to all lives lost

I do hope some of the lives lost rest in absolute agony actually.

Loons who try to deny any planes hit the towers are a sorry reflection on how decades of lies by governments can lead to complete mistrust of reality.

So you have somehow found a way of blaming "Governments" for conspiracy loons making up random shit and passing it off as fact.

Genius 🙄

Well the US government has lied about the Apollo Moon landing, the origin of AIDS, alien abductions, chemtrails, and whether Elvis is still alive, so it's hardly surprising that there now exists mistrust.

So you have somehow found a way of blaming "Governments" for conspiracy loons making up random shit and passing it off as fact.

I think he said they helped fan the flames by pedalling lies
Some folk just dont trust anything "official"

I dont think it is an unreasonable point

Well the US government has lied about the Apollo Moon landing,

I'm not even sure the moon really exists

The Moon definitely exists. It's from there that the reptilian humanoids control our minds.

that is just what they want you to think

The moon isn't actually physically possible according to "a scientist".

It's really a space station for the reptilians.

See below how small the Moon is compared to the size of the Sun :

[img] [/img]

And yet every so often we get a so-called "eclipse" when we are told that the tiny Moon has blocked out the huge Sun by going in front of it.

Yeah right. Obviously the reptilian humanoids are using mind control to make us think everything has gone dark - while they get up to some dodgy shenanigans no doubt.

I love conspiracy theories. It's the way all the incredible complexity and often internal contradictions of every single last one comes down to the same 3 things:
1) Knowing things that other people don't know, makes some people feel superior
2) Knowing things that other people don't know is hard though
3) Except when they're made up

[img] [/img]
https://xkcd.com/690/

Well why not

[img] [/img]

No doubt there are many theories to answer these questions...

[img] ?oh=8d2467ec9f473df5db8b953aea5ccffc&oe=5674B84E[/img]

Play along at home and devise your own

Facts:

- At 550 degrees C,steel has 60% of its strength.
-Jet fuel combusts at around 410 degrees.
- hydrogen, contained in Jet fuel, burns at 2210 degrees C in air.
- Steel melts at between 1370 and 1500 degrees C, depending on the grade.

No plane hit WTC 7! and no jet fuel or aluminium exploded in there either ... yet it Still fell down.
them two "Experts" on last nights prog didn't mention THAT little nugget Once.

Come on then:

September 11
Bin Laden involvement
Mecca

makes you think, eh?

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. But the beams were not melted. Although to melt steel you need to heat it to something like 900 to 1300 degrees (can't be bothered to look it up) but at 600 degrees (a temp easily achieved with burning jet fuel and other materials in a building set alight by the jet fuel) steel has lost most of its strength, so the cause of the collapse wasn't melted steel beams, but weakened steel beams.

The WTC structures were a bit unusual anyway, weren't they? I remember seeing a documentary some years ago, before 9/11, on them and how I think BL had attempted to bomb them before as he recognized their potential for collapse.

Mecca

It's all a Bingo plot now?

Come on then:

September 11
Bin Laden involvement
Mecca

makes you think, eh?

Further irony courtesy of Huffpost this morning:

The current mosque expansion is being carried out by the Saudi Binladin Group, a company founded by the father of Osama bin Laden.

Bingo is an anagram of Boing, Boeing made the planes used in the WTC attack, plane sounds like crane

Only a fool would fail to see the connection!

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. But the beams were not melted. Although to melt steel you need to heat it to something like 900 to 1300 degrees (can't be bothered to look it up) but at 600 degrees (a temp easily achieved with burning jet fuel and other materials in a building set alight by the jet fuel) steel has lost most of its strength, so the cause of the collapse wasn't melted steel beams, but weakened steel beams.

Find [url= http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html ]the many accounts of molten steel[/url] confusing in that case... are there any satisfactory explanations?

How did the explosives used in a controlled demolition cause puddles of molten steel?

The burning of hydrocarbons releases hydrogen to be used as fuel, which can burn at 2210 C in air, as I stated above. Not to mention other potential fuels that may have been present in the building itself. I'm sure the guidelines on using combustible materials in buildings weren't as strict when those buildings were built.

I was about to ask the same thing, what is the tinfoil explanation for the molten steel if it wasn't caused by the huge fires?

Are they saying that the clandestine agency that wanted to secretly bring down the towers used so much thermite that there were noticeable puddles of molten steel?

These guys seem like they may have a credible explanation:

Doesn't the burning temperature of a fuel depend on the conditions? Like how much oxygen?

All these people saying that jet fuel can't melt steel should go to a blacksmiths and try puming the bellows, see what happens to the iron.

These guys [s]seem like they may have a credible explanation:[/s] say what I already believe so I will cite it and claim its credible

Many doctors support homoeopathy and many bright folk believe in god
None of these appeals to authority, nor yours, prove anything

Facts:

- At 550 degrees C,steel has 60% of its strength.
- Jet fuel combusts at around 410 degrees.
- hydrogen, contained in Jet fuel, burns at 2210 degrees C in air.
- Steel melts at between 1370 and 1500 degrees C, depending on the grade.

Another fact. Aluminium (like the stuff that is used to make aeroplanes) when properly molten (not runny), is incredibly explosive when introduced to water (like the stuff used in sprinklers systems to put out fires).

It takes a lot of heat to make aluminium molten, but a makeshift kiln (made out of plasterboard and other things that are used to build buildings) would do the trick.

This is what a couple of smart folk (a chemist and a metal specialist - not engineers or firemen) reckon caused the explosions and led to the collapse.

The official report forgot to take the aluminium of the planes into account when conducting their testings as the they thought it simply disappeared on impact.

I think there was a prog on c5 last night about it.

None of these appeals to authority, nor yours, prove anything

Yes sir, sorry sir, I'm very glad the powers that be blessed us with 27.5 wheels

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Nobody is telling you don't have the right to "speak out or question"

So why would we not have the right to do the same and point it out when you post factless crap.

Yes sir, sorry sir, I'm very glad the powers that be blessed us with 27.5 wheels

when you post factless crap

How is it factless?

One of the facts presented:

The towers fell via the path of most resistance...

for example, when you have a leaning section as we see here:

[img] [/img]

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.

Another fact...

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue.

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.

Indeed - just watch this structure "pivot on the structure below into free air" like a tree rather than substantially collapsing in on itself, despite the bloke involved taking a big wedge out of it deliberately to make it pivot on the structure below:

And look, all achieved by fire! Whats the melting point of Brick again?

Ironically, if you want to topple a building like JHJ describes, rather than have it pancake straight down, you'd have to use explosives

I love the molten steel thought process and how it tangles itself up with controlled explosions, it's the perfect conspiracy theory implosion. The seismograph traces prove there were explosions, right? But explosions wouldn't cause molten steel. Ah hah, thermite! But thermite wouldn't cause seismograph traces.

But it doesn't matter if your conspiracy theory is self-contradictory, as long as it also contradicts the official story.

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue

They did not because they assumed the two large planes that flew into them and exploded caused the damage...the ejjitts

Nor did they test for Aliens, Elvis or JFK...makes you think eh

Find the many accounts of molten steel confusing in that case... are there any satisfactory explanations?

In 64AD during the Great Fire of Rome, the temperature was hot enough to melt the granite steps of the great boulevards. Wood, textiles and oil were the primary combustable substances, but the wind fanned the flames into a firestorm where temperatures were in excess of 1300 degrees.

High up in the towers, with the wind swirling around them feeding oxygen to the fire, the temperatures would have been substantially higher than the melting TG temperature for steel.

I once watched a steel superstructure burn UNDERWATER in the presence of pure oxygen...always remember the fire triangle.

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.
[b]Another fact...[/b]

Nope.

It's another [b]opinion. [/b]

You really need to get the difference between those two words sorted.

It's quite important.

Opinions don't magically transform into Facts just because they happen to agree with what you have already decided.

what if you got steel really hot and then ****ted it really hard with, oh i dont know, say....an aeroplane?

Don't think there was any reason for the steel to be hot before the planes hit though ?

just meant that the steels werent in showroom/testlab condition

Lets face it, when you see a car that's been burnt out, the glass isn't still in the frame, is it? The melting point of glass is 1400-1700 degrees and the fire is generally started and fueled by petrol...

Glass in a car fire probably shatters from heat stress and distortion of the frame, rather than melting.

I agree that's what breaks the glass, but I think you're overlooking the solidified pool of silica usually found around the car.

Car fires burn so hot because of all the plastics, regardless of what starts the fire, the massive amount of plastics in the interior start to burn and easily create enough heat to melt glass

That's why it's irrelevant what temp aviation fuel burns at.

It's the contents of the building that were on fire after the first ten minutes.

Unless anyone has a list of the contents, then that train of thought is a red herring really.

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.
Another fact...

The fact in this instance is that it's some really shady selective quoting on your part...