Jump to content

9/11


pz3

Recommended Posts

Hehehe, yeah some of that stuff in the documentary is... ehem... dodgy. :D But some of their questions are very interesting. Like why did the twin towers collapse so completely, and what happened to the wings, etc, of the jet hitting Pentagon?

I'm sure I'm a day late and a dollar short, and that I'll get flamed to Bosnia and back for this, but here goes...

Where are the wings, etc? Modern jet fuel is pretty highly refined stuff, on par with diesel fuel (in fact the JP8 grade fuel the US Army uses for the last decade or so is both turbine AND piston engine fuel. the whole Army runs on it). This means it has a HIGH flashpoint, shorter span of lower and upper explosive limits for vapor concentration, yadda yadda. So when it burns, it burns WAY hotter than Kerosene or gasoline. Being that most of the aircraft's airframe is sheet aluminum, typically T4 or T6, the melting (for that matter, also bioling) point of the airframe components is LOW. 2 + 2 = what? That's right. A lot of the more solid airframe components are either aluminum forgings or magnesium castings (some titanium, but typically it's minimized for cost considerations as well as corrosion resistance properties (which were a real torpedoe to the RAH-66's airframe)). Melt or combust, the choice is yours. But if you're part of that aircraft, you're going up in smoke one way or the other. If we ask the question of where the Pentagon plane's wrechage went, why not ask the same of the two trade center planes as well?

The reason those planes that crash into open fields and such leave so much remains behind is that they get spread out over large areas before the fire occurs and has the chance to consume all those light (read, other-than-dense) metals. Hell, the fires often don't even START until the wreckage has mostly come to a halt. In the cases of those three airplanes, they came to very ABRUPT halts. Halts which they were never designed nor intended to have any tolerance for at all.

The complete collapse of the towers was by design. Shame that it cost so may lives to prove that it works magnificently, but nonetheless. This was explained on the news the very same day they fell. Let's say that JUST the top floor on your tower falls. Simple physics says I must now take the MASS of that entire floor, including walls, ceilings, people, desks, carpets, and lampshades, and multiply it by the acceleration to get the force with which it strikes the next floor. With the main steel supports soft and all fron the burning jet fuel on lower floors, it won't take much (in relative terms, He-Man) to cause this subsequent floor to collapse. Now, when those TWO floors combined (tapestries and all) collide their significant mass with the next floor down (which is even closer to the fires, hence hotter/softer steel holding it up) it's gonna collapse even MORE easily. Rolling our little snowball down a steep hill, aren't we? But since the mass of the airplane (in each separate tower) wasn't really that significant in relative terms, the impact of each plane with it's respective tower didn't do much relevant damage. Mostly cosmetic damage. You could have run 10 of those airplanes into each tower, and if not for the fires they wouldn't have budged. Likely a strong wind could exert nearly as much force on one of the towers as either of those airplanes did. So with less-than-negligible shear force against the steel mains, the floors just stacked down like pancakes. BY DESIGN. Think of all the people on the ground or in adjacent buildings whose lives were spared by the towers falling STRAIGHT DOWN and not to any one side. Because the folks who designed and built the towers thought of it long ago. Kudos to them.

And as for conspiracy theories, I have this question to ask: Is there even the slightest chance in the universe that I, a simple internet geek and helicopter mechanic could really outsmart all the lawyers in the employ of the US government (or any other government this side of Rwanda), as well as the advisors, politicians, and crafty non-dress-washing interns? Think fo the multitude of staff members working for any modern western government. Think of all the experience there in the law, the various interpretations of it's gray areas, et cetera. Think of them having instant access to and considerable knowledge of all these laws, treaties, and so on. And then tell me that some kid with a GMail account and a pirated copy of some Adobe video editing software is REALLY gonna blow the lid off of some great conspiracy. You're smoking more crack than all of New Jersey...

/soapbox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This thread should die out and I feel bad for keeping it alive but I have to ask my questions.

Forget about all the conspiracy theories. You can believe what you want to. The Penn and Teller bit though was a bit lame. I personally believe everything happened the way it was reported on 9/11 and we were attacked. Their little episode though didn't achieve much on the 911 side except for call conspiracy theorists idiots and all sorts of foul language. Not a lot of hard data really presented. Anyone can take a bunch of wacko theorists and make them look.... well wacko.

My question though has always been, why haven't we caught Osama? We can find a guy in a spider hole or whatever you call it, but we can't find Osama? It also seems we have also lost focus on finding him since Sadaam was captured. I asked a co-worker once why we had gone into Iraq to hunt down Sadaam and he responded "because of what they did in 911". From what I remember, the blame was all put on Al Queda and Osama. So why all the expense in Iraq if we are really just trying to bring to justice the killers of 911.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also ranger, why do you go to that LC forum? Thats the last place I would bother to tread. Mind you it surely must have some comedy value.

Yes, I was first linked to it via a comedy website/forum I visit. There was a long discussion there about 9/11 etc, and it eventually lead to the admin writing an article about the conspiracy theories, which was subsequently posted on the LC forum and, unsurprisingly, was met with a flurry of responses like "Man, this guy is obviously a government shill".

I find it very amusing. However, it also makes me angry, so I guess I should stop reading it.

_____

On an unrelated note, I wanted to say something that came to mind when I read Moose's question about wreckage and stuff at the pentagon. I'm not going to post loads of pictures of the wreckage that are out there on Google, and that's not my point anyway. What I want to clear up involves the picture of the Mystery Box at the Pentagon scene.

This box, and more importantly this picture, is referenced by any number of conspiracy websites, and I believe it also features in Loose Change. The idea is that the box contains some sort of wreckage; maybe a plane engine (though why would they hide an engine and fuel conspiracy theories?), maybe parts of some kind of secret remote-control plane that was used to strike the Pentagon. Let's examine this picture.

First, it is being carried by seven or eight guys. Unless jet engines or secret miltary planes are being made out of balsa wood these days, I doubt whatever is in the 'box' is that heavy.

Second, the object they are carrying doesn't seem to have a bottom.

Third, it is a tent.

This isn't in response to anything in particular. I am just highlighting how little it takes for conspiracy types to latch onto something that has absolutely no consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Ranger, that is to good. One has to wonder about a box with an open bottom. As someone who has worked on jet engines, I would call BS to them carrying an engine while spaced that far apart. At most the biggest (not counting the turbo fan) are maybe 4 feet a cross. That puts them carrying something else and as you so elequently showed them, it is indeed a tent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third, it is a tent.

Yeah, but it's the tent that the space aliens were hiding in! The Illuminati planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, and Osama's from MARS!

YEP! I figured it all out by myself with a little help from Google and my Encyclopedia Brittanica!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third, it is a tent.

Yeah, but it's the tent that the space aliens were hiding in! The Illuminati planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, and Osama's from MARS!

YEP! I figured it all out by myself with a little help from Google and my Encyclopedia Brittanica!

LOL ... :D

Yeh I think that part on that doc is a bit limp to realy prove anything at all that could be, well, just a tent etc.

@Xaint ... Will post back ref your post mate back soon for that :thumbsup: (got a link to post and away for a few days).

@Prozac - that blah, blah, blah post you last posted ... thats just a silly thing to put to be honest. Its your view that the net has evidence to prove the offical line ... I and millions of others think the latter and require more. Also throwing statement about the whole world out to kill me is just not worth the post, you actualy sound like someone off a conspiracy site! :blink::P I think you posts are a good read and your totaly in your rights to post what you feel & your take on all this, but that last one was a bit : " :o:wacko: ".

This is a very good, more down to earth (if you cringe at Avery's Doc etc) about steel, how the towers were constructed, heat, also ref someones post with empire state building theres info ref this too (how from that they constructed the towers to make sure that didnt happen again). Its in 3 parts, so, make a brew and have a look see :

PART1

PART2

PART3

BTW, you dont have to watch it, but its made very well and bit more clearer than many others on mainly the whole demolision aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did i sound a bit frustrated? why would that be?????

Its obvious the buildings DID NOT have explosives in them. I get tired of all the fools that actually beleive this. You would hear them in every video if it did happen.

WTC complex was reviewed by lots and lots of people. The list is huge but only a select few individuals still beleive explosives were used...

When MIT tech guys say it was brought down by explosives and uses the "pyro clastic flows" as "evidence" that it was blown up doesnt make much since at all... How smart are these people that really come up with this crap and support it? He has a DR. right so obviously hes a "smart" man.

Yet he fails to realise every building that has been demolished via explosives had these "pyroclastic flows" AFTER the building fell not while the explosives are beeing set off... it isnt created by explosives nore is it an anomaly. Its just what happened when crap loads of concrete comes falling to the ground. Hitting steel beams and what not along the way.

When "professionals" cant even get it right whats the odds another shmuck wrapped in paranoia with a fancy edited video is telling the truth?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is because im frustrated with this topic. Theres is lots of evidence that supports the official story. Things that cant be explained cant be explained by either side.

AND as Iv always stated... these buildings were just another titanic. We may not find out all the full facts untill were like 80 years old. It doesnt matter to me thoe Iv seen enough to make my judgment on what most likely happened. I dont need the full explination of every problem.

Just like in that BS video. Conspiracy theorists will think up one thing then if that doesnt work they try to find another..... This will go on for ever and ever..... and ever.... whats worse is a lot seem to ingore facts all together.

its not worth my time anymore.

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many may wonder why we continue to discuss this thread...and many probably wonder why Calius (and a few others) believe what they do...for most of us our mind is made up...but...BUT...

A recent poll showed that like 36 percent of Americans believe the government was involved with or at least knew and didn't stop the attacks of 9/11. 36 Percent. ZOINKS!

I don't claim to understand how or why...and really IMHO it's kind of sad that so many people think that...but next time you start criticizing Calius for being a little paranoid...there are many others that believe it too.

Personally, I think if anything it continues to show how corrupt the media is. Come on, how hard is it to really "manipulate" a poll to reflect the data you want and then you misrepresent the data to express your point of view. I mean, too a certain extent I believe the government knew there was a "pending credible threat" and didn't do enough to stop it...but I sure don't believe the involvement was anymore than that.

Anyways...go easy on Calius...he remains a true professional as he debates this topic...he's taken some pretty stern questioning and keeps coming back for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a feeling that many felt the government was behind it but not that many. One has to wonder if they really understand human nature though. Back when I interviewed Bo last year, I had information that I couldn't talk about on the open forums and I really wanted to tell everyone, but, I didn't due to the trust that was placed in me not to. For a video game, it may be fine to keep ones trap shut, but for the event's of 9/11, well, that is something that no one could keep quiet about if the government were truly involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd believe that a whole 36% believe the Gov't was involved, and that less than 2% are honestly digging a conspiracy theory. And it's all the fault of the Japanese. Two words: PEARL HARBOR. someone in our Gov't knew that was coming but failed to get the word out, and we were dragged into WWII Pacific. 9/11 (by no means another Pearl Harbor) happens, and we're dragged into the Middle East. Folks see parallels. Can't say I blame them. I just don't agree.

Again, someone in Washington knows there are always folks out there with video cameras and such. They know what they can cover up and what they can't. Simply being capable of performing a couple internet searches does not make you sleuth of the year.

"Sticking feathers up your butt does NOT make you a chicken." -Tyler Durden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I watched all three videos and I'm not going to address any of the silly stuff like the comparisons to the volcanic eruptions as any person with common sense will know right off hand that those remarks are just plain lame.

Onto the "real stuff"

Right off video 1 runs into some problems as they claim the fires were small and cool. Their own video they provide shows CLEAR evidence that this was not the case. If indeed the fire was almost out and smoldering as they claim, then why does a HUGE ball of fire billow out as the building starts collapsing?

Watch the video, and at 18 min and 50 sec you can see the massive ball of flame that billows out from the 78-82 floor area as the building starts collapsing. A small cool fire? I think not.

Why did the fireman say there were small fires that could be put out? Well we all know fire does not travel down, but up, and the plane did not just hit the 78th floor, but also a couple floors up. Had the fireman gone up another floor or two the scene may have been quite different.

Next, the person in the video claims that 110 floor pancake one on top of the other all the way down at freefall speed. WRONG again. The first building was hit 25% of the way down, while the second building was hit 35% of the way down the structure. The floors were not falling from the very top one at a time to the bottom. The collapse starts part of the way down, and with the extra weight above the collapsed portion, faster speeds can be acheived sooner.

Also, the claims of debris falling "too far" from the collapse site being evidence of explosions is a load of bull. Think about a 110 story building falling. Golly gee, is it that hard to believe that a beam could fall a couple hundred feet away from the building? What the heck do these people think happens when a building is collapsing? There is material in the way so the least path of resistence is AROUND the debris, so much like a waterfall a lot of the material WOULD cascade down OVER the sides. Another reason that a lot of the material COULD reach terminal velocity in the collapse.

Also, the demo examples they showed did not look anything like the WTC. With the WTC collapse you can CLEARLY see that the building is collapsing from the top down as much of the material spills over the sides. The buildings that were hit with demo charges are clearly damaged at the foundation and whole thing falls straight down at the same time. Watch the videos again, and you can see that the WTC base remains standing all the way until the last minute. CLEARLY NOT THE SAME.

Think about a house of cards. If you topple the cards up top, then the whole thing starts to slowly crumble from top to bottom, but if you pull out a few cards a third of the way down, then it all comes down rather quickly. This is elementary physics here, and the fact that they missed this detail shows either ignorance, or very poor judgement on their part for using this piece of "evidence".

Building 7 can be somewhat of a "hangup", but even here we need to look at the structure. The entire WTC is essentially built on a hollow foundation that has parking, a basement, and part of a subway under it. A massive collapse of buildings one and two can easily destroy this foundation enough to collapse the other buildings near by.

Watch the video of building 7 again. VERY different from the buildings that were hit with the demo charges. Note how building 7 simply sinks out of sight, but the buildings that are hit with demos crumble and fall apart. Building 7 remains in tact and simply sinks out of view. Again, I would say it sank into the deep foundation that was cut out, and it is clearly NOT a building that is being hit with demos.

The point about the EPA is also garbage. The president CANNOT force the EPA to do anything. This clearly shows ignorance on part of the people producing this video.

Let me explain why, but I first need to address the EPA. The EPA is a lot like the IRS, ATF, Federal Reserve, etc... They exist on their own, and do not operate under any authority. There are many cases where they simply disobey the law and nobody can control them. NOT even the president.

Want to hear about a REAL conspiracy? Do you know who killed the people on the space shuttle? The EPA. When asbestos was used on the shuttle we did not have issues with the insulation, but as you know, the EPA banned asbestos. Well, there were many people in very high places who wanted to award just the space shuttle program an exception to use the substance, but the EPA "stamped them out".

This is much like the ATF cases where people use one part from a full auto in an AR15, and the ATF confiscates the gun, alters it to fire more than one round and jails the owner. In court there are picture of the "evidence" clearly altered by the ATF with machine work, and in some cases duct tape! Calius, the EPA, much like the ATF does not answer to ANYONE. Especially not some elected politician that will be out of office in a maximum of 8 years. There are numerous cases where these organizations operate "outside of the law", and our officials are simply at their mercy.

Think about it. ATF regulations SUPERCEED any federal and state laws, and please people don't bring up the fact that gun laws are enacted by politicians, as that means nothing. The ATF are the ones that DEFINE the regulations that the laws are based on, and the way the laws are enforced. Politician are the puppets that these organiztions use.

Ever seen an ATF case in progress? The ATF can trump up new and unrelated charges at will and for whatever reason they are not required to start another trial. If the evidence presented is weak, then they will come up with something else in another area and the case continues. For example, they can start out by accusing you of having an altered semi auto, and then move onto you having an unregistered firearm, then finally charge you with shipping a gun incorrectly, and all three charges can be unrelated (different guns) and yet a new trial is never required. Sorry, but I don't believe anything was forced on the EPA.

Calius, at best this is shoddy journalism, and at worst THIS is the conspiracy, and one that is trying to ruin a presidency. Objectivity means that you question your own view, and I don't really see you doing this here. You seem "sold" on this, and I think this thread has become nothing more than a "soap box" for you.

I can just see Prosac right now kicking himself daily for starting this thread. :wall:

J/K Prosac. :lol:

Calius, I remember a year after we went into Iraq, and when no WMDs were found, I started questioning whether we should have "wasted" our resources going in. I always believed that we should find something buried, hidden, etc... You can read my posts in the UBI forums were I bring these things up. THAT is objectivity. When the evidence is against you, and the evidence for you is circumstantial, that is when you NEED to question yourself. I don't see you doing that here. I think you are simply sold on this stuff and want to get your point across.

Calius, I don't see you as a malicious person, so don't take this as a personal attack of any sort, but look at the people you "follow". Some of what the conspiracy theorist have some interesting things to say, but look at the level of ignorance that is displayed by even those who have some interssting points. A perfect example is how they talk about the IRS, the Federal Reserve, etc... and yet mention nothing of gold. You realise that what they say mean almost nothing apart from a true understanding of gold right?

Calius, I really encourage you to take a HARD look at some of what you are buying into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

intreasting you bring up the atf.... over powered ya.. they are like a mafia way i see it.

I have seen atf agents trying to push illegal arms to weapon dealers before... Any smart dealer you will actually see kind of get squimish once they see the firearm their trying to sale.... It becomes pretty clear after that.

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Wow .. not been a while since ive been about to post anything recent, ive only just read the rest of the replies here so sorry for those seeing this thread apear back again (I can here sighs long and far :) )

Mainly im posting to Chjung at this stage :

Your last reply is one of the usual replies you have made .. be objective, question yourself, is this real evidence, etc etc etc. All the way through this I have read your replies as I know this is your standpoint and I like what you post, I actualy like your replies :rocky: . I find it a little dissapoining to read a couple of things which kind of get my back up a little bit / and or dont add up with your own point of views :

When the evidence is against you, and the evidence for you is circumstantial, that is when you NEED to question yourself.

I do & I have ... yet as I have explained NUMEROUS bloody times in this thread, when I step away from this and watch tv and go about my business things crop up in the news that I read months and months ago and it tally's thats how I question the information.

Calius, I don't see you as a malicious person, so don't take this as a personal attack of any sort, but look at the people you "follow".

Im not a malicious person , your right there, but isnt it strange that someone (anyone) with views not directly the same as the majority deem it for those others to bring that description up? Just an observation thats all :D . I dont think you lot are all malicious and yet Ive had many a flippent comment or attack thrown at me along the way .. but its all good.

The worst thing you have put here my firend is : "FOLLOW" .... that is a very poor thing to place in your reply. It would suggest I sit in a group huddled together with a leader and take it lock stock and barrel and then rant at the world my views based on my people I follow. Lets flip that, isnt that the exact mindset of the world of late? Who do the majority "follow"? Dont most people "Follow" a line? Media ... Government (certain people) etc. I see "follow" in the terms of a funneled set of information I get spoonfed and then do not question .. thus "following" this information. I dont, I look at ALL information from MANY sources and when you yourself connect the dots (thus not sheeping and doing it yourself and NOT "following") its all pointing pretty much the same way.

but look at the level of ignorance that is displayed by even those who have some interssting points.

Yes I agree, see my posts to Ranger about certian hardcore blindsighted types, I can see that too. Would you suggest im ignorant? So far people have posted there views some very sturn I might say, I post mine and read theres but yet the one who posts the not so favoured view (an observation) gets labeled in the realms of ignorant 9 out of ten times (not suggesting your saying this to me BTW). So people are ignorant becuase they dont agree (but allow them to dis agree without calling them ignorant) with those who think they are right without questioning anything other than offical line ... that sounds just like the people they shout down ... its a funny world :D .

You seem "sold" on this, and I think this thread has become nothing more than a "soap box" for you.

LOL .. this makes me smile. Isnt every thread in every forum a soap box for someone (joke)? Well as regards this thread, if its soap box then again this would suggest my view counts, shout everyone down, "follow" (cough) me ... I and im sure you know if you read this thread thats certainly NOT my standpoint. I have just replied to people who have questioned me and my views, nothing wrong with that & nothing wrong with people asking, and in return nothing wrong for me to ask either, thats the feedom of it (you know the word that gets used alot through all of this on TV).

For those who want to post something smart like .. "well you keep posting" ... thats called a forum and a debate, I feel we have all debated. Lets face it thres nothing else like this on this forum, hence the fact I started posting I was suprised it was here initialy (as I have posted <----- berfore in this thread).

On the subject matter anywho ... Lets ignore demolishions as that one gets everyone throwing there arms up in the air is dis-belief (though Im not one of them). WT7 is super suspect and no one realy can poo poo that, then that opens the question if that was pre-rigged then thats "planned" ... that in itself needs an investigation (proper indepandent). Also lets tone it down to they knew there was going to be an attack and it went ahead, alot buy that ... so we do actualy still come back to the same thing. Inside job (has to be inside to a point to turn a blind eye and rig wtc7).. it ALL points to 9/11 DOES NOT at all fit the offical line (that still needs to be proved BTW) << --- very important, the official "story" has not yet been PROVEN we have officials telling us one view on it and thats all we have, when eye-witnesses alone clash with that very view it NEEDS to be re-investigated wouldnt you agree? So we can conclude that all the law changes and the wars, war on terror etc etc etc has come off that one event .. the event that isnt fully true ... so .. the events following were planned (pre iraq war knowledge has come to light etc etc) ... then right now people should cut the in-fighting and start to open there eyes a little more.

If muslims etc are all that bad (thats not my view) and terrorists are rife, why did they then (going by accepting views a blind eye was turned) they let them get on with it? That would then suggest the government are actualy happy with terrorists when it helps them. Complete contradiction complete hypocricy .. and these same people are changing our laws on the basis of all of this!? :blink:

Just remember one thing than any other, look at the state of things in your country law wise (especialy in the last couple of weeks) and ours here ... keep your eyes and ears open, DO NOT poo po everything you hear and read, keep it on the table and leave it as an option ... and in a few years time, look back on this thread if its still here it will not look as mad or whatever your view as it may seem now, I can assure you of that. Go back through this thread and you will see ive not followed, ive listened, ive questioned and one things for sure I havent blasted people or shut them down (not suggesting you have mate) but thats the normal aproach and is the way of the world im afraid. I thought it was pretty cool this thread stayed open and what others had to say, no matter what they had to say :)

To anyone who wanders through this thread, go from the first page up and check out forum links too, as I know most read the latest page and then post without reading through the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calius, I hear what you are saying, but the reason I posted what I did was because often when I post something that shows a CLEAR contradiction in one of your videos you do not acknowledge what I say. Now I do understand that you in this thread are somewhat like Athanatius contra mundum, but it would help if you would acknowledge some of the MANY flaws in the videos.

For example this point I made in the last post:

Right off video 1 runs into some problems as they claim the fires were small and cool. Their own video they provide shows CLEAR evidence that this was not the case. If indeed the fire was almost out and smoldering as they claim, then why does a HUGE ball of fire billow out as the building starts collapsing?

Watch the video, and at 18 min and 50 sec you can see the massive ball of flame that billows out from the 78-82 floor area as the building starts collapsing. A small cool fire? I think not.

I know that there are some legitimate questions about building 7, but just so I get this straight, do you at least acknowledge that much of the "evidence" that is given in the WTC building 1&2 videos are false? Much of it IS very poor journalism, so do you admit this? Do you admit that most of the evidence on building 1&2 are shoddy at best?

Again, building 7 does give some food for thought, but I have a theory on this one too, and it does not mean that buildings 1&2 were taken down with demos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Die thread die!

anywhoo... I read some more about the design of WTC 1,2 ... supposibly the explosions people heard when it fell could of been electrical transformers inside the building.

I finally watched the nova document and they pointed out a lot of really good facts I completly missed about how the buildings fell... but they also messed up in their animations ... made the core looked untouched from a collapse.

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their own video they provide shows CLEAR evidence that this was not the case. If indeed the fire was almost out and smoldering as they claim, then why does a HUGE ball of fire billow out as the building starts collapsing?

That was the thermite, dummy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you at least acknowledge that much of the "evidence" that is given in the WTC building 1&2 videos are false? Much of it IS very poor journalism, so do you admit this? Do you admit that most of the evidence on building 1&2 are shoddy at best?

I would say that OVERALL the information that simply counters the claims that just the planes hitting and the fires could do all that is something that needs to be looked at seriously and not dumped in the nutty pile just on the way its presented. We can debate delivery / Journalism style until the cows come home, but scrap all that, shovel away the messy noise & you have an offical story not proven to us (taken as literaly as its told so) and things happening with buildings that connot be explained by JUST 2 plains and fire, its far from done and dusted is terms of absolute truth - and we all like a bit of truth now dont we. For me to say the claims in videos are "false" wouldnt be my standpoint. I would say theres alot of noise and alot of silly obvious things you can simply ignore and not get bogged down in .. its the overall picture im interested in.

Yep shoddy videos can be shoddy, yep claims and counter claims can be a right bag of crap its true indeed I agree. You have to look past that and see the bigger picture as Ive said before.

I post something that shows a CLEAR contradiction in one of your videos you do not acknowledge what I say

One of MY videos? No .. its "a" video ... let me get something clear, I post videos that I feel "hmmm, this is interesting to post I wonder what others will make of it, comes across well so I will post, its relevant" .. I dont post a video like its one of my secret weapons to prove you all wrong or anything like that. Also its a link within a thread with many links me and you are not the only people who come here so its something someone may miss if not linked, just like linking to anything on the web. I also post so your/others comments are shown on it too and I read them, I dont comment directly sometimes simply becuase the thread can get stuck on one point and its clear to see by others themselves if thats the case or not ... does that explain things better?

@ Ranger : Thermite, joke or not ... at least you are aware of this information to post that so its good to see whether you see it as bull or not that this information is reaching where it should no matter how its taken :D .

Oh and Ranger ... it wasnt Thermite, they duck taped woodpeckers to the pillars and over a period of a week drip fed them speed ... god you people are sooooo slow on the real information :lol:;)

@ Prozac : "Die thread die! " ... LOL sorry mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and Ranger ... it wasnt Thermite, they duck taped woodpeckers to the pillars and over a period of a week drip fed them speed ... god you people are sooooo slow on the real information

You know, that is only marginally less believable than what I just read on some CT website just now:

The only way to reconcile ab analysis inclusive of the 4 Glaring Inconsistencies is that the thick coatings of the rebar of the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of plastic explosive C4.

Wow. Nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I post something that shows a CLEAR contradiction in one of your videos you do not acknowledge what I say

One of MY videos? No .. its "a" video ... let me get something clear, I post videos that I feel "hmmm, this is interesting to post I wonder what others will make of it, comes across well so I will post, its relevant" .. I dont post a video like its one of my secret weapons to prove you all wrong or anything like that. Also its a link within a thread with many links me and you are not the only people who come here so its something someone may miss if not linked, just like linking to anything on the web. I also post so your/others comments are shown on it too and I read them, I dont comment directly sometimes simply becuase the thread can get stuck on one point and its clear to see by others themselves if thats the case or not ... does that explain things better?

Nobody said you made the video, so spare me the semantics. :rolleyes:

Calius, you have beaten the building 7 point to death, and yes there are legitimate questions in regard to that, and you keep pressing for answers in regard to that specific point. In the same way I have given examples of evidence in the videos that show blatantly contradictory information, so why do you feel that no answer is required. You make expectations and yet you simply pass over legitimate problems in regard to the video links you provide. Clearly this thread is a one way street, and it conveniently moves in your direction.

You see if we can get past the stupidity of buildings one and two, then maybe we can address some of the more pressing issues with building 7, but apparantly that is not possible here, as you simply go silent when contradictory evidence is presented.

I have a theory on building 7 that differs from everthing else, but we OBVIOUSLY cannot get to it as we are still stuck on all of the other nonsense. Have fun people, but I'm done with this thread and the nonsense that is going on in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...