9/11: What really happened on that day?

[irosie91]

In sum----think----really high temperatures----NOT FROM THE
BURNING FUELS--------that was just the starter------consider
the PLASTICS

Let me guess, you're going with NIST's explanation that "The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels", that it? It wouldn't explain the molten metal, which is possibly why both the 9/11 Commission and NIST both ignored it...
Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel | Truth and Shadows

of course not----"ordinary office combustible"----EXTRAORDINARY office combustible----things that would not
START burning until their VERY HIGH flashpoint is reached.
No question ---in an ordinary fire---in which wood and --paper burns up----things like metal may just get hot but NOT MELT---
In a fire which is the result of a plane CRASHING thru a building and sustained by jet fuel---the ENERGY LEVELS are much higher than the burning of a bed mattress or a wooden table----the MUCH HIGHER ENERGY levers means MUCH HIGH HEAT-------those levels heat reach the flash points of things that DO NOT ORDINARILY BURN ----sometimes melt but DO NOT BURN-----when plastic burns that CHEMICAL REACTION is extreme exothermic (ie produces MORE HEAT). As the FLASH POINTS of various materials are reached they BURN----their burning produces PROGRESSIVELY MORE HEAT------and those heat levels do melt metals

I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?

no----I am not obsessed with the naysayers----I saw and I know what I saw. I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

 

[phoenyx]

In sum----think----really high temperatures----NOT FROM THE
BURNING FUELS--------that was just the starter------consider
the PLASTICS

Let me guess, you're going with NIST's explanation that "The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels", that it? It wouldn't explain the molten metal, which is possibly why both the 9/11 Commission and NIST both ignored it...
Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel | Truth and Shadows

of course not----"ordinary office combustible"----EXTRAORDINARY office combustible----things that would not
START burning until their VERY HIGH flashpoint is reached.
No question ---in an ordinary fire---in which wood and --paper burns up----things like metal may just get hot but NOT MELT---
In a fire which is the result of a plane CRASHING thru a building and sustained by jet fuel---the ENERGY LEVELS are much higher than the burning of a bed mattress or a wooden table----the MUCH HIGHER ENERGY levers means MUCH HIGH HEAT-------those levels heat reach the flash points of things that DO NOT ORDINARILY BURN ----sometimes melt but DO NOT BURN-----when plastic burns that CHEMICAL REACTION is extreme exothermic (ie produces MORE HEAT). As the FLASH POINTS of various materials are reached they BURN----their burning produces PROGRESSIVELY MORE HEAT------and those heat levels do melt metals

I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?

no

I see.

I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

 

[irosie91]

In sum----think----really high temperatures----NOT FROM THE
BURNING FUELS--------that was just the starter------consider
the PLASTICS

Let me guess, you're going with NIST's explanation that "The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels", that it? It wouldn't explain the molten metal, which is possibly why both the 9/11 Commission and NIST both ignored it...
Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel | Truth and Shadows

of course not----"ordinary office combustible"----EXTRAORDINARY office combustible----things that would not
START burning until their VERY HIGH flashpoint is reached.
No question ---in an ordinary fire---in which wood and --paper burns up----things like metal may just get hot but NOT MELT---
In a fire which is the result of a plane CRASHING thru a building and sustained by jet fuel---the ENERGY LEVELS are much higher than the burning of a bed mattress or a wooden table----the MUCH HIGHER ENERGY levers means MUCH HIGH HEAT-------those levels heat reach the flash points of things that DO NOT ORDINARILY BURN ----sometimes melt but DO NOT BURN-----when plastic burns that CHEMICAL REACTION is extreme exothermic (ie produces MORE HEAT). As the FLASH POINTS of various materials are reached they BURN----their burning produces PROGRESSIVELY MORE HEAT------and those heat levels do melt metals

I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?

no

I see.

I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

 

[phoenyx]

Let me guess, you're going with NIST's explanation that "The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels", that it? It wouldn't explain the molten metal, which is possibly why both the 9/11 Commission and NIST both ignored it...
Molten metal under Trade Center rubble could NOT have come from jet fuel | Truth and Shadows

of course not----"ordinary office combustible"----EXTRAORDINARY office combustible----things that would not
START burning until their VERY HIGH flashpoint is reached.
No question ---in an ordinary fire---in which wood and --paper burns up----things like metal may just get hot but NOT MELT---
In a fire which is the result of a plane CRASHING thru a building and sustained by jet fuel---the ENERGY LEVELS are much higher than the burning of a bed mattress or a wooden table----the MUCH HIGHER ENERGY levers means MUCH HIGH HEAT-------those levels heat reach the flash points of things that DO NOT ORDINARILY BURN ----sometimes melt but DO NOT BURN-----when plastic burns that CHEMICAL REACTION is extreme exothermic (ie produces MORE HEAT). As the FLASH POINTS of various materials are reached they BURN----their burning produces PROGRESSIVELY MORE HEAT------and those heat levels do melt metals

I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?

no

I see.

I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

 

[irosie91]

of course not----"ordinary office combustible"----EXTRAORDINARY office combustible----things that would not
START burning until their VERY HIGH flashpoint is reached.
No question ---in an ordinary fire---in which wood and --paper burns up----things like metal may just get hot but NOT MELT---
In a fire which is the result of a plane CRASHING thru a building and sustained by jet fuel---the ENERGY LEVELS are much higher than the burning of a bed mattress or a wooden table----the MUCH HIGHER ENERGY levers means MUCH HIGH HEAT-------those levels heat reach the flash points of things that DO NOT ORDINARILY BURN ----sometimes melt but DO NOT BURN-----when plastic burns that CHEMICAL REACTION is extreme exothermic (ie produces MORE HEAT). As the FLASH POINTS of various materials are reached they BURN----their burning produces PROGRESSIVELY MORE HEAT------and those heat levels do melt metals

I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?

no

I see.

I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

not true----the fire was fueled by the burning of the whole damned building. which included a lot more than office furniture. Whole forests of living trees do not burn down
by the "fueling" of a single burning cigarette. In the case of the WTC----materials with very strong bonds ---think back to your
ORGANIC class and think POLY VINYLS --<<< really strong
hydrogen bonds being PULLED APART,.........the level of HEAT was virtually moving to infinity as flashpoints were
attained. (you need not tell me that you dropped organic and became a sociology major)--

 

[phoenyx]

I've never seen an article that supports this notion of yours. Could you provide one?

no

I see.

I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

not true----the fire was fueled by the burning of the whole damned building. which included a lot more than office furniture. Whole forests of living trees do not burn down
by the "fueling" of a single burning cigarette. In the case of the WTC----materials with very strong bonds ---think back to your
ORGANIC class and think POLY VINYLS --<<< really strong
hydrogen bonds being PULLED APART,.........the level of HEAT was virtually moving to infinity as flashpoints were
attained. (you need not tell me that you dropped organic and became a sociology major)--

irosie, why do you think it is that no one has come up with this theory yet? You really think you're ahead of everyone on this one?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Wacko conspiracists like this go straight to my ignore list.

well yiostheory,then you better put Irosie and freewill on your ignore list then.

after all,wacko conspiracy theorists like this shill Irosie who believe in this wacky conspiracy theory below in this link here,SHOULD be added to your ignore list.



Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11 (and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs) is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they “hate our freedoms.”

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the Internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks (linked to the CIA), the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

My thoughts, it would be too big and too many people involved for it to be an inside job. We know for pretty much fact that two planes hit the WTCs. The pentagon not so much but eye witnesses indicate a jet did hit the petagon. We know that WTC7 burned for many hours before it collasped. Now if it were rigged with explosives were they put in before the fires, risking damage or during the fires risking personel? Logically the same structural fault that cause WTC1 and 2 to fall would cause WTC 7 to also fall.

So when someone tells me where the people went who were supposedly on the plane. I am going with it was a cleaver plan cooked up and carried out by 19 murderers.

The simplest answer is almost always the best answer.

ahh but the problem with that warped opinion that 19 muslims and Bin Laden were behind it all is twofold. 1.some of the alleged highjackers they said did it turned up alive which disproves their theory. 2. They never proved Bin Laden did it. same as with oswald,in both cases,the ALLEGED criminal denied he did it and in both cases,there was no evidence to prove their case against the alleged criminal. they failed both times which proves Bin Laden same as Oswald,was a patsy as well.


Its only the best answer if you dont want to look at the evidence .

these facts in this link below.prove the governments theory is the most bizarre conspiracy theory invented ever.


Idaho Observer: The looniest of all 9/11 conspiracy theories
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11 (and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs) is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they “hate our freedoms.”

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the Internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks (linked to the CIA), the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

 

[Capstone]

As I see it, the question as to "what really happened on 9/11" should be approached in a way that doesn't downplay the importance of a certain series of events that preceded that darkest of days, from the wave of privatization that swept through NYC in the mid-to-late 90's (which resulted in a couple of key WTC security and elevator system contracts) to the major "renovations" and "modernization projects" that took place in the targeted buildings in the weeks and months leading up to the "attacks". In line with the doctrine of 'plausible deniability', there's little doubt in my mind that 9/11 was years in the making and that several critical steps had been taken unwittingly by bought-and-paid-for politicians as well as wittingly by a handful of teams of professional order-followers and operatives well in advance of 9/11/01.

In terms of some of the operational steps on the day of the "attacks", building on the premise that the targeted skyscrapers had indeed been rigged ahead of time under the pretext of a well-documented series of construction projects, I believe that Flights 11 and 175 were switched out in mid-flight for R/C drones and that the 2 legit airliners were then sent to rendezvous with Flight 93 (a passenger jumbo jet that had been secured and equpped in advance for R/C flight), onto which the passengers and any unwitting crew members from the diverted airliners were loaded with the intention of placing their bodies and personal effects in NYC.

I think it's pretty clear that something went wrong with the Flight 93 aspect of the plan. We know from Cheney's own admission on tape that he issued a shoot-down order based on erroneous information regarding Flight 93's direction of travel. It is my multi-tier belief that the order was followed by an interceptor pilot from The Happy Hooligans and that the in-flight passenger revolt was contrived, in part to put a feel good spin on the story but more importantly to justify the handling and classification of the so-called "crash site" in Shankesville, PA. As a result of that bungled aspect of the operation, the controversy surrounding the inexplicable "collapse" of Building 7 was born...(along with the 9/11 truth movement).

Regarding Flight 77, I believe that a flyover was staged to coincide with the carefully coordinated group assassination that took place aboard the "commuter-type jet" that actually struck the Pentagon. YES, I believe an aircraft really DID hit that building! Can't say who the targets of the group asassination were, but the evidence suggests that the "commuter jet" originated in the D.C. area at a time when evacuations of sensitive facilities were reportedly underway.

Recall Omar Campos's detailed description of the plane: "A 10 to 15 passenger business jet, [...] white up top and blue downstairs, with United States of America markings "...

^^Seriously, Gang, according to an eyewitness who was on the freakin' lawn when it hit, the plane that struck the Pentagon looked very much like the one in that pic.

Now, with the exception of some logic-based speculation, the bulk of the above-mentioned 'beliefs' have their basis in the available evidence; AND, unlike some of my fellow "twoofers", I can actually back up that statement.

To sum things up, I believe that 9/11 was a multinational (though quintessentially Western) false flag operation designed to fulfill the prophecies of the likes of Albert Pike, Oded Yinon, George H.W. Bush, and the PNAC signatories, among others. It really was "a new Pearl Harbor", in every foul-smelling sense of that analogy.

 

[SAYIT]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

So Pop Mechs did not say the plane had liquefied. I take that to mean you started this thread because you wearied of having your lies so easily exposed on the 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile??? thread and needed a new place to post your 9/11 CT lies.

The question remains: if in your many years of "researching" 9/11 you have uncovered convincing evidence of an inside job, why must you lie so persistently?

ok---BOTH tower 1 and 2----just happened to be struck by jets----just happened to BURN, SPIT and SPUTTER and get so hot from the top-----and moving down for hours----so that people were JUMPING out of the windows-----and then-----mysteriously------some one pushed the buttons for the "controlled demolitions" -----WATTA PLAN

There were certainly fires capable of burning people, thus the jumping, but not nearly hot enough melt the buildings. As to what happened, it can only be explained by controlled demolitions...

Classic Red Herring!
Only a fool would claim that the buildings melted so your "knowledge" is particularly common and pointless. I do find you have finally come out of the closet and placed yourself in the "Controlled Demo" CT camp. As with your "Pentagon Flyover" claims, there is absolutely no evidence of a CD and overwhelming evidence that controlled demos in buildings that have been hit by large passenger jets (at high speeds) and suffered structural damage and hours of chaotic fires would be impossible.

 

[irosie91]

no

I see.

I did high school chemistry---and college---101 102 ---and---some other stuff like 'organic' (with all its HIGH ENERGY BONDS----and I remember SMOKEY THE BEAR---because some camper threw a cigarette on some dry leaves

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

not true----the fire was fueled by the burning of the whole damned building. which included a lot more than office furniture. Whole forests of living trees do not burn down
by the "fueling" of a single burning cigarette. In the case of the WTC----materials with very strong bonds ---think back to your
ORGANIC class and think POLY VINYLS --<<< really strong
hydrogen bonds being PULLED APART,.........the level of HEAT was virtually moving to infinity as flashpoints were
attained. (you need not tell me that you dropped organic and became a sociology major)--

irosie, why do you think it is that no one has come up with this theory yet? You really think you're ahead of everyone on this one?

all people with a brain who passed High School Chemistry KNOW IT ----lots of people did not pass or took the baby course------I was in the honors class so I DO understand that the fire became PROGRESSIVELY HOTTER AND HOTTER----
which is why Iron and even steel CAN MELT. ------in fact it need not melt to collapse-----some people know about the
concept of METAL FATIGUE -----it collapses under weight LONG BEFORE IT MELTS. As to heat at the bottom----the very act of that COLLOSAL collapse released so much energy (remember the interchange between energy and HEAT?---) that debris was FLUNG UP AND OUT for miles
(miles refers to small particulate stuff) ------yes----I was there---at least close enough to see it which is why I understand it
was not a controlled demolition-----I have seen controlled demolitions

 

[phoenyx]

As I see it, the question as to "what really happened on 9/11" should be approached in a way that doesn't downplay the importance of a certain series of events that preceded that darkest of days, from the wave of privatization that swept through NYC in the mid-to-late 90's (which resulted in a couple of key WTC security and elevator system contracts) to the major "renovations" and "modernization projects" that took place in the targeted buildings in the weeks and months leading up to the "attacks". In line with the doctrine of 'plausible deniability', there's little doubt in my mind that 9/11 was years in the making and that several critical steps had been taken unwittingly by bought-and-paid-for politicians as well as wittingly by a handful of teams of professional order-followers and operatives well in advance of 9/11/01.

In terms of some of the operational steps on the day of the "attacks", building on the premise that the targeted skyscrapers had indeed been rigged ahead of time under the pretext of a well-documented series of construction projects, I believe that Flights 11 and 175 were switched out in mid-flight for R/C drones and that the 2 legit airliners were then sent to rendezvous with Flight 93 (a passenger jumbo jet that had been secured and equpped in advance for R/C flight), onto which the passengers and any unwitting crew members from the diverted airliners were loaded with the intention of placing their bodies and personal effects in NYC.

I think it's pretty clear that something went wrong with the Flight 93 aspect of the plan. We know from Cheney's own admission on tape that he issued a shoot-down order based on erroneous information regarding Flight 93's direction of travel. It is my multi-tier belief that the order was followed by an interceptor pilot from The Happy Hooligans and that the in-flight passenger revolt was contrived, in part to put a feel good spin on the story but more importantly to justify the handling and classification of the so-called "crash site" in Shankesville, PA. As a result of that bungled aspect of the operation, the controversy surrounding the inexplicable "collapse" of Building 7 was born...(along with the 9/11 truth movement).

Regarding Flight 77, I believe that a flyover was staged to coincide with the carefully coordinated group assassination that took place aboard the "commuter-type jet" that actually struck the Pentagon. YES, I believe an aircraft really DID hit that building! Can't say who the targets of the group asassination were, but the evidence suggests that the "commuter jet" originated in the D.C. area at a time when evacuations of sensitive facilities were reportedly underway.

Recall Omar Campos's detailed description of the plane: "A 10 to 15 passenger business jet, [...] white up top and blue downstairs, with United States of America markings "...

^^Seriously, Gang, according to an eyewitness who was on the freakin' lawn when it hit, the plane that struck the Pentagon looked very much like the one in that pic.

Now, with the exception of some logic-based speculation, the bulk of the above-mentioned 'beliefs' have their basis in the available evidence; AND, unlike some of my fellow "twoofers", I can actually back up that statement.

To sum things up, I believe that 9/11 was a multinational (though quintessentially Western) false flag operation designed to fulfill the prophecies of the likes of Albert Pike, Oded Yinon, George H.W. Bush, and the PNAC signatories, among others. It really was "a new Pearl Harbor", in every foul-smelling sense of that analogy.

I agree that "9/11 was a multinational (though quintessentially Western) false flag operation", and was inspired atleast in part by PNAC's 90 page report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which had that "New Pearl Harbor" line in it. I agree that the plane that approached the Pentagon was smaller then a 757, but I think that's about as far as we agree on that point. I tend to discuss that particular aspect of 9/11 in the Pentagon thread, here: 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

As to the passengers on the 4 planes alleged to have crashed on 9/11, I believe that Phil Jayhan's work on the subject is the most persuasive:
Phil Jayhan: The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What Happened to the Passengers? - Golden Age of Gaia

I think it may not be quite the same as your own theory, but I think the differences are minor.

 

[phoenyx]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

So Pop Mechs did not say the plane had liquefied.

You're right, technically they didn't quite put it that way. I actually quoted what they -did- say, but perhaps you missed it? I'll quote the most relevant part: "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.".

I take that to mean you started this thread because you wearied of having your lies so easily exposed on the 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile??? thread and needed a new place to post your 9/11 CT lies.

You sound just like those who are quick to label anyone who believes the official story a shill. Just because you don't believe what I believe doesn't mean I'm lying. If you'd fully read the OP, you would know why I started this thread.

ok---BOTH tower 1 and 2----just happened to be struck by jets----just happened to BURN, SPIT and SPUTTER and get so hot from the top-----and moving down for hours----so that people were JUMPING out of the windows-----and then-----mysteriously------some one pushed the buttons for the "controlled demolitions" -----WATTA PLAN

There were certainly fires capable of burning people, thus the jumping, but not nearly hot enough melt the buildings. As to what happened, it can only be explained by controlled demolitions...

Classic Red Herring!
Only a fool would claim that the buildings melted so your "knowledge" is particularly common and pointless. I do find you have finally come out of the closet and placed yourself in the "Controlled Demo" CT camp. As with your "Pentagon Flyover" claims, there is absolutely no evidence of a CD and overwhelming evidence that controlled demos in buildings that have been hit by large passenger jets (at high speeds) and suffered structural damage and hours of chaotic fires would be impossible.

Please show me this "overwhelming evidence". In the meantime, I'd like to once again point out Architects and Engineer's key evidence:

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

Source: AE911Truth — Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - Evidence

 

[phoenyx]

I see.

Almost sounds like you're suggesting that all it'd take to collapse a steel framed building is someone dropping a lit cigarette and walking away -.- The fact of the matter is, fires of any size or duration have never been claimed to completely collapsed a building, let alone a steel framed one on any day other than 9/11. Here are some good examples:
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

not true----the fire was fueled by the burning of the whole damned building. which included a lot more than office furniture. Whole forests of living trees do not burn down
by the "fueling" of a single burning cigarette. In the case of the WTC----materials with very strong bonds ---think back to your
ORGANIC class and think POLY VINYLS --<<< really strong
hydrogen bonds being PULLED APART,.........the level of HEAT was virtually moving to infinity as flashpoints were
attained. (you need not tell me that you dropped organic and became a sociology major)--

irosie, why do you think it is that no one has come up with this theory yet? You really think you're ahead of everyone on this one?

all people with a brain who passed High School Chemistry KNOW IT ----lots of people did not pass or took the baby course------I was in the honors class so I DO understand that the fire became PROGRESSIVELY HOTTER AND HOTTER----
which is why Iron and even steel CAN MELT. ------in fact it need not melt to collapse-----some people know about the
concept of METAL FATIGUE -----it collapses under weight LONG BEFORE IT MELTS. As to heat at the bottom----the very act of that COLLOSAL collapse released so much energy (remember the interchange between energy and HEAT?---) that debris was FLUNG UP AND OUT for miles
(miles refers to small particulate stuff) ------yes----I was there---at least close enough to see it which is why I understand it
was not a controlled demolition-----I have seen controlled demolitions

You seem to be interested in high school courses a fair amount. Perhaps you might care to look at what a high school teacher has to say regarding the collapses of the WTC buildings. Some really basic physics principles involved...

 

[irosie91]

roflmao--------it was not just a "fire" ----it also had the impact of the JET PLANE FOR ALLAH. Not to back to your corner
and think "ENERGY"

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

not true----the fire was fueled by the burning of the whole damned building. which included a lot more than office furniture. Whole forests of living trees do not burn down
by the "fueling" of a single burning cigarette. In the case of the WTC----materials with very strong bonds ---think back to your
ORGANIC class and think POLY VINYLS --<<< really strong
hydrogen bonds being PULLED APART,.........the level of HEAT was virtually moving to infinity as flashpoints were
attained. (you need not tell me that you dropped organic and became a sociology major)--

irosie, why do you think it is that no one has come up with this theory yet? You really think you're ahead of everyone on this one?

all people with a brain who passed High School Chemistry KNOW IT ----lots of people did not pass or took the baby course------I was in the honors class so I DO understand that the fire became PROGRESSIVELY HOTTER AND HOTTER----
which is why Iron and even steel CAN MELT. ------in fact it need not melt to collapse-----some people know about the
concept of METAL FATIGUE -----it collapses under weight LONG BEFORE IT MELTS. As to heat at the bottom----the very act of that COLLOSAL collapse released so much energy (remember the interchange between energy and HEAT?---) that debris was FLUNG UP AND OUT for miles
(miles refers to small particulate stuff) ------yes----I was there---at least close enough to see it which is why I understand it
was not a controlled demolition-----I have seen controlled demolitions

You seem to be interested in high school courses a fair amount. Perhaps you might care to look at what a high school teacher has to say regarding the collapses of the WTC buildings. Some really basic physics principles involved...

nope----not at all-----I read the book----the physics teacher
was an IDIOT-----he did not know the subject at all. The
poor guy was forced to grant me an A ------because I aced
the tests----but he FAILED ME IN ----the innovative "mark"
that was added to the scoring system that year---"ATTITUDE"
and even knocked me down by describing me as "apathetic
and indifferent" ------it kept me off the honor role that semester

 

[SAYIT]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

So Pop Mechs did not say the plane had liquefied.

You're right, technically they didn't quite put it that way. I actually quoted what they -did- say, but perhaps you missed it? I'll quote the most relevant part: "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.".

Technically?

Indeed, the most relevant part of that Pop Mech quote was the analogy which correctly noted the condition of the plane as it flowed through the Pentagon's reinforced concrete outer wall: "closer to a liquid than a solid mass" ... not "liquified" (sic) as you falsely claimed.

The common thread running through your posts is your eagerness to post half-truths, mischaracterizations and outright fabrications. Again, if your years of "research" on 9/11 has led you to believe they were controlled demos (complete with a Pentagon "flyover"), why do you so persistently lie when attempting to make your case? Can it be that in your heart of hearts you realize you have burrowed into a wabbit hole and come up with nothing but wabbit crap?

I take that to mean you started this thread because you wearied of having your lies so easily exposed on the 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile??? thread and needed a new place to post your 9/11 CT lies.

You sound just like those who are quick to label anyone who believes the official story a shill. Just because you don't believe what I believe doesn't mean I'm lying. If you'd fully read the OP, you would know why I started this thread.

You sound like those who get caught lying on a very regular basis - and not only I have noticed - and do your "What's The Big Deal" dance rather than change your ways.

Me? I just call 'em like I see 'em and you have proven to be an inveterate liar.

 

[phoenyx]

A fire fueled by only jet plane fuel and office furniture was not enough to even melt the steel, let alone collapse the entire building.

not true----the fire was fueled by the burning of the whole damned building. which included a lot more than office furniture. Whole forests of living trees do not burn down
by the "fueling" of a single burning cigarette. In the case of the WTC----materials with very strong bonds ---think back to your
ORGANIC class and think POLY VINYLS --<<< really strong
hydrogen bonds being PULLED APART,.........the level of HEAT was virtually moving to infinity as flashpoints were
attained. (you need not tell me that you dropped organic and became a sociology major)--

irosie, why do you think it is that no one has come up with this theory yet? You really think you're ahead of everyone on this one?

all people with a brain who passed High School Chemistry KNOW IT ----lots of people did not pass or took the baby course------I was in the honors class so I DO understand that the fire became PROGRESSIVELY HOTTER AND HOTTER----
which is why Iron and even steel CAN MELT. ------in fact it need not melt to collapse-----some people know about the
concept of METAL FATIGUE -----it collapses under weight LONG BEFORE IT MELTS. As to heat at the bottom----the very act of that COLLOSAL collapse released so much energy (remember the interchange between energy and HEAT?---) that debris was FLUNG UP AND OUT for miles
(miles refers to small particulate stuff) ------yes----I was there---at least close enough to see it which is why I understand it
was not a controlled demolition-----I have seen controlled demolitions

You seem to be interested in high school courses a fair amount. Perhaps you might care to look at what a high school teacher has to say regarding the collapses of the WTC buildings. Some really basic physics principles involved...

nope----not at all-----I read the book----the physics teacher
was an IDIOT-----he did not know the subject at all.

What book?

The
poor guy was forced to grant me an A ------because I aced
the tests----but he FAILED ME IN ----the innovative "mark"
that was added to the scoring system that year---"ATTITUDE"
and even knocked me down by describing me as "apathetic
and indifferent" ------it kept me off the honor role that semester

You're saying Jonathan Cole was your teacher?

 

[phoenyx]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

So Pop Mechs did not say the plane had liquefied.

You're right, technically they didn't quite put it that way. I actually quoted what they -did- say, but perhaps you missed it? I'll quote the most relevant part: "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.".

Technically?

Indeed, the most relevant part of that Pop Mech quote was the analogy which correctly noted the condition of the plane as it flowed through the Pentagon's reinforced concrete outer wall: "closer to a liquid than a solid mass" ... not "liquified" (sic) as you falsely claimed.

Lord, save me from nitpickers -.-...

Again, if your years of "research" on 9/11 has led you to believe they were controlled demos (complete with a Pentagon "flyover"), why do you so persistently lie when attempting to make your case?

I think a better question would be why so many people engaged in discussing 9/11 accuse each other of being liars. It certainly doesn't aid in coming to an agreement on what happened. It seems you're uninterested in actually discussing any of the evidence provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. So hard to get people who are actually willing to discuss the evidence in this debate, sigh -.-...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

So Pop Mechs did not say the plane had liquefied.

You're right, technically they didn't quite put it that way. I actually quoted what they -did- say, but perhaps you missed it? I'll quote the most relevant part: "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.".

I take that to mean you started this thread because you wearied of having your lies so easily exposed on the 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile??? thread and needed a new place to post your 9/11 CT lies.

You sound just like those who are quick to label anyone who believes the official story a shill. Just because you don't believe what I believe doesn't mean I'm lying. If you'd fully read the OP, you would know why I started this thread.

ok---BOTH tower 1 and 2----just happened to be struck by jets----just happened to BURN, SPIT and SPUTTER and get so hot from the top-----and moving down for hours----so that people were JUMPING out of the windows-----and then-----mysteriously------some one pushed the buttons for the "controlled demolitions" -----WATTA PLAN

There were certainly fires capable of burning people, thus the jumping, but not nearly hot enough melt the buildings. As to what happened, it can only be explained by controlled demolitions...

Classic Red Herring!
Only a fool would claim that the buildings melted so your "knowledge" is particularly common and pointless. I do find you have finally come out of the closet and placed yourself in the "Controlled Demo" CT camp. As with your "Pentagon Flyover" claims, there is absolutely no evidence of a CD and overwhelming evidence that controlled demos in buildings that have been hit by large passenger jets (at high speeds) and suffered structural damage and hours of chaotic fires would be impossible.

Please show me this "overwhelming evidence". In the meantime, I'd like to once again point out Architects and Engineer's key evidence:

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

Source: AE911Truth — Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - Evidence

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

So Pop Mechs did not say the plane had liquefied.

You're right, technically they didn't quite put it that way. I actually quoted what they -did- say, but perhaps you missed it? I'll quote the most relevant part: "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.".

I take that to mean you started this thread because you wearied of having your lies so easily exposed on the 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile??? thread and needed a new place to post your 9/11 CT lies.

You sound just like those who are quick to label anyone who believes the official story a shill. Just because you don't believe what I believe doesn't mean I'm lying. If you'd fully read the OP, you would know why I started this thread.

ok---BOTH tower 1 and 2----just happened to be struck by jets----just happened to BURN, SPIT and SPUTTER and get so hot from the top-----and moving down for hours----so that people were JUMPING out of the windows-----and then-----mysteriously------some one pushed the buttons for the "controlled demolitions" -----WATTA PLAN

There were certainly fires capable of burning people, thus the jumping, but not nearly hot enough melt the buildings. As to what happened, it can only be explained by controlled demolitions...

Classic Red Herring!
Only a fool would claim that the buildings melted so your "knowledge" is particularly common and pointless. I do find you have finally come out of the closet and placed yourself in the "Controlled Demo" CT camp. As with your "Pentagon Flyover" claims, there is absolutely no evidence of a CD and overwhelming evidence that controlled demos in buildings that have been hit by large passenger jets (at high speeds) and suffered structural damage and hours of chaotic fires would be impossible.

Please show me this "overwhelming evidence". In the meantime, I'd like to once again point out Architects and Engineer's key evidence:

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

Source: AE911Truth — Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - Evidence

Not EVERYONE who doesnt believe the official story of the governments is a lying paid shill like sayit,faun,iroise and candyass of course.

the ones that come and just post one liner insults when they see an OP like this saying stuff like- "You fucking idiot,go somewhere else and troll and take that tin foil hat with you." or that other Bush dupe who earlier said this-"Wacko conspiracists like this go straight to my ignore list."

Now THOSE kind of people are just brainwashed Bush dupes in denial and dont want to look at the evidence. they are just brainwashed same as i once was for three years on this.

The ones that are paid shills that you are too ignorant to accept,are easy as pie to spot and include sayit,faun,iroise and of course their ringleader,the biggest troll of them all candyass.

they play dodgeball and go into evade mode changing the subject when they are cornered by pesky facts they cant address with bible length rants full of lies and propaganda just as their handlers instruct them to do so because gullible people like you OBSESSED over this,will waste their time on them unable to understand 9/11 is the least of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now.

I was once gullible as you were and also ignorantly wasted my time on them for a few years but eventually wised up.

 

[irosie91]

he wised up and became a paid shill