Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Ron on September 11, 2017, 10:25:40 PM
-
Trying to explain to my kids today how it felt that day... how it was being in disbelief not believing what you were seeing on that screen that morning, how the shock and the confusion came to all that day... how that day, along with a few others, will be remembered as the toughest day for me
How some people quickly forget that day... because they just can't fanthom it or care to remember...
How some people disrespect the police officers, the fire fighters, the soldiers ... the ones the helped, the ones that perished.
How some people do not respect the freedoms that we have, don't respect that the flag isnt meant for politics, and don't realize that you have a right to voice your opinion even if some people don't like it.
09-11-2001
-
man what a day, never forget where I was when I first heard about it.
Fuck people who disrespect the flag
good post Ron
-
Trying to explain to my kids today how it felt that day... how it was being in disbelief not believing what you were seeing on that screen that morning, how the shock and the confusion came to all that day... how that day, along with a few others, will be remembered as the toughest day for me
How some people quickly forget that day... because they just can't fanthom it or care to remember...
How some people disrespect the police officers, the fire fighters, the soldiers ... the ones the helped, the ones that perished.
How some people do not respect the freedoms that we have, don't respect that the flag isnt meant for politics, and don't realize that you have a right to voice your opinion even if some people don't like it.
09-11-2001
Very good post.
The story of flight 93 always gets me.
-
The first plane to hit the World Trade Center flew right above my head when I was walking near Broadway and West 4 street in lower Manhattan. Still to this day , I have never heard an engine roar so loud. There were dozens of people walking on the block at that time and not one person looked up. Everybody all at once sorta ducked down and froze. Nobody thought for a second it a low flying airplane.
I was living in Greenwich Village on Sep. 11, 2001.
Had lived there for years before and years after.
I always said "unless you lived BELOW 23rd street, 911 would be forgotten about by New Yorkers in a years time.
Little did I know that 16 years later it would be such a borderline meaningless day.
I don't have kids--but lots of you guys do.
Teach them...show them...tell them to never E V E R forget how many Americans died that day.
-
I honestly don't know how anyone could forget that day. Especially any American. I will never forget.
-
And yet many of your fellow countrymen believe the Bush administration brought the towers down with controlled explosions in order to invade Iraq (after blaming Bin Laden for the attacks whilst living in Afghanistan ???)
-
My ex-coworker(ex-manger) passed away on Flight 11 on his way to CA for his honeymoon.
Crazy stuff... Muzzy shit-skin murderers. Hope they enjoying their virgins ::)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1dxpMTFBg48/hqdefault.jpg)
-
And yet many of your fellow countrymen believe the Bush administration brought the towers down with controlled explosions in order to invade Iraq (after blaming Bin Laden for the attacks whilst living in Afghanistan ???)
iraq invasion was supposedly in no way connected to 9/11 or terrorism, it was because saddam apparently had WMDs, remember!?
i still remember exactly where i was when 9/11 happened. was in high street bromley (town on the outskirts of s east london). remember watching the first smoking tower on tv through the window of a department store.
the event kind of pales into insignificance for me now though given the number of civilian deaths caused by US led military campaigns since then.
-
iraq invasion was supposedly in no way connected to 9/11 or terrorism, it was because saddam apparently had WMDs, remember!?
i still remember exactly where i was when 9/11 happened. was in high street bromley (town on the outskirts of s east london). remember watching the first smoking tower on tv through the window of a department store.
the event kind of pales into insignificance for me now though given the number of civilian deaths caused by US led military campaigns since then.
the UKs justification to invade Iraq was a made up report by a schoolkid as opposed to any real evidence of WMD
In the days immediately following 9/11, the Bush Administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. A memo written by Sec. Rumsfeld dated November 27, 2001 considers a US-Iraq war. One section of the memo questions "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a US-Iraq War.[21] That administration opted instead to limit the initial military response to Afghanistan.[22] In January 2002, President Bush began laying the public groundwork for an invasion of Iraq, calling Iraq a member of the Axis of Evil and saying that "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."[23] Over the next year, the Bush Administration began pushing for international support for an invasion of Iraq, a campaign that culminated in Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council.[24] After failing to gain U.N. support for an additional UN authorization, the U.S., together with the UK and small contingents from Australia, Poland, and Denmark, launched an invasion on March 20, 2003 under the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678.[2]
Gets popcorn....
-
Was working on an extension for a paki in the middle of paki central fenham in Newcastle when it happen, hearing random bits on the radio then going home that afternoon and watching it on telly, the street seemed deathly quiet and deserted for the few days following, several random pakis apologised for what happened out the blue. The paki we were working for said they should have targeted military bases, he was more interested in spewing his hatered for india which he did every single day and would tell us how he hoped they start a war with Russia and India gets destroyed.
-
Was working on an extension for a paki in the middle of paki central fenham in Newcastle when it happen, hearing random bits on the radio then going home that afternoon and watching it on telly, the street seemed deathly quiet and deserted for the few days following, several random pakis apologised for what happened out the blue. The paki we were working for said they should have targeted military bases, he was more interested in spewing his hatered for india which he did every single day and would tell us how he hoped they start a war with Russia and India gets destroyed.
does his extension leak in?
-
How did building 7 fall down ???
-
How did building 7 fall down ???
it fell down..........
-
The official 911 story is total bullshit. Anyone who believes it is a fucking moron.
-
The official 911 story is total bullshit. Anyone who believes it is a fucking moron.
Please explain what you think happened and add your evidence to validate your theory..
-
Please explain what you think happened and add your evidence to validate your theory..
I (and others) have already, many times.
BTW, you're a moron.
-
I (and others) have already, many times.
BTW, you're a moron.
I admire your tenacity to the cause..
Tell me who have you put forward you theories to , apart from fellow getbiggers to try and seek justice for the people killed on that tragic day.
-
does his extension leak in?
More than likely, we were only contracted to do the footings, drainage, concrete floors and driveway so didn't see the end result, but what we did see was enough to know the end result would be a load of shite and the paki was always complaining to us about the lad running the company that managed the build.
-
I admire your tenacity to the cause..
Tell me who have you put forward you theories to , apart from fellow getbiggers to try and seek justice for the people killed on that tragic day.
Better yet, YOU tell me why you believe all of it.
-
Better yet, YOU tell me why you believe all of it.
I haven't said what I believe, you made the claim, I have a strange feeling you are one of those that just say "it doesn't look right to me" and proceed to shake your head.
You could try giving an alternative to the facts that two planes hit the towers, the towers collapsed and the collapse resulted in an adjacent building collapsing.
The floor is yours mate....
-
Please explain what you think happened and add your evidence to validate your theory..
HUGE amount of evidence and a new report has just concluded they were demolished
Jet fuel burns at 1100 degrees - steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees
Buildings fell at freefall speed - so how did lower floors not give ANY resistance
Buildings do not collapse from fire - Grenfell towers in the UK burnt for days and stood as has EVERY other building in history that has burned. Towers "fell" after 90 mins of just upper floors burning!!!!
Lift system in both towers was being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of 911
IF a crime scene, why was ALL the evidence (the rubble) removed within weeks and shipped to china
Thermite (Military explosive that melts steel) was found in every dust sample tested all round the world.
Reception of tower one blew up on impact of the plane 90 floors up?!!!
Building 7 was pulled. The fire brigade admitted it yet it takes weeks to rig up the explosives to demolish such a building
The Pentagon is the most filmed building in the world (CCTV) and yet not one camera caught sight of a plane
NO evidence a plane ever hit the pentagon - no metal / engines / luggage / bodies ...... Nothing
The only area destroyed at the pentagon were the accountants offices where £23 Billion had gone missing as reported on National TV on 10th September 2001
How can a man hiding in a cave in Afganistan have pulled this off ....... and then when America finally found him, they shot him and dumped his body at sea!!! ::)
and there is a LOT more proof is was an inside job ....
AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND THE ANSWERS INSTEAD OF JUST REMEMBERING
-
I was in school at the time. Didn't hear about it until I got home and could barely believe what I was seeing. Almost felt like I was watching a movie. The next day was probably the first time when something "political" totally dominated the conversation at school.
-
HUGE amount of evidence and a new report has just concluded they were demolished
Jet fuel burns at 1100 degrees - steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees
Buildings fell at freefall speed - so how did lower floors not give ANY resistance
Buildings do not collapse from fire - Grenfell towers in the UK burnt for days and stood as has EVERY other building in history that has burned. Towers "fell" after 90 mins of just upper floors burning!!!!
Lift system in both towers was being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of 911
IF a crime scene, why was ALL the evidence (the rubble) removed within weeks and shipped to china
Thermite (Military explosive that melts steel) was found in every dust sample tested all round the world.
Reception of tower one blue up on impact of the plane 90 floors below?!!!
Building 7 was pulled. The fire brigade admitted it yet it takes weeks to rig up the explosives to demolish such a building
The Pentagon is the most filmed building in the world (CCTV) and yet not one camera caught sight of a plane
NO evidence a plane ever hit the pentagon - no metal / engines / luggage / bodies ...... Nothing
The only area destroyed at the pentagon were the accountants offices where £23 Billion had gone missing as reported on National TV on 10th September 2001
How can a man hiding in a cave in Afganistan have pulled this off ....... and then when America finally found him, they shot him and dumped his body at sea!!! ::)
and there is a LOT more proof is was an inside job ....
AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND THE ANSWERS INSTEAD OF JUST REMEMBERING
I will address the first bolded point and wait for your evidence to counter it
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
enough here to counter all your allegations
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18
-
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
I like this one, its nice and succinct and user friendly
-
I will address the first bolded point and wait for your evidence to counter it
Only a few floors had fire on up high in the buildings - If these had collapsed there would have been resistance from the 80-90 floors below. There was none. Both buildings fell at free-fall speed. ALSO - There are many films of molten steel pouring out of the building, so molten steel required over 3000 degrees
My Father-in-Law is a respected Precision Engineer and he stated on the day itself that it was a demolition.
It takes a HUGE amount of skill to make any building fall into its own footprint let alone 3 - 2 of which were ridiculously tall.
-
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
I like this one, its nice and succinct and user friendly
Yep - Its you American's that believe all the bullshit you get told time and time again. Common sense and the views of the worlds top demolition experts should at lleast raise the questions, but you keep believing the morons who have been proven to lie to you
-
Only a few floors had fire on up high in the buildings - If these had collapsed there would have been resistance from the 80-90 floors below. There was none. Both buildings fell at free-fall speed. ALSO - There are many films of molten steel pouring out of the building, so molten steel required over 3000 degrees
My Father-in-Law is a respected Precision Engineer and he stated on the day itself that it was a demolition.
It takes a HUGE amount of skill to make any building fall into its own footprint let alone 3 - 2 of which were ridiculously tall.
errr...why have you moved onto the next one on the list, I would like to stay on the topic of the melting steel for now, as for the wreckage on the lawn at the Pentagon
(http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/pics/FAQ4/096b.jpg)
you need to start producing evidence not just parroting shit you have read on the web
-
Yep - Its you American's that believe all the bullshit you get told time and time again. Common sense and the views of the worlds top demolition experts should at lleast raise the questions, but you keep believing the morons who have been proven to lie to you
Im UK based...
And "common sense" isn't a valid form of evidence.
-
Can anyone come up with an alternative to the official story and validate it with credible verifiable evidence please.
If not lets at least show some respect for the people who lost their lives that day.
-
errr...why have you moved onto the next one on the list, I would like to stay on the topic of the melting steel for now, as for the wreckage on the lawn at the Pentagon
(http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/pics/FAQ4/096b.jpg)
you need to start producing evidence not just parroting shit you have read on the web
I didn't move on - Molten steel is seen pouring from the buildings. That's impossible from jet fuel fires.
Those pics were the ones released later in the day mate - first photographers and press on the scene saw no plane parts.
-
Can anyone come up with an alternative to the official story and validate it with credible verifiable evidence please.
If not lets at least show some respect for the people who lost their lives that day.
This is worth a watch regardless of your view
-
I didn't move on - Molten steel is seen pouring from the buildings. That's impossible from jet fuel fires.
Those pics were the ones released later in the day mate - first photographers and press on the scene saw no plane parts.
you just saying something doesn't make it true.....
Where's your evidence....?
heres the counter evidence to your molten steel
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
-
This is worth a watch regardless of your view
I don't watch videos I cant see it here but I hope it isn't one of those loose change shit things I prefer scientific evidence and information to validate that evidence.
Please post some,
-
I don't watch videos I cant see it here but I hope it isn't one of those loose change shit things I prefer scientific evidence and information to validate that evidence.
Please post some,
Believe what you like but ALL the actual evidence is in that documentary I posted the link to.
-
Believe what you like but ALL the actual evidence is in that documentary I posted the link to.
whats it called?
-
whats it called?
9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version
It will scare the shit out of you regardless buddy
-
HUGE amount of evidence and a new report has just concluded they were demolished
Jet fuel burns at 1100 degrees - steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees
Buildings fell at freefall speed - so how did lower floors not give ANY resistance
Buildings do not collapse from fire - Grenfell towers in the UK burnt for days and stood as has EVERY other building in history that has burned. Towers "fell" after 90 mins of just upper floors burning!!!!
Lift system in both towers was being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of 911
IF a crime scene, why was ALL the evidence (the rubble) removed within weeks and shipped to china
Thermite (Military explosive that melts steel) was found in every dust sample tested all round the world.
Reception of tower one blew up on impact of the plane 90 floors up?!!!
Building 7 was pulled. The fire brigade admitted it yet it takes weeks to rig up the explosives to demolish such a building
The Pentagon is the most filmed building in the world (CCTV) and yet not one camera caught sight of a plane
NO evidence a plane ever hit the pentagon - no metal / engines / luggage / bodies ...... Nothing
The only area destroyed at the pentagon were the accountants offices where £23 Billion had gone missing as reported on National TV on 10th September 2001
How can a man hiding in a cave in Afganistan have pulled this off ....... and then when America finally found him, they shot him and dumped his body at sea!!! ::)
and there is a LOT more proof is was an inside job ....
AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND THE ANSWERS INSTEAD OF JUST REMEMBERING
I have never seen so much fail, in a single solitary post.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/3be5f3d8597ec845227f80d9ae967db3/tenor.gif)
-
iraq invasion was supposedly in no way connected to 9/11 or terrorism, it was because saddam apparently had WMDs, remember!?
i still remember exactly where i was when 9/11 happened. was in high street bromley (town on the outskirts of s east london). remember watching the first smoking tower on tv through the window of a department store.
the event kind of pales into insignificance for me now though given the number of civilian deaths caused by US led military campaigns since then.
Bromley, what a shithole, I stayed there last year for two nights on "business" fucking dump.
-
Heres proof according to you goons that Bush did it ::)
-
9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version
It will scare the shit out of you regardless buddy
depends on your mindset when you sit down to watch these, unfortunately if people want to believe something enough they will swallow anything and ignore the facts, he is a review of the film on IMBD
I found "The Anatomy of a Great Deception" to be very interesting indeed. On the one hand, David Hooper recognizes that, on 9/11/2001, the World Trade Center towers were struck by airliners hijacked by Islamic extremists. The back story of Hooper's struggle to understand inconsistencies in the official narrative regarding the terrorist attack is very compelling, and his asking of an innocent question is, in fact, very likely the way that many began their quest for truth about the events of that day. On the other hand, while Hooper comes across as a sincere seeker of truth, much of what he says is scientifically inaccurate and much of the evidence he cites is either grossly exaggerated, intentionally misrepresented, contradicted by evidence he conceals or, in a few cases, materially altered in an attempt to deceive his audience. Following are a few examples of what I am referring to:
David Hooper claims that pre-planted demolition charges, suspiciously not mentioned in the official government reports, were present in the World Trade Center buildings and somehow set to explode as the airliners impacted. As evidence, he presents an audio recording made by a Ginny Carr, who was recording a business meeting in another building near the Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001. In the recording there can be heard two distinct crashing sounds approximately nine seconds apart, the second of which is considerably louder than the first. David Hooper tells us that the first crashing sound is a bomb going off in the basement of the WTC North Tower and the second is the plane crash. However, in the original recording (available at 9/11 Internet archive sites), the first crashing sound is actually somewhat louder than the second, and the scream of approaching jet engines can be heard before the first crash sound. It is clear, therefore, that the filmmaker cut off the beginning of the recording so as to conceal the sound of the approaching airplane, and tampered with the sound levels so as to make the second crashing sound louder giving the false impression that it was the plane impact. Based on the height at which Flight 11 impacted the building and the nine-second delay, the second crashing sound was most likely from elevator equipment, building rubble and/or aircraft wreckage falling and impacting the bottom of elevator shafts.
In another example of misrepresentation of evidence, a NIST computer simulation of the collapse of Building 7 is shown where the building facade appears to crumple like tissue paper as it collapses. However, NIST conducted two global collapse simulations for Building 7, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of the WTC North Tower, and one that did not include any debris impact damage. The simulation with debris impact damage closely resembles the actual recorded collapse event. The simulation shown in the film is the other simulation that differs significantly from actual events. David Hooper presents the wrong collapse simulation thereby giving the false impression that NIST scientists are either incompetent or trying to pull a fast one.
David Hooper also misleads his audience by concealing evidence that contradicts his theories. For example, the falling of the east mechanical penthouse of WTC Building 7 is shown only once in the film, but the seven second delay before the start of global collapse is not shown. In fact, virtually every depiction of the collapse of Building 7 in the film starts at the beginning of global collapse, when the north facade begins its descent, and is presented without a soundtrack. The reason for this is obvious. The falling of the east penthouse, the seven second delay before the start of global collapse, and the utter absence of explosion sounds are contraindicative of intentional demolition, and completely consistent with the official explanation of the collapse mechanics.
It can also be irrefutably proved that video and photographic evidence is routinely misrepresented in the film. A prime example of this is when the filmmaker presents a still photo credited to the NYPD, that appears to show smoke emanating from the south side of the lobby level of the WTC South Tower. Hooper snidely informs the audience that the photo was obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the Freedom of Information Act (as if to infer it was only released reluctantly) and that it shows an unreported explosion in the lobby that occurred after the airliner crashed into the building. However, other photos taken on the same roll of film and part of the same FOIA release, clearly show that the smoke was actually coming from a white van parked on Liberty Street in front of the Marriott Hotel more than 200 feet from the South Tower. The van was one of several vehicles damaged or set ablaze by falling wreckage and/or burning jet fuel from Flight 175. The filmmaker had judiciously selected and chose to present the one photo from the film roll where the burning van is concealed behind a pedestrian bridge and where the smoke appears to be coming from the World Trade Center building in the background. Incidentally, photos on the NYPD film roll also show an undamaged (and not burning) South Tower lobby. A slideshow of all photos in the FOIA release can be viewed on YouTube by searching for "NIST FOIA 09-42 Release 4 / 42A0003-3of3 - 1/2" and "NIST FOIA 09-42 Release 4 / 42A0003-3of3 - 2/2".
There can be no excuse for distortions and fabrications such as those described above in a supposed documentary presented by an individual who claims to be seeking justice for the families of the 9/11 victims and who insinuates that the United States Government is responsible for their suffering. If I were one of the many financial backers listed in the closing credits, I would demand my money be returned and then distance myself from those responsible for this mockery.
-
This is worth a watch regardless of your view
I just watched the first 20 minutes of that video. Pretty much everything stated in the first 20 minutes is opinion based, and incorrect. Even the so called experts they are interviewing are spewing nonsense. ::)
-
I just watched the first 20 minutes of that video. Pretty much everything stated in the first 20 minutes is opinion based, and incorrect. Even the so called experts they are interviewing are spewing nonsense. ::)
See the above review, the film maker has lied and misrepresented evidence, that makes the entire thing invalid.
-
9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version
It will scare the shit out of you regardless buddy
Now Trev, the balls in your court to validate the evidence produced in the film or admit its nonsense.
-
I just watched the first 20 minutes of that video. Pretty much everything stated in the first 20 minutes is opinion based, and incorrect. Even the so called experts they are interviewing are spewing nonsense. ::)
As I say believe what you like but if you think 2 enormous buildings made from a lattice of steel can collapse at free fall speed after a few floors high up burned for 90 minutes you are deluded.
Building 7 was demolished after. BBC reported it had "fallen" with the building still standing in the background! - Go and seek out that new scientific report. Concludes it was a controlled demolition
-
See the above review, the film maker has lied and misrepresented evidence, that makes the entire thing invalid.
Seriously, the first 20 minutes are complete nonsense. I had to shut it off. I hope this video isn't what Trev is basing his decisions on. :-\
-
As I say believe what you like but if you think 2 enormous buildings made from a lattice of steel can collapse at free fall speed after a few floors high up burned for 90 minutes you are deluded.
Building 7 was demolished after. BBC reported it had "fallen" with the building still standing in the background! - Go and seek out that new scientific report. Concludes it was a controlled demolition
The buildings did not fall at "free fall" speed.
I've tried searching for "BBC scientific report World Trade Center 7". I cannot come up with anything. Can you provide a link to the report please?
-
As I say believe what you like but if you think 2 enormous buildings made from a lattice of steel can collapse at free fall speed after a few floors high up burned for 90 minutes you are deluded.
Building 7 was demolished after. BBC reported it had "fallen" with the building still standing in the background! - Go and seek out that new scientific report. Concludes it was a controlled demolition
what do you see here?
(https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/face.jpg)
-
Now Trev, the balls in your court to validate the evidence produced in the film or admit its nonsense.
Of course the documentary has this review. There is 90 minutes of evidence they don't question in it.
Validate what? - the facts are the facts. Both buildings fell at freefall speed. This is impossible if the collapse it caused by upper floors coming down. The floors below would offer some resistance before collapsing.
NO other buildings in history have ever collapsed due to fire and hundreds have burned from top to bottom
Molten metal poured from the building - Impossible from jet fuel fires and pools of it were found in the rubble burning at 1000's of degrees
-
Of course the documentary has this review. There is 90 minutes of evidence they don't question in it.
Validate what? - the facts are the facts. Both buildings fell at freefall speed. This is impossible if the collapse it caused by upper floors coming down. The floors below would offer some resistance before collapsing.
NO other buildings in history have ever collapsed due to fire and hundreds have burned from top to bottom
Molten metal poured from the building - Impossible from jet fuel fires and pools of it were found in the rubble burning at 1000's of degrees
then provide the scientific evidence to back up what you are saying, I have provided you with links to debunk all that you are claiming.
Jeez, the burden of proof isn't mine yet I have already provided you with counter evidence to your claims.
Now try again, where is your evidence...
-
what do you see here?
(https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/face.jpg)
Watch this from 50 seconds in -
-
Of course the documentary has this review. There is 90 minutes of evidence they don't question in it.
Validate what? - the facts are the facts. Both buildings fell at freefall speed. This is impossible if the collapse it caused by upper floors coming down. The floors below would offer some resistance before collapsing.
NO other buildings in history have ever collapsed due to fire and hundreds have burned from top to bottom
Molten metal poured from the building - Impossible from jet fuel fires and pools of it were found in the rubble burning at 1000's of degrees
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tehran-s-iconic-plasco-building-collapses-after-fire-iran-state-n708721
-
Watch this from 50 seconds in -
no. answer the question, what do you see in the picture?
-
then provide the scientific evidence to back up what you are saying, I have provided you with links to debunk all that you are claiming.
Jeez, the burden of proof isn't mine yet I have already provided you with counter evidence to your claims.
Now try again, where is your evidence...
Sheep will be Sheep - You will never see what's in front of your eyes and that's fine. I am sure you believe all the BBC tells you too :)
-
no. answer the question, what do you see in the picture?
A shadow of a tree why what do you see?
-
Sheep will be Sheep - You will never see what's in front of your eyes and that's fine. I am sure you believe all the BBC tell you too :)
???
BBC reported it had "fallen" with the building still standing in the background! -
didn't you just quote the BBC to back your argument?
and if the BBC made some comment I thought didn't sound right I would investigate it and try and find out the truth, not just tell people the bbc doesn't sound right.
-
A shadow of a tree why what do you see?
Exactly....
So why do you see things that are not there regarding 9/11?
-
???
didn't you just quote the BBC to back your argument?
Exactly - watch the clip that was broadcast LIVE - The BBC reporting that building 7 has collapsed with it still standing in the background. You should not believe all you are told.
-
Exactly - watch the clip that was broadcast LIVE - The BBC reporting that building 7 has collapsed with it still standing in the background. You should not believe all you are told.
so, are you now basing your entire argument on the BBC coverage, because up to now everything else has been debunked?
-
Trying to explain to my kids today how it felt that day... how it was being in disbelief not believing what you were seeing on that screen that morning, how the shock and the confusion came to all that day... how that day, along with a few others, will be remembered as the toughest day for me
How some people quickly forget that day... because they just can't fanthom it or care to remember...
How some people disrespect the police officers, the fire fighters, the soldiers ... the ones the helped, the ones that perished.
How some people do not respect the freedoms that we have, don't respect that the flag isnt meant for politics, and don't realize that you have a right to voice your opinion even if some people don't like it.
09-11-2001
Very painful ...... each year we remember and when we see/relive those images , it always feels like the first time ....
Nothing has ever been remotely the same ever since ...... Bin Laden Fucked up us and the rest of the world as well .
WoooSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H
-
so, are you now basing your entire argument on the BBC coverage, because up to now everything else has been debunked?
No - nothing has been debunked at all. There are far more experts who know the 3 buildings were demolished than those who appose it.
The BBC clip was just something for you to watch to see if that might make you question at least something. That clip cannot and has not been debunked.
-
How did building 7 fall down ???
saw a documentary on that couple days ago...apparently, Building 7 had some fire in the top floors and it melted some of the key support columns and it gave away and collapse....the collapse of the twin towers started many fires in the surrounding buildings....looking back at those footage, this was powerful....one of the image that still resonate with me was 4 cars in the street piling on top of each other like pancakes and it was later found that the force of those towers falling sent a shockwave so powerful that it lifted these cars like toys..... :o
-
these conspiracy theorists should have been blown up that day as well...that'd be one less stupidity to deal with....
-
And yet many of your fellow countrymen believe the Bush administration brought the towers down with controlled explosions in order to invade Iraq (after blaming Bin Laden for the attacks whilst living in Afghanistan ???)
That's just mental illness.
-
No - nothing has been debunked at all. There are far more experts who know the 3 buildings were demolished than those who appose it.
The BBC clip was just something for you to watch to see if that might make you question at least something. That clip cannot and has not been debunked.
Everything you have posted up to now I have countered with evidence, you have not posted any evidence at all apart from your claims, when I have provided evidence you have just ignored it, the molten metal has been explained, the fact you claimed no other buildings have collapsed after a fire has been proved to be untrue, the fire in Iran was given as evidence
I saw the clip on the BBC , the reporter said the building had collapsed when it was still visible.
Agreed, so, what do you think the reason was behind that?
-
Is there any example of how buildings normally collapse? Or of planes crashing into structures and the end result?
-
Is there any example of how buildings normally collapse? Or of planes crashing into structures and the end result?
buildings don't normally collapse.
Planes seldom crash into structures, a small plane hit the Empire State Building and caused minimal damage
-
buildings don't normally collapse.
Planes seldom crash into structures, a small plane hit the Empire State Building and caused minimal damage
I'm just trying to establish a baseline.
If the results of an unusual event (planes crashing into buildings) are unusual (buildings collapse) I'm just curious as to what should have happened?
-
I'm just trying to establish a baseline.
If the results of an unusual event (planes crashing into buildings) are unusual (buildings collapse) I'm just curious as to what should have happened?
there is no what should have happened.
Its what did happen....
-
there is no what should have happened.
Its what did happen....
Agreed.
I want to know what was expected to happen in this scenario . If the floors weren't supposed to crash on top of one another (and I understand the thought is that they wouldnt) I'm assuming they were designed to withstand the additional weight of a full sized plane?
-
Everything you have posted up to now I have countered with evidence, you have not posted any evidence at all apart from your claims, when I have provided evidence you have just ignored it, the molten metal has been explained, the fact you claimed no other buildings have collapsed after a fire has been proved to be untrue, the fire in Iran was given as evidence
I saw the clip on the BBC , the reporter said the building had collapsed when it was still visible.
Agreed, so, what do you think the reason was behind that?
No you have just posted the other view not actual evidence ..... So one Iranian building fell down due to fire, hundreds haven't.
ALL my evidence is there to be seen and backed up by scientists and demolition experts. You only have to view other buildings being demolished to see that the towers and building seven were demolished as they fall in EXACTLY the same way.
Believe the story you are fed by the media, doesn't bother me
-
Agreed.
I want to know what was expected to happen in this scenario . If the floors weren't supposed to crash on top of one another (and I understand the thought is that they wouldnt) I'm assuming they were designed to withstand the additional weight of a full sized plane?
The buildings were an incredibly strong lattice of steel. They could withstand the weight of a plane and even if the above floors had collapsed, they would have offered some resistance. Instead there was no resistance at all - You can see the floors being blown out 1 at a time on ANY video of the collapse. Don't believe it, then compare it to other demolition videos. They are the same
-
The buildings were an incredibly strong lattice of steel. They could withstand the weight of a plane and even if the above floors had collapsed, they would have offered some resistance. Instead there was no resistance at all - You can see the floors being blown out 1 at a time on ANY video of the collapse. Don't believe it, then compare it to other demolition videos. They are the same
Airbags are designed to release upon impact however it doesnt always happen.
I understand the concept of structural strength and also understand your point. But it is possible the building collapsed without demolition explosives, despite being designed otherwise.
-
Airbags are designed to release upon impact however it doesnt always happen.
I understand the concept of structural strength and also understand your point. But it is possible the building collapsed without demolition explosives, despite being designed otherwise.
Not at freefall speed. That can only happen with no resistance below. There were 80 floors below!!!
-
A milestone in media-fakery, CGI and propaganda...
-
Numerous flight schools had contacted the FBI about their suspicious behavior and they let it happen just like pearl harbor.
-
Wish Trump would release the sealed transcript of Bush and Cheney had with the 9/11 commission. The fact that Bush stamped it as forever classified is bullshit and that Bush wouldn't testify without Cheney in the room.
-
You got that right Ron
-
these conspiracy theorists should have been blown up that day as well...that'd be one less stupidity to deal with....
3000 architects & engineers know the truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
-
3000 architects & engineers know the truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/
hahahaha. go and read some of the Architects 9/11 comments in their profiles
Deane Rykerson
I have always wondered about the inconsistency of heat and damage mid-structure and structural failure at the base of the buildings. After this evidence, I am convinced that more investigation is needed
she sounds like you FFS....
The others just set to be saying "it doesn't look right" fuck me, not one theory as to how they got the explosives in there but all seem to bang on about it being a controlled demolition.
-
Sheep will be Sheep - You will never see what's in front of your eyes and that's fine. I am sure you believe all the BBC tells you too :)
8)
-
(http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/18194603_10210154786879015_8401904169547439787_n.jpg)
(http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/.a/6a0177444b0c2e970d01b8d29a57b4970c-pi)
-
Is there any example of how buildings normally collapse? Or of planes crashing into structures and the end result?
Isn't that the issue, Dave D?
Since we have no other instances of planes crashing into buildings, we have no strong experimental foundation for what what would happen if a plane hit a building. There is no way that such a phenomena could be repeatable, testifiable, or observable. We only have ONE instance. It definitely helps the credibility of a hypothesis when it can be observed against the backdrop of other similar instances.
Now, of course, I agree with BeThere/UKJEFF. But, I do get what you're saying--having a baseline measure would strengthen the current hypothesis.
-
I had just flown back from London to Australia and I remember waking up jet lagged to see that footage on the morning news. Man it was a freak out and I've watched different doco's like '10 years on' on YouTube. It's never failed to shock me and the Jumpers shocked me more than anything else.
I'm really surprised how little coverage 9/11 now gets.
-
.. lets at least show some respect for the people who lost their lives that day.
Well put.
It was a terrorist attack on the people of the United states from a group of evil-doers bent on destroying everything America stands for.
There is NO CONSPIRACY.
It happened.
-
How did building 7 fall down ???
Just like this. Keep on mind that it has been claimed to collapse at the speed of free fall.. ;D
-
The official 911 story is total bullshit. Anyone who believes it is a fucking moron.
Here again wit your bullshit claims? Are you now able to point out some real explosions from the original 9/11 videos? Here is little example for you, so you can see what is the speed of real explosion:
-
HUGE amount of evidence and a new report has just concluded they were demolished
Jet fuel burns at 1100 degrees - steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees
Buildings fell at freefall speed - so how did lower floors not give ANY resistance
Buildings do not collapse from fire - Grenfell towers in the UK burnt for days and stood as has EVERY other building in history that has burned. Towers "fell" after 90 mins of just upper floors burning!!!!
Lift system in both towers was being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of 911
IF a crime scene, why was ALL the evidence (the rubble) removed within weeks and shipped to china
Thermite (Military explosive that melts steel) was found in every dust sample tested all round the world.
Reception of tower one blew up on impact of the plane 90 floors up?!!!
Building 7 was pulled. The fire brigade admitted it yet it takes weeks to rig up the explosives to demolish such a building
The Pentagon is the most filmed building in the world (CCTV) and yet not one camera caught sight of a plane
NO evidence a plane ever hit the pentagon - no metal / engines / luggage / bodies ...... Nothing
The only area destroyed at the pentagon were the accountants offices where £23 Billion had gone missing as reported on National TV on 10th September 2001
How can a man hiding in a cave in Afganistan have pulled this off ....... and then when America finally found him, they shot him and dumped his body at sea!!! ::)
and there is a LOT more proof is was an inside job ....
AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND THE ANSWERS INSTEAD OF JUST REMEMBERING
And of course, that is all crap. For example, do you know what energy density means? If jet fuel energy density would be so low that it burns at 1100 degrees, it couldn't run the jet engine, so there has to be something wrong with that claim? And where exactly is the evidence about the molten steel? There is no such thing, like there is no evidence of free fall speed etc. It is all tin foil hat bullshit, just like your claim that buildings doesn't collapse from fire? You see this thing first time at the history of mankind, and you somehow know it is impossible? Why do you need evidence for known facts, but you don't hesitate at all to believe some futile internet crap? Why do you believe these tin foil hat lies rather than facts? Just think about it..
Here is some facts for you:
-
-
And of course, that is all crap. For example, do you know what energy density means? If jet fuel energy density would be so low that it burns at 1100 degrees, it couldn't run the jet engine, so there has to be something wrong with that claim? And where exactly is the evidence about the molten steel? There is no such thing, like there is no evidence of free fall speed etc. It is all tin foil hat bullshit, just like your claim that buildings doesn't collapse from fire? You see this thing first time at the history of mankind, and you somehow know it is impossible? Why do you need evidence for known facts, but you don't hesitate at all to believe some futile internet crap? Why do you believe these tin foil hat lies rather than facts? Just think about it..
Here is some facts for you:
-
Right on cue. Thank god we have Ropo here to clear all these things up.
What facts?... they are facts because you say they are?
What an ignorant sheeple retard you are.
-
Here again wit your bullshit claims? Are you now able to point out some real explosions from the original 9/11 videos? Here is little example for you, so you can see what is the speed of real explosion:
Ropo the retard.
-
And of course, that is all crap. For example, do you know what energy density means? If jet fuel energy density would be so low that it burns at 1100 degrees, it couldn't run the jet engine, so there has to be something wrong with that claim? And where exactly is the evidence about the molten steel? There is no such thing, like there is no evidence of free fall speed etc. It is all tin foil hat bullshit, just like your claim that buildings doesn't collapse from fire? You see this thing first time at the history of mankind, and you somehow know it is impossible? Why do you need evidence for known facts, but you don't hesitate at all to believe some futile internet crap? Why do you believe these tin foil hat lies rather than facts? Just think about it..
Here is some facts for you:
-
Watch the videos from the day - Molten steel pouring from the building and you can watch them fall at freefall speed ::)
Jet fuel burns at around 1100 degrees is a fact by the way - Steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees.
-
Right on cue. Thank god we have Ropo here to clear all these things up.
What facts?... they are facts because you say they are?
What an ignorant sheeple retard you are.
They are facts because they are proved to be a facts, there is scientific evidence that they are facts. For example: Show me a video where we see some molten steel which is proved to be molten steel, not overheated aluminium? Fact is that your beliefs about the matter are based on denial of reality, and it that isn't stupidity, what is? ;D
-
They are facts because they are proved to be a facts, there is scientific evidence that they are facts. For example: Show me a video where we see some molten steel which is proved to be molten steel, not overheated aluminium? Fact is that your beliefs about the matter are based on denial of reality, and it that isn't stupidity, what is? ;D
one of the molten steel videos but I am sure you'll say its orange tango or something -
-
I still remember that day... i watched tv getting ready to do legs in the gym. Watched the news as always. And one tower started to show in smoke on the screen. Then the other plane flew in live just before my eyes! I could'nt even grasp it really. Thought it was a movie. Life changed for all of us that day.
-
errr...why have you moved onto the next one on the list, I would like to stay on the topic of the melting steel for now, as for the wreckage on the lawn at the Pentagon
(http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/pics/FAQ4/096b.jpg)
you need to start producing evidence not just parroting shit you have read on the web
No Plane parts at the Pentagon -
These photos mysteriously appeared for news channels later
-
No Plane parts at the Pentagon -
These photos mysteriously appeared for news channels later
Youtube videos made by conspiracy theorists are not evidence.
Trev, I have countered every single one of your claims with evidence based on scientific studies and trials, each time your claims have been debunked you have ignored it and moved on to something else.
Molten steel (debunked)
No building has EVER fallen due to fire (building in Iran)
I did agree with you that the BBC reporting of building 7 having collapsed when it was still standing as odd, now, why do you think they reported the building had collapsed when it hadn't, I have no idea, could you please shed some light on it?
-
They are facts because they are proved to be a facts, there is scientific evidence that they are facts. For example: Show me a video where we see some molten steel which is proved to be molten steel, not overheated aluminium? Fact is that your beliefs about the matter are based on denial of reality, and it that isn't stupidity, what is? ;D
LOL You didn't even watch the video.
You're an anti-conspiracy bot.
Please STFU.
-
Youtube videos made by conspiracy theorists are not evidence.
Trev, I have countered every single one of your claims with evidence based on scientific studies and trials, each time your claims have been debunked you have ignored it and moved on to something else.
Molten steel (debunked)
No building has EVER fallen due to fire (building in Iran)
I did agree with you that the BBC reporting of building 7 having collapsed when it was still standing as odd, now, why do you think they reported the building had collapsed when it hadn't, I have no idea, could you please shed some light on it?
The video was a live news report that aired once just like the BBC one. Proves there were no plane parts at the scene so why did later photos show there were.
Explain the BBC one? are you 3 years old? The BBC were obviously told too early what was going to happen - Just raises questions for anyone who is not a sheep
Again you haven't debunked anything - There was molten steel pouring from the building and it can only have been caused by a substance such as thermite.
Just look up the videos of some of the top demo guys in the world - Don't accept what governments tell you.
Said before my father-in-law is a precision engineer and to him and skilled people like him, it was obvious on the day that this was a demolition.
You keep harping on about that 1 Iran building but fail to see the obvious re the Towers. Did you ever visit them? I did - They were fuckin enormous. A fire 90 floors up would never cause them to fall down after 90 minutes ..... Building 7 - If you watch the video of it "falling" its obviously a demo. The fire brigade later admitted it - demos cannot be set up in a few hours ...
accept what the mainstream media and governments tell you if you like but deffo worth opening your mind just a little mate
-
Watch the videos from the day - Molten steel pouring from the building and you can watch them fall at freefall speed ::)
Jet fuel burns at around 1100 degrees is a fact by the way - Steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees.
How do you know it is steel? There is hundred of tons of aluminium in the building, and it melts at low temperature, but it boils only after 2500°C. What that means in real life is that aluminium would be at the liquid form something like 660°C -2500°C.Only it's colour would chance to brighter and brighter. Aluminium is known to it's great thermal conductivity, so you see at the video how it cools down quite fast and forms white flakes which falls down. If that would be steel it wouldn't cool down such a speed and it would form black pellets, and this is a fact. What you see there is molten aluminium at the temperature of 1000-1300°C pouring from the building, because colour = temperature and there is charts of equivalences https://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/metal-color-temp-chart-png.100306/ (https://www.hearth.com/talk/attachments/metal-color-temp-chart-png.100306/)
You don't know what energy density means? It means simply how much energy you get from pound of material. If energy density is high as fuels need to have, it produces a lot of energy per weight unit, which means that it burns at the high temperature, and therefore it has enough energy to run your engine. You can run the car engine with ethanol, which has energy density of 30(MJ/kg)Same engine doesn't even start with methanol which has energy density of 20(MJ/kg) Jet fuel has density of 42(MJ/kg). Tin foil hat claim is utterly stupid and it doesn't work in reality. In fact there is no such measure as "open air burning temperature", you don't find it any books or documents. I dare you, just google it up?
-
The video was a live news report that aired once just like the BBC one. Proves there were no plane parts at the scene so why did later photos show there were.
Explain the BBC one? are you 3 years old? The BBC were obviously told too early what was going to happen - Just raises questions for anyone who is not a sheep
Again you haven't debunked anything - There was molten steel pouring from the building and it can only have been caused by a substance such as thermite.
Just look up the videos of some of the top demo guys in the world - Don't accept what governments tell you.
Said before my father-in-law is a precision engineer and to him and skilled people like him, it was obvious on the day that this was a demolition.
You keep harping on about that 1 Iran building but fail to see the obvious re the Towers. Did you ever visit them? I did - They were fuckin enormous. A fire 90 floors up would never cause them to fall down after 90 minutes ..... Building 7 - If you watch the video of it "falling" its obviously a demo. The fire brigade later admitted it - demos cannot be set up in a few hours ...
accept what the mainstream media and governments tell you if you like but deffo worth opening your mind just a little mate
Did you read any of the links I sent you, thermite??? No, no thermite, show everyone evidence of thermite.
You are obviously not going to read the evidence so let me tie you in knots regarding building 7
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed?
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened?
Why did the BBC need to know at all?
Try those three for starters
and as for me "opening my mind" jeez, you wont even look at evidence I have given you, Im happy to review anything you have apart from Youtube videos with an agenda
-
one of the molten steel videos but I am sure you'll say its orange tango or something -
Typical foil hat crap, but let me explain why: If you work with molten aluminium in the factory etc. it colour would be silverish by simplest reason: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO OVERHEAT IT. What about in fire, who will control temperatures in burning building? It melts at 660°C but it start to vaporize only after 2500°C, so there is this 1840°C cap in temperatures where aluminium is at the liquid form, but only changes it's colour and viscosity by temperature. Colour at the video demonstrates the temperature of 1000 - 1300°C. If you aren't blind you see the white flakes forming from it as it is cooling down. Steel would be black and form pellets instead of flakes, because it is heavier and cools down slower. Don't believe me? Just find a welder and ask him to show you what is the colour of melted steel.
-
Did you read any of the links I sent you, thermite??? No, no thermite, show everyone evidence of thermite.
You are obviously not going to read the evidence so let me tie you in knots regarding building 7
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed?
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened?
Why did the BBC need to know at all?
Try those three for starters
and as for me "opening my mind" jeez, you wont even look at evidence I have given you, I'm happy to review anything you have apart from Youtube videos with an agenda
Look it up - There is evidence of Thermite in the dust from samples looked at by scientists all over the world.
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed? - Exactly
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened? Exactly
Why did the BBC need to know at all? They report the news dude so ...
-
Look it up - There is evidence of Thermite in the dust from samples looked at by scientists all over the world.
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed? - Exactly
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened? Exactly
Why did the BBC need to know at all? They report the news dude so ...
What do you mean "exactly" the absence of evidence isn't evidence.
You have no theory has to how it happened so it must be a conspiracy?
-
Typical foil hat crap, but let me explain why: If you work with molten aluminium in the factory etc. it colour would be silverish by simplest reason: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO OVERHEAT IT. What about in fire, who will control temperatures in burning building? It melts at 660°C but it start to vaporize only after 2500°C, so there is this 1840°C cap in temperatures where aluminium is at the liquid form, but only changes it's colour and viscosity by temperature. Colour at the video demonstrates the temperature of 1000 - 1300°C. If you aren't blind you see the white flakes forming from it as it is cooling down. Steel would be black and form pellets instead of flakes, because it is heavier and cools down slower. Don't believe me? Just find a welder and ask him to show you what is the colour of melted steel.
The beams ended up on the ground dude and showed evidence of having been melted!
There were also tiny balls of steel in the dust which is what you get when melted by thermite
-
What do you mean "exactly" the absence of evidence isn't evidence.
You have no theory has to how it happened so it must be a conspiracy?
haha are you kidding?! - Live News Reports portraying events that haven't even happened yet are not evidence that something was not as it seemed?
The news reports are evidence in themselves. They can't be made up as they actually happened in real time.
The evidence is there if you bother to look for it. Many, many respected experts on youtube
I'm done now as you are just going to believe what you are told by the media and governments ...... Time will tell. Truth will out.
-
Did you read any of the links I sent you, thermite??? No, no thermite, show everyone evidence of thermite.
You are obviously not going to read the evidence so let me tie you in knots regarding building 7
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed?
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened?
Why did the BBC need to know at all?
Try those three for starters
and as for me "opening my mind" jeez, you wont even look at evidence I have given you, Im happy to review anything you have apart from Youtube videos with an agenda
Do you know how childish crap those "thermite" claims are? What you really know about thermite? It is created for welding railroads, is not explosive at all. How it works it forms a liquid which have temperature of ~3000°C, and this liquid burns it 's way through the objects by melting the materials. Problems? It only works with the help of gravity because it's liquid form, it only burns downwards. 3000°C temperature = insane amount of light. How it has been shaded at the 9/11 videos? Wire at your 100W light bulb glows at the temperature of 1500°C, an it is quite bright, how about doubling it at the middle of the Manhattan using means which make it invisible? NanoThermite? There were no such thing at 2001.
All those three things has been explained, and you cannot prove anything else, so try to deal with it? BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation, so if there were some mishaps in their live feed, why there is no such thing in live feed of other broadcasters? British Broadcasting Corporation conspiracy against USA? You have CNN etc. and their live news, so what is your problem? Truth can be seen only from the news of the BBC? Or could there be a reason to point your interest at errors of BBC broadcast, while there isn't any in other live news at that moment? What would be the reason? Someone with tin foil hat want you to believe their lies.. ;D
-
Look it up - There is evidence of Thermite in the dust from samples looked at by scientists all over the world.
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed? - Exactly
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened? Exactly
Why did the BBC need to know at all? They report the news dude so ...
I have, and there isn't. Truth about the dust samples: There is no such thing: All is based on the objects which people has gathered from the ground zero while it was cleared out, and kept them at their homes until they give samples to Niels Harrit, who then start this thermite crap. In other words, you have no means to prove that those samples were not corrupted at any way, meaning that you cannot prove their history at all.
-
haha are you kidding?! - Live News Reports portraying events that haven't even happened yet are not evidence that something was not as it seemed?
The news reports are evidence in themselves. They can't be made up as they actually happened in real time.
The evidence is there if you bother to look for it. Many, many respected experts on youtube
I'm done now as you are just going to believe what you are told by the media and governments ...... Time will tell. Truth will out.
So why don't you show us morons those evidence? You mean "Many, many self proclaimed respected experts on youtube" Why it is so much easier to talk about the evidence than simply present it? in fact, there is no evidence at all, just complete moronic claims an lies. In fact there is 0 evidence pointing to any kind of conspiracy other than the plan of the terrorists.
-
Do you know how childish crap those "thermite" claims are? What you really know about thermite? It is created for welding railroads, is not explosive at all. How it works it forms a liquid which have temperature of ~3000°C, and this liquid burns it 's way through the objects by melting the materials. Problems? It only works with the help of gravity because it's liquid form, it only burns downwards. 3000°C temperature = insane amount of light. How it has been shaded at the 9/11 videos? Wire at your 100W light bulb glows at the temperature of 1500°C, an it is quite bright, how about doubling it at the middle of the Manhattan using means which make it invisible? NanoThermite? There were no such thing at 2001.
All those three things has been explained, and you cannot prove anything else, so try to deal with it? BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation, so if there were some mishaps in their live feed, why there is no such thing in live feed of other broadcasters? British Broadcasting Corporation conspiracy against USA? You have CNN etc. and their live news, so what is your problem? Truth can be seen only from the news of the BBC? Or could there be a reason to point your interest at errors of BBC broadcast, while there isn't any in other live news at that moment? What would be the reason? Someone with tin foil hat want you to believe their lies.. ;D
...
-
haha are you kidding?! - Live News Reports portraying events that haven't even happened yet are not evidence that something was not as it seemed?
The news reports are evidence in themselves. They can't be made up as they actually happened in real time.
The evidence is there if you bother to look for it. Many, many respected experts on youtube
I'm done now as you are just going to believe what you are told by the media and governments ...... Time will tell. Truth will out.
Leave this tool alone. It's totally useless to try and convince him of anything. Damming evidence doesn't matter, he pretends like it doesn't exist. He's just a brainwashed shill that believes and pushes all government narratives.
-
Leave this tool alone. It's totally useless to try and convince him of anything. Damming evidence doesn't matter, he pretends like it doesn't exist. He's just a brainwashed shill that believes and pushes all government narratives.
Indeed buddy
-
How were those alleged samples secured? Who will say that the material tested to show thermite, was 100% without question, from that location?
Maybe it was, but just wondering.
-
BTW, Trev. You say there's no image of a plane (AA77), and that's not true. Perhaps you missed the thread which -- as incredible as it may seem due to the information being practically unheard-of on the internet as a whole -- went on to show it.`
-
BTW, Trev. You say there's no image of a plane (AA77), and that's not true. Perhaps you missed the thread which -- as incredible as it may seem due to the information being practically unheard-of on the internet as a whole -- went on to show it.`
Can you post the pic?
And Trev will you post the bbc news clip that they said the tower fell when it was still standing?
Do you think the news was in on this or fed information from an outside source?
How many people do you think would be involved in a cover up?
-
More than likely, we were only contracted to do the footings, drainage, concrete floors and driveway so didn't see the end result, but what we did see was enough to know the end result would be a load of shite and the paki was always complaining to us about the lad running the company that managed the build.
Should of buried him in the concrete.
1 less.
-
Conspiracy theorists have it wrong. It's not that the buildings were rigged or anything. They weren't. The main truth is that the USA knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen. Now of course they didn't think the buildings would collapse like they did. Not even sure Bin Laden knew but the attacks were allowed to happen to open the door to full scale war.
-
Should of buried him in the concrete.
1 less.
The cu nt chipped that protruding ball shaped bone on his ankle (we believe on purpose) on the corner of the large I beam laying in his garage which was rather satisfying but yes I agree buried in the concrete found would have been better.
-
Look it up - There is evidence of Thermite in the dust from samples looked at by scientists all over the world.
Who told the BBC that building 7 had collapsed? - Exactly
Why did they tell the BBC ahead of time, why not just let them report it as it happened? Exactly
Why did the BBC need to know at all? They report the news dude so ...
No, Im not looking anything up, its up to you to provide the evidence, I know you don't have any that's why you want me to look for it, you are just parroting what all conspiracy theorists say, "do your own research"
Let me give you a scenario regarding building 7
there were multiple media outlets clamouring for stories that day, lots of reports coming in on Chinese whispers, lets say they got a report of building 7 having the fire service pulled because it was likely to collapse, that then got incorrectly reported as the building had collapsed.
Now, that's my theory, now do you have anything else likelier than that using Occams Razor (Google it)
-
I do not believe anything our government tells us. My gut tells me that not only was 911 planed by terrorists it was known by our government and allowed to happen. I would not put it past our governments involvemnt in making this happen as well as adding to it. Trade 7 was nothing more than a controlled demolition that occured long after the collapse of the Twins. Our government wanted this war and skillfully designed a means to an end. Same could be said for December 7th, 1941. Wake the fuck up people. Dying in a uniform for a corrupt government is not honorable, its a waste of life.
-
I do not believe anything our government tells us. My gut tells me that not only was 911 planed by terrorists it was known by our government and allowed to happen. I would not put it past our governments involvemnt in making this happen as well as adding to it. Trade 7 was nothing more than a controlled demolition that occured long after the collapse of the Twins. Our government wanted this war and skillfully designed a means to an end. Same could be said for December 7th, 1941. Wake the fuck up people. Dying in a uniform for a corrupt government is not honorable, its a waste of life.
The UK went to war based on an allegation of WMD.
Why did the USA have to murder thousands of its citizens and concoct such an elaborate plan involving what must have been thousands of people who would have to keep quiet for the rest of their lives?
-
I am still baffled that people do not understand the Burden of Proof.
If you make a claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence.
I mean, look how idiotic this dialogue sounds:
Doctor 1: I cured cancer!
Doctor 2: Can you please provide evidence that you cured cancer.
Doctor 1: LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!!
Why do conspiracy theorists always try to shift the burden of proof when they are challenged? ??? ???
-
I am still baffled that people do not understand the Burden of Proof.
If you make a claim, the burden is on you to provide the evidence.
I mean, look how idiotic this dialogue sounds:
Doctor 1: I cured cancer!
Doctor 2: Can you please provide evidence that you cured cancer.
Doctor 1: LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!!
Why do conspiracy theorists always try to shift the burden of proof when they are challenge? ??? ???
because they don't have any
I have countered all Trevs wild claims with scientific evidence which he wont even look at , he just keeps parroting his shit, he will one day grow up and realise what an idiot hes been, it happens to all conspiracy theorists eventually
-
Can you post the pic?
Yes, I'll be glad to take the time to do that. In case you haven't seen it (but I think you have, because you were on the "rare footage" thread from what I recall) that's fine.
And Trev will you post the bbc news clip that they said the tower fell when it was still standing?
Do you think the news was in on this or fed information from an outside source?
How many people do you think would be involved in a cover up?
He did.
-
Yes, I'll be glad to take the time to do that. In case you haven't seen it (but I think you have, because you were on the "rare footage" thread from what I recall) that's fine.
He did.
and yes, its odd, I have given a rational explanation as to why it happened here
Let me give you a scenario regarding building 7
there were multiple media outlets clamouring for stories that day, lots of reports coming in on Chinese whispers, lets say they got a report of building 7 having the fire service pulled because it was likely to collapse, that then got incorrectly reported as the building had collapsed.
now do you think its likely that was the case or maybe its more likely there was a huge conspiracy and a central command was releasing information to the worldwide medias and they fucked it up?
-
Yeah, and to you guys who love posting videos so much:
Please look for counter-claims against the info you're about to post. Then think twice before doing it. IMO 95% or more of the so-called "CT" videos are fake, false, stupid, ridiculous, whatever. You are being set up to look like a moron if you'd be so short-sighted as to have faith in reposting nearly any of that stuff.
(And either remove the 's' from the 'https' (which works) or just cut the last little bit of the url to put between the youtube tags. Then the video will show.)
-
and yes, its odd, I have given a rational explanation as to why it happened here
now do you think its likely that was the case or maybe its more likely there was a huge conspiracy and a central command was releasing information to the worldwide medias and they fucked it up?
I don't have an opinion on it, to be totally honest.
-
Just like the stuff involving physics etc.
Waste of time on thread like this. Might as well grow a tail and start chasing it.
-
I don't have an opinion on it, to be totally honest.
have cup of tea and a biscuit hand have a little think, report back any time. ;D
-
have cup of tea and a biscuit hand have a little think, report back any time. ;D
;D ;D
But no, it wouldn't make sense to think all the reporters and such were "in on it" as I've seen some go so far to say.
Closest thing I could even imagine, to try to hand an assist to such a person, would be to say this:
Reports can be prepared as a juggling act (which is standard business when a major event is happening, or when one is being expected) to the point that potential reports are sometimes written in advance. The idea is to immediately present the already-prepared report in order to keep our attention, being that it was presented so quickly versus its subject.
So, from that, maybe a person could create something if s/he thinks about it.
But none of that is terribly interesting, IMHO.
-
^ No offense to Trev. That video WAS/IS fully legit to post.
-
;D ;D
But no, it wouldn't make sense to think all the reporters and such were "in on it" as I've seen some go so far to say.
Closest thing I could even imagine, to try to hand an assist to such a person, would be to say this:
Reports can be prepared as a juggling act (which is standard business when a major event is happening, or when one is being expected) to the point that potential reports are sometimes written in advance. The idea is to immediately present the already-prepared report in order to keep our attention, being that it was presented so quickly versus its subject.
So, from that, maybe a person could create something if s/he thinks about it.
But none of that is terribly interesting, IMHO.
During the Iraq war one of the UK tabloids had photos of 99 fallen soldiers on a double page waiting for the 100th to die for over a week before they published a 100 soldiers dead special...
>:(
-
Yes, I'll be glad to take the time to do that. In case you haven't seen it (but I think you have, because you were on the "rare footage" thread from what I recall) that's fine.
He did.
Thanks man. I was on that thread.
I sometimes enjoy conspiracy theories and how in depth people are willing to go.
All that said Be There does an excellent job debunking the theories with simple logic and providing explanations to this logic (if the buildings were rigged with explosives who set them and how were they unnoticed) is usually where the theorists fall short.
-
And yet many of your fellow countrymen believe the Bush administration brought the towers down with controlled explosions in order to invade Iraq (after blaming Bin Laden for the attacks whilst living in Afghanistan ???)
So convince me jet fuel melted steel and that no nanothermite was discovered in all samples tested. Jus sayn
-
9/11 - Anatomy of a Great Deception - Complete Version
It will scare the shit out of you regardless buddy
I've watched it several times. 3000 Americans died for 240 billion dollars.
-
Read the "collateral damage, black eagle war trust" paper.
-
Leave this tool alone. It's totally useless to try and convince him of anything. Damming evidence doesn't matter, he pretends like it doesn't exist. He's just a brainwashed shill that believes and pushes all government narratives.
All you need to convince anyone who has some kind of brains is evidence. You don't have any, just that same old bullshit year after year.. ;D
-
The beams ended up on the ground dude and showed evidence of having been melted!
There were also tiny balls of steel in the dust which is what you get when melted by thermite
So what you are saying is that there were some tin foil hat morons taking samples from the ground zero while dust clouds were still flying around the Manhattan, and police & rescue workers let them go there without asking any questions? Truth about the matter? 100% of people were running away from Manhattan, and all samples has been taken while they were clearing the ruins = that means after rescue workers has stop to look for victims. What those rescue workers did was cut the steel out of the way, and that is the real reason why there is tiny balls of steel..
(http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/image5.jpg)
Every one of those sparks in the picture forms a tiny ball of steel, and and when you don't have any kind of proof when the samples was taken, this is the real reason. Only morons and imbeciles are stupid enough to believe that tons of thermite doesn't leave any mark at the video recordings or in the ruins.
-
Yes, I'll be glad to take the time to do that. In case you haven't seen it (but I think you have, because you were on the "rare footage" thread from what I recall) that's fine.
He did.
And can you explain why tin foil hats are rubbing your nose to that BBC broadcast? Why it is so important? Because it was only broadcast with that kind of errors, but at that time there were multiple live news aired without same errors, so what is your point? BBC make an error, and has admit it years back.
-
...
translated: moron has no answers.. ;D
-
^ No offense to Trev. That video WAS/IS fully legit to post.
You mean that video, where you have text and narrator from the foil hat industry? It somehow rules out that these same people try to force feed this crap to you, while it is complete meaningless piece of crap and doesn't prove anything. " BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of more 9/11" and you see the building standing at the picture, so it can't be mistake, it has to be conspiracy? Brilliant logic.. ;D
-
So convince me jet fuel melted steel and that no nanothermite was discovered in all samples tested. Jus sayn
What you mean when you say melted? There seem to be some misunderstandings about the matter among teenagers: in real life it means that melted material becomes liquid. What happen when you melt ice from your drink in your glass? Same thing. If metal is heated but below the melting point, it is just soft, not at the liquid form. Point is that the steel start to loose it's structural strength at quite low temperatures(-20% @ 450°C), and in 1000°C there is only 40% of it. What can happen if temperatures reach ~1200°C:
(https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg)
Nanothermite? There were no such thing at 2001, just because there were no means to make it. Let me try to explain: The word "nano" means the particle size, which is 1/1000 000 000 of the millimetre, meaning one billionth of the millimetre, which is quite small. It is very difficult to do such small particles in large quantity(meaning tons of material), so what to do? In these days they use plasma to blow materials to the dust which have nano particles, but that was invented later, years after the 9/11.You get better view at the matter by this picture from Niels Harrit:
(https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/bilayered_chip-887x640.jpg)
Just look at the scale in the picture 20µm = 20 micrometers = 20/1 000 000 of millimetre. So he is trying to prove presence of the nanothermite using 20 000 times too big particles, so do you think he really knows what he is talking about? He is a Danish professor but he doesn't know SI standard -prefixes? What he is doing is trying to prove you that there is a mouse by showing you the picture of the elephant ;D
-
So convince me jet fuel melted steel and that no nanothermite was discovered in all samples tested. Jus sayn
Why does jet fuel have to melt steel for the building to collapse?
Go and read the links with the evidence I provided.
-
Why does jet fuel have to melt steel for the building to collapse?
Go and read the links with the evidence I provided.
How you would understand this when you are unable to understand even the most basic things? Why do you talk about the jet fuel while it is just a little part of the fire load? Jet fuel ignite the fire, and fire load at the building burn until collapse. What the fuck is fire load? Furnitures, office machines, textiles, papers, all burning material IN the building itself. If measured by office building average, there were tera joules of burning material in that fire. Did you understand this simple fact?
-
How you would understand this when you are unable to understand even the most basic things? Why do you talk about the jet fuel while it is just a little part of the fire load? Jet fuel ignite the fire, and fire load at the building burn until collapse. What the fuck is fire load? Furnitures, office machines, textiles, papers, all burning material IN the building itself. If measured by office building average, there were tera joules of burning material in that fire. Did you understand this simple fact?
why are you having a go at me you dumbo?
Learn to comprehend what you are reading and who Im responding to before you jump down my throat.
-
why are you having a go at me you dumbo?
Learn to comprehend what you are reading and who Im responding to before you jump down my throat.
Love to jump down your throat, Stud.
-
Here's that information. It can be seen on any YT video, at 1:26 (from memory) on most of those copies that aren't of the liftgate recording.
If you don't want to trust that, though, then here's what you need to look at. It's in the download on this page, at the turn of the 4:59 to 5:00 mark.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200022.html
Times are all from memory atm.
(http://s33.postimg.org/fa6gdyxhb/Pent3_Full.jpg)
-
So. To those who invest themselves in popular CT culture, a product of MSM:
IF the "contributors" to that culture are as interested and well-researched as they claim, and IF they so intend to provide a person with factual and complete information, then how do you explain it? How do you explain the inconsistency?
???
-
Here's that information. It can be seen on any YT video, at 1:26 (from memory) on most of those copies that aren't of the liftgate recording.
If you don't want to trust that, though, then here's what you need to look at. It's in the download on this page, at the turn of the 4:59 to 5:00 mark.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200022.html
Times are all from memory atm.
(http://s33.postimg.org/fa6gdyxhb/Pent3_Full.jpg)
Pentagon was forced to release but despite there being over 20 cameras pointing at this area, they released a 5 second clip that shows an explosion and no plane. I wonder why?!!! ;D
-
Pentagon was forced to release but despite there being over 20 cameras pointing at this area, they released a 5 second clip that shows an explosion and no plane. I wonder why?!!! ;D
I don't know. Why? ???
-
But anyhow, it should be very difficult for someone (on this thread, anyway) to say no plane.
Because not only must the video be broken down to do that, but it requires giving an explanation to say how using "a missile" or whatever's claimed, could pay on the difficulty and risk against using what's claimed in the official story: a plane.
It couldn't, it doesn't, and it didn't need to. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and it cannot be denied.
So. To those who invest themselves in popular CT culture, a product of MSM:
IF the "contributors" to that culture are as interested and well-researched as they claim, and IF they so intend to provide a person with factual and complete information, then how do you explain it? How do you explain the inconsistency?
???
Again to the CTers who've acquired their beliefs from popular culture, the sources immediately found on Gabbler or Goobler or whatever it's called: WHY do you think the breakdown hasn't been discussed, introduced, or so much as mentioned?
-
In the UK you cant really mention 9-11 in case it offends Muslims.
-
Pentagon was forced to release but despite there being over 20 cameras pointing at this area, they released a 5 second clip that shows an explosion and no plane. I wonder why?!!! ;D
Look. At the white (consistent with smoke from left engine) and slightly to the upper left. See the apparent blue? And within that blue at its farthest point, right, you will see the tail.
Use that information and watch the video, and it should all become clear to you.
(WARNING: PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST IN PROGRESS ;D)
-
Repost for new page.
(http://s33.postimg.org/fa6gdyxhb/Pent3_Full.jpg)
The white edge you see attached to the blue, is the top of the left wing. The white dot under that is left engine, and you can look the appropriate distance away to see the right engine.
Once again, watching the video and pausing at those points (1:26 on many YT copies and 4:59 and 5:00 on download copy) is what someone who wants to know the truth, should do.
-
All you have to do is watch September Clues, everything is explained there about how they did it...
-
In the UK you cant really mention 9-11 in case it offends Muslims.
in the uk its 11-9
-
This image, from the liftgate recording:
(https://s26.postimg.org/hvdhgrt0p/P200022_A.jpg)
Has been blown up, here:
(https://s26.postimg.org/kqqknmx0p/P200022_B.jpg)
And IMO the information must contain something very interesting (haven't figured it ATM but someone else may be better at it) because if you have a good look you'll see it shows significantly more movement. It appears to have been caught, all of it, within the movement of that shutter. The shutter speed being what it is, something major (pro or con) should be found.
-
I would of expected more & better quality video from the surveillance cameras on the Pentagon
Perhaps they have it - Just not releasing it.
I doubt it was an inside job - Though them having some prior information or knowledge wouldn't surprise me
-
I would of expected more & better quality video from the surveillance cameras on the Pentagon
Perhaps they have it - Just not releasing it.
I doubt it was an inside job - Though them having some prior information or knowledge wouldn't surprise me
Pentagon CCTV operator, the ultimate troll..... ;D
-
HUGE amount of evidence and a new report has just concluded they were demolished
Jet fuel burns at 1100 degrees - steel doesn't melt until over 3000 degrees
Buildings fell at freefall speed - so how did lower floors not give ANY resistance
Buildings do not collapse from fire - Grenfell towers in the UK burnt for days and stood as has EVERY other building in history that has burned. Towers "fell" after 90 mins of just upper floors burning!!!!
Lift system in both towers was being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of 911
IF a crime scene, why was ALL the evidence (the rubble) removed within weeks and shipped to china
Thermite (Military explosive that melts steel) was found in every dust sample tested all round the world.
Reception of tower one blew up on impact of the plane 90 floors up?!!!
Building 7 was pulled. The fire brigade admitted it yet it takes weeks to rig up the explosives to demolish such a building
The Pentagon is the most filmed building in the world (CCTV) and yet not one camera caught sight of a plane
NO evidence a plane ever hit the pentagon - no metal / engines / luggage / bodies ...... Nothing
The only area destroyed at the pentagon were the accountants offices where £23 Billion had gone missing as reported on National TV on 10th September 2001
How can a man hiding in a cave in Afganistan have pulled this off ....... and then when America finally found him, they shot him and dumped his body at sea!!! ::)
and there is a LOT more proof is was an inside job ....
AMERICANS SHOULD DEMAND THE ANSWERS INSTEAD OF JUST REMEMBERING
All this plus I've always wondered about a couple of other things as well. How many of you have noticed that even with your phone on, you can't even retrieve text messages until the plane lands, much less make a phone call? I'm talking about keeping your phone in NON airplane mode. You really think those people on flight 03 were really making calls with the technology of 16 years ago on those flip phones when we still couldn't do it today?
Another thing about flight 93... WHERE'S THE FUCKING PLANE? The news gets word of a crash, traces it and proclaims it to be 03, but there's just a hole in the ground! Where's the fuselage? Where's the baggage and bodies?????
It's all bullshit to justify an Iraqi invasion in order to pipe out their oil by Cheney, Bush, and company. Has anyone not realized just how in bed the Bush family is with the Saudi's? Does anyone remember which company headed to Iraq immediately to pipe out their oil. I'll remind you. Halliburton... the one Dick Cheney ran...
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war
It wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last time our government attacks it's citizens to push propaganda and lies for political control and profit.
People should know, especially in this day and age to not believe what the government tells them. Hell, George Carlin was saying this 25 years ago.
-
^ How complete a cell call is to become, or whether it can be initiated at all, depends on tower locations. That's the official story on that.
I don't have a problem with it. Wouldn't waste much time thinking about it, since it could only take you so far.
-
I would of expected more & better quality video from the surveillance cameras on the Pentagon
Perhaps they have it - Just not releasing it.
I doubt it was an inside job - Though them having some prior information or knowledge wouldn't surprise me
Oh yeah, lots of it. Lots.
-
All this plus I've always wondered about a couple of other things as well. How many of you have noticed that even with your phone on, you can't even retrieve text messages until the plane lands, much less make a phone call? I'm talking about keeping your phone in NON airplane mode. You really think those people on flight 03 were really making calls with the technology of 16 years ago on those flip phones when we still couldn't do it today?
Another thing about flight 93... WHERE'S THE FUCKING PLANE? The news gets word of a crash, traces it and proclaims it to be 03, but there's just a hole in the ground! Where's the fuselage? Where's the baggage and bodies?????
It's all bullshit to justify an Iraqi invasion in order to pipe out their oil by Cheney, Bush, and company. Has anyone not realized just how in bed the Bush family is with the Saudi's? Does anyone remember which company headed to Iraq immediately to pipe out their oil. I'll remind you. Halliburton... the one Dick Cheney ran...
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war
It wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last time our government attacks it's citizens to push propaganda and lies for political control and profit.
People should know, especially in this day and age to not believe what the government tells them. Hell, George Carlin was saying this 25 years ago.
(https://libertybelleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/flight-93-memorial.jpg)
If flight 93 didn't crash, tell me, where are all these people?
-
Could be anywhere. Dead, of course.
-
Could be anywhere. Dead, of course.
so the plane flew to an undisclosed location, everyone was taken off and murdered?
Occams Razzor?
-
Here's what serves as BBC explanation for that false report. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
I can only say it's interesting they won't give a hint as to how they got the information in the first place, how they could've since "lost" the footage as they claim, and that the reporter says she "can't remember" anything. :D "I do not recall!" :D
But it's a pointless thing to focus on, IMO. And CNN, FOX and CBS (at least) also reported a WTC 7 collapse, at various times, all before it happened.
-
All this plus I've always wondered about a couple of other things as well. How many of you have noticed that even with your phone on, you can't even retrieve text messages until the plane lands, much less make a phone call? I'm talking about keeping your phone in NON airplane mode. You really think those people on flight 03 were really making calls with the technology of 16 years ago on those flip phones when we still couldn't do it today?
Another thing about flight 93... WHERE'S THE FUCKING PLANE? The news gets word of a crash, traces it and proclaims it to be 03, but there's just a hole in the ground! Where's the fuselage? Where's the baggage and bodies?????
It's all bullshit to justify an Iraqi invasion in order to pipe out their oil by Cheney, Bush, and company. Has anyone not realized just how in bed the Bush family is with the Saudi's? Does anyone remember which company headed to Iraq immediately to pipe out their oil. I'll remind you. Halliburton... the one Dick Cheney ran...
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war
It wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last time our government attacks it's citizens to push propaganda and lies for political control and profit.
People should know, especially in this day and age to not believe what the government tells them. Hell, George Carlin was saying this 25 years ago.
Here it is. ???
(http://www.105.net/resizer/615/400/false/1473753779830.jpg--twa_volo_800.jpg?1473753784000)
-
Here it is. ???
(http://www.105.net/resizer/615/400/false/1473753779830.jpg--twa_volo_800.jpg?1473753784000)
Jeez - The state of that thing you'd
1, never get any passengers in it &
2, that thing would never fly
;D
-
-
While I'm sure there are things about 9/11 that the public doesn't know, I think the official explanation of the events is pretty much spot on. I haven't seen anything to the contrary except for people who are not experts trying to discuss complex engineering and scientific issues that that they obviously don't understand. I can't tell if they are serious or if this is a big goof to get attention. At this point conspiracy theory people are going so overboard that everything that happens is a psyop and a false flag.
-
While I'm sure there are things about 9/11 that the public doesn't know, I think the official explanation of the events is pretty much spot on. I haven't seen anything to the contrary except for people who are not experts trying to discuss complex engineering and scientific issues that that they obviously don't understand. I can't tell if they are serious or if this is a big goof to get attention. At this point conspiracy theory people are going so overboard that everything that happens is a psyop and a false flag.
Well, in this day and age, everyone is allowed to have an uninformed opinion.
That's the problem. People thinking they are more informed than people who actually study these events.
-
This image, from the liftgate recording:
(https://s26.postimg.org/hvdhgrt0p/P200022_A.jpg)
Has been blown up, here:
(https://s26.postimg.org/kqqknmx0p/P200022_B.jpg)
And IMO the information must contain something very interesting (haven't figured it ATM but someone else may be better at it) because if you have a good look you'll see it shows significantly more movement. It appears to have been caught, all of it, within the movement of that shutter. The shutter speed being what it is, something major (pro or con) should be found.
Just to give a little better understanding about this, is to say that what we see, are actually two visual fields joined to create the image, recorded with 1/60 of a second (in time) difference.
Compared to the image from the other recording, certainly, it appears to show a sudden burst of acceleration at that instant as well as a sharp drop of several feet.
The Black Box (tmk) says the speed was approximately 520 mph to impact.
-
Watch 'the good american'
It's on Netflix as of right now 9/18/17
-
One little thing I'll say about that footage information, maybe, is that it's interesting how the part showing movement from a car, causes it to look like the camera worked as one which is 1-fps. Go figure.
-
(https://libertybelleblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/flight-93-memorial.jpg)
If flight 93 didn't crash, tell me, where are all these people?
Could be living in your neigbourhood, and you wouldn't notice.
-
Could be living in your neigbourhood, and you wouldn't notice.
and every single one keeping quiet about the whole thing and not one contacting family members ever again?
-
Repost for new page.
(http://s33.postimg.org/fa6gdyxhb/Pent3_Full.jpg)
The white edge you see attached to the blue, is the top of the left wing. The white dot under that is left engine, and you can look the appropriate distance away to see the right engine.
Once again, watching the video and pausing at those points (1:26 on many YT copies and 4:59 and 5:00 on download copy) is what someone who wants to know the truth, should do.
If there was a plane:-
1) Why did they refuse to release ANY footage until they were ordered to do so by the courts?
2) Why didn't they release all the video and images facing the direction of the incoming plane?
3) Apparently the thin nose cone penetrated all the way to the inner walls but the engines left no holes at all AND no remains of them found at the scene!
4) Wake up
-
If there was a plane:-
1) Why did they refuse to release ANY footage until they were ordered to do so by the courts?
2) Why didn't they release all the video and images facing the direction of the incoming plane?
3) Apparently the thin nose cone penetrated all the way to the inner walls but the engines left no holes at all AND no remains of them found at the scene!
4) Wake up
you are not allowed to answer questions until you have provided something to back up all your silly claims.
-
How did building 7 imploded? Did he got scared?
-
you are not allowed to answer questions until you have provided something to back up all your silly claims.
The back up is already there in the public domain - The Pentagon filmed whatever hit the accountancy office where $2.3 trillion of public money had gone missing from many angles but refused to release ANY footage until forced to and then they release 5 seconds of bullshit
-
The back up is already there in the public domain - The Pentagon filmed whatever hit the accountancy office where $2.3 trillion of public money had gone missing from many angles but refused to release ANY footage until forced to and then they release 5 seconds of bullshit
and you obviously don't know where it is or you would link it to validate your argument.
-
and you obviously don't know where it is or you would link it to validate your argument.
Haha .... one pic released dude that shows fuck all - Its on this thread. The pentagon had more CCTV than any other building in the world on that day.
They have a LOT of film of every second of whatever approached and hit the building
-
Something obviously fishy and not right with the official 911 story, all the ropo's and be there's in the world aren't going to change that.
-
Something obviously fishy and not right with the official 911 story, all the ropo's and be there's in the world aren't going to change that.
another "it doesn't look right" but with nothing to add as to what it should look like.
-
Haha .... one pic released dude that shows fuck all - Its on this thread. The pentagon had more CCTV than any other building in the world on that day.
They have a LOT of film of every second of whatever approached and hit the building
You are aware thats a still from a film clip.
So, what do you think hit the pentagon and provide evidence to validate your claim.
-
Zooming out of the event, other questions arise:
Why go through the trouble of undertaking the complex task of wiring 2 (3?) buildings to go straight down and THEN go through the trouble if hijacking 4(!) planes to hit the buildings to (I guess) hide the fact the buildings were wired in the first place?
If you have the power, know how, and access to wire the trade centers for demolition -- why not wire them to BLOW UP AND LEVEL ENTIRE CITY BLOCKS? Why the straight down BS? The complexity of the alleged conspiracy operation boggles the mind. It would have been much easier and fear inducing to have the WTC blow completely the fuck up and kill everyone in a 10 block radius.
ALSO --
If you have the means and expertise to pull of an operation of that MIND BOGGLING complexity -- WHY NOT JUST PLANT WMDS in the middle of the fucking desert? Seriously?
-
another "it doesn't look right" but with nothing to add as to what it should look like.
Man this topic has been beat to death a hundred times over, there are people who see the inconsistences in the official story and feel the need to question it and there are those who blindly believe what their told and look no further. No point in rehashing all the points or going in depth, if you wanted you could probably spend the next year of your life looking through all the material but most people are set in their ways and have the opinion that they're always right and it's everyone else that is wrong.
-
Those who act as if not a single conspiracy has never happened in government through out history are just as bad as those tin foil hat groups of people who see conspiracies at every turn.
-
Zooming out of the event, other questions arise:
Why go through the trouble of undertaking the complex task of wiring 2 (3?) buildings to go straight down and THEN go through the trouble if hijacking 4(!) planes to hit the buildings to (I guess) hide the fact the buildings were wired in the first place?
If you have the power, know how, and access to wire the trade centers for demolition -- why not wire them to BLOW UP AND LEVEL ENTIRE CITY BLOCKS? Why the straight down BS? The complexity of the alleged conspiracy operation boggles the mind. It would have been much easier and fear inducing to have the WTC blow completely the fuck up and kill everyone in a 10 block radius.
ALSO --
If you have the means and expertise to pull of an operation of that MIND BOGGLING complexity -- WHY NOT JUST PLANT WMDS in the middle of the fucking desert? Seriously?
Lets play along with another idea. Why just blow up buildings and kill people. Why not use planes in order to create another arm of government tasked with violating and strongarming its own citizens and travelers. Lets x-ray people and mandate it across the land. What else are they up to with thesd so called safety screenings? Homlend security? Give me a break. As long as we have weak borders, how effective can that arm of defense be? I see 911 as an event that led to greater government control over its citizens through search and seizure and spying than ever before. So yes, believe your governme to go the extra mile and have an outlandish plan to make this happen. Sandy hook? Prove kids died there.
-
Man this topic has been beat to death a hundred times over, there are people who see the inconsistences in the official story and feel the need to question it and there are those who blindly believe what their told and look no further. No point in rehashing all the points or going in depth, if you wanted you could probably spend the next year of your life looking through all the material but most people are set in their ways and have the opinion that they're always right and it's everyone else that is wrong.
there isn't any evidence to validate anything other than the official story.
please produce something tangible and I will look at it
-
there isn't any evidence to validate anything other than the official story.
please produce something tangible and I will look at it
Take some time and look it up yourself you lazy ass. There is PLENTY of tangible evidence out there to debunk the official story. Stop playing dumb.
-
You have people in all walks of life seeing the inconsistencies in the official 911 story, ranging from your neighbors across the stress to proficient engineers and scientists but apparently guys like be there with their god complexes are right and everyone else is just plain wrong, in their own little worlds at least.
-
They are time and effort wasters, hoping you will take it upon yourself to present them all the counter arguments, testimonials etc all the stuff they themselves are to lazy to look into, only to dismiss them before even reading through them.
-
Take some time and look it up yourself you lazy ass. There is PLENTY of tangible evidence out there to debunk the official story. Stop playing dumb.
no there isn't, I debunked everything Trev came up with by providing scientific evidence, why don't you come up with your theory of what happened and your evidence to prove it.
-
Those who act as if not a single conspiracy has never happened in government through out history are just as bad as those tin foil hat groups of people who see conspiracies at every turn.
Who are these people that "act as if not a single conspiracy has never happened in government through history"? Where are they?
Your strawman argument is just as faulty as your grammar.
-
people become conspiracy theorists because the want to be in a little niche crowd of "in the know" people.
It starts when they stumble upon some 9/11 stuff on the web or listen to someone spouting off about it, they ask questions and get told to "do your own research" then inevitably they type in things like 9/11 conspiracy and then are led on a wild goose chase of nonsensical websites that offer nothing as evidence(its because there is none)
They call everyone else sheep for not believing the stuff they have read that isn't backed by anything tangible, the irony is unbelievable.
They have nothing to give to skeptics because they couldn't find anything themselves so they parrot the same "do your own research"
They do finally come back down to earth eventually, until then its just best to back away smiling and nodding when they approach you with their buffoonery.
Tip for 9/11 researchers, just type in "9/11 debunked", there is far more stuff to read in their based on science.
-
Who are these people that "act as if not a single conspiracy has never happened in government through history"? Where are they?
Your strawman argument is just as faulty as your grammar.
Unless you've been living under a rock your entire life surely you have come across people such as I described
-
You are aware thats a still from a film clip.
So, what do you think hit the pentagon and provide evidence to validate your claim.
Yes its from the 5 second clip they released, who doesn't know that. IF they had video of the incoming "plane" for several minutes from several cameras WHY did they only release (after being forced to) 5 seconds that shows nothing??
The American public should be demanding why
-
no there isn't, I debunked everything Trev came up with by providing scientific evidence, why don't you come up with your theory of what happened and your evidence to prove it.
You debunked nothing - You have closed your mind and accepted the official story given to you by politicians and their puppets in the media. You can't be bothered to view the many, many EXPERT opinions from respected scientists and the worlds leading demolition professionals that are all over the internet and youtube.
-
You debunked nothing - You have closed your mind and accepted the official story given to you by politicians and their puppets in the media. You can't be bothered to view the many, many EXPERT opinions from respected scientists and the worlds leading demolition professionals that are all over the internet and youtube.
OK, so what happened on 9/11 and how did they do it?
-
Yes its from the 5 second clip they released, who doesn't know that. IF they had video of the incoming "plane" for several minutes from several cameras WHY did they only release (after being forced to) 5 seconds that shows nothing??
The American public should be demanding why
so where's the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon?
-
OK, so what happened on 9/11 and how did they do it?
Exactly - Questions need to be asked ....
This guy is considered to be THE leading expert on what happened. Had to move out of the US after government threats. Do watch this as it contains a HUGE amount of information and relationships that will blow you mind -
-
Exactly - Questions need to be asked ....
This guy is considered to be THE leading expert on what happened. Had to move out of the US after government threats. Do watch this as it contains a HUGE amount of information and relationships that will blow you mind -
why don't you just give a fucking opinion?
"exactly" isn't a theory, if you think something else happened then spell it out.
And stop posting videos I don't watch them, present some evidence to back up your theory when you eventually come up with one.
-
why don't you just give a fucking opinion?
"exactly" isn't a theory, if you think something else happened then spell it out.
And stop posting videos I don't watch them, present some evidence to back up your theory when you eventually come up with one.
I don't give an opinion because unlike you I have an open mind and ask questions. It just obviously wasn't what the government and their media told us. The way the world works now if fucked and so there will never be a truly independent enquiry ..... I just try to help people wake up and see that we are only ever told what they want us to know, not the truth.
I'm not surprised you won't watch it as it does give an enormously plausible view of what happened, backed up with a LOT of hard evidence. You are not interested in that.
-
I don't give an opinion because unlike you I have an open mind and ask questions. It just obviously wasn't what the government and their media told us. The way the world works now if fucked and so there will never be a truly independent enquiry ..... I just try to help people wake up and see that we are only ever told what they want us to know, not the truth.
I'm not surprised you won't watch it as it does give an enormously plausible view of what happened, backed up with a LOT of hard evidence. You are not interested in that.
there you go again...."it doesn't look right", explain why it doesn't look right...
You don't have an opinion because you know you couldn't verify it with facts, that's obvious to anyone reading this.
-
there you go again...."it doesn't look right", explain why it doesn't look right...
You don't have an opinion because you know you couldn't verify it with facts, that's obvious to anyone reading this.
Explained in my first post - If you believe those 2 ridiculously huge buildings can fall into their own footprints at freefall speed after a few high up floors burned for 90 minutes, then a 3rd building just fell down on its own despite not being badly damaged then you are ridiculously deluded.
My opinion is that I believe all the indisputable facts I have ready from many experts (that's you won't read) raise enough questions that SHOULD be answered. They never will be as the western world is made up of sheep like yourself who believe everything governments and their press tell you.
THE END
-
Explained in my first post - If you believe those 2 ridiculously huge buildings can fall into their own footprints at freefall speed after a few high up floors burned for 90 minutes, then a 3rd building just fell down on its own despite not being badly damaged then you are ridiculously deluded.
My opinion is that I believe all the indisputable facts I have ready from many experts (that's you won't read) raise enough questions that SHOULD be answered. They never will be as the western world is made up of sheep like yourself who believe everything governments and their press tell you.
THE END
they did, I saw them fall, I also saw no signs of a controlled explosion I have also read multiple evidential documents explaining the way they fell.
the third building was badly damaged and burning before it fell, stop telling lies.
Now, stop basing your opinions on shit you stumble across on conspiracy theory websites and start trying to explain what you think happened.
You won't commit to saying they were blown up because you have no evidence that they were.
It just doesn't seem or look right isn't enough to debunk the official theory.
Your current posting resembles someone arrested for murder and after all the evidence is presented to you you just keep saying "I didn't do it" but not providing any evidence why you couldn't have done it.
-
Explained in my first post - If you believe those 2 ridiculously huge buildings can fall into their own footprints at freefall speed after a few high up floors burned for 90 minutes, then a 3rd building just fell down on its own despite not being badly damaged then you are ridiculously deluded.
My opinion is that I believe all the indisputable facts I have ready from many experts (that's you won't read) raise enough questions that SHOULD be answered. They never will be as the western world is made up of sheep like yourself who believe everything governments and their press tell you.
THE END
two large planes filled with fuel smashed into buildings at high speed , the fire burnt the steel and structure of the several destroyed floors , and then the buildings collapsed into itself as would happen if the structure above is weakened by what is basically a huge missile
-
they did, I saw them fall, I also saw no signs of a controlled explosion I have also read multiple evidential documents explaining the way they fell.
the third building was badly damaged and burning before it fell, stop telling lies.
Now, stop basing your opinions on shit you stumble across on conspiracy theory websites and start trying to explain what you think happened.
You won't commit to saying they were blown up because you have no evidence that they were.
It just doesn't seem or look right isn't enough to debunk the official theory.
Your current posting resembles someone arrested for murder and after all the evidence is presented to you you just keep saying "I didn't do it" but not providing any evidence why you couldn't have done it.
You've read the bullshit released ....
Building 7 received very minor damage and was not on fire - Watch its collapse, The mid roof sinking in first is proof of demolition as is the implosion into its footprint at freefall speed. Many buildings around were severely damaged but didn't "fall". The fire brigade later admitted "it was pulled" - Impossible to set up in a few hours so they must have known it was to be demo'd weeks before 911
-
You've read the bullshit released ....
Building 7 received very minor damage and was not on fire - Watch its collapse, The mid roof sinking in first is proof of demolition as is the implosion into its footprint at freefall speed. Many buildings around were severely damaged but didn't "fall". The fire brigade later admitted "it was pulled" - Impossible to set up in a few hours so they must have known it was to be demo'd weeks before 911
Really?
Why did they pull the firefighters out?
and the reference to (pulled) was in telling the fire fighters to get out.
Now, care to provide evidence of when and how the building was fitted with enough explosives to bring it down without anyone knowing?
While you are on you can do the same with the Twin Towers bearing in mind you seem to think they were brought down by controlled explosion even though you are scared to commit to it.
-
2300 credentialed architects and engineers believe the official story of 9/11 cannot possible be true.
But why listen to them when "Be There" can prove them all wrong.
;D
-
2300 credentialed architects and engineers believe the official story of 9/11 cannot possible be true.
But why listen to them when "Be There" can prove them all wrong.
;D
really, I have already dealt with this earlier.
Its a lot of fuckwits that keep saying "something doesn't look right"
Post me the link to these 2300 experts..
-
2300 credentialed architects and engineers believe the official story of 9/11 cannot possible be true.
But why listen to them when "Be There" can prove them all wrong.
;D
There are roughly 700000 architects and building engineers in the US. If 2300 believe the official story cannot be true, that means 697700 of them believe the story to be true. Or, 99.7% of them believe the official story.
:-\
8)
-
There are roughly 700000 architects and building engineers in the US. If 2300 believe the official story cannot be true, that means 697700 of them believe the story to be true. Or, 99.7% of them believe the official story.
:-\
8)
697700 Or, 99.7% Are not interested or not been asked ;)
-
There are roughly 700000 architects and building engineers in the US. If 2300 believe the official story cannot be true, that means 697700 of them believe the story to be true. Or, 99.7% of them believe the official story.
:-\
8)
Not at all.
It just means that 2300 had the guts to speak out publicly, and the rest kept quiet.
That is probably representative of people in all walks of life.... the few with integrity, and the masses without integrity.
-
Exactly - Questions need to be asked ....
This guy is considered to be THE leading expert on what happened. Had to move out of the US after government threats. Do watch this as it contains a HUGE amount of information and relationships that will blow you mind -
Great talk.
In all fairness, you can't expect a fella like Be There to devote the necessary time to researching facts for himself. He needs bite sized packages of information.
-
Really?
Why did they pull the firefighters out?
and the reference to (pulled) was in telling the fire fighters to get out.
Now, care to provide evidence of when and how the building was fitted with enough explosives to bring it down without anyone knowing?
While you are on you can do the same with the Twin Towers bearing in mind you seem to think they were brought down by controlled explosion even though you are scared to commit to it.
No - "Pulled" is the American term for deliberately bringing the buiding down
I have posted all the evidence but you conveniently won't watch it
-
Great talk.
In all fairness, you can't expect a fella like Be There to devote the necessary time to researching facts for himself. He needs bite sized packages of information.
Very true - Its like talking to a 90 year old all set in their ways
-
No - "Pulled" is the American term for deliberately bringing the buiding down
I have posted all the evidence but you conveniently won't watch it
youtube videos made by conspiracy theorists are not evidence..
and what do they provide evidence of, give me cliff notes and I will watch them...
-
If there was a plane:-
Sorry, my friend. But with the information in this thread alone, the question is "If there wasn't..." and not the other way around. But go on.
1) Why did they refuse to release ANY footage until they were ordered to do so by the courts?
Right away, a couple of potential reasons come to mind (meant to satisfy an overriding belief, presumably your own, that it was inside job).
1. To cover the mountain of unreleased information.
2. Reason exists to continue the no-plane lie.
2) Why didn't they release all the video and images facing the direction of the incoming plane?
One possibility is that images of the sky and what might be seen in it, are being hidden.
3) Apparently the thin nose cone penetrated all the way to the inner walls but the engines left no holes at all AND no remains of them found at the scene!
That's the "Punch Out Hole" in the C-Ring. Best information says that's from landing gear, and it was documented that pieces of it were there, including at least one double rim at that location alone.
It's documented, too, that engine parts were found. The images are perfectly consistent with what should be expected. As to holes in lots of walls, a large area inside (where parts came to rest) didn't have walls. Only support beams.
4) Wake up
Let me ask you something. Being that you believe, through all the body of information you have allowed yourself to acknowledge, that 9/11 was, say, an inside job.... Is that right so far? Is that what you'd say about yourself?
Then why, when faced with a reality which shows that a plane hit, and an MSM Conspiracy-Culture which almost universally says no plane, while "the other side" -- MSM-driven, just the same, through YobTube and Gooble and all search-generated content -- remain seemingly unaware of that image, despite being the thing to make the case: wouldn't you ask what the hell's up with these facts?
I believe you'll find it has everything to do with Norman Mineta and his experience that morning, which he says involved the time approaching the Pentagon crash. It causes that attack to become a particularly sensitive issue, especially true when you realize VP Cheney didn't have the authority -- and knew he did not have the authority -- to do as he was acting to do. (Which, btw, is THE one, the only, direct path in 9/11 to break the lie. It could be smashed open with just a single question, IMO, asked to determine the true reason he did that. No acceptable answer exists. So it wasn't to help America, let's just put it that way. Everyone involved, one by one, would be taken down as a result of pursuing that single question.)
-
Great talk.
In all fairness, you can't expect a fella like Be There to devote the necessary time to researching facts for himself. He needs bite sized packages of information.
I'm no fan whatsoever of idiot Be There..however..you have YET to disprove the facts he posted and you can't.
This thread has become a disgrace to the Americans that were killed that day BY OSAMA.
There was and is NO conspiracy.
It happened just as it has been PROVEN to have happened.
-
I'm no fan whatsoever of idiot Be There..however..you have YET to disprove the facts he posted and you can't.
This thread has become a disgrace to the Americans that were killed that day BY OSAMA.
There was and is NO conspiracy.
It happened just as it has been PROVEN to have happened.
be there was the scourge of the David Icke forums for many years.....jeez were they good times....
-
I'm no fan whatsoever of idiot Be There..however..you have YET to disprove the facts he posted and you can't.
This thread has become a disgrace to the Americans that were killed that day BY OSAMA.
There was and is NO conspiracy.
It happened just as it has been PROVEN to have happened.
Sorry I don't read his posts anymore.
In the past I answered him with facts and proofs on other topics and he just ignored them, and when pressed on the matter, he admitted he was just a big troll (no doubt his way of coping with being shown wrong).
-
Sorry I don't read his posts anymore.
In the past I answered him with facts and proofs on other topics and he just ignored them, and when pressed on the matter, he admitted he was just a big troll (no doubt his way of coping with being shown wrong).
you have never produced any evidence that 9/11 was anything other than the official story as none exists.
Now, Trev wont commit to what happened as he knows he will be asked to provide evidence which he doesn't have.
Would you like to try?
Just tell me what you think happened on 9/11 and then back up your theory with evidence.
Good luck...
-
Sorry I don't read his posts anymore.
In the past I answered him with facts and proofs on other topics and he just ignored them, and when pressed on the matter, he admitted he was just a big troll (no doubt his way of coping with being shown wrong).
That explains alot.
His posts here were interesting...but old easily Googleable facts so he's no rocket scientist. I ain't that bright either, but at least I dont claim to be.
I didn't think he trolling, but now that u mention it--he's verrrrry Bottom-Poodleish.
Oh well... fuck him
-
That explains alot.
His posts here were interesting...but old easily Googleable facts so he's no rocket scientist. I ain't that bright either, but at least I dont claim to be.
I didn't think he trolling, but now that u mention it--he's verrrrry Bottom-Poodleish.
Oh well... fuck him
why are you still posting on your gay account?
-
Sorry, my friend. But with the information in this thread alone, the question is "If there wasn't..." and not the other way around. But go on.
Right away, a couple of potential reasons come to mind (meant to satisfy an overriding belief, presumably your own, that it was inside job).
1. To cover the mountain of unreleased information.
2. Reason exists to continue the no-plane lie.
One possibility is that images of the sky and what might be seen in it, are being hidden.
That's the "Punch Out Hole" in the C-Ring. Best information says that's from landing gear, and it was documented that pieces of it were there, including at least one double rim at that location alone.
It's documented, too, that engine parts were found. The images are perfectly consistent with what should be expected. As to holes in lots of walls, a large area inside (where parts came to rest) didn't have walls. Only support beams.
Let me ask you something. Being that you believe, through all the body of information you have allowed yourself to acknowledge, that 9/11 was, say, an inside job.... Is that right so far? Is that what you'd say about yourself?
Then why, when faced with a reality which shows that a plane hit, and an MSM Conspiracy-Culture which almost universally says no plane, while "the other side" -- MSM-driven, just the same, through YobTube and Gooble and all search-generated content -- remain seemingly unaware of that image, despite being the thing to make the case: wouldn't you ask what the hell's up with these facts?
I believe you'll find it has everything to do with Norman Mineta and his experience that morning, which he says involved the time approaching the Pentagon crash. It causes that attack to become a particularly sensitive issue, especially true when you realize VP Cheney didn't have the authority -- and knew he did not have the authority -- to do as he was acting to do. (Which, btw, is THE one, the only, direct path in 9/11 to break the lie. It could be smashed open with just a single question, IMO, asked to determine the true reason he did that. No acceptable answer exists. So it wasn't to help America, let's just put it that way. Everyone involved, one by one, would be taken down as a result of pursuing that single question.)
Re the pentagon - They could have released many images showing a plane but they didn't as their wasn't one - See these 2 images:-
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_07.jpg
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_11.jpg
ALL I am saying is that the public should wake up and use their common sense THEN try and find out why?
The towers & building 7 could not collapse at freefall speed into their own footprint from a few floors in the top 1/4 of the building burning for 90 mins
It takes HUGE skill to make buildings do this and yet 3 buildings collapsed in this way???? Even the building "bethere" point us to fell over and very slowly as you would expect.
Building 7 was hardly damaged at all and yet it "fell down" - It was the home of the FBI - COINCIDENCE ??
The only part of the Pentagon hit and destroyed was the accountancy office where $2.3 trillion of public money had gone missing - COINCIDENCE ??
As George Bush later admitted "Money Trumps Peace" -
THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD AND NOT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS - Concluding the 3 buildings were the result of a controlled demolision
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
-
Re the pentagon - They could have released many images showing a plane but they didn't as their wasn't one - See these 2 images:-
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_07.jpg
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_11.jpg
ALL I am saying is that the public should wake up and use their common sense THEN try and find out why?
The towers & building 7 could not collapse at freefall speed into their own footprint from a few floors in the top 1/4 of the building burning for 90 mins
It takes HUGE skill to make buildings do this and yet 3 buildings collapsed in this way???? Even the building "bethere" point us to fell over and very slowly as you would expect.
Building 7 was hardly damaged at all and yet it "fell down" - It was the home of the FBI - COINCIDENCE ??
The only part of the Pentagon hit and destroyed was the accountancy office where $2.3 trillion of public money had gone missing - COINCIDENCE ??
As George Bush later admitted "Money Trumps Peace" -
THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD AND NOT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS - Concluding the 3 buildings were the result of a controlled demolision
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
so it seems you are of the opinion that building 7 was brought down with controlled explosion?
OK, now provide some evidence of that happening...
-
so it seems you are of the opinion that building 7 was brought down with controlled explosion?
OK, now provide some evidence of that happening...
Have done but here's another expert you won't watch being interviewed -
-
Can remember well, watching the events unfold. When building 7 came down, not one person in the room said that was right. Everyone stated the same thing. Why did that on fall? The way it fell looked staged, just like any other controlled building demo. After seeing this i then began to suspect our government was pulling strings.
-
Can remember well, watching the events unfold. When building 7 came down, not one person in the room said that was right. Everyone stated the same thing. Why did that on fall? The way it fell looked staged, just like any other controlled building demo. After seeing this i then began to suspect our government was pulling strings.
I remember watching David Copperfield making the Statue Of liberty disappear, no way could that have been right...
-
Have done but here's another expert you won't watch being interviewed -
I skipped to 3.38 he said Tall buildings have never fell down because of fire.
Thats not true, why should I now watch any more?
apart from spouting the same shit as you why , bearing in mind he claims he was in building 7 didn't he confirm that he saw explosives and a controlled explosion.
He also claimed Rudy Gulliani was inside building 7 shortly before it was brought down?
How would he know that?
-
as for building 7 brought down by explosives
Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.
-
I remember watching David Copperfield making the Statue Of liberty disappear, no way could that have been right...
Trying to be witty are we? Comparing something like building 7 falling to a David Copperfield trick is not witty. Most people reacted the same when building 7 went down. It just looked rigged, it still does, no matter how many times you view it.
-
Trying to be witty are we? Comparing something like building 7 falling to a David Copperfield trick is not witty. Most people reacted the same when building 7 went down. It just looked rigged, it still does, no matter how many times you view it.
why was there no bang when they blew it up?
-
Thank you, Trev. That's fine.
-
Have done but here's another expert you won't watch being interviewed -
This guy is no expert. He is spewing nonsense.
"Fire does not burn by itself, hot enough to compromise and melt steel."
Uhhhh, yes it does. :-\
-
Trev posting videos from a guy that said the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. ??? ??? ???
Alex Jones is a nut.
...and that fireman should loose his pension for running his mouth like that.
-
Have done but here's another expert you won't watch being interviewed -
What where? Please explain the difference between these two videos?
At first one you see what really happen, and second one shows you what morons want you to believe to be a truth.
-
This guy is no expert. He is spewing nonsense.
"Fire does not burn by itself, hot enough to compromise and melt steel."
Uhhhh, yes it does. :-\
What I find funny is the fact that claims of any given futile moron becomes the absolute truth in their minds no matter what they have seen in reality. If fire doesn't burn hot enough to compromise steel, where exactly the horse shoes grow?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age)
-
I skipped to 3.38 he said Tall buildings have never fell down because of fire.
Thats not true, why should I now watch any more?
apart from spouting the same shit as you why , bearing in mind he claims he was in building 7 didn't he confirm that he saw explosives and a controlled explosion.
He also claimed Rudy Gulliani was inside building 7 shortly before it was brought down?
How would he know that?
Watch your own video showing the building that fell due to fire - wasn't a total collapse and a lot fell sideways as it would when natural
There were explosions heard as building 7 collapsed and many witnesses to these
-
This guy is no expert. He is spewing nonsense.
"Fire does not burn by itself, hot enough to compromise and melt steel."
Uhhhh, yes it does. :-\
Watch rhe clip he is an expert and qualified to testify in court
-
What where? Please explain the difference between these two videos?
At first one you see what really happen, and second one shows you what morons want you to believe to be a truth.
Both show a building falling at free fall speed into its own footprint - Can only happen as a result of highly skilled demolition - FACT
-
Any doubters read this - 6 pages of expert scientific evidence
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
-
Watch rhe clip he is an expert and qualified to testify in court
I watched the clip. He is no expert. He is a retired public servant that like to tell stories and reminisce about his glory days. Trust me, he is no expert. He is especially not an expert on fire science.
-
Any doubters read this - 6 pages of expert scientific evidence
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
This article is not peer reviewed, not scientific, contains no evidence. When the article was originally published, even the publishers made the following disclaimer:
"This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."
-
Both show a building falling at free fall speed into its own footprint - Can only happen as a result of highly skilled demolition - FACT
But at the first one collapse takes about 13 seconds, and that is quite far from the free fall. Do you really think that when something happen first time in the history of mankind, it is automaticly impossible? What you are saying is "I haven't seen this before so it must be impossible" and that is quite stupid argument. How about some evidence about the skilled demolition? There is no explosions, no time for planning etc. because no one know that WTC 1 & 2 will collapse at that day. They just take the opportunity, throw some bombs here and there and make that skilled demolition happen? Dear moron, nothing is a fact until you have proved it is ;D
-
I watched the clip. He is no expert. He is a retired public servant that like to tell stories and reminisce about his glory days. Trust me, he is no expert. He is especially not an expert on fire science.
d
Watch again yes he is - qualified to testify
-
This article is not peer reviewed, not scientific, contains no evidence. When the article was originally published, even the publishers made the following disclaimer:
"This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."
Belie
Ve what you like. Is scientific and qualified
-
d
Watch again yes he is - qualified to testify
That does not make him a fire science or fire engineering expert. The fact that he states, that fire cannot compromise steel, pretty much discredits his expertise.
-
Belie
Ve what you like. Is scientific and qualified
It is qualified? So it is a peer reviewed article?
-
But at the first one collapse takes about 13 seconds, and that is quite far from the free fall. Do you really think that when something happen first time in the history of mankind, it is automaticly impossible? What you are saying is "I haven't seen this before so it must be impossible" and that is quite stupid argument. How about some evidence about the skilled demolition? There is no explosions, no time for planning etc. because no one know that WTC 1 & 2 will collapse at that day. They just take the opportunity, throw some bombs here and there and make that skilled demolition happen? Dear moron, nothing is a fact until you have proved it is ;D
13 seconds for a building to fall IS free fall speed. You can see with your own eyes there is no resistance from any of the lower floors
If you and bethere are correct why don't demolition experts now just light a few office fires high up in a building to make them collapse straight down in to their footprint ::)
Don't believe what corrupt politicians and their media tell you - use your eyes and common sense
-
That does not make him a fire science or fire engineering expert. The fact that he states, that fire cannot compromise steel, pretty much discredits his expertise.
g
Jet fuel and office fires cannot burn hot enough to turn steel molten - even official videos and pics show molten steel pouring from the building after just an hour of burning
-
Grenfell tower in the uk burned from bottom to top for days and its structure wasn't compromised at all - Wake up guys!
-
Grenfell tower in the uk burned from bottom to top for days and its structure wasn't compromised at all - Wake up guys!
Grenfell tower is type 1 construction. The WTC's are not. Are you trolling or stupid? ???
-
Grenfell tower is type 1 construction. The WTC's are not. Are you trolling or stupid? ???
Seriously?!!! Do you not know how the towers are constructed or building 7?
Twaddle is the right name for you mate - YouTube "building 7 vs demolition" - side by side - IDENTICAL
-
Seriously?!!! Do you not know how the towers are constructed or building 7?
Twaddle is the right name for you mate - YouTube "building 7 vs demolition" - side by side - IDENTICAL
Okay, I'm convinced you're trolling at this point. Good job, you got me. :D
-
g
Jet fuel and office fires cannot burn hot enough to turn steel molten - even official videos and pics show molten steel pouring from the building after just an hour of burning
no it doesn't, you are wrong...
he is a video bearing in mind you can't seem to read evidence
-
I found these 2 videos quite interesting
worth a watch neither are very long
and no i'm not proclaiming it was a inside job
just found them thought provoking.
-
no it doesn't, you are wrong...
he is a video bearing in mind you can't seem to read evidence
Watch this..........
Then watch this......
Annnnd this one, you can skip to 4:15 if you like ;)
-
Grenfell tower in the uk burned from bottom to top for days and its structure wasn't compromised at all - Wake up guys!
No steel frame in that building = wake up morons!
-
g
Jet fuel and office fires cannot burn hot enough to turn steel molten - even official videos and pics show molten steel pouring from the building after just an hour of burning
So explain how they can fly aeroplanes with that crap?
Heat of the flame = energy from the fuel = energy density of the material = scientific fact you can find all kind of documents and manuals printed decades BEFORE 9/11, and your claim is based to Wikipedia page which anyone can edit?
-
Watch this..........
Then watch this......
Annnnd this one, you can skip to 4:15 if you like ;)
Raving lunatics and their claims are here again? How about some evidence? Never heard about that shit?
All collapsed towers were full of windows up to the moment they collapsed, and what I do not understand how you can use explosions inside the building without breaking any glass? Can someone explain this to me?
-
no it doesn't, you are wrong...
he is a video bearing in mind you can't seem to read evidence
Good to see you looking into this now. I do read evidence. You should read the 6 page report I put on here that's chocker full of scientific evidence.
NOBODY has debunked how all 3 buildings collapsed at free fall speed. How can none of the lower floors offer NO resistance to the collapse. This can only happen if professionally demolished.
-
Good to see you looking into this now. I do read evidence. You should read the 6 page report I put on here that's chocker full of scientific evidence.
NOBODY has debunked how all 3 buildings collapsed at free fall speed. How can none of the lower floors offer NO resistance to the collapse. This can only happen if professionally demolished.
Great, so where were the explosives and what evidence do you have of them existing?
You are aware that all the buildings went down without any sounds of explosives whatsoever, how did that happen?
-
Great, so where were the explosives and what evidence do you have of them existing?
You are aware that all the buildings went down without any sounds of explosives whatsoever, how did that happen?
Thermite found in the dust in many laboratories all around the world.
Many, Many witnesses reported hearing explosions .....
Look - Wrapping up. I wanted to believe the official story of course but when you watch this you just know the official story is bullshit
-
Thermite found in the dust in many laboratories all around the world.
Many, Many witnesses reported hearing explosions .....
Look - Wrapping up. I wanted to believe the official story of course but when you watch this you just know the official story is bullshit
sources please....
Im not watching any more videos...
I have linked you to a site that debunks everything you have ever claimed
Here it is again...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64
Why don't you set up an account and start telling them what you are claiming o here, there are a lot of people on that site who have spent thousands of hours going over the same shit you have cast a cursory glance over.
-
sources please....
Im not watching any more videos...
I have linked you to a site that debunks everything you have ever claimed
Here it is again...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64
Why don't you set up an account and start telling them what you are claiming o here, there are a lot of people on that site who have spent thousands of hours going over the same shit you have cast a cursory glance over.
You won't watch that last video because it proves demolition. Don't blame you as its frighteningly obvious when you watch it.
Here it is again -
That thread you posted is just a bigger version of this one with arguments on both sides.
-
You won't watch that last video because it proves demolition. Don't blame you as its frighteningly obvious when you watch it.
Here it is again -
That thread you posted is just a bigger version of this one with arguments on both sides.
I don't need to watch it because there isn't any evidence of demolition.
Seriously mate, I hope you are trolling because you need some help if its not the case.
-
You won't watch that last video because it proves demolition. Don't blame you as its frighteningly obvious when you watch it.
Here it is again -
That thread you posted is just a bigger version of this one with arguments on both sides.
I'm still convinced you're trolling at this point, and you're doing a masterful job. However, for those that are not trolling, we need to debunk the comparison video that keeps getting posted. The side by side video of WTC7 vs demolition videos is inaccurate. It only shows a portion of the WTC7 collapse? Why? Because if you show the entire video of the WTC7 collapse, it does not support your theory. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speed. Actually, none of them collapsed anywhere near free fall speed. This is proven, and can be proven very easily. I'm not sure why truthers keep claiming they all fell at free fall speed. THEY DID NOT! The video below actually shows the entire collapse of WTC7, not just a portion. 8)
-
I'm still convinced you're trolling at this point, and you're doing a masterful job. However, for those that are not trolling, we need to debunk the comparison video that keeps getting posted. The side by side video of WTC7 vs demolition videos is inaccurate. It only shows a portion of the WTC7 collapse? Why? Because if you show the entire video of the WTC7 collapse, it does not support your theory. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speed. Actually, none of them collapsed anywhere near free fall speed. This is proven, and can be proven very easily. I'm not sure why truthers keep claiming they all fell at free fall speed. THEY DID NOT! The video below actually shows the entire collapse of WTC7, not just a portion. 8)
Believe me, some people are so convinced of these conspiracies they will keep going in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Let me tell you about a guy I was discussing Noahs Ark with on David Ickes forums.
He claimed that all the animals were fitted with solar panels so they could survive so long without eating?
Another guy chipped in and said "but solar panels would be no good as the animals were below deck"
I had to point out that arguing from a standpoint of common sense with a guy who thought animals could live off solar energy was a little pointless.
Thats why presenting all this evidence to truths is sometimes a waste of time.
-
Great, so where were the explosives and what evidence do you have of them existing?
You are aware that all the buildings went down without any sounds of explosives whatsoever, how did that happen?
You are incorrect. There where several loud explosions as heard by witnesses at the scene. Watch the video I posted to you. Many people reported a third explosion the moment the towers fell. Also in another video you can see the demo charges going off each floor just moments before it goes into a free fall. Watch the videos.
-
You are incorrect. There where several loud explosions as heard by witnesses at the scene. Watch the video I posted to you. Many people reported a third explosion the moment the towers fell. Also in another video you can see the demo charges going off each floor just moments before it goes into a free fall. Watch the videos.
No...I have seen them all before, I studied this shit years ago.
There isn't any evidence of a controlled explosion on any of the buildings.
As for charges going off on each floor, then you seem to be totally unaware of how buildings are demolished.
-
Believe me, some people are so convinced of these conspiracies they will keep going in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Let me tell you about a guy I was discussing Noahs Ark with on David Ickes forums.
He claimed that all the animals were fitted with solar panels so they could survive so long without eating?
Another guy chipped in and said "but solar panels would be no good as the animals were below deck"
I had to point out that arguing from a standpoint of common sense with a guy who thought animals could live off solar energy was a little pointless.
Thats why presenting all this evidence to truths is sometimes a waste of time.
There is no overwhelming evidence to proof the 911 commission report. The whole thing was rigged. Explain how the nose of a plane can push through that building without a dent, utter bullshit! Only bombs/explosives brought those towers down. A plane did not hit the Pentagon, it was a missile. There where no phone calls made from passengers on a hijacked plane, impossible. Believing a commission sponsored by our own government is tantamount in believing the police when they investigate themselves.
-
No...I have seen them all before, I studied this shit years ago.
There isn't any evidence of a controlled explosion on any of the buildings.
As for charges going off on each floor, then you seem to be totally unaware of how buildings are demolished.
Kettle talking............
-
There is no overwhelming evidence to proof the 911 commission report. The whole thing was rigged. Explain how the nose of a plane can push through that building without a dent, utter bullshit! Only bombs/explosives brought those towers down. A plane did not hit the Pentagon, it was a missile. There where no phone calls made from passengers on a hijacked plane, impossible. Believing a commission sponsored by our own government in tantamount in believing the police when they investigate themselves.
did you once discuss Noahs Ark on David Ickes forums?
-
Kettle talking............
Look Eric, you seem to be of the opinion that explosives brought down all 3 buildings, can you explain how and when all the charges were placed?
-
did you once discuss Noahs Ark on David Ickes forums?
You sound childish with your so called witty comebacks. I know nothing of the forums you speak on, seems your the knowledgeable one on Noahs Ark forums.
-
You sound childish with your so called witty comebacks. I know nothing of the forums you speak on, seems your the knowledgeable one on Noahs Ark forums.
When Im dealing with someone with a childlike mind then its only right I try and get on the same wavelength.
its clear you have no evidence apart from conspiracy theory videos.
You are done mate...
-
Look Eric, you seem to be of the opinion that explosives brought down all 3 buildings, can you explain how and when all the charges were placed?
No, only those men in our government whom planned this all out can do so. I cannot disbelieve what I see. The overwhelming bits of information on these events challenging the government's, main stream media cover up to me is obvious. Do not care what you think. There are more people in this world who believe this was a set up than those who believe the government. There is a high ranking retired Army General who came out with the same information. He himself did not want to believe his government could do such evil doings. You should watch his interview, a man whom served 32 years in the army, retired as a 2 star Major General in charge of the entire U.S Armys secret intelligence dept. He finally looked into it and has come to the conclusion it was a set up.
-
When Im dealing with someone with a childlike mind then its only right I try and get on the same wavelength.
its clear you have no evidence apart from conspiracy theory videos.
You are done mate...
You have no evidence to prove anything. Nothing, you have offered nothing to the discussion. Just criticism and, an unwillingness to have an open mind , think and watch or 're watch the videos. You refuse to do so, proving you have a closed mind.
"You are done mate....." what does that even mean? You don't agree so I am done. As though you have been bestowed some degree of superiority to tell others to stop. You are one pompous Brit........Ill give you that.
-
You have no evidence to prove anything. Nothing, you have offered nothing to the discussion. Just criticism and, an unwillingness to have an open mind , think and watch or 're watch the videos. You refuse to do so, proving you have a closed mind.
"You are done mate....." what does that even mean? You don't agree so I am done. As though you have been bestowed some degree of superiority to tell others to stop. You are one pompous Brit........Ill give you that.
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/
have a read of that and then counter it...
-
No, only those men in our government whom planned this all out can do so. I cannot disbelieve what I see. The overwhelming bits of information on these events challenging the government's, main stream media cover up to me is obvious. Do not care what you think. There are more people in this world who believe this was a set up than those who believe the government. There is a high ranking retired Army General who came out with the same information. He himself did not want to believe his government could do such evil doings. You should watch his interview, a man whom served 32 years in the army, retired as a 2 star Major General in charge of the entire U.S Armys secret intelligence dept. He finally looked into it and has come to the conclusion it was a set up.
why wasn't he in on it from the get go bearing in mind his position?
So, was it just people above his rank? ::)
You said he was in charge of the entire US Armies secret intelligence dept?
-
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/
have a read of that and then counter it...
Ok.
-
why wasn't he in on it from the get go bearing in mind his position?
So, was it just people above his rank? ::)
You said he wasx in charge of the entire US Armies secret intelligence dept?
You should watch his interview. He was not active at the time.
-
You should watch his interview. He was not active at the time.
why don't you tell me his name?
-
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/
have a read of that and then counter it...
Here you go....
-
why don't you tell me his name?
Here you are.
-
Here you are.
here you are
Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III is a retired Major General in the United States Army with an interest in parapsychology. In fact, he is a proponent of psychic warfare, and was himself involved in MKULTRA and U.S. military projects to create “a breed of 'super soldier'” who would “have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls”. Stubblebine was apparently among the people who tried to walk through walls without noticeable success. In fact, Stubblebine was responsible for getting loads of money poured into what he claimed to be reasonable projects. He is currently heartily insane, but seems to have been batshit crazy even before he tried to walk through walls. For instance, he gave a “Lecture on Remote Viewing as a Research Tool” at the International Symposium on UFO Research in 1982 (you can find it here: “Technical Remote Viewing is the trained ability to acquire accurate direct knowledge of things and events – targets – distant in time or space, in the past, present, or future, while conscious awareness remains totally ‘blind’ to details about the target itself”). He is known to have arranged numerous “spoon-bending parties” (think Uri Geller). After an incident involving an officer who had a “psychotic episode” at the Monroe Institute, however, Stubblebine resigned as head of Army intelligence.
also
Here’s what General Stubblebine had to say about Mars, perhaps thanks to some intel from the Remote Viewing Program?
“There are structures on the surface of Mars. I will tell you for the record that there are structures underneath the surface of Mars that cannot be seen by the Voyager cameras that went by in 1976. I will also tell you that there are machines on the surface of Mars and there are machines under the surface of Mars that you can look at, you can find out in detail, you can see what they are, where they are, who they are and a lot of detail about them.”
-
here you are
also
There is ongoing projects in the aforementioned subjects in these quotes to this day. Our government/military has used psychic people before and will continue to do so. His mistake appears to be in exposing it .Are you a believer that man and earthly creatures are the only life form in the entire universe?
-
There is ongoing projects in the aforementioned subjects in these quotes to this day. Our government/military has used psychic people before and will continue to do so. His mistake appears to be in exposing it .Are you a believer that man and earthly creatures are the only life form in the entire universe?
as a skeptic Im prepared to look at any contrary evidence that we are not alone.
-
There is no overwhelming evidence to proof the 911 commission report. The whole thing was rigged. Explain how the nose of a plane can push through that building without a dent, utter bullshit! Only bombs/explosives brought those towers down. A plane did not hit the Pentagon, it was a missile. There where no phone calls made from passengers on a hijacked plane, impossible. Believing a commission sponsored by our own government is tantamount in believing the police when they investigate themselves.
Well said
-
Look Eric, you seem to be of the opinion that explosives brought down all 3 buildings, can you explain how and when all the charges were placed?
Common knowledge that the elavator systems in all 3 buildings were being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of Sept 11th
-
Common knowledge that the elavator systems in all 3 buildings were being worked on for 9 weeks ahead of Sept 11th
the elevator maintenance and repair for the buildings was undertaken by the ACE elevator company.
Are you suggesting that the employees for this company suddenly became capable of rigging three buildings with explosives and to this day not one of those employees has decided to tell someone about it.
Give them a call
http://www.aceelevatorllc.com/
Oh, and don't forget as yet you have provided zero evidence of any explosives.. ;)
-
You have no evidence to prove anything. Nothing, you have offered nothing to the discussion. Just criticism and, an unwillingness to have an open mind , think and watch or 're watch the videos. You refuse to do so, proving you have a closed mind.
"You are done mate....." what does that even mean? You don't agree so I am done. As though you have been bestowed some degree of superiority to tell others to stop. You are one pompous Brit........Ill give you that.
Look Eric, if you have anything to show me regarding the theories you have regarding 9/11 I will look at them, I wont watch videos , I would like to read some solid scientific evidence.
I posted a link to a sceptics site that has countered every single claim made by conspiracy theorists over the last 15 years , its a full data base of evidence and scientific data.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18
-
the elevator maintenance and repair for the buildings was undertaken by the ACE elevator company.
Are you suggesting that the employees for this company suddenly became capable of rigging three buildings with explosives and to this day not one of those employees has decided to tell someone about it.
Give them a call
http://www.aceelevatorllc.com/
Oh, and don't forget as yet you have provided zero evidence of any explosives.. ;)
1) ACE went bust in 2006
2) Larry Silverstein the Leaseholder of the Twin Towers admits they demolished Building 7 -
-
1) ACE went bust in 2006
2) Larry Silverstein the Leaseholder of the Twin Towers admits they demolished Building 7 -
actually they filed for bankruptcy in 2004, they then became "the infinity elevator company"
Amazing that a company that assisted in the biggest cover up in history and were responsible for planting explosives in three buildings in order to bring them down without anyone knowing how they did it should end up bankrupt???
We seem to be getting of the point again.
the Larry Silverstein quote is explained here.
PS, this is evidence by the way...
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
-
actually they filed for bankruptcy in 2004, they then became "the infinity elevator company"
Amazing that a company that assisted in the biggest cover up in history and were responsible for planting explosives in three buildings in order to bring them down without anyone knowing how they did it should end up bankrupt???
We seem to be getting of the point again.
the Larry Silverstein quote is explained here.
PS, this is evidence by the way...
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
Just read that explanation on the link ..... hilarious. Obviously a bad attempt to cover up the truth. Only a 5 year old would believe that bullshit. "Pulled" is the common term in the USA for demolitioning. He stated very clearly that it was standing but they couldn't contain the fires, so "they decided to pull and we watched it come down" - They had to cover this up as its proof of pre-planning as demolitioning takes days or even weeks to set up.
You keep being presented with evidence but like so many, you just close your mind and believe the corrupt politicians and their media
-
Just read that explanation on the link ..... hilarious. Obviously a bad attempt to cover up the truth. Only a 5 year old would believe that bullshit. "Pulled" is the common term in the USA for demolitioning. He stated very clearly that it was standing but they couldn't contain the fires, so "they decided to pull and we watched it come down" - They had to cover this up as its proof of pre-planning as demolitioning takes days or even weeks to set up.
You keep being presented with evidence but like so many, you just close your mind and believe the corrupt politicians and their media
Pulled is the common term?
Really, apart from people in the business who knows that the term "pulled" is used?
They were pulling buildings down with cables on the day.
and if it was set to be blown up on the day anyway why would they need Larry to make the decision to pull?
Jeez.. go and read the links.
Now, do you have any evidence the buildings were blown up?
-
Pulled is the common term?
Really, apart from people in the business who knows that the term "pulled" is used?
They were pulling buildings down with cables on the day.
and if it was set to be blown up on the day anyway why would they need Larry to make the decision to pull?
Jeez.. go and read the links.
Now, do you have any evidence the buildings were blown up?
You don't read the evidence mate - You keep asking about explosives. Here is an independent report analysing the dust. Not a video so read it - THERMITE FOUND
http://www.jswami.info/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/activethermitic_911.pdf
-
You don't read the evidence mate - You keep asking about explosives. Here is an independent report analysing the dust. Not a video so read it - THERMITE FOUND
http://www.jswami.info/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/activethermitic_911.pdf
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
how many other scientific papers has Niels H. Harrit* published on nanothermite prior to and since the one you linked?
-
Look Eric, if you have anything to show me regarding the theories you have regarding 9/11 I will look at them, I wont watch videos , I would like to read some solid scientific evidence.
I posted a link to a sceptics site that has countered every single claim made by conspiracy theorists over the last 15 years , its a full data base of evidence and scientific data.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18
How about simple rules of physics? Those towers would not have fallen the way they did without explosives. Fact. You want to read solid science study physics.
-
How about simple rules of physics? Those towers would not have fallen the way they did without explosives. Fact. You want to read solid science study physics.
they didn't fall at freefall speed.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Now post some contrary evidence please..
-
the elevator maintenance and repair for the buildings was undertaken by the ACE elevator company.
Are you suggesting that the employees for this company suddenly became capable of rigging three buildings with explosives and to this day not one of those employees has decided to tell someone about it.
Give them a call
http://www.aceelevatorllc.com/
Oh, and don't forget as yet you have provided zero evidence of any explosives.. ;)
George Bushs brother Marvin P. BUSH was a principle in Securacom security company. They oversaw the security of the World Trade Centers up to the time they where brought down by the NWO. They placed guards at the elevators that where being upgraded as far back as march of the same year. Securacom so provided services for United airlines and Dulles international airport.
-
they didn't fall at freefall speed.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Now post some contrary evidence please..
Does not matter, the rules of physics state the towers would not have progressed all the way to the grou d. The lower structure would have held, laws of physics.
-
Does not matter, the rules of physics state the towers would not have progressed all the way to the grou d. The lower structure would have held, laws of physics.
so, you admit they didn't fall at freefall speed.
Now, explain why the laws of physics say they wouldn't have fell the way they did?
-
George Bushs brother Marvin P. BUSH was a principle in Securacom security company. They oversaw the security of the World Trade Centers up to the time they where brought down by the NWO. They placed guards at the elevators that where being upgraded as far back as march of the same year. Securacom so provided services for United airlines and Dulles international airport.
so they used Security Guards to protect the most secretive planned controlled explosions of the two tallest buildings in the world and would involve killing thousands of people?
Security guards on minimum wage, you serious?
-
so they used Security Guards to protect the most secretive planned controlled explosions of the two tallest buildings in the world and would involve killing thousands of people?
Security guards on minimum wage, you serious?
Who said the guards where minum wage security guards?
-
so, you admit they didn't fall at freefall speed.
Now, explain why the laws of physics say they wouldn't have fell the way they did?
Just one example, yet i am sure you have something to counter actual science.
-
Perhaps there are some that believe Michael Moore's documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.
I sure did --made the entire thing seem like a huge set up.
However it was smothered in lies and stretching of the truth.
Below you'll find a 1 hour 20 min documentary that fact checked MANY of Moores work.
FarenHYPE 911
-
Just one example, yet i am sure you have something to counter actual science.
fucking hell...
what a fucking moron, where did you find that?
"when the floors have been crushed theres nothing left to crush the rest of the building".
Tell me, whats heavier a ton of solid concrete or a ton of pulverised concrete?
-
Who said the guards where minum wage security guards?
me, can you demonstrate that they were paid any higher than that, they are after all security guards
-
me, can you demonstrate that they were paid any higher than that, they are after all security guards
My point or suggestion rather flew over your head.
-
My point or suggestion rather flew over your head.
like a plane hitting a tower?
Now, rather than ignoring all my counter arguments would you like to discuss it further, you could produce some evidence of explosives, we have already dealt with the nanothermite nonsense, anything else you want to talk about?
-
You have produced nothing as evidence to prove your stance. Prove to the world that a small group of terrorist did all this, prove to the world that two passenger jets cut into a massive wall of cold reinforced steel and concrete like butter, prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, prove that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with it. You cannot, you have nothing.
Nothing you can say will convince me this was not a set up.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-911-the-day-the-laws-of-physics-were-suspended-we-were-told-people-hating-our-freedoms-attacked-the-centers-of-american-power/5545511/amp#ampshare=https://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-911-the-day-the-laws-of-physics-were-suspended-we-were-told-people-hating-our-freedoms-attacked-the-centers-of-american-power/5545511
-
You have produced nothing as evidence to prove your stance. Prove to the world that a small group of terrorist did all this, prove to the world that two passenger jets cut into a massive wall of cold reinforced steel and concrete like butter, prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, prove that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with it. You cannot, you have nothing.
Nothing you can say will convince me this was not a set up.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-911-the-day-the-laws-of-physics-were-suspended-we-were-told-people-hating-our-freedoms-attacked-the-centers-of-american-power/5545511/amp#ampshare=https://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-911-the-day-the-laws-of-physics-were-suspended-we-were-told-people-hating-our-freedoms-attacked-the-centers-of-american-power/5545511
there isn't any evidence to the contrary.
We saw the planes, we have evidence of the terrorists, we saw the buildings fall, a plane hit the pentagon, there was evidence of a plane on the lawn.
Come on, its you that needs to bring something to counter the official story.
Now if you want to revert back to your original stance of "somethings not right" then thats fine, Im happy to leave you in blissful ignorance.
-
there isn't any evidence to the contrary.
We saw the planes, we have evidence of the terrorists, we saw the buildings fall, a plane hit the pentagon, there was evidence of a plane on the lawn.
Come on, its you that needs to bring something to counter the official story.
Now if you want to revert back to your original stance of "somethings not right" then thats fine, Im happy to leave you in blissful ignorance.
There is no proof that a passenger jet hit the pentagon, there is no proof that passenger jets hit the world trade center. You must be something special to think that a regular jet passenger airling could on any circumstances cut into several floors or cold steel and concrete like butter and have the nose cone travel all the way out with no visible dent. Fucking hell thats rich. Its not me that needs to counter anything, i have posted numerouse examples yoh refuse to give time to. Like i said, i do not care what you think. You will not convince me it was anything but a conspiracy set up by the powers that be. So you go believing the fairy tale that is the official story. Believe it was a small group of terrorist that where able to penatrate the most heavily fortified video survailenced building in the world, oh yeah, are air systems where shut off right, the video cameras and air defemse over pentagon where shut off. Keep drinking the government cool aid hahahahaha.
-
There is no proof that a passenger jet hit the pentagon, there is no proof that passenger jets hit the world trade center. You must be something special to think that a regular jet passenger airling could on any circumstances cut into several floors or cold steel and concrete like butter and have the nose cone travel all the way out with no visible dent. Fucking hell thats rich. Its not me that needs to counter anything, i have posted numerouse examples yoh refuse to give time to. Like i said, i do not care what you think. You will not convince me it was anything but a conspiracy set up by the powers that be. So you go believing the fairy tale that is the official story. Believe it was a small group of terrorist that where able to penatrate the most heavily fortified video survailenced building in the world, oh yeah, are air systems where shut off right, the video cameras and air defemse over pentagon where shut off. Keep drinking the government cool aid hahahahaha.
(http://airstre.am/dopamine72/Nicolas%20Cage%20Laugh.gif)
the powers that be?
Is that all you have, a secret plot by someone you have no idea who?
-
You cannot explane planes cutting through solid steel and concrete with the nose passing clean through can you? You cannot prove anhthing the official report stated.
-
You cannot explane planes cutting through solid steel and concrete with the nose passing clean through can you? You cannot prove anhthing the official report stated.
heres a ping pong ball going through a paddle.....
Now, think of a plane travelling at 590mph
-
heres a ping pong ball going through a paddle.....
Now, think of a plane travelling at 590mph
Thats cute, next lets do the raw egg crush test in the palm of my hand.
This is more like what haplened at World Trade.
-
Thats cute, next lets do the raw egg crush test in the palm of my hand.
This is more like what haplened at World Trade.
you ignore evidence to refute your claim and you post another video??
Tell me when did they shoot the buster bombs into the twin towers?
A plane travelling at 590mph can cut through a skyscraper wall of glass and aluminium with steel beams inside.
-
Your comparism of a ping pong ball going through a paddle is your evidence? Ive seen straw go well into telephone poles, i have seen plywood go thru and into buildings. Yet i see no proof where a plane can cut into steel structure and concrete all the while maintaining its structural shape, then have the nose cone travel completley thru the entire structure completley intact. The nose cone looks more like the front of the bunker buster bomb i posted to you. You have offered no proof of evidence to the contrary.
-
(https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/flight-77.jpg?w=960&h=520)
-
(https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/question15c.jpg)
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xsmc_rS2jOo/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
(https://theburningbloggerofbedlam.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/911-memes-sw.jpg)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xADjk5AdI8o/UVSxS4j0o6I/AAAAAAAAI5s/46YuzBhhjZA/s1600/FALSE+FLAG+9-11+04.jpg)
-
(https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/firememe.jpg?w=604)
-
(https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/bbcearly.jpg)
-
(https://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/wtc-squib-mosaic.jpg)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a8zUS-gp7sk/TZCd7laIx9I/AAAAAAAAKh8/zeQiH3-GS-c/s1600/wtc%2Bcase%2Bfor%2BCD.jpg)
-
(https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/towersmemegravitybr.jpg)
-
(http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/awtcflash.jpg)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLEpKiGPngY/UycFGz5PQeI/AAAAAAAALio/tZq_X65Er-M/s1600/WTC+Building+7.jpg)
-
Your comparism of a ping pong ball going through a paddle is your evidence? Ive seen straw go well into telephone poles, i have seen plywood go thru and into buildings. Yet i see no proof where a plane can cut into steel structure and concrete all the while maintaining its structural shape, then have the nose cone travel completley thru the entire structure completley intact. The nose cone looks more like the front of the bunker buster bomb i posted to you. You have offered no proof of evidence to the contrary.
so have seen all those things yet the only one you won't believe is the plane going into a building?
Im not even addressing all those pictures because they have all been de-bunked many times already.
-
One thing that NOBODY will ever explain, without insulting others intelect, is the implosion of building 7.
Magic?
-
One thing that NOBODY will ever explain, without insulting others intelect, is the implosion of building 7.
Magic?
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Read that and report back...
-
One thing that NOBODY will ever explain, without insulting others intelect, is the implosion of building 7.
Magic?
The man who leased it and the twin towers explained here -
-
The man who leased it and the twin towers explained here -
that has been explained to you ad infinitum
Here, read it again
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
-
that has been explained to you ad infinitum
Here, read it again
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
No it hasn't - Clear what he meant and if a building is pulled with a cable is doesn't go straight down at free fall speed into its footprint. MANY admitted building 7 was demolished on the day until questions were raised about the time it takes to rig a demolition.
-
so have seen all those things yet the only one you won't believe is the plane going into a building?
Im not even addressing all those pictures because they have all been de-bunked many times already.
No they have not been debunked. Even if they where, by whom and why are they right? Anyone believing World Trade 7 went down without charges..............wow just wow. Every time you look at it go down its so obviously intentionaly imploded its laughable you would think otherwise.
-
so have seen all those things yet the only one you won't believe is the plane going into a building?
Im not even addressing all those pictures because they have all been de-bunked many times already.
Of course you wont address those pictures. Because they say a thousand words each and smack reason to anyone looking at them. You for some reason cannot imagine it possible for our government to pull this off so you are blinding yourself.
-
No they have not been debunked. Even if they where, by whom and why are they right? Anyone believing World Trade 7 went down without charges..............wow just wow. Every time you look at it go down its so obviously intentionaly imploded its laughable you would think otherwise.
and yet every time you watch it go down there is no evidence of an explosion either visually or audibly.
care to explain that?
-
The difference with those examples is that an aeroplane filled with petrol hit the buildings at high speed which in itself should cause a lot of structural damage.
-
The difference with those examples is that an aeroplane filled with petrol hit the buildings at high speed which in itself should cause a lot of structural damage.
Yeah, Eric kind of left out that a 395,000lb plane traveling at a few hundreds miles per hour slammed into the WTC.
-
Yeah, Eric kind of left out that a 395,000lb plane traveling at a few hundreds miles per hour slammed into the WTC.
nope, he thinks it was a missile because a plane couldn't have caused enough damage for the towers to collapse, towers that he then seems to claim were brought down with a controlled demolition???
Im really not sure he has a clear understanding of how he thinks it happened himself.
-
So, was it a plane, missile, bombs, or thermite? I'm so confused. ???
-
Yeah, Eric kind of left out that a 395,000lb plane traveling at a few hundreds miles per hour slammed into the WTC.
Sure it did, lots of damage. Watch the video again. Funny how the building swallows the plane whole with no deviation in structure to the planes shape, this is impossible, not to mention the laws of physics as to how the building collapsed. Not one piece of the aircraft was left stuck to the outside of the frame on the building, interesting.
-
and yet every time you watch it go down there is no evidence of an explosion either visually or audibly.
care to explain that?
This study when it comes out should be interesting.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy
-
Sure it did, lots of damage. Watch the video again. Funny how the building swallows the plane whole with no deviation in structure to the planes shape, this is impossible, not to mention the laws of physics as to how the building collapsed. Not one piece of the aircraft was left stuck to the outside of the frame on the building, interesting.
So, it wasn't a plane that hit the building? Was there ever a plane? ???
-
nope, he thinks it was a missile because a plane couldn't have caused enough damage for the towers to collapse, towers that he then seems to claim were brought down with a controlled demolition???
Im really not sure he has a clear understanding of how he thinks it happened himself.
You are correct. I do not know how it happened exactly. Neither do you or anyone in this forum for that matter. I just dont believe the narrative of the official report. I do not for one minute believe that in a history of zero steel high rise buildings collapsing from fire that three fall within their own footprjnt at near freefall speed and not only that. They are three buildings in the same area. Not one person here knows exactly what happened that day. Yet you have blind faith in the official report.
-
You are correct. I do not know how it happened exactly. Neither do you or anyone in this forum for that matter. I just dont believe the narrative of the official report. I do not for one minute believe that in a history of zero steel high rise buildings collapsing from fire that three fall within their own footprjnt at near freefall speed and not only that. They are three buildings in the same area. Not one person here knows exactly what happened that day. Yet you have blind faith in the official report.
How did this high rise building collapse?
-
Sure it did, lots of damage. Watch the video again. Funny how the building swallows the plane whole with no deviation in structure to the planes shape, this is impossible, not to mention the laws of physics as to how the building collapsed. Not one piece of the aircraft was left stuck to the outside of the frame on the building, interesting.
it was travelling at 560 mph did you expect it to stick in like a dart in a board?
-
You are correct. I do not know how it happened exactly. Neither do you or anyone in this forum for that matter. I just dont believe the narrative of the official report. I do not for one minute believe that in a history of zero steel high rise buildings collapsing from fire that three fall within their own footprjnt at near freefall speed and not only that. They are three buildings in the same area. Not one person here knows exactly what happened that day. Yet you have blind faith in the official report.
so, after all that you are back to "it doesn't look right"
jeez, what a waste of time...
-
it was travelling at 560 mph did you expect it to stick in like a dart in a board?
No a rational person would know the plane would come apart as it hit, no go in like a knife thru butter
-
No a rational person would know the plane would come apart as it hit, no go in like a knife thru butter
Bro you're arguing with a guy who seems to have some sort of compulsive obsessive disorder
-
No a rational person would know the plane would come apart as it hit, no go in like a knife thru butter
So, it wasn't a plane that hit the twin towers? I'm still confused. What was it then? ???
-
No a rational person would know the plane would come apart as it hit, no go in like a knife thru butter
Yes, the plane would bounce off into a million pieces, all the glass windows would break though.
-
No a rational person would know the plane would come apart as it hit, no go in like a knife thru butter
the building was mostly glass and aluminium with some steel columns.
I have already shown you a ping pong ball going through a paddle, you yourself have admitted you have seen straw go into telephone poles.
why can't a plane go through a building going at 560mph?
-
https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/half-in-half-out1.jpg
-
https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/half-in-half-out1.jpg
What does this mean? I'm completely confused now. Was the plane never there? ???
-
Well at least we know now that we don't have to spend thousands of dollars and weeks of carefully laid dynamite to bring down a steel building. Just pour some kerosene on the thing and light it.
-
Well at least we know now that we don't have to spend thousands of dollars and weeks of carefully laid dynamite to bring down a steel building. Just pour some kerosene on the thing a light it.
Ha ha --- Yep just Remote fly an old airplane that's about to be scrapped full of fuel at 500mph 3/4 of the way up the building -- Nice neat demolishion job.
Also stop all the conspiracy theories ;)
-
Ha ha --- Yep just Remote fly an old airplane that's about to be scrapped full of fuel at 500mph 3/4 of the way up the building -- Nice neat demolishion job.
Also stop all the conspiracy theories ;)
Hey no plane required. Remember, building 7 came down with just some spot fires and a little structural damage.
-
https://911planeshoax.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/half-in-half-out1.jpg
Is that a real pic - or has it been shopped.
-
Is that a real pic - or has it been shopped.
It's real. It's a still from a video. Some will argue that it's an illusion due to the quality of the video.
-
Hey no plane required. Remember, building 7 came down with just some spot fires and a little structural damage.
Yes and the help of the those who "Pulled it" John Kerry secretary of state admitted it
from around the 1.50 mark
How did they manage to rig it so quick for a controlled demolition.
-
Lots of tinfoil here. Next thing ya know someone will be saying that Sandy Hook was staged.
-
Yes and the help of the those who "Pulled it" John Kerry secretary of state admitted it
from around the 1.50 mark
How did they manage to rig it so quick for a controlled demolition.
That's the million dollar question!!! Of course it was rigged but if it ever gets out that it was rigged months before then everyone will know this whole thing was planned and yes it takes months to rig up something like that.
-
It's real. It's a still from a video. Some will argue that it's an illusion due to the quality of the video.
I suppose it could be an illusion - Though as a one off pic it does look mighty odd that the building isn't damaged or the plane crumpled and or in bits.
-
I suppose it could be an illusion - Though as a one off pic it does look mighty odd that the building isn't damaged or the plane crumpled and or in bits.
Look up the vid on youtube. You can see it in slow mow.
-
That's the million dollar question!!! Of course it was rigged but if it ever gets out that it was rigged months before then everyone will know this whole thing was planned and yes it takes months to rig up something like that.
By the senator admitting he knew it was Pulled in a controlled fashion it does open up a lot of questions
as to when it was rigged & why as it doesn't seem very likely it was done when them small fires broke out.
-
By the senator admitting he knew it was Pulled in a controlled fashion it does open up a lot of questions
as to when it was rigged & why as it doesn't seem very likely it was done when them small fires broke out.
Yes, you obviously can't rig a building that size in hours. It would take months and also considering it was to be done in secret.
-
Yes, you obviously can't rig a building that size in hours. It would take months and also considering it was to be done in secret.
Exactly as i would of thought - has this ever been answered as to why it was pre-rigged
or we likely to be called "Tin foil hats" for discussing & asking questions
-
Exactly as i would of thought - has this ever been answered as to why it was pre-rigged
or we likely to be called "Tin foil hats" for discussing & asking questions
There is some brand new study that was just done that supposedly proved that building 7 was brought down with explosives. I'll see if I can find it. As to the why is was done I don't we will never know.
-
There is some brand new study that was just done that supposedly proved that building 7 was brought down with explosives. I'll see if I can find it. As to the why is was done I don't we will never know.
look forward to it if you find it-- and yes as usual more questions than answers - They know only They not going to make it general knowledge to the public.
-
(http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/George-Costanza-Im-out.gif)
-
(http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/George-Costanza-Im-out.gif)
Ha - ;)
-
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
-
Be There you are normally a perceptive fella I am surprised you are taking this tack with what happened. Wondering if this is just your way to go against the grain and provoke outrage by pushing the official version? What do you think happened? Do you believe it unfolded as the mainstream media lead us to believe?
-
If WTC 7 was rigged with explosives to bring the building down, how did the explosives survive 7 hours of fire? Also, why didn't the explosives make any noise? Were the explosives defective?
-
Be There you are normally a perceptive fella I am surprised you are taking this tack with what happened. Wondering if this is just your way to go against the grain and provoke outrage by pushing the official version? What do you think happened? Do you believe it unfolded as the mainstream media lead us to believe?
Pretty much, the alternatives are too far fetched.
If it was an inside job just how many people would have had to be involved and never speak of it again?
-
Pretty much, the alternatives are too far fetched.
If it was an inside job just how many people would have had to be involved and never speak of it again?
Yeah a lot of people would have to keep quiet and with such a massive thing that's very unlikely. I'll be honest I don't have a clue what happened there, the official version doesn't ring true and there are loads of holes in the conspiracy version or potential holes that I can't work my head round. One thing about conspiracies I do think though, they always make out people in power to be these evil geniuses who have manipulated everything perfectly to go wrong. I don't buy this I just think people are fucking stupid and make mistakes all the time! Not always but sometimes people really are that dumb!!
-
I will never forget 9-11 thanks to you idiots.
-
How the towers could have easily been rigged to blow.
Also, video evidence with witnesses and audio os secondary explosions in towers
-
How the towers could have easily been rigged to blow.
Also, video evidence with witnesses and audio os secondary explosions in towers
so they started the controlled explosion from almost the top of the building all the way to the bottom????
thats how they came down if you want to believe it was explosives.
Controlled explosions are rigged from the bottom floors you fucking moron
tell me how long did it take to rig every single floor from just below where the plane hit to the bottom?
You really have to be some kind of stupid.
-
That shit happened like 16 years ago. Lets stop crying in our beers and move on.
-
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
;D
-
If WTC 7 was rigged with explosives to bring the building down, how did the explosives survive 7 hours of fire? Also, why didn't the explosives make any noise? Were the explosives defective?
Explosives? And what is the logic behind this? "They fly aeroplanes at the WTC towers, so we need to have WTC7 rigged with explosives ASAP so we could demolish it with none real reason at all "? As we know, controlled demolition takes months to prepare, and how they manage to do it in one afternoon at the burning building with so much skills, that there is no visible explosions in any of the videos until someone add them there? And for teens who haven't have seen any real explosions, here is one:
Not like in the movies at all and there goes 100lb dynamite. How about tons they use to make controlled demolition? You see absolutely nothing. Video is good example about the speed of explosion, which is something you never see in 9/11 videos. Would that broke windows of the towers?
-
By the senator admitting he knew it was Pulled in a controlled fashion it does open up a lot of questions
as to when it was rigged & why as it doesn't seem very likely it was done when them small fires broke out.
A senator and the actual lease holder of all 3 buildings BOTH stated building 7 was demolished. It was only later when experts recealed how long it takes to rig up that their press started to change what they meant to say.
-
A senator and the actual lease holder of all 3 buildings BOTH stated building 7 was demolished. It was only later when experts revealed how long it takes to rig up that their press started to change what they meant to say.
Hmm - That video clearly shows what senator Kerry said - Yet Few on here want to address it
He clearly didn't make a gaff he was stating it is fact.
As to How & why - is something that has been avoided.
Proof of an inside job - maybe maybe not -- only truthful answers will clear that up.
If there have been those answers I've missed them.
-
A senator and the actual lease holder of all 3 buildings BOTH stated building 7 was demolished. It was only later when experts recealed how long it takes to rig up that their press started to change what they meant to say.
no, that's simply not true.
-
Kerry responded:
"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."
that's a million miles away from him saying it was a controlled explosion.
A "controlled fashion" by definition is withdrawing the fire fighters and allowing the building to fall, after all it wasn't likely to cause any further damage.
also why would you go to the trouble of setting up "controlled explosions" and then fly planes into the buildings, that by definition would make the planned explosions uncontrollable.
-
that's a million miles away from him saying it was a controlled explosion.
A "controlled fashion" by definition is withdrawing the fire fighters and allowing the building to fall, after all it wasn't likely to cause any further damage.
also why would you go to the trouble of setting up "controlled explosions" and then fly planes into the buildings, that by definition would make the planned explosions uncontrollable.
yes there is this - just so much seemingly conflicting "evidence / views"
A lot of it makes no sense - then we don't know all the details & are unlikely to.
-
yes there is this - just so much seemingly conflicting "evidence / views"
A lot of it makes no sense - then we don't know all the details & are unlikely to.
there are many other events that have occurred that I could sit down and come up with lots of different conspiracy theories based on zero evidence.
Fact is , there isn't any other evidence which points to 9/11 as being anything other than a terrorist attack and the buildings came down in the way they did.
No explosives, nada ziltch..
-
there are many other events that have occurred that I could sit down and come up with lots of different conspiracy theories based on zero evidence.
Fact is , there isn't any other evidence which points to 9/11 as being anything other than a terrorist attack and the buildings came down in the way they did.
No explosives, nada ziltch..
And people do come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories
I'm not totally convinced it wasn't "know about" or Helped - Allowed to happen.
The statement by Kerry i find a bit strange or should i say it wasn't very clear what he meant by it
And it did fall in the exact same manner as the other buildings.
-
And people do come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories
I'm not totally convinced it wasn't "know about" or Helped - Allowed to happen.
The statement by Kerry i find a bit strange or should i say it wasn't very clear what he meant by it
And it did fall in the exact same manner as the other buildings.
Kerry proves its now effectively common knowledge building 7 was "pulled" (demolished).
This video shows the demolition explosives going off -
-
Kerry proves its now effectively common knowledge building 7 was "pulled" (demolished).
This video shows the demolition explosives going off -
Kerry Proves???
You mean one of the lying politicians who was in on the cover up?
NOW YOU BELIEVE HIM?
And no, no evidence of explosives going off.
-
Fuck me, the next video in line after the one Trev posted.
Just listen to the stupidity of this one.
"a plane that supposed to be lighter than air can cut through steel beams"
Yep, planes don't weigh anything at all....
-
so they started the controlled explosion from almost the top of the building all the way to the bottom????
thats how they came down if you want to believe it was explosives.
Controlled explosions are rigged from the bottom floors you fucking moron
tell me how long did it take to rig every single floor from just below where the plane hit to the bottom?
You really have to be some kind of stupid.
Wow! Look at the sassy little Brit get into a hissy fit. Calling me names and losing your temper my my. Pull your britches out of your crack and settle down.
I am only presenting possibilities you little man, easy on your temper. Plus its fun knowing you wake up and jump to see whats been posted next so you can flip out and say that was debunked. ;D
Settle down Nancy.
-
-
Wow! Look at the sassy little Brit get into a hissy fit. Calling me names and losing your temper my my. Pull your britches out of your crack and settle down.
I am only presenting possibilities you little man, easy on your temper. Plus its fun knowing you wake up and jump to see whats been posted next so you can flip out and say that was debunked. ;D
Settle down Nancy.
no, you are presenting unsubstantiated nonsense.
Its a possibility that it never happened at all and we were all brainwashed into thinking it did.
-
no, you are presenting unsubstantiated nonsense.
Its a possibility that it never happened at all and we were all brainwashed into thinking it did.
Would you like to hear my thoughts on the Kennedys? ;D
-
Would you like to hear my thoughts on the Kennedys? ;D
hahahaha.... love to.
-
Kerry Proves???
You mean one of the lying politicians who was in on the cover up?
NOW YOU BELIEVE HIM?
And no, no evidence of explosives going off.
When not prepared politicians drop the truth, just like bush when he caught himself calling 911 a conspiracy on live Tv and when he said "money trumps peace" - The truth behind the lost $23 trillion disappeared when building 7 was demolished and when the government accountancy offices were the only ones destroyed at the Pentagon
-
When not prepared politicians drop the truth, just like bush when he caught himself calling 911 a conspiracy on live Tv and when he said "money trumps peace" - The truth behind the lost $23 trillion disappeared when building 7 was demolished and when the government accountancy offices were the only ones destroyed at the Pentagon
it was 2.3 trillion you dumbo and it didn't disappear
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/
-
it was 2.3 trillion you dumbo and it didn't disappear
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/
Yep $2.3 trillion and it did disappear as Rumsfield reported live on Sept 10th. As usual your debunk info is total bollocks as shown further in the thread. Doesn't matter you will believe it's just an unhappy coincidence that the only office hit and the only people killed at the Pentagon were the financial people who had the answers as to where it went!!!!
-
Yep $2.3 trillion and it did disappear as Rumsfield reported live on Sept 10th. As usual your debunk info is total bollocks as shown further in the thread. Doesn't matter you will believe it's just an unhappy coincidence that the only office hit and the only people killed at the Pentagon were the financial people who had the answers as to where it went!!!!
it didn't disappear, it just wasn't properly accounted for, the explanation is in the link.
In 2001, Donald Rumsfeld said 'According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.' This has been misinterpreted by many people as $2.3 trillion actually going missing. However it's really just about the way the money was accounted for.
Rumsfeld isn't an accountant.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=628579.0;attach=745426;image)
yet a jumbo jet full of fuel flying at 560mph cant cut into a glass and aluminium building with steel pillars?
-
Here's a great question for the CTers. That means everyone, of course, since everyone knows that, one way or another and regardless of belief, it required a conspiratorial degree of planning to do as was done.
Right? Right.
So, since we have ALL been outed as CTers: Would any one of you disagree that it did NOT happen as planned within an ideal course of events, in accord with that conspiracy?
-
Here's a great question for the CTers. That means everyone, of course, since everyone knows that, one way or another and regardless of belief, it required a conspiratorial degree of planning to do as was done.
Right? Right.
So, since we have ALL been outed as CTers: Would any one of you disagree that it did NOT happen as planned within an ideal course of events, in accord with that conspiracy?
You dont seem to understand the term 'conspiracy theorist'.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=628579.0;attach=745426;image)
yet a jumbo jet full of fuel flying at 560mph cant cut into a glass and aluminium building with steel pillars?
Ok seriously your kidding now. The plane went into the building as shown both in still and motion shots as though it slipped through a curtain. First of all the plane was at an angle crossing through several floors each floor was made of concrete not just aluminum and glass. The plane in the still shots as well as the motion shots does not even crumple much less break apart. The only way in my opinion for something like that to happen would be if it was a military plane custom built to do so.
Here is still shot of jet slipping into building made of concrete and steele with zero resistance
(http://www.therealnewsonline.com/uploads/6/5/2/9/6529494/___1503143.jpg)
Here we have a bunker buster
(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/01/divine_thunderbolt.jpg)
Next we have a regular jet vs concrete
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/montf4.jpg)
-
You dont seem to understand the term 'conspiracy theorist'.
Don't we all rely on some belief that one existed or exists?
-
Don't we all rely on some belief that one existed or exists?
You have lost me...
-
You have lost me...
When it comes to hijacking multiple planes and using them to kill people, it can only be accomplished through a conspiracy.
-
When it comes to hijacking multiple planes and using them to kill people, it can only be accomplished through a conspiracy.
So when I decide to build a garage am I and the contractors involved in a conspiracy?
you seem to be mixing up "plan" and "conspiracy"
-
How about you, Eric? Do you think the conspiracy saw itself unfold under ideal expectations or circumstances? Or do you believe that something or somethings may have happened to cause problems for it? If so, then what?
-
So when I decide to build a garage am I and the contractors involved in a conspiracy?
you seem to be mixing up "plan" and "conspiracy"
No. To begin with, I don't think garage-building is illegal.
-
How about you, Eric? Do you think the conspiracy saw itself unfold under ideal expectations or circumstances? Or do you believe that something or somethings may have happened to cause problems for it? If so, then what?
he will be looking for a video to post to answer you....
-
No. To begin with, I don't think garage-building is illegal.
It is if you dont get planning permission
and terrorists wouldnt accept that blowing up the towers was illegal would they?
-
It is if you dont get planning permission
and terrorists wouldnt accept that blowing up the towers was illegal would they?
Yes. Whether or not they have shit-for-respect toward the laws they'd break is another story.
-
he will be looking for a video to post to answer you....
I have a video to answer you ;D
http://media.giphy.com/media/x1kS7NRIcIigU/giphy.gif
-
Yes. Whether or not they have shit-for-respect toward the laws they'd break is another story.
im pretty sure they think the USA bombing their women and children is illegal as well, just depends on your standpoint.
-
How about you, Eric? Do you think the conspiracy saw itself unfold under ideal expectations or circumstances? Or do you believe that something or somethings may have happened to cause problems for it? If so, then what?
What I do know is that a large part of the world went to war over it. Because of this the United States was able to stretch it's tentacles in the middle east by building new bases. Because of 911 the United States instilled a new act, The Patriot Act, and citizens are spied on now more than ever. Because of 911 another department of government was created, Homeland Security, billions of tax dollars since and continue to flood these programs.
As a result of the wars in the middle east we have overthrown a government which left a void of control over the people. Allowing more terrorist activity than before. This way the government can continue the business of war by maintaining a police force in the area. We have lost many thousands of young men willing to "kill a commie for mommy" so was the mantra when I was in.
As a result of 911 the only thing gained from it was to a large governments advantage. Not just one government.
I believe 911 was premeditated evil hell bent on terrorising a large population of people into believing one thing for an end result still in the works.
I absolutely do not trust my government nor any others as well to tell it's people the truth.
-
What I do know is that a large part of the world went to war over it. Because of this the United States was able to stretch it's tentacles in the middle east by building new bases. Because of 911 the United States instilled a new act, The Patriot Act, and citizens are spied on now more than ever. Because of 911 another department of government was created, Homeland Security, billions of tax dollars since and continue to flood these programs.
As a result of the wars in the middle east we have overthrown a government which left a void of control over the people. Allowing more terrorist activity than before. This way the government can continue the business of war by maintaining a police force in the area. We have lost many thousands of young men willing to "kill a commie for mommy" so was the mantra when I was in.
As a result of 911 the only thing gained from it was to a large governments advantage. Not just one government.
I believe 911 was premeditated evil hell bent on terrorising a large population of people into believing one thing for an end result still in the works.
I absolutely do not trust my government nor any others as well to tell it's people the truth.
they could have done all that without killing 3000 of their own citizens..
the UK went to war on a "dodgy dossier"
-
they could have done all that without killing 3000 of their own citizens..
the UK went to war on a "dodgy dossier"
Americans are sick of war. Have been for many decades before 911. I for one am myself, yet even I wanted to go back in the service if only to get a chance to kill terrorist. I bought the set up hook line and stinker. 911 not only brought out the war dogs in me but even my very liberal friends at first wanted vengeance. It was perfect, they conditioned us for it. If you don't think our government would kill its own citizens, one only has to look at its industry of shit food it prepares for its own people. It's tobacco industry it profits from, the 36,000 highway fatalities every year. 88,000 alcohol related deaths in U.S every year.
3,000 people murdered in a government plot is small change. Stalin murdered how many of his own?
Again, I trust no government when it comes to power and, power absolutely corrupts.
Had your "dodgy dossier" been presented before 911 I doubt they would have bought it.
-
im pretty sure they think the USA bombing their women and children is illegal as well, just depends on your standpoint.
Yeah, I wouldn't doubt someone might say that all secret communication to go into planning a bomb run is a form of conspiracy. Since it requires killing innocent people, it means (like anything else would of that nature) doing wrong, which means hiding plans from anyone who'd look to interfere. Good point.
-
I forgot all about it. Sue me.
-
What I do know is that a large part of the world went to war over it. Because of this the United States was able to stretch it's tentacles in the middle east by building new bases. Because of 911 the United States instilled a new act, The Patriot Act, and citizens are spied on now more than ever. Because of 911 another department of government was created, Homeland Security, billions of tax dollars since and continue to flood these programs.
As a result of the wars in the middle east we have overthrown a government which left a void of control over the people. Allowing more terrorist activity than before. This way the government can continue the business of war by maintaining a police force in the area. We have lost many thousands of young men willing to "kill a commie for mommy" so was the mantra when I was in.
As a result of 911 the only thing gained from it was to a large governments advantage. Not just one government.
I believe 911 was premeditated evil hell bent on terrorising a large population of people into believing one thing for an end result still in the works.
I absolutely do not trust my government nor any others as well to tell it's people the truth.
How about during the actual event?
-
Yeah, I wouldn't doubt someone might say that all secret communication to go into planning a bomb run is a form of conspiracy. Since it requires killing innocent people, it means (like anything else would of that nature) doing wrong, which means hiding plans from anyone who'd look to interfere. Good point.
in war there are no innocent people.
-
Americans are sick of war. Have been for many decades before 911. I for one am myself, yet even I wanted to go back in the service if only to get a chance to kill terrorist. I bought the set up hook line and stinker. 911 not only brought out the war dogs in me but even my very liberal friends at first wanted vengeance. It was perfect, they conditioned us for it. If you don't think our government would kill its own citizens, one only has to look at its industry of shit food it prepares for its own people. It's tobacco industry it profits from, the 36,000 highway fatalities every year. 88,000 alcohol related deaths in U.S every year.
3,000 people murdered in a government plot is small change. Stalin murdered how many of his own?
Again, I trust no government when it comes to power and, power absolutely corrupts.
Had your "dodgy dossier" been presented before 911 I doubt they would have bought it.
so, are you in favour of banning cigarettes cars and alcohol?
What about sweets and burgers?
-
in war there are no innocent people.
Like you said above, it is indeed a matter of standpoint. But (of course) when a group decides the one's OK for them, then it means they've chosen to give up the ground they'd been claiming to that point.
-
Like you said above, it is indeed a matter of standpoint. But (of course) when a group decides the one's OK for them, then it means they've chosen to give up the ground they'd been claiming to that point.
Im bored with this now, I cant even remember what we were talking about...
-
Im bored with this now, I cant even remember what we were talking about...
Death, destruction, murder, war, and stuff like that.
-
Death, destruction, murder, war, and stuff like that.
no, the point at hand...
To be fair Im not really all that bothered about the other stuff either..
-
so, are you in favour of banning cigarettes cars and alcohol?
What about sweets and burgers?
I was not making a point of banning any of these things as i am not in favor of banning people from their own stupidity. I am against the government sponsering it with tax dollars.
-
How about during the actual event?
As for the actual event in real time i believe it went for the most part as planned. They duped the people, they got what they wanted. Nothing as far as i could tell went wrong for them as it happened.
-
As for the actual event in real time i believe it went for the most part as planned. They duped the people, they got what they wanted. Nothing as far as i could tell went wrong for them as it happened.
What was the planned advantage, would you say, regarding the amount of time between attacks -- particularly from the second tower to the Pentagon, and then with another still in the air?
One can see a clear advantage in planning them to be very close together, timewise, but not the opposite. ???
-
What was the planned advantage, would you say, regarding the amount of time between attacks -- particularly from the second tower to the Pentagon, and then with another still in the air?
One can see a clear advantage in planning them to be very close together, timewise, but not the opposite. ???
Well if your going to put on a show you want everybody to see it, right? So by having a delay between the three strikes. That being the two towers followed by the Pentagon and then the plane crashing into the ground. You had everybody with a tv in the world watching by the time the second plane hit. This was necessary for shock and awe if you will. Everybody in America felt the same horror, fear and disbelief in the same instant. The population knew at that instant we where at war and nothing was going to stop that. The subsequent declaration of war through congress was just following the rule of law for legal war. By that time Americans where seething for middle east blood. I believe the timing was in order to insure a larger audience all for the shock and awe. Where these not the words our own president used in relation to the attack we did following?
I know I wanted to see massive destruction, only we never got it because there wasn't shit to destroy on the same scale as what was destroyed over here.
-
Ok seriously your kidding now. The plane went into the building as shown both in still and motion shots as though it slipped through a curtain. First of all the plane was at an angle crossing through several floors each floor was made of concrete not just aluminum and glass. The plane in the still shots as well as the motion shots does not even crumple much less break apart. The only way in my opinion for something like that to happen would be if it was a military plane custom built to do so.
Here is still shot of jet slipping into building made of concrete and steele with zero resistance
(http://www.therealnewsonline.com/uploads/6/5/2/9/6529494/___1503143.jpg)
Here we have a bunker buster
(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/01/divine_thunderbolt.jpg)
Next we have a regular jet vs concrete
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/montf4.jpg)
Back to the topic at hand. I'm still confused. Did a Boeing jet never hit the WTC buildings? If not, did anything hit? What about the thousands of witnesses that stated they saw a commercial air liner fly into the tower? I'm so confused.
-
Back to the topic at hand. I'm still confused. Did a Boeing jet never hit the WTC buildings? If not, did anything hit? What about the thousands of witnesses that stated they saw a commercial air liner fly into the tower? I'm so confused.
No planes, it was an energy weapon
https://vimeo.com/104805235
-
Ok seriously your kidding now. The plane went into the building as shown both in still and motion shots as though it slipped through a curtain. First of all the plane was at an angle crossing through several floors each floor was made of concrete not just aluminum and glass. The plane in the still shots as well as the motion shots does not even crumple much less break apart. The only way in my opinion for something like that to happen would be if it was a military plane custom built to do so.
Here is still shot of jet slipping into building made of concrete and steele with zero resistance
(http://www.therealnewsonline.com/uploads/6/5/2/9/6529494/___1503143.jpg)
Here we have a bunker buster
(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/01/divine_thunderbolt.jpg)
Next we have a regular jet vs concrete
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/montf4.jpg)
The building was not a solid slab of concrete, it consisted of open plan floors with windows.
-
The building was not a solid slab of concrete, it consisted of open plan floors with windows.
True -- Though there are countless pics videos of planes hitting each other & or other objects
less structurally dense / strong as concrete & steel & the planes disintegrate into pieces
Not remaining intact & exiting nose cone intact through the others side
They are aerodynamically designed to cut through air - not designed for with standing solid frontal impacts
Heck have you seen the damage birds can cause to planes
And No i'm not purporting to any conspiracy.
-
The building was not a solid slab of concrete, it consisted of open plan floors with windows.
Seriously amazes me every time. How could you look at the pictures I've posted and not understand the point I am making. The buildings floors where slabs of concrete each. The plane (or so called plane) slipped into the building at an angle that would have intersected several floors of solid slab concrete. Yet the plane (so called plane) was met with zero resistance. The plane (so called plane) did not even so much as crumple let alone come apart. No it slipped into the building at an angle that intersected several floors of slab concrete, and in said video did not crumple or come apart at all, not even the slightest deviation in structure. The plane (so called) just went in as though it slipped into a curtain.
-
Seriously amazes me every time. How could you look at the pictures I've posted and not understand the point I am making. The buildings floors where slabs of concrete each. The plane (or so called plane) slipped into the building at an angle that would have intersected several floors of solid slab concrete. Yet the plane (so called plane) was met with zero resistance. The plane (so called plane) did not even so much as crumple let alone come apart. No it slipped into the building at an angle that intersected several floors of slab concrete, and in said video did not crumple or come apart at all, not even the slightest deviation in structure. The plane (so called) just went in as though it slipped into a curtain.
as would anything travelling at 560mph
-
as would anything travelling at 560mph
Would this man be able to do so at 560mph?
(https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1602867/watch-this-amazing-headbutter-smash-through-111-building-blocks-35-seconds.jpg)
How about a stick of butter?
(http://www.photos-public-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/stick-of-butter-salted.jpg)
A marshmallow?
(http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2009/apr/marshmallow_200-3a46dc54f9a4f8c29134acbf80e71cb42382bae4-s6-c30.jpg)
Even if a passenger plane could fly this fast at this elevation, this would not happen.
-
Would this man be able to do so at 560mph?
(https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1602867/watch-this-amazing-headbutter-smash-through-111-building-blocks-35-seconds.jpg)
How about a stick of butter?
(http://www.photos-public-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/stick-of-butter-salted.jpg)
A marshmallow?
(http://media.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2009/apr/marshmallow_200-3a46dc54f9a4f8c29134acbf80e71cb42382bae4-s6-c30.jpg)
Even if a passenger plane could fly this fast at this elevation, this would not happen.
have you forgotten the ping pong ball already?
-
The ping pong ball proves nothing. The object hitting the building met zero resistance. The ping pong ball would not make it into the building unless it went through glass.
-
I supposes this is fake too. I can't believe the fucking idiocy that surrounds 9/11. Almost as bad as people that think the Earth is flat.
-
The ping pong ball proves nothing. The object hitting the building met zero resistance. The ping pong ball would not make it into the building unless it went through glass.
the ping pong ball isnt a fully fuelled jumbo jet going at 560mph.
-
I supposes this is fake too. I can't believe the fucking idiocy that surrounds 9/11. Almost as bad as people that think the Earth is flat.
Much of what you see in the posted videos is cgi bullshit. Yes. Sorry for you that you where duped by it. I too was not looking and seeing the truth. Its ok, there is still hope for you. There is still time for you to have an open mind and see beyond the faked videos.
-
the ping pong ball isnt a fully fuelled jumbo jet going at 560mph.
Exactly so whats your point. The fully fueled jet supposedly going 560 mph would still not have done what the fake video shows
-
The official 911 story is total bullshit. Anyone who believes it is a fucking moron.
Bumped for good reason..................
-
Exactly so whats your point. The fully fueled jet supposedly going 560 mph would still not have done what the fake video shows
Prove otherwise...
-
Much of what you see in the posted videos is cgi bullshit. Yes. Sorry for you that you where duped by it. I too was not looking and seeing the truth. Its ok, there is still hope for you. There is still time for you to have an open mind and see beyond the faked videos.
You are pushing the boundaries of stupidity and mental illness. Go fuck yourself.
-
Well if your going to put on a show you want everybody to see it, right? So by having a delay between the three strikes. That being the two towers followed by the Pentagon and then the plane crashing into the ground. You had everybody with a tv in the world watching by the time the second plane hit. This was necessary for shock and awe if you will. Everybody in America felt the same horror, fear and disbelief in the same instant. The population knew at that instant we where at war and nothing was going to stop that. The subsequent declaration of war through congress was just following the rule of law for legal war. By that time Americans where seething for middle east blood. I believe the timing was in order to insure a larger audience all for the shock and awe. Where these not the words our own president used in relation to the attack we did following?
I know I wanted to see massive destruction, only we never got it because there wasn't shit to destroy on the same scale as what was destroyed over here.
Then how do you explain that the opposite, timewise, is what happened?
-
Eric:
Then how do you explain that the opposite, timewise, is what happened?
Meaning that the period in which was most advantageous and realistic to gain live coverage had the shortest time (while in nyc, to support your idea), while the period that was the least in those respects had the longest time.
How can that make sense? It can't, but to show without question that it was no longer on Plan A.
And realizing the VP acted to produce military orders gives further indication it was no longer on Plan A. Do you agree with that?
-
Yep, fill three building with high explosives in a planned operation lasting many months then fly two planes into them????
Opps sorry, they were two holograms of course, silly me...
-
The second tower being hit, as we know, was televised. Live news covering the first, then records the second. That was the only live attack seen by tv viewers.
-
Much of what you see in the posted videos is cgi bullshit. Yes. Sorry for you that you where duped by it. I too was not looking and seeing the truth. Its ok, there is still hope for you. There is still time for you to have an open mind and see beyond the faked videos.
the news footage was cgi ? ???
-
the news footage was cgi ? ???
From multiple sources and multiple angles. Yeah, CGI my balls.
-
OK, here's to get this out of the way. For either side you're on in this thread.
Common sense says that by using the angle that the attack took, which was to rely on a chain of communication to counter it, that faster is much better.
In fact, the soonest-finished attack should best allow for unstopped destruction, which was the entire point. Then to add something for everyone: it also leaves the least room for suspicion against that chain, right?
Those two things make up the entire subject of 9/11, when it comes down to it. Meaning everyone, no matter which "side" you're on, should understand that what happened was not Plan A, due to the impossible length of time.
You should understand to look at it in exactly that way, rather than as something which was meant to happen as it went. No matter which side you're on.
-
Prove otherwise...
You cannot prove that it did....................
-
You are pushing the boundaries of stupidity and mental illness. Go fuck yourself.
You sir can go suck the lose shit from a dead whores ass................drop dead fuckhead.
-
You sir can go suck the lose shit from a dead whores ass.
That's just an ordinary Saturday night for me.
You need help dude. If you came out and said "The government isn't telling us the whole truth about 9/11" I'd agree with you. What you are saying is madness.
-
That's just an ordinary Saturday night for me.
You need help dude. If you came out and said "The government isn't telling us the whole truth about 9/11" I'd agree with you. What you are saying is madness.
Are you Bush's mother
Get over it - Barbara
And no the government aren't tell you everything.
-
You cannot prove that it did....................
the burden of proof lies with he who affirms
I can post evidence of the planed hitting the tower and doing what it did, you're saying it couldn't have done that, so the floor is yours to demonstrate why not.
-
Are you Bush's mother
Get over it - Barbara
And no the government aren't tell you everything.
(https://i.imgur.com/PpHrJXq.gif)
-
the burden of proof lies with he who affirms
I can post evidence of the planed hitting the tower and doing what it did, you're saying it couldn't have done that, so the floor is yours to demonstrate why not.
I do not have to demonstrate anything. The "burden of proof" does not lie with me. You cannot prove anything you have posted any more than I can. You and I both have only gone back and forth posting shit we have found on the internet. Neither you nor I are privy to any special evidence or proof of what actually happened. My only stance on this is that I do not believe the official report and I do not believe what the media footage has shown to be an accurate account of what happened. Can I prove any of it? Hell no..........and you cannot prove anything you saw, see, or read to be true either.
-
I do not have to demonstrate anything. The "burden of proof" does not lie with me. You cannot prove anything you have posted any more than I can. You and I both have only gone back and forth posting shit we have found on the internet. Neither you nor I are privy to any special evidence or proof of what actually happened. My only stance on this is that I do not believe the official report and I do not believe what the media footage has shown to be an accurate account of what happened. Can I prove any of it? Hell no..........and you cannot prove anything you saw, see, or read to be true either.
I have proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", you cant even prove anything on "the balance of probabilities".
-
(https://moustachemadness.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/adventures-the-black-island-left-toon.png)
-
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
9/11.
9/11 who?
You said you'd never forget.
LMFAO.
-
Seems to me that time was the issue, from any viewpoint. Half the planes weren't performing as expected, and remained uncommitted in the air.