Not another 911 thread

Bog Warrior

yea the first couple are lame, once they move on to the pentagon it starts in earnest

digme

Shouldn't you be saying, who,and why?

Bog Warrior

The vids so far are mostly concerned with how it happened, not who or why

actually it does explain it but you should watch for a full explanation

digme

Ok bog, why are you so worried how it happened?

Bog Warrior

If you are not interested don't watch it, go read a grammar book or something.

digme

Do you not feel your getting lead astray?
America has been broke since the 80's..

Bog Warrior

No I don't, I think you should watch the series before you make judgment on the contents.

digme

Give me a dam good reason as to why I should be caught up and entangled as to how it happened.Do you really care how it happened??
Do you really care bud?I don't

TalkieWalkie

I'm on part 3 or 4 now... I gotta laugh tough, it's exactly how CT'r's have been saying it is. The funny thing is.. it's actually scary seeing the truth laid out like that. The realisation of it is scary, I now see why people choose to ignore it. But I could never do it. Truth now !!!!

The Recliner

GetBak2MeThanx wrote: »

Oh ****...

Im new to this..

Will I just delete the others???

Hi GetBak2MeThanx

I have deleted the posts in other threads, it is best not to post the same thing multiple times in different threads, stick to the one thread per topic and you will be grand

meglome

GetBak2MeThanx wrote: »

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition 1 to 26
a groundbreaking interview of an ex officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence
exposing the truth of the 9/11 events
This Video series has been censored all through the web.

Em any nuclear detonation would be detectable in the seismic record and would be detectable afterwards. It wasn't detected in any way. Am i missing something?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I'm on part 3 or 4 now... I gotta laugh tough, it's exactly how CT'r's have been saying it is. The funny thing is.. it's actually scary seeing the truth laid out like that. The realisation of it is scary, I now see why people choose to ignore it. But I could never do it. Truth now !!!!

Can you explain what truth is laid out?

Bog Warrior

meglome wrote: »

Em any nuclear detonation would be detectable in the seismic record and would be detectable afterwards. It wasn't detected in any way. Am i missing something?

All the seismic evidence points to explosions before each of the 3 towers collapse. If you haven't come across this evidence then you are missing something.

The video is summarised in the first post after the last video. I recommend watching the series though. The entire argument is very powerful.

Divorce Referendum

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I'm on part 3 or 4 now... I gotta laugh tough, it's exactly how CT'r's have been saying it is. The funny thing is.. it's actually scary seeing the truth laid out like that. The realisation of it is scary, I now see why people choose to ignore it. But I could never do it. Truth now !!!!

I dont remember any other CTer saying it was nuclear explosion in the pentagon???. It must be one of those special nuclear bombs though to be able to explode at the base of the WTC building without showing on the exterior. Can anyone tell me does he actually offer an explanation for this later as I have ony watched to around part 4 myself.

TalkieWalkie

meglome wrote: »

Em any nuclear detonation would be detectable in the seismic record and would be detectable afterwards. It wasn't detected in any way. Am i missing something?



Can you explain what truth is laid out?

No. No disrespect intended. You need to see it for yourself.

meglome

Bog Warrior wrote: »

All the seismic evidence points to explosions before each of the 3 towers collapse. If you haven't come across this evidence then you are missing something.

The video is summarised in the first post after the last video. I recommend watching the series though. The entire argument is very powerful.

No it really doesn't. The seismic record was even posted in this thread, as far as i remember.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I dont remember any other CTer saying it was nuclear explosion in the pentagon???. It must be one of those special nuclear bombs though to be able to explode at the base of the WTC building without showing on the exterior. Can anyone tell me does he actually offer an explanation for this later as I have ony watched to around part 4 myself.

I'd like hear that too.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No. No disrespect intended. You need to see it for yourself.

Well given that there is no sign of nuclear detonation or the tell-tale radiation you'll forgive me for being very sceptical. I'm trying to avoid watching yet another bull**** video that doesn't make any sense. So if someone explains how he gets around the obvious then maybe I'll give it the time.

TalkieWalkie

meglome wrote: »

No it really doesn't. The seismic record was even posted in this thread, as far as i remember.



I'd like hear that too.



Well given that there is no sign of nuclear detonation or the tell-tale radiation you'll forgive me for being very sceptical. I'm trying to avoid watching yet another bull**** video that doesn't make any sense. So if someone explains how he gets around the obvious then maybe I'll give it the time.

It's up to you mate. I would recommend watching it, but whatever

meglome

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's up to you mate. I would recommend watching it, but whatever

right i watched most of the first 5 and what a load of bull.

Let's see.. the guys is selling a book, he can't show he was in any part of the soviet army that had access to anything interesting, he left in 1992, he's actually accused by the Americans of being involved.

He doesn't believe there were planes used, even with the huge number of witnesses and all the video footage. He believes that nukes were used even though there's no evidence whatsoever.

There's so much wrong with this utter ****e. Why do you believe it? How do you think a nuclear blast can be contained?

TalkieWalkie

meglome wrote: »

right i watched most of the first 5 and what a load of bull.

Let's see.. the guys is selling a book, he can't show he was in any part of the soviet army that had access to anything interesting, he left in 1992, he's actually accused by the Americans of being involved.

He doesn't believe there were planes used, even with the huge number of witnesses and all the video footage. He believes that nukes were used even though there's no evidence whatsoever.

There's so much wrong with this utter ****e. Why do you believe it? How do you think a nuclear blast can be contained?

Ya know what, I don't necessarily believe everything he says, I do however believe he believes it. 9/11 is a genuine conspiracy, the US government are involved.
Perhaps no-one has fully hit the nail on the head yet, there are holes in every theory, especially the official version.
It appears to me to be very complex and when the truth gets out it will be very difficult to comprehend even for the most experienced conspiracy theorist.
The repercussions will be extreme and the realisation of the fact will be unbearable to most.

the_monkey

I saw a bit of that movie "september clues" , the 1st thing that really struck me was one of the live feeds before the 1st plane hit, when it reverses the tape, there is no sign of the plane ? and this is only a few seconds before the impact.

Now occums razor tells me its the crowd who made this film that digitally edited it.

makes interesting viewing.

Bog Warrior

The no-planes thing is not part of his thesis. Although he believes this to be the case, he wishes to focus on that which he knows to be fact (in his mind). Namely the identification of the missile which hit the pentagon and the physics and mechanics of how the towers were brought down by nuclear explosions, which is the area he has expertise in and explains in full.

People won't get it or learn anything more unless they watch it in full without skimming over it. Some people just don't want to know I think.

the_monkey

So do you think the footage is unaltered in the 'september clues' film ?

Bog Warrior

the_monkey wrote: »

So do you think the footage is unaltered in the 'september clues' film ?

Hi, I'm not so interested in no-planes because it takes away from what I consider more pressing evidence like the extreme temperature for months after, the missile like hole in the pentagon and the seismographic movements before the collapse etc.

Having said that, I would be surprised if the filmmakers altered the footage. I have seen these 'anomalies' referenced and highlighted in plenty of other 911 vids also, though September Clues is the most comprehensive TV footage No-Planes doc I've seen. The original US TV footage from that day is available on archive.org so I suppose this can be verified.

iPlop

I watched September clues and I have to say,I don't buy it at all.It's a pile of crap to be honest! One poster on youtube who was all for the no plane theory and then debunked his own video! Planes struck the WTC! There is plenty of amature videos that prove this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo

bonkey

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Perhaps no-one has fully hit the nail on the head yet, there are holes in every theory, especially the official version.

I'm quite happy to believe that there are holes in every theory.

But here's the thing...

You believe that this is especially true of the official version.

Can you pick one and only one aspect of the official version where there is unquestionably a hole?

seannash

For people who claim they have researched these things alot of you are making very glaringly obvious and very debunked claims.

first off the no planes theory is bolloxs.i know people who were out on the street that day and saw it happen.these are normal irish men wit no connections to any organisation so they have no cause to lie.
also the amatuer footage is proof enough.

second missile like hole at the pentagon.
people dont seem to know how the inner walls of the pentagon were constructed.the inner walls werent reinforced.it was all open planned.the plane had to make it through the first outer wall and then had an unobstructed path to the wall which had the missle like hole in it.
the part that travelled the furthest was the landing gear.which is the strongest part of the plane.
the official story does not claim the nose of the plane made the hole

the seismic records.
yes there was seismic activity recorded that day and do you know what it was concluding to be?
it was the inner floors collapsing prior to the building totally collapsing.
even if you dont accept this the activity recorded that day did not resemble explosive activity.

but lets entertain the explosives thoery for a second.
we should see evidence of explosions like a series of bright flashs visible before the collapse.
and also as you already know because you guys have researched it a controlled explosion starts from the bottom up.

now lets examine the list of people who beileve it to be an inside job.
who do you parade out as the big guns that say it was controlled explosion?
architechts and engineers.
not structural engineers right,just engineers.you know that very very broad term.
not 1 structural engineer or demolitions company has come out and said they support the conspiracy.
look up what an architect actually does please before using this as your defense.

now lets go back to the explosives theory again.what was it they found
nano thermite right(of course i can explain how they found this fantastic explosive substance but lets not do that)
do you know how much nano thermite they would need to accomplish this demolition.the scientist who published the report and findings said you would need about 100tonnes of the stuff.

pretty hard to deliver 100 tonnes,distribute it over the floors and keep it secret from people.

but you all know this becasue of all the research you have done right.
ive posted this video before in the other 9/11 threads and really encouraged people to watch it and then come back and talk about it.

noone is reporting back with good or bad info on it.
so ill ask again(probably in vain) have a look at this and let me know if it explains away some of your theories.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

yes i know loose change is considered a joke but the theories they debunk are the ones that are popping up in this thread

Bog Warrior

seannash wrote: »

so ill ask again(probably in vain) have a look at this and let me know if it explains away some of your theories.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

yes i know loose change is considered a joke but the theories they debunk are the ones that are popping up in this thread

Does it explain the hotter than burning jet fuel temperatures for the following months at the site?

Or the 50 metre cavity under the buildings after the event?

Does it offer a realistic explanation regarding to the self-collapsing building WTC7?

How about the melted cars? (at the end of this vid - 4min 40 secs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

If it does address these issues I'll certainly watch it, otherwise I'll leave it to the reality deniers.

seannash

Bog Warrior wrote: »

Does it explain the hotter than burning jet fuel temperatures for the following months at the site?

Or the 50 metre cavity under the buildings after the event?

Does it offer a realistic explanation regarding to the self-collapsing building WTC7?

How about the melted cars? (at the end of this vid - 4min 40 secs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

If it does address these issues I'll certainly watch it, otherwise I'll leave it to the reality deniers.

it debunks the loosechange videos and the points they raise so in relation to the above questions.it doesnt give any explaination for the molten metal,it touches on it but again its addressing the points loose change make.
this is the same for the cavity.
yes it offers a very realistic account of how wtc7 collapsed
and the melted cars?melted!
eh thats a bunch of burned out cars if ever ive seen one with the plastic interiors melted.

so even though it doesn t specifically address some of the points youve raised it squashs alot of the other subsequent theories that lead to these questions.
basically the molten metal isnt a result of explosives because they explain how there wasnt any explosives used.

i began to watch the russian fellas video last night but its a hard watch and i found myself losing concentration.ill give it a go today when im not so tired and id expect you to extend me the same courtesy and look at mine

Joshua Jones

seannash wrote: »

now lets examine the list of people who beileve it to be an inside job.
who do you parade out as the big guns that say it was controlled explosion?
architechts and engineers.
not structural engineers right,just engineers.you know that very very broad term.
not 1 structural engineer or demolitions company has come out and said they support the conspiracy.
look up what an architect actually does please before using this as your defense.

Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering.

• Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7," said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana."

Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

• Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:
  
  Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.
  
  Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.
  
  Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.
  
  Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.
  
  Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?
  
  Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.
  
  Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --
  
  Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.
  
  Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."
  
  Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.
  
  Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.
  
  Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?
  
  Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
  
  Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.
  
  Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Kamal S. Obeid, BS CE, MS CE, SE, PE – Licensed Professional Structural and Civil Engineer, State of California.

• Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
  
  "Only recently have I begun to examine the structural collapse of the buildings. Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition.

Charles N. Pegelow, BS CE – Licensed Civil Engineer (Structural), State of California. Over 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of major construction projects, including large steel structures.

• Essay 9/25/06: "The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. ...
  
  In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's family organizations that are saying the same thing.
  
  The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired.
  
  In conclusion, FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened.
  
  An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence."

There's lies and then there's disinfo. Perhaps you should do your own research with the sort of depth your preaching.

Plenty of massively qualified people here.

So was your friend a pilot, cause obviously by your rational, if he's not then he's not qualified to say its a plane.

Bog Warrior

seannash wrote: »

it debunks the loosechange videos and the points they raise

so even though it doesn t specifically address some of the points youve raised it squashs alot of the other subsequent theories that lead to these questions.

Honestly, I have never watched Loose Change. Will I have to watch that first?

There are no theories that lead to my questions. My questions are a result of verifiable facts and evidence such as the recorded temperatures, blown out and melted cars, seismic movements, self-collapsing buildings etc

I'll give it a go but probably not today. I'll let you know what I think after I watch it. At the minute I do believe that the explanation offered up in the main thesis of the russian dude is the most comprehensive and logical yet.

Joshua Jones

As the Russian dude says, a sub-sonic aluminium plane crashed through rows of re-inforced steel thicker than a tank. To take out a tank you need an artillery shell tip with depleted uranium(dense) trvelling at super sonic speeds to pierce a tanks armour. Hmmmm.