WTC Building 7... Case Closed!

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
GAITHERSBURG, Md. (AP) - Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

A spokeswoman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillen.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Click to expand...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92MQLDG0&show_article=1


*Puts on foil hat*

Well?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92MQLDG0&show_article=1

*Puts on foil hat*

Well?[/quote]

The steel in all three buildings would have a melting point of 2500F or so.

If we pretend the melting point is actually 2000F, how did it melt when the highest temperature kerosene burns in Earth's atmosphere is 1800F and the items in those offices would burn at under 1000F?

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?Itemid=9&id=8&option=com_content&task=view

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

...

Let's place a game.

I have a block of ice. It melts at 32F. If I place it in a room with a temperature of 20F, how long will it takes for the block of ice to melt without access to salt or other chemicals?

...

Well?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have a block of ice. It melts at 32F. If I place it in a room with a temperature of 20F, how long will it takes for the block of ice to melt without access to salt or other chemicals?

...

Well?[/quote]

Try to realize the truth. There is no block of ice. Then you'll see, that it is not the block of ice that melts, it is only yourself.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The steel in all three buildings would have a melting point of 2500F or so.

If we pretend the melting point is actually 2000F, how did it melt when the highest temperature kerosene burns in Earth's atmosphere is 1800F and the items in those offices would burn at under 1000F?

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?Itemid=9&id=8&option=com_content&task=view

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

...

Let's place a game.

I have a block of ice. It melts at 32F. If I place it in a room with a temperature of 20F, how long will it takes for the block of ice to melt without access to salt or other chemicals?

...

Well?[/QUOTE]

Oh I've gone over all those before. I'm highly skeptical off all the explenations we've received regarding 9-11. My tin foil hat comment was meant to show the conspiracy theorist in me coming out. I didn't mean for it to sound condescending in anyway.
 
That's the best coverup story they can come up with after 7 years?!?!?!?!

Shit. Alex Jones was on top of this mug on 9/12. Puttin' to rest lies like these guys make up.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The steel in all three buildings would have a melting point of 2500F or so.

If we pretend the melting point is actually 2000F, how did it melt when the highest temperature kerosene burns in Earth's atmosphere is 1800F and the items in those offices would burn at under 1000F?

http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

http://www.911weknow.com/index.php?Itemid=9&id=8&option=com_content&task=view

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

...

Let's place a game.

I have a block of ice. It melts at 32F. If I place it in a room with a temperature of 20F, how long will it takes for the block of ice to melt without access to salt or other chemicals?

...

Well?[/QUOTE]
The steel doesn't have to melt to lose structural integrity at high temperatures. :whistle2:?

Seems like a perfectly valid explanation to me. But I bet I'm just a sheep. :roll:
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']The steel doesn't have to melt to lose structural integrity at high temperatures. :whistle2:?

Seems like a perfectly valid explanation to me. But I bet I'm just a sheep. :roll:[/quote]

that's what i thought too... steel doesn't need to melt to be bent like a wet noodle. How much weight was on there... how many stories above.

I could really care less... seriously... but just had to chime in that steel won't melt till how many thousand... but when will it lose it's properties as being one of the hardest metal materials around...

and who's to say it was quality grade material... i mean we've had a rush of bridges that need serious help because of poor engineering...

If they wanted to do this proper, they should have done research with a like building.. or rebuilt it... computer sim can only go so far.
 
Mathematical models can very accurately model the real world, if made properly.

Building and bringing down another building is an absurd proposal.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']The steel doesn't have to melt to lose structural integrity at high temperatures. :whistle2:?

Seems like a perfectly valid explanation to me. But I bet I'm just a sheep. :roll:[/quote]

No, some people really are stupid enough to think that steel retains 100% of its structural integrity up to the melting point. Some people would also make better fertilizer than people.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']The steel doesn't have to melt to lose structural integrity at high temperatures. :whistle2:?

Seems like a perfectly valid explanation to me. But I bet I'm just a sheep. :roll:[/quote]

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

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/5058 Look at post #5.

The people offering the explanation need to show their work in full. A short news article doesn't do it justice.

If the weight on the steel actually exceeded what it was rated for, great. Score one for simple explanations.

If the weight on the steel didn't exceed what it was rated for, they should be hounded until they figure it out. Score one for conspiracy theories.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

This is the closest I can find to the new report. It is over 3 years old. Why is this today's news?

The beauty of WTC 7 is that a jumbo jet loaded with kerosene didn't run into the building. So, the official explanation is harder to believe.

EDIT: Much better. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']HA! You used Wiki as a source[/quote]

Is it your first day? We use wiki here a lot.

...

Skimming over the newer report, I'm not impressed.

Pages 33-35 states the report is an educated guess. From there, it doesn't get much better.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']While i love wikipedia, there's a reason why it isn't good to use as a source.[/quote]

Oh, please elaborate. Then, apply said reason towards the structural steel entry I linked.
 
[quote name='evanft']No, some people really are stupid enough to think that steel retains 100% of its structural integrity up to the melting point. Some people would also make better fertilizer than people.[/quote]

Was there melted steel under all three buildings?
 
Well...... I guess there is a first time for everything.... :roll:

Is this one "scientific answer" that can really be reproduced in a laboratory environment?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well...... I guess there is a first time for everything.... :roll:

Is this one "scientific answer" that can really be reproduced in a laboratory environment?[/quote]

According to pages 33-35 of the new report, yes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Oh, please elaborate. Then, apply said reason towards the structural steel entry I linked.[/quote]
I don't need to, the fact that most universities don't allow it as a source is enough for me.

Not being metallurgist or engineer, i can't say if the article is right or wrong, but if it's a reliable source, there shouldn't be a doubt in the first place.
 
[quote name='evanft']Are you dense?[/quote]

Absolutely.

Each side has their own set of beliefs.

The "truthers" crowd claim there were pools of liquid steel.

The "believe the government" crowd claim there was simply glowing metal.

Since there wasn't enough heat to melt steel in any of the buildings, those beliefs can't both be true.

The government says on page 33: "However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all WTC building were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."

The government is saying everything in the report is a (highly educated) guess.

...

Let's try a less charged scenario. Assume to cars crash on a city street with few witnesses. Both drivers are killed. Before the cops investigate, wreckers tow the vehicles to the crusher, they are mistakenly crushed and a street sweeper disrupts the area. Who hit who? Did air bags deploy? How fast was either car traveling? The full truth will never be fully determined.

...

The problem with this report is that it doesn't solve anything. People who think the government did 9/11 don't have to break a sweat debunking this report. People who think the government wasn't directly responsible will point to all of the spiffy models to label skeptics as crackpots. The report is a complete waste.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
The "believe the government" crowd claim there was simply glowing metal.

Since there wasn't enough heat to melt steel in any of the buildings, those beliefs can't both be true.
[/QUOTE]

Metal doesn't have to hit the melting point for it to glow
 
[quote name='fart_bubble']Metal doesn't have to hit the melting point for it to glow[/quote]

Correct. You only need a few hundred degrees C to make steel glow.

If there was enough heat, you could find both melted steel and glowing steel.

However, there was only enough heat on that day to produce glowing steel.

If the government is correct, there would be only bent, snapped and/or glowing steel found.

If there was melted steel found, how did it appear?
 
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.​
NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”​
If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?


This on its own completely destroys the very foundation of NIST’s assertion that a “new phenomenon” was responsible for the collapse.​
Which is the more likely scenario - that ground zero officials and media outlets got word that the building was going to be “pulled” - or that they employed clairvoyant powers of deduction that enabled them to foresee an event that had never happened before in history to a building that was structurally reinforced and had suffered limited fires?​
NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.​
We are actually being asked to believe the impossible - that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.​
The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:​
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.​
Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.​
“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”​
“There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,” he added, citing NIST’s claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.
Even aside from this argument, there were numerous close proximity eyewitnesses who reported loud explosions, including NYPD officer Craig Bartmer and ground zero first responder Kevin McPadden (who also experienced the countdown before the building fell), but this fact was again simply ignored by NIST.
“FEMA found it,” said Gage. “Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers].”
The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across a handful of floors.
NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.
As the George Washington blog points out, “NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than free fall speed. But it collapsed a lot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn’t very impressive — that’s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.”
The George Washington blog has compiled a list of experts in structural engineering and demolition who have all questioned NIST’s conclusion. None of these individuals were approached by NIST to partake in their final report.




  • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”

​
  • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds… ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

​
  • Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”

​

To claim that the collapse of WTC 7 is “no longer a mystery,” as chief NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder stated yesterday smacks of a desperate attempt to proclaim the authority of the official story by mere words alone, when in reality NIST’s laughable “new phenomenon” claim, the latest in a long line of changing explanations for the obvious demolition of Building 7, only heaps more embarrassment on NIST and makes the official 9/11 story look more untrustworthy than ever before.


​
 
Oh, level1, isn't it enough to say the government's explanation is utter crap using the government's own words?

Once the government's explanation has been discounted, then a correct explanation can be determined.
 
THERMAL EXPANSION... My Brush with Death.

Something incredible happened to me today. I had just started my car when the whole engine suddenly collapsed through itself in six seconds, leaving nothing but a pile of demolished and partially molten steel on the road.

Not long ago I would have thought this an odd event, but thanks to recent breakthroughs in science I now know what must have happened.

The burning hydrocarbons (in this case, gasoline) in the cylinders must have caused "Thermal Expansion" to occur. This in turn caused all of the steel components underneath the cylinders to fail simultaneously, enabling the engine to fall through itself. The weight of the engine itself probably assisted collapse.

Obviously I was shaken. To calm myself down, I went indoors to make a cup of coffee. I lit the gas stove, and put my kettle on to boil.

Big mistake.

Thermal Expansion struck again. The kettle collapsed right through itself, spilling boiling water everywhere. And then the goddam stove collapsed through itself too. I'd forgotten it was only made of steel. Faced with unforeseeable temperatures, one critical, load-bearing part must have given way.

This is a serious problem. I'd suggest encasing steel in something fireproof, like concrete or asbestos, but I'm not sure that will work. Perhaps steel items like kettles, stoves, and engines could be reinforced to support their own weight? Perhaps expansion joints could be incorporated, like in buildings?

I don't know.
 
My grandfather worked in a steel mill for 40+ years. He had a "few" conversations with my dad over the years about the virtues of steel. That and the town's economy was based on steel mills until the USA became a nation of imports.

I ran the official explanation past my dad as written by the government.

"My ass" was his response.

The kool-aid test is melted steel. If you believe there was melted steel, you can't believe the government's official explanation. If you believe there was only snapped, bent steel or glowing steel, you can sleep tight in knowing the government figured everything out.
 
[quote name='level1online']Perhaps expansion joints could be incorporated, like in buildings?[/QUOTE]

You mean the ones that are designed to deal with temperatures ranging from about 0 - 50 c? Oh yeah, those.
 
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ movie is free to watch online and is backed by documents and fact available from the website part 1 deals with religion but part 2 is all about the different 9/11 theories that have been surfacing scary to say but i like the part about the explosive material the official 9/11 report felt it didn't need to go into.
 
According to the government, the 7 of 80 columns severed played no role in the collapse.

According to the government, the frame and column 79 separating on 1 or 2 floors caused the total collapse.

Now, that means the other 71 remaining columns with 47 attachments to the frame and the other 45-46 attachments on column 79 weren't enough to hold the building together.

Let's try a less volatile but equally likely example:

1. Acquire access to a bra with D cups.
2. Acquire access to a hole puncher.
3. Acquire access to a woman with D-sized breasts.
4. Punch one hole into one of the bra cups.
5. Have woman put on bra.
6. Wait for bra to catastrophically fail and the boobies to fall out.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Level1, any thoughts on the BBC reporting WTC7's collapse 40 minutes before it happened?[/quote]

From what I've heard it's been real hard to track down the lady who reported that.

Also, the anchor man for the BBC, when recently asked by WeAreChange: U.K. Chapter whether he remembers what he reported on 9/11, he gave some wonky answers. I'll just post the vid and let you decide for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMlFFQ2oqQ
 
lol it funny cause all i see on here are news vids well....
when the twelfth largest company in

the world controls the most awesome

goddamned propaganda force in the

whole godless world, who knows what

shit will be peddled for truth on

this tube? So, listen to me!

Television is not the truth! Tele-

vision is a goddamned amusement

park, that's what television is!

Television is a circus, a carnival,

a travelling troupe of acrobats and

story-tellers, singers and dancers,

jugglers, side-show freaks, lion-

tamers and football players. We're

in the boredom-killing business
Click to expand...
with that said turn the clocks back over 30 years if the plot to kill JFK
was real and certain Gov officials were behind it as good of a jobs as they did covering that up whos to say they can't do the same for WTC Building 7
 
[quote name='level1online']From what I've heard it's been real hard to track down the lady who reported that.[/quote]

Have they checked all the ditches?

EDIT: Just kidding. Processed into animal feed makes a lot of trails cold.
 
[quote name='Koggit']You mean the ones that are designed to deal with temperatures ranging from about 0 - 50 c? Oh yeah, those.[/quote]

We have expansion joints that we deal with at work for steam lines. And since water turns into steam at 212 degrees, the steam is at least about 220 degrees Fahrenheit. So I'm sure they can make joints to handle higher temperatures.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']We have expansion joints that we deal with at work for steam lines. And since water turns into steam at 212 degrees, the steam is at least about 220 degrees Fahrenheit. So I'm sure they can make joints to handle higher temperatures.[/QUOTE]

Dude.. I'm EE/physics, perhaps not super qualified but I hear my profs talk about engineering design all the time, and you don't design far beyond expected conditions unless it's super cheap to do so. For example the paint on a house isn't going to stand up to 200 mph winds even if Boeing has paint that stands up to 1000 mph winds.
 
The Titanic was a conspiracy, too. How could ICE destroy a steel ship? This was tested by leaving an ice cube in the bath, and a miniature model of the Titantic in the bathtub. An hour later, the ice cube had MELTED, and the model of the Titantic was in perfect shape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI ^ Here's the whole documentary. It's called Unfastened Coins. I also noticed that most of you are sheeple on this site. Open your fucking eyes.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Dude.. I'm EE/physics, perhaps not super qualified but I hear my profs talk about engineering design all the time, and you don't design far beyond expected conditions unless it's super cheap to do so. For example the paint on a house isn't going to stand up to 200 mph winds even if Boeing has paint that stands up to 1000 mph winds.[/quote]

physics also says that a elephant can hang off of a cliff by its tails holding onto a flower
 
[quote name='FallMoon']The Titanic was a conspiracy, too. [/quote]

Speaking of the Titanic...

1910: One-sixth of the world's wealth meet in secret at Jekyll Island to discuss monetary policy and a central bank
1912: Titanic ship sinks. Coincidentally enough, any key wealthy businessman who would've opposed a central bank, died on the Titanic.
1913: The Federal Reserve Act is passed. And if you know anything about the Federal Reserve, it's not Federal, and there is no Reserve. It's the system of debt that has guaranteed our future generations into a life of perpetual economic slavery....

conspiracy or coincidence? i have no clue...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Level1, am I still a sheeple or have I graduated to useless idiot (as opposed to useful)?

For those looking to add a little mood to the BBC precog video, load up The Necronomicon game located on Kongregate's website.
 
I'm simply stunned that there are people that think that:
A) You could find enough people in the government that would be needed to pull off this 9/11 conspiracy to go along with killing so many innocent civilians (the same government that can't even get itself coordinated enough to balance a federal budget)
and
B)that those same people would be able to keep their mouths shut for all this time and not come forward with what they know and show any proof they have...

Hell even Deep Throat had to get his glory before he died.

Oh, and I'd like to build and send a Roflcopter to Level1 for actually extending his conspiracy theory paranoia to the fucking Titanic sinking. Hell, I'll even bet the US Government had something to do with Jesus's crucifixation too...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I'm simply stunned that there are people that think that:
A) You could find enough people in the government that would be needed to pull off this 9/11 conspiracy to go along with killing so many innocent civilians (the same government that can't even get itself coordinated enough to balance a federal budget)
and
B)that those same people would be able to keep their mouths shut for all this time and not come forward with what they know and show any proof they have...

[/quote]

you have such a narrow scope of history.

c'mon... Deep Throat??? :rofl:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'] I'll even bet the US Government had something to do with Jesus's crucifixation too...[/quote]

Is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one" The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still cited as truth.

but as far as 9/11 goes ever hear of the North American Union that was done with NO approval from congress..how about he fact that to this day the official 9/11 report states "The funding of the 9/11 terrorists attacks is of little or no concern" now call me crazy and flame me all you want but don't you think its important to know who the hell paid for 9/11. Not to mention the fact that NORAD with the anti-terrorist war games got %100 accuracy months before 9/11 but on that day they failed 4 out of 4 times.

the following 33 min video shows it all the facts the myth the commons between the Bushs and the bin ladens

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2461177575671329682
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously the US government had something to do with Jesus's crucifixion. The Bush administration, namely. Okay, bare with me guys, you might flame me or something, but I don't care. Did you hear about how the Sarcophagus of Ramses IV was intentionally wheeled onto the Titanic by the Bush administration because they knew it would cause the Illuminati and Shinra to move onto their second phase of planning or some shit.
 
If the building was brought down by "controlled demolition" hours after the planes struck, what would have been the point in doing so? Wouldn't the towers falling have been enough justification for Bush/Israelis/whoever to justify their war? Why would they have needed to bring down this other building? If it is a conspiracy, as many here are suggesting, then what was the bloody point of this building, beyond the devastation that had already been wrought?
 
[quote name='sgs89']If the building was brought down by "controlled demolition" hours after the planes struck, what would have been the point in doing so? Wouldn't the towers falling have been enough justification for Bush/Israelis/whoever to justify their war? Why would they have needed to bring down this other building? If it is a conspiracy, as many here are suggesting, then what was the bloody point of this building, beyond the devastation that had already been wrought?[/QUOTE]

Not so much the towers, but for building 7, there was a lot of big name agencies (secret service, sec among others) in there and a lot of people use that as a point of contention.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Not so much the towers, but for building 7, there was a lot of big name agencies (secret service, sec among others) in there and a lot of people use that as a point of contention.[/QUOTE]

OK, but what is the theory as to why they would want to blow that building up and why would they have done it hours after the other calamities?
 
[quote name='sgs89']OK, but what is the theory as to why they would want to blow that building up and why would they have done it hours after the other calamities?[/QUOTE]

Well, to make things "dissapear", not to mention the owner of the building made billions off the insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top