Liberal Forum

This is what would convince me:

2. Burn marks on the ground where the official 9/11 report claimed the plane hit before it hit the wall.

This is the 9/11 Report in its entirety.... Show me where it says such in the Report... https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

3. A credible reason as to why all 80 cameras were confiscated.

Read above... This was explained.

The claim is that a plane hit the pentagon. Billions of people are claiming that. What I claim could have happened is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on the original claim. Not me.

——-

All 80 cameras were confiscated and only a blur shows on the one aimed at the impact point.

That could have been a 530 mph 250,000 pound cruise missile piloted by remote control, or a 757.

Darn good shooting, wasn’t it?

Vegas » 12 Aug 2023, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 9:19 pm

One of two reasons: 

1. I still maintain that perhaps it could have been a drone carrying explosives. They are white with wings, and could easily be mistaken as a plane. Especially to anyone who is trying to drive and can't look for longer than a second. Also, drones are not as sturdy as a Boeing 757. They could easily crumple and dintegrate upon impact into nothing. A plane? Not a chance. There would be some debris around the lawn, easily. 

2. Crisis actors.

     1.  At the time of the 9/11 Attacks in 2001, the US Air Force had only 1 such bomb carrying Drone.... This was the early MQ-1 Predator, which could fire a Hellfire Missile.... The Drone was 26.8 ft long, with a 41.8 wingspan ----was powered by a Rotax Propeller Engine... It had a top speed of approximately 135 MPH....  Do you honestly believe people (including Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers) mistook this for a large commercial Airlines?

 
 
     2. Crisis Actors?..... Please tell me you're joking... LOL 

Anyone wanns buy a watch real cheap...right here on the street ?

Z09 » 12 Aug 2023, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 10:57 am

Stainless steel can melt!

Not by burning jet fuel, those engines are designed for that...

 


 
 

Jantje_Smit » 13 Aug 2023, 4:00 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 4:00 am

Not by burning jet fuel, those engines are designed for that...

 

Steel begins to fail at 1300 degrees and at 1500 degrees will fail.

https://www.edtengineers.com/blog-post/ ... ects-steelReduction of StrengthAs the temperature of the steel increases above room temperature, the strength of the steel decreases:
- At 204°C (400°F), carbon steel retains approximately 90 percent of its yield strength.
- At 427°C (800°F), it retains approximately 60 percent of its yield strength.
- At 566°C (1050°F), carbon steel only retains approximately 50 percent of its yield strength. The loss of strength due to elevated temperatures is often temporary. Permanent Changes in the Steel MicrostructureIf heated to sufficiently elevated temperatures, between 704°C (1300°F) and 843°C (1550°F) for most structural steel, and rapidly cooled by suppression water during firefighting operations, some of the steel's microstructure will be transformed into martensite. Martensite is a hard, but brittle phase of steel. If the exposure temperature of the steel is less than the temperature at which this transformation takes place, then the mechanical properties of the steel essentially return to their pre‐fire values after cooling, depending on the time of exposure and cool down rate.
 
 

Sumela » 12 Aug 2023, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 11:01 am

So why did they do this??

That seems much more important....THE GOAL, not the act.

They spelled it out perfectly... they needed a new Pearl Harbor to make their neocon dreams come true..

The cold war was over, no more USSR and evil commies to justify unlimited budgets, spying powers, new and better military toys etc.. a new enemy was needed so they created one.. a nice war on terrorism, the patriot act, a hysterical and compliant media to keep the people afraid, propaganda Goebbels could only dream of.. the Manhattan Reichstag fire is a perfect description...

 
 

Jantje_Smit » 13 Aug 2023, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 4:31 am

They spelled it out perfectly... they needed a new Pearl Harbor to make their neocon dreams come true..

The cold war was over, no more USSR and evil commies to justify unlimited budgets, spying powers, new and better military toys etc.. a new enemy was needed so they created one.. a nice war on terrorism, the patriot act, a hysterical and compliant media to keep the people afraid, propaganda Goebbels could only dream of.. the Manhattan Reichstag fire is a perfect description...

The truth —-Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested in the Reichstag building. He was a 24 year-old vagrant and had just arrived in Berlin from Leiden. Van der Lubbe was interviewed by the Gestapo and he admitted setting fire to the Reichstag but claimed that he had no connections with the KPD or the SDP. However, back home in the Netherlands, he had supported a tiny Dutch political group called the "Rade or International Communists". On his arrival in Germany he talked to many people and was shocked to discover that the "workers will do nothing against a system which grants freedom to one side and metes out oppression to the other". He decided that since "the workers would do nothing, I had to do something by myself".

 On 23rd March, 1933, the German Reichstag passed the Enabling Bill. This banned the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party from taking part in future election campaigns. This was followed by Nazi officials being put in charge of all local government in the provinces (7th April), trades unions being abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison (2nd May), and a law passed making the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany (14th July).—-

Everybody you ever heard use the “Reichstag Fire” in your life as a synonym for a false flag ignores the fact a communist confessed to setting the fire, along with overwhelming corroborating evidence he in fact set the fire.

For 80 years sensationalist conspiracy theorists have made a living arguing the Nazis burned their holy of holies themselves.
 

Kobia2 » 12 Aug 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 11:23 am

             Everything that doesn't support your belief that a hijacked Boeing 757 Flight 77 was shot down or forced landed enroute to attacking the Pentagon --- only to seamlessly be replaced by a US MIssile that attacked the same target is fake...

              I already told you the Cameras at that time which would have captured the Plane only operated at 1 frame per second... This is what was shown in the released Vid of 77 impacting the Pentagon.  At one point you posted a picture of cameras that were on the building that day.... Explain / prove which of these should have captured a clear photo of Flight 77.... What type of cameras were they?... What was their precise positioning, and what were they directed at?... You are assuming those cameras should have captured the precise photographic or video footage & evidence you are demanding ...Prove it.. Be fair, even if the Feds (or anyone else) had & released such photos or footage, it would simply be another piece of evidence that the inside-jobbers would insist was planted, manipulated, faked etc... 

I already told you that 1 frame a second is ****, it's the Pentagon ffs, even the local McDonalds can afford something better than that.. and I posted pictures of the other cameras, you can see where they are located and what they should have captured.. what brand are they.. lol.. please.. oh, and why did the (fake) FBI confiscate the security tapes of the buildings overlooking the Pentagon...

Be fair, something seriously smells about that, time for you to admit it...

 


 

sootedupCyndi » 12 Aug 2023, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 12:20 pm

I've been a bit more interested in why building 7 went down. To date i see no info on that? Is there any?

Building 7 went down because Larry Silverstein (the guy who leased the TWC towers and had just updated his insurance policy to include terrorism, I'm not kidding you) told them to pull it...

I lost all the good conspiracy links I had on 9/11 but I found this..

 

'Pull the Building!' Proof That 9/11 Was a Conspiracy

On PBS's aired report "Rebuilding America's Defenses," developer and leaseholder of the World Trade Center towers Larry Silverstein admitted "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire … and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life … maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it … and they made that decision to 'pull' … uh, and we watched the building collapse."
 
 

Bruce » 13 Aug 2023, 4:50 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 4:50 am

The truth —-..Van der Lubbe was interviewed by the Gestapo and he admitted setting fire to the Reichstag..

Everybody you ever heard use the “Reichstag Fire” in your life as a synonym for a false flag ignores the fact a communist confessed to setting the fire, along with overwhelming corroborating evidence he in fact set the fire. 

How shall I put this..

     


 

Z09 » 13 Aug 2023, 5:21 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 5:21 am

Actually, we were being attacked numerous times in the 1990's...

                
         This is why I often state people, and the country on the whole were gravely mistaken to gloss over and fail to understand the significance of the 1993 World Trade Center attack...  This is because the results did not match the intent... Had the basement truck bomb taken one Tower down from ground level, and collapsing into the other, far more would have been killed than on 9/11....

        This is when we should have recognized and began dealing with Islamic Jihadist terrorism as a Geopolitical Military issue, rather than a matter for the Justice Dept....                                                                                                                          
 

Z09 » 13 Aug 2023, 5:20 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 5:20 am

And you still believe a cruise missile could be sent from a military base and no one would notice?

I told you plenty of times that it would have been passed off as an exercise and plenty of people saw it.. you still believe twisting my words makes you look smart?

How about showing us evidence that it was a missile?

Witnesses?
Data?
Debris?

Anything?

lol.. how about showing us evidence that it was a plane?

Pictures?
Wreckage?
Any credible explanations why you can't show that?

Anything?

 

 
 
 

Jantje_Smit » 13 Aug 2023, 4:31 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 4:31 am

They spelled it out perfectly... they needed a new Pearl Harbor to make their neocon dreams come true..

The cold war was over, no more USSR and evil commies to justify unlimited budgets, spying powers, new and better military toys etc.. a new enemy was needed so they created one.. a nice war on terrorism, the patriot act, a hysterical and compliant media to keep the people afraid, propaganda Goebbels could only dream of.. the Manhattan Reichstag fire is a perfect description...

I'm pretty sure I agree with this.

If this is true...that means WASH DC is ruled by psychopaths.
 

Z09 » 13 Aug 2023, 5:28 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 5:28 am

Yeah...
Where is the plane?

And when asked where these missiles came from you admitted you had no idea or "it's not my job"...

So 100 people gave testimony they saw a plane right before the Pentagon crash...
And you're asking where the marks are on the grass...???

Where did this cruise missile came from?
"I have no idea"

What happened to the plane?
"It was disassembled"
"It was crashed into the ocean"

And my favorite from Jantje
"It's at Area 51"

For God sakes. You are still hiding. No, it's not my job to provide evidence of anything because I am not the one making the claim. 

I can say that I had a huge hardon and it was my dick that made the hole in the pentagon. It wouldn't matter because that isn't the official narrative. The official narrative, that billions of people believe, is that a plane hit it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me. 

Now **** off with your questions, and start answering mine. God I hate cowards. I **** hate them.  

Kobia2 » 13 Aug 2023, 12:00 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 12:00 am

     1.  At the time of the 9/11 Attacks in 2001, the US Air Force had only 1 such bomb carrying Drone.... This was the early MQ-1 Predator, which could fire a Hellfire Missile.... The Drone was 26.8 ft long, with a 41.8 wingspan ----was powered by a Rotax Propeller Engine... It had a top speed of approximately 135 MPH....  Do you honestly believe people (including Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers) mistook this for a large commercial Airlines?


     

1. That just simply isn't true. The navy has been making drones, that could carry heavy bombs, since the late 70s. They were really upgrading their tech from 1995-2004. 


2. Maybe not crisis actors, but they were either propped there and lying, or mistaken. 

Rock » 12 Aug 2023, 11:03 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 11:03 pm

All of these questions were addressed by Kobia. You just chose to ignore them.

They were addressed, but not adequately. 

Bruce » 12 Aug 2023, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Aug 2023, 11:02 pm

They did work. The fire was put out on on the first floor. The MGM fire was out a long time before the heat compromised the steel support beams.  

And every other fire in a modern steel and glass tower all over the world has always turned out the same, the sprinklers and the fire trucks win and extinguish the fire quickly.

But even if the Deep State took down WTC7 they waited eight hours. During that eight hours the NYFD fought a losing battle with pumper trucks to fight a fire where the remains of WTC 1 and 2 made it so hot they couldn’t fight the fire from that side.

Nope. The sprinklers were not in all areas. 

The hotel was not equipped with a fire sprinkler system. The area with the most fire prevention was in the money counting area, not in individual rooms or on the casino floor.[33] The county's fire chief had been concerned that such a fire could occur, as older hotels built prior to 1979 were not required to have certain fire safety features.[24][34] Nevada governor Robert List said, "You can't force people to bring hotels up to codes that didn't exist when they were built."[24] For years after its opening, the resort had declined orders to install a second fire hose in one of its showrooms. As of June 1980, only 20 percent of fire safety violations – discovered two months earlier by inspectors – had been corrected.[35]

Vegas » 13 Aug 2023, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 9:48 am

1. That just simply isn't true. The navy has been making drones, that could carry heavy bombs, since the late 70s. They were really upgrading their tech from 1995-2004. 

2. Maybe not crisis actors, but they were either propped there and lying, or mistaken.

         1.  All the sources I researched state the first use of an Armed Drone by our Military was 2001 in Afghanistan... Again, it is reported as being an M-1 Predator, used to carry Anti Tank Missiles... I could find nothing regarding the Navy having UAVs that could carry heavy bombs prior to 9/11 2001... Do you have a source?.. Lots of development was being worked on at the time, but nothing I could find regarding a Drone with the capabilities you are saying.

       
 

Kobia2 » 13 Aug 2023, 5:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 5:36 pm

         1.  All the sources I researched state the first use of an Armed Drone by our Military was 2001 in Afghanistan... Again, it is reported as being an M-1 Predator, used to carry Anti Tank Missiles... I could find nothing regarding the Navy having UAVs that could carry heavy bombs prior to 9/11 2001... Do you have a source?.. Lots of development was being worked on at the time, but nothing I could find regarding a Drone with the capabilities you are saying.

       

There are actually few others, not just this one. This was around the time that our military was developing more advanced UAVs, from the earlyn 90s to early 2000s. 

Again, I am not saying that this is what happened. However, it could have. There are some problems with my theory, I agree. But it would explain a lot. Witnesses could easily mistaken this as an airplane. They are able to carry up to 2000 lbs of explosives. 

Mini- and micro-versions of UAVs were introduced in 1990, and the famous Predator drone was introduced in 2000. This was used in Afghanistan to launch missiles and in the search of Osama Bin Laden. 

https://interestingengineering.com/inno ... icles-uavs

Vegas » 13 Aug 2023, 5:41 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2023, 5:41 pm

There are actually few others, not just this one. This was around the time that our military was developing more advanced UAVs, from the earlyn 90s to early 2000s. 

Again, I am not saying that this is what happened. However, it could have. There are some problems with my theory, I agree. But it would explain a lot. Witnesses could easily mistaken this as an airplane. They are able to carry up to 2000 lbs of explosives. 

https://interestingengineering.com/inno ... icles-uavs

        Both of your sources reference what I had already referenced myself..... The first use of an Armed UAV was the MQ 1 Predator in 2001 (in Afghanistan) after 9/11...  Your source has a picture of the same Predator Drone I already posted.... Prior to this, the MQ 1 Predator was used for surveillance / reconnaissance ... It was modified to carry Hellfire MIssiles after 9/11 in 2001... There was nothing in use prior to this that carried "heavy bombs".

        So again, the MQ 1 Predator was a Single Propeller powered craft with a top speed of 135 MPH.... It was 26.8 feet long, with a wingspan of 41.8 feet and weighed 1,131 lbs..

        A Boeing 757 is a Commercial Jet Aircraft with a top speed of 550 mph... It is 155 feet long, with a wingspan of 125 feet, and weighs 240,000 lbs.  

         I think there is a greater likelihood  of Maxine Waters being mistaken for a Playboy Playmate, than a Predator Drone being mistaken by anyone for an American Airlines Boeing 757...