A question for 9/11 conspirecy people.

Read the first line of the link you gave me. I will quote it for you:

Your "psychic lady" website leaves out an important part of the story. The penis was actually eaten by a fish (well in Egyptian versions it is, others say it was an alligator and others say it was buried). Isis created a penis out of gold and resurrected Osiris for one day so that she could conceive Horus who would avenge his father's death. After that day, Osiris became the ruler of the underworld.

But don't take my world for it, it's only the most important myth to ever come out of the Egyptian era. It's called the Legend (or Myth) of Osiris and Isis and can be found in its entirety in tons of places. There are pictures and artwork drawn from that period that depict their copulating. Running a Google search on the myth should pull up a lot of reputable sites (as well as images). In the meantime, I've posted a link to the Wikipedia page that gives a brief overview of the legend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Osiris_and_Isis

Feel free to go through the other "facts" from the movie that I stated were wrong. I understand your reluctance to research them.

No it wouldnt. The building itself is very strong plus the weight gives the extra strength.

Watch from 2 min and 50 sec.

Listen to me idiot, do you know how objects work with gravity?
Let me put an easy example so you understand.

You take a regular glas, put it on the ground, then take a bowling ball and drop it from 1 meter above the glas, once the bowling ball hits the glas, do you think the speed will continue to be constant? Or will the ball slow down because of the impact?

Now, this is very simple to understand. Its one of the most basic laws on earth. Yet at your age you dont understand it. Sad. Go and study basic physics.

Anyway, each floor on the twin towers should have slowned down the procces when the top of the building was falling down. But it didnt, the speed was constant. That means, each floor must have been fucked somehow. There has been no resistance. Why? Its impossible that it can happend from 2 planes.

Educate yourself.


A. College degree, please, dont say more. Im already laughing.
But its good, im sure you have a bit more education then the rest of your uneducated family. But then again, america needs soldiers.

B. Proper english? English isnt my first language. And im sure I could write a more advance article then yourself in english.

So, please, you can try to play intelligent. But leave this for the big boys, ok?
Go and drink som jägermeister and remember to take a few pictures, you should do what you are good at.

No, it only proves that people are not chemistry experts, and conspiracy theorists pretend to be. The clip you link, does not mention where, when and how much... Fact is that other metal was melting, but not steel. The only thing that could melten the steel, is thermite, and there are no proofs that thermite were used.

As someone who has a degree in fire science I'll just respond to this dumb ass quote because it's all over the place.

At 900 degrees steel will expand then contract.

The expanding and contracting will destroy any bolts or joints etc.. that hold it together. In fact, at high temps wood is actually a stronger material.

The steel in the towers did exactly this and finally gave away any support they provided then the collapse was due to the weight above the failure points.

This happens every day when buildings catch fire that have steel trusses.

Ask any fire fighter what type of building do they fear most and they will tell you buildings with steel trusses because the roofs will fall in on them. The WTC did the same thing but on a larger scale.

The statement on auditing is a blatant falsehood. The General Accounting Office has the authority via the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act of 1978 (here is the law). They have performed over 100 audits, here are a couple for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ai99006.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0219.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ai96005.pdf

You can go to the GAO website yourself (http://www.gao.gov/index.html) and run a search for federal reserve audit. You'll find a ton of results to quench your thirst.

The Federal Reserve has also been audited by major accounting firms such as Price Waterhouse. You can find those reports by running some Google searches.

Can you provide a link to the legislation that was submitted to allow audits of the Federal Reserve and was rejected?

Sorry, but I don't get my facts or use facts from Wikipedia...

K, people are just going to start making shit up.

Prior to 9/11 no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.

But you do pull facts from?

http://www.crystalinks.com

Or from sites that tell you that the Federal Reserve has never been audited while tons of government documents spanning decades show otherwise?

The Wiki was just for a brief overview of the real story. You can search the legend or myth of Isis and Osiris in Google and even pull up some of the sacred texts that were written on the walls.

And I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, I've just studied religious history for years and dislike when people in these movies distort the facts to get their point across. I truly believe that Christianity adopted parts of their beliefs from other religions, but I don't think Horus had much of an impact. I'd point to Dionysus (Greek) and the religion of Mithra that was practiced by the Romans as having more parralels to Christianity. There are some great books on where Christianity evolved from, and they are filled with factual evidence. This guy simply pulled information from a book written in 1999 that was more or less laughed at by historians. He mixed some truths in with some lies which made it believable.

So I'm guessing by the response to this thread nobody here believes that maybe there is a terrorist group that hates the US and over the course of a few years they snuck some operatives into our country and those operatives hijacked jets and flew them into buildings and that is the end of the story?

Is this site better for you?

"It should be mentioned that some Egyptologists see, in the iconography of Christian art, a precursor in Horus. For example, Isis and the baby Horus are sometimes seen as the model for Mary and the infant Jesus, while Horus dominating the beats may have a counterpart in Christ Pantokrator doing the same. Horus spearing a serpent may survive in the iconography of Saint George defeating the dragon."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm

here's a question for you.....if there's really nothing to hide then why
won't they agree with an independent investigation and release all the
found evidence like they do with EVERY other normal case.......

It's exactly for this reason why most people doubt certain kind of events

They are talking about artwork between the two religions. I fail to see what that has to do with the facts regarding the legend of Horus. The art is similar in some areas, here is a comparision of the two. Still, the painting on the right was created in the 5th Century, a few hundred years after Paul's gospels were written.

I think it's silly to believe that fire could possibly melt steel to a point that it made the structure unstable.

That wasn't the question you asked...

They didn't "sneak" in... they just walked in with all the proper documenation they needed...

LOL, nice try, but that bridge was made with Green Steel.

And how many steel buildings have been bombarded with Boeings in full speed?
Anyway, we had a building here that collapsed...

And how many buildings have collapsed faster than it would take for a rock to drop from the top of it to hit the ground, like Bldg. 7 did, which, didn't get hit by any plane?

Of course they said that. What would you expect them to say? "Oh, we built the buildings and failed?"

My car is designed to survive a head on accident at 30mph. Does that mean that 100% of the time I have a head on accident I'm going to live? No, of course not.

And truth be told, that's not what they said is it? They said the building was designed to withstand the impact of a smaller plane. The planes that hit the WTC weren't even designed when the buildings went up. They were larger and heavier.

It fell in a very similar fashion to a controlled demolition. What did you expect it to, tilt to one side and fall over?

I love this one. I really do.

Read carefully; In what I wrote I said "Imagine there was no fire". I never said fire brought down the building. A huge plane impacted the building, destroying the support of one entire side of the building across numerous floors. It also damaged the if not destroyed the "hollow solid steel core" (which held the elevator banks). No one has any idea what it did to the other three sides of the building.

This impact registered as a fucking earthquake already. It's no surprise that it came down.

The collapse of wtc7 was over 13 seconds

Rochard..the elevators..that shot a fireball down into the lobbies..werent connected.

there was no route between the elevators where the planes hit..and the lobbies


think about that

Yes, I'm sure that hundreds of tons of steel and concret that lost all of it's support is very strong.

I've watched the videos and I've read the books from both sides of the discussion. I'm not about to watch another one. What's your point?

I'm not sure what "glas" is it's hard to argue on this one. Do you mean glass?

I understand the laws of gravity. And while these laws of nature are generally set in stone, there are always exceptions.

If you drop a bowling ball from a certain height on to a sheet of glass, would it meet resistance and "slow down". Let's change the argument to make it more realistic. The question should be more like "If a stack of bowling balls glued to each other fell through a sheet of glass that was already weakened from a prior impact and that had partiall melted due to a fire. I think the fucking bowling balls would smash through the sheet of glass like it wasn't even there.

Tons of metal and concrete fell through what is really a hollow structure. It didn't meet resistance, but instead dragged or pushed it down. And I'm guessing it gained momentum on the way down which easily defeated any resistance.

With all of the silly points the tinfoil hat people make... this is the one that has escaped them.

I haven't studied blueprints of the WTC, but I've been there a number of times. I don't believe there was one elevator going staight to the top so a ball of fire coming down the elevator shafts all the way to the lobby at the moment of impact doens't make much sense to me.

My lord, no, building 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

It was hit by a lot of other things, caught on fire, and had two very tall buildings with hundreds of millions of tons of concrete and metal fall right next to it right on top of it.

Didn't both buidings falling each register as an eathquake? Wasn't that just enough to bring the building down?

Do you think any of the falling buildings hit building 7 and perhaps moved it off it's foundation?

a smart aussie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XJBsD8KVRw

I am moving to another country.

Maybe because if they did it would reveal that they had an utter breakdown in our security and it would show the country how vulnerable we really are. If they release a report that shows anyone with a few hundred dollars can get a visa, get in the country and do this, it would cause panic among the public and a wave of new terrorist trying to get into the country.

I really, really want to see this show... http://www.history.com/shows.do?acti...isodeId=240087

I watched it the other night, the debunked everything. With scientific evidence no less

Aw, that sucks. I was hoping it would be some guy just standing there giving his theory based on loose inconsistencies...ya know, kinda like Loose Change.

Seriously though, I heard it was good and do want to see it. Unlike some, I watched Loose Change and it raised some interesting points. Of course, THEN I went out and got the OTHER side of the story, usually from MULTIPLE sources.

I viewed Loose Change much as I view Michael Moore films. He raises some interesting points, but you have to get the other side of the story...you can't just believe everything he says.

If you want the absolute best documentary on the subject of the fraud that central banking/fractional reserve banking truely is then this you must watch..3 hours and it will change your life.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19560256183936

Yeah i watched loose change also and felt the same way. The show on the history channel actually had real life experts on it, i couldn'tbelieve it . They debunked all the theories that were raised and then some.

When I heard about it I tried to find it on our Canadian history channel. As usual though, it was 24 hours of programming about Hockey and beer. I may have to break down and buy it.

why do you ask people questions you already know the answer too?

What is this a cow tipping contest... ^^

.

Bush cant do anything without the concent of the people.... he needs you not to rise up against him... via the attack of 9 11 he could do pretty much whatever he wanted n noone could question it... simple as that

money? yes there is money in war... americas wealth is built on rebuilding after ww2.... rebuilding irak has made haliburton rich as shit which also prolly makes america richer... due to miss calc this war has cost america alot more than the gain...


a question to you... why did buiding 7 fall? its a steel frame building... never in the history of the world has a steel frame building fallen due to fire... and there was no plane hitting building 7... so why would that building fall if it was only on fire? it wouldnt so what happened to it? u dont konw i dont know but i think an answer is needed... even the 9/11 report wchih the government released said that was extremly wierd

Maybe it has something to do with the impact of two large planes hitting two large towers and two large towers falling? Four pretty big seismic events in the span of four or five hours?

No, that couldn't have been it.

Maybe it was the fact that the two towers fell, spilling hundreds of tons of concrete and steel right next to it? I'm guessing this shit didn't just fall and not hit anything else... such as building 7? You dont' think maybe some of the shit that fell.... maybe MOVED THE BUILDING?

Listen carefully. If hundreds of tons of concrete, steel, or what not suddenly falls next to another building.... THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT THE BUILDING 100 FEET AWAY WILL FALL TOO.

Fucking idiots. I swear.

I didn't fall, it collapsed on itself, all 3 buildings did. It takes very careful precision & timing in demolition to make a building do that. Yah, maybe one, on a fluke would do that and the others would tumble apart slower and fall, but all 3, do you know the odds of that? C'mon use your head.

Not only did Bldg 7 collapse on itself, but it did so at a rate of speed that was equal to a rock being dropped from it's roof, again do you know the odds of that?

Questioning the so-called "truth" has never made someone an idiot, quite the opposite. I would be more inclined to call those who accept what we have been told and not question it when so many facts point to the contrary the only idiots. Certain aspects remained unanswered, and the Gov't is doing everything it can to keep it that way. People who have nothing to hide, have nothing to hide.

The section above the point of the plane impact had no support under it, it fell down on itself, and by the time the falling building came to a point where it did meet it support was it quickly (instantly) overwelmed. Of course the building fell on itself; How else is it supposed to fall? Just like sort of tip over or something? The top fell down on itself because their was no support under it. That's pretty simple.

I think it's wonderful that your questioning the government. However, to continue to hash over this for years and years with some of the dumbest questions is just getting old. When I can answer your questioning with statements that any freshmen high schooler can give you ("The building fell in on itself because it had no support underneath it"), well, it's time to give it a rest.

The US goverment gave you your answers - in the 9/11 Commission Report. Is it flawed? You bet your damn ass it is because everyone knows the government can't really do anything right, and on top of it's fault new things and new questions have come to light.

In order for any of this to have happened any other way means that hundreds of people must have been involved - people who planted explosives, who piloted or flew by the remote control that airplanes to the firefighters it the towers. I can answer all of your silly questions by saying "I'm pretty sure that someone would have come forward now".

I think it's just possible that some of you watch way too much fucking TV.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gxRvExqN7_E"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gxRvExqN7_E" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

You guys are too paranoid.....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gxRvExqN7_E

I don't have TV or Cable. You're funny. You obviously know absolutely nothing about building construction.

Your biggest argument is calling people stupid, congratulations on a huge victory you intellectual giant. But, I am glad you admit your answers are on the same level as that of a Highschool Freshman.

9/11 allowed the Republican Party to pass a set of laws (Patriot Act, et al) that in the absence of 9/11 would never have been passed. The owners of WTC got insurance money to replace the aging structures that were soon going to require hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations to be brought up to code.

9/11 was an insurance job. Just like a staged car wreck. Only alot more dead bodies and damage.

Yes he made 7 Billion from insurance on a 15 million investment and an insurance policy that he just changed to cover terrorists attacks, but, don't forget all the documents for corporate fraud that were destroyed with Bldg. 7, all the Worldcom, Enron, and other cases were all in that bldg, and destroyed with it.

And let us not forget that it ended up starting a war, I am sure all of the defense contractors are tickled pink (I see Lockheed Martin now has a new ad on TV reminding me that they never forget who they are working for) with all the new projects and thus revenue.

Hell, if we didn't have a war soon, they'd run out of contracts to fill and thus run out of money. Lockheed isn't the kind of company that can survive on a few maintenance contracts worth a few hundred million, they need billions and billions worth of new projects coming in all the time in addition to maintenance on the old ones.

And let us not forget Halliburton, that pillar of honesty and square dealings. The war that started after 9/11 gave Halliburton a huge shot in the arm as far as funding goes, hell, look at how much they got paid just to feed the troops spoiled food, nevermind the "rebuilding".

9(slash)11 was a stagged act to brainwash the mass herds of U.S. cattle into believing in a fake bunch of terrorists to get into war with the middle east for over 50 or more years to come!
Thank you Bush Admins!!!!

You are stupid if you consistently ignore obvious facts and realities that stare you in the face and instead fabricate a bunch of BS:

WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ? approximately 10 stories ? about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors ? along with the building's unusual construction ? were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Here is an realistic look at what may have happened: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Scheuerman...entDec2006.pdf

Anyway here is more from Wikipedia:

The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]

In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department?s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, US$16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers, as well as 7 World Trade Center.[27] The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[28]

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[29][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[30] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][31]

A progress report was released in June 2004, outlining NIST's working hypothesis.[32][3] The hypothesis, which was reiterated in a June 2007 status update, is that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[33]

NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.[33] The investigation of 7 World Trade Center has been delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 WTC were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005, to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.[34] Regarding the investigation of 7 World Trade Center, Dr S. Shyam Sunder stated in a New York magazine interview in March 2006, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors?; he then added, "But truthfully, I don?t really know. We?ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."[35] In June 2007, he explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[33]

Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.[36][37] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who?s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can?t worry about that. Facts are facts."[38] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse," NIST said: "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[34]

Congratulations on you copy and paste skills. At least Rochard is using his brain and personal opinion. You, on the other hand, have nothing to bring to the table.

9/11 was Kyle's fault. He also dropped the deuce in the urinal. Everybody knows this.

to say someone has more cash than they could ever spend as a reason they would NOT TRY TO GET MORE is stupid.

I understand greed and some people's desire to have more and more no matter how much they have. But to me for someone to risking death and historic disgrace for money would mean they are a true sociopath. Do you think our president is a sociopath?