9/11

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:17 pm

keith1879 wrote:This is not even going to start to convince the conspiracy theorists - but to anybody who hasn't read a detailed technical explanation of how the WTC collapsed (oh all right - is alleged to have collapsed) it might be interesting. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is not a cat in hells chance that they will read that!

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:23 pm

nutsinmay wrote:No I wouldn't expect the core to remain upright, so where did it go? (Before it was illegally removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas, that is).

But it's stretching things a bit to suggest that the core (or parts of it) all fell neatly into the footprint.

I know for a fact that you won't, but I'd suggest you read the link that keith1879 posted, it has all the answers that you do not want.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:23 pm

The challenge...15 minutes and you will be convinced!

Essential viewing: Look at the evidence and decide for yourselves!

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w/ Ed Asner 1.6m views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

video also included below....

A&E 911 Truth: Beyond Misinformation -download

What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

"This 50-page primer provides a comprehensive overview of the evidence regarding the World Trade Center destruction and a careful examination of the hypotheses that researchers have put forward to explain what caused it.
With references to dozens of scholarly papers and videos, it is both a perfect starting point for those who are new to the subject and a valuable resource for those already immersed in it..."

http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... nformation

Are you brave enough to watch it!

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:24 pm

nutsinmay wrote:(Before it was illegally removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas, that is).

Hahahahahahahahaha

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:27 pm

nutsinmay wrote:No I wouldn't expect the core to remain upright, so where did it go? (Before it was illegally removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas, that is).

But it's stretching things a bit to suggest that the core (or parts of it) all fell neatly into the footprint.

Which of the two scenarios is stretching it further?

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:55 pm

Well, it's taken me a while to get through this thread but I have to say, it was well worth the effort.

Well done to all concerned.

Vintage Claret · Post by **Vintage Claret** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:26 pm

nutsinmay wrote:I've seen those before, but the eminent scientists/architects/engineers on there produce overwhelming evidence on WTC7.

If the evidence is so overwhelming why has none of it been used by the relatives of the victims in private prosecutions/ civil lawsuits against the 'perpetrators' or in criminal proceedings by law enforcement agencies?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 pm

Rileybobs wrote:You do know that a 1000ft length of steel sections welded together is likely to end up as a number of unwelded steel sections after being hit by a passenger plane? Would you expect the steelwork to remain intact protruding 1000ft into the air without any lateral support?

Nah. He thinks they should topple as one large object regardless of the collapsing building they're in bending and twisting them in ways they weren't designed to tolerate.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:30 pm

If conspiracy theorists read accounts written by conspiracy theorists, they will believe the conspiracy theory.

Moon landing, Diana, JFK, 9/11, Queen and Phil the Greek being alien lizards etc. What next ?

More theories will follow and be adopted by some.

Funny to begin with but does get tedious after a while.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:36 pm

nutsinmay wrote:No I wouldn't expect the core to remain upright, so where did it go? (Before it was illegally removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas, that is).

But it's stretching things a bit to suggest that the core (or parts of it) all fell neatly into the footprint.

It didn't all fall neatly. How do you think building 7 ended up having chunks taken out of it?

Oh, that's right. You probably think it was undamaged.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:39 pm

One of the things I don't understand is this...how did the CIA or Zionist Jews (for TrawdenLabradorgirl) get the debris that fell away from the towers when they collapsed to defy the laws of physics and fall at faster than freefall speed? Because the stuff that was freefalling away from the towers got to the bottom before the towers settled several stories of rubble higher in the footprint which I am told fell at freefall speed...mossad must have placed rocket boosters on the stuff that was falling away in an attempt to make us believe something something something blah blah blah

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:39 pm

HatfieldClaret

Watch the video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well worth while!

Vintage Claret · Post by **Vintage Claret** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:47 pm

TomBenderson wrote:Because the judicial system is part of the conspiracy. Duh.

Well obviously if you put the word Duh after a sentence it must be true, I'm convinced now.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:56 pm

I remember many years ago watching a 2 hour special on TV which investigated loads of conspiracy theories and things that go bump in the night. The Loch Ness monster, flying saucers etc etc. I really wanted to be convinced that there was something real out there that we didn't understand. Like Mulder - I wanted to believe. So did the producers of the show and they came up with nothing. Like a couple of people posted further up - it's easy and interesting to develop some circumstantial evidence that needs to be at least reviewed (structure of the towers, size of the planes etc etc) but in the end if we are going to believe in some hugely complex conspiracy then what we really need is positive evidence that the conspiracy existed. There is none.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:58 pm

keith1879

Watch the video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well worth while!

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:02 pm

For a conspiracy this huge to have worked it would have had to involve millions upon millions of people working together in secret, people in authority, ordinary workers, media, military, emergency services, airlines.....in fact most of us on this board too...

....yes, that's right Trawdenlabgirl and nuts, we are all in on it apart from you two mwahahahahaha.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:03 pm

I did watch it - it consists of people picking holes in what is generally believed to have happened. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. Good night.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:14 pm

nutsinmay wrote:No I wouldn't expect the core to remain upright, so where did it go? (Before it was illegally removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas, that is).

But it's stretching things a bit to suggest that the core (or parts of it) all fell neatly into the footprint.

Is this the same steel that earlier was proof of high explosives because it all melted? Because I don't think that melted steel scraped of the pavement has a high resale value. Not enough to be worth shippig abroad, anyway.

geopancake · Post by **geopancake** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:15 pm

A waste of breath and all started by Saxo. He must be having a chortle. A good attempt by some to ask others to take the red pill.

Must be off to feed my pet goat.

corporal jones · Post by **corporal jones** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:16 pm

I am always surprised at those who would seek to mock anyone who chooses to question the official version of events, and just accept it as the truth. After all, numerous official versions have been debunked over the years-Bloody Sunday, Birmingham pub bombings, Hillsborough and most telling of all, the assassination of JFK. That is unless you still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone! Planes clearly flew into the twin towers which may or may not have caused them to collapse but for me there are two main areas of major doubt on that day. Despite being the most secure building in the world, there is no footage of any plane hitting the Pentagon and there is no footage of any plane wreckage after impact. Neither is there any footage of plane wreckage at the supposed crash site of the fourth plane in Pennsilvania. We have all seen footage of plane crash sites and parts of the aircraft are always visible eg the nose cone of the Lockerbie plane fell 37000 ft and was intact, and yet on this occasion we are told the whole plane just disintegrated to dust. All I am saying is that there is enough doubt and unanswered questions about these two aspects of 9/11 to cast doubt over the whole official version.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:51 pm

corporal jones wrote:IDespite being the most secure building in the world, there is no footage of any plane hitting the Pentagon and there is no footage of any plane wreckage after impact. Neither is there any footage of plane wreckage at the supposed crash site of the fourth plane in Pennsilvania. We have all seen footage of plane crash sites and parts of the aircraft are always visible eg the nose cone of the Lockerbie plane fell 37000 ft and was intact, and yet on this occasion we are told the whole plane just disintegrated to dust. All I am saying is that there is enough doubt and unanswered questions about these two aspects of 9/11 to cast doubt over the whole official version.

First one - plane wreckage inside the Pentagon. Google is your friend.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Second one - there's a big difference between a plane breaking up and falling under gravity, and a plane being flown deliberately into the ground at cruising speed. If you try driving your car at 563 mph into a mountainside, how much wreckage do you think would be left? That plane didn't just crash, it was deliberately flown into the ground.

holycustard · Post by **holycustard** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:52 pm

Watch this one its 5 hours long has everything you need to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpiVv8tQdmY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:07 pm

This video gives us a clear insight into what goes on in the conspiracy theorists mind, it deals mainly with the activity within the left cerebral hemisphere, it's very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8D-dJrS1t4&t=3277s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

corporal jones · Post by **corporal jones** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:58 pm

And there you have the problem with this site. I thought I had put forward a balanced view point without resorting to abuse. The scale of my examples are irrelevant, they are examples of how central govts can control the media to put out their own acceptable version of events. Is that not a fair point? I take it you do believe Oswald acted alone then? Ok fair enough, I don't. Instead of belittling other opinions, try and dis prove them. Why was there no plane wreckage at the two sites I mentioned? And when did I state that the pentagon didn't exist? I choose not to accept all things at face value because if certain aspects don't add up, I question them. If you wish to accept all that the media tell you then be my guest

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:11 pm

corporal jones wrote:And there you have the problem with this site. I thought I had put forward a balanced view point without resorting to abuse. The scale of my examples are irrelevant, they are examples of how central govts can control the media to put out their own acceptable version of events. Is that not a fair point? I take it you do believe Oswald acted alone then? Ok fair enough, I don't. Instead of belittling other opinions, try and dis prove them. Why was there no plane wreckage at the two sites I mentioned? And when did I state that the pentagon didn't exist? I choose not to accept all things at face value because if certain aspects don't add up, I question them. If you wish to accept all that the media tell you then be my guest

You think your post beginning "I am always surprised at those who would seek to mock anyone who chooses to question the official version of events..." was fair and balanced?

That's not why anyone is being mocked.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:28 pm

The problem is, corporal, that it's impossible to disprove your assertions. I linked you to a site (post 250) with pictures of plane wreckage in the Pentagon. You presumably say it's not plane wreckage, or it's not the Pentagon, or both. Like Doubting Thomas, unless you see the plane actually at the Pentagon site, you won't believe it; and since you can't see the plane at the Pentagon, you will never be able to believe it.

I've also told you that planes flown at cruising speed into the ground will suffer vastly more damage than planes exploded in mid-air. Again,. you choose not to believe it. That's your choice, but it makes "proof" impossible unless someone is willing to fly another plane into the ground in your presence.

It is not disputed that four planes disappeared with all their passengers. Any suggestion that the US government made those planes disappear and then used other means to make it look like planes had flown into buildings, is not rational.

karatekid · Post by **karatekid** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:34 pm

A pilot once commented that to take a passenger jet off course and reduce its altitude and air speed to impact a building not much wider than the aircraft itself would take a great deal of skill and many, many hours of piloting that sort of aircraft. He said it was certainly not something you could achieve after a handful of lessons in a light aircraft as we were led to believe.
That is something I have always thought to be a bit odd about the whole incident. I don't think it was deliberately set up by the US government. Imagine if it was ever proven that they planned it. They would never have a credible president again............... Oh hold on!!!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:42 pm

karatekid wrote:A pilot once commented that to take a passenger jet off course and reduce its altitude and air speed to impact a building not much wider than the aircraft itself would take a great deal of skill and many, many hours of piloting that sort of aircraft. He said it was certainly not something you could achieve after a handful of lessons in a light aircraft as we were led to believe.
That is something I have always thought to be a bit odd about the whole incident. I don't think it was deliberately set up by the US government. Imagine if it was ever proven that they planned it. They would never have a credible president again............... Oh hold on!!!

Flight Simulators were a thing for a long time before September 2001 and since physics is just applied mathematics it's a thing that home PCs do pretty well.

karatekid · Post by **karatekid** » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:46 pm

TomBenderson wrote:Well, if "a pilot" "once" "commented" that way, I'm convinced.

Glad I could help.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:01 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Flight Simulators were a thing for a long time before September 2001 and since physics is just applied mathematics it's a thing that home PCs do pretty well.

Flight simulators that could simulate driving a passenger jet liner in the manner it flew on that day?

Are there any videos or images of the actual impact other than the 3 stills which show next to nothing? Was video footage from a building (gas station?) not seized immediately after?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:27 am

Plenty of videos of the second one. Not the first, because no-one was looking, and there's no reason for any CCTV camera to be pointing half way up a skyscraper.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:32 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:Flight simulators that could simulate driving a passenger jet liner in the manner it flew on that day?

Yes.

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:38 am

Congratulations, you've smashed the 'replys to a saxo thread' record to little tiny pieces..

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:40 am

Saxoman wrote:Congratulations, you've smashed the 'replys to a saxo thread' record to little tiny pieces..

With a plane.

karatekid · Post by **karatekid** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:28 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A

Here is said pilot.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:43 am

I've seen Die Hard 2

A bunch of special forces guys converted a church into a sophisticated air traffic control point, and crashed an airliner into the ground.

If they can do that, they can do ANYTHING.

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:45 am

Give it a few hours and labrador will be blaming Bruce Willis for 9/11

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:51 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I've seen Die Hard 2

A bunch of special forces guys converted a church into a sophisticated air traffic control point, and crashed an airliner into the ground.

If they can do that, they can do ANYTHING.

I never bought the end of that film. McClane manages to not only get aviation fuel(kerosene) to light instantaneously whilst it is led in snow, but also the said kerosene then proceeds to burn like a fuse and follow a plane that is at least 200 feet of the ground.

All the stuff that happens before that is completely believable, mind.

MrTopTier · Post by **MrTopTier** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:13 am

The only thing that this thread confirms, is that some people should not use the internet.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:22 am

Why didn't the Nakatomi building collapse in Die Hard with all that dynamite going off?
Something doesn't add up here.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:15 pm

Did Harrison Ford not once cling on to the wing of a plane mid flight and manage to climb in and take control.

Why didn't he do that on 9/11 FFS ?

Autobahn · Post by **Autobahn** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:26 pm

: 84810409.jpg (168.79 KiB) Viewed 5342 times

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:51 pm

Lord Beamish wrote:I never bought the end of that film. McClane manages to not only get aviation fuel(kerosene) to light instantaneously whilst it is led in snow, but also the said kerosene then proceeds to burn like a fuse and follow a plane that is at least 200 feet of the ground.

All the stuff that happens before that is completely believable, mind.

Leave your brain in neutral, and its great entertainment. Don't make em like that anymore!

R.I.P Alan rickman incidently..

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:47 pm

dsr wrote:First one - plane wreckage inside the Pentagon. Google is your friend.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Second one - there's a big difference between a plane breaking up and falling under gravity, and a plane being flown deliberately into the ground at cruising speed. If you try driving your car at 563 mph into a mountainside, how much wreckage do you think would be left? That plane didn't just crash, it was deliberately flown into the ground.

Every time I see someone post what`s supposed to prove conclusively that Usama did it it usually does the opposite.
So your convinced that American Airlines flight 77 disappeared into that hole are you

Bill Clinton let slip...."The Trade Towers Collapsed and The Pentagon was Bombed" (Woops!)
Watch and learn!
https://youtu.be/Ypc4ieJO0pg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I apologise for the voice of Siri.

I agree that there are lots of nutty theories like space weapons, military planes, CGI etc and those all help to dismiss the Inside Job story but all you need to do is find just one anomaly & focus on that.
Building 7 was obviously a controlled demolition, even Larry Silverstein admited to "Pulling" the building. So if that`s the case, then what else is a lie?
http://wtc7.net/pullit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://youtu.be/-jPzAakHPpk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:28 pm

TomBenderson wrote:No he didn't. He says someone else decided to and, in the context, it's clear he means pull out their resources. It takes mind-melting *********** to believe this ****. Really, they're all clever enough to construct this fraud but then Larry "forgets" a year later when he's on camera. Oh and they can blind us all to what they've done but that footage gets out anyway?

And you believe that?.............what utter tripe!

Vintage Claret · Post by **Vintage Claret** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:34 pm

bob, a jet airliner striking a reinforced concrete building at 400+ mph won't punch a cartoon style outline of a plane in the wall.
Does the hole in the photograph you provided not look remotely like a plane fuselage shape?
How do you explain the plane wreckage, the thousands of witnesses that saw the plane circling before it nosedived, the scores of eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building, the plane wreckage, the emergency services personnel who testified to handling human remains and what happened to all the passengers and crew that
never came home?

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:51 pm

"Ignorance Is Strength" or "the truth will set you free."

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
or
http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=2594" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Commemts:

"Someone needs to hack the mainstream media, upload this video to every tv-station and put it on replay for as long as possible."

".. dude people hate the truth even if you showed this to sheep they would still support their gov and call muslims terrorist"

"I just watched this again for the ~15th time since 2011. Corbett really should receive some type of global recognition for this masterpiece. In less than 5 minutes he brings up virtually every major anomaly with respect to 9/11, while simultaneously provoking those who cling to the official narrative."

"Is there anyone out there that still believe anything, that comes out of the U S governments mouth."

"911 the worst Hollywood script."

"...The Five dancing Israelis who set up cameras upon a roof top to capture the entire event and were spotted dancing and celebratory by a woman looking out her window..."

"The best summary of 9/11. Thank you. It shows how we the people are very ignorant and anything goes..."

Gosh!

Vintage Claret · Post by **Vintage Claret** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:59 pm

Bloody typical, Bluelabrador can provide tons of links to looney conspiracy sites but not one for Sunderland v Burnley

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:15 pm

TomBenderson and bob-the-scutter, the following might help:

Did WTC 7 Owner Larry Silverstein Admit to Ordering the Controlled Demolition of the Building?

"..... The problem is that Silverstein's comment is so cryptic and vague that it is impossible to know for sure what he was referring to....

....According to Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, Silverstein tried on the afternoon of 9/11 to get approval to demolish WTC7 ....

....In the end, whether or not Silverstein admitted to personally authorizing the controlled demolition of WTC 7 has no bearing on the evidence presented by AE911Truth. The scientific, forensic and eyewitness evidence surrounding the building’s destruction proves beyond any reasonable doubt that it was intentionally demolished. While Silverstein's actions as the leaseholder of the Twin Towers and the owner of Building 7 should be thoroughly examined with suspicion, only an unimpeachable, independent criminal investigation can determine who was responsible for destroying the WTC skyscrapers...."

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/696-faq ... ding-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Vintage Claret....the video is a touch of satire. I think you might find it quite funny!
Don't mention football, when I heard the teams I put a bet on Sunderland.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:40 pm

bob-the-scutter wrote:Every time I see someone post what`s supposed to prove conclusively that Usama did it it usually does the opposite.
So your convinced that American Airlines flight 77 disappeared into that hole are you

You're a real whopper, aren't you?

Are you honestly trying to say that people are claiming an entire aeroplane disappeared into this hole?

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?