so 9/11 was an inside job ?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:53 am

I thought b-juice was mvscal?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:25 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:I thought b-juice was mvscal?

I am...uhhhh...I mean...I'm, uhhh...not...

HEY EVERYBODY!!! LOOK OVER THERE!!! IT'S A MOSSAD, STEEL-MELTING, ZIO-MOONRAY DEATH-LASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:35 am

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 6:32 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: You are correct in that standard demolition does not use thermite. However, in the case of of all three WTC towers, the standard series of crippling explosions would have been all too obvious, and so thermite was installed.

okay well thermite can't burn in a diagonal line....there are no known ways in which to direct thermite to burn in a certain direction....and given the hardness of steel, do you know how much thermite it would have required to burn through this steel.....for hardened steel, it would take approximately three times the amount of thermite to burn through hardened steel.....dude, we're talking truckloads of thermite....I think some people might catch on to that......

you'll clearly see large amounts of molten steel pouring out just before the collapse. Of course thermite burns at 5000 C and would melt the steel immediately.

horseshit, it was molten aluminum probably from the plane itself.....when molten steel cools, it turns black....if you look at the stuff coming out of the tower, it doesn't turn black when it starts to cool from falling....

Consider there's no possible explanation within the official version to account for molten steel. None. So why is there still any seeming support for it? What's your excuse?

why do you keep claiming it was steel? what evidence do you have that any of the molten metal was steel?
let me save you the trouble, there's none....there's the words of some guy looking down and seeing pools of molten metal and saying it was steel, but there were no metallurgic tests run on it, so how did he know it was steel....they never found any molten steel you idiot.....

I mean seriously, how big of an asshole do you have to be to see three thousand people die in a building collapse and suddenly start believing this was all for some political gain

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:10 pm

Obviously, Felix, something cut all the beams at exactly the same time in all three towers. Any natural "weakening' would have caused a slumping and buckling--and not a straight down controlled demolition. The official reasons for the "pancake" collapse have been abandoned by the NIST panel itself. As for the plane itself melting into a flowing fountain of aluminum, this is patently ludicrous. First, the alloyed aluminum of airline construction has a much higher melting point than standard aluminum, and of course most of the fuel was consumed in the initial massive fireball, and the rest was consumed within ten minutes. Further, how could some melted aluminum thus melt the massive steel frame of the tower? You see, it doesn't follow at all that a melting fuselage would somehow compromise an entire skyscraper. As for the application of the thermite, well, they did have about six months to plant it exactly as they determined necessary. It worked. It dropped those towers right in their respective footprints.

Your final utterly bizarre point that the folks who planned this would care about three thousand casualties really overlooks the clear and immediate goal, which was achieved, however disastrously, beyond their wildest dreams. And that is the invasion of Afghanistan, the subsequent invasion and destruction of Iraq, and the ensuing Permanent War, ever expanding into Syria and Yemen, Sudan, Libya, etc. This was the precisely stated goal of the PNAC in its call for a New Pearl Harbor. Your reference to "political gain" is naive and childish.

Here's a list of various witnesses at the WTC collapses.
http://911proof.com/11.html

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:17 pm

The beams were cut afterwards, you fucking idiot.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:49 pm

Huh? Are you referring to the super quick disposal of the wreckage? The rush to cover up and destroy the evidence? As usual, you're not clear at all, except with your potty-mouth taunts.

I'm referring to the fact that in each tower the supporting beams necessarily had to all be severed exactly at the same time. This galling evidence of planned demolition has been explained by the NIST report as "an unprecedented event."

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:03 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:First, the alloyed aluminum of airline construction has a much higher melting point than standard aluminum

Uhm... as a guy who used to work with such things (back in another life, it seems), in a word...

No.

"Aircraft aluminum" is T6511/6061. And it melts at a lower temperature than pure aluminum. Which melts at well below the temperature you claim (with no backing data) that the fuel burned (even though you've been PROVEN wrong, in this very thread).

This simple FACT (irrefutable)... might want to make you take another look at these "engineers" your retarded ass is taking at their word on your idiotic conspiracy theories.

I'm not even sure where you got this bullshit.

But your hallmark is making up shit, and endorsing anything any batshit crazy asshole who shares in your delusions says... so keep on keepin' on, dude.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:04 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Huh? Are you referring to the super quick disposal of the wreckage?

You got me -- I can't see why anyone would want to expedite the cleanup of a major disaster in the busiest business district in the world.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:25 am

The architects and pilots and police and firefighters who've provided expert witness accounts and analysis are all credentialed and verified. Unlike the shadowy "experts" behind the Popular Mechanics propaganda smear, and similar "debunking" efforts.

As for the rush to dispose of the wreckage, why should this have precluded any basic forensic examination? Why were those qualified to examine and determine if thermite of some other agent was used in dropping the towers in obvious controlled demolition were absolutely denied any access? It was a crime scene and yet for some mysterious reason no analysis was permitted. It was an absolute sham, and your passive suggestion that melted aluminum caused the massive towers to drop is so ridiculous as to be embarrassing. What, are you ten years-old?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 2:50 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The architects and pilots and police and firefighters who've provided expert witness accounts and analysis are all credentialed and verified.

If they claim "aircraft aluminum" melts at a higher temperature than "standard" aluminum, then they should have their "credentials" stripped, whatever they may be... certainly not from the SAE, since they failed Materials 101.

Common. Fucking. Knowledge... to anyone who's ever worked with aluminum in any capacity (I didn't need to look it up, but I'm guessing this knowledge is readily available on the search engine of your choice).

So, instead of your standard deflection (it's all you've got), why don't you come correct, and admit you just called out for stating an ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD (easily proven) in support of your conspiracy theory?

I mean, you can continue on with your other idiocy (which you will), but why not try to regain a modicum of credibility (yeah, I laughed typing that), and admit you posted an outright lie? Chemical properties aren't subject to conspiracy theories -- they're reproducible FACTS. I mean... your back is against the wall here, and if you somehow want to continue this laughable crusade you've embarked on here, I'm sure we can both agree to the importance of you admitting irrefutable mistakes you've made in your future presentation in any continuing endeavor here...

or what?

I'm sure we'll see eye to eye on this singular point... RIGHT?

Come correct, Known Liar (<--- proper noun).

Or, just keep eating up KNOWN LIES if it makes you feel Enlightened.

So, basically, in short... you just got clowned, Tard. Tell us about the Flat Earth, you fucking moron -- you'll do just as well as the Other Guy who has no concept of how to formulate a story-problem.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:32 am

Papa Willie wrote:

So if you're so convinced of this shit

I'm hoping that the FACT that his heroes told him an OUTRIGHT LIE might make him rethink his sources.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:54 am

He lied about that, too.

After stalling for so long, he threw up a cover that was so ridiculously devoid of any skill, his shit-talk became hilarious. The poor recording quality was certainly forgivable, understandable, and not an issue.

The third-grade tone quality, zero sense of feel, and rote etude-like shit that sounded like he just came from a lesson for 12 year olds was a serious issue.

While not much, and not often, I've been paid to play music before. If I had shown up and busted out that kind of "understanding" of music, the check would have been withheld... fucking awful.

I suppose the same people who told him "that sounds good, bro," are related to the people who told him aircraft aluminum melted at a higher point than "standard" aluminum... liars.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:43 am

You clowns are shitting in your respective hats.

Dins, beyond your squawking you can't begin to suggest how melted aluminum would somehow drop a massive steel-framed building like a malleted steer. In fact it wasn't aluminum at all. The fuel had burned in ten minutes. The thermite was ignited just before the collapse.

As for your critique on my musical post, you're full of shit. And guzzler, you know it too.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:36 am

That's just some stupid clip from a Disney flick (a proud Nazi)..

But what of the actual facts of the matter?

America's been hijacked..

The Permanent War has ensued..

You'e looking at terror and carefully prepared fear.

You're being played...

What can you do?

Only one thing..

One Thing...

WAKE UP...

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Thu Dec 24, 2015 10:00 pm

Well guzzler, if you're not interested in the greatest event of our lifetimes, just crawl back into your dung-brick hovel and stop making perfunctory bratty non-comments. If you want to talk music, go to that thread. Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:41 am

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Dec 25, 2015 5:12 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: the greatest event of our lifetimes,

Wow, what a sad life you live and have lived.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Dec 25, 2015 8:49 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Only one thing..

One Thing...

WAKE UP...

hey just out of curiousity, if Bush could pull something like destroying the World Trade center as a means to invade Iraq, why couldn't he have faked Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? That would have been a piece of cake compared to destroying three large skyscrapers......if he'd done that, his entire incurrsion into Iraq to depose Hussein would be viewed as one of the great and masterful accomplishments by any of our presidents.....

think about it, then let me know.....

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:42 pm

Left Seater wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote: the greatest event of our lifetimes,
Wow, what a sad life you live and have lived.

Fake-seater, by "greatest" I certainly don't mean the best event, or any sort of positive connotation, but rather the most important--the event from which everything is seen has having come before or after.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:26 am

But roach, I'm offering the carefully prepared evidence of hundreds of architects, engineers, pilots, etc. If you feel they are all lying, go ahead and try and refute them. But a simple dismissal doesn't mean shit. As for my personal interpretations and analysis, there's nothing I've lied about, and certainly nothing you can demonstrate to this effect. Of course I play music, despite the pissy denials of my having even played the guitar piece I posted. Really, you're like a little snotty brat.
The courage and principled values demanded by facing the truth of 9/11 are obviously not in your character or capability. Too bad, because everyone is necessary, even curled cowards like you.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:06 am

If only LTS TARD had put this much effort into guitar lessons....

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:35 pm

I would say that poptart is even a bit further out there than LTS. Don't get me wrong, they are both way the fukk out there, but, at least turd's wild ass claims are theoretically possible.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:25 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
smackaholic wrote:at least turd's wild ass claims are theoretically possible.

Not really.

Relax. It's not like Felcho is talking about his sexual escapades with women.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:07 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:But roach, I'm offering the carefully prepared evidence of hundreds of architects, engineers, pilots, etc. If you feel they are all lying, go ahead and try and refute them.

OK, I'll go ahead and refute them (and you).

T6511/6061 aircraft aluminum melts at a lower point than "standard" aluminum.

Or what?

So, I guess if your architects, engineers, pilots, etc. told you otherwise, then it might be time for you to...

Wakey wakey

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:26 pm

I've worked with aluminum alloys quite a bit the the last 30 some odd years. I know quite a bit off the top of my head about how ingot is processed into extrusions or coiled sheet, primarily of the 6061 T6 and 5052 H-38 variety and the applications towards a finished product.

Never mind the melting points thereof. I'm still wondering what, exactly, "standard" aluminum is.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:29 pm

War Wagon wrote:I've worked with aluminum alloys quite a bit the the last 30 some odd years.

Yes, we know...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:42 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
War Wagon wrote:I've worked with aluminum alloys quite a bit the the last 30 some odd years.

Yes, we know...

Yes, that too though I've grown fond of the 16 oz. aluminum long neck bottles they sell now. Maybe that's what is considered "standard" aluminum.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:13 pm

Merry Christmas to the whole Wagon clan.

:)

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:49 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:But roach, I'm offering the carefully prepared evidence of hundreds of architects, engineers, pilots, etc. If you feel they are all lying, go ahead and try and refute them.
OK, I'll go ahead and refute them (and you).

T6511/6061 aircraft aluminum melts at a lower point than "standard" aluminum.

Or what?

So, I guess if your architects, engineers, pilots, etc. told you otherwise, then it might be time for you to...

Wakey wakey

Neither the Architects and Engineers For Truth site I provided, nor the Pilots For Truth, says anything at all about aluminum as a factor in the collapse of the towers. Was there aluminum in WTC7? Of course not, and yet the very same obvious controlled demolition took place. So why is it being introduced as a factor in the others? This desperate search for anything to divert from the glaring facts of controlled demolition is a cheap and typical method of the "debunkers," who remain a shadowy and uncredentialed lot.

If you really think you can address any of the plain questions I've posted, go ahead. But don't pretend that niggling on some meaningless point constitutes a real argument or position.

Y2K · Post by **Y2K** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:55 am

Was there aluminum in WTC7? Of course not,

To funny
You are truely an idiot savant.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:57 am

It would seem you meant "too funny," but regardless, you didn't say why. There may have been some aluminum cans and so forth in WTC 7, but not the remains of a 757. And it collapsed in ever bit as embarrassingly controlled as the two tall towers.

Who are you again?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:48 pm

I have to give Nicki credit where credit is due. He has to be one strong mofo. Dude is running around with the goal posts strapped to his back. I mean he moves them so fast there isnt a chance for him to set them down to rest.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:37 pm

No, fake-seater, I'm just bringing the thread back to the basic questions:

Can you offer any support for any part of the official story?

Can you refute any part of the observations of the various architects, engineers, pilots and other experts who've detailed the falsity of the official version?

Can you personally offer any explanation for the obvious appearance of controlled demolition of all three towers?

No?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:40 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Can you offer any support for any part of the official story?

No need or purpose in doing so.

The premise of your story is so preposterously ludicrous that it can and will continue to be dismissed out of hand, like reading the headlines of supermarket tabloids while waiting in line to buy groceries. One has no intention of buying the rags it's just that there's nothing better to do. Kinda' like reading your repetitive rants and please forbid that I get so bored as to click on one of your links.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:20 am

Wags, while I can understand your seeking the warmth of curled denial, let's be clear--I'm not offering a premise. Rather, it is the premise of the official 9/11 Commission report which is being called out as the very same tabloid-level nonsense that you suggest. Are you even aware what the official NIST version is for the three collapses? Obviously not, and it's really not your fault because the in fact the official reason is buried as deeply as possible.

But if you actually think you can support the official story, let's see it.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:26 am

War Wagon wrote:forbid that I get so bored as to click on one of your links.

If you happen to do so, don't forget to run a virus scan after, as you are likely to catch as many as Felcho does on $3 mojito night at The White Swallow.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:24 am

Okay, "r-jack"...which specific site I've posted requires a virus scan?

Have you considered that your head wants, needs, and deserves a major virus scan?

Or..are you the virus? :wink:

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 4:46 pm

So if this was an inside job, all of the hijackers were in on it?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:36 pm

No, the so-called "nineteen hijackers" were patsies. In fact the only evidence that any of them were on any plane is the miraculously recovered passport from the rubble, two blocks away by an FBI agent. Amazing that two black boxes, built of the strongest materials known to man couldn't survive, but a plastic coated paper passport survived in perfect condition. Hmmm...

Yeah, there's serious bullshit in that probability.

And let's remember that Bin Laden completely denied any part of the attack, when taking credit would have been the greatest recruitment achievement in history.

Keep asking the tough questions, goobs, yer almost a level above rem. (go to the light, boy, go, go!)