@sawno There's just one thing I found to be questionable. Steel melts at 2750 degrees, but under ideal conditions jet fuel tops out at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, so wouldn't that mean that jet fuel is NOT hot enough to melt steel.In the official reports they kept saying "for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt". However, then why are there witnesses and reports that there HAD been melted steel?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwgkA5rlwKIIt's a matter of question whether there had been melted steel or there wasn't any melted steel. And if there had been melted steel, and jet fuel only burns up to 1500 degrees which is not hot enough to melt steel, then WHAT THE HELL MELTED THE STEEL?As for this video you shared about building 7, BBC reported this event 26 minutes before it actually happened, there was a second clip that did show the time: 21:54. That’s 9:54 in England, 4:54 Eastern. Twenty six minutes BEFORE the building actually fell:
World Trade Center building 7, fell straight down at 5:21 pm that day. But look at the timestamp when it had bee reported that it would fall:http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/bbc911wtc7.jpgSo wouldn't that make the collapse of building 7 being reported 26 minutes earlier before it actually happened?
"I am sure you agree that earthquakes are far more of a disturbance then the airplane fitting the sides right?"Using that analogy, shoving someone is more of a disturbance than stabbing them.
Are you confused?
I know that they're abandoned monetary systems from the 60s and before as well as about the whole u. s dollar value thing and about the oil trade going down, but do you mind telling me how do these events lead upto the 9/11
I'm actually interested in knowing this side of this, on one's ever mentioned these economical agents as a cause.
This side of things*
So that's good then. In the time around the end of World War 2, the US dollar had became the World Reserve Currency, and it had been attached to gold at a fixed exchange rate of 1 ounce of Gold is equivalent to $35 US Dollars, and for a time, it was good. Prior to this, the British Pound held the role of being the World Reserve Currency.But then things happened result in the end of the Bretton Woods "Gold Standard" system of the Dollar. Biggest factors that lead to the end of this system is because of the Vietnam War, and the establishment of the Medicare and Medicaid systems.So on August 15th, 1971, Nixon had detached the Gold from the Dollar, and from that day on the Dollar became a fiat currency, which becomes a currency that is entirely "debt-based".
Because the dollar became debt-based without the Gold backing, they had to find a way to come up with something else to "back" the dollar and create a strong enough foundation to protect it from going into hyperinflation from printing more dollars.And guess what? They found a way.During the early 1970s, there had been an Oil Embargo in the Middle East, and OPEC had tripled the price of oil exports to the Western world. Countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya are ALL part of OPEC.
They had to act fast or things aren't gonna be good, that embargo would hurt because at that time America know they would be vulnerable, because they were importing about 70% of all the oil they consumed.That agreement document with Saudi Arabia indicated there had been a very important arrangement.In other words, the US made a very simple deal with the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia at the time know they are vulnerable from invasion from their neighbors and Israel, so what the US offered them is ABSOLUTE Military Protection in exchange for 2 very simple things:1- They would agree to exclusively accept the US dollar for ANY and ALL of their oil transactions to ANY and ALL other countries that want to buy oil from them. Exclusively accept the US dollar as means of payment and trade for their oil, in other words, if a country DO NOT have dollars, they need them first before they can pay and buy the oil they needed.
2 - That they would invest their surplus oil proceeds in U. S. Treasuries.The arrangement worked. Saudi Arabia had been chosen because of two very simple reasons, they had vast petroleum reserves and because they had the dominant influence in OPEC.Which meant eventually all of the Oil Exporting nations that are part of OPEC eventually followed suit, and they all agreed mutually to EXCLUSIVELY or ONLY accept the US dollar as the very means of payment and trade for their oil.And for a time it was good. Or rather I should say it WAS FUCKING BRILLIANT AND STRATEGIC! It was GREAT! It saved the US economy and the dollar despite the Gold Backing is gone, because then on, no worries. This is the beginning of "Petrodollar" system.Oil is bought and sold on the global market using the US dollars exclusively. Everything goes well, nobody had any questions or doubts nor discontent with it, until about 30 years later.Guess who decided one day they wanted to back out of this arrangement?
Betting on bin laden
But what I don't understand is that if we look at the records, all the previous bombings that we're carried out that took upto 244 lives at a time too, the truck bombing, the wtc bombings etc, what were they aimed at, given the Osama probably had the same 'anti America' motive
Because by logic, you've probably given me quite a lot to think, decent stuff, but I'm confused about the motive part here, if we consider that this indeed was a terrorist act.
No, it wasn't bin laden, he wasn't a leader or an official in charge of any of those countries that are part of the O. rganization of P. etroleum E. exporting C. ountries.It was Saddam Hussein. He defied the Petrodollar system. Announcing that his country would NO LONGER accept the US dollar ANYMORE for ANY and ALL of their future oil transactions. Instead, he wants to ONLY trade and sell his country's oil for Euros.This is not acceptable nor tolerable. If one OPEC nation does this, and if it results in a domino effect in which more or perhaps all OPEC nations decide to no longer accept the US dollar in any or all of their future oil transactions, then US economy would be in jeopardy. The petrodollar system established allows the US to accumulate as much debts as possible without having to worry about defaulting on those debts, so if this system is compromised or gone, it would become REALLY REALLY BAD, as in massive inflation of the US dollar, things would become so expensive.
There is a record of it here: edition.cnn.com/.../ He did announced that he wouldn't accept the dollar anymore, the title of the article might be a big confusing.
web.archive.org/.../ In case the other link don't work.As you can tell by the date of this record, that this incident occurred roughly about a year PRIOR to the events in September 11th. The US government know they have no choice, they absolutely need to do something about Saddam's big political move, they need to do whatever it takes to "fix" the Petrodollar system that had been compromised.
The motive ultimately is to go to war with Iraq at all costs because they have to fix the petrodollar system. It's hard to get public support, if they did not believe that there was some really serious threat to national security, and it's hard to get the public to understand and agree to support a war to fix the very thing, the very system that holds the economic system together.After the Iraq war happened, their oil transactions that were being made only in Euros had eventually been SWITCHED BACK to only in Dollars like it had always been before. And this would have been it.In case if you were wondering, Bush had been trying to find a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, etc. Trying to come up with anything, either an excuse in order to hold Saddam accountable and responsible for the events of September 11th.And did you know that NONE of the hijackers on September 11th had Iraq Passports? None of them are from Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Most of them were from Saudi Arabia.
And here's the record dated June 5 2003, titled "Iraq returns to international oil market" from Financial Times:web.archive.org/.../...national%20oil%20market.htmRead the part that said the following: "The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars - the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar."
Holy shit this links are gold
so you believe me and get what's happening now?
@stawrman One other video I want you to see is this in regards to "terrorists":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsIp1TDwFLsIn other words, they, the "terrorists" in actuality are mercenaries.
Man, trust me, I've been a skeptic and a debater for @ really long time, it's hard to convince me, but your explanation is genuinely brilliant.
Saddam Hussein was my favorite subject at a point and this entire withdrawal thing, I had known about it but I could never join the dots like you did.No wonder he obstructed the flow of oil in the international markets, and no wonder he pissed America off.
But I'm very amazed at how 4 terrorists managed to get through the security system, was the American security filled with that many loopholes?
Not four terrorists, I meant hijacking 4 planes, because that's not an easy deal anywhere let alone America
HERE'S A MAJOR TWISTPAKISTAN PAYED USA WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT PAKISTAN WAS INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT.THIS IS ULTIMATE CORRUPTION, they never even mentioned Pakistan in the commission report.
@stawrman I didn't connect the dots myself, somebody else did and presented it to me, at first I thought, probably just another conspiracy theory without anything official or any kind of official record, and then I cam across the links to confirm and verify the history of the US dollar on the Department of State website and as well as the Petrodollar being recorded in an official document released to the public by the Government Accountability Office and they part of the legislative branch of the US government and since the document even said "recycling petrodollars" that's when I start to go back and look at the materials previously presented to me over and over again from youtube, etc., and then I finally understood why things happened simply BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT WAS NECESSARY.The one thing that also shocked me is because NONE of the terrorists involved are even from Iraq or Afghanistan to begin with! MORE THAN half of them are all from Saudi Arabia:
en.wikipedia.org/.../Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacksEven all of the other members involved in plotting those attacks are also NOT from Iraq, Afghanistan nor even Iran? So does that make it awkward or questionable? Such as this guy who was considered to be the "principle architect" of the entire thing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed As you can see, he's from Pakistan.
@stawrman one other thing, even Osama bin Laden isn't an Iraqi, nor is he an Afghani, nor is he from Iran. Guess where he's originally from?
Saudi Arabia I guess?
But no Al omari was from Saudi ArabiaHow about Pakistan?
I remember the guy who caused the 26/11 in India was also from Pakistan
Masood Azhar that would be^ Yeah probably Osama was a Pakistani, not sure but.
Because even when they found him in hiding, it was in the city of abbotabad. He was hiding there with his family, before he was found and killed.
@stawrman "Saudi Arabia I guess?" you got it! But now you see what the history and relationship is between Saudi Arabia and the USA you'll understand things better.At one point it made me wonder how come when 9/11 victims tried to sue Saudi Arabia, why did Saudi Arabia threaten to sell $750 billion US assets if Congress passes bill that would let 9/11 victims to sue them?: www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-threatens-to-sell-us-assets-over-911-bill-2016-4One other thing, the petrodollar story does NOT simply end with the Iraq War, there's more to it.
remember, majority of those hijackers of those plans are indeed from Saudi Arabia if you check and confirm it from here: en.wikipedia.org/.../Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacksand not a single one of them are from Iraq, Afghanistan or even Iran.
@stawrman and then there's this video of Bush insisting that there is a connection or involvement between Saddam and Al-qaeda:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf5-wY0P-AAcoincidence? surprise, surprise
Check my response, it was ultimately about protecting the debt-based currency that the dollar had became. If it's too confusing, let me know. They needed the public's support in order to go to war with Iraq in other words, very difficult to do so without something like a terrorist attack. Because after those attacks happened Bush had been questioning and expressing his opinion on that he think Saddam could be involved in this incident.
no? its inside job. Dont be blind!
@pusyok Thanks Russian troll!
troll?watch some documentaries about 9/11 , get your shit together
@pusyok yep. we'll all get right on that
why do you think government of the usa killed so many it's people?
@pusyok Please tell me you're not getting paid for this
I am not.Damn I am so exicted
@pusyok thats good to hear
First off, I asked about what you feel, I haven't particularly mentioned a stand. B, there were seven towers, two were hit but a third one also collapseC, I'm not a skeptic but there is enough official news to prove the possibility of an inside job.
Taken a Stand*
There's no possibility of an "inside job". It's like saying the government killed all the newtown kids.
And how do you know that?
Okay Alex Jones
How are you sure about who's behind the 9/11 I meant.
Because I have the ability to accept that the world has changed and we have to change with it.
Wtf was that...
what about the third tower exactly inside job world has changed DA u proper dumb the world changes every second lol and depressing
By all means @BellePepper feel free to debunk my evidence i posted in my own opinion.I am not posting this to troll, i am posting this to wake people like you up who have been told the same lie so many times they started believing in it.If you want to get to me and convince me that my beliefs are false you are free to do so, but please provide logical arguments how a tower collapse can happen when controlled demolitions on other buildings have been so incredibly hard to execute even when they where of poorer state.
And no, i am not insulting anyone by standing up for these people and blaming the actual people behind the crime rather then what these same people told us to believe. The only insult you can do is being ignorant or dismissive of the fact they died. They clearly had no reason to die that day which makes it a tragedy. But this is not a tragedy we should keep revisiting, instead we should use it as a beacon to dig deeper and find out why it happened. Once you go down that rabbit hole the world will have a different shade which you are currently not willing to see. Because lets assume we are correct and it was staged. How would that change your world view?
@sawno you have no evidence. You have nonsense.
Bellepepper you have no evidence.
My evidence is common sense 😒
The evidence is in my opinion, but if i am talking nonsense please explain how the tower fell straight and how someone can report an event before it happened. Explain me your version of time and physics then we can argue who was behind it. I want you to open your eyes belle and actually look at the evidence because the official story simply doesn't comply with the laws of physics.
@sawno all I hear is how you spend too much time on conspiracy sites
And that was because my own logic led me there. Instead of me getting into an argument about your own motivations how about you start to debunk what i said as false. Because currently the only thing that is keeping your view the way it is is that you can't coprehend the people in power are that evil. Its why i find it important to open your eyes because they totally are.
Bellepepper, if you're going to treat thousand lives with common sense and denial, it's a shame.
@sawno buddy stop wasting your time on her, she doesn't have any knowledge about this event.
P funny to hear that from a boy too young to remember it happening.
Totally.I mean the plane must've crashed under your feet and you probably jumped off a hundred floors and landed on your feet and survives. True hero.
keep stomping your foot little boy. See how far it gets you
Sure thing grandma
Guys stop distracting the conversation with personal attacks. Belle, do you have arguments against the evidence itself?
@sawno There is no evidence of anything other than a terrorist attack
If you look closely to my opinion you would actually see my opinion is 90% evidence and 10% opinion. There is far less evidence for a terrorist attack that i can witness on the footage itself then the evidence i just provided you.So let me ask it differently, how do you debunk the building collapsing exactly like a controlled demolition in case of a terrorist attack scenario? I already presented you footage looking exactly like 9/11 without it being 9/11. Show me something to back up your arguments based on the actual live footage instead of 3d animations of what people have told you as those can be very easily made up.
90% denial and 10% ... look yo free so b bi
@sawno You have 0% evidence and 100% bs
Why do you find it so difficult to believe then? You clearly haven't looked or thought about it otherwise you would have debunked me.So explain me your reasoning behind this, why are you so defensive of your own view? Is it fear of the alternative? Because you are not arguing with logic or actual arguments, you are trying to shut my arguments down by insulting or avoiding the questions.
Look at her, she still can't give evidence. She can't understand pure English like lol dude.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Dude.Just refer to judgement day's explanation below, maybe then you'll find something 'sensible'
And sure, 'i love my government, I know they'll never do a such a thing'Absolute denial.
Most simple answer?3000 lives and you want the most simple answer?Throw in some evidences and let's make you believe in reality over pseudo reality
I don't think I've ever seen him say a thing that was rational, including the nonsense he's spouting here.
Oi,Keep your personal shit outta hereI'm asking you to give your support of why you believe whatever you believe, his explanation does add up provided you have knowledge of the events in the past.
You give yours, you might just have the most sensible explanation provided you have one.
I already gave my explanation, it's the official version that's been widely reported. That IS the most sensible explanation by far. None of the others even come close to being that sensible.It's quite simple. The official version makes sense. None of the others do.
@goodstaka check my response and it might help you understand WHY things just HAD TO happen. And since you brought up "start a war to find 'weapons of mass destruction' that didn't exist, you'll understand WHY that WAR was absolutely necessary.
@JudgmentDay Don't worry I get it. ;) $$$ 👁
@goodstaka currency and $$$, big things are at stake, can't just leave them as it is
Nobody 'thinks' it was an inside job, it's a pretty strong argument based on facts.
It's not nonsense, it's 3000 lives.
So rather than throwing emotional complaints I'd suggest you turn to logical and valid points to support your opinion.
the "facts" from those bullshit documentaries which have been proven plenty of times to be nonsense? Especially the things like the collapsing because of the fire are basic science which can be and have been proven wrong many times. bla bla the fire isn't hot enough to make the steel melt. For the 5000th time, it doesn't need to melt. It loses already at 600°C 50% of it's stability, at 1000°C 90%. It doesn't need to reach 1500°C, the 800°C or whatever it was were enough.
Dude. Just yesterday an official research concluded that the tower that wasn't even hit by the plane collapsed. Moreover, the fire was not sufficient to bring the entire tower down, something you'd expect TNT to.
the tower that wasn't even hit? BOTH towers were hit...and I just told you that the collapsing because of the fire has been proven many times by scientists all over the world. it's basic science. this is a waste of time. if you still believe 16 years later that it was an inside job, then it won't matter what I'm gonna say and everyone else in the world.
WTC CENTRE WAS A COMPLEX OF 7 BUILDINGS. TWO OF WHICH STOOD TALLER THAN THE REST WERE HIT BY THE PLANES. A THIRD TOWER CLEARLY NOWHERE AS HIGH AS THE OTHER TWO.GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT PAL.
That third tower? The lower tower? It wasn't hit by the planes, the two taller ones were.
And read the goddamn link, your own people have said that back then the reason they gave was in a rush. The research has pointed out it is not the fire.
and the tower I'm staying here is known as tower number 7. You have absolutely zero factual knowledge about this tragedy. Sad.
gratz, your link bases completely on this"The science is shaky at best – steel doesn’t begin to burn until it reaches around 2,800F, and official reports state the steel in WTC7 could only have reached a maximum temperature of around 1,100F."which I just told you why it's wrong, which you can easily check. it's the most basic science.like I said, waste of time if those are your facts. ridiculous
Now you're suddenly a scientist deflecting research reports.Man, patriotism isn't a bad thing, but denial is scary.
You can trust every person involved in this, unfortunately, if they're all linked to the government you're not going to be able to see anything.
@Yumix Not so much whether steel needs to melt or not need to melt, except there's contradicting information from witnesses that said they did witness melted steel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwgkA5rlwKI The question is moreso whether there IS melted steel?Or that there ISN'T any melted steel?Now if there really had been melted steel present there at that time, and jet fuel simply doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, then what the hell else melted that steel? That's the question @stawrman is trying to ask.
@JudgmentDay thank you for putting that in a better way
So, there's a large amount of work by Popular Mechanics from a few years ago which goes line by line and debunks every conspiracy that is physics-related, such as the one you're suggesting for example. I recommend you look it up. Since I doubt you're a mechanical engineer.
? your nuts mate. no building in the history of man has fell and was fully demolished like this building do u have eyes and a brain to see with. engineer for you eyes n mind not ours thanks. look at the fact in fact show any other building that has fallen in the same way that was not a controlled demolition... u just can't think out of the box they made for u lolz
Exactly my point, the kind of building collapse was unnatural, it has been proved.
... You are clearly not a mechanical engineer, or someone with even very basic understanding of engineering work, or you would not be saying what you are saying. I refer back to my earlier statement. You're believing what you want to believe, rather than what is supporting by science and evidence. I hope you find different ways of looking at things.
Omfg. Do you realize the entire debate is framed on the controversy over the commission report?A commission report is filed by the government. If it's an inside job, do you think someone's going to mention that?
I don't think you've read it, have you.
What part of the commission report are you trying to talk about?
The part where they wrote a book about their findings. What do you mean, "what part?" All of it.
Those are the findings we're debating about smartass.
... Read the book.
Make your point
... Read the book. You can read, clearly. So, read. Read the book.
I'm with this guy
Amen to that^
Your a parrot cool
Since you consider me an idiot, please debunk the arguments on my opinion with your own logic. Explain the physics to me and explain the predictive powers of the news channels. Once you can find a logical explanation that fits your world view please let me know because i am not seeing it.
ok, what's your first argument so I can shed light on it.
Suadi Arabia has long held a dislike to us. but we buy their oil soooo... they tolerate us. the third tower was brought down due to lose of structural integrity. meaning between the fire and falling dabry people couldn't go back inside. it was brought down by demolition.
My own arguments are in my own opinion. They have nothing to do with other countries, instead they deal with phtsics and time.
physics and time? how?
your in denial daddysir... haha daddysir says it all
that wasn't proof. you can't support your argument.
fuel does not melt metal1 2. fuel does not turn 100s of tons for concrete to dust 3 no building in history in history has fallen from a plane crushing into it please do some reasearch
tell me about tower 7
they were all self demolished
search tower 7
yes that the tower that had to be drought down. unstable, so boom. pile of ruble.
@peace123 actually your hand can melt some metals. But you don't need to melt metal to weaken it, you just need to heat it up.
that why car engines and body's melt while on the road and bicycles because then gain heat... what weaken the bottom layer were negledable heat was present? in detail its ok your free to choose if u want to lie or be truthful just don't harm others
@peace123 I said some metals melt in your hand, not all. If you know anything about metallurgy you will know 1,500 degrees will have a huge effect on steel. And if you know anything about cars, they generally under 500 degrees.
we r talking about the largest building in the world... tell me one thing... how and way tower 7 fell in the exact same way speed and manner...the end...ur in denial
@peace123 the plane damaged the support material (steel) when it impacted the tower. Then the heat from the fire weakened the steel even more until the steel can't hold up the weight of everything above it. This causes the top of the building to fall onto the lower parts of the building, putting a lot of force on the building. Thus the lower part collapses because the huge amount of force. If you are confused about forces, take a physics class.
Alright according to the framework of the buildings, it's like a series circuit, so if one system fails, the power system takes its load.By that logic, this person's logic is correct, but what we're debating here is on the basis of a research conducted very recently, which says the fire could not have contributed to the collapse of tower 7Infact, claims about the jet fuel or falling pieces igniting the tower have been regarded as 'incapable'.Hold on, I'll put the link here.
I wasn't talking about tower 7.
Having a lot of heavy debris hitting a building will results in a lot of force being applied to the building.
heat travels upward see your false and in denial stop talking... your making it worst for your self?
Okay so let's consider tower 7 collapsed due to falling debris and fire,Why was it's collapse or mention not made in the 9/11 report?
@peace123 hot air rises, not heat itself. Also falling objects go down, so when the heat caused the top of the building to fail, the building fell down. Do, I have to explain basic physics or is this good enough?
show a building in history that fell in the same manner Mr deluded
@peace123 we don't have much data on building falling due to high temperature and a huge impact at one time. If we are talking about tower 7, we don't have much data on huge buildings falling down next to other buildings while hitting the building with a lot of debris.
@Thisperson98 answer my question please
I can't debate upon physics, but if you search, there is no building in the history that has collapsed this way,Not supporting any side but just making it clear.