|
Post by shred on Sept 3, 2013 5:33:08 GMT -5
They believe that there were no hijackers. They believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. They believe that passenger and flight attendant phone calls were faked. They believe that NORAD stood down. Some believe that the planes that hit the twin towers had pods on them (in reality undercarriage fairings). They believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and remotely controlled aircraft hit the towers. To bring down skyscrapers on the scale of the twin towers requires hundreds of workers, with unrestricted access to the structure to rip out walls pre cut columns to weaken them for kicking charges to work. They believe that nano thermite is an explosive. They ignore video footage proving natural collapse. They ignore eyewitnesses including those who survived Stairwell B of WTC1 who would have been blown to bits had it been a controlled demolition. They ignore debris from the pentagon identifying an American Airlines jet. They ignore that all four hijacked planes had a trained licence holding pilot amongst the hijackers. They ignore that an airliner can be maneuvered and then speed brought on. They ignore that all hijackers had received training on official Boeing 737 simulators with full replica cockpits. They ignore that it was perfect VFR conditions and no instrument flying was required of the pilots to complete their kamikaze attacks. They ignore the extensive damage and fire caused to WTC7 by the collapse of WTC1. They ignore firefighters testimonies to the level of damage and fire in WTC7. They ignore any fact inconvenient to their aim of saying it was an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 3, 2013 7:52:38 GMT -5
What's a "troofer theory"?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 3, 2013 11:05:25 GMT -5
Your inside job no plane / no hijacker / controlled demolition theories are implausible troofer theories. You ignore just how many people worked in offices in the twin towers every day, who would have noticed if demolition crews had gone in to rig the building. It's a very invasive and very time consuming job to rig buildings 1/10th the size of the twin towers, demolitions explosives are very very loud and can be heard for miles, there were survivors inside WTC1 who survived it's collapse in stairwell B who would not have been alive if it had been a controlled demolition. Planes hit the towers starting fires in the towers, which would have destroyed any demolitions charges had there been any, yet the towers did not immediately collapse when the airliners hit. In the debris of every building that has been destroyed by explosive controlled demolition, blasting caps, detonation cord remnants and explosive residues are present, such things cannot be hidden. Yet there were no reports of such things in the WTC debris pile, despite firefighters and cleanup workers (who had experience of demolition sites) being present on site for months. The reason there are photographs of WTC steel with neat diagonal cuts is that clean up workers were cutting down the remaining columns from the base of the twin towers that were still standing, like these: Clean up workers used cutting torches on site: Video about ground zero cleanup workers using cutting torches to bring down unsafe columns still standing in the debris: (it's also evidence of pancaked floor slabs).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 3, 2013 13:03:00 GMT -5
"Your inside job no plane / no hijacker / controlled demolition theories are implausible troofer theories."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never heard of a "troofer" or a "troofer theory". Try reality.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 3, 2013 18:46:11 GMT -5
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Sept 3, 2013 21:15:39 GMT -5
i'll be a troofer 4 shred ya forgot, id's of hijackers survived fire that melted ibeams turn up......
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 3, 2013 23:36:08 GMT -5
You know exactly what I'm talking about. No, you make no sense whatsoever. Your "troofer" label nonsense is a clear indicator of your lack of maturity. Besides experts from many different scientific disciplines and academics, those who question the official narrative include many people who are survivors, lost loved ones and first responders on 9/11. Name calling, character assassination and poking fun at those who don't buy what are OBVIOUS and admitted lies and distortions as well as thousands of people who are so far above your level of intellect they make you sound like a babbling fool, it just makes you sound absolutely pathetic, except of course to the gullible and ignorant who are on the same maturity level as you. But 9/11 is not about Shred's immaturity so you are basically an insignificant gnat in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 3, 2013 23:38:46 GMT -5
i'll be a troofer 4 shred ya forgot, id's of hijackers survived fire that melted ibeams turn up...... He didn't forget anything. He knows all the facts but pretends to only know, understand and use the ones that support his agenda.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 4, 2013 3:09:41 GMT -5
A troofer is someone who pretends to be a truth seeker, but cannot handle the truth and ignores any fact inconvenient to the agenda of making it out to be an inside job.
They claim explosives brought down the towers but video footage proves this not to be the case. They claim incendiaries brought down the towers, but incendiaries do not explode, so their false reports of explosives are utter nonsense....
Basically the 9/11 'truth' movement is a fraudulent movement.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 4, 2013 3:27:40 GMT -5
i'll be a troofer 4 shred ya forgot, id's of hijackers survived fire that melted ibeams turn up...... NO BEAMS WERE MELTED. The burning fuel started office fires that weakened the steel beams to the point they could no longer support load, no steel was melted, however steel starts to weaken at 300C and by 600C has lost half it's strength, by 1000C has lost 90% of it's strength, and the highest recorded temperatures in the twin towers were about 1100C. Fireproofing systems were destroyed by the kinetic impacts of the planes. When the airliners hit the twin towers, the airliners exploded bits from inside the airliners, especially the cockpits, may well have been propelled by the pressure blast from the jet fuel & air explosion out of the building and into cooler air, however I do not know of four passports having survived the crashes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 4, 2013 6:58:17 GMT -5
"A troofer is someone who pretends to be a truth seeker, but cannot handle the truth and ignores any fact inconvenient to the agenda of making it out to be an inside job."
I don't know any such person or any such term. And you started an entire thread about these fictitious people because?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 5, 2013 7:27:00 GMT -5
"Basically the 9/11 'truth' movement is a fraudulent movement."
Tell that to the 9/11 family members, they're the ones who started the 9/11 truth movement:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 5, 2013 10:41:57 GMT -5
Though a minority of family members have been duped by lying frauds like Gage Jones Fetzer et al, the rest of the families, especially those who spoke to their loved ones by phone in the moments before their deaths, recognise the truth, that 19 hijackers took control of four planes, crashed them and deliberately set out to kill as many people as they could in a coordinated kamikaze attack.
Never has a high rise steel framed building ever been brought down by thermitic material. Thermitic materials are not explosives and do not go bang, yet your fraudulent lying sources claim explosives were heard.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 5, 2013 12:41:05 GMT -5
"Though a minority of family members have been duped by lying frauds like Gage Jones Fetzer et al"
Yeah maybe about 1 or 2 of them have been duped by over 2,000 "lying fraudulent" experts and academics using hundreds of doctored videos, forged and fake papers, citing that fraud Isaac Newton and his fake physics. They started the 9/11 truth movement BEFORE AE911 was even formed or even knew Richard Gage or Stephen Jones but that's no excuse. Listen to Shred, as honest as the day is long, he knows everything there is to know. Knows what everyone thinks and even anticipates what they would think in the future. And of course he knows better than all these people because he says so, so it must be true. After all, he was on all 4 "planes" on 9/11 and inside WTC7 when it collapsed.
And his very favorite argument is the conspiracy theorist, troofer and kook label. Once he says that, it's like magic, it automatically means he's 100% right and millions of other people are wrong. And what are they wrong about? They have the unmitigated gall to demand a real investigation into 9/11 because they're not satisfied with the admitted lies published by the 9/11 Commission and huge discrepancies published by NIST. What are these idiots thinking anyway? Why don't they just accept these lies as truth and go away? It's what Shred desperately wants so what could be wrong with that?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 7, 2013 4:38:39 GMT -5
Not one of the 2000 frauds you refer to has relevant expertise with regards to structural fire engineering issues. The doctored videos and fraudulent papers you refer to are not evidence either. Real experts include the Steel in Fire Forum (who support NIST's findings) Manchester University's Structural Fire Engineering Dept, University of Sydney, MIT, Northwestern University, Brigham Young University's Engineering Dept and Physics Dept and many others. Anyway, here's a paper on the collapse of the towers by a controlled demolitions expert who has seen the full undoctored picture: www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdfHe explains why none of the collapses could be a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 7, 2013 8:23:21 GMT -5
"Not one of the 2000 frauds you refer to has relevant expertise with regards to structural fire engineering issues. The doctored videos and fraudulent papers you refer to are not evidence either."
Sure, the only "experts" who have "relevant expertise" are those associated with government. "Protec's not having been paid to produce this article doesn't mean that it lacks conflicts of interest. As a Ground Zero contractor and likely recipient of other contracts from corporations and government entities that have an interest in maintaining the official story, Protec and its employees are hardly disinterested parties." Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINTby Jim Hoffman 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 3:32:43 GMT -5
LOL Jim Hoffman is a software engineer not a controlled demolitions expert, whereas Brett Blanchard is a fully qualified controlled demolitions expert whose job is to bring down buildings safely.
Jim Hoffman has made a career for himself profiteering from 9/11 conspiracy theories, he's a fraud.
RIP the victims.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 11, 2013 8:07:09 GMT -5
LOL Jim Hoffman is a software engineer not a controlled demolitions expert, whereas Brett Blanchard is a fully qualified controlled demolitions expert whose job is to bring down buildings safely. Jim Hoffman has made a career for himself profiteering from 9/11 conspiracy theories, he's a fraud. RIP the victims. Ok, so forget about it, it's not for you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 8:17:33 GMT -5
|
|