Amazon.com Widgets
  • 9/11 was definitely a conspiracy.

    Firstly, 9/11 was not investigated nearly enough. This was covered by the smokescreen of "innocent deaths", which protects the story from those who seek the truth or understand the conflicting facts.

    There are so many points i could mention, from the lack of adequate training, in small planes, the 'pilots' undertook to fly large commercial planes through to the lack of response to deviating planes. The credible witnesses, some insiders, who state that it was known well before they left the airport. The fact that the planes were not filled to full capacity, even though every other plane that day was filled to full capacity. The way that the buildings collapsed, mimicking controlled demolitions. The well supported fact that the fires were not hot enough to reach the 1,500 degrees Celsius required to melt steel.

    I could go on but it would get long and arduous. There are even celebrities who support that it was a cover up. Conveniently, it happened the day after money was announced to have been unaccounted for from taxpayers money.

  • A 'new Pearl Harbor' desired, and then appeared on cue?

    Elite planners called for many US foreign policy and military policy changes, but said it would take 'a new Pearl Harbor' type event for those to become possible. See Project for a New American Century from the usual suspects (just look at who was in that group and signed onto their manifesto).

    Voila, in short order, the exact thing they asked for? And all the changes they wanted were pushed for immediately? Too convenient to pass the smell test, even before all the other many reasons to credibly suspect an inside job.

  • As someone who did demolition in the military, the official story just does not add up.

    The buildings turned to dust on the way down. Even the engineers who built the building said their best of the missing building material is that it simply vaporized.

    Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=eilY1GRjyeo

    I myself did demolition in the military and can say for a fact that even C4 can not vaporize steel many other materials that were not found after the "collapse". The fact that the buildings came down so quickly without much resistance if any on the way down is another giveaway. We also can't forget about building 7, which looks like most demolitions seen in Vegas. This building was not hit by a plane and the official story says a fire on approx 10 floors caused the building to have a "progressive collapse" ... If this is progressive then why has NIST changed their tune and said that it fell for 108 floors of free fall.

    FREE FALL = ZERO RESISTANCE

    Lets think logical if one can look at all the angles of WTC 7 and see that it does fall symmetrically downward in approx 6 second... A 47 story building coming down symmetrical from a fire. Where is the logic in that?

    Https://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=JnLcUxV1dPo

  • Those saying yes to this are dumb asses

    First off, the builders of the twin toweres are not even alive any longer dumb ass. Secondly, this question inspires crackpot conspiracy theorists to come out of the woodwork. There would never be enough zealots in power in theses United States to create something like this, especially without someone talking.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Tribahaug says2014-04-01T07:00:27.843
This information is surprisingly hard to find, but it's there. You really cannot trust anything you read in a forum or on wikipedia, it needs to come from a reputable source-

Jet-A1 aviation fuel, a *type* of Kerosene (Kerosene, or Kerosine, is a family, not a single chemical), burns at 2000 degrees Celsius.

Carbon steel will liquefy and flow at approximately 1400 degrees Celsius, and will be severely weakened well below that temperature.

Your move.

Jet-A1/JP8 (same thing) properties:

http://aviationsafetyadvisorygroup.Org/projects-initiatives/resource-guide-to-aircraft-fire-fighting-rescue/

http://webserver.Dmt.Upm.Es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.Pdf

http://papers.Sae.Org/2012-01-1199/

Shell Aviation if you want to ask them in person:
mailto:aviation-technology@shell.Com

767's carry 90,000 litres of Jet-A1:
http://www.Boeing.Com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.Html

Carbon steel:
http://www.Engineeringtoolbox.Com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.Html

http://www.Suppliersonline.Com/research/property/metals/1011.Asp

(I'm just going to keep repeating the facts until the internet decides to actually look them up for themselves, or realise they don't have a fraction of the cranial wattage required to comment on these matters).