Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 Controlled Demolition vs No Plane Theory

12345679»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    An opposition would have to explain to a jury how a real plane with dots for engines, and no wings could cast its own shadow in between the rear of tower 1 and west side of tower 2? How could any plane traveling 500 mph circle the towers before crashing into the rear of the building southeast of Tower 1?

    wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlD1j-XqxmE&feature=player_embedded


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The shadow happened because the drone circled in between and around the south tower. No other reason for it could ever be proved, and Manos's fake footage makes it bona fide.

    The shadow is reflected on the west side of tower 2 and possibly the east side of tower 1, confirming the drone literally moved north to south along that west side before finally turning left, east, across the south side.

    wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    circle-fast-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,663 ✭✭✭Cork24


    how do we know it was going at 500 Mph maybe they had air break on Flaps up full which would have slowed the plane down big time..

    planes did hit the building... half of new York saw 2 planes and hearing a big bang from the Towers


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    They thought they saw planes OR THEY ARE PAID IDIOTS WHO WERE PAID ALOT OF $$$$$$ TO SAY THEY SAW ONE!!


    Here are my thoughts of this: WHERE IS THE WRECKAGE OF THE PLANES?? (At all 3 locations)

    Why was FLIGHT 175 STILL IN THE AIR after they said it HIT THE SOUTH TOWER??

    www.youtube.com/v/jdXGSefI6pM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,663 ✭✭✭Cork24


    wat about the ppl who saw the planes crashing into the Towers and they were inside the Tower ??

    NO they though they saw a plane ?

    people are still dying today from 9/11 why would American attack its own ppl to go into IRAQ for Oil? if they wanted they would have just gone intheir with out any 9/11


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    Cork24 wrote: »
    wat about the ppl who saw the planes crashing into the Towers and they were inside the Tower ??

    NO they though they saw a plane ?

    people are still dying today from 9/11 why would American attack its own ppl to go into IRAQ for Oil? if they wanted they would have just gone intheir with out any 9/11

    I was able capture the bogey as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. There's little doubt they made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images into all of them. You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.

    wtcbogeyeditpic.jpg
    bogey-edit_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHaVijMv5t8&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=157&feature=plpp_video


  • Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭tim allen


    The 911 commission, properly and logically concluded that 175 had to fly over New York Bay in its final seconds, therefore, any object seen west of the towers could not be flight 175. The shadow between the towers seen in three broadcasts is that of the drone because the official flight path, logically could not have flown east of T1 in its final 3-5 seconds, which is required to create the shadow.

    Any crapologist who uses the unofficial flight path of 175 cirlcing Newark, is ignoring the official flight path, which has 175 nowhere near it, whether north or south of it in flight. Officially, fake 175 never circled Newark, but most of New Jersey, and anyone who suggests it, is a liar.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJX2fStDMo4&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=143&feature=plpp_video
    fake-175-flight-path_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wb-ci-934_h_GIFSoupcom.gif
    wtc175path2.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    What is Tim Allen trying to show with ALL his video's?

    Look like a plane slamming into a building to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    tim allen wrote: »
    The truth is the lie, and the lie is the truth. No commercial airliner impacted either tower on 911, but small remote controlled drones were the real weapons which ignited bombs planted inside the buildings.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

    That's a full sized aircraft hitting the building.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Tim Allen banned for not engaging others in discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21 Captain Bligh


    people are still dying today from 9/11 why would American attack its own ppl to go into IRAQ for Oil? if they wanted they would have just gone intheir with out any 9/11 this is a quote from a post up the page!! messed up the quote part!

    Why did they let the Lusitania cross the atlantic even though the Germans specifically told em we'll sink it! to get the public onside to allow entry to WW1

    Why did they lie about not spotting the japs crossing the pacific to Pearl.
    to get the public onside to get entry to WW2

    Why did they lie about the battleship being attacked prior to Vietnam
    to get the public on side to get entry to VN
    incidently Colon powell (yes colon not colin) was a LT in Vietnam and was one of those who took part in the cover up of the mai lea masacre( mai lea spelling!) Naturally he was promoted!!!!!

    why did they{USA} fabricate false fotage of sadams forces lined up to go into kuwait? to get public onside to get entry to iraq.
    Colon powell later came out to confirm they made the pics up!!!!! looks like the habits learned murdering people in VN stood to him.

    So why did they "allow attacks" of a different nature in 1 and 2 above on their public. i simply think they hold their people with contempt.

    i think its clear they like making money from the WAR machine


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    tim allen wrote: »
    You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.

    It was a bogey or bird sh!t, but whatever it was was on the window pane and it's embarrassingly obvious.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    incidently Colon powell (yes colon not colin)
    Nope, Colin Powell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

    That's a full sized aircraft hitting the building.

    I'm not not a proponent of the no planes theory, but video these days is hardly evidence..



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    RichieC wrote: »
    I'm not not a proponent of the no planes theory, but video these days is hardly evidence..
    Indeed - but as always, the providence of the evidence is of key importance. That point would carry a lot more weight if there was only a single video of the event.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    15ydhr8.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    15ydhr8.jpg
    I'm thinking some of the variables may have been different. For example, in one case they were skyscrapers, in the other case it was a tree.


  • Site Banned Posts: 25 anniemcl


    stats are maths for dummies.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    I'm thinking some of the variables may have been different. For example, in one case they were skyscrapers, in the other case it was a tree.
    so we should build everything with trees!!! ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    re jet fuel didnt bring down the tree - well it didnt exactly crash straight through the tree,when jet fuel ingites it causes fire all it takes is a spark from the metal of the plane grinding against the exterior of the twin towers block..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    15ydhr8.jpg

    Actually, timber performs quite well in fire. When burning, a char layer is formed in the first 25-40mm (I think 40mm anyway, can't exactly remember) of the timber. The char layer then actually slows down the effects of the fire in the rest of the timber behind the char layer and acts as a barrier. It's why if you had a log in a fireplace, you would poke and move the log to remove some of the char layer which would then keep the log burning.

    So if you had a 200mm block of timber and set it alight, approx 25mm from each side would form the char layer, leaving the internal 150mm of wood relatively unaffected. Of course, the 25mm char layer on each side loses all strength, but in the case of a tree such as in that picture, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the trees are still standing (unless they suffered structural damage from the plane crash.

    Steel on the other hand loses structural strength in the event of fire, which is why steel requires more fireproofing than timber.

    (a friend of mine did his thesis on timber in the event of fire which I proofread for him, so I'm not exact on facts for this, but the general idea is close enough)

    Edit: And before it's asked; Steel is structurally stronger, easier to construct and has a smaller size:strength ratio which is why it's more commonly used. All it really needs is more fireproofing.


Advertisement