I note that she doesn't look like she's just survived a nuclear explosion either. In that link about 911 conspiracies debunked there was a perfectly logical SCIENTIFIC explaination why hundreds of thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted INTERNAL columns stripped of their concrete insulation by the impact of the planes. It was demonstrated on an Horizon documentary eight years ago, that has frequently been repeated on Discovery. Then again Sis, you never did read any of those links I posted, did you? I read, or read anyway, all the stuff you've posted and the links you've privately sent. I do try to keep an open mind. I'd love it to be a conspiracy theory - but. This is like my sister banging on about her pet Diana theory, that never addresses the question that had she been wearing a seatbelt she'd still be alive, and that the easiest, most undetectable way to have killed her for sure would have been to bring down her plane with an EMP on many of her private flights leading up to her visit to Paris. And so with this - why WT7? Why? The world would never have listened had they just brought down the Twin Towers? Why not the White House rather than WT7? And seriously, there were no planes? How very Derren Brown....
And what about the stuff that followed, the nose coming out of the building but no hole? here's what a bird does to the nose of one of those planes yes it made it through 16 x 2.5" of metal in 8 columns please log in to view this image Dave you are just here to mock, take your blathering elsewhere muppet, dont come on if you think it's nonsense you twat And you are a self righteous twat, you've proved that with your "debates" with Tobes it's one thing to disagree or not even care and quite another to mock and put on this pretense of knowledge when you know **** all mate.
I have trouble getting my head around it too, but what do I know about nuclear demolition. I can certainly understand your points. But.. it does go a long way to explain why the buildings literally turn completely to dust, there is official accounts, there was nothing left literally of these buildings, 210 stores of building just gone to dust from the collapse, even to someone not educated in construction and the like must find that impossible to believe, and there was nothing left at all of WTC 7 for the building it was. Go to 1min 20 secs and see the shaking and then seconds later the collapse. The thing just turns to dust beneath the top section. The top literally just all through and no resistance, it just falls, no pancaking we hear about [video=youtube;CM88xJX5FsA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA[/video] You gotta wonder what was strong enough to make a second of new york shake, the video clearly shows it was not the building
2g1a, do you believe there is a big giant head that controls everything? What did you feel when you realised there was no Father Christmas? Do you feel some elitist superiority to the peasants that a few of you Illuminati know it's all a big plot, but they can't fool you. no siree? Get a ****ing grip will you. They can't even control the rain. they're devious, manipulative, self-interested bastards fighting for their place at the top of the dung heap, but these paranoid delusions are just a ****ing avoidance of reality. Just read science fiction or Barbra Cartland if you want escapist fantasy. Or better still, you're right - Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre are controlling your life. And the FA. Go and kill them and the spell will be broken. You and Sis, it's your duty as the Enlightened ones to save us all from the Grand Conspiracy, thus evil ****ing matrix we're in. It's your calling - kill them all.
Khalesov clearly says that this occurred 10 seconds before the collapse, this was a while prior to that. She was not there when the building collapsed. Also no explanation for tremors before Each building collapsed, all 10 to 12 seconds before As for Diana, that one is a totally different thing altogether. Just tell me this and I'll leave you out of it lad, how did the nose of the plane first of all make it through when it cant take a bird strike and why was there no hole from a piece of plane at least 2 stories in size? I am sure you obviously have a clear explanation as to as can be seen in the 2 videos I posted that many people actually said there was just an explosion and no plane? There is evidence in the post you replied to. as in no big gaping hole from where the plane's nose came through, and also, the wings of the plane also cut into the steel Physically impossible I sent you 2 PMs a while back btw and to be honest I was on the wrong track then because the trick is to have people debate the planes. Sure they are filmed from two different angles and have two different approaches for the same plane ffs. You make it sound like I have been bombarding you with **** in PM. It takes 1800 degrees to melt the steel yet that woman is standing there, you ignore that and go at the easily refutable bit given my obvious lack of knowledge of the nuke theory. Stab that straw man lad , stab it good
It was a simple question, no need to lower the standards... I don't know what your issue is. I've not once said I believe the conspiracy, I've always said that there are alot of questions and literally hundreds of coincidences which the USA have not answered or refuse to do so. I don't believe the official story because there are too many questions. That is not the same as believing the opposite and accepting that there's a conspiracy. Grow up, learn how to discuss a topic properly and try to understand that refusing to believe one side of events doesn't land you in the other camp. If anything, it makes me more logical than the sheep who blindly fall into the afore mentioned camps of pro or con conspiracy.
Donga is exactly the type of media conditioned person he deems himself not to be, not only to refute the easily refutable bits but also mocks those who look for answers and ignore the obvious evidence. I call no hole from an exiting plane nose evidence, I call a woman standing in supposedly over 1200 degrees of fire evidence, I call the plane just passing into the building reinforced to take a bomber strike, wings n all, evidence. There is so much grey areas, I always wondered how there was nothing left of the buildings, more evidence. not a desk, not a keyboard nothing and why they shipped it all off without any investigation. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ or that over 300 firefighters have died from radiation cancer so far since and this is a fact, not conspiracy theory, how has over 300 firefighters died of radiation cancer? http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/0...firefighters-radiation-cancers-off-the-scale/ They called it grounds zero for good reason
I don't, that's all stuff which can be edited or digitally fixed or whatever else. Things I don't understand. I look at how a company made millions on put shares on the two airliners used in the attacks, over 270 times (not percent, which could just be a random chance long shot) the normal trend for put and call options, only days before the 9/11 attacks and the owner of said company was the third ranked guy in the CIA. That's some serious insider knowledge. That kind of **** gets my attention and makes me ask questions. Supposed evidence is interesting, much in the same way I read all sorts of conspiracies (hell, even area 51 is worth a look into), but I really just want answers to questions - and I never find any.
Deserves a genuine answer. Firstly because a conspiracy of the size suggested would have involved too many people and would have 'leaked' Secondly because it plays into the hands of American paranoia. Just as the Russians would have to invent the Secret Police if they did not exist, Americans are never happy until they have invented a whole series of conspiracy theories. It's part of the national psyche - look at McCarthyism. Thirdly,what US government or agency is going to take the risk that the public will find out that they were responsible. There's no true gain for them. Finally, when you get to the point that the explanation is too complex to be easily digested then you have to question it's veracity.
I've never done video compositing, but I do have a background in still image processing and manipulation so the theory is familiar to me. It would be easy enough to put planes in, yes. But it would be just as easy (easier, in fact) to take them out. But surely no-one would want to do that, would they?
the photo and footage of her are from media and are widely available. Enda Cintron. you have to ask where this raging fire is behind her that melted the building. that's near where the fuel tanks were. the building with no exit hole, thats available anywhere, its not fake. the two different trajectories of the same plane are also widely available and pretty much evidence that is ignored. 1 single half real even half arsed investigation into this would blow it to bits.
if you are into that sort of thing saint, did you watch the first of the 2 vids I posted today, it completely laughs at the plane theory, it shows the nose making it through was a mistake and how it happened and the explanations given as to why the blank frames occurred were pulled apart. it also has accounts live on air of people saying what there was a plane, it just exploded. It was physically impossible for the plane to pass through the building and the lack of a hole where the nose supposedly came through shows that to be true. Even the tip of the wings just seem to disappear into the building, if you watch it in slow mo and consider what that building was built of around it's perimeter then it becomes clear it was and is just not possible. In carefully slowed down photos of the hit you can see explosions cut the hole after impact. As I said, a anti tank round has to travel at mac 3-4 and be made of harder stuff than the tank to punch through, that plane, a fragile aluminum plane that a bird can mess up punched through double plates of metal 2.5" thick, essentially double the width of tank armour and went through the columns and then out the other side at a sub sonic 500mph speed
Just tell me this and I'll leave you out of it lad, how did the nose of the plane first of all make it through when it cant take a bird strike and why was there no hole from a piece of plane at least 2 stories in size? How do crashing airliners leave twenty, thirty foot deep holes in the ground when they crash nose-first into fields? I mean, this is just really basic engineering feller (and I'm not an engineer) buts lets walk through it. The forward momentum of the plane, it's weight times its speed, is transferred to the point of impact. In the case of a bird strike, this kinetic energy is mostly dispersed in a surrounding shockwave around the nose. In the case of crashing into a building (not a solid brick building, remember) the momentum of weight and speed of the plane behind the point of impact needs somewhere to go. The now concertining nose and forward section of the plane is being forced into the building like a plastic knife being rammed into solid butter by a hammer. It wants to go somewhere else, but that energy is focussed on one area, and once a gap is created (i.e. the panels of the wall break) that energy will be forced through a hole not even necessarily as big as the dimensions of the plane itself. This isn't just a phenomena about this though. If my car hits a dog the bonnet will crumple. Are you suggesting that if I drove my car at full speed into a shop window it would disintegrate before it did any damage? Not that I'm a Scouse ram-raider... As for being 'conditioned' by the media...... You sure you're not equally being conditioned by conspiracy theorists? Nah, the Man can't fool you guys, eh?
here's a video of the granite missile hitting the pentagon Watch this, of course some of you will say fake http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/196559.html Reporter quote it's an anti ship missile and it is explained by Khalesov that is why it follows a trajectory that no plane or pilot can pull off and hits the pentagon essentially on the water line as if a hitting a ship. And explains the small hole Never seen that video before myself, what looks lie the tip of something is actually the trail from the missile and not the tip of an aircraft, that's in the official video you can see this supposed tip of an aircraft, its bollocks No damage to the lawn at the pentagon ffs, [video=youtube;c7KDbHOUso8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c7KDbHOUso8[/video] also that video has a good a shot of the penthouse falling through the roof of wtc7 which is only possibly if the building has been pulverized
I won't claim to be an expert on ballistics and such so I can't give evidence, but plenty of people who are experts, have. During the course of this thread, we've had "proof" that it was a big plane, a small plane, a military plane, and now we've settled on no plane. What about eye witness voice overs in the earlier vids saying it was a black plane? The fact is that all the conspiracy theorists each have their own pet explanation and many of them conflict with each other, and none of them are any more convincing than the official line. It just seems to me that some people distrust the authorities so much that they will embrace any theory, regardless of plausibility, that puts them in a bad light. All of the evidence I've seen is just as easy to fabricate as the official line. None of us know the truth, and in the end, a little sanity and common sense must prevail. Do you really believe that CIA or whoever, could be so smart as to engineer an event that clearly requires a great deal of planning by so many people, claim it was a plane, yet be ****ing stupid enough not to actually have a plane? It is, literally, incredible.
Yes, sorry, that was irritable and cranky. I'm just getting pissed off that because I don't agree with this conspiracy malarkey, even though I've made a point of reading the stuff from BOTH sides, I'm labelled 'media-controlled'. I've spent years arguing with cranks and fruitcakes about the moon-landings, and I don't think I've ever changed the mind of one moron who got off on the spooky music and sombre voice-overs from "Did We Really Go To The Moon - a FOX Special Investigation (with that bald twat from the X-Files). As I say, there is a conspiracy going on here, and people are getting rich (in ego and money) with books and articles on the internet, and woe betide any heretic like me who won't join the cult and give to the church collection box.
I did say earlier thought that I was wrong, there were too many holes in the plane theory and some replies I got on here made me question what i had thought to be the case. Watch that last vid I posted, it is only a min or two. Especially the penthouse of wtc 7 just falling into the building. But the other stuff, cant be explained away even remotely by anyone here as the other stuff could be. Just mocked instead
You said it yourself, none of it is convincing, which is why there are so many questions and coincidences and results in my position on the whole 9/11 thing. No idea what happened, but I don't believe the official story and the majority of the conspiracy theorists conflict so much that they can't be credible. It leaves questions. A proper, well funded investigation would surely find the answers but people seem unwilling to listen to those who question the official story - claiming it is either 'laughable' or 'disrespectful'. I remember a certain event close to many Reds which followed such a path; tragedy, a pious authority, an unbelieving few and millions of sheep following the official story for years - many still do and still mock LFC fans as 'always the victims'. Look how that turned out. A proper investigation is needed, questions need answering to put this whole thing to bed (if it can be) not some lame, half arsed effort where the witnesses can avoid being under oath, avoid being recorded and has funding more than 1/20th of the Monica Lewinsky afair
This would doubtless find that elements within the US security agencies knew something was happening (if not the actual details) and that Bush's mates the Saudis funded the whole thing and got their excuse to kick Saddam (and his pesky influence) off their northern border - all done and funded by the US with the UK faithfully carrying their bags. But fake missile planes, nuclear explosions, pulling down WTC7 as if the whole complex plot depended on it? Would have been easier to turn a blind eye to some Arab fanatics' plots to fly planes into the WTC and make political capital out of the aftermath.
