What's new

9/11: Illegitimacy of US government

You cannot debunk anything, so you dodge the questions and resort to personal attacks.
Looky here...You foolishly tried to make as if fire cannot cause a global collapse of a building. You were wrong and I proved it. You were wrong about NORAD and the FAA because you are used to living in a dictatorship. You said the FAA was 'negligent' without explaining how.

You can start by admitting that you are wrong about fire cannot cause a building to collapse. But you will not do so because it would mean you could be wrong about everything else.

I don't believe that there was a conspiracy, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda did it in my view. And also in my view Bin Laden has won the war.

1. The attack was able to hit 3 out of the 4 targets, which is a great success on a operational level.

2. The attack was meant to draw America into a "Vietnam style" war in Afghanistan to bankrupt the US. He got a bonus with Iraq on that ! And the Americans for the past 12 years have been bankrupting themselves chasing phantoms across the planet. So strategically it was a success too.

The moral of the story is that the mighty and glorieus America got beaten down by a cave dweller and has in its stupidity unable to stand up yet.
Yeah...Sure...Two ME countries got smacked. Osama bin Laden shot in his own bedroom.

Yup...The US lost.
 
.
Yeah...Sure...Two ME countries got smacked. Osama bin Laden shot in his own bedroom.

Yup...The US lost.

Indeed America has smacked two countries. One country (Iraq) has nothing to do with 9/11. Can you explain why America attacked Iraq after 9/11 ? Useless war that has cost the Americans in both fortune and lives. Bin Laden couldn't believe his luck.

America has smacked another country (Afghanistan). And here is a little geography lesson for you Gambit. Afghanistan is NOT a ME country. I know for you Americans all muslims lives in the ME but that's not the case. There in Afghanistan the American military has been fighting a frustrating war for 12 years. So the all mighty American military has been fought to a stand still in the Hindu Kush by men on flip flops.

And Bin laden is dead. So what ? He is just one man. Did the North lose the American Civil War because Abraham Lincoln got killed ?

The US military since the beginning of the war on terror has won all of the battle's they got into. But you also have lost all the wars they have engaged in so far. Because you can't achieve any of you're stated political and strategic goals. Same as in Vietnam winning the battles but losing the war. Exactly according to Bin Ladens plans. Bin laden must be thanking God/Allah that the Americans are soooo stupid to fall into his trap. He died a satisfied man.
 
.
Indeed America has smacked two countries. One country (Iraq) has nothing to do with 9/11. Can you explain why America attacked Iraq after 9/11 ? Useless war that has cost the Americans in both fortune and lives. Bin Laden couldn't believe his luck.
We never said Iraq had a hand in 9/11.

America has smacked another country (Afghanistan). And here is a little geography lesson for you Gambit. Afghanistan is NOT a ME country. I know for you Americans all muslims lives in the ME but that's not the case. There in Afghanistan the American military has been fighting a frustrating war for 12 years. So the all mighty American military has been fought to a stand still in the Hindu Kush by men on flip flops.
Our military is at a standstill because we do not want to destroy Afghanistan, which is fully in our capability to do so.

And Bin laden is dead. So what ? He is just one man. Did the North lose the American Civil War because Abraham Lincoln got killed ?
The North was already winning. So Lincoln's death could not have negatively detract from that.

The US military since the beginning of the war on terror has won all of the battle's you got into. But you also have lost all the wars you have engaged in so far. Because you can't achieve any of you're stated political and strategic goals. Same as in Vietnam winning the battles but losing the war. Exactly according to Bin Ladens plans. Bin laden must be thanking god/Allah that the Americans are soooo stupid to fall into his trap. He died a satisfied man.
Hey...You are free to believe that we 'lost' in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it is a good thing that you are not among the military leadership of wherever you are.
 
.
Just because it may look like a controlled demolition, it does not mean that is the cause. Further, WTC 7 was already structurally compromised by falling debris, so any fire internally would compound any collapse mechanism. I doubt you even understand 1/10th the crap you lifted from those loony conspiracy web sites.


How do you determined the FAA acted 'negligently'? By what standards?


So many gullible fools in China.

Well China is home of 1.3 billion people, so proportionally there are many fools in China
 
. .
We never said Iraq had a hand in 9/11.

Then why was Iraq attacked ?

Our military is at a standstill because we do not want to destroy Afghanistan, which is fully in our capability to do so.

Are you sure ? Since the Americans destroyed Vietnam and they couldn't win the war. The Soviets destroyed Afghanistan and they couldn't win the war. If you think that by destroying Afghanistan you can win the war. Then you are someone who believe that doing the same thing over and over again will get you a diffrent result. There must be a definition of insanity in there somewhere.

The North was already winning. So Lincoln's death could not have negatively detract from that.

America is already stuck in 2 wars for about a decade and is already broke so Bin laden's death is not a negative distraction for the grand plan.

Hey...You are free to believe that we 'lost' in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it is a good thing that you are not among the military leadership of wherever you are.

If you think that America is winning or has won in iraq and Afghanistan then you're feel free to do so. But it is a good thing that you are not among the military leadership of wherever you are. same to you.
 
.
Great job mods. I reported this thread and its still not locked or deleted.
 
.
Looky here...You foolishly tried to make as if fire cannot cause a global collapse of a building. You were wrong and I proved it. You were wrong about NORAD and the FAA because you are used to living in a dictatorship. You said the FAA was 'negligent' without explaining how.

You can start by admitting that you are wrong about fire cannot cause a building to collapse. But you will not do so because it would mean you could be wrong about everything else.

Fire cannot collapse modern buildings. When has a fire collapsed a large building (similar to WTC 7) in America (before WTC 7)?
Buildings on fire don't collapse in its own footprint. No amount of fire can ever collapse a building identical to a controlled demolition.

FAA was told not to do anything when they detected this operation was happening.

Try to find excuses for my other questions which you dodge because you know I'm right.
 
.
Fire cannot collapse modern buildings. When has a fire collapsed a large building (similar to WTC 7) in America (before WTC 7)?
Buildings on fire don't collapse in its own footprint. No amount of fire can ever collapse a building identical to a controlled demolition.

FAA was told not to do anything when they detected this operation was happening.

Try to find excuses for my other questions which you dodge because you know I'm right.



And you have................


........................a doctorate in civil engineering????????????
 
.
Building refuses to conform to post-9/11 understanding of physics

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars

The new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints, was confounded once again as a 40-storey skyscraper in Chechnya was engulfed with flames for hours yet did not collapse.

6777_369649243148522_696777319_n.jpg


9546_576737265679004_1207801076_n.jpg


The blaze consumed an apartment building in Grozny, the Chechen capital yesterday evening before it was eventually put out in the early hours of Thursday morning. Fires burned on every single floor of the structure apart from the ground floor.


“According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched,” reports RIA Novosti.

The building is the tallest structure in the region outside of Moscow, standing at 145-meters (475-foot). No one was injured or killed in the blaze but dozens had to be evacuated.

Although officials expressed concern at one point that the building could collapse, its core structure was not affected by the huge fire.

Compare the skyscraper in Grozny to the similar-sized WTC Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane, suffered comparably limited fire damage, and yet collapsed almost into its own footprint at near free fall speed.

Following 9/11, scientists agreed that instead of accepting the premise that some form of explosives must have been used to bring down WTC 7, physics itself must be wrong and that normal fires can burn hot enough to weaken steel cores, despite the fact that they were barely hot enough to break the vast majority of windows in Building 7.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to invent a “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” to explain the collapse of WTC 7, labeling it “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” in history.

The collapse of Building 7 was so highly anticipated that it was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN. Firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

The Grozny skyscraper is just the latest example of a building refuse to conform to our new post-9/11 understanding of physics, following the example of a similar sized building in Beijing which was also consumed by fire in 2009 but remained standing.

Source
source


Another example:

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Building refuses to conform to post-9/11 understanding of physics

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars

The new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints, was confounded once again as a 40-storey skyscraper in Chechnya was engulfed with flames for hours yet did not collapse.

6777_369649243148522_696777319_n.jpg


9546_576737265679004_1207801076_n.jpg


The blaze consumed an apartment building in Grozny, the Chechen capital yesterday evening before it was eventually put out in the early hours of Thursday morning. Fires burned on every single floor of the structure apart from the ground floor.


“According to the emergencies service, the blaze has damaged an area of more than 14,000 square meters. It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched,” reports RIA Novosti.

The building is the tallest structure in the region outside of Moscow, standing at 145-meters (475-foot). No one was injured or killed in the blaze but dozens had to be evacuated.

Although officials expressed concern at one point that the building could collapse, its core structure was not affected by the huge fire.

Compare the skyscraper in Grozny to the similar-sized WTC Building 7 on 9/11, which was not hit by a plane, suffered comparably limited fire damage, and yet collapsed almost into its own footprint at near free fall speed.

Following 9/11, scientists agreed that instead of accepting the premise that some form of explosives must have been used to bring down WTC 7, physics itself must be wrong and that normal fires can burn hot enough to weaken steel cores, despite the fact that they were barely hot enough to break the vast majority of windows in Building 7.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to invent a “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” to explain the collapse of WTC 7, labeling it “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building” in history.

The collapse of Building 7 was so highly anticipated that it was reported before it happened by several news stations, including BBC and CNN. Firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

The Grozny skyscraper is just the latest example of a building refuse to conform to our new post-9/11 understanding of physics, following the example of a similar sized building in Beijing which was also consumed by fire in 2009 but remained standing.

Source
source


Another example:

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse


Game, set and match!

Proves my point without a shadow of a doubt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Building refuses to conform to post-9/11 understanding of physics

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars

The new understanding of physics since September 11, 2001, that limited fire damage can cause buildings to implode at almost free fall speed into their own footprints, was confounded once again as a 40-storey skyscraper in Chechnya was engulfed with flames for hours yet did not collapse.
Yeah...That building was built in the exact manner as WTC 7, with the same materials, was structurally compromised by falling debris from the other towers...

Fire cannot collapse modern buildings. When has a fire collapsed a large building (similar to WTC 7) in America (before WTC 7)?
Buildings on fire don't collapse in its own footprint. No amount of fire can ever collapse a building identical to a controlled demolition.
And I have shown you a source that says otherwise.

FAA was told not to do anything when they detected this operation was happening.
What operation is that? So in your simple mind, if there is a flight deviation, it must be a hostile.

Try to find excuses for my other questions which you dodge because you know I'm right.
No, we know you are nuts.
 
.
Game, set and match!

Proves my point without a shadow of a doubt.

Did they actually realize that the WTC towers were made long before that sky scrapper in Chechnya?

Can't believe this subject is still being talked about so many years on *facepalm*
 
.
Did they actually realize that the WTC towers were made long before that sky scrapper in Chechnya?

Can't believe this subject is still being talked about so many years on *facepalm*
To their simple minds, if a block of wood and a block of steel have the exact dimensions, both are effectively identical in nature and characteristics.
 
.
Fools can be brave. And just because you dare to 'speak out' that does not mean what you say is the truth or even credible.Leslie Robertson led the WTC construction team. What*EQUIVALENT*experience does Alan Sabrosky have?Why not the builders of the Petronas Towers on your side? After all, they are taller than the WTC Towers.Source:*http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...legitimacy-us-government-4.html#ixzz2PluiNyfo


your problem is that you are psychologically incapable of looking at the truth because it is too much for you.

the fact is that there are just too many people, too many well qualified decent and respectable people who are speaking out and you do not want to face it so you smear them.....one by one if you need to.

the official 911 investigators themselves question the official story, so why do you unquestionably swallow the official story, it makes no sense.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/psychologists-questioning-9-11-is-the-sane-thing-to-do/26719
 
.
Back
Top Bottom