Jump to content


Eric Carmen

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes-- I've watched that entire series of videos and they are disturbing and very interesting.

I wasn't a "conspiracist" either. I believed what I heard from the government.

I started to question when I realized they were much more interested in finding Saddam Hussein than Osama Bin Laden. When I started to research a little I found that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive. From that point--quite a few months ago--I've been reading and watching everything I can find.

I think these are disturbing, too.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only three high rise buildings with steel cores in history that have ever collapsed, supposedly because of extreme temperatures and fire. That would be buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the World Trade Center. Steel doesn't melt until it reaches 2500 degrees. The fire caused by burning jet fuel at the WTC could only reach 1200 degrees, and would have gone out and cooled when the fuel ran out. Weeks after 911 there were still "hot spots" burning in the rubble that were over 2000 degrees. That can't happen with jet fuel, but it CAN happen with thermite, which initially burns at up to 4500 degrees, easily hot enough to melt steel. They also found iron and sulphur, byproducts of thermite, in the debris. Neither the steel from the buildings, nor the aluminum from the planes would create those compounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are the thousands of experts in this field from all over the world who would agree with these assertions and why aren't they camping out at the doorsteps of congress and at media buildings ready to expose this? Can you imagine the breath of the conspiracy necessary not only from an operational standpoint but also from a media standpoint? Didn't Popular Mechanics address this science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The steel wasn't "melted" in the classic sense. Here is the answer :


And how many high rise buildings have ever been slammed into by passenger jets filled with fuel? Steel doesn't suddenly liquify at 2500 degress. It starts getting soft at much lower temperatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put aside the blog itself, it correctly quotes Farid Alfawak-hiri, a senior engineer of the American Institute of Steel Construction who says that steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees. This a key scientific point - let's debate that. Show me a scientist or engineer (a real one) who says that isn't so. Don't we all have the common experience that stuff gets soft before it melts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you know what else I'm going to do? Contact my brother who has a Phd in engineering from the University of Florida, was on the Faculty at Virginia Tech and is currently a widely published research engineer. I'm asking him for scientific articles on the engineering issues involving loads, loss of steel strength at different temperatures etc. That's it, I'm going to get my big brother - you'll see!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought that the terrorists themselves were shocked when the buildings came down in such a way. Weren't they trying to hit them as low as possible and hope they would go over? Wasn't that what they were trying to accomplish in the first attacks by putting a car with explosives in it in the basement? I really don't know I'm just guessing, can anyone enlighten me? confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it is worth... the FBI did at one point say that the original World Trade Center bombing project was financed in part by the illegal trade related to counterfeit goods including CDs. I guess they'd do whatever it takes to make money for the cause. Drugs, CDs, clothing, oil. Related to all the conspiracies... sometimes the simplest answer is the correct answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WTC was actually built to withstand a plane crashing into it:


And as for the media:

Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an

independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you

who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know

beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for

keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others

of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who

would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the

streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper,

before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of

the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to

vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his

daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting

an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men

behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and

we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the

property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Now THERE'S a brave man! I've never seen that quote before, but it's an awesome read of the current situation. There was a concerted effort by the CIA , starting in the 50's, to infiltrate and control the media. What we see, read and hear is what we're supposed to read, see and hear. Once you understand this, it makes watching the news much more interesting. Sometimes, you can actually hear them laying the "groundwork" for something that hasn't yet happened.

As an example, there was one day last week, when, out of the blue, Obama said "the greatest danger to America" was "terrorism from Southeast Asia." That same day, the news ran a story about how there would "most likely be a biological, nuclear or chemical attack on American interests by 2112."

When I see that stuff, a red flag goes up, and I wonder if we arent' being "prepared" for the next attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Well, well, well: a new book, The Legacy of Secrecy, on the JFK/RFK/MLKing killings --- with reporting on mafia leader Carlos Marcello's 1985 confession to the FBI that he killed JFK.

'Yeah, I had the son of a bitch killed," he said. "I'm glad I did. I'm sorry I couldn't have done it myself!"

The FBI kept the confession secret for more than two decades, according to the book. I haven't read it yet, but have seen news and reviews about it:



Anybody else pick it up?

The lone-gunman-Oswald theory might just be a "fairy tale" (as one writer put it) after all....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Create New...