Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11

King Mob · 30-09-2010 6:31pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

lol seen this photoshop job b4. They photoshopped out all the office furniture too, all that highly combustible stuff that burned so hot

You may tell that to the toofer site I'm hotlinking from.

Or is it only shopped when it goes against the conspiracy?

studiorat · 30-09-2010 6:39pm

pookzta wrote: »

How come 1,400+ vehicles located several blocks away (some up to ¼ a mile away) from ground zero experienced metal warping and electricity-like burns and holes during the attacks? If you think the building debris caused these things, then how come that same debris did not burn the clothing or skin of the nearby pedestrians it covered?

Because it's bull****. Electromagnetic radiation is hazardous to people just as it is to paper, steel concrete and all the rest. Being a neurology student you should know that. Gamma, Beta, Microwaves all burn...

pookzta wrote: »

· How come countless vehicles located several blocks away from ground zero were flipped upside down or on their side, next to trees which still had all of their leaves on them?

Were they? How do you explain radiation doing this?
So which is it to be. electromagnetic burns or levitation?

pookzta wrote: »

Unfortunately, you are wrong, because unlike NIST, Dr. Judy Wood is the only scientist who has explained all the evidence.

Except for the part about the Hutchinson effect actually being verifiable, that hasn't happened has it?
Never mind the hutchinson effect actually being a collection things. Besides, the hutchinson effect is meant to work without residual heat. Why is Wood bringing heat into the equation?

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 6:58pm

King Mob wrote: »

You may tell that to the toofer site I'm hotlinking from.

Or is it only shopped when it goes against the conspiracy?

Your point works both ways so it's kinda weak. As a graphic designer it's my opinion that it's photo-shopped.

meglome · 30-09-2010 7:06pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No, that's tiny proportion of metal that should be there.

I disagree but where do you think it went if it isn't there?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

One might note that there is NO concrete in that picture.

So all the lighter concrete looking stuff with the steel isn't concrete?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Your point works both ways so it's kinda weak. As a graphic designer it's my opinion that it's photo-shopped.

What standard home or office buildings would you say are not 95% air?

gizmo · 30-09-2010 7:10pm

pookzta wrote: »

1. 'Dustification' process in action: http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/Image38.jpg
2. 'Dustification' process in action: http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/poof_1539.jpg

Is it just me or do those two photos look incredibly photoshopped?

meglome · 30-09-2010 7:13pm

gizmo wrote: »

Is it just me or do those two photos look incredibly photoshopped?

they look off to me as well

alastair · 30-09-2010 8:17pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Your point works both ways so it's kinda weak. As a graphic designer it's my opinion that it's photo-shopped.

As another graphic designer - you're talking through your hat.

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 8:33pm

alastair wrote: »

As another graphic designer - you're talking through your hat.

Some more realistic pictures.

Eat my hat

And skelator again lol

alastair · 30-09-2010 8:35pm

wow - different pictures that don't exhibit the structure of the towers!

and...?

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 8:40pm

alastair wrote: »

wow - different pictures that don't exhibit the structure of the towers!

and...?

wow a skeleton of an unfinished building. And..

alastair · 30-09-2010 8:43pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

wow a skeleton of an unfinished building. And..

Tell you what - try and have a guess when this photo was taken eh?

(the clue is in the construction crane on wtc 2 and the nature of the antenna on wtc 1)

Zero points for basic observation skills I'm afraid.

King Mob · 30-09-2010 8:44pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

wow a skeleton of an unfinished building. And..

So do you think that the filled the rest with solid concrete or something?

Then again some people are buying into the space lasers nonsense, so i guess that wouldn't be too far fetched for some.

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 9:35pm

King Mob wrote: »

So do you think that the filled the rest with solid concrete or something?

Do you think it was filled with pulverised dust ?

seannash · 30-09-2010 9:52pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Do you think it was filled with pulverised dust ?

Yes they clearly filled it with pulverised dust.its the same guys that filled this building with it

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/06/content_6303900.htm

and countless others.

falling buildings cause dust,a ridiculous amount of it,anyone in construction will tell you if you demolish a wall in a room the whole room is filled with dust

King Mob · 30-09-2010 9:53pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Do you think it was filled with pulverised dust ?

<Image snip>

A less stupid and more realistic amount of concrete? As well as gypsum board and what you seem to be confusing as smoke?

So TalkieWalkie can you show us a controlled a demolition where the entirety of the building (obviously the first 20 metre tall pile of steel and rubble does count) is vaporised into dust?
Or are you subscribing to the space laser bull****?

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 10:05pm

King Mob wrote: »

A less stupid and more realistic amount of concrete? As well as gypsum board and what you seem to be confusing as smoke?

Kinda confusing... what's less stupid ? I never mentioned smoke

Divorce Referendum · 30-09-2010 10:10pm

King Mob wrote: »

A less stupid and more realistic amount of concrete? As well as gypsum board and what you seem to be confusing as smoke?

So TalkieWalkie can you show us a controlled a demolition where the entirety of the building (obviously the first 20 metre tall pile of steel and rubble does count) is vaporised into dust?
Or are you subscribing to the space laser bull****?

I dont think he is sure what he is suscribing to. Same day different theory....

King Mob · 30-09-2010 10:13pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Kinda confusing... what's less stupid ?

You seem to think that the towers where solid concrete all the way through.
This is stupid.

In the real world, the towers where mostly empty space and the dust came for the sections of concrete that where there and broke as well as the various lighter partitions which where made from gypsum.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I never mentioned smoke

The picture you supplied shows a lot of smoke, not just dust.

And since you ignored my other point I'll take it that you can't actually show a controlled demolition where the entirety of the building was turned into dust.

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 10:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

You seem to think that the towers where solid concrete all the way through.
This is stupid.

In the real world, the towers where mostly empty space and the dust came for the sections of concrete that where there and broke as well as the various lighter partitions which where made from gypsum.

The picture you supplied shows a lot of smoke, not just dust.

And since you ignored my other point I'll take it that you can't actually show a controlled demolition where the entirety of the building was turned into dust.

Ok, so if I cant find you a controlled demolition where the entirety of the building was turned into dust... what then ?

This proves that even a controlled demolition would not pulverise a building in the way the towers were pulverised ?

Perhaps Dr Woods was right afterall...

Jeboa Safari · 30-09-2010 10:59pm

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I dont think he is sure what he is suscribing to. Same day different theory....

I've noticed that alot of cters just jump on the latest conspiracy bandwagon if it has any sort of American or "powers that be" cover up, doesn't matter if it completely contradicts the last crackpot theory they supported and said everyone was blind not to believe, let alone the official story.

Brown Bomber · 30-09-2010 11:01pm

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I've noticed that alot of cters just jump on the latest conspiracy bandwagon if it has any sort of American or "powers that be" cover up, doesn't matter if it completely contradicts the last crackpot theory they supported and said everyone was blind not to believe, let alone the official story.

Prove it.

King Mob · 30-09-2010 11:04pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok, so if I cant find you a controlled demolition where the entirety of the building was turned into dust... what then ?

This proves that even a controlled demolition would not pulverise a building in the way the towers were pulverised ?

Perhaps Dr Woods was right afterall...

Well the usual bull**** claim is that the collapses look like regular controlled demolitions.
So if this is to hold then we should find controlled demolitions where the entirety of the building is turned into dust.

The reason you can't find such an example is because no such event happened.

So which is it walkie? Does it look like a controlled demolition or not?

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 11:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well the usual bull**** claim is that the collapses look like regular controlled demolitions.
So if this is to hold then we should find controlled demolitions where the entirety of the building is turned into dust.

The reason you can't find such an example is because no such event happened.

So which is it walkie? Does it look like a controlled demolition or not?

I would happily explain to you what I think, I am glad that you value my opinion enough to ask it several times.. but you have such and aggressive and disrespectful tone, slipping in snide and unwarranted personal remarks as per usual.
So you can stick it.

Of course now you will suggest that I don't not posesss an answer but I am happy to let you think that.

Cheer up sista

King Mob · 30-09-2010 11:13pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I would happily explain to you what I think, I am glad that you value my opinion enough to ask it several times.. but you have such and aggressive and disrespectful tone, slipping in snide and unwarranted personal remarks as per usual.
So you can stick it.

Of course now you will suggest that I don't not posesss an answer but I am happy to let you think that.

Cheer up sista

Well beats actually questioning your beliefs I guess.

Oh well.

Divorce Referendum · 30-09-2010 11:39pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok, so if I cant find you a controlled demolition where the entirety of the building was turned into dust... what then ?

This proves that even a controlled demolition would not pulverise a building in the way the towers were pulverised ?

Perhaps Dr Woods was right afterall...

How can you actually say that with a 110 storey building collapsing that the alot of debris would not be pulverised. With the volume of debris and height of building what the hell would you expect that every part of the building just land nice and neatly in massive lumps? The fact they spent so long clearing up debris hints that the entirety of building wasnt turned to dust anyway.

alastair · 01-10-2010 12:32am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The fact they spent so long clearing up debris hints that the entirety of building wasnt turned to dust anyway.

Maybe they just couldn't find a dustbuster big enough? - or maybe the space beams effect black and decker products particularly badly?

Clearing up the dust:

King Mob · 01-10-2010 12:34am

alastair wrote: »

Maybe they just couldn't find a dustbuster big enough? - or maybe the space beams effect black and decker products particularly badly?

Clearing up the dust:

Well dude, all that concrete was placed there after the collapse obviously.

seannash · 01-10-2010 12:35am

alastair wrote: »

Maybe they just couldn't find a dustbuster big enough? - or maybe the space beams effect black and decker products particularly badly?

Clearing up the dust:

Pulverised!!!!
Pulverised I tells ya!!

TalkieWalkie · 01-10-2010 12:43am

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

How can you actually say that with a 110 storey building collapsing that the alot of debris would not be pulverised. With the volume of debris and height of building what the hell would you expect that every part of the building just land nice and neatly in massive lumps? The fact they spent so long clearing up debris hints that the entirety of building wasnt turned to dust anyway.

Obviously I would not expect every part to be intact, some floors perhaps.
It didn't actually take that long to clean up, most of the steel 130,000 tonnes of it was shipped of to China and India, still in September 2001.

The amount of pulverised dust spread out for miles around ground zero suggest most, if not all was pulverised, the aerial photo's also show this, 220 odd floors reduced to a small pile.

King Mob · 01-10-2010 12:45am

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

The amount of pulverised dust spread out for miles around ground zero suggest most, if not all was pulverised, the aerial photo's also show this, 220 odd floors reduced to a small pile.

So how big should the pile have been?

And since when do controlled demolitions spread dust "for miles around"?
Can you show any other example of this?

Ahmadinejad : "Most people" believe US behind 9/11

Comments