latest false flag attack?

[juan]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 03:24:39 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:

> On 16/09/18 22:45, juan wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:30:09 +1000
> > jamesd at echeque.com vomited:
> 
> > What was actually shown was the controlled demoltion of the twin towers.
> 
> Controlled by OBL perhaps.
> 
> But it didn't need any explosives, hand-positioned thermate, or the like 
> - the burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC.

	
	sure - because when the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crash, nobody was aware that planes have 'fuel' in them. 

	>nobody realized that "burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC" 

	can I dismiss the rest of your message as bullshit/? Anyway...

	...You can see a huge ball of fire when one of the planes(?) hit. Guess what was that fireball? Well it must have been fuel no? Oops, so it didn't burn inside the building. So even if your bullshit claim was true, the fuel is missing? 

	

> 
> I am a Brit and I don't know crap about WTC7, or the Pentagon, 


	OK. So you are ignoring substantial evidence showing that the official hollywood-style  conspiracy is bullshit, and parroting more bullshit of your own. 

	You could have taken 2 minutes to watch countless videos of the controlled demolition of WTC7 but instead you are parroting govt propaganda. Impressive. Not. 



> except to 
> suggest that if I were the terrorist in charge I'd have attacked the 
> White House, 


	wasn't the white house allegedly a target as well? Not that your musings about what you'd do if you were a 'terrist' prove anything at all anyweay...


> Congress, Senate, suchlike instead - but OBL was well-known 
> for antipathy to the New York financial world and the US military.
> 
	
	anybody who is not a complete piece of shit has total 'antipathy' for wall street and the US nazis. 

	So what woul be your point here? That the financial mafia and the US military are not legitimate targets by ANY standard? Excecpt of course the standard of the US military nazis themselves.



> But I do know a lot about metal (and more than enough about explosives, 
> and demolitions), and let me tell you, the jet fuel fire woulda done it. 
> No need for any explosives.
	
	So how is it that you "know a lot about metal"? Does your knowledge come from teh US military PSYOPS department? 



> 
> If a lot of men in black suits or keffiyas did somehow carefully plant 
> explosives and/or thermate in WTC (without anyone noticing), their 
> effort was wasted.
> 
> >> it  was surprising to me as I watched the second plane hit the second tower
> >> that it did no fall immediately.
> 
> 
> Actually that would have astonished me - the building weighs maybe 5000 
> times more than the plane, and is built to take huge wind side loads. 
> Getting knocked over by the plane crashing into it would be like you 
> getting knocked over by a pingpong ball.


	Well james nonsense is just a bit more comical than yours, whp claim that the demolition was caused by fire. 



> 
> But after the crash, the thermal protection on the interior steelwork 
> had been shattered, and the fuel started burning.

	yeah parroting US military propagnada like clockwork. 

	you mean the thermal protection was 'shattered' im the 200 floors of the two towers? OR at best it may have been damaged in PARTS of a COUPLE of floors?



> 
> The steel never melted, nor did it come close to melting - but there was 
> a lot of fuel, and the whole of two or so floors was on fire. That's a 
> lot of heat in one place. The word "inferno" comes to mind.


	so the whole building collapsed because a couple of floors burned. Yeah, you know so much about 'metals'. 


> 
> The temperature in the center of the floor would have been at least 
> 650C, and more likely somewhere around 700-800C. Even at 650C A36 
> structural steel has only 38% of its room-temperature yield strength. At 
> 800C it would be less than 17%.
> 
> How much steel do you think they put into something like WTC? - the 
> answer is, a little more than three times what's needed to stop it 
> collapsing.


	the answers is a lot of steel : now you 'expert on metals' apparently never considered the fact that such huge amount of metal is a huge thermal sink. In other words, vast majority of the structure was always at room temperature. And yet the whole thing collapsed in seconds.



> 
> 
> Ever seen a blacksmith work? 

	OK - enough bullshit.


> 
> The straight-down nature of the collapse might seem surprising, but it 
> isn't really - take a rod as long as the WTC was high, and tip it over 
> slightly. It takes a long time to get moving - but it only took ten 
> seconds for the WTC to collapse. There wasn't enough time for it to go 
> any way except straight down.


	so apparently you don't understand what controlled demolition is and you are unable to grasp the fact that big steel structures are not a house of cards that magically collapses under its own weight.

	The thing is, in the 'down' direction there were huge amounts of mass (the buildings...) so that was NOT, AT ALL, the path of least resistance, and so this comment 

	"enough time for it to go  any way except straight down' 

	is sheer nonsense. Time has fuck to do with anything whereas the fact that the  way down was blocked by the building itself is the reason why demolition is needed. 

	
> 
> The reason it collapsed so fast is interesting though 


	yeah, it is 'interesting'...