9/11 rant:: Purge all Muslims

[Dänk 42Ø]

Today is the 15th anniversary of 9/11. A few years ago I burned a
Koran in protest, but I feel too lazy to it do it this year, so I am
just printing out a graphic bumper sticker (see below).

So I just finished watching "The Purge 2: Anarchy," and was imagining
if it were perfectly legal to murder anyone you want for 12 hours a
year (unlike Muslims, who happily murder anytime of the year).

Genocide is wrong. But when a tribe of brainwashed cultists has
declared total jihad on our civilization, what do we do?

Islam is a thought virus, NOT an "ethnicity" as Western liberal
defenders of the cult insist. Anyone -- red, black, yellow, and white
can be brainwashed by the cult. And they can act perfectly normal as
undercover agents of ISIS, just collecting supplies and waiting for
their opportunity to attack.

So my rhetorical question, considering that we are in an unofficial
war against Islam, if you had 12 hours to hunt as many Muslims down and
kill them with legal impunity, would you? They sure don't hesitate to
kill us regarding the time of year. In fact, Ramadan, their "holy
month," calls for an increased killing of infidels. 30 days vs. 12
hours.


Blessed be the New Founding Fathers of America!
And Blessed be America, a Nation Reborn!
Purge and Purify!


Loading Image...


[Footnote: I am NOT advocating the killing of Muslims simply because of
their religion. I am just asking whether any of you would knowing there
would be no legal consequences. Would you be willing to put on a
suicide vest and blow yourself up in an Islamic marketplace? Would you
stone your daughter to death for having pre-marital sex? Would you be
willing to die while hijacking a plane into the tallest skyscraper on
earth in Qatar or wherever? Of course the answer is "no," because we
are civilized free-thinking Westerners rather than brainwashed Islamist
cultists.

It is our freedom of speech they seem to hate, our constitutional right
to insult their "prophet" Mohammed, and they will kill us for it.
Meanwhile, according to the Western liberals who defend Islam and its
right to behead infidels, insulting Jesus and burning the Bible is just
fine. Even my idol and personal Antichrist Superstar, Marilyn Manson,
burns bibles at his concerts, and all the Christians protesting outside
never resorted to violence over it.]

[Footnote #2: From the moment I heard about 9/11, the images were seared
into my brain. After the initial shock wore off and I absorbed what I
was seeing in replay after replay after replay, I knew nothing would
ever be the same again. Still, I tried my best not to stereotype
Muslims, until I woke up in a Berlin hotel and was watching German TV
on July 15, 2016, not quite understanding what had happened other than
it was a Muslim terrorist attack. I asked the lady next to me at the
breakfast table what happened, and she didn't speak German either, but
we all learned by noon that it was some fuckin' derka who plowed down
a crowd of 89 people with a 20-ton rental truck. The atmosphere from
then until I left EU a week later was very, very, dark.]


- - - - - -
"I Like to Watch"
http://churchofeuthanasia.org/misc/I_Like_to_Watch.mp4

[Topaz]

CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[raven1]

Post by Topaz
CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://youtu.be/rnbMjAN7Bws
The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

One slight problem with the Controlled Demolition scenario: it's
completely ridiculous. The notion that three skyscrapers occupied 24/7
could be wired for it **with no one noticing** is so wildly
implausible that it's surprising anyone takes it seriously. It would
require squads of workers spending many hundreds of man hours gutting
the interior to expose the beams, partially cutting them, placing the
explosive charges, wiring everything with hundreds of miles of
electrical wires, and sealing everything back up, again, with no one
noticing what was going on. "Godzilla knocked the towers down" would
be a more reasonable theory.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by raven1

Post by Topaz
CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://youtu.be/rnbMjAN7Bws
The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

One slight problem with the Controlled Demolition scenario: it's
completely ridiculous. The notion that three skyscrapers occupied 24/7
could be wired for it **with no one noticing** is so wildly
implausible that it's surprising anyone takes it seriously. It would
require squads of workers spending many hundreds of man hours gutting
the interior to expose the beams, partially cutting them, placing the
explosive charges, wiring everything with hundreds of miles of
electrical wires, and sealing everything back up, again, with no one
noticing what was going on. "Godzilla knocked the towers down" would
be a more reasonable theory.

Exactly.

I wish I could remember the name of that documentary that took each of
the conspiracy theories and ran experiments to check whether they could
be true. Every single one was definitely refuted.

Ahhh, google is my friend. The name of the documentary is "The 9/11
Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction":

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-conspiracies-fact-fiction>

[Topaz]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:11:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Jeanne Douglas
I wish I could remember the name of that documentary that took each of
the conspiracy theories and ran experiments to check whether they could
be true. Every single one was definitely refuted.
Ahhh, google is my friend. The name of the documentary is "The 9/11

Another government rectum kisser.

http://911planeshoax.com/

In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel
TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane
cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As
the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending,
buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of
the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics.
It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter.

Loading Image... A passenger jet is a
hollow aluminum and plastic tube which is highly vulnerable to impacts
with flying birds. Loading Image... The
"plane" we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously
both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of
buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each.

Loading Image... When the tip of the
plane's fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the
fuselage should be breaking up.
Loading Image... That would cause the wings
to break off.

From the holes left in both towers after "impact" we are supposed to
believe the wings sliced clean through the 14 inch steel beams but
this is simply impossible. The fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings
would not slice through all the 14 inch steel box columns of the WTC
towers and leave a Wylie Coyote style hole.

Loading Image... An airplane wing can be
sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole:

Aluminum plane wings will
not cut through 14 inch steel regardless of speed and weight. Not only
is it impossible for the wings to have cut through the steel columns
but it is absolutely impossible for the fragile wing tips to have also
cut through the steel columns.

The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would
explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode.
Loading Image... The plane would simply be
obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel
and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of
the tower.

The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can
the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the
tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The "plane" also
violates Newton's First Law.

There are NO verified airplane parts. Apart from one or two props
placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engine…parts that didn't
even match a Boeing 767 and like the laughable bit of engine on the
Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen and
no black boxes were ever found at ground zero.
Loading Image... In reality, if a plane
had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall
and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane
would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have
been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the
passengers yet it wasn't because there was no plane.

FAA Regulation 121 requires a comprehensive investigation of all
crashes of scheduled commercial flights yet there are no official
crash reports on the 4 incidents because there were no planes.

In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers
clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated
appearance. In the different footage we see the planes changing shape
and color, missing wings, are featureless and blurred. Pilot John Lear
made the observation that the plane has no strobe lights. The plane
also casts no shadow. http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off
on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at
every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time,
wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other
categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart
from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the
planes do not even look real.




www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[Governor Swill]

Post by Jeanne Douglas
I wish I could remember the name of that documentary that took each of
the conspiracy theories and ran experiments to check whether they could
be true. Every single one was definitely refuted.
Ahhh, google is my friend. The name of the documentary is "The 9/11
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-conspiracies-fact-fiction>

This is not the one I was thinking of. Another such piece
reconstructed a model of the towers and showed, from an engineering
view, why the pancaked and that pancaking was normal result of the
failure. They also went into some detail on metallurgy and showed how
heat, far short of enough to melt the steel, would be enough to weaken
it to the point of failure, especially with so much structural damage
from impact.

The point of failure wasn't the inner core or outer shell or even the
trusses that connected them. The failure points were the rivets that
held the trusses to the sheets of vertical steel thus stablizing them
from buckling. Unable to support the weight of the planes, the
collapse initiated and moved that weight to the next floor which then
failed and so on, in a chain reaction as each floor became loaded with
the weight of the entire building above.

The floors weren't designed to carry that much weight. The building's
weight was carried by the walls and the walls were the last structural
parts to fail.

Swill

[Topaz]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:39:14 -0400, Governor Swill

Post by Governor Swill
This is not the one I was thinking of. Another such piece
reconstructed a model of the towers and showed, from an engineering
view, why the pancaked and that pancaking was normal result of the
failure. They also went into some detail on metallurgy and showed how
heat, far short of enough to melt the steel, would be enough to weaken
it to the point of failure, especially with so much structural damage
from impact.

BS

CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://youtu.be/rnbMjAN7Bws

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...

Post by Governor Swill
The point of failure wasn't the inner core or outer shell or even the
trusses that connected them. The failure points were the rivets that
held the trusses to the sheets of vertical steel thus stablizing them
from buckling. Unable to support the weight of the planes, the
collapse initiated and moved that weight to the next floor which then
failed and so on, in a chain reaction as each floor became loaded with
the weight of the entire building above.
The floors weren't designed to carry that much weight. The building's
weight was carried by the walls and the walls were the last structural
parts to fail.

More BS. And no one is even claiming that building 7 was hit by a
plane.



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[Topaz]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:47:24 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1
One slight problem with the Controlled Demolition scenario: it's
completely ridiculous. The notion that three skyscrapers occupied 24/7
could be wired for it **with no one noticing** is so wildly

People noticed. There are many other great youtube videos about this
false flag. Here are some samples.

Canada one
9/11: Decade of Deception (Full Film NEW 2015)

Big One

With ISIS
Overwhelming Evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job, Who did it and Why

No planes
This important video proves that there were no real planes.
The key to solving 9/11 is something called a "key". Understanding
video compositing technology, both its capabilities AND limitations,
proves no planes, and therefore proves demolition.

more

Pentagon
A CNN reporter on the scene minutes after the explosion occurred
COULD NOT SEE any signs of a plane.
9/11 CNN No Plane at Pentagon Original Footage

This video was confiscated by the FBI in 2002. It was just released
after a verdict in a lawsuit. The video shows the Pentagon explosion,
but no plane!
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82934657/



This is good one on how they did it. I think it's too long but the
beginning and end are great. They had to add a lot of details in
between for proof. Anyway it seems to be on the right track about the
Pentagon:

witness

Osama
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape2.html

Zionists

Plane video

empire state
http://www.rijo.homepage.t-online.de/pdf/EN_GL_45_empire_state_building.pdf

Sheared off by the impact, its wings fell as fiery debris

Melted steel

Proof of explosives and thermite charges on twin towers:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=28
Im suprised people still think it was jet fuel burning in the towers.
Has anyone ever lit jet fuel on fire? I have. It burns up REAL quick.
We do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put
them out.

with that said, jet fuel wasnt burning in that building.. Office
debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story
skyscraper (read: non-flammable).

Jets burn about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes,
powerplant... weight.. etc. And thats in a controlled environment with
jet fuel being fed into the engine. Imagine you light it ALL on fire
all at once... its gone.

So, the argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. And i wont buy the
fact that pools of jet fuel were burning. Pools of jet fuel were found
in cars on the streets below.. not burning.

Try it, Get some Kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel),
put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire... Stand back
though....lol. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then
you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree.. or steel..
whichever... hey.. try a coke can. And light it. I bet it doesnt even
melt the coke can it burns so quick. (although it may, havent tried it
myself)


MUST SEE Professor Steven Jones on the Controlled Demolition Of WTC
Demolition

more melted steel
http://youtu.be/wkaX5n3pfZE
other buildings

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever
caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are
examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in
WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed
multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large
areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in
the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that
suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the
22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an
estimated $100 million in direct property loss. 1 2 3 It was
later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant
fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of
spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of
the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part
of the building collapsed.

9/11 Methodical Illusion -Airline Flight Attendant Reveals What Really
Happened On 9/11

Post by raven1
implausible that it's surprising anyone takes it seriously.

You have your head up your aft end, figuratively speaking.

Post by raven1
It would
require squads of workers spending many hundreds of man hours gutting
the interior to expose the beams, partially cutting them, placing the
explosive charges, wiring everything with hundreds of miles of
electrical wires, and sealing everything back up, again, with no one
noticing what was going on. "Godzilla knocked the towers down" would
be a more reasonable theory.

The government can do whatever is wants. They have that kind of
power. Your goal is to kiss government rectum.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[raven1]

Post by Topaz
No planes
This important video proves that there were no real planes.

Wow, that's so far into kook territory that there's no way to respond
other than laughing in complete and utter derision. I'm a New Yorker.
I know quite a few people who saw the planes hit the towers, including
my brother, my ex-wife, who was across the street from the towers,
former UFT President Randi Weingarten, and several friends who were on
the Staten Island Ferry and had the second plane pass about 900 feet
over their heads on its way to hit the South Tower. The planes were
very, very real, and you're a compete loon.

[Topaz]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:57:45 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Topaz
No planes
This important video proves that there were no real planes.

Wow, that's so far into kook territory that there's no way to respond
other than laughing in complete and utter derision. I'm a New Yorker.
I know quite a few people who saw the planes hit the towers, including
my brother, my ex-wife, who was across the street from the towers,
former UFT President Randi Weingarten, and several friends who were on
the Staten Island Ferry and had the second plane pass about 900 feet
over their heads on its way to hit the South Tower. The planes were
very, very real, and you're a compete loon.

In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers
clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated
appearance.

Since the planes just pass into the buildings as seen in the videos
it is obviously CGI.

Just as you have to see the videos of building 7 going down, which no
one even claims that a plane hit, to see that it is obviously
controlled demolition, you also have to see the videos of alleged
planes hitting to building to see how clearly fake it is. This awesome
video explains it:

http://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds

As for your post, the first possibilty is that you or they or both
are full of shit. What are the odds of your ex-wife happening to be
across the street from the towers just as the bombs went off?

Here is an account of a man that war really there:


http://youtu.be/DQbEuBgAKso


Here is what Randi Weingarten really said:

http://www.uft.org/reflections-9-11/randi-weingarten

I was leafleting near Brooklyn Borough Hall with Alan Hevesi. Rush
hour was nearly over. Suddenly, we heard an explosion. Smoke rose on
the eastern horizon. We stopped campaigning and headed for the
promenade. There the sight of one of the towers burning stopped us

No Ferry! And No Planes! She heard the bombs just like the other man
who was really there.

Maybe there could be some other explaination besides your being full
of shit, but it's a proven fact that you make things up. And the close
up videos of planes supposedly hitting the buildiings shows you are a
complete asshole.



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:57:45 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Topaz
No planes
This important video proves that there were no real planes.

Wow, that's so far into kook territory that there's no way to respond
other than laughing in complete and utter derision. I'm a New Yorker.
I know quite a few people who saw the planes hit the towers, including
my brother, my ex-wife, who was across the street from the towers,
former UFT President Randi Weingarten, and several friends who were on
the Staten Island Ferry and had the second plane pass about 900 feet
over their heads on its way to hit the South Tower. The planes were
very, very real, and you're a compete loon.

You're part of the conspiracy.
/sarcasm

Swill

[raven1]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:37:37 -0400, Governor Swill

Post by Topaz
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:57:45 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Topaz
No planes
This important video proves that there were no real planes.

Wow, that's so far into kook territory that there's no way to respond
other than laughing in complete and utter derision. I'm a New Yorker.
I know quite a few people who saw the planes hit the towers, including
my brother, my ex-wife, who was across the street from the towers,
former UFT President Randi Weingarten, and several friends who were on
the Staten Island Ferry and had the second plane pass about 900 feet
over their heads on its way to hit the South Tower. The planes were
very, very real, and you're a compete loon.

You're part of the conspiracy.

Which one? The Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea?

Post by Topaz
/sarcasm
Swill

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:51:53 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:37:37 -0400, Governor Swill

Post by Topaz
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:57:45 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Topaz
No planes
This important video proves that there were no real planes.

Wow, that's so far into kook territory that there's no way to respond
other than laughing in complete and utter derision. I'm a New Yorker.
I know quite a few people who saw the planes hit the towers, including
my brother, my ex-wife, who was across the street from the towers,
former UFT President Randi Weingarten, and several friends who were on
the Staten Island Ferry and had the second plane pass about 900 feet
over their heads on its way to hit the South Tower. The planes were
very, very real, and you're a compete loon.

You're part of the conspiracy.

Which one? The Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea?

Yes.

Swill

[Topaz]

CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://youtu.be/rnbMjAN7Bws

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up - not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like the badly
damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological
denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it
obviously was, and they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and
fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to
defend their indefensible position. The REAL terrorists are desperate
to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the permitting
if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic
exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.

Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's
most sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible
morning? I don't think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable
than the explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing
down of NORAD. Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on
the roofs of nearby buildings. These were too far away to be from
jumpers from the towers. If the towers simply collapsed from damage
and fire alone, what blew these bodies to smithereens and sent the
fragments flying for considerable distances? The plane impacts did not
have the explosive brisance (shattering force) necessary to do this -
only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny bits and throw them such
distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than
their being the result of high explosives being detonated in the
towers?


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade
Center (WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent
people. Videos of the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for
days. About 5 hours after the towers fell, WTC building 7 also
collapsed suddenly, completely, and straight down at near free-fall
speed. This steel-framed building was not touched by the planes that
struck the towers, and had sustained relatively minor debris damage
and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily damaged remained
standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan
Reynolds, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates stated, "The American people know what they saw with their own
eyes on September11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government
conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's
tale that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics,
and the emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have
stymied objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of
authoritarian assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told
us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now
referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government
claims, the plane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet
fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated the UL-certified structural steel to
the point where it was significantly weakened, which is very difficult
to believe, never mind repeat in an experiment. Even with massive
fires that incinerate everything else, the steel frames of such
buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical
evidence was quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly
caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the
tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain
reaction of the lower floors sequentially, one at a time, yielding to
the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the
observed facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical
steel core columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the
next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to
gravity
alone.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from
the air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the
tower. Those undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered
resistance thousands of times greater than that of air. Those lower
stories, and the central steel core columns, had successfully
supported the mass of the tower for 30 years despite hurricane-force
winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the
way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction
as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing
the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers
could not have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower
stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is
shown to be physically impossible!


So WHERE DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the
observed duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more
of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero
resistance to the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any
expenditure of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by
magic.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible,
conditions can be accounted for by the official government theory of
9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to
prop up this official myth of 9/11.

The Bottom Line


It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the
WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the
plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that
the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but
rather they came down because something else was causing them to
disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates'
other premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is
left to you to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly
incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, also
collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192

No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever
collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate
awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story,"
is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,
logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a
major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of
that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and
economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an
enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot
wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part
of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so
we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and
heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and
survived...



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[raven1]

Post by Topaz
CIA insider tells 911 truth. Time to re-examine your World-view,
America!
http://youtu.be/rnbMjAN7Bws
The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse
of steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes,
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small
fires and superficial debris damage could not account for this
collapse, which had all the earmarks of controlled demolition by
explosives. Videos clearly show this. Such demolitions take many days
or weeks to set up

Try "months" in buildings that large, with dozens to hundreds of
workers gutting every story to expose the beams, partially cutting
them, placing the explosive charges and hundreds of miles of wiring,
and closing everything up, all with no one noticing, but go on...

Post by Topaz
- not the few hours between the plane "attacks" and
the collapse. The explosives therefore had to be put in place
BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of previously placed
explosives to bring down the towers as well

No, it makes the scenario completely INcredible. The idea that three
skyscrapers occupied 24/7 could be prepped for CD *with no one
noticing* is absolutely ludicrous. It's literally impossible to
conceal work of that nature and scope. As I noted before, "Godzilla
knocked the towers down" would be more credible a theory.

[Topaz]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 18:49:48 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1
Try "months" in buildings that large, with dozens to hundreds of
workers gutting every story to expose the beams, partially cutting
them, placing the explosive charges and hundreds of miles of wiring,
and closing everything up, all with no one noticing, but go on...

So what if it was months. And so what if you did notice. What the hell
are you going to do about? And it was noticed.

Post by raven1
No, it makes the scenario completely INcredible. The idea that three
skyscrapers occupied 24/7 could be prepped for CD *with no one
noticing* is absolutely ludicrous.

There you go with your noticing crap again. You walk up to the guys
and say "What do you think you are doing here, this looks suspicous."
They reply "Get lost asshole and mind your own business." Isn't that
how it would go down?

Post by raven1
It's literally impossible to
conceal work of that nature and scope. As I noted before, "Godzilla
knocked the towers down" would be more credible a theory.

The conceal BS again! You can go to the YouTube videos exposing this
false flag and see that a lot of people did notice. And yet you go on
and on about noticing as if you actually have a point. The reason you
keep saying the same worthless crap over and over is because you are a
Jew right?



"The dancing Jews were there, in New York on 11 September 2001. They
were there to see the 9/11 attacks; to watch the twin towers being
destroyed - all three of them. NB the government enquiry glossed over
the collapse of WTC7, the third skyscraper that was dropped.
Conspiracy? Believe it.

They were there to record it for posterity or was it for Mossad? How
did they know it was going to happen? They are not saying. Why did the
American government let them go? Treason is one distinct possibility.
Jews controlling the American government are a matter of fact not
fancy. The Israel Lobby is powerful. The Israel Lobby bribes, bullies,
controls and American interests be damned.



9-11 Attacks - Five Dancing Jews Arrested -
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm
According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials
worked out a deal - and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken
out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home. While the former
detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention
and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees
discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after
their return home. Said one of the men, "Our purpose was to document
the event."

ABC News Asks If The Five Jews Were Spies -
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1#.TuW7ynpD6So
Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks,
and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker
saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five
young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.

9-11 Attacks - The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11 -
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
Another source. Worth a look?

Dancing Israelis Debunked -
http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html
Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under
investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In
addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras
near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They
photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each
other afterward, officials said.

This is a competent analysis of the evidence; one pushing the idea
that the Jews were not part of an enemy conspiracy. There is no
mention of their involvement with URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS, a firm run by
Jews that fled the country very rapidly when they were exposed as part
of the action.

sunray22b





www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com