Homeboy wrote:Ok I can't really remember blairs antics a year ago. However after 9/11 (which i presume will be blamed on the NWO) I can see why they were a little jumpy with Saddam. If there was any possibility he had WOMD, then war was right.
Oh puhlease. 9/11 was a carefully-orchestrated government manoeuvre; a controlled demolition by the US Government, murdering thousands of innocent people for political gain. They needed this fear instilled in their public in order to go ahead and rape the Middle East, for reasons which I will come onto later. Bear in mind, this is something I have researched for years, I can't lay all the facts down in one board post.
If you don't believe the US govt were to blame for 9/11 (or Oklahoma) then believe SCIENCE. The US Govt would have us believe a crappy little fire was capable of bringing two towers down FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY??? (and last) And the rate at which they fell, in around ten seconds each, is only achievable by controlled demolition - it is IMPOSSIBLE to break the scientific laws of How, although the fire was so hot, people could clearly be seen standing in the holes of the building waving for help? How the firefighters who had reached those floors had PUT THE FIRES OUT?
Do you believe that while steel melted in this (fake) way, one solitary terrorist passport floated down into the street and was able to be recovered and named as that of one of the Boeing pilots? And yet the man is still alive and kicking, as are many of the others Bush named as Al Qaeda terrorists. Funny how they dropped that one, isn't it?
Do you still believe a Boeing hit the Pentagon? And how do you explain the complete lack of DNA at both the Pentagon and PA? Are you to have me believe that for the first time in history, human tissue was COMPLETELY vapourised? Why did the US Govt destroy the WTC debris as fast as possible? Why no inquiry? Why did FEMA confiscate the black boxes never to be seen again? How come the WTC towers fell and WTC 7, yet those buildings in between were FINE? Funny how they were all owned by the same man, who days before had taken out a new insurance policy to INCLUDE ACTS OF TERRORISM.
WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.
6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. From that height, freefall in a vacuum (read,
absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
There is a principle in physics called the
Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the
Law of Conservation of Momentum. Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.
This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.
But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?
Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.
The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.
It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.
There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.
A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way.
People were murdered that day but not by Al Qaeda. Coincidentally, you do know Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll, right? And Bush had shares in his brother's companies? And how this attack on WTC had been planned previously by the US Government and thrown out for being too risky?
And this is just one miscarriage of justice. Turn the TV on. Don't think what's going on in Lebanon and with Korea and Syria isn't part of the plan. WAKE UP.
J. Edgar Hoover once said: “The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous- he simply cannot believe it exists"
For ever person sacrificed in the path to the New World Order you OWE it to them and yourself to get off your lazy f u c k ing asses and READ SOMETHING OTHER THAN A TABLOID NEWSPAPER.
/off rant.
CIA and other groups are consultants on all of these Hollywood movies. If you want to hide something, hide it in full view.
