Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Obama version 2.0 / God Bless America

Recommended Posts

You believe this whole incident was planned by a group of foreign terrorists, and carried out without any co-operation from those whose job it was to protect the country from such disasters.

 

If you believe this BullCrap, then I think you believe a story which is far less credible that stories about ETs on the planet. And you are also closing your eyes to a long list of evidential points that support the idea that something very different happened.

 

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Please read my post again and see what I actually said, rather than what you expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's BO !, says Obama

 

The President campaign cost the Top Two parties an estimated US$ 6 Billion.

Was it worth that to anyone?

 

Maybe we should be looking to Short Media companies,

who will not be getting all those easy revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President campaign cost the Top Two parties an estimated US$ 6 Billion.

Was it worth that to anyone?

 

Sickening. What could have been done with that money.... Whatever happened to campaign finance reform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that's not what I said at all. Please read my post again and see what I actually said, rather than what you expected.

 

Then let me ask the Original question again:

 

Do you really find the Official story on 9/11 convincing?

If not, what makes you think it is more credible that other issues we discuss here, like Free Energy and ET's?

If you think it is no more credible, then why aren;t you turning your "scientific skills" to overturning the lies in the 911 story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really find the Official story on 9/11 convincing?

... what makes you think it is more credible that other issues we discuss here, like Free Energy and ET's?

 

May I join in? Yes, I find it entirely credible.

 

The reason I find it more credible than the other two issues is that the former of them is (by current scientific understandings) impossible and the latter (ditto) remarkably unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then let me ask the Original question again:

 

Mind if I ask you something I've asked you many, many times with no answer?

 

What would it take for you to change your mind and start believing the official story? I suspect the answer is "nothing".

 

Do you really find the Official story on 9/11 convincing?

If not, what makes you think it is more credible that other issues we discuss here, like Free Energy and ET's?

If you think it is no more credible, then why aren;t you turning your "scientific skills" to overturning the lies in the 911 story?

 

I also find it broadly convincing.

 

1) 9/11 actually happened. Free Energy and ETs are all just people talking with no physical evidence.

2) The events of 9/11 obeyed the laws of physics.

3) Occam's Razor. Lots of Occams Razor.

 

I would potentially change my mind if presented with compelling physical evidence to the contrary (before you post a video of people claiming they know stuff, no, people talking is not evidence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then let me ask the Original question again:

 

Do you really find the Official story on 9/11 convincing?

If not, what makes you think it is more credible that other issues we discuss here, like Free Energy and ET's?

If you think it is no more credible, then why aren;t you turning your "scientific skills" to overturning the lies in the 911 story?

 

OK

Not really, there are questions that remain, yet the premise is plausible.

 

I believe it would be quite simple to train a few pilots (probably by saudi government) and also to take control of some planes in the US.

 

I flew interior flights in the US before 911 and to be honest, there were practically no security checks at all.

 

The security agencies in the US at that time were in a mess. It seems they didn't communicate with, or work with each other and as such, dropped the ball. This I find totally plausible.

 

At that time, no-one had ever hijacked a plane and flew it into a building, so when the hijackers took control of the planes (remember, flight cockpit doors used to be left wide open back then), I think it's quite reasonable that the passengers decided the best course of action would be to sit tight and see what happened. (They were AFAIR told they that wouldn't get hurt). This I find plausible.

 

I know a couple of pilots and they both said that, on a clear day like that, flying into obviously large targets like that would not be a problem at all (the Pentagon would have been trickier, yet without having to worry about putting the plane down safely, a reasonable pilot could achieve it). Hence I think that's plausible.

 

Working where I do means I regularly find myself in gatherings with world leading experts in manuy areas of Science and Engineering, including civil engineers that have, on a couple of occasions, spoken about the twin towers and how they think the towers acted as would be expected given their construction (not a typical type) and the fact a plane full of fuel crashed into them.

 

It's not my field, but I see no reason to believe these people would lie about such things and I know they don't have any vested interests. As such, I' happy to take their view on it as plausible.

 

Overall, the story's not that unbelievable, hence it's plausible, though questions remain.

 

I've been interested in Free energy, ETs etc from a very young age (maybe that helped in my choice of academic study). It's a field that I can say I know a fair bit about, and the more I learnt about that subject (Physics) the more I realised just how unlikely it would be that ET's would be able to visit us (note I did not say that they don't exist, I think somewhere out there the chances of that are quite high, but the chances of them ever finding us in the right place, in the right time in history and being able to travel the truly vast distances, with the truly vast energies required, is frankly so small as to be, essentially, zero).

 

These things "floated my boat" from a young age and still interest me now. I have spent huge amounts of time and effort over the years looking into these things.

 

911 has questions to answer, however, I just do not have the time to go and learn all about it for myself properly, it would take years and frankly, while it is interesting, it doesn't interest me enough to do this*, so on the major points, I have asked experts that have devoted huge amounts of their time to the study of buildings/flying etc and in this instance, I am happy to take their opinion on face value.

 

 

* The thing is, I don't think I'd be surprised much to find out that perhaps there was more of an element of conspiracy (i.e. the Saudis, the bin laden/bush family connection etc), so, wouldn't be a great eye opening moment for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC7 defied the laws of physics

the Pentagon defied the laws of physics

 

for some reason I cant copy and paste links

but read architects and engineers for 911truth

read chemists for911truth

read firefighters for911truth

read pilots for911truth

read military for 911 truth

 

these are all credible people expert in their own fields but you dont hear what they say

because the MSM will not let them speak

 

The Pentagon one of the most surveillanced buildings in the world

cannot produce one video of the plane attack

 

Office fires dont melt steel and for WTC7 to have collapsed as it did all supporting structures

needed to have failed at exactly the same time ,including those where there was no fire whatsoever

 

No evidence of explosives were found in the WTC attacks -official report

when questioned later they said

we didnt test for explosives as it would have been a waste of public money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WJ,

 

I have watched and read a few things (and alternative explanations etc) about 911, and I agree that there are many questions to be answered. However, as I've said before, I am not an expert in this, and I don't have the time to become one.

 

I have just laid out why I think the points I posted are plausible in response to a direct question from Dr. B regarding plausibility.

 

So, I am not saying that they are facts, just plausible explanations that satisfy my (admittedly when it comes to this subject, lack of) curiosity.

 

I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t interest me as much as other mysteries/phenomena/conspiracies. I don’t know why, but it just doesn’t.

 

As such, and not being an expert in this, I will, respectfully, bow out of this one now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No JD its important that you contribute

this isnt a dick swing competition over who's right or wrong

This is about exposing genocide and mass murder (over 1 million people and counting)

You are a physicist so you understand things that I dont

I was a fireman so I understand things that you dont

Together we can help each other understand what is going on here

This isnt the place for 911 discussion there is a good thread elsewhere on the forum

and also one over at 24k

Please lend your expertise in exposing the crime of the century or debunking it so we can all sleep well

All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read architects and engineers for 911truth

read chemists for911truth

read firefighters for911truth

read pilots for911truth

read military for 911 truth

 

Why would I want to know what a chemist/firefighter/pilot/military person thinks? Why do those jobs make them more credible/relevant? My girlfriend is a PhD chemist (who doesn't swallow the conspiracy theories as it happens) but she's not an authority on anything other than her very specific area of chemistry.

 

Architects and engineers I will accept are a relevant profession. However, I happen to know an awful lot of architects and engineers and not a single one buys into this crap. As it happens my flatmate is an architectural engineer, he was showing me a university paper he wrote on the WTC collapse a couple of weeks ago (I'd dig it up now, but I think he threw it out). He gets annoyed at the fundamental errors made in the conspiracy theories.

 

WTC7 defied the laws of physics

the Pentagon defied the laws of physics

 

...

 

Office fires dont melt steel and for WTC7 to have collapsed as it did all supporting structures

needed to have failed at exactly the same time ,including those where there was no fire whatsoever

 

I don't think WTC 7 or the pentagon defied the laws of physics at all.

 

Why do you think a steel structure would need to actually melt in order for it to collapse? Do you really think it would need to turn to liquid before it actually fell down? Steel weakens as it heats up - combine that with damage sustained from two adjacent falling skyscrapers and I don't think it's unthinkable that it would collapse... It makes a lot more sense than "someone hid tons of explosives in there without anyone noticing and flew planes into other buildings for some reason"

 

No evidence of explosives were found in the WTC attacks -official report

when questioned later they said

we didnt test for explosives as it would have been a waste of public money

 

If a coroner said there's no evidence that a dead person had been shot (no gunshot wounds, etc) would you demand a test for gunshot residue anyway just to be sure? If they didn't do such a test because it would be a waste of time/resources would you take that as an indication that the victim was actually shot and there is a vast conspiracy to cover it up?

 

Also, if there WAS extensive testing for explosives/thermite/whatever and it came back negative, would this change your mind on the matter? Is there anything that would make you change your mind?

 

Finally, if this was an elaborate conspiracy to make it look like arab terrorists flew planes into buildings causing them to collapse when in reality it was planted explosives that did it... Why didn't the evil NWO overlords just plant explosives and say that terrorists planted them? Why bother with the overly-elaborate plane hijacking part at all?

 

 

 

On the whole, I agree that there are some questions to be answered, but I have to say I broadly agree with the standard narrative of events. It seems most plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No JD its important that you contribute

this isnt a dick swing competition over who's right or wrong

This is about exposing genocide and mass murder (over 1 million people and counting)

You are a physicist so you understand things that I dont

I was a fireman so I understand things that you dont

Together we can help each other understand what is going on here

This isnt the place for 911 discussion there is a good thread elsewhere on the forum

and also one over at 24k

Please lend your expertise in exposing the crime of the century or debunking it so we can all sleep well

All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to say nothing

 

Touché WJ,

 

I understand you point, however, as I said it really isn't my field.

 

I agree there are questions to be answered, so I'm not exactly saying nothing, but on the whole (and having spoken to people that can claim to be experts in the field) I think the main points are all pretty plausible, so without that overwhelming doubt, the drive to find additional “truth” for me just isn’t there.

 

Unfortunately, I'm one of those people that if a subject doesn’t really grab my attention, I'm really no use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I want to know what a chemist/firefighter/pilot/military person thinks? Why do those jobs make them more credible/relevant? My girlfriend is a PhD chemist (who doesn't swallow the conspiracy theories as it happens) but she's not an authority on anything other than her very specific area of chemistry.

 

Architects and engineers I will accept are a relevant profession. However, I happen to know an awful lot of architects and engineers and not a single one buys into this crap. As it happens my flatmate is an architectural engineer, he was showing me a university paper he wrote on the WTC collapse a couple of weeks ago (I'd dig it up now, but I think he threw it out). He gets annoyed at the fundamental errors made in the conspiracy theories.

 

I don't think WTC 7 or the pentagon defied the laws of physics at all.

 

Why do you think a steel structure would need to actually melt in order for it to collapse? Do you really think it would need to turn to liquid before it actually fell down? Steel weakens as it heats up - combine that with damage sustained from two adjacent falling skyscrapers and I don't think it's unthinkable that it would collapse... It makes a lot more sense than "someone hid tons of explosives in there without anyone noticing and flew planes into other buildings for some reason"

LOL

You are out of date, A.

 

WTC-7 was "pulled", the owner, Larry Silverstein*, told us so:

 

 

If it fell in an almost identical fashion to the others, what does the orderly collapse of WTC-7,

tell us about the orderly collapse of the others.

 

It amazes me, how willing people are to believe the Official Version of the 9/11 story, when a tiny amount of research will turn up huge holes in the story

=== ===

 

*Look into Silverstein's involvement in this investment, and what he gained from the collapse,

and the whole conspiracy will begin to unravel pretty quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

You are out of date, A.

 

WTC-7 was "pulled", the owner, Larry Silverstein*, told us so:

 

...

 

If it fell in an almost identical fashion to the others, what does the orderly collapse of WTC-7,

tell us about the orderly collapse of the others.

 

It amazes me, how willing people are to believe the Official Version of the 9/11 story, when a tiny amount of research will turn up huge holes in the story

=== ===

 

*Look into Silverstein's involvement in this investment, and what he gained from the collapse,

and the whole conspiracy will begin to unravel pretty quickly

 

So you think that he is somehow involved in a secret conspiracy to destroy the buildings involving blaming arab terrorists flying planes into stuff... and then described it matter-of-factly in a documentary?

 

Don't you think he could be talking about pulling out the firefighting team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think that he is somehow involved in a secret conspiracy to destroy the buildings involving blaming arab terrorists flying planes into stuff... and then described it matter-of-factly in a documentary?

 

Don't you think he could be talking about pulling out the firefighting team?

 

It does sound like he says "pull..... out" with the "out" bit muffled as he goes out of the screen shot, and in the context of what he was saying about lives etc, that sounds reasonable enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah there's been some clever editing in this video. Lots of this guy's speech has been chopped out/edited.

 

I'll add // whenever there's a cut.

 

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander // telling my that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire // I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life // maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made the decision to pull /and/ we watched the buildings collapse."

 

The most brazen one is the final part where someone has edited two sentences together. There's a cutaway to another shot and the editor has injected the word "and" at that point to make it more seamless.

 

How it's done (4:55 mins onward for TV interviews specifically):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH_9QcMCkvg

 

It might not have been done maliciously or anything - maybe there's a good reason to edit what he said - but it does seem very odd that someone who is claiming billions in insurance might risk losing that by casually admitting to destroying the property in a recorded interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's much more around Silverstein, but is late here, and I have an early meeting tomorrow.

 

Look into what he paid for the buildings, the asbestos problems, and the insuramce cover he negotiated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's much more around Silverstein, but is late here, and I have an early meeting tomorrow.

 

Look into what he paid for the buildings, the asbestos problems, and the insuramce cover he negotiated

 

Did the insurance company pay out?

 

(I really don't know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

You are out of date, A.

 

WTC-7 was "pulled", the owner, Larry Silverstein*, told us so:

 

If it fell in an almost identical fashion to the others, what does the orderly collapse of WTC-7,

tell us about the orderly collapse of the others.

 

It amazes me, how willing people are to believe the Official Version of the 9/11 story, when a tiny amount of research will turn up huge holes in the story

=== ===

 

*Look into Silverstein's involvement in this investment, and what he gained from the collapse,

and the whole conspiracy will begin to unravel pretty quickly

 

I did some research into this "pull" bit awhile back. What I found was, as obvious as it seems, the words "pull it" does not refer to demolition. Try google searching for those terms before the date 9/11/01 - you will find nothing. And there is a forum of demolition experts who will say that they never heard of those words. Not sure what he meant, but I don't believe he meant bring it down. Having said that, I do believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I want to know what a chemist/firefighter/pilot/military person thinks? Why do those jobs make them more credible/relevant? My girlfriend is a PhD chemist (who doesn't swallow the conspiracy theories as it happens) but she's not an authority on anything other than her very specific area of chemistry.

 

Architects and engineers I will accept are a relevant profession. However, I happen to know an awful lot of architects and engineers and not a single one buys into this crap. As it happens my flatmate is an architectural engineer, he was showing me a university paper he wrote on the WTC collapse a couple of weeks ago (I'd dig it up now, but I think he threw it out). He gets annoyed at the fundamental errors made in the conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

I don't think WTC 7 or the pentagon defied the laws of physics at all.

 

Why do you think a steel structure would need to actually melt in order for it to collapse? Do you really think it would need to turn to liquid before it actually fell down? Steel weakens as it heats up - combine that with damage sustained from two adjacent falling skyscrapers and I don't think it's unthinkable that it would collapse... It makes a lot more sense than "someone hid tons of explosives in there without anyone noticing and flew planes into other buildings for some reason"

 

 

 

If a coroner said there's no evidence that a dead person had been shot (no gunshot wounds, etc) would you demand a test for gunshot residue anyway just to be sure? If they didn't do such a test because it would be a waste of time/resources would you take that as an indication that the victim was actually shot and there is a vast conspiracy to cover it up?

 

Also, if there WAS extensive testing for explosives/thermite/whatever and it came back negative, would this change your mind on the matter? Is there anything that would make you change your mind?

 

Finally, if this was an elaborate conspiracy to make it look like arab terrorists flew planes into buildings causing them to collapse when in reality it was planted explosives that did it... Why didn't the evil NWO overlords just plant explosives and say that terrorists planted them? Why bother with the overly-elaborate plane hijacking part at all?

 

 

 

On the whole, I agree that there are some questions to be answered, but I have to say I broadly agree with the standard narrative of events. It seems most plausible.

 

Did I say the steel needed to melt ? -No

I said molten steel was found in a building where the max temp possible from office furnishings is not sufficient to melt steel

 

For the collapse to have happened as it did all supporting steel beams needed to fail at exactly the same time

how is that possible when large areas of that building were unaffected by fire and subsequent heat ?

 

When the NIST report stated no evidence of explosives were found they are suggesting they actually looked for

and tested for explosives thus dismissing the possibility of pre planned demolition .

 

If you dont care what those experts in their relevant fields had to say then you have no interest in the truth

why are they more credible ? because they have the knowledge thats why

Why can the authorities not produce a single video footage of the plane crash at the Pentagon ?

There were video cameras everywhere - the answer is simple - no plane crashed into the Pentagon

You have not answered one question you have resorted to belittling others instead

when thats all you have you have your head in the sand

Not one steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire and many have withstood far more intense and longer lasting fires than WTC7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say the steel needed to melt ? -No

I said molten steel was found in a building where the max temp possible from office furnishings is not sufficient to melt steel

 

For the collapse to have happened as it did all supporting steel beams needed to fail at exactly the same time

how is that possible when large areas of that building were unaffected by fire and subsequent heat ?

 

When the NIST report stated no evidence of explosives were found they are suggesting they actually looked for

and tested for explosives thus dismissing the possibility of pre planned demolition .

 

If you dont care what those experts in their relevant fields had to say then you have no interest in the truth

why are they more credible ? because they have the knowledge thats why

Why can the authorities not produce a single video footage of the plane crash at the Pentagon ?

There were video cameras everywhere - the answer is simple - no plane crashed into the Pentagon

You have not answered one question you have resorted to belittling others instead

when thats all you have you have your head in the sand

Not one steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire and many have withstood far more intense and longer lasting fires than WTC7

 

Yeah, on that video that the 9/11 Architects and Engineers made, they showed a building in China (?) that burned for a number of days and still did not fall down. The whole thing was up in flames. WTC7 had a few partial floor fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say the steel needed to melt ? -No

I said molten steel was found in a building where the max temp possible from office furnishings is not sufficient to melt steel

 

For the collapse to have happened as it did all supporting steel beams needed to fail at exactly the same time

how is that possible when large areas of that building were unaffected by fire and subsequent heat ?

 

Not one steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire and many have withstood far more intense and longer lasting fires than WTC7

 

Ah bloody hell WJ, I knew this would happen.

 

Two nights I've not been able to go to sleep straight away now thinking about this stuff! :lol:

 

So, first of all I kept thinking just how much energy would be converted from potential to kinetic to heat and sound as that huge mass of material fell that huge distance. It's massive, way more than enough to have temperatures easily 2000 deg C or higher in the core of the rubble pile.

 

Then checked about metal fires (I'm guessing you've come across these in your fire-fighting days?)

 

I had only heard of them because a friend who works in a scrap yard back home told me a couple of years back how the fire brigade basically just blocked all access to their site (Whites) and let it burn (it wasn’t him that caused the fire, welding accident) as the temperatures can go way beyond any chance of dousing them.

 

So I gave him a call, and he told me that the fire-fighters wouldn’t put water on the metal fire as they said they were worried that it can cause explosions if Aluminium is present (like some cars).

 

So, that got me thinking about planes being made of aluminium, then planes on fire, in a giant chimney (blast furnace like environment), creating temperatures easily hot enough to melt aluminium etc (660degC), which led me to do a search where I found this....

 

ScienceDaily (Sep. 21, 2011) — According to a theory advanced by a SINTEF materials scientist, a mixture of water from sprinkler systems and molten aluminium from melted aircraft hulls created explosions that led to the collapse of the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

 

 

http://www.scienceda...10921074747.htm

 

What do you think?

 

Edit Going back to try and sleep again now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, on that video that the 9/11 Architects and Engineers made, they showed a building in China (?) that burned for a number of days and still did not fall down. The whole thing was up in flames. WTC7 had a few partial floor fires.

 

What could it be other than a controlled demo?

Apparently, a Bush relative was involved in a major security contract on all three buildings,

and that would have given the access needed ahead of time to install the explosives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the fuel was burned off within10 to 15 seconds

the maximum temp possible was 500F so the plane could not have melted

therefore molten aluminum could not exist to cause explosions frrom sprinkler systems

Mixing molten aluminum with water is very dangerous I agree but even if possible

would it be sufficient to collapse these towers .

Lets assume your theory is correct anyway this would have led to a pancaking effect on the floors below

which at each subsequent floor they would meet resistance which would have slowed the collapse and lessened

the subsequent force to the floors below

The collapse speed of the towers would indicate that pancaking did not occur

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

There was no blast furnace situation as far as I can see

 

first of all I kept thinking just how much energy would be converted from potential to kinetic to heat and sound as that huge mass of material fell that huge distance. It's massive,

 

This raises another interesting issue

where did the towers go -considering the sheer volume of materiel contained within the towers

there was a very small pile of debris after the collapse and the seismic data was miniimal

At first I thought this theory by Dr Judy Woods was nonsense

http://www.drjudywood.com/wtc/key.html

but if you have the time or the inclination to look into it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah :

It is obvious that : THE TOWERS WERE 'DUSTIFIED' - How could that happen ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHwutpJ9vTs

 

Based on what we know from previous building collapses and controlled demolitions, the rubble pile of each of the WTC Twin Towers should have been at least 12% of the building's original height (13 stories or more), yet the resulting rubble pile was less than 3 stories tall. This is because the majority of each tower was turned to dust

 

Judy Woody has one of the best explanations, however implausible it may seem at first.

 

The Official story does not deal with very important phenomenon - It is a crock of lies !

An extraordinary tale ("the official lie") requires extraordinary evidence, which is different from what we see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×