Not another 911 thread

TalkieWalkie

Well I'm off to bed, I have had enough insults for today.

meglome

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Well I'm off to bed, I have had enough insults for today.

Em Talkiewalkie your theory is ridiculous, which is very different to calling you ridiculous. And to be fair you're the one who has been laughing at people like they are idiots.

humanji

Alastair, take some time off.

Is there any chance that the rest of you could treat each other with a little respect?

Ping Chow Chi

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Don't really understand this so I'll wing it.

When there is a large explosion in a large building, you'll be running, not examining a small barely/not visible propeller plane, probably behind/over a large cloud of smoke.

To be fair, even if such a thing had been missed in the panic of moment, it would have been spotted when reviewing all the camera footage after the event had happend.

Penn

The main problem with the no planes theory is just the fact that it would be infinitely easier to just crash planes into the buildings. I mean, editing video footage with a 17second delay would be nigh on impossible, as to get it right and overlap whatever object, be it ball or rocket, that hit the towers, would depend a lot on the camerawork. Any slight deviation from what was planned and the real object would appear behind it.

As others have said, planting the various airplane parts nearby would also have been next to impossible, due to the sheer number of people around, the number of people involved in transporting these items. While there were probably a lot of helicopters or small planes around after the first plane hit, again with the number of people around that area at the time, lots of people would have seen the helicopters drop stuff. I don't know a lot about this particular section of the theory, but were all those helicopters around when the first plane hit, and did these plane parts fall from the sky after the first plane hit or the second plane?

Then, the people who were supposably on those flights would have had to have been taken somewhere and killed. Since it is plausible that their family or friends, or at the very least other people in the airport, watched them get on the plane and saw it take off, the real plane would have had to land somewhere and let everyone off and kill them. The number of people who would have been involved in this (airline controllers, airport staff) would also be pretty big. Unless they landed at a military base in which case soldiers would have seen it. A commercial plane landing at their base? Even if the military are controlled by the government, to suggest that every soldier in the military who saw such a thing on a day like 9/11 wouldn't find it strange or say it to someone is ridiculous.

Lastly, like I said, the sheer number of people that would need to have been involved, the sheer number of people who would need to be mistaken in what they saw, the precision which would be needed to doctor the (almost) live video footage, the precision and timing needed to somehow drop all this faked evidence of a plane crash..... Wouldn't it just be simpler to crash a plane?

Because by this point, the amount of people you'd have to keep quiet about all this, surely just wouldn't make it worthwhile. Not to mention the costs.

espinolman

I think alien spacecraft can hologram themselves as earth aeroplanes , they can be invisible as well .

Penn

Still wouldn't explain the plane parts and the disappearance of the real plane.

Also, I'm sorry, but to me that is the equivalent of saying a wizard did it. Whether or not aliens exist or have visited this planet or are in league with the NWO, what basis have you for saying it a spaceship can disguise itself as a plane?

IrelandSpirit

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This is it lads. No more beating around the bushes

10 minutes, take a look....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE

Interesting vid, thanks. 'Nose in, nose out'. And two separate networks with fade to black at the exact same moment, for precisely same time? And can't they simply remove their banner add so's we can see what happened?

beans

The nose-in/nose-out thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you google 'debunking september clues' you'll see some good counter-arguments. It's all sleight of hand, IMO.

The fade-to-black thing could possibly be caused by the impact of the planes themselves... antennae/dishes on the towers belonging to the broadcasters perhaps, or power-surge in the grid? Who knows, but it's far from conclusive of anything.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Passports are made of a light flexible material called paper. This paper can be easily blown about by explosions and fire, even clear of the crash site.

Surely you mean 'blown apart by explosions and/or set alight by fire'.

A black box on the other hand is made of heavy bomb proof metal and is not easily blown around.

Uh-uh, like bomb proof passports.

The passport could have easily have been blow out of the plane and building into the street, like many other light objects.

And survived intact, the only one, the hijacker's passport. Oh, wait, forgot, they use bomb proof passports.

The black box would have been trapped in the building and buried in the resulting rubble.
The reason they didn't find is likely because it was smashed beyond all recognition and the crews probably had more important things to worry about, like finding survivors.

And like finding hijacker's passports. And ancient buried ships:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ancient-buried-ship-found-at-ground-zero-site/19555210

But assuming that all the nonsense no planes bollox was true, why didn't they find the blackbox?
Why not just fake it like you think they faked everything else?

I think that is a very good question. Maybe, considering the scale and complexity of the operation, perhaps simply not finding the black boxes is far more expedient, than actually faking them and further risk having your crimes exposed?

IrelandSpirit

beans wrote: »

The nose-in/nose-out thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you google 'debunking september clues' you'll see some good counter-arguments. It's all sleight of hand, IMO.

The fade-to-black thing could possibly be caused by the impact of the planes themselves... antennae/dishes on the towers belonging to the broadcasters perhaps, or power-surge in the grid? Who knows, but it's far from conclusive of anything.

I'll google that 'debunking september clues', thanks.

TalkieWalkie

beans wrote: »

The nose-in/nose-out thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you google 'debunking september clues' you'll see some good counter-arguments. It's all sleight of hand, IMO.

The fade-to-black thing could possibly be caused by the impact of the planes themselves... antennae/dishes on the towers belonging to the broadcasters perhaps, or power-surge in the grid? Who knows, but it's far from conclusive of anything.

No, it's not conclusive. It's another extremely unlikely coincidence on the most coincidental day in earth's history.

IrelandSpirit

beans wrote: »

The nose-in/nose-out thing doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you google 'debunking september clues' you'll see some good counter-arguments. It's all sleight of hand, IMO.

Watched a couple there. Going by the other footage of the plane's impact, I can see how the 'nose' could have been a 'puff of debris', coincidently shaped like the plane exiting the building.

The only problem I have is that the comparative footage is filmed from static cameras, doesn't show the 'nose' exiting, whereas the footage which seems to show the 'nose' exiting is filmed from helicopter, with a few degrees of displacement. If I've got him right, it is this displacement as the helicopter moves which the film-maker claims is responsible for the cock-up. Thus the plane's nose sticking out, and rapid fade to black to cover it up.

I don't know, the jury's still out ... just seems like too many coincidences.

But was reminded of a physics experiment, of a banana going through a wooden door. It is possible for soft things to go through harder things if they're going fast enough.

thecommander

So are we in agreement that there was actual planes flown into the towers, or still in hologram territory?

IrelandSpirit

thecommander wrote: »

So are we in agreement that there was actual planes flown into the towers, or still in hologram territory?

To my mind, the evidence as it stands lends itself to suggest that actual planes hit the twin towers, and a missile hit the pentagon. A strong counter-argument used against the no planes theory is the clear demarcation of the plane's wings at the impact zone. This is entirely missing at the pentagon. We can't have it both ways.

Either terrorists hyjacked planes or they hijacked missiles.

So I'll go with TW and bean on this and say 'it is not conclusive', at the moment. There's a number of things which don't add up, not least that clearly, whatever that 'ball' thing is on the vid, it definitely does not appear to be a plane ... or a (conventional) missile either.

I started a thread on gravity controlled demolitions in the physics forum earlier, perhaps they can shed some light on science behind the collapse of the buildings themselves ... well, it might be interesting to hear what they have to say anyway.

TalkieWalkie

thecommander wrote: »

So are we in agreement that there was actual planes flown into the towers, or still in hologram territory?

Hologram ? first ive heard.

I think probably there was 1 plane, maybe, not sure

EDIT: Flight 98 was supposed to hit the second tower, passengers battered the bad guys and took control of the plane, so bushy gave the order to shoot it down, they finished the job off by hitting the second tower with a missile.

Then they thought, "feck it", while were at it lets strike the pentagon too

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Surely you mean 'blown apart by explosions and/or set alight by fire'.

No, I mean blown around by the explosion and fire and wind.
It's not exactly hard to believe.
Nowhere near as hard to believe half the nonsense posted here.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Uh-uh, like bomb proof passports.

You understand that paper is light and metal is heavy right?
And that requires less force to move a small bit of paper than an large chunk of metal?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And survived intact, the only one, the hijacker's passport. Oh, wait, forgot, they use bomb proof passports.

Well it's been pointed out that it wasn't the only effect found, but then that would kinda go against preconceived notions, so I don't blame you for ignoring it.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And like finding hijacker's passports. And ancient buried ships:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ancient-buried-ship-found-at-ground-zero-site/19555210

So do I have to explain the difference between a big object and a small one?
Or the fact that this was months after the attack when they weren't busy trying to free trapped survivors?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I think that is a very good question. Maybe, considering the scale and complexity of the operation, perhaps simply not finding the black boxes is far more expedient, than actually faking them and further risk having your crimes exposed?

You're saying that they to the bother of making fake passports, various letters and a seat cushion, all of which apparently are to unbelievable for you but then didn't bother making a blackbox because people might think it's fake?
Seriously?

TalkieWalkie

Why did the "hijacker" even have a passport ?, they don't even need to register on the passenger list. It's almost like they just appeared on the planes.
These guys are wizards... yeah... that explains why many of them are sill alive

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

No, I mean blown around by the explosion and fire and wind.
It's not exactly hard to believe.
Nowhere near as hard to believe half the nonsense posted here.

I wish I was there, i'd have a black back collecting all the wallets blown around by the fire and wind.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

No, I mean blown around by the explosion and fire and wind.
It's not exactly hard to believe.
Nowhere near as hard to believe half the nonsense posted here.

Please, this is just ridiculous now. Do you know what happens to paper when it's blown around by an explosion and fire and wind? IT BURNS!

You understand that paper is light and metal is heavy right?

You do understand that paper burns because it is highly flammable whereas metal is not?

And that requires less force to move a small bit of paper than an large chunk of metal?

And that it requires far greater heat to melt a large chunk of steel than to set alight a small piece of paper?

Well it's been pointed out that it wasn't the only effect found, but then that would kinda go against preconceived notions, so I don't blame you for ignoring it.

There was, a Koran, a flight manual ... ehmmm, what else? Ah yes, the hijacker's fire-proof bomb-proof passport! Of course, how convenient :rolleyes:

So do I have to explain the difference between a big object and a small one?

So do I have to explain the difference between a small piece of paper and a giant big steel girder?

Or the fact that this was months after the attack when they weren't busy trying to free trapped survivors?
You're saying that they to the bother of making fake passports, various letters and a seat cushion, all of which apparently are to unbelievable for you but then didn't bother making a blackbox because people might think it's fake?
Seriously?

google that 'debunking september clues', watch the first vid that comes up and the argument you make there is the exact same they use to counter the no planes theory :P

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Please, this is just ridiculous now. Do you know what happens to paper when it's blown around by an explosion and fire and wind? IT BURNS!

You do understand that paper burns because it is highly flammable whereas metal is not?

And that it requires far greater heat to melt a large chunk of steel than to set alight a small piece of paper?

There was, a Koran, a flight manual ... ehmmm, what else? Ah yes, the hijacker's fire-proof bomb-proof passport! Of course, how convenient :rolleyes:

So do I have to explain the difference between a small piece of paper and a giant big steel girder?

So you're saying it's completely impossible for the passport to be blown clear of the fire then?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

google that 'debunking september clues', watch the first vid that comes up and the argument you make there is the exact same they use to counter the no planes theory :P

So then why exactly are you arguing a clearly nonsensical position.
Why didn't the fake a black box?

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

So you're saying it's completely impossible for the passport to be blown clear of the fire then?

It's a little to convenient mob, don't you think ?

King Mob wrote: »

So then why exactly are you arguing a clearly nonsensical position.
Why didn't the fake a black box?

Good idea, I bet their kicking themselves now they didn't think of it


I wonder why the fire and wind didn't blow a few boxcutters with fingerprints around too ?

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's a little to convenient mob, don't you think ?

Not nearly as convient as finding all of the passports or a black box.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Good idea, I bet their kicking themselves now they didn't think of it


I wonder why the fire and wind didn't blow a few boxcutters with fingerprints around too ?

So why didn't they just fake one?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So you're saying it's completely impossible for the passport to be blown clear of the fire then?

What do want me to say? That the hijacker's passport survived a devastating explosion and fireball, and survives intact, just because you say it did?

Or that it is far more probabale it was planted after the fact?

(The latter is, btw, just in case you don't understand)

So then why exactly are you arguing a clearly nonsensical position.

The one arguing a clearly nonsensical position is you mate, not me. I don't believe in fire-proof bomb-proof passports.

Why didn't the fake a black box?

Christ, I don't know! I offered a scenario and you dismissed it off-hand, even though it was based on the 'debunking september clues' ...

Some people, hey, they jus wannit both ways

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Not nearly as convient as finding all of the passports or a black box.



So why didn't they just fake one?

I know black boxes are tough, but they aint tough enough to withstand the heat of girder melting explosives. Finding a black box would be contradictory to their version of what really happened.

Just as finding a passport is.

Wonder why they didn't find a passengers passport... I guess that would be boring though, meaningless..

TalkieWalkie

Last Halloween I was at the local bonfire and I had my passport in my shirt pocket coz i was in spain earlier that day. Anywho, I guess I was standing a little to close to the fire coz my passport began to melt. Weird

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

What do want me to say? That the hijacker's passport survived a devastating explosion and fireball, and survives intact, just because you say it did?

Or that it is far more probabale it was planted after the fact?

(The latter is, btw, just in case you don't understand)

Well considering that planting one would imply a vast global conspiracy that makes less and less sense the more you look into it.....

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

The one arguing a clearly nonsensical position is you mate, not me. I don't believe in fire-proof bomb-proof passports.

That is a nonsensical arguement. Good thing it's not the one I'm making.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Christ, I don't know! I offered a scenario and you dismissed it off-hand, even though it was based on the 'debunking september clues' ...

Some people, hey, they jus wannit both ways

Yea, why would you have to make sense of you position or ask questions when you can just accept what CT sites tell you.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I know black boxes are tough, but they aint tough enough to withstand the heat of girder melting explosives. Finding a black box would be contradictory to their version of what really happened.

Just as finding a passport is.

And yet you think a passport is also impossible in their version and much much less convincing.
So why didn't they make one?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Wonder why they didn't find a passengers passport... I guess that would be boring though, meaningless..

The found many many personal effects.
A list was provided to you, you promptly ignored it becasue it's not in line with your dogma.

Sparticle

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Last Halloween I was at the local bonfire and I had my passport in my shirt pocket coz i was in spain earlier that day. Anywho, I guess I was standing a little to close to the fire coz my passport began to melt. Weird

Passports generally melt when close to an intense heat source for a prolonged period of time. An explosion on the other hand would throw clear debris by it's shockwave before melting anything. Convection currents may have also played a role.

Will I Amnt

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Last Halloween I was at the local bonfire and I had my passport in my shirt pocket coz i was in spain earlier that day. Anywho, I guess I was standing a little to close to the fire coz my passport began to melt. Weird

ah the old kevlar shirts didn't know they were back in fashion