Started By
Message
9/11: 6100 Days On, But the Truth Shall Still Set Us Free
Posted on 5/25/18 at 10:40 am
Posted on 5/25/18 at 10:40 am
No-this is not just another 9/11 conspiracy theory thread.
There is new, compelling evidence that 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation set up by the Deep State and the Illuminati in order to keep us in a perpetual state of war in the Middle East, keeping the military-industrial complex churning, and to control the global supply of oil. Skull and Bones was integral in this.
However, for today, we're going to look at the objective evidence. The motivations of the various, nefarious groups involved will be the subject of another, later thread, when the eyes of the OTB have been opened. Too much information, too soon, would potentially cause hysteria among the un-woke. That is not my intention, as I don't want to ruin anybody's Memorial Day weekend.
First, here's a good article on why WTC 7 holds the keys to unlock the conspiracy, beginning with the most important 6 words among those who know "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams."
[/img]
Second, why was the presence of thermite (military explosive) found during testing of the WTC site, including WTC 7? Click here. In fact, there is a video of thermite pouring from WTC 2 minutes before its collapse: Click here.
Here, for the non-believers or those too lazy to click links:
There is no reason for thermite to have been anywhere near WTC at any time. There are no military facilities in the area that would have housed it. What can melt steel beams and cause a collapse of a steel-frame skyscraper? Thermite.
Even if some of you non-believers assert that the thermite pouring from WTC 2 is molten metal, remember, JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS. So which is it? Pick your poison.
Third, why did the BBC report the collapse of WTC 7 before it actually happened? Click here. The MSM (global, not just our American alphabet soup) was in on it. It's obvious. Why? Ratings and control of information. They are owned by the Deep State and the Illuminati.
Question everything, especially this:
That's all I have time for this morning due to work and travel. I know there are several on this board who are woke, and that's why I posted it here. I believe that we are entering a new era in which the blinders will be removed, and the curtain pulled back. Feel free to add to the discussion.
Those who are not woke, don't come here just to hate for hate's sake. Be informative.
There is new, compelling evidence that 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation set up by the Deep State and the Illuminati in order to keep us in a perpetual state of war in the Middle East, keeping the military-industrial complex churning, and to control the global supply of oil. Skull and Bones was integral in this.
However, for today, we're going to look at the objective evidence. The motivations of the various, nefarious groups involved will be the subject of another, later thread, when the eyes of the OTB have been opened. Too much information, too soon, would potentially cause hysteria among the un-woke. That is not my intention, as I don't want to ruin anybody's Memorial Day weekend.
First, here's a good article on why WTC 7 holds the keys to unlock the conspiracy, beginning with the most important 6 words among those who know "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams."
[/img] Second, why was the presence of thermite (military explosive) found during testing of the WTC site, including WTC 7? Click here. In fact, there is a video of thermite pouring from WTC 2 minutes before its collapse: Click here.
Here, for the non-believers or those too lazy to click links:
There is no reason for thermite to have been anywhere near WTC at any time. There are no military facilities in the area that would have housed it. What can melt steel beams and cause a collapse of a steel-frame skyscraper? Thermite.
Even if some of you non-believers assert that the thermite pouring from WTC 2 is molten metal, remember, JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS. So which is it? Pick your poison.
Third, why did the BBC report the collapse of WTC 7 before it actually happened? Click here. The MSM (global, not just our American alphabet soup) was in on it. It's obvious. Why? Ratings and control of information. They are owned by the Deep State and the Illuminati.
Question everything, especially this:
That's all I have time for this morning due to work and travel. I know there are several on this board who are woke, and that's why I posted it here. I believe that we are entering a new era in which the blinders will be removed, and the curtain pulled back. Feel free to add to the discussion.
Those who are not woke, don't come here just to hate for hate's sake. Be informative.
This post was edited on 5/25/18 at 10:42 am
12
Posted on 5/25/18 at 10:41 am to DownSouthJukin
quote:
No-this is not just another 9/11 conspiracy theory thread.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 10:42 am to dcbl
quote:
dcbl
Low information post. Downvote.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 10:52 am to DownSouthJukin
Steel loses 50% of its weight-bearing integrity at 1500 degrees. What is your response to that fact?
This post was edited on 5/25/18 at 10:52 am
Posted on 5/25/18 at 11:02 am to Tiguar
And steel it loses 100% of its weight-bearing capacity when it melts, something that jet fuel is simply incapable of doing.
This post was edited on 5/25/18 at 11:12 am
Posted on 5/25/18 at 11:24 am to DownSouthJukin
I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy. People who automatically brush off conspiracies are naive retards. However, you should post some links supporting the claims of what temp those specific beams melt and links to support that the WTC was made to withstand 707's.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 11:25 am to airfernando
He should also post the original source of those photographs.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 11:31 am to Tiguar
i work with steel everyday in the industrial construction sector, i was a pipefitter and i guess I still am by trade before moving up the ladder.I am telling you this because I have worked with just about every alloy known to man and I can tell that a simple fire I dont care how you try to explain it would melt those beams. I just dont see it. Fine to say the steel was weakened by 50%,fair enough and possibly caused the collapse,but explain to me like I am an idiot what caused the melting.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 11:36 am to DownSouthJukin
Jet fuel may not burn hot enough to fully melt steel beams, but I would think it's hot enough to at least weaken steel enough that the beams that are already damaged and twisted from the impact of a jet plane could fail.
And while the towers may have been designed to take the impact of a bigger plane, when the planes made impact they were traveling at a much much higher rate of speed than a passenger plane typically flies at which would put a lot more energy into the impact.
All that said;
-Building 7 was absolutely demolished on purpose for the insurance money
-Flight 93 was absolutely shot down by our own military fighter jets
-The Pentagon was hit by our own missle, there's no way and no real evidence that it was a plane.
I don't believe that 9/11 was planned by our own government. I think it really was al-Qaeda and they thought they were surprising us, but I believe our intelligence people had prior knowledge going back to the Clinton administration and we not only allowed it to happen, but were involved to make it look the way we wanted it to (hitting the Pentagon, allowing the media to paint the passengers of 93 to look like heroes, etc.)
And while the towers may have been designed to take the impact of a bigger plane, when the planes made impact they were traveling at a much much higher rate of speed than a passenger plane typically flies at which would put a lot more energy into the impact.
All that said;
-Building 7 was absolutely demolished on purpose for the insurance money
-Flight 93 was absolutely shot down by our own military fighter jets
-The Pentagon was hit by our own missle, there's no way and no real evidence that it was a plane.
I don't believe that 9/11 was planned by our own government. I think it really was al-Qaeda and they thought they were surprising us, but I believe our intelligence people had prior knowledge going back to the Clinton administration and we not only allowed it to happen, but were involved to make it look the way we wanted it to (hitting the Pentagon, allowing the media to paint the passengers of 93 to look like heroes, etc.)
Posted on 5/25/18 at 11:40 am to amherstdawg
Posted on 5/25/18 at 12:28 pm to DownSouthJukin
Posted on 5/25/18 at 12:39 pm to olddawg26
quote:
olddawg26
No information post. Hate post. Downvote.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 12:45 pm to DownSouthJukin
If you would find yourself a job, you could occupy your time that way too.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 12:47 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
If you would find yourself a job, you could occupy your time that way too.
I have a job. It's informing the low information masses. Please refer to the OP.
Hate post. Downvote.
Edit:
quote:
kywildcatfanone
Kentucky Fan
Wildcat Country!
Member since Oct 2012
47972 posts
Your post history indicates you spend much more time on here than I do. If you joined on 10/1/2012, you average 23.265 posts per day. Your employer, if you have one, must be very lenient on your internet use.
This post was edited on 5/25/18 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 5/25/18 at 1:22 pm to DownSouthJukin
quote:
If you joined on 10/1/2012, you average 23.265 posts per day.
nvm. thought the period was a comma
This post was edited on 5/25/18 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 5/25/18 at 1:32 pm to DownSouthJukin
707-320B vs 767-200ER
Your statement that the 707 is 10% larger is false. Makes all your other claims suspect.
Your statement that the 707 is 10% larger is false. Makes all your other claims suspect.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 1:44 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
I didn’t say it. But I do say unequivocally that WTC 1 & 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
And are you comparing all 707 and 767 models across the board? No. They come in different sizes.
And the stats you show indicate that the models you compared are roughly similar in size. So their is no difference, so the writer who did say that still has a valid argument.
Thank you for making an informative, albeit wrong, post. Upvote.
And are you comparing all 707 and 767 models across the board? No. They come in different sizes.
And the stats you show indicate that the models you compared are roughly similar in size. So their is no difference, so the writer who did say that still has a valid argument.
Thank you for making an informative, albeit wrong, post. Upvote.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 1:47 pm to DownSouthJukin
I'm not sure why I bother, because you should be smart enough to know this, but the jet fuel didn't have to "melt" the steel as you continue to say.
The building was designed to withstand the impact of a large plane, which they both did. The buildings were not designed to withstand continuous heat over 2,000 degrees. Yes, the wind from the rising heat causes what's called a Fire Whirl which is basically a vortex of flames. This flame can get up to 2,000 degrees on its own and much hotter with jet fuel flaming it.
With the structural integrity of the building already compromised, the weakening of the existing metal beams by the extreme heat caused them to lose their remaining rigidity. The remaining beams are already supporting more weight then they should, so when the steel is weakened by 50% or more, it just cannot support the weight. Some of these calculations just weren't included in their initial design, so in the real world, these beams failed.
The building was designed to withstand the impact of a large plane, which they both did. The buildings were not designed to withstand continuous heat over 2,000 degrees. Yes, the wind from the rising heat causes what's called a Fire Whirl which is basically a vortex of flames. This flame can get up to 2,000 degrees on its own and much hotter with jet fuel flaming it.
With the structural integrity of the building already compromised, the weakening of the existing metal beams by the extreme heat caused them to lose their remaining rigidity. The remaining beams are already supporting more weight then they should, so when the steel is weakened by 50% or more, it just cannot support the weight. Some of these calculations just weren't included in their initial design, so in the real world, these beams failed.
Posted on 5/25/18 at 1:52 pm to DownSouthJukin
quote:
And are you comparing all 707 and 767 models across the board? No. They come in different sizes.
It compares the largest 707 to the smallest 767.
quote:
And the stats you show indicate that the models you compared are roughly similar in size. So their is no difference, so the writer who did say that still has a valid argument.
Boeing 707-320B versus Boeing 767-200ER
46.60 m 152 ft 11 in length 48.50 m 159 ft 1 in
44.42 m 145 ft 9 in wingspan 47.60 m 156 ft 2 in
280.00 m2 3,014 ft2 wingarea 283.30 m2 3,049 ft2
12.93 m 42 ft 5 in height 15.80 m 51 ft 10 in
4 engines 2
80 kN 18,000 lbf thrust per engine 282 kN 63,300 lbf
320 kN 72,000 lbf total thrust 564 kN 126,600 lbf
151,000 kgs 333,000 lbs MTOW 179,100 kgs 395,000 lbs
9,900 km 5,346 nm range 12,200 km 6,588 nm
M0.89 cruise speed M0.8
141 passengers capacity 181 passengers
Sorry for the poor formatting, but it didn't copy and paste as it was and I don't have the time to go through each line and format it.
But my question to you is, since there obviously is a difference, how much of a difference would it have to have for you to say there's a difference?
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News