Elite Bloodline "Conspiracy" (not really a conspiracy)

tobinates559 · Feb 24, 2014

if our government didnt help orchestrate the attacks and place bombs in the buildings(ALMOST positive they did) AT THE VERY VERY LEAST they knew it was going to happen and just let it happen, there were so many warnings, the CIA and FBI had ALOT ALOT of info on all the hijackers way before 9/11

Dr Kynes · Feb 25, 2014

tobinates559 said:
you guys obviously cant handle the truth and get very childish when confronted with it, EXAMPLE ^^^^^^^

you have offered nothing worth the effort of disproving.

just let us know which of the 9 versions of Loose Change you are using and we can go from there, tearing apart every piece of "evidence" asserted.

Dr Kynes · Feb 25, 2014

LegalizeNature420 said:
Have you ever heard of the Titanic? Answer me this: How come the whole ship sank if only the bottom part took damage? It was a conspiracy!!!

When you take a step back and look at the big picture for a 9/11 conspiracy, it doesn't make sense. If the U.S. Government did it to invade for oil, why didn't they make any of the "fake" hijackers Iraqi? We didn't invade oil-rich Iraq for retaliation of 9/11, but false claims of WMD which would ultimately ruined Bush's legacy. The only direct and just war as a result of the attack was the invasion of Afghanistan--a wasteland with no resources. So are you telling me that these people were brilliant enough to pull of this highly successful and secretive operation, yet stupid enough to frame the wrong group? What exactly do you believe the motivation and goals of an inside job on 9/11 were? You guys love talking "details" of this or that, but never do you speak details on the political motivations... which should be most important.

As for genealogy, yes, it can be rather surprising and profound. For example, the Palestinians are genetically closer to Jews than they are to other Arabs. And Jews from Europe are genetically closer to Palestinians than they are to fellow Jews from the Mideast. Turns out Palestinians are most likely what's left of the original Hebrews, converting to Islam and Christianity over the centuries.

check your wikileaks. saddam DID have wmd's they have been found in startling profusion, and the discoveries were covered up to prevent panic.

post invasion iraq was a shopping spree for weapons, art jewelry, and anything else you could loot, and much of that shit went over the borders into syria iran etc.

NOBODY can say for certain that saddam's mustard, saran, VX and biological stockpiles didnt wander off in jihadi hands, since only some of the stuff has been found, and more could be hidden in the deserts.

Dr Kynes · Feb 25, 2014

tobinates559 said:
if our government didnt help orchestrate the attacks and place bombs in the buildings(ALMOST positive they did) AT THE VERY VERY LEAST they knew it was going to happen and just let it happen, there were so many warnings, the CIA and FBI had ALOT ALOT of info on all the hijackers way before 9/11

your fervent belief in bullshit doesnt make the bullshit any more believable.

troofers get butthurt when sensible people dont swallow their line of dubious reasoning, but thats mostly because troofers are saying retarded shit and stamping their feet in impotent rage

your story has only two rational options:

the WTC was actually stuffed with tons of imaginary, entirely hypothetical, not yet produced even in laboratory experiments, compound called "nano-thermate", a theoretical (which means it's not an actual product) "explosive" (which it isnt, not even in theory) without anybody noticing, which then exploded (which it doesnt do, even in theory cuz it's a theoretical incendiary, not a theoretical explosive) after a missile disguised as a plane (or a hologram of a plane) was used to trigger the non-existent, non-explosive, imaginary explosive.

OR

the building was struck by several hundred tons of fast moving jumbo jet loaded with tons of kerosene for a transatlantic crossing causing a massive impact, the fire, exploding electrical transformers, after decades of poor maintenance on a building that was badly designed and built on the cheap in the late 60's, and as a result, the shit fell down.

your repeating this retarded shit doesnt prove anything, except that you will believe retarded shit, and paper will just lay still and let you put anything on it.

NoDrama · Feb 25, 2014

LegalizeNature420 said:
Have you ever heard of the Titanic? Answer me this: How come the whole ship sank if only the bottom part took damage? It was a conspiracy!!!

When you take a step back and look at the big picture for a 9/11 conspiracy, it doesn't make sense. If the U.S. Government did it to invade for oil, why didn't they make any of the "fake" hijackers Iraqi? We didn't invade oil-rich Iraq for retaliation of 9/11, but false claims of WMD which would ultimately ruined Bush's legacy. The only direct and just war as a result of the attack was the invasion of Afghanistan--a wasteland with no resources. So are you telling me that these people were brilliant enough to pull of this highly successful and secretive operation, yet stupid enough to frame the wrong group? What exactly do you believe the motivation and goals of an inside job on 9/11 were? You guys love talking "details" of this or that, but never do you speak details on the political motivations... which should be most important.

What makes you think that 911 truthers believe anything you just said?

real 911 truthers don't cling to any theories, they have honest real questions that the "Authorities" will not answer.

"troofers" have all sorts of theories and conjecture and opinion on which to bloviate about.

Don't confuse one for the other just as you should not judge a book by its cover, nor should you lump all into a single group or stereotype them.

How do steel buildings come down normally?

Dr Kynes · Feb 25, 2014

NoDrama said:
What makes you think that 911 truthers believe anything you just said?

real 911 truthers don't cling to any theories, they have honest real questions that the "Authorities" will not answer.

"troofers" have all sorts of theories and conjecture and opinion on which to bloviate about.

Don't confuse one for the other just as you should not judge a book by its cover, nor should you lump all into a single group or stereotype them.

How do steel buildings come down normally?

the twin towers were not steel buildings they were a house of cards relying on the strength of steel trusses to keep them up.

adding a little heat and a big impact caused the upper trusses to fail, and each successive truss failed harder as it finally succumbed to gravity.

steel buildings generally dont fall down, but most steel framed buildings are STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS, not delicate cantilevered spun glass constructs on a really high shelf held up by a single rusty nail.

NoDrama · Feb 25, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
the twin towers were not steel buildings they were a house of cards relying on the strength of steel trusses to keep them up.

That's odd, according to the authorities and the 911 commission report:

For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart.These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.

tobinates559 · Feb 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
the twin towers were not steel buildings they were a house of cards relying on the strength of steel trusses to keep them up.

adding a little heat and a big impact caused the upper trusses to fail, and each successive truss failed harder as it finally succumbed to gravity.

steel buildings generally dont fall down, but most steel framed buildings are STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS, not delicate cantilevered spun glass constructs on a really high shelf held up by a single rusty nail.

you are retarded kynes

tobinates559 · Feb 26, 2014

what were the buildings made of then?????

tobinates559 · Feb 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
you have offered nothing worth the effort of disproving.

just let us know which of the 9 versions of Loose Change you are using and we can go from there, tearing apart every piece of "evidence" asserted.

Jan 2000: George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He also met with them in 1998. Bush's chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01

Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses. What a ludicrous theory! 1. Steel melts at 2750°F. 2. The steel in the Towers was certified by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. to withstand 2000°F for 6 hours! 3. Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of 1800°F in a special combustion chamber.

the buildings ARE made of steel, you just make things up

Dr Kynes · Feb 26, 2014

NoDrama said:
That's odd, according to the authorities and the 911 commission report:

read about the "innovative" construction methods used to minimize the amount of steel and concrete in the building, they were constructed as light as possible to get an "open feeling" and as a result they were WEAK, especially when you consider the corners which were cut at every opportunity during construction, and in the maintenance in the following decades.

they could ONLY have been constructed in the "geologically stable" northeast, since any earthquake would have sent them toppling.

being smacked by a couple hundred tons of high speed passenger jet at the TOP (increasing the forces applied through the magic of leverage) and the resultant fire did the job better than even a large earthquake could have managed.

Dr Kynes · Feb 26, 2014

tobinates559 said:
Jan 2000: George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He also met with them in 1998. Bush's chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01

Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses. What a ludicrous theory! 1. Steel melts at 2750°F. 2. The steel in the Towers was certified by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. to withstand 2000°F for 6 hours! 3. Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of 1800°F in a special combustion chamber.

the buildings ARE made of steel, you just make things up

you are an idiot.

steel trusses dont have to melt to fail. steel isnt ice, it doesnt go from solid to liquid at a limit break temperature, it softens, becoming malleable, then at much higher temps, becomes liquid.

you dont need a blast furnace to bend steel, you can do it with propane or charcoal.

trusses are rigid structures based on careful geometry, when the steel softened (which happens around 400 degrees) the geometry of the trusses changed, the cantilevers failed and the floors came down. adding the weight of the upper floors to the cantilever trusses exceeded their load tolerance and the started collapsing in turn.

THATS what happened, you delusional fantasy is irrelevant.

MuyLocoNC · Feb 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
you are an idiot.

steel trusses dont have to melt to fail. steel isnt ice, it doesnt go from solid to liquid at a limit break temperature, it softens, becoming malleable, then at much higher temps, becomes liquid.

you dont need a blast furnace to bend steel, you can do it with propane or charcoal.

trusses are rigid structures based on careful geometry, when the steel softened (which happens around 400 degrees) the geometry of the trusses changed, the cantilevers failed and the floors came down. adding the weight of the upper floors to the cantilever trusses exceeded their load tolerance and the started collapsing in turn.

THATS what happened, you delusional fantasy is irrelevant.

And we have a winner.

NoDrama · Feb 26, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
read about the "innovative" construction methods used to minimize the amount of steel and concrete in the building, they were constructed as light as possible to get an "open feeling" and as a result they were WEAK, especially when you consider the corners which were cut at every opportunity during construction, and in the maintenance in the following decades.

they could ONLY have been constructed in the "geologically stable" northeast, since any earthquake would have sent them toppling.

being smacked by a couple hundred tons of high speed passenger jet at the TOP (increasing the forces applied through the magic of leverage) and the resultant fire did the job better than even a large earthquake could have managed.

Yep, some of the largest buildings ever made were made so weak they only stood for 28 years.

If a jet provided "leverage" to knock the building down, the building would have fallen right after impact, not 45 minutes later.

Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.

In strong winds, the building would sway up to 3 feet. Each of the towers was designed to withstand a wind load in excess of 5,000 tons

A couple of hundred tons is nothing.

Jet Fuel fires won't get over 800F in an open air situation, not anywhere near enough heat to weaken steel enough to cause a total collapse.

Dr Kynes · Feb 26, 2014

NoDrama said:
Yep, some of the largest buildings ever made were made so weak they only stood for 28 years.

If a jet provided "leverage" to knock the building down, the building would have fallen right after impact, not 45 minutes later.

Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.

In strong winds, the building would sway up to 3 feet. Each of the towers was designed to withstand a wind load in excess of 5,000 tons

A couple of hundred tons is nothing.

Jet Fuel fires won't get over 800F in an open air situation, not anywhere near enough heat to weaken steel enough to cause a total collapse.

it was not in open air. the building acted as its own refactory, and the trusses didnt fucking melt. they softened.

the "fireproofing" insulation on the steel members was badly degraded before the building was struck, and the critical joints joining the cantilevered trusses to the outside walls failed first.

the buildings were designed to withstand wind, but not getting blasted with a plane, or in the case of wtc7, thousands of tons of flaming rubble falling from the sky.

wind pushes, it does not smash into the side with a massive shock at the top floors.

WANTING an explanation for why these building fell which eases the fears that maybe skyscrapers arent as tough and durable as you believe doesnt make a conspiracy real.

Rob Roy · Feb 26, 2014

^^^^ Why did building 7 fall?

Note - I have no dog in this fight, just curious what the good Doctor thinks on this.

Dr Kynes · Feb 26, 2014

Rob Roy said:
^^^^ Why did building 7 fall?

Note - I have no dog in this fight, just curious what the good Doctor thinks on this.

thousands of tons of flaming rubble from the towers smashed the fucking shit out of wtc7, lit it on fire, and caused it to fall down when it too began failing in an entirely predictable manner.

actual steel frame buildings are much stronger than the "curtain wall" and cantilevered truss designs used in the towers and wtc7

NoDrama · Feb 27, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
it was not in open air. the building acted as its own refactory, and the trusses didnt fucking melt. they softened.

well there is a strawman isn't it? I never said anything about anything melting now did I?

BTW a refractory is something that retains its strength as it heats up.

the "fireproofing" insulation on the steel members was badly degraded before the building was struck, and the critical joints joining the cantilevered trusses to the outside walls failed first.

No it wasn't, that is speculation at best.

the buildings were designed to withstand wind, but not getting blasted with a plane, or in the case of wtc7, thousands of tons of flaming rubble falling from the sky.

Umm Yeah they were, they were designed to take MULTIPLE airliner hits.

Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting,

Antidisestablishmentarian · Feb 27, 2014

He totally forgot about the weight of the books.

Dr Kynes · Feb 27, 2014

NoDrama said:
well there is a strawman isn't it? I never said anything about anything melting now did I?

jaet fuel (kerosene) burns around 600 degrees in open air. steel becomes malleable around 400 degrees. as it becomes more and more malleable the forces required to deform is become smaller and smaller

NoDrama said:
BTW a refractory is something that retains its strength as it heats up.

just plain wrong. a refactory is a motherfucking OVEN used to concentrate heat burning fuel inside a confined space INCREASES the heat of the fire. a fire that big inside the building simply cooked the trusses to pudding

NoDrama said:
No it wasn't, that is speculation at best.

no it's not. the "frireproofing insulation used in WTC buildings is no longer used because it is junk. it degrades and crumbles to dust.
the shit is just sprayed on on the trussed and girders like christmas tree flocking, and then forgotten.

NoDrama said:
Umm Yeah they were, they were designed to take MULTIPLE airliner hits.

they were designed to withstand stikes from SLOW moving, much smaller aircraft like the bomber that struck the empire state building when it got lost in a low hanging cloud

high speed strikes by airliners was NOT in the plan.

NoDrama said:
Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting,

"a pencil flying through netting" ??????

you just went full retard.

those planes didnt slip through the building like a fart through your jeans. i cant believe you would put credence behind such a preposterous claim, and must therefore assume you are trolling.

Elite Bloodline "Conspiracy" (not really a conspiracy)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member