Iraq has one of the richest oil reserves in the world. The U.S.conquered Iraq. Now the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq. Without the oil.
Hmmm...
Did the CIA try to recruit 9-11 hijackers-the cover it up?
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
Iraq has one of the richest oil reserves in the world. The U.S.conquered Iraq. Now the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq. Without the oil.
Hmmm...
Sooooooooo..
you claimed you were interested in a conversation about the perpetrators of the 9-11 atrocities..........
So I set out to debunk the usual conspiracy theories by pointing out a number of facts...........
1. A secret gov't plot would hardly attack the most important institutions in American society, the economic centre causing severe economic damage, the Pentagon, damaging the control aspects of the military, nor the government.
2. A conspiracy would have required the participation of too many conspirators to keep it quiet.
3. There would be no specific motivation for conspirators to take the risk of exposure, nor any specific personal gain.
4. The idea that CD was used on the WTC is completely ridiculous to anyone that understands the slightest thing about the process.
5. The fact that the concept of WTC CD is completely idiotic, yet is the most widely discussed conspiracy theory, indicates that the theorists ain't all that bright.
So....I presented you with a conversation. You however, are either not interested or not capable of engaging in debate.......as what I got in reply is the BS above. All hat, no cows.
You aren't keeping options open. You've consistently post lopsided, single thought nonsense since you returned.
You think you show independent thought and critical analysis with all your cut and pastes?
I actually agree with that.
You aren't keeping options open. You've consistently post lopsided, single thought nonsense since you returned.
You think you show independent thought and critical analysis with all your cut and pastes?
I actually agree with that.
Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts? | News | National Post
PARIS — A mix of sprinkling system water and melted aluminium from aircraft hulls likely triggered the explosions that felled New York’s Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a materials expert has told a technology conference.
“If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water,” Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway, said in a statement released Wednesday.
“From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions.”
The official report blames the collapse on the over-heating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Simensen rejects.
Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, the blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said.
This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.
The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building like a house of card, he said.
The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.
Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.
“The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980,” he said.
In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.
“The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter,” Simensen said.
By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations.
Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers.
The debris — especially plaster, which blocks the transfer of heat — would have formed a shield protecting the rest of the building.
At the same time, however, it would created a super-hot, oven-like zone around the aircraft, heated by burning fuel.
Aluminium alloy, which in jet hulls also contains magnesium, melts at 660 degrees Celsius (1,220 degrees Fahrenheit). If heated to 750 C (1382 F), the alloy “becomes as liquid as water,” Simensen said.
This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases and gaps in the floor, causing a chemical reaction with water from sprinklers on the levels below.
A meltdown period of 30 to 45 minutes would be consistent with the timing of the explosions and subsequent collapse of both buildings in relation to the moment of impact.
Simensen said there are lessons to be learned, if his theory is correct, that could help avoid a similar disaster were another skyscraper to be hit by a big jet.
“We could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors beneath the point of impact,” he said.
Firing a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could also help prevent metal alloy from melting.
No no, Ocean Breeze, you are not alone. I am with you. Conspiracy nutballs we are not. The official story is for morons - read the Natural News article on that - very insulting to your detractors!! > Jumping rope and 9/11 truth - how the sheeple have been trained to avoid unpopular truth about WTC 7
There is, however, an alternate take on the "denial of evidence" of a pending attack on American mainland where the CIA had info that the White House was not showing Bush and Cheney - but only because they had given strict orders not to show them that info.
If Bush and Cheney were shown the info, it could be said they lied; if not, then they had "plausible deniability". Bush2 and George Tenent were described as "close", because Tenent, as CIA head, was playing along with the lies.
I get confused at times, but thats not as bad as refusing to try to root out the truth!!
Here is a PD Scott article on FBI's role > How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer
There is, however, an alternate take on the "denial of evidence" of a pending attack on American mainland where the CIA had info that the White House was not showing Bush and Cheney - but only because they had given strict orders not to show them that info.
If Bush and Cheney were shown the info, it could be said they lied; if not, then they had "plausible deniability". Bush2 and George Tenent were described as "close", because Tenent, as CIA head, was playing along with the lies.
Or was it that the FBI was trying to tell the White House about potential attacks, and the CIA. with Tenent at the helm, was refusing to pass that information along to the White House. The White House staffers were also blocking any such reports.
I get confused at times, but thats not as bad as refusing to try to root out the truth!!
Here is a PD Scott article on FBI's role > How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer
The conspiracy story is for morons.
You guys really need to take off your star wars gear and get a life.
You guys really need to take off your star wars gear and get a life.
Ok... let's me get this straight...
The CIA and FBI had warnings that there was going to be an attack on 9/11 by the CIA and the FBI. And that the FBI tried to tell the White House of this pending attack, an attack that involved themselves and the Whitehouse?
You sure do get confused don't you! You can't decide on which fantasy to believe in.
Please...post often.
The conspiracy story is for morons.
You guys really need to take off your star wars gear and get a life.
You just ain't whistlin' Dixie! :smile:
delighted to see how easily amused some are.
Maybe the question should be: Is the CIA CAPABLE of doing something like that??
Of course the answer is a resounding YES.
Not that it will change anything. Major events that have occurred for political gains have been occurring through out history.
Not that anyone can do anything about it.
And the people who could plant explosives unnoticed during the construction of several buildings in New york with millions of people around .....just to start a war......were not able to plant just a few WMDS in Iraq in the middle of the desert...in order to justify an invasion....
Go figure.....Now someone as smart as Breezy ought to be able to explain that....in simple language so all of us ignorant people can understand....wouldn't you think???
Go figure.....Now someone as smart as Breezy ought to be able to explain that....in simple language so all of us ignorant people can understand....wouldn't you think???
Ocean Breeze Maybe the question should be: Is the CIA CAPABLE of doing something like that?? Of course the answer is a resounding YES. .[/QUOTE said: