Sunday, September 11, 2011



Putin: Who gave NATO right to kill Gaddafi?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Rothschild led 'New World Order' orders the USA,Britain and France around like a pig with a ring in it's nose.

Surely there have been British casualties ?

If there are, are they being 'sneaked' back in as Afghanistan casulaties ?

Another NWO war of which it is none of Britains business.

Anonymous said...

Just to go off topic a bit,but today is the 10th anniversary of the biggest inside job,false flag attack in history-9/11.I saw bush on a friends t.v today still spouting the official kosher establishment version of what is supposed to have happened on that day.It made me think of one simple question to ask all those tooljobs who still believe the official version-WE HAVE SEEN THE BLUEPRINTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE WTC TOWERS,WE HAVE SEEN THE METAL GIRDERS,THE TONS OF CONCRETE THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING-PLLLEEEAAAASE CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW AIRCRAFT FUEL COULD MAKE ALL THIS FALL DOWN IN SUCH A LOVELY STRAIGHT LINE? ALL OF IT REDUCED TO DUST.HOW!!!???

Inspector Blakey
"i `ate you Griffin!"

Anonymous said...

How did the WTC fall down?

You only need to read what is on the web and in reputable scientific journals to find out.

The force of impact of such a large piece of metal flying at several hundred miles per hour must be added to the damage caused by the subsequent fire.

The aircraft fuel was not the only fuel that burnt.

The fuel set the aircraft itself alight. The metal, all the internal fixtures and fittings etc.

This fire set the inside of the building alight. All the furniture, internal fixtures and fittings etc.

The impact alone must have cracked or shattered much of the building at point of impact.

The heat from the fire would cause the steel girders and steel fixing rods inside the concrete beams and pillars to expand. This would crack the concrete cladding from the steel reinforced concrete beams/pillars thus exposing the steel to even more heat and thus more expansion and concrete being subsequent pushed off from the steel reinforcing bars.

Steel burns at high enough temperature. So the exposed steel girders and reinforcing bars would then burn, melt and break.

Once the structure was weakened, the weight of the floors above would push down and crush the floor where the impact occurred.

This would create a downward impact that would weaken the floor below.

So now you have all the floors above the plane impact point, plus the weight of the floor where the plane first hit, plus the weight of the floor below.

The next floor down then collapses, adding more weight that is bearing down on the next floor down and so on.

A each floor gives way, another floor's weight is added.

More and more weight is added, so the collapse accelerates.

There were 3 main sources of energy applied to the building.

1)The impact of the plane
2)The subsequent fires
3)The increasing weight of the building as it fell.

Each of these energy souces may not have been enough to collapse the building on their own, but together they certainly provided enough energy.

Why did the building fall so neatly and not topple over?...especially as the plane impact was on one side only.

The plane impact was not enough on its own to collapse one side of the building. Although damaged, the building withstood this impact.

The subsequent fires must have spread almost instantaneously throughout the floors near the plane impact, so damaging the steel and concrete beams/pillars laterally across the building.

The plane impact was not near the bottom of the building.

If it had been, it is possible that one side of the building would be damaged a bit more and a bit sooner than another. This would cause tilt.

The further towards the base of the building that tilt occurs, the greater the tilt at the top.

One inch down at one corner of the ground floor means many feet of tilt at the top.

In this situation, the gravity exerty on the top floors would pull the building down and to one side.

But the plane hit the building near the top.

It is just possible that tilt may not have occurred at all as the fires must have spread almost instantaneously.

But if tilt did occur at the impact floor, as is quite likely, it would not cause such a large tilt at the top floor.

The floors above the impact floor would then tend to crash down without toppling over to one side.

Further, the floors above the impact floor did not suddenly crash down. The beams/pillars did not immediately fail. It took a while for the fires to damage them enough to cause failure.

When they did fail, the floors above would have also suffered damage due to the rising heat, but their structure was still intact and thus holding those floors together.

Those floors then fell as an intact unit. That unit was not tall enough compared to its width to over come the vertical pull of gravity enough to topple sideways.

It went straight down and as it did it added ever more weight to its striaght down path.

Anonymous said...

re anonymous 16.44-lol! dream on sir! is that you Mr obama or you mr Bush? or is it Hans Christian Anderson? more fairy stories from someone who needs their kosher head examined- "my Goverment would never do a false flag,its the muslims dunnit innit!". Yeah right!

Anonymous said...

Not a good idea to piss the Russians off.

Have you seen the size of the Russian fleet ?

Anonymous said...

"GOON SQUAD"




http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2011/09/even-jews-know-israel-was-behind-false.html

Anonymous said...

"re anonymous 16.44-lol! dream on sir! is that you Mr obama or you mr Bush? or is it Hans Christian Anderson? more fairy stories from someone who needs their kosher head examined- "my Goverment would never do a false flag,its the muslims dunnit innit!". Yeah right!"

This is irrelevant.

I did not say that the Muslims carried out the attack or deny that the US government somehow was responsible.

I just explained how the building fell down straight.

So what is your answer?

Just a hail of abuse?

Typical of conspiracy theorists.

What you object to is not my analysis but the threat of any analysis to your settled way of thinking.

To show that the US government was responsible, you have to try harder than simply saying the building could not have fallen down so straight and neatly.

Buildings in controlled demolitions do so routinely...and for the reasons I stated before.

The difference with the twin towers was that, instead of explosives being placed against the main pillars being detonated all at once, planes loaded with aviation fuel hit the sides of the buildings and spread fire...and therefore a lot of heat...to all the pillars almost at the same time.

Instead of explosives being applied to the pillars, heat was applied. That heat expanded the steel within the concrete and therefore 'blistered' it off, thus exposing the steel core to even more heat.

Heat expands steel.

Steel burns when subjected to high temperature.

Steel melts when subjected to high temperature.

This is not a dream.

When the steel was heated enough it either melted or broke under the weight of the floors above. Either way, the steel failed.

Once the steel in the pillars failed, the effect was the same, whether heat was the cause or explosives as used in a controlled demolition.

The question that remains is what caused the steel in the pillars to fail?

Was it the planes and subsequent fires and heat?

Or some evil plotters putting explosives against the main pillars...and waiting till the planes had crashed before detonating those explosives by remote control?

I suggest the planes supply the most plausible answer.

The plane impacts could certainly have brought down the buildings, for the reasons already stated, without the need for extra explosive charges to be placed against the main pillars.

If the 9/11 attack was done by the US government, then it would have somehow arranged or provoked the plane crashes.

Why would the US government then also arrange to place explosives next to the main pillars, when that would have been entirely unnecessary?

Once the US Government had arranged for the plane crashes, it need not have done anything more.

Secondly, when a building is brought down with explosives in a controlled demolition, the concrete is removed from the main pillars and explosive charges placed against the steel to cut through it.

If this is not done, then an enormous amount of extra explosive has to be used to cut through both the concrete and the steel core.

How do you suppose either...

someone was able to hack off the concrete from the main pillars without anyone noticing?

or...

someone was able to place large sacks of explosives against the main pillars without anyone noticing?

Maybe you have an answer and if so it would be interesting to read it.

But then would mean you would have to think and make some effort.

Let's see if you can.

Anonymous said...

So what is the information coming out of Libya?

There are reports that in recent days, NATO-backed Terrorist forces have been repelled in Bani Walid and Sirt - and that over a thousand terrorist elements have been liquidated (pending confirmation). There are reports that two NATO helicopters have been brought down over Sabah and that all the NATO mercenaries inside were destroyed. A group of terrorists heading towards Bani Walid to terrorise its citizens was intercepted by the Alassabaa tribe and 35 of these elements were destroyed.

A ratfight (fight among terrorist groups) took place in Tripoli, today leaving 30 of this scourge dead.

There are reports that 35 British SAS operationals were liquidated in a successful defence against this illegal aggression by the Libyan Armed Forces and in Abu Saleem district at the weekend, 7 British special force elements were destroyed. On Tuesday, a large number of terrorist forces were liquidated by the members of the Al Magarra tribe south of Tripoli as they headed south. In Ghadamis, there are reports of two French special forces captured.

On the eastern front, 50 terrorists who tried to enter al-Brega were eliminated. The manipulated and biased press are saying nothing of NATO war crimes, violations of the UNSC Resolutions or the fact that the NATO/terrorist forces control around 30% of Libyan territory, at most.

On the legal front, David Cameron and William Hague have been aiding and abetting the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) group inside Libya which is proscribed on the FCO lists as a terrorist group. Therefore under the UK's own Terrorism Acts (2006), surely a crime has been committed by the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary?

The biased media has said nothing of NATO's continued war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Conventions, strafing civilians with helicopters, taking sides in an internal conflict, violation of the terms of the UNSC Resolution, attacking civilian structures and supplies with military hardware.

Anonymous said...

"There are reports..."

Where from?

The deepest recess of your demented mind?

or from some independent and reliable source?

(reliable source does NOT mean a bonkers web site)

If you are going to promote a controversial or shocking view, you really must back it up with evidence.

Frankly, I doubt this, not just because it is so fantastic but also because no evidence is quoted.

No evidence = no credibility.

Until you produce evidence, you are just a demented conspiracy theorist ranting into the wind.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

How did the WTC fall down?

Thermite found in the dust of WTC ?

How about the molten metal that was in the ruins for weeks?

What about Building 7 ? That wasn't hit?

Has it come to this ? What NF marches used to look like............