9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

8/24/2013 12:23:54 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

1. Yes, it was an Inside job.

2. No, and I haven't watched any eyewitness reports...

3. Only explosives, preplaned could do this.

4. Should we pay for our leaders war crimes?

5. After all the lies I've been hearing, this doesn't surprise me anymore

6. The official investigation is a joke, a preplaned lie for the media.

Outside investigation, of all three towers that collapsed.

Via:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? - Professor/Theologian

Has the media allowed scientist to present this information on air?

9/11 Truth Professor Steven Jones on MSNBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuteW_X22QU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Notice how the news anchor cuts off the professor, then never shows the video he sent in. He harasses him for proof, but doesn't play his video?

What happens when people ask for truth today?

C-SPAN Faces Endless Barrage Of 9/11 Callers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LYH8bv5ZN4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Denied.

How can people have such strong conviction? Because of eyewitness reports and hard facts that have been ignored and hidden from the public.

9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby

9/11 EyeWitnesses To WTC Lobby Explosion - NIST FOIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W1HlV9O65w&feature=youtube_gdata_player

To top it all off, a case if human error as the British reporter reads the preplaned script according to the wrong time zone. There is a fully erect 47 story building behind her showing no signs of structural instability.

ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The real deal breaker, the molten steel found under all three towers and the nature of their "collapses."

But how could they hide all this from us?

They have years of experience. On any other day, within 5 minutes jets would have been there. That's how quick we can respond.

This is how well they can lie:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

The Tuskegee syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African American men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.

They have kept us in the dark, but now the rest of the world has seen the truth, and they want Bush & Obama for war crimes.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/07/multiple-war-crimes-of-obama-bush-expertly-explained-12-minute-video.html

RT’s The Truthseeker 12-minute video explains with multiple expert witnesses the legal argument for War Crimes prosecution against US government “leadership” in the Bush and Obama administrations.

The most egregious War Crime is unlawful War of Aggression, with deaths in the millions. All “reasons” for these wars are now acknowledged in official US government documents as known to be false as they were told. This means that it is uncontested conservative history that US “leadership” lies directly caused thousands of deaths and injuries to US soldiers; arguably the crime of treason for being the cause of attacks on the United States.

The Truthseeker: Obama's arrest, Bush's trial (E18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrTeBDetcfw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!

8/24/2013 10:13:46 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

explorer_01
De Pere, WI
28, joined Jul. 2013

The jets didn't do damage to any of the roads right outside the pentagon, or surrounding brush... Also the way the towers fell was not a structural weakening done by the plane, the plane was on like the 150th floor... that does not cause a straight down collapse. Personally it may not have been inside, but it didn't go down the way they said, and the 3rd tower that fell was never hit by anything, and fell the exact same way. SOunds like some financial cover-ups as well as a way to start with a new slate.

8/24/2013 10:47:22 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!

This one is an interesting case...

9/11-WTC7 Larry Silverstein says 'PULL IT' (INSIDE JOB)

Sometimes...the engineers mess up.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric/

NASA's metric confusion caused Mars orbiter loss

NASA's Climate Orbiter was lost September 23, 1999
September 30, 1999
Web posted at: 1:46 p.m. EDT (1746 GMT)

(CNN) -- NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.

Did their experts slip up and use the wrong time zone on 9/11? Is this why she spoke too soon?

8/24/2013 11:57:18 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

prettypeas

Cadott, WI
50, joined Jul. 2010

Just kills me how Busche was with Kindergarderners and not puppies at the time of.

8/25/2013 12:17:42 AM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

Nine years after 9/11, 900 responders are dead

Architects and engineers say 9/11 twin tower collapse was not possible

8/26/2013 7:52:59 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

letsplay54143
Over 2,000 Posts (2,787)

Marinette, WI
70, joined Apr. 2009

Why doesn't the survey have a Yes, I believe that planes crashed into the buildings and brought them down? Do you really think that the amount of explosives required to bring those buildings down could have been planted without a lot of people noticing? Do you realize how many hours and how much explosives are required to bring down a building? Do you understand that when columbs on floor 159 fail that it is not jut the weight of floor 160 falling on it, but th weight of floor 160 and all of the floors above it?

8/27/2013 8:57:47 AM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

(DEBUNK THIS) NEW 2013 WTC DEMOLITION EVIDENCE, RARE FOOTAGE AND INTERVIEWS

9/11/2013 12:38:57 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

Quote from letsplay54143:

I believed like everyone else, for years, until I saw the full story with my own two eyes.

Jet fuel +80 floors up doesn't create explosions on the ground floor while people are still entering and exiting the building.

It doesn't melt steel creating +2,000 degree temperatures.

It doesn't drop 3 towers.

http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index

This annual report provides the estimated numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in 2013 as well as current cancer incidence, mortality, and survival statistics and information on cancer symptoms, risk factors, early detection, and treatment. About 1,660,290 new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in 2013, and in 2013 about 580,350 Americans are projected to die of cancer, almost 1,600 people a day. Cancer remains the second most common cause of death in the US, accounting for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths.

In less than two days cancer kills as many people as had died on 9/11.

Why isn't the government making more of an effort to help those dying every single day?

You want proof they don't care about our lives. There you go. No hypothetical conspiracy, just straight up facts.

Cannabis cures cancer, and they would rather make money than save lives.

9/25/2013 9:30:02 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

Russia Today News Declares 9/11 An Inside Job False Flag Attack!

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

FAQ #9: Were the Twin Towers Designed to Survive the Impact of the Airplanes?

Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:

...

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed (i.e., not at faster speeds perhaps flown by suicide pilots). With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it would be also a surprise for the 767 impact to have caused the South tower to fall.

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results, they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

Robertson also claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis. “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance,” he stated in 2002. However, not only is this statement contradicted by Skilling, but it also lacks common sense, according to 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan. “That’s kind of crazy… I don’t know how the planes would get to the buildings without jet fuel,” Ryan explains in a video presentation titled The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception. “Who would design these buildings for jet plane impacts but not fuel fires?”

Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

Like the firefighters who perished in the WTC buildings, Demartini may very well have risked his life to save others, but the evidence suggests that he did not think he was endangering himself by simply going back into the building.

In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.

The information detailed in 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out demonstrates clearly that pre-planted explosives – not jet plane impacts and fires – destroyed the Twin Towers. The WTC designers seemed to be correct in their analysis in the 1960s, and the evidence that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition corroborates their conclusions.

9/26/2013 10:38:58 AM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

orz

Portage, WI
67, joined Jul. 2010

I am old enough to have seen lots of stuff come out finally. I dont know if the reports are true or not. But, I saw what looked like a perfect implode job when the building came down. Not sideways as if melted or shifting. Just perfect, like when they bring a building down in the middle of others. So doubts will always stay. I know one thing about our country. And that is that when it comes to the power lords getting what they want, anything is possible. A war was needed to make the rich richer and how better to accomplish it. If the people are told that green skinned people have done horrendous things and are the enemy of all..then the masses will rally to kill greenies. The sheeples follow our leaders blindly.No one knew Roosevelt was so crippled. That he was braced behind the podium by others, then press let in..and out so they could lower him down. We had women presidents when Eleanor disappeared behind closed doors and then let others know what HE had told her to tell them. We had no knowledge that Kennedy was basicly dieing of Addison's Disease. Or that friendly fire killed soldiers. So much is hidden from us, either to defraud or to "protect" us from things that might upset us.

9/26/2013 7:34:19 PM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

prettypeas

Cadott, WI
50, joined Jul. 2010

I wanted to puke when jenna bush hager was on NBC today this morning, having a segment about mid wives? Come on, I'm sure she wouldn't want any diseases that are found at local hospitals.

10/5/2013 6:09:16 AM

9/11 Truth, Where do you stand Wisconsion?

jediknight2003
Over 4,000 Posts! (4,057)

New Caney, TX
33, joined Jan. 2013

http://fluoridedetective.com/your-brain/

Actual Studies on the Dumbing Effects of Fluoride

I read these studies and wonder if it could be true, if we really might be “dumbing down” our own children in the name of (or guise of) dental health. Then I read the most recent study about fluoride decreasing IQ in children, released in December 2010. By eliminating other possible causes of lowered IQ’s (including brick tea consumption), this Chinese study presents undeniable findings.

The study compares children in two areas of China, one with a low level of natural fluoride averaging 0.36mg/liter water to an area of higher natural fluoride averaging 2.5mg/liter water. In the low fluoride area, there were 3½ times more bright children as in the high fluoride area. That’s enough to make a person pause for a moment.

And if the last statistic isn’t dramatic enough, digest this one: the high fluoride area had 2 ½ times more mentally retarded children than the low fluoride area. I’m hoping for essentially this same study redone by comparing a NO fluoride area to a high fluoride area.

Fluoride Carries Aluminum Into The Brain

This should be enough. This obviously IS more than enough – but unfortunately this isn’t all that fluoride does to the brain. Fluoride has a frequent companion: aluminum – and when the two of these guys hang out together (which they commonly do), all hell breaks lose. Aluminum in the brain is a possible causative factor in Alzheimer’s Disease. Fluoride is the key that allows aluminum to pass the blood brain barrier and set the stage for dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease through the formation of beta-amyloid plaques.

wichita hookups

mega personal classified ads