|
Post by shred on Mar 22, 2013 11:38:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 22, 2013 12:23:38 GMT -5
"Pretty straightforward."
Yes it does works for the ignorant and gullible. Shyam Sunder explained it in great detail on video as if he saw it himself. He even said it was "obvious" even though a couple of years back it was a big mystery for him. Trouble is, no one saw that happen so it's a nice tale that is not supported by the videos. But his computer animation makes for a nice "straightforward" cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 22, 2013 16:39:46 GMT -5
No not the ignorant and gullible, the sensible.
The ignorant and gullible think 9/11 was an inside job and ignore the wealth of evidence that shows otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 22, 2013 18:04:55 GMT -5
No not the ignorant and gullible, the sensible. The ignorant and gullible think 9/11 was an inside job and ignore the wealth of evidence that shows otherwise. Actually ignorant and gullible people believe everything they're told by their government despite that most governments lie all the time. Those who have any kind of intelligence know full well governments usually have agendas that benefit the select few at the expense of the many. You can swallow everything you're told 100% if it works for you, I personally don't care, that's your business. Trying to convince me that lies (including yours) are truth is an exercise in futility. But you certainly have the unalienable right to keep on trying.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 5:54:52 GMT -5
It's your government is not my government. My government at the time was Tony Blair's New Labour government (they couldn't even keep their Parliamentary expenses diddles secret and a number of them went to prison).
Of course politicians lie and cheat, but had this been an inside job it would have been impossible for them to keep it quiet.
Frankly it's too complicated for idiot politicians (however corrupt they may be) to pull off a fake terrorist attack of this magnitude, or even 'let it happen on purpose'. The entire civil engineering community of the world was watching, the entire structural fire engineering community of the world was watching, the entire demolitions industry of the world was watching, the airlines were watching, your military was watching.
Had politicians tried something like this and failed, they'd be executed for it. government's are just too leaky. They couldn't even keep Watergate secret.
|
|
|
Post by liberalsgonewild on Mar 23, 2013 6:00:04 GMT -5
Shred, you cant change someone who is in denial. I believe that Bob thinks denial is a river in Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 9:57:16 GMT -5
"It's your government is not my government. My government at the time was Tony Blair's New Labour government"I was talking in general about all governments, including yours. Tony Blair and his government is a fine example. downingstreetmemo.com/I do know a lot more about the lies and agenda of my pretend government though. "Of course politicians lie and cheat, but had this been an inside job it would have been impossible for them to keep it quiet."And it was, several insiders have opened up since 9/11. Here's a couple of examples, there are more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds"Frankly it's too complicated for idiot politicians (however corrupt they may be) to pull off a fake terrorist attack of this magnitude, or even 'let it happen on purpose'."Really? So they can't do it with all the most sophisticated technology at their disposal, but 19 guys under the control of some guy in a cave who was afflicted with advanced kidney disease managed to neutralize the most expensive and sophisticated intelligence/defense apparatus on the planet second to none? "The entire civil engineering community of the world was watching, the entire structural fire engineering community of the world was watching, the entire demolitions industry of the world was watching, the airlines were watching, your military was watching."I'm not sure that they were all paying attention, some were and they have talked about it. Others did their homework afterward, I already posted the links (see first page): aibafs.freeforums.net/index.cgi?board=conspiracies&action=display&thread=46&page=1"Had politicians tried something like this and failed, they'd be executed for it."You are so incredibly naive. The past 2 administrations have committed immense war crimes, crimes against humanity and many other types of crimes including financial ones and crimes against the Constitution. Not only has NO ONE been held accountable, they're still doing it. Tell me, was Tony Blair ever prosecuted? "government's are just too leaky. They couldn't even keep Watergate secret."That's right, and they're still leaking like a broken faucet no matter how much they want to silence whistle blowers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 10:03:27 GMT -5
Shred, you cant change someone who is in denial. I believe that Bob thinks denial is a river in Egypt. If you have something to post on this topic that has some meaning, by all means, please join in. It would be refreshing to have more than 2 people join into the 9/11 discussion, preferably someone who actually has something meaningful to say. So far the above is not that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 11:48:06 GMT -5
Really? So they can't do it with all the most sophisticated technology at their disposal, but 19 guys under the control of an extremely rich Saudi Arabian Billionaire Jihadist Yes 19 highly trained terrorists under the control of an extremely rich Saudi Arabian Jihadist took over the planes and crashed them. No special effects no fakery they did this for real.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 12:49:05 GMT -5
Really? So they can't do it with all the most sophisticated technology at their disposal, but 19 guys under the control of an extremely rich Saudi Arabian Billionaire Jihadist Yes 19 highly trained terrorists under the control of an extremely rich Saudi Arabian Jihadist took over the planes and crashed them. No special effects no fakery they did this for real.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 14:19:08 GMT -5
LOL how thick is the guy who created that video ? There's nothing sophisticated about Kamikaze attacks. There's nothing sophisticated about taking control of a jet with a knife. Yuji Nishizawa managed much the same thing in 1999. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Nippon_Airways_Flight_61If he'd had armed accomplices to keep the passengers out of the cockpit he'd have probably succeeded in his aims. As it is the lone nutter managed to murder the pilot in the cockpit of a 747 and commandeer it's controls (at one point descending to below 300 metres) before passengers stormed the cockpit subdued him and gave control to the co-pilot. Visual Flight Rules conditions make it very easy to line up a target and crash into it. Look what this poorly trained Japanese pilot managed to do to the USS Bunker Hill St Lo USS Louisville And they were heavily armed naval vessels, not static skyscrapers. To fly a hijacked airliner into a skyscraper is not sophisticated at all, it's child's play.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 14:41:14 GMT -5
"how thick is the guy who created that video ?"
I thought it was a brilliant tongue-in-cheek expose of the not so brilliant conspiracy theory that was sold to the world. But we each have our own perspective. You would rather accept government fed conspiracy theories, I would rather have facts and truths.
"Look what this poorly trained Japanese pilot managed to do to the USS Bunker Hill"
Well once again you make unsubstantiated claims (how would you know he was "poorly trained"?) and irrelevant statements. There is not one iota of comparison between what you're trying to show and what happened on 9/11.
"To fly a hijacked airliner into a skyscraper is not sophisticated at all, it's child's play."
We went through this already, repeating your absurd claim does not make it any less absurd. If you recall, you've been contradicted by many REAL pilots.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 14:55:35 GMT -5
No it's a show of complete and total ignorance of reality.
As for the Kamikazes, they were easy to train as they didn't have to worry about difficult things like how to do a fully held off landing. They didn't require combat training to be able to dogfight, they just had to fly straight and level into a target. It's basic, it's simple, it's EASY to crash a plane on target unless shot down.
Repeating your absurd inside job theory doesn't make it true however many times you tell it nor how many fake experts put their name to the A&E911 'truth' campaign.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 15:21:42 GMT -5
"it's a show of complete and total ignorance of reality"
I couldn't have said it better myself regarding your irrelevant point about Kamikazes. It still has nothing to do with 9/11.
"Repeating your absurd inside job theory doesn't make it true however many times you tell it nor how many fake experts put their name to the A&E911 'truth' campaign."
I didn't repeat any such thing, I responded to your post about Kamikazes and your opinion about the author of the 9/11 Conspiracy video. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? (that's rhetorical)
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 16:49:32 GMT -5
Er 9/11 was a Kamikaze attack. They were Islamic Kamikazes instead of Bushidos but the principles of flight are exactly the same, the controls work the same way and in most respects airliners are easier to fly than Mitsubishi Zeros... There's no prop torque to counteract and there's fly by wire controls.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 17:03:05 GMT -5
"Er 9/11 was a Kamikaze attack."
Er, maybe it was or maybe it wasn't. How would you know for sure? You were inside those planes? Who told you? The 9/11 Commission? NIST?
"They were Islamic Kamikazes instead of Bushidos but the principles of flight are exactly the same, the controls work the same way and in most respects airliners are easier to fly than Mitsubishi Zeros... There's no prop torque to counteract and there's fly by wire controls."
Interesting but what about 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 17:08:34 GMT -5
The fact that passengers on those flights made calls to their loved ones describing the hijackings is a big hint. The fact that those planes were flown into buildings is another.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 19:56:50 GMT -5
"The fact that passengers on those flights made calls to their loved ones describing the hijackings is a big hint."
There are many questions with the official account, that's one of them.
"The fact that those planes were flown into buildings is another."
It just means planes went into buildings. How, who, what, when, why, etc. are some obvious questions you should be asking, not just accept what you've been sold. That's extremely narrow minded.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 25, 2013 4:30:23 GMT -5
No it means that hijacked planes went into buildings damaging them, damaging the fireproofing and causing fires that weakened the steel in them to the point of structural failure.
Even if somehow the twin towers had miraculously survived the fires and stood, the war in Afghanistan would have happened. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 25, 2013 7:36:09 GMT -5
No it means that hijacked planes went into buildings damaging them, damaging the fireproofing and causing fires that weakened the steel in them to the point of structural failure. Even if somehow the twin towers had miraculously survived the fires and stood, the war in Afghanistan would have happened. Think about it. The first paragraph is just your opinion as parroted from the official conspiracy theory, it is not fact. The second paragraph is just your opinion. I've thought about it all, you don't need to tell me to think.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 25, 2013 7:42:45 GMT -5
So you're saying the planes didn't damage the buildings they didn't damage fireproofing and fires weren't burning in them and steel didn't weaken ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 25, 2013 7:54:57 GMT -5
So you're saying the planes didn't damage the buildings they didn't damage fireproofing and fires weren't burning in them and steel didn't weaken ? Pay attention to what I am saying and try not to inject your opinions into what I'm saying. The above is what you're saying, period. 2 planes hit one tower each and no plane hit WTC7. The 2 planes did damage the towers and cause fires. That's all on video. The rest of your statement is NOT on video and there is NO EVIDENCE that fireproofing was damaged or that it even if it was, it had any effect on the collapse and same is true with the steel. And even is all those things were true, there is NO EVIDENCE that any of that caused 3 buildings to collapse in the manner seen on videos. All of that is nothing more than THEORY. You do know the difference between theory and fact, right? You have not demonstrated you do because of everything you post.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 25, 2013 8:46:35 GMT -5
Pay attention to what I'm saying: WTC's 1 & 2 Hit WTC7 damaging it severely and setting it on fire. It's a fact that the fireproofing in the twin towers consisted of spray on foam and drywall (gypsum plasterboard) both of which are fragile and susceptible to mechanical damage. Some survivors cut their way through drywall with the metal parts of their cleaning squeegees. It's not strong stuff. The towers were never designed to withstand the impact of a fully fuelled airliner colliding at 600mph. Leslie Robertson himself explained he only considered a landing aircraft lost in fog colliding by accident. Final approach speed for a Boeing 707 is 128 knots (147.3 mph) recommended www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf so much less kinetic energy than a 600mph 767 and as a landing aeroplane it's fuel wasn't considered. There's no evidence that thermite destroyed any of those buildings. There's no evidence that thermite can cut a vertical steel beam. There's no evidence of controlled demolitions and there's no evidence that any of those people you've cited who purport to be experts have any expertise in understanding the effect of fire upon steel. In comparison I contacted John Dowling, the man who commissioned the Cardington Fire Tests and talked with him about it. He fully supports the NIST reports, he's a member of the industrial safety organisation The Steel in Fire Forum. Their next meeting will be Tuesday 9th April 2013, 10:30 for 11:00 in The Conference Room (A225): Alfred Denny Building, The University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN If you're interested, write to them. One of their previous meetings discussed the collapse of the WTC's fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/downloads/CC_wtc.pdf if you wish to save the link and read through. Note, this study was carried out by Charles Clifton (HERA - NZ) before NIST's study. Experts who support the established (Structural Damage + Fire) consensus: fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/contact.html
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 25, 2013 11:42:20 GMT -5
"Pay attention to what I'm saying"
I have many times and I caught you in several lies, fabrications and attacks, including name calling. But unlike you, I haven't injected my opinions into yours. The rest of your post is just more of your opinion(s), much of which is either unsubstantiated or contradicted by the facts and/or the opinion of experts.
Leslie Robertson, John Dowling, Charles Clifton and the Cardigan Fire test and the quotation from their alleged report are all mostly theory and none of it comes from a criminal forensic investigation as to what actually happened and why and other detail. In fact, a lot of it has been contradicted by many other experts.
There is a lot more to 9/11 than just the 3 tower collapses. When one researches 9/11, one has to take into consideration as many factors as possible. The official theory regarding the tower collapses is highly suspect at the very least from just video observation. One does not need to be an expert to view the videos and note that not one these collapses look like natural gravitational collapses from fires, airplanes or both. Some experts have stated that they believed these collapses to be suspect from the first time they observed them. I am not an expert and I thought the collapse of the twin towers were quite unusual when I first saw the videos. I was not aware of the collapse of WTC7 until years later. And because I'm not an expert I did not have any reason to suspect that the official story was not true. However, as soon as I started doing research, about 3 years after 9/11, many issues came to light, including WTC7 which was not highly publicized in the mainstream media (deliberately?) and a lot of these issues made logical sense and caused me to re-examine everything, and I did. It seems many of the experts say the same thing. Some never knew about WTC7 until years later and that in itself woke them up. To this day, many experts are still signing the petition at the AE911 site because they're first discovering many issues they were not aware of before.
Furthermore, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that there may be other explanations and that government explanations are almost always filled with lies because that's the way governments (ALL of them) have operated throughout history.
"this study was carried out by Charles Clifton (HERA - NZ) before NIST's study."
And a tremendous amount of facts and other information have been discovered after the study. So that study does not take NIST's theories and anything else discovered since into account. So it is irrelevant to what actually happened. It is no more than just another THEORY written by the author(s) because it is not evidence based research.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 25, 2013 18:11:54 GMT -5
No you have caught me contradicting many lies of the so called truth movement, and their invented controlled demolitions claptrap. I've caught you in many lies about thermite/ nano thermite and you haven't been able to prove a damn thing you're saying about their alleged and much hyped abilities to defy gravity and horizontally cut a vertical steel beam neatly in the way a cutting torch could.
You may not like what I'm saying but it doesn't make what I'm saying about fire and steel false.
It was an uncomplicated unsophisticated terrorist attack not a complicated sophisticated anything could go wrong and result in jail hoax.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 25, 2013 21:37:26 GMT -5
"No you have caught me contradicting many lies of the so called truth movement, and their invented controlled demolitions claptrap."
If you say so. The so-called "truth movement" includes an immense class of people who have many opinions and virtually all of them agree that they have not been told the truth about 9/11. That you believe you have "contradicted many lies of the so called "truth movement" is not possible since you can't contradict all the lies that you believe are lies and it's just your opinion that they are lies in the first place. Furthermore what you're saying is a contradiction in itself. The primary purpose of the "truth movement" is to get at the truth. The opposite of the "truth movement" is of course, the "lie movement". So your claim is not only impossible but it is also an illogical contradiction.
And still further, many in the "truth movement" believe that the 3 towers were control demolished. A belief is not a lie, it's just a belief. You can't blame them, they've been told admitted lies and to them and most intelligent people, all 3 collapses simply do not look like natural collapses.
"I've caught you in many lies about thermite/ nano thermite"
You haven't caught me in any lies about thermite or nano-thermite since I am not an authority on the subject and everything I posted about that, which is not very much other than links, comes from experts on the subject.
"you haven't been able to prove a damn thing you're saying about their alleged and much hyped abilities to defy gravity and horizontally cut a vertical steel beam neatly in the way a cutting torch could."
I don't need to prove one single thing to you and it was never my objective or my job to try to prove anything to you. If you're looking to me to prove anything to you, you're in the wrong site. I certainly have not asked you for proof of anything nor am I interested in any proof from you.
"You may not like what I'm saying but it doesn't make what I'm saying about fire and steel false."
I have no feelings one way or another about what you say here and certainly, some of what you say may be true however most of it is just your opinions and theories and I simply disagree with them.
"It was an uncomplicated unsophisticated terrorist attack not a complicated sophisticated anything could go wrong and result in jail hoax."
That's your opinion whatever the above is supposed to mean.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 26, 2013 4:53:07 GMT -5
Most of whom never learned anything in class. The leaders of this movement are making a fortune out of them with book sales dvd sales and silly hoodies.
It's a conspiracy theorists bonanza.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 26, 2013 7:50:28 GMT -5
Most of whom never learned anything in class. The leaders of this movement are making a fortune out of them with book sales dvd sales and silly hoodies. It's a conspiracy theorists bonanza. You intimately know hundreds of millions of people and their level of education? I haven't spent one penny on this, perhaps you did. I was able to read articles and view videos about everything experts have posted about 9/11 for free. Contrast that with the $trillions spent by governments (including yours) on the basis of 9/11, all of it stolen from The People. Now that's a real "conspiracy theorists' bonanza".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 26, 2013 10:26:25 GMT -5
I know that Dylan Avery became considerably richer after releasing Loose Change. I know that Richard Gage doesn't have to do any proper work anymore because AE911'truth' pay him a wage. I know that David Icke makes quite a living out of conspiracy theories. I know that Alex Jones does too. And James Fetzer. And Steven Jones. And Kevin Ryan.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 26, 2013 23:50:31 GMT -5
"I know, I Know, I know ..."
You're a real Einstein. You know Hundreds of millions of people who don't swallow the official theory are all uneducated, you know they all lie and now you know what's in their bank accounts. How much do you believe I give a s**t about these people's personal finances? To me these people are the ones who helped expose what government has covered up about 9/11. I have the greatest respect for these people, they don't bend over. Many people who voice opinions that don't match those of government risk their livelihoods. Others bend over. You want to curse them? Why? Are you so scared that the story is a scam job? One of the greatest scams in history? What if it was? Would still bend over?
|
|