This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Most Boring Superbowl Ever … Until 9/11 Truth Proponent Interrupts MVP Interview
This clip has gotten a lot of media attention … almost as much as Peyton Manning explaining why the football hit his helmet on the very first play (leading to a safety, and the fastest score in superbowl history).
Winning Seahawks coach Pete Carroll also questions 9/11. As do some old-timers, like 5-time NFL Pro Bowl center Mark Stepnoski (Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers) and former NFL running back Bill Enyart (Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders).
What do you think? How many of you think:
(1) The government couldn’t have foreseen 9/11, and did everything it could to minimize the damage (while perhaps being negligent in its foresight, coordination, communication, priorities or execution)?
(2) 9/11 was an inside job carried out by rogue elements of the U.S. government as a “false flag attack“?
(3) The government knew the attack was coming, but allowed it to succeed to justify the launching of the war for oil – er, I mean the “War on Terror” – and to consolidate power and crackdown on liberties at home?
»
- advertisements -
Zerohedge, meet:
http://cluesforum.info/
Have fun....
ori
Ok, not trying to defend anyone but I gotta ask re: untarnished documents, did nobody see all the paper that shoved out of the building from the impact and blast and was floating in the air as soon as it happened? Was that some kind of optical illusion?? Methinks not.
It takes a much bigger shove to push paper than to bring down a building.
Missle-y things or not, we just stick to what can be scientifically proven. There's so much hard evidence available, e.g. nano-thermite, free-fall calculations, eye-witness disclosure of explosives, that no conjecture or speculation is needed to muddy up the waters.
Building 7 collapsed from the top and middle.
It collapsed at freefall speed
It collapsed into its own footprint
It collapsed after minimal damage and a low intensity fire of several hours.
Its collapsed resulted in a flowing cloud of pulverized concrete.
The energy to both destroy all the structural steel so the building could collapse straight down and pulverize the concrete and eject it out in a flowing cloud is more energy than existed in the entire building.
The collapse at freefall speed into its own footprint is a signature of controlled demolition.
The ejection of clouds of pulverized concrete is a signature of explosives.
There is no other conclusion for the collapse of building 7 than intentional controlled demolition.
The implications are more than most people can bear, so their minds refuse to entertain it.
Building #7 is a classic high rise demolition job. It looked like the other buildings that had been demoed before and after.
Buildings 1 and 2 are another matter. The collapse mechanism has not been satisfactorily explained yet. But we DO know for a certainty that airplanes crashing into them were NOT the cause.
The problem is that jet fuel burns about 500 degrees lower than the melting temperature of steel, so the plane fires alone could not have caused the collapse of either tower. And why would a building loaded asymmetrically with a plane collaspse symmetrically in a debris pile? But the real problem as many here have pointed out is that the collapse of WTC7 could only have been due to controlled (i.e. timed) demolition. That's the smoking gun. Its like Kennedy's brain ending up on the back of the limo despite an alleged killing shot from the rear? Do they really think no one knows about momentum transfer and conservation of energy?
"The problem is that jet fuel burns about 500 degrees lower than the melting temperature of steel, so the plane fires alone could not have caused the collapse of either tower."
Not a problem.
The combustibles in the offices were the fuel for most of the fire and they caused floor to ceiling flames and beyond, to pour out the windows. The flames were hot enough to weaken the structural steel and cause catastrophic failure.
No, no, see......JFK's grey matter got blasted backwards because of an amazing phenomenon called 'exploding nerve theory'. Forget what your lying eyes are telling you, we've got experts at the ready who can tell you what you REALLY saw.
Lub,
Your Gubbermint
DBA New World Order-
Domestic Chapter, CONUS
"No, no, see......JFK's grey matter got blasted backwards because of an amazing phenomenon called 'exploding nerve theory'."
The grey matter went in all directions, as the head exploded.
Is there any Blue Ribbon Panel you haven't been on?
"Is there any Blue Ribbon Panel you haven't been on?"
All you have to do is look at the Zapruder film, frame 313. The blood and brain matter spray was going in all directions.
my favorite part is the bush family having connections with the security company and of course those amazing nightly shutdowns weeks preceding
"Come on G-Dub, it's been proven that the plane was modified, i.e. there were missile-y things on the bottom"
There were no missile-y things on the bottom. The jetliners crashed into the buildings.
There were cylindrical pods attached to the planes. It's clear as day if you look at the media footage. Those cylindrical pods just so happen to match exactly DoD remote control drone pods.
Also, the airspeed clocked by Boston Center, and Newark and Laguardia clocked the plane going 500 some odd knots at sea level, which would aerodynamically be the same as a 767 going Mach 1 at 10,000 feet. A 767 can't go that fast. It would rip the airframe apart.
There's also footage of one of the planes that was supposedly buried in a building, landing at Boston, the Mayor announcing the fact, and the passengers unloaded at a NASA Hanger.
When you start digging into the details and conflicting statements and footage of the day, it all stinks to high heaven. The government absolutely covered up what happened, so at minimum they're deeply implicated and involved.
Incidentally, I've had long conversations with a very sane and thoughtful gentleman who used to run the US Army EOD school. He's stated that this was abso-fucking-lutely a demolition job, along with several other historical events.
I don't know which plane you're referring to, but since there is some video footage of at least one plane flying into a building, wouldn't be easy for someone to figure out the air speed?
There is video footage of that plane flying into that building and partially OUT THE OTHER SIDE! The footage was shown on TV many times in the first few weeks after 9/11 and was then removed. It can still be found.
It's physically impossible for a soft (plastic) nosed airliner to do that. Many tests and crashes support that as does the physics. The only possible explanation is that the video was faked -- FAKED BY THE MSM or the government.
yes, but I'm going from memory. It was captured on the radar scopes. Watch the pilots for 9/11 truth documentaries for details.
Ok Sarge thanks.
BTW not a troll just someone technologically challenged now willing to look at the evidence of an inside job. Especially given the last few years. Just trying to learn.
Here is the start of your awakening...
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth,
http://www.ae911truth.org/
We are PROFESSIONALS. We actually design and build buildings...and stuff... ;)
Pilots for 911 Truth
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
They actually fly planes and are aware about just what it takes to have successful controlled crashes (normal landings) on a daily basis.
Firefighters for 911 Truth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxGB2YoGV-I
Lawyers for 911 Truth
http://www.l911t.com/
Political Leaders for 911 Truth
http://pl911truth.com/
Citizen Investigation Team.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/
There are many good resources on the Internet.
But there is a lot of misinformation.
I am giving you decent guides for discovery.
Thanks TT, appreciate it.
no worries, it's intimidating when you're first learning. There's so much to consider.
"Also, the airspeed clocked by Boston Center, and Newark and Laguardia clocked the plane going 500 some odd knots at sea level, which would aerodynamically be the same as a 767 going Mach 1 at 10,000 feet. A 767 can't go that fast. It would rip the airframe apart."
"Look up the Boeing 787 wing stress test on Youtube. The wings are subjected to extreme overstress conditions, far beyond what the crews are allowed to operate in, before they actually fail. There is a large margin between the "written" limitations and the actual physical limits of the 757/767-pick your jet.
For somebody to say that the 767 limiting airspeed at sea level is 360 knots, therefore the jet is not capable of flying any faster at sea level or 1,000' would be an incorrect statement"
Commercial pilots who fly 767s have stated that the aircraft was not capable of that airspeed or aerobatic maneuvering as it recorded.
"Commercial pilots who fly 767s have stated that the aircraft was not capable of that airspeed or aerobatic maneuvering as it recorded."
If it was not capable of that air speed, it wouldn't have happened. It did happen, so it was capable of that air speed and those maneuvers.
I agree that what is not possible is not possible. Thus I must infer other alternatives.
Of course there is a possibility that it was a Hardened Military Jet and not a Standard 767.
But convieniently you ignore that as a possibility.
"
I agree that what is not possible is not possible. Thus I must infer other alternatives.
Of course there is a possibility that it was a Hardened Military Jet and not a Standard 767.
But convieniently you ignore that as a possibility."
That is because it was not a possibility. Those were 767 passenger jetliners, not military aircraft. A jetliner can fly faster than rated speed without ripping apart, as there is a safety factor built into the rated maximum speed.
More magical thinking on your part moneybitch:
767 capabilities and physical limitations:
The power plant will max out at 330 mph.
The plane will begin to shake itself apart at over 220 mph.
At 700 feet altitude, the air is so thick that if you go too fast you max the rotation of the turbines, the engines can't suck in air, and the engine starts acting as a brake.
Does this make sense?
"More magical thinking on your part moneybitch:
767 capabilities and physical limitations:
The power plant will max out at 330 mph.
The plane will begin to shake itself apart at over 220 mph."
Read what i quoted. The 767 can fly faster than the rated speed. A 767 will not shake itself apart at 220 mph, as proven by the 767's which flew into the World Trade Towers.
"Boeing: Technical Characteristics - Boeing 767-300ER
www.boeing.com/boeing/.../767family/pf/pf_300prod.pageBoeing Boeing 767-300ER Technical Characteristics. ... Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet, Mach 0.80 ( 530 mph, 851 kph)." Pretty difficult to cruise at 530 mph, if the power plant only does 330. I can see where the magical thinking is, when the 767 can fly faster than 330 according to Boeing, who made the plane.
Hey, moneybots, you fucking piece of shit, you deserve to be tortured to death.
EVEN IF these planes could do what you claim they could do:
THEN they need pilots who know how to fly them at what you already admit are highly unusual flying (not Cessna D- grades)
THEN they need NORAD who knows how to ignore them
THEN they need 5 flight exercises drawing away the rest of those NORAD boys and confusing air traffic controllers
THEN they need targets big enough to be hit at these speeds (because very skilled & experienced pilots could not in recreation)
THEN they need the most military guarded building in the world to stand down its air defenses
THEN they need pentagon holes that know how to shrink to sizes impossible for that size of plane
THEN they need a government so bent on seizing and hiding 85 video sources of that pentagon event (except for a few frames proving NOTHING)
THEN they need crash sites that instanly and amazingly eat almost every major piece of the plane inlcuding its indestructable engines
BUT, once again, you ignore these facts
BECAUSE you need a government...to pay you
what happened? that seems to be the big question.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
"Also, the airspeed clocked by Boston Center, and Newark and Laguardia clocked the plane going 500 some odd knots at sea level, which would aerodynamically be the same as a 767 going Mach 1 at 10,000 feet. A 767 can't go that fast. It would rip the airframe apart."
tl;dr: I read this on the internet, so it must be true.
Yawn* And these guys --> http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ <-- are really stupid idiots who just troll the internet all day, cooking up impossible conspiracy theories. They aren't actually smart, patriotic, and deeply concerned professionals like
--> These Guys <--
Building 7 Wake Up
Thanks for all the great links everyone. One pair of opened eyes at a time... once you get 911 you will never see anything in this culture the same way again.
"There were cylindrical pods attached to the planes."
They're called engines.
heh, just like the guy that said he hacked into AHC website. he said, "anyone could get in and look at the workings".
yeah, right, click on the page and click, proprerties.... H A C K E D ! lmao
"There were cylindrical pods attached to the planes. It's clear as day if you look at the media footage. Those cylindrical pods just so happen to match exactly DoD remote control drone pods."
I have seen the media footage and fotos of other jetliners, which dispute the claim of something unusual on the 9/11 jetliners.
Even if you want to dispute that you can't dispute that Cheney order NORAD and the Air Force to stand down. You can't dispute that although Popular Mechanics and Amy Fucking Goodman ran hitpieces explaining the "pancake theory", later disputed, the towers fell on themselves in the only collapse of a high rise in the history of high rises.
Oh, and Building Seven collapsed in their own footprint without being hit by anything. Anything. Anything.
"Oh, and Building Seven collapsed in their own footprint without being hit by anything. Anything. Anything."
Debris from WTC1 struck WTC7.
HA HA HA!! You're a fucking idiot !!!!!!
"HA HA HA!! You're a fucking idiot !!!!!!"
I suggest you look at the video of WTC1 collapsing. Debris fell toward WTC7. Photograhs taken after the collapse of WTC1, showed the damage to WTC7 from that falling debris.
You're either the stupidest asshole in this discussion, or you're are a shill. Either way, fuck you.
FWIW, I spent 5 years in EOD from 1970-75 and I know that building 7 WAS controlled demolition. End of conversation.
It collapsed from the top and middle.
It collapsed at freefall speed
It collapsed into its own footprint
It collapsed after minimal damage and a low intensity fire of several hours.
Its collapsed resulted in a flowing cloud of pulverized concrete.
The energy to both destroy all the structural steel so the building could collapse straight down and pulverize the concrete and eject it out in a flowing cloud is more energy than existed in the entire building.
The collapse at freefall speed into its own footprint is a signature of controlled demolition.
The ejection of clouds of pulverized concrete is a signature of explosives.
There is no other conclusion for the collapse of building 7 than intentional controlled demolition.
The implications are more than most people can bear, so their minds refuse to entertain it.
"The energy to both destroy all the structural steel so the building could collapse straight down and pulverize the concrete and eject it out in a flowing cloud is more energy than existed in the entire building. "
The structual steel was not destroyed. That is the problem with the controled demolition story.
"The ejection of clouds of pulverized concrete is a signature of explosives."
It is also a signature of a natural collapse.
"That is the problem..."
No, the problem with your theory is you--you being a fucking moron.
WTC7 collapsed 15 mins after the BBC reported it collapsed while standing infront of a live video of it still standing.
Operation Mockingbird in action.
Remember how Oswald was reported the shooter in Australia before he was arrested? The media sucks donkey balls; this is a truism.
Bingo!