Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
June 20, 2013, 02:09:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: who believes 9/11 was as inside job  (Read 7307 times)
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1990


from event to law to fascism-before your own eyes


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: July 06, 2012, 05:37:39 PM »

As I said, its easy to level accusations against those at the top just because theyre at the top. But in this case, I would say youre solely mistaken to blindly make the assumption that these 2 were at the head of your CT, just because of who they were. Things go on all the time behind the backs of the top people in the WH, often so that they literally dont have to know whats going on, and there is no way that either of your assumed targets were capable of dreaming up something like this.

Have you studied the actions these two men took that morning, Shockwave?
Report to moderator   Logged
asbrus
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1102


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: July 08, 2012, 12:31:13 AM »

The way the buildings fell does seem like a controlled demolition to me.


If it was an inside job, it was masterfully crafted. Bin laden and al Qaeda had been planning a similar attack for over a decade. And of course he would take credit for it when the united states blamed him, they did the work for him. Al Qaeda long desired to pull America into multiple middle east conflicts. It's a part of their plan to install a worldwide Islamic caliphate.  But why America would have wanted this to happen?  I can only think that it would have been for the massive war contracts to Halliburton and such, which Cheney and co could profit from. Any other reasons don't make sense to me.

T0 G0 T0 WAR IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, LIBYA, SYRIA, AND EGYPT.  ANY EXCUSE T0 G0 T0 WAR N0W IS EASILY JUSTIFIED BY SAYING AL QAEDA, FREED0M, AND BIN LADEN.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1990


from event to law to fascism-before your own eyes


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: July 09, 2012, 12:18:43 PM »

I'm sure you know that the President and the Secretary of Defense mutually hold the top of the command chain.

Hypothetically speaking, if you will, the holders of such power would be absolutely required as tools for such an undertaking to have its greatest chance of success.  So a person cannot possibly claim to have studied the situation without looking squarely at these two individuals.

Something further about this, viewed hypothetically if a person chooses.

The definition of success from such a perspective could only be viewed as a maximum probability to administer death within a minimal window of exposure.  This should be obvious to anyone.

A need to achieve the greatest probability for such success cannot possibly be overstated.  Maximum legal "response" (loss of rights) would at least attempt to appear proportional, while a backfire with such a plot would not only produce consequences to work against the intended new environment, by placing political corruption as the chief concern (imagine that), but it could also remove future opportunity to legally destroy rights for generations to come.

So "success" is defined as a balance between these two factors, with failure being an effective end to such an undertaking.

I would ask anyone, how the greatest chance of success could be realized, using both descriptors, without the containment of the National Command Authority:

Quote from: U.S. Department of Defense
The National Command Authority (NCA) is the ultimate lawful source of miltary orders.  The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands. - Section 3.1, Department of Defense Directive 5100.30

*Restructured in 1986 to bypass the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 22430


Karatbars Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


View Profile WWW
« Reply #153 on: May 09, 2013, 12:46:07 PM »

Former 9 11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q_i_IMV4Sg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q_i_IMV4Sg</a>




Leaked Video of Cruise missile Hitting The Pentagon

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFewUG3rSY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFewUG3rSY</a>
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Ropo
Getbig III
***
Posts: 660


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: May 09, 2013, 11:29:42 PM »

Former 9 11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q_i_IMV4Sg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q_i_IMV4Sg</a>




Leaked Video of Cruise missile Hitting The Pentagon

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFewUG3rSY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFewUG3rSY</a>

It is hard to me to understand that there really is people stupid enough for that missile -theory, because it has to be the most stupid theory in the history of mankind, and there is no doubt about that. I know I will regret this question, but do you know why that theory is insane? Let me explain:

First of all is what we has seen. There was security cam at the driving gate, which shows us glimpse about the aeroplane, and the great burst of flames while jet fuel ignite. There is lots of talk about hundreds of security cams around the pentagon area, but foil hats has never been able to point out even one of them, so there is only this one piece of video. What  we really see in that? It shot frame by every four seconds or something like that, and quality is crappy, but we see pentagon wall, hit and the flames.  While you know how tall building is, you are able to measure how tall the flames were, and by that you can estimate how much jet fuel burn in that burst. It is really simple, you need a x gallons of fuel to make fireball wide as xx yards. For example, like fireball like that which video frames proves to be a fact, you need few metric tons of jet fuel. Are you still with me? Have you understand, that there is laws of physic which are ruling in situations like this, and which will force things to fallow each other, because there is no other way. So, if I need to do fireball with the radius of 30 yards, I need some exact amount of jet fuel to do that, because of the laws of physics.

So, what kind of missile hit the pentagon? These foil hat morons say it was a missile, but what kind of missile? There is few hundred types of missiles, but they have one common flaw for situations like this, because most of them are really small. For example, average cruise missile is only 5 meters long, and that is like 15 feet's. These missiles are only ones which can fly like an aeroplane, while other ones are so called ballistic missiles. These you shot from the point a to point b, and they fly in their ballistic path like bullets. Some of these are quite big, like 10 to 15 meters long, meaning about 45ft. There has never been big missiles with wings, not any kind, never and nowhere.

So, what is the point of all this? 757 which eye witnesses see flying and hitting the pentagon is 47  meters long(155ft), and 14 meters high (44ft )from the ground. Cruise missile is 15ft long and 4ft high. How exactly you can mix these two, if you see one? Really? There is thousands of eye witnesses who see the passenger jet, and many of them were able to tell even the company which colours plane have.
Fuck them, who needs the witnesses? There was also 145ft wide path of fallen lamp post in the front of the impact zone, but fuck that too. Who cares, when there is more interest things to ask?

Please explain how this about 15ft long cruise missile is able to carry 8 tons of jet fuel? There is physical evidence which proves that there was about 8 tons of burning jet fuel, so there has to be a way to carry that amount to the place of impact. How that was done? Furthermore, there is bunch of high-res pictures about the pentagon, taken right after the hit, while emergency grew was in it's work. In those pictures we are able to see the impact point, and walls at the sides. There is impact marks which are same as 757 wing span, so what kind of missile we are talking about? It has 145ft wing span, it is able to carry 8 tons of jet fuel, it didn't have any warhead at all. Instead of warhead, it leaves pieces of 757 in the lawn of the pentagon, some pieces of landing gear, motor and shit like that, but there wasn't any explosion what so ever.

You see it in those pictures, there wasn't any flying debris from the building, it all went inwards, like some great force has been pushing towards the building. Outside there were only pieces  of the wings etc. which burst in the pieces in the impact. In those photos is lot of interesting things, and that's why foil hats doesn't show them to you. There is pieces of the fuselage clearly visible, pieces of wings, parts of the plane, but not even a smallest sign about the missile. That is a pity, because I really want to see missile like that? 8 tons of fuel, fake wings, carrying plane parts etc. and of course pieces of the passengers which were on flight 77.

http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon-damage-immediate-aftermath-high-resolution-photos/ Those pictures are exact match with this theory <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
cswol
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2810

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: June 10, 2013, 05:08:56 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuinaIm-kd4
Report to moderator   Logged
Ropo
Getbig III
***
Posts: 660


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: June 13, 2013, 10:03:07 AM »


Instead of this futile nonsense, name that explosive which can bring down WTC 1 & 2  without any marks or evidence of the explosions. What you guys seem to be unable to understand, there is some physics involved in any kind of explosion. 1. there has to be some explosion like burst of energy 2. there has to be some kind of shock wave 3. there has to be lot of audio evidence, because the burst of energy has to be supersonic even to call it explosion. When we look at the video about the collapse, there isn't even broken windows, so how this is possible? It is possible only if there hasn't been any shock wave, no burst of energy faster than the speed of sound, which means there can't be any explosion what so ever. There can't be any thermite, because it's massive heat which make it shine brighter than sun, and there isn't any evidence what so ever about the thermite or any kind of explosions. No columns with the marks of melting, no columns with the marks showing that they has been cut by explosives. Do you understand what it means? Towers went down because of the hit of the aeroplanes and fire made by the hits. Therefore all claims which try to tell you otherwise, is bullshit. Don't take my word for it, but please, prove that I am wrong by naming one single explosive which can lay in fire up to 56 minutes, and then detonate by the plan. Just one. No more, no less. I know you can't do it, and that is a fact. All explosives are based on chemical compounds, and all chemicals are highly reactive to fire. In fact, there isn't any explosive which doesn't react with fire, so how it could be possible install some in the area, which is going to be target of the plane crash, massive fire by the jet fuel etc. ?  There simpy is no way in hell to make that happen.
Report to moderator   Logged
stingray
Getbig III
***
Posts: 318


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: June 14, 2013, 05:15:27 AM »

I still don't see an plane hitting the pentagon.

How can a plane only leave damage 5m by 5m?


And what about the hole at the back of the pentagon? How was that created?
Report to moderator   Logged
cswol
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2810

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: June 14, 2013, 08:50:30 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuinaIm-kd4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuinaIm-kd4</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Ropo
Getbig III
***
Posts: 660


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: June 16, 2013, 04:00:59 AM »

I still don't see an plane hitting the pentagon.

How can a plane only leave damage 5m by 5m?


And what about the hole at the back of the pentagon? How was that created?

Are you some kind on fuckin imbecile?  5 x 5 meters? Please, show me some evidence about those dimensions, AFTER looking this picture:

andf the full size version of it: http://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DM-SD-02-03900.jpeg.

Doorway on the right is at least 2.1 meters high, so regarding that, this damage is at least 15 x 15 meters, and it is made by fuselage only. Marks made by wings are visible on both sides of the damage, and width of the marks is equal to the wingspan of the plane. Furthermore, if attack to the twin towers cannot possible be inside job, how this can be? There isn't even one single evidence to prove even just single fact about the conspiracy theory, so your speculation is complete bullshit. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!