ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues 911 was an inside job. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135416)

Taco John 02-08-2006 11:06 PM

911 was an inside job.
 
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.

Lurch 02-08-2006 11:09 PM

LOL.....welcome to Neptune. People can believe crap like this, but they can't believe that Sadaam sent WMDs to Syria on trucks prior to the arrival of American troops. Yeeeee-Haaaawwwww.

Taco John 02-08-2006 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch
LOL.....welcome to Neptune. People can believe crap like this, but they can't believe that Sadaam sent WMDs to Syria on trucks prior to the arrival of American troops. Yeeeee-Haaaawwwww.



It's all about the evidence with me.

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-09-2006 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John
It's all about the evidence with me.

It's a long video, and unfortunately it's 2 am here. I'll definitely watch more of it when I get the chance.

Taco John 02-09-2006 12:21 AM

The segment on the collapse of the buildings is what finally did it for me. It's the longest segment, but well worth the watch. Especially at the climax of it when they start highlighting the detonations.

The detonations... wow. Watch those and tell me the building wasn't rigged.

banyon 02-09-2006 12:52 AM

The one thing that's never made any sense to me...

Why didn't the SEC investigate the record selling short on the airline stocks for insider knowledge?

I mean when it comes to Martha Stewart, we're going to bring down the hammer, but whoever made megabucks off of 9-11, let's just drop that?

Nightwish 02-09-2006 01:14 AM

Some of the stuff in there is something of a stretch, but some of it is very well-researched and fairly compelling. I'm doubting that Lurch bothered to watch more than five minutes of it.

Taco John 02-09-2006 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwish
Some of the stuff in there is something of a stretch, but some of it is very well-researched and fairly compelling. I'm doubting that Lurch bothered to watch more than five minutes of it.



I posted the thread at 10:06. He posted at 10:09...


Typical Knee Jerk without considering the evidence that you would expect from someone of his ilk...

Nightwish 02-09-2006 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John
I posted the thread at 10:06. He posted at 10:09...


Typical Knee Jerk without considering the evidence that you would expect from someone of his ilk...

LOL!!! I was close!

Taco John 02-09-2006 01:31 AM

I'm curious what you find to be a stretch... Everything they covered is fairly well documented. SOme of the stuff they cover raises some questions that would lead the mind to stretch. But like I said... They document pretty much everything.

Nightwish 02-09-2006 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John
I'm curious what you find to be a stretch... Everything they covered is fairly well documented. SOme of the stuff they cover raises some questions that would lead the mind to stretch. But like I said... They document pretty much everything.

I'll have to get back to you on that. There were a couple things in there that I thought could be explained away in other ways, but I don't remember specifically what they were. I'll have to watch it again tomorrow when I'm less tired.

Edit: I do remember one of them. The part about the Pentagon, and the clipped light poles, when he was comparing how a much smaller plane got ripped to pieces clipping one, but a 757 clipping eight of them didn't leave any debris. I didn't think that was a real sound comparison, because the wings on a 757 would presumably be a lot stronger than a smaller aircraft. But what they said about the 6-ton titanium engines that have a higher melting point than the top burning temperature of jet fuel, and didn't even leave a dent in the wall or shatter the glass certainly makes one wonder.

The jet fuel was another thing I wasn't sure about. He said jet fuel is the same as kerosene. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that. I know the fuel they use in military jets is definitely different from kerosene, much more dangerous and caustic. I don't know about commercial airliners, though.

Taco John 02-09-2006 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightwish
The jet fuel was another thing I wasn't sure about. He said jet fuel is the same as kerosene. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that.


From the US Centennial of Flight Commission:

The invention of jet engines created another challenge for engine designers. They did not require a fuel that vaporized (turned to a gaseous state) as easily as AvGas, but they did have other requirements. Instead of using gasoline, they chose kerosene or a kerosene-gasoline mix. The first jet fuel was known as JP-1 (for "Jet Propellant"), but the U.S. military soon sought fuels with better qualities. They wanted fuels that did not produce visible smoke and which were also less likely to produce contrails (the visible trail of condensed water vapor or ice crystals caused when water condenses in aircraft exhaust at certain altitudes). But a major requirement was for fuels that did not ignite at low temperatures in order to reduce the chance of fire.


Further into the article:
Commercial jet fuel, known as Jet-A, is pure kerosene and has a flashpoint of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius). It is a high-quality fuel, however, and if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines. Commercial jet fuel as well as military jet fuel often includes anti-freeze to prevent ice buildup inside the fuel tanks.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...uel/Tech21.htm

Taco John 02-09-2006 02:22 AM

The video footage starting at 51 minutes and 45 seconds is some of the most compelling evidence I've seen of this being a planned demolition.

Pants 02-09-2006 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John
The video footage starting at 51 minutes and 45 seconds is some of the most compelling evidence I've seen of this being a planned demolition.

There's a video that's something like 3 hours long completely disecting the events of 9-11 that leaves you more than wondering about the whole thing. I realize that this is an extremelly sensetive subject and some people can't bring themselves to believe that something like this can happen. As such, they automatically dismiss it as "conspiracy theories", but the evidence is there and has been for a very long time.

Pretty much we are absolutely clueless about the world in general and all we know is what we're told by 3rd parties. There is no way for anyone to know WTF really happens in the world. Nothing we can do about it except try and find out facts, however, 99% chose live in denial and eat what they're fed.

Now about the video, he does leave some room when he lists certain things off, however, he presents a very compelling case. The video I was talking about hypothesized an unmanned aircraft hitting the Pentagon, it also went into really detailed physics of what was possible and what wasn't. Just like the other video, this one makes me want to vomit.

memyselfI 02-09-2006 06:21 AM

'Catastrophic event' needed-PNAC :hmmm:

I'm not saying it's true but it would not surprise me one iota if true.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.