freeworldgroup.com

I watched a documentary last night. Heard that there were conspiracy theories out there and never bothered to follow it up... but after seeing this... well it makes me wonder.

first - the pentagon - which was supposed to have been hit by a passenger airliner. The hole that formed on the building was WAY too small for the plane and was probably caused by a bunker busting missile.



As for the two commercial airliners that hit the world trade center - numerous witnesses were reporting that they were not passenger jets and looked more like military jets. Why did we not hear about this?

Anyway, if this is all true... then there is the question - where the frook did the passenger jets with the actual passengers go? Were they kidnapped by aliens and the gov was trying to cover up their deaths by creating this diversion??? WOT WOT?

The plane that crashed into the outer wall of the Pentagon hit the floor just before the wall, so the floor took the brunt.

There are videos of the twin tower attacks, you can see the planes. Complete crap.

the way the towers fell was like it was a fixed demolition. a lot of engineers around the United States have formed organizations and pacts and signed stuff demanding the US government allow an open investigation bc the way the towers fell goes against everything in physics.

also there's no airport footage of the hijackers boarding the planes in the first place. years after 9-11, the BBC interviewed a couple of the hijackers after they supposedly drove a plane into the buildings. also for a vast majority of the 19 hijackers, there is no evidence that they left their country and most of the names the US government cited all have alibis.

all of the live calls of civilians on the planes panicking, the plane was going too fast and was too high for the phones to be of any use.

a vast majority (easily 95%) of the families who lost someone in 9-11 demand an open investigation and believe that there is something fishy about the whole event (some range from full conspiracy theorists to some who just think the government is hiding something)

during 9-11, the US airforce was told to stand down and continue practice drills instead of intercepting the planes, the first time ever in American history where any part of the US military was told to stand down in light of an attack on the nation. From what my grandfather who is a war veteran told me, it is normal military protocol that if there is a possibility to save more lives by murdering few then you are suppose to murder the few. in his opinion (and kind of mine) he thought that the US air force should've shot down the planes.

again, jet fuel can't melt steel beams. this one is very self-explanatory.


there's a lot more, these are just the ones i've remembered.

Shadowstar1922 wrote:the way the towers fell was like it was a fixed demolition. a lot of engineers around the United States have formed organizations and pacts and signed stuff demanding the US government allow an open investigation bc the way the towers fell goes against everything in physics.

also there's no airport footage of the hijackers boarding the planes in the first place. years after 9-11, the BBC interviewed a couple of the hijackers after they supposedly drove a plane into the buildings. also for a vast majority of the 19 hijackers, there is no evidence that they left their country and most of the names the US government cited all have alibis.

all of the live calls of civilians on the planes panicking, the plane was going too fast and was too high for the phones to be of any use.

a vast majority (easily 95%) of the families who lost someone in 9-11 demand an open investigation and believe that there is something fishy about the whole event (some range from full conspiracy theorists to some who just think the government is hiding something)

during 9-11, the US airforce was told to stand down and continue practice drills instead of intercepting the planes, the first time ever in American history where any part of the US military was told to stand down in light of an attack on the nation. From what my grandfather who is a war veteran told me, it is normal military protocol that if there is a possibility to save more lives by murdering few then you are suppose to murder the few. in his opinion (and kind of mine) he thought that the US air force should've shot down the planes.

again, jet fuel can't melt steel beams. this one is very self-explanatory.


there's a lot more, these are just the ones i've remembered.

eggzactly. Everything about 9-11 makes no sense. But my question is wot happened to the people who were on the flights. Were they taken and used for government - alien hybrid experimentation? wot wot?

Flobalob wrote:The plane that crashed into the outer wall of the Pentagon hit the floor just before the wall, so the floor took the brunt.

There are videos of the twin tower attacks, you can see the planes. Complete crap.

there was no wreckage in front of the pentagon

NONE AT ALL

nor any damage to the grounds.

Also no impact damage either side of the very small hole in the pentagon

Shadowstar1922 wrote:the way the towers fell was like it was a fixed demolition. a lot of engineers around the United States have formed organizations and pacts and signed stuff demanding the US government allow an open investigation bc the way the towers fell goes against everything in physics.

also there's no airport footage of the hijackers boarding the planes in the first place. years after 9-11, the BBC interviewed a couple of the hijackers after they supposedly drove a plane into the buildings. also for a vast majority of the 19 hijackers, there is no evidence that they left their country and most of the names the US government cited all have alibis.

all of the live calls of civilians on the planes panicking, the plane was going too fast and was too high for the phones to be of any use.

a vast majority (easily 95%) of the families who lost someone in 9-11 demand an open investigation and believe that there is something fishy about the whole event (some range from full conspiracy theorists to some who just think the government is hiding something)

during 9-11, the US airforce was told to stand down and continue practice drills instead of intercepting the planes, the first time ever in American history where any part of the US military was told to stand down in light of an attack on the nation. From what my grandfather who is a war veteran told me, it is normal military protocol that if there is a possibility to save more lives by murdering few then you are suppose to murder the few. in his opinion (and kind of mine) he thought that the US air force should've shot down the planes.

again, jet fuel can't melt steel beams. this one is very self-explanatory.


there's a lot more, these are just the ones i've remembered.

Okay so I'm going to debunk this in a specific order - first, jet fuel cannot melt steel beams, but it can definitely weaken their structural integrity. Kerosene burns at roughly 400-800C, whereas steel melts at 1500C. However, at about 600C, steel loses about 50% of its structural integrity. Think of a burnt out building. The steel isn't melted, but it's bent and warped to the point where it doesn't keep the building up anymore. With the intensity of the flames on 9/11, the steel would have been at probably 10% strength. Essentially useless.

Besides, jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning inside the twin towers that day. Every combustible material inside was also burning.

..this brings me onto the collapse. With the frames of the buildings ruined, the floors collapsed. As one hit the next, it fell, and hit the next, and fell, and so on. This is called "pancaking" and is common is multi-storey building collapses. This is where, in pictures and videos, you can see dust and debris expelled through the windows.

I've never heard of this claim of the US government ignoring a hijacked plane. Even if it was all a conspiracy theory, they're not dumb enough to do this. They would instead scramble jets and make it look like they didn't quite get there in time.

FWG Leader wrote:eggzactly. Everything about 9-11 makes no sense. But my question is wot happened to the people who were on the flights. Were they taken and used for government - alien hybrid experimentation? wot wot?

..they crashed. Into the WTC. Survive that if you will.

For the Pentagon - the hole isn't even too small for a crashing plane. A bunker busting missile, on the other hand, would have torn down half the Pentagon, not just one section of the outer wall. Their design is to penetrate the ground and explode seconds after impact, so that they basically bury themselves before they explode. What this does is transfer all the seismic energy from the explosion into the underside of the bunker, collapsing it. The difference to a normal bomb is that any normal bomb wastes much of the energy into simply empty air and doesn't really do much damage to the bunker. A bunker busting bomb is by no means a possibility here.

Nice bait OP, 8/8.

On other news, i doubt this was legit govt doing, but im not going to argue that the govt wasnt extremely happy with the 9/11 events.

Its all they could ask for tbh.

Although the aliens kidnapping passengers part? That i can believe.

flob, modern buildings are designed to withstand everything burning inside of them. They build steel frames so thick so they cannot be burned and melted to cause the building to "pancake". There was a capitol building in Chechnya that was designed very similarly to the Twin Towers. That building had an internal explosion and everything burned for 23 hours, yet the building never collapsed. It's dumb to think that in this day in age, we haven't designed buildings to withstand fires.

also, the bush administration ordered both the US Airforce and vice president dick cheney specifically ordered anti-aircraft weapons around the Pentagon to stand down. organizations like the FAA and NORAD were suppose to communicate with each other to organize an airplane escort to lead the hijacked planes away and monitor them. That's standard military protocol, yet they didn't go through with it??


also flob, since you seem to be so readily to defend the establishment, can you please explain to me how two airplanes caused 3 WTC buildings to collapse? What happened to building 7? it just fell. They all fell in the manner of a fixed explosion.

Shadowstar1922 wrote:flob, modern buildings are designed to withstand everything burning inside of them. They build steel frames so thick so they cannot be burned and melted to cause the building to "pancake". There was a capitol building in Chechnya that was designed very similarly to the Twin Towers. That building had an internal explosion and everything burned for 23 hours, yet the building never collapsed. It's dumb to think that in this day in age, we haven't designed buildings to withstand fires.

also, the bush administration ordered both the US Airforce and vice president dick cheney specifically ordered anti-aircraft weapons around the Pentagon to stand down. organizations like the FAA and NORAD were suppose to communicate with each other to organize an airplane escort to lead the hijacked planes away and monitor them. That's standard military protocol, yet they didn't go through with it??


also flob, since you seem to be so readily to defend the establishment, can you please explain to me how two airplanes caused 3 WTC buildings to collapse? What happened to building 7? it just fell. They all fell in the manner of a fixed explosion.

Jet fuel fire combined with a plane sized hole in the side of a building>Regular fire

A regular fire isn't necessarily going to cause any old building to collapse on its own (although they often do), but when you throw jet fuel into the equation and take out much of the supporting structure with a plane, the building is basically already on its knees. I'm sure that building in Chechnya had it's steel frames largely still in place, considering it didn't have a bloody huge plane crash into the side of it. Only one level needs to collapse, and the force of that will collapse the next, and so on. The reason the first floor would have collapsed is because it had a plane fly into it. The others collapsed because, coupled with the fact that they were massively weakened by fire, the floor above each fell onto them, and so they fell onto the next. We've built buildings to withstand fires, not plane crashes. Stop conveniently ignoring the obvious to make yourself seem right.

Go find me some evidence of a USAF stand down on 9/11. Something legit which explicitly says that the USAF was aware 4 planes had been hijacked by 19 terrorists and were heading towards the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House. I mean something real aswell, not another unsupported speculative article written by some crazy 4channer in his mum's basement.

You're acting like WTC 7 wasn't right next to the Twin Towers. The heat, the debris, the collapse, all contributed to the weakening of WTC 7. It caught fire from debris being flung at it by the collapse of two massive skyscrapers just across the street (close enough that they were actually connected by pedestrian bridges). The fire spread throughout the building and it was gutted. There is a video shot by a news reporter in the street where you can actually see the windows buckling, and its own weight brings it down.

ok for any debunkers out there... there is this from popular mechanics... debunking everything

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a2043/4220721/