911 Truth on C-SPAN tonight!

yeah, what we all watched live actually was fake and what we didn't see was actually real.

ya mean this didnt happen? or better...we <USA> were behind it all just so we could go kill us some moslems and raise gas prices?

wow, you guys are completely willfully ingnorant. Congrats.

Learn to spell "ignorant" before you start calling people it you fucking douche.

ever heard of a typo?

All one has to do is ask themselves this question and they should instantly know that not everything is peachy when it comes to a ?case-closed? 9-11:

Why did Building #7 fall?

No skyscraper in history has fallen from fire damage. I?m willing to allow that for some reason the twin towers fell due to such high temperatures and some structural damage from the planes themselves. But why Building #7? #7 wasn?t struck by any plane and yet it somehow magically shared the same fate as the WTC. Other buildings, which were CLOSER than #7, did NOT fall to the intense heat. So why then did #7 fall? Until that single question is definitely answered my doubts will still be here.

I cant argue with logic.

Oh yea, I can:


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.

All of the conspiracy supported theories you will see have already been debunked by science.

The bigger conspiracy you guys should be worried about is why a "news" station would air a junk science political forum represented as credible. In other words, you get your news from people who attempt to manipulate the way you think and you dont realize it.

Thats the bigger picture.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat
.

Post some more lies bitch. Never in the history of modern civilization has a skyscraper FELL TO FIRE. Get that through your fucking THICK ASS SKULL. Intense fire has *never* brought DOWN A MODERN SKYSCRAPPER, even when burning for EIGHT HOURS OR MORE. So, ignore everything you have posted about ?intense fire? bringing it down. What do you have left? The ?intense structural damage?. Well then my dear faggot, what exactly caused this 'intense structural damage' to building #7? It WAS NOT HIT by the planes, and no small debris coming off the WTC would have been sufficient enough to damage it to such a degree to magically allow it to melt like butter and collapse. Furthermore, BPAT?s report (commissioned by FEMA) in 2k2 is inconclusive about the true cause of #7?s collapse.

By the time that BPAT?s report was published, in which it they called for more testing and further investigation of #7?s collapse, 97% of the structural steel had already recycled, making it impossible for them to test any further. Any thing in their report is going to be essentially dubious at best, and any reports to follow that could actually test the structural integrity of the steel would be moot as well. All we know for sure is that A) - No steel skyscraper IN MODERN HISTORY has fell to fire. B) - The building was *not* severely damaged during the attacks and C) - You are a faggot.

How many OTHER jumbo jets loaded with fuel and travelling at hundreds of hour have rammed into a sky scraper numb nuts?

Anyone who thinks our government had nothing to do with 911 just hasnt seen the information yet. It is all coming out now. This is an old tactic that has been used over and over again.
For some entry level info start with looking up "Operation Northwoods" in google which was a plan thought up by guys in our own governemnt back in the 60's to rally support to invade Cuba.
The plan was to blow up civilian commercial jets and blame it on Castro.
Here are scans of the now de-classified documents:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

Documentary covering a mountain of supporting evidence:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...1&q=alex+jones

Another...great doc btw
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=terror+storm

One specifically about 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

Neil Bush,(Jeb and George's brother) just happens to be chairman at the company that handled security for The World Trade Center, Boston Logan Airport and Washington Dulles Airport.

Ths list is very long. those who dont know thier history are doomed to repeat it.

...always a good way to make an argument... call the other guy a faggot.

and what grade will you be entering after summer break is over... 5th or 6th?

call me a little kooky but....
no skyscrapers were built like the WTC
no skyscrapers experienced anything the WTC (i.e. MASSIVE structural damage + fire + massive amount of jet fuel on fire)

It always cracks me up to hear people call anyone with a dissenting view a "conspiracy theorist".

We're hybrid monkeys on a spinning rock, in the middle of a ever expanding universe that appeared from an explosion in the middle of absolute nothingness.

Or

Some magical power placed us all here a few thousand years ago.....

Depending on which one you want to believe.

The very fact that we exist at this moment in time is unbelievable....yet a government creating a pearl harbor type attack to rebuild its antiquated defense forces...is somehow beyond belief.

Great logic....now return to picking your asses mutant hybrid monkeys.

The buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from jumbo jets...that's a fact.

Right, only buildings owned by Silverstien Properties met that fate. Even one that wasnt struck by a plane or even close enough to have any significant damage...Building #7. They aquired these properties only 6 weeks before 9/11 (which was incidentally the largest real estate transaction in New York History) and subsequentally the largest insurance policy.
Here is a video clip of Mr Silverstien himself saying "We decided to pull the building" at about 5:30 pm on 9/11.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/vide...tc7_pullit.wmv

Anyone know how long it takes to rig a building that size to go down into itself with such perfection as #7 did? Weeks..not 7 hours.
This was part of a larger plan that included making sure NORAD had all of our fighter jets 3000 miles away on a training exercises.

on and on and on...

That is incorrect. They were designed to withstand a hit from a 727 class aircraft only.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Thank you! And thanks to all the 911 truthers here...We always win these debates because the truth is on our side.

WTC does not equal Building #7. =)

The only thing funny on that page is this guys name:

"Fire chief Daniel Nigro"

Daniel Nigro... lmao, nice find

Again... WTC does NOT EQUAL BUILDING #7 you STUPID MOTHER FUCKERS. I said since the beginning that I'll give them that the WTC was taken down somehow by two jets, even though structurally they should have been able to withstand that. Building #7, however, was NOT STRUCK BY A PLANE, suffered NO MAJOR DAMAGE from falling debris from the WTC, and yet also shared the same fate as the WTC from catching on fire. Yet there have been NO SKYSCAPPERS IN HISTORY to fall from fire damage, some of which have burned with the same intensity as #7 did for many more hours.

I'm sure if there had been a "conspiracy" and govermnent secret this big; it would have been leaked to the New York Slimes by now.

why does intentionally demolishing the heavily damaged building that housed the CIA, FBI, IRS (among others) the vaults underneat and other organizations in addition to whatever other sensitive/security concerns there might have been equate to a government conspiracy to plan 9/11, kill 3000 people, launch a war? i am sure there are many reasons that could have made many involved want to demo the building and cover it up (insurance?) who knows. ... but tying that to a wider conspiracy that makes absolutely no sense on any level is a bit retarded.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=9&c=y

9/11 Myths Debunked


BTW I find it incredibly ironic that "those" who bash the Bush administration for being incompetent, think that same administration could pull this off

Ya know, i really wish you were right on this. I used to hold the same opinion. But after a while you have to face facts...go through the links, clips of the building going down with obvious explosive charges, interviews with fireman and witnesses on this page. See if this dosent sway you a bit.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Simple answer to your question is: Because the government obviously helped this thing along and enabled it.

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. Terrorist attacks may sometimes be in fact false flag operations, as in the Italian strategy of tension in which several bombings in the 1970s, attributed to far-left organizations, were in fact carried out by far-right organizations cooperating with the Italian secret services. Elsewhere in Europe, the Mouvement d'Action et Défense Masada, supposedly a Zionist group, was really a neo-fascist terrorist group which hoped to increase tension between Arabs and Jews in France. In 2005 in Basra, Iraqi police detained British soldiers from the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. They claimed that the soldiers were firing at Iraqi security forces and intent on planting bombs in false flag manner. The soldiers were unceremoniously released by British Army destruction of the cell block they being were held in [1].

This Magritte is so fucking great.
Don't beleive everything you see - appearances are misleading.

So given the first WTC bombing (designed to collapse both towers):

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


Can we assume that "BJ" Bill Clinton was "in" on this vast conspiracy as well?

If you think this stuff is left or right..democrat or republican you need to look at the big picture. The left and the right are both slaves to the Top.

Good question but you will not receive any good answers from the conspiracy nuts.

aaaaahhhhhh. Thanks for clarifying....

BTW the title to this thread is not correct. It should read 911 BS on C-span tonight.

Why don't you tune in about 5 minutes...

These threads are good at finding out what programs are in idiots' sigs and making sure I don't promote them.

I am tuned in but it will be the same BS that has already been hashed and rehashed over and over.

what time???

now..started 10 mins ago

7:00pm CST

Until 9/11. Because something 'has never happened' is not a guarantee or evidence that it 'will never happen'.

And stop screaming hysterically. Its a sign of a nut job.

thanks for the heads up on the time.


lots of sheeple in this thread! LOL

Anyone see loose change?

Sheeple indeed!

What kind of breath bait do you use? I prefer shrimp or worms, but I hear flies work as well.

(The term is bated breath) ... as in abated, suppressed... quiet.

*sighs* Ok, one last time MORON. Building #7 does NOT EQUAL the WTC. The WTC towers were hit by jets, ok and read CLOSE ATTENTION HERE, I'll give them that the WTC TOWERS fell due to a combination of structural damage and intense heat from the jet fuel. I give them that. Now, Building #7, which was MUCH FUTHER AWAY from the WTC than several other buildings somehow collapsed. Read this one more time you piece of shit: Building #7, which was MUCH FURTHER AWAY from the WTC than several other buildings somehow collapsed. Why did it collapse from fire? *why*? Commissioned studies by FEMA were essentially inconclusive as to why it fell because 97% of the steel was already sold and removed from the site by the time the studies took place. Some claim that the building took severe structural damage -- from what? What hit the building? Jets certainly didn't hit Building #7, so how did it suffer such significant damage from falling debris (when again, buildings MUCH CLOSER TO THE WTC did not), so significant in fact that a fire managed to bring it down? Also, since when is CAPITALIZING certain words for EMPHASIS considered SCREAMING you fucking RETARD? Last time I checked, that was to make your point a bit clearer to stupid fucks who can't read. =)