Added: 2 years ago
From: rubeeye127
Views: 76,532
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (4,649)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The biggest question is.. why would the US STOP using false flag attacks when they have a history of using them before going to war?

  • 1. How would the US government convince someone to go suicide bomb the WTC?

    2. Do you really think if it were a "Government consipiracy" that it would involve so many people? If so, how has the truth not come out yet... especially with all the pressure from things like loose change and so on.

    3. IF IT WERE a conspiracy, why would the US government let loose change become a site? with the power to remove things from the internet in seconds of being uploaded, I daresay they would have removed LC.

  • @DoctorL00mis I will try to answer your questions. I have a lot of information about the subject.

    1) The government didn't convince anyone to do a suicide attack. The pentagon was hit by a helicopter missile. (no footage exits of any plane).

    2) The trade centers were hit by an unmanned military planes. Witnesses report seeing big planes that didn't have any windows. (747s have many windows).

    3) Loose change was posted on youtube first, IF they removed it they'd fall under suspicion

  • @DoctorL00mis There were many people involved in this conspiracy. But few people did come forth and admit it like Sue Lindauer. John Kerry admitted in an interview that buildings of the trade center were 'brought down in a controlled fashion". W. Bush could't get his story straight about when he saw the first plane. Xfiles episode 'the lone gunmen' predicted 911, released almost a year before 911 in the episode gov't uses a terrorist to steal 747 crash it in world trade center.

  • Watch this video of a NIST engineer's reaction when confronted with the the question about Molten Steel that was found at the trade center. (remove extra spaces) >> ht tp://w ww.youtube.c m/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg .........911 was a complete coverup. People got richer from it, follow the money and you'll see.

  • @redcapedjoker

    .

    "watch?v=3SLIzSCt"

    .

    Haven't we been over this?

    Explain why there were no gigantic and extremely hazardous explosions in the aftermath from water hitting molten metal.

    Again, you cannot have it both ways.

    If the molten metal was there than any reaction with water would create a massive explosion.

    Again, you cannot have it both ways.

    So, once more, explain the lack of gigantic explosions when tons of water were poured on the the WTC rubble. Explain!

  • @wimahlers WHAT WATER? Dude your theories with 'friction' from falling buildings and this water. I have a very hard time following you. What water?

  • @wimahlers again if water would drip on molten steel wouldn't it just evaporate?

  • your an idiot. water when evaporated expands. in a confined space it will create an explosion. examples, fukashima nuclear plants in japan following the tsunami. also it is the most common way electricity is created. truthers lie and know shit all

  • @thejonnie1988 you said 'in a confined space' but in towers building was open to the elements because windows broke as it was collapsing. Also, temperatures inside a nuclear reactions are much hotter than steel melting temperatures. Most important point is that 911 was and inside job there was molten steel, John Kerry admitted to it, Bush couldn't get his story straight about when he saw the 1st plane hit, no footage exists of a plane hitting a pentagon, why did Building7 collapse

  • @wimahlers "Hold off with the water, it's red hot, if we hit it with too much water it'll steam and he wont be able to see what he's doing."

    - fireman at ground zero 6 WEEKS AFTER THE BUILDINGS FELL.

    /watch?v=yEc0d-juRg0

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "watch?v=yEc0d-juRg0"

    .

    EXACTLY! No explosions! Therefore, no molten steel. You just proved the point. Thank you.

  • @wimahlers /watch?v=2qJzDYsQfck

    Molten metal + water = steam. To get an explosion you need a sealed space.

    The real question is: how is it so hot 6 weeks later?

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "watch?v=2qJzDYsQfck"

    .

    You may have overlooked but ...The claim was molten steel.

    That, and the claim of "pools of molten steel flowing as lava", not a puddle or a slack ... and that is a whole different vall game!

    Note: Aluminum you can easily melt in a decent camp fire. Steel you cannot.

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "The real question is: how is it so hot 6 weeks later?"

    .

    Odd I would ask the opposite question if there would have been no fires after such a short time. But everything went as expected. A lot of thermal energy resulting in flaring fires during the excavation. Feel free to consult any accredited fire expert to confirm that this is very normal for this event.

    I have seen it before with a sunken scrap ship burning for days/weeks (can't remember: 70's ) under water!

  • @jimhemstreet Actually ... the real question you should ask yourself:

    What onearth have these fires to do with any claim? Certainly NOT (any derivative of) thermite. Because (any derivative of)| thermite can and do not create "pools of molten steel" ... this with the knowledge that even one pool of molten steel is extremely unlikely to have occured at the WTC.

  • @wimahlers molten steel was found below wtc1, 2 and 7, fire cannot do that, so the official lie is false, not to mention the other billion reasons, u cant even find one pic or vid of a commercial airliner used on 9.11, showing its colours, astonishing!!

  • @wellifthemediasaysit

    .

    "molten steel was found below wtc1, 2 and 7"

    .

    a) There is zero proof for that.

    b) It contradicts the fact that NO explosions were ever heard or reported in the aftermath of these pools of molten steel reacting with thousands of gallons of water being poured on the WTC rubble in the aftermath.

    In other words, your claim is not supported and contains an internal contradiction. Such logic does NOT justify an investigation.

  • @wimahlers "the fact that NO explosions were ever heard or reported in the aftermath of these pools of molten steel reacting with thousands of gallons of water"

    You keep saying water + molten steel = explosion. This is observably false.

    Water + molten steel = steam. If this is in a sealed container you get an explosion. If it's in open air, you just get steam.

    I can't find any videos of molten steel and water together, but here's a video of molten lava meeting the ocean:

    /watch?v=FA7uUEx1t0w

  • @wellifthemediasaysit In addition to my previous reply...

    Let's entertain your internal contradiction for a moment. Then:

    a) How did a reported "pool, of molten steel" end up in the basement of WTC6?

    b) It is a fact that no derivative of thermite does or can create a pool of molten steel. But if you insist it can then show us! Why has neither Gage or Jones ever created a pool of molten steel using any derivative of thermite. Why not? They are very unscientific.

  • @wimahlers "Because (any derivative of)| thermite can and do not create "pools of molten steel""

    Myth busters on termite:

    /watch?v=Trb3v-7ptjg

    Notice the pool of molten iron [looks the same as molten steel] melting through the plates of steel.

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "watch?v=Trb3v-7ptjg"

    .

    What you see is a thermite reaction eating its way through the steel. What you see is the reaction itself. Which only takes a few seconds. The metal flows only during the reaction and only in direct contact with the reaction. Metal droplets sparking of by this reaction almost instantly cool down below the melting point of steel. It is not, and does not, create a pool of molten steel.

  • @wimahlers "[The thermite reaction] is not, and does not, create a pool of molten steel."

    If molten steel was reported, whether it formed a big pool or little puddles, shouldn't NIST have tested for thermite?

  • @wimahlers CORRECTION:

    I noticed that in one of my older replies I indeed used the term, incorrectly, "molten metal". That should of course have been the claim of "pools of molten steel (flowing as a lava flow)".

    In the subsequent replies I correctly addressed the "molten steel" claim.

    Figures how easily you can fall in the same trap as gullible truthers fall. That is, different metals have both like and different characteristics. Truthers say "same" were it actually is "different".

  • @redcapedjoker Some people are paid to discredit truthers. These are CIA officials. Ignore the Idiots. We all know that 9-11 was an inside job. Tell people to watch the William Cooper lectures from 1989, where he said that the CIA had planned an attack in NY and to blame it on a man named BinLaden. That was like 12 years prior. We are screwed because we are not doing anything and the world is going to attack us for starting WWIII with this fake job..

  • @sweet6b9

    .

    "Some people are paid to discredit truthers"

    .

    Actually ... it is the other way around: Alex Jones, Steven Jones, David R. Griffin, Rodriquez ... should I go on?

    The number of people paid to "discredit"- actually criticize - truthers: None! 

  • @wimahlers Wait, YOU are one.

  • awesome video!! liking your style there!

    

  • I can debate the specific details of 9/11 all day but it's pointless because it is OBVIOUS that the report that Bush gave us was a complete lie once you sit down and think about all the facts. Also the witnesses all being murdered or dying mysteriously doesn't add any ounce of credibility to our government either. It's not our government specifically though, it's special interest groups controlled by very wealthy and powerful ruling class families working towards a one world government.

  • @BA0424,

    .

    "Also the witnesses all being murdered or dying mysteriously..."

    .

    And, again, another baseless claim.

    And yes! I have seen the movies "The parallax view" and "Capricorn One". Highly entertaining. So was "Star Wars". Don\t confuse movie scenarios with reality. Be more critical! Listen for a change to the many ANSWERS that are out there.

    By the way ... Rodriquez is making a good living and seeing something of the world. 9/11 has been especially good for him.

  • Here is a video that shows Nist director's reaction when he was confronted with molten steel evidence ht tp://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg NIST were hired to tell a story, they were told to make all pieces fit into a story given to them. 911 was an inside job, you people had 11 years to figure this out. If you haven't figured it out by now, you might never will.

  • @redcapedjoker There was no molten steel!

    olten steel and water creates huge explosions!

    And they poured a lot of water on the debris.

    Number of explosions registered, heard or reported from all this water leaking on the alleged molten metal: ZERO!

    And that is a contradiction!

    You cannot have it both ways!

    There either was molten steel AND gas explosions (water on molten steel).

    Or there was NO molten steel.

    You cannot have it both ways!

    What is your ad hoc excuse this time?

  • @wimahlers so all those firemen and fist responders 'were lying' right?? jeeez COINTELPRO only get what they pay for i guess!!! we all know full well 9.11 was an inside job

  • @wellifthemediasaysit

    .

    "so all those firemen and first responders 'were lying' right??"

    .

    A firefighter of Seattle was a first responder ... in New York city?

    Amazingly, not a single firefighter, who had just lost 343 collegues, complaint in the weeks following 9/11.

    And where is this list of actual first reponders that claim that there is something fishy about 9/11?

    Show me the list! ... and their arguments!

    tinyurl*com/68se6

  • @wimahlers What I do not understand is these so called truther's experts have no qualifications to back up their claims. They are very good at distorting the truth.

  • @wimahlers "I have an educational background in physics and mathematics"

    How do you explain the 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration during the free fall of building 7?

    /watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I&list=FLh3­qrn1-kJYYIIpOgcE44Kw

    "Scientifically proved means verified by an independent accredited scientific peer."

    I don't think truther's claims are proven, but the NIST report is full of holes.

    Why doesn't NIST test for thermite and put this whole debate to rest?

  • @jimhemstreet,

    .

    "Hoexplain the 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration during the free fall of building 7"

    .

    I already did. But I repeat.

    Prior to the collapse of the outer wall there was a major internal collapse. When the outer wall gave way very little structural resistence was met at certain points in place and time resulting in a short period where the collapse of the outer wall was virtually indistinguishable from free acceleration.

    Do VERIFY my explanation!

  • @wimahlers Errata.

    Where I said:

    "...virtually indistinguishable from free acceleration"

    must be:

    "...virtually indistinguishable from free fall acceleration"

  • @wimahlers On the collapse of building 7:

    If the interior structure collapsed, why did the exterior fall straight down? Shouldn't it fall outward or inward? Straight down through itself seems to be the path of most resistance to me. And if it's falling through itself, should it not encounter resistance? free fall = no resistance.

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "... why did the exterior fall straight down?"

    .

    It didn't. That is a truther fairy tale story.

    That and the fact that the collapse initiated on the lower floors (from memory: floors 10-13).

    And it only takes one floor to fail before a building fails completely. watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

    And a collapsing building always falls straight down. In fact, you need a demolition expert (or natural disaster) to NOT let it fall straight down watch?v=jNWe1b_2yE4

  • @wimahlers "And it only takes one floor to fail before a building fails completely. watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI"

    Those are controlled demolitions. Also notice that they take longer than free fall as the energy of the upper floors is consumed in the destruction of the lower floors.

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "Those are controlled demolitions"

    (with referfence to watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI)

    .

    Exactly! You can actually see what taking out just 1 floor without explosives does to a building. It completely collapses!

    Now take WTC7. About 8 seconds before the collapse of the outer wall there is a major internal failure and collapse (as shown by the progressive east to west collapse of the penthouse). This takes away NOT one but MULTIPLE floors all prior to the collapse of the shell.

  • @wimahlers

    watch these side by side:

    This building [your video] slows down as the upper floors crush the lower floors:

    /watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

    This building [wtc 7] keeps accelerating till it hits the ground:

    //watch?v=79Vcx13H7ZQ

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "NIST report is full of holes"

    .

    So is the theory on gravity, quantum mechanics, tectonic plates, gas theory, super fluids and super conductors ... and every other area of investigation ever undertaken by human kind.

    What you are fishing at is an argument based on gaps. This never was nor will it ever be a valid argument. Even though creationst never seem to learn ("god of the gaps theory"). And now, it seems, truthers won't learn too (using false dilemmas).

  • @wimahlers i dont know why molten steel was found in those basements, are you saying all those firemen were lying?? did the small office fires cause that molten steel?

  • @wellifthemediasaysit The firemen were not lying in the same sense that many people reporting to have seen Bigfoot are not lying. That is, they try, or tried, to give meaning to something they could not understand or very rarely see.

    For this type of disaster and disaster scale it is very common to have smoldering fires (due to trapped heat) that can flare up months after this massive collapse. As it did!

    It is neither a mystery nor unexplainable.

  • @wimahlers The firemen were not lying ... they try, or tried, to give meaning to something they could not understand or very rarely see.

    You're telling me that a NYC firefighter doesn't know what fire looks like?

    They can't tell the difference between a fire and molten metal?

  • @jimhemstreet,

    .

    "You're telling me that a NYC firefighter doesn't know what fire looks like?"

    .

    What are you talking about? What has fire to do with molten steel? Or is this because your bias is no conditioned to think that anything not being a fire must therefore be molten steel? And firemen can indeed NOT positively identify molten steel from sight alone.

    Anyway, there was no molten steel. All the water hosed on the rubble would certainly have caused explosions. There were none!

  • @wimahlers

    "Anyway, there was no molten steel. All the water hosed on the rubble would certainly have caused explosions. There were none!"

    Multiple reports of molten steel/metal from qualified observers:

    /watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

    Lava [similar temp as molten steel] meeting the ocean and no explosions:

    /watch?v=FA7uUEx1t0w

    "However, they did investigate the arguments for explosives"

    I don't want "argument". I want evidence. How do we know there aren't explosives if we don't test?

  • @jimhemstreet As to watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

    I strongly suggest you VERIFY the people and the claims in this video clip.

    As it stands nobody except the firemen and Peter Tully claimed to have seen molten steel. And Gage diviously mixes fragments of molten steel and molten metal. In other words, he is the one that is lying.I specifically did not mention Bart Voorsanger who says in the video that what is behind him is the result of molten steel. Because that is an assertion.

  • @wimahlers "Are you now indignant that they haven't even considered mini nukes or "space rays?"

    I have seen no evidence for "nukes or space rays". That is your straw man.

    I have seen video evidence for explosives. Explosives were used against the WTC in 1993. Is it not unreasonable to investigate whether they were used again in 2001?

    Why NOT test for them?

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "no evidence for "nukes or space rays". That is your straw man"

    .

    Wrong! It is not a strawman. It is claimed by other people. It is just not claimed by you and me. You say there is no evidence for that. And I agree. And since there is no evidence there is no reason to investigate. And I agree.

    But there is no evidence for explosives either. None whatsoever. And NO explosive sounds were registered at the moment of collapse. So no need to investigate this either.

  • @wimahlers "But there is no evidence for explosives either. None whatsoever."

    /watch?v=c2cViy34b1A

  • @wimahlers "So no need to investigate this either."

    Why don't you want people to investigate? Are you afraid of what they will find?

  • @wimahlers what???? molten steel was found, fire didnt do that!! the official story is BS and you paid COINTELPRO shills actually take money to peddle the lies, astonishing!! 9/11 was an inside job

  • @wellifthemediasaysit To add:

    Here is another truther problem.

    Insisting on molten steel being present leads you nowhere. Because you cannot create "pools of molten steel" with thermite. You can melt through(!) steel, but you cannot created pools with it (flowing like lava).

    If you still insist that it can (and did), which is an assertion only, then you have to explain why WTC6 was rigged with (nano)thermite - never found! Molten steel was reported in the basement of WTC6.

  • @wimahlers "So is the theory on gravity, quantum mechanics, tectonic plates, gas theory, super fluids and super conductors ... "

    But these holes are different. They existis because we have yet to devise good enough experiments. The holes in the NIST report exists because research was never done.

    Why doesn't NIST test for explosives?

    Why does NIST deny reports of molten steel, despite several accounts by qualified observers?

    /watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

  • @jimhemstreet

    .

    "Why doesn't NIST test for explosives?"

    .

    For the very same reason your local fire brigade does not test for explosives in the many fires that took place in your region: there was no scientific incentive to do so.

    NIST also did not test the mini nukes claim, no planes claim or the space ray claim. However, they did investigate the arguments for explosives (other than the airplanes). Are you now indignant that they haven't even considered mini nukes or space rays?

  • watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g

    And listen to the ANSWERS.

    I say this in capitals because many truthers have some kind of automatic block for the concept of actually listening to answers.

  • @wimahlers Don't label people "truthers' or 'non-truthers' we are all people looking for answers. Big question is "was there molten steel" the non-truthers say NO. But what about the Thermal Satellite images showing temps in excess of 1500F one week after the attack. How could temps be that high 1 week later, what kept the fires going this long? Why is there orange stuff flowing out of the windows when molten aluminum is silver in color and only turns orange when superheated....

  • @redcapedjoker Those temperatures are easy to explain. It is not unsurprizing you wouldn't know this but you see the kinetic energy of the collapse does not simply cease to exist after the building is done falling. It is transferred into the ground, but because the ground it's self has no where to be moved to the kinetic energy causes the material to grind into it's self producing friction which transforms the kinetic energy into thermal energy. The ground is well insulated and holds the heat.

  • @MrAwsome514 I'm sorry but you explanation shows that you have little grasp on science. Easy experiment: make a large fire, than stomp it into the ground. Parts in the fire rub together, so does the fire get hotter or did it die out completely?

  • @redcapedjoker You are not even close to understanding what I was saying... We aren't talking about stomping out a fire here. We are talking about the intricacies of kinetic energy transfer between two large rigid bodies colliding with collossal force transformin gthat force into thermal energy. I am talking about kinetic energy being transformed into thermal energy through the imact force and you are talking about a scenario that starts with thermal energy. You are way off from understanding it

  • @MrAwsome514 I think you are the only one who truly understands what you are saying. Another experiment. Take a handful of matches put them a plastic bag. Go on top of an empire state building and drop the bag. Will the friction between the matches cause them to burst in flames? The answer is no. Again your theory doesn't match anything you would experience in reality.

  • @redcapedjoker Also if it was not aluminum then that would mean you now have to account for where the aluminum did go now wouldn't it? I mean it was a 200,000 pound plane which was 70% aluminum and we do know the flames where over the 1,200 degree melting point for aluminum so that leaves a lot of aluminum unaccounted for...

  • @MrAwsome514 AGAIN aluminum is SILVER, all the stuff in aluminum the glue, plastic, wood from chairs, tables it is all less dance than aluminum and thus it charred floating on top of silver liquid. This stuff doesn't all just magically mix together and turn orange. Here is a vid NIST denies molten steel ht tp://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg Please watch this vid its only 6 min., it proves molten steel was present and NIST reaction to when they were confronted with it.

  • @redcapedjoker Ofcourse the molten material was pouring from the floor just below the impact zone right at the bottom of a slope created by the collapse of a floor truss which is exactly where the aluminum should have flowed to. So unless you can figure out where else all that aluminum would have ended up... At any rate the amount of material that poured out was more then what would have been present in a thermite demolition... They only use just enough to cut the beams and it doesn't take much.

  • @mikecity82 I agree, we need to be asking questions. Otherwise we are just sheep.

  • I'm not one to debate 9/11 specifically, because it is one act of many on behalf of a ruling class that wants to move towards wars, and economic collapse. I don't believe the official 9/11 story at all. It's not stupid to question it, what's stupid is to blindly defend it without questioning it. Governments including our own have lied to us before, and killed it's own people before. Everything should be questioned when it comes from mainstream media and government.

  • @BA0424

    "Governments including our own have lied to us before"

    When Government's lie, is typically because they did something stupid or F*cked up.

    And in this case, that's just what they did, they f*cked up, they ignored yet ANOTHER pressing National problem, in this case the state of our Airport security (terrible), and the ineptitude and ill-equipped status of local emergency response teams in the event of a crisis on this scale.

    They tried to cover their stupid asses... failed.

  • @Alaskaslim I'm coming more from the angle of special interest groups using our government to effect the change they want. Take the council on foreign relations for example, our governments primary think tank for foreign policy. Former chairman - David Rockefeller, from the notorious Rockefeller dynasty has used his power along with other oligarchs to move towards a one world government where citizens serve a ruling elite. The 9/11 attacks were just a stepping stone to them accomplishing that.

  • @BA0424

    "I'm coming more from the angle of special interest groups "

    I don't care, it's irrelevant when Government is too incompetent to get even that right.

    The nation is controlled by factionalism, Special interest groups fight amongst themselves just as much as they fight the "people", if you'd ever gone to Capital Hill or meet & greets in D.C. you'd see this for yourself.

    "It's not our government "

    Then what's the issue here? The Gov't didn't do it, they're too stupid.

  • @Alaskaslim Well thats my point, the special interest groups used our governments or rather our countries resources, and media to get the job done. That's why people say it's an inside job. I agree with you that our government is incompetent, but if you look at the way 9/11 was done, does it not have incompetence written all over it? It wasn't well coordinated at all. Our government doesn't operate for us, it operates for the oligarchs that fund it. We're just collateral at best, cattle at worst

  • @BA0424,

    .

    "That's why people say it's an inside job"

    .

    Nobody but truthers say it is an inside job. It is them whom invented the terms MIHOP and LIHOP. You refuse to acknowledge the conclusions of the many indepedent sceintific institutions who all did a broad range of investigations. It is just that you don't like the inevitable sceintific conclusion.

    By the way ... Alex Jones, Griffin, the loose cahnge boys are making a good living of 9/11.

    10 years! And still(!) no truther narrative! ...

  • @BA0424

    Do you play Video games? Have you ever played a level where you have to protect some Dumb AI character from running splat dab into enemies at every turn, and then having to call to them constantly in order to make sure they follow?

    That's what our Government is like, that's how it operates, a stupid, mindless, imbecile wreck of a construct, that serves only to frustrate those trying to guide it, no matter who it is.

  • @Alaskaslim Their goal is to go and assimilate and control all the foreign nations, their oil reserves, their banking systems and so forth to push for total control over human life. They also want to cull the population down from the billions it's at now to 500,000,000 as seen on the Georgia Guide Stones. I'm not sure if you've heard about all of this, but it's worth looking into. It's not our government that benefitted from 9/11 but the ruling class families that are looking for more power

  • WHAT ABOUT BBC NEWS REPORTING BUILDING 7 collapse 20 minutes too early? Someone screwed up and told them to read the story before the event actually occurred. LOL debunk this... ht tp://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=k2Trj_5J02k

  • @redcapedjoker So basically you are saying that the Government organised the biggest conspiracy of all time killing thousands of their own people but this they messed up. It couldn't have been that someone said that WTC 7 looks like it may collapse, and this was misconstrued, or that it was a response to the fact that firefighters were pulled from WTC 7 ten minutes before the broadcast because they feared collapse. Could it?

  • @redcapedjoker,

    .

    "no it couldn't."

    .

    So you claim ... 10,9,8 ... run for your life!

    Some people believe anything at face value.

    As to your reference ... bwahahahahaha :-) That is what you consider proof? You have very, very, very low and gullible standards when it comes to proof.

    By the way, I have seen it a zillion times before. It is just truthers regurgitating the same ridiculous examples over and over and over again.

    See it in context! watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g (watch it all!)

  • @redcapedjoker,

    .

    "They wanted to go to war with Iraq"

    .

    Let me get this straight ... they wanted to go to war in Iraq so they accused some saudies from executing a terrorist attack, financed by a terrorist group from Afghanistan. They first invaded Afghanistan, then accused Iraq of having WMD. Even though 9/11 was perfectly planned they could not even fake one WMD in Iraq (note: even I can easily do that!).

    Is that your claim?

  • @wimahlers You might have to look at it from a different context. Rockefeller told Aaron Russo they wanted to go into Iraq. In order to muster up support for this the government typically does what is called "false flag attacks" but it's not just our government it's the banking and corporate interests behind the government that influence these kinds of things. Our government has been hijacked by those interests, that is why false flag attacks to gain control of other countries primarily occur.

  • @wimahlers It's not just that we have "an evil government" our government has some incredibly corrupt politicians but those politicians are being influenced by the oligarchy that truly runs america. Politicians need money for their campaigns to win, oligarchs supply the money in return for personal favors. The ruling class of this country desires a one world government. The politicians, including the president are just the extensions by which they advance towards those goals.

  • @wimahlers That is correct, you got my claim in a nutshell. Look at who profited from this war, who had the most to gain from all of this. Bush is a CEO of an oil company, the oil prices sky rocketed making him millions. Under the guise of 'protection against terrorism' the government passed the Patriot Act which has been expanded since then. Patriot Act gives the federal government the power to invade your home and imprison you w/o any evidence, warrant or a trial. Check the facts.

  • @redcapedjoker,

    .

    "That is correct, you got my claim in a nutshell. Look at who profited from this war, who had the most to gain..."

    .

    Do you believe Icke and the New Lizard World Order as well?

    Because if you believe the ridiculous scenario I wrote down, as you seem to have confirmed, you are likely to believe just about anything at face value.

    Or considered from another angle, to say it bluntly, you are making shit up as you go.

    Don't confuse cause and consequence. And you do!

  • @wimahlers Look at the facts about 911. What will be falls into speculation, but what already happened is fact. 911 was done by the government to make the public support the upcoming war with Iraq. Iraq quit using the dollar as a currency for the oil trade and was trying with countries directly, the bankers didn't like that so they pulled a false flag operation and used the media to shape people's opinions. Will there be a New World Order? I will leave you to think about that one.

  • @redcapedjoker,

    .

    "fact. 911 was done by the government to make the public support the upcoming war "

    .

    Declaring something to be a fact does not make it so.

    By the way, there will always be a new world order. Life is not static. The term itself is meaningless.

    But what you refer to is a specific variant of new world order: The Illuminati.

    Besides, even though most Americans think so, the USA is not the center of the universe. Your patriot act does not affect me.

  • @redcapedjoker About false flag operations...

    They are very rare and quickly exposed without any help from any outside source.

    And no! The Gulf of Tolkin was NOT a false flag operation. And Operation Northwoods was rejected before it even was seriously proposed.

    Besides, not a single truther has ever produced an estimate of how many people were involved in the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. Shall I give you an estimate? Thousands upon thousands of people! FEMA, NIST, Larry S., etc.

  • @wimahlers You sound intelligent in your comment, I like you. There must have been hundreds of people involved in the 911 conspiracy. Many of these people did come clean. Like this woman who was a CIA asset between USA and Iraq watch her shocking confession ht tp://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=GxJTwbHdH6k Many other people admitted that 911 was controlled demolition. John Kerry for instance said "buildings were brought down in a controlled fashion" His video is here on youtube. News Lies

  • @redcapedjoker "Like this woman who was a CIA asset between USA and Iraq"

    Only in her befuddled mind. She's so batshit crazy that the judge wouldn't even sentence her.

  • @SpookMSgt Alright, you can attack this woman I have no defense against it. However, there is so much evidence that 911 was an inside job that it is simply overwhelming. How no cameras on the pentagon captured a footage of any plane hitting the building. The cameras from a nearby hotel was confiscated by CIA agents moments after the attack happened. The hotel owner fought to get the footage back, and he did get it back 6 years later. The footage showed NO PLANE. Or was it invisible.

  • @SpookMSgt Another issue about the pentagon plane crash is what happened to the plane? There are early photos and they show no wing sections, no tail sections and the grass on the pentagon isn't even damaged. 125 wide plane disappeared completely. The damage on the pentagon that you always see on the news was a result of a FIRE that occurred in the aftermath, early photos show charred windows and a wall with no impact site. It goes on and on. I have plenty more.

  • @redcapedjoker,

    .

    "Another issue about the pentagon plane crash is what happened to the plane?"

    .

    Anything that did not went through the hole created by the fuselage got disintegrated.

    That is what you get when you ram a bomb blast resistent building with a relatively flimsy object at high speed.

    By the way, the interior contents of the fuselage did go through the hole! All(!) AA77 passengers but one were DNA identified from the remains found inside(!) the Pentagon.

  • @wimahlers a 747 is 125 feet wide and 45 feet tall and this flimsy airoplane weighs about 675,000 pounds traveling at a speed of 250 miles an hour. It hit the pentagon w/o even leaving an impact, again the damage that you see on the news resulted from a fire. And the plane 'vaporized' yet they were able to recover an Arabic Passport and this is what linked them to the terrorists.No footage at all exists of it hitting the pentagon. Complete coverup.The news will tell you anything for $

  • @redcapedjoker

    .

    "It hit the pentagon w/o even leaving an impact"

    .

    Wrong! The wing impacts are visible on mutiple outer support columns. They were photographed too.

    And I did not say the airplane was flimsy. I said the airplane was flimsy RELATIVE TO a bomb blast resisting wall.

    The plane did NOT vaporize. It disintegrated. Truthers are make shit up and creatively turning everything into a conspiracy.

    BTW the way, all people and belongings were in the fuselage, NOT in the wings.

  • @wimahlers G1... People can be so gullible to believe the Truthers BS...

  • @candie8301972 what is so gullible about it? The official story is torn completely apart by the evidence. There are videos of the orange metal flowing out of the windows of the trade center. Aluminum is SILVER, anything organic (wood, plastic, etc) would simply float on top. The only thing this orange metal could be is molten steel. Steven Johns did analysis on it and determined it to be molten steel. Can jet fuel melt steel burning at 400F? The answer is NO. Thermite did it.

  • @redcapedjoker Try blowing up a fire cracker I am sure there will still be parts of that fire cracker after it explodes.

  • @candie8301972 EXACTLY but not from the planes, they "vaporized". 911 was a false flag operation so that the government would have the public's full support for the Iraq war. We should also be aware that IRAN could be the next target of such an attack. US wants to go to war with Iran... Thanx for your comment.

  • @redcapedjoker If Iran is the next target I hear an attack could happen at the 2012 olympics. Some clues out there about Big Ben tower clock in London being exploded in the near future, hope it doesn't happen, but fear it may. Could be the next inside job.

  • @sejason56 yea, I heard about that too. The Olympics start in June this year. The want to go to war with Iran. Ever since we put forth the sanctions they had to find others to deal oil with. Now they are dealing with China and China isn't paying for the oil in dollars. This will cause the dollars to devalue soon. That is one reason why they want to attack Iran, the other reason is that few crazy groups actually want WW3. Because they think it will facilitate a new world government.

  • @redcapedjoker Had it been thermite the heat would have dissipated within only the first day as it would have been too close to the surface to be so well insulated. As for the molten material being a different color from molten aluminum... This statment implies that the material would have been pure alunminum but aircraft aluminum is not pure aluminum it is an alloy mixed with small amounts of titanium and other metals. Even ignoring this it would have picked up impurities from the building.

  • @MrAwsome514 Molten Aluminum is silver in color and anything organic that you mix with molten aluminum would be less than the metal and would simply float on top without affecting the color! Tests on this has been done. What do you base your facts on? DO you base your facts on the News or actual people doing these tests? The heat that was present for such a long time in anaerobic conditions proves that a chemical fire was present. Not a regular office fire.

  • @redcapedjoker Are you really this daft? It was not only organic material that would have been mixed with the aluminum. Litterally any material it would have made contact with could have mixed with it. Even the materials that would not mix would have floated on it's surface and glowed red from the heat. That floating material would have fallen with it giving it the appearance of a red colored metal fluid.

  • @MrAwsome514 'literally any material" WHAT material? You can plainly see from the footage that the entire liquid is ORANGE. Aluminum is SILVER, anything organic in aluminum (tables chairs) would be lighter and would float on top in burning chunks. Again experiments on this have been done and are likely on youtube, search for them. Politicians admitted 911 was controlled demolition like John Kerry in an interview, he said 'buildings were brought down in a controlled fashion" CHECK IT

  • @redcapedjoker It is not just tables and chairs... There where the synthetic fibers and glue from any carpeting, the plastics from any electronics, lets not forget the synthetic upholster from the seats on the aircraft it's self, the plastics from the aircraft, ect. There really where a lot more materials in there then you seem to think there were.

  • @redcapedjoker Ofcourse you still have to be able to account for where the aluminum would have gone if it didn't go there... That and why so much material poured out when only a small amount of thermite would have been needed to sever the beams.

  • @MrAwsome514 Not a small amount, how about several thousand pounds. Keep in mind the towers were around 110 floors high, with 49 steel inner beams. Charges were placed on every floor/beam

  • @redcapedjoker Yea... I know the building was 110 floors high but only the material from a few floors above the impact zone would have drained out there. It does not take much thermite to destroy each individual beam and generally only a few beams on each floor would be rigged with charges any way... The rest would be preweakened by being cut into when the charges where placed.

  • @redcapedjoker

    If charges were placed on every floor, how come 40 floors of steel supports were still standing after the collapse?

    The bare, steel support columns, stood on their own for several minutes, before also collapsing without the floor's horizontal bracing.

    The Exterior collapsed, not the interior, that's evocative of structural trauma coming from outside, not within.

  • @redcapedjoker,

    .

    "The towers fell straight down as almost free fall speed."

    .

    What was it again? ... 21 and 14 seconds for WTC1+2. You call that almost free fall acceleration?

    As to WTC7, it collapsed internally first before the remaining outer shell collapsed. Proof: The progressive collapse of the penthouse prior to the outer collapse. Also, just before the outer wall collapsed you could look right through the building from the front windows. BTW, FDNY expected it to collapse.

  • @wimahlers What I mean by purpose is why the truthers are saying it's an inside job in the first place. The reason they blew up the towers was to destroy all evidence, they picked up a lot of it when their trucks came after the towers fell. Anyway this just fulfills part of their NWO agenda, they're trying to edge closer to a one world gov't and they've got something against the muslims for some reason.

  • @sejason56,

    .

    "What I mean by purpose is why the truthers are saying it's an inside job in the first place."

    .

    Truthers having nothing in common. You have the planers, no-planers, planes but different planers. Thermate, nano-thermite only, explosive only-ies, mini-nuke-ers, space ray-ers, basement collapsers, dancing jews-ers, et, etc, etc.

    They have nothing in common!

    Well, maybe just two things. They all have not a shred of evidence and none can tell a noncontradicting narrative.

  • @wimahlers "maybe just two things"

    Make that three --

    None of them has ever been able to produce a scientific paper on their "theories" that hasn't been laughed at by scientific journals.

  • @wimahlers I agree there are 'truthers' that don't agree, but you 'debunkers' all go with the same joke of an 'official story'. But that's not the point, the point is who really did it, and Bush producing a fake video of Osama Bin Laden admitting to the attacks is really proof enough that it was an inside job.

  • @sejason56,

    .

    "but you 'debunkers' all go with the same joke of an 'official story'."

    .

    Yeah, I hear truthers talking all the time about THE "official story".

    The problem is, there is no official story!

    What you have is many independent accredited scientifc sources reaching the same conclusion.

    There is also no "official story" about or on gravity, germ theory, quantum mechanics, the big bang, etc. But, true, all accredited scientific sources do reach the same conclusion on these subjects.

  • @wimahlers So you still blocked out the fake Osama video.....debunkers block any evidence thrown at them.

  • @wimahlers "not a shred of evidence" really speaks for itself, tons of evidence why do you block it....'coincidence' the key word for everything I guess.

  • @sejason56 Why would they need to blow up the towers just to cover up evidence of something else... They seem to have been making due with mere paper shredders for covering up far larger things then what you are talking about all this time.

  • @sejason56 "they've got something against the muslims."

    Aside from the fact that they're a degenerate, psychotic culture bent on slaughtering everyone else ... what's not to like?

  • @sejason56 "The reason they blew up the towers was to destroy all evidence"

    Right, because it's so much easier to destroy those bldgs than just run shit thru a shredder.

    Perfectly logical

  • @redcapedjoker

    Since most truthers cling to youtube for their sources I suggest you watch the full length (about 1 hour) of the following link:

    watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g

  • What's wrong with asking questions? German citizens didn't ask any questions when the Reichstag was burned down, and look how that turned out.

  • invent a point in their argument then knock it down like a straw man? This video should be called "how to make yourself look like an idiot attacking self created arguments."

  • I find it hilarious that people are so passionate about the belief that the official report is correct come on here and bash the truthers who from their point of view believe that the official was a lie.

    One day the real truth will come out, will they then apologise to the truthers if they were correct? Will the truthers apologise if they were wrong?

    At the end of the day we are all human beings and supposed to be fighting against the government to stop them ruining our liberty and freedom.

  • Not fighting among ourselves, United we will stand....Divided we will fall.

  • @gunmanscotland i don't know about others but for me, it's not a "passionate belief that the official report is correct", as much as it's defending rational thinking. it's ok to doubt as long as you know that your theories about 9/11 are not a product of a research, evidence or proofs, but a collection of opinions based on hunches, that were not examined.