9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip with Andrew Maxwell

Richard tea

I thought it was a piss poor doc that CTers & skeptics would agree was a waste of time.

Daithi 1

gatecrash wrote: »

You posted an abusive message on some randomers facebook page, and you think that's a good thing.

Did you ever stop to wonder why all CTers are marginalised??

And there's nothing like a bit of revisionist history from Emily Church now is there....

The company i work for were involved in a once off tv programme a while ago.. before it was aired we were shown a copy of the broadcast, i can only assume that Ms Church and her cohorts were also given the same courtesy.

And when her super secret "We know the Truth about 9-11 and the rest of the planet (who believe their own eyes and evidence) are idiots" meeting gave her a wrist slap last night she wrote up that drivel.

Eh Charlie is not a randomer, he's on my friendlist.

I know exactly why it's marginalised, I dont think you do.

She may well have been given the courtsey, who knows ?

Lot of assumptions there so you didnt really say anything at all...

An empty post :rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

I dunno lads, As teh Mod said Posting abuse about people is not nice, however I dont think theres a court in the lands that would pull you up for calling Andrew Maxwell a C***/S***bag/Pr***

However I would expect them to hop off ya for Misrepresntation if you referred to him as a Comedian.


Unfunny annoying <insert preferred expletive> who has made a career from being Unfunny in an Ironic Emperors new clothes kind of way

Obelisk

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I would expect them to hop off ya for Misrepresntation if you referred to him as a Comedian.

Well that's true. 'Conspiracy Comedy'??? He can kiss my a-hole. This,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ip4IklpZfY

(is an example of conspiracy comedy)

enfant terrible

Obelisk wrote: »

Well I just watched it. What an anti-climax! That programme was an insult to my intelligence and I feel sorry for the type of people its designed to appeal to! Also, maxwell is a ****.

Not as big a **** as the blonde girl.

Penn

Just a horrible programme. The stuff about the thermite was interesting enough, but the rest was neither informative nor any way conclusive.

Daithi 1

Here is a better thermite video.. one that proves it can cut steel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

ansealgair

This programe was the biggest load of dis-info rubbish I have seen on 9-11 and it was presided over by an idiot with 5 numpties. Pure dribble. What a fake this so-called comedian is. He is as funny as a burning orphanage

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Was a joke, a sham.

Wasn't a great show... however they at least went there and spoke to people with expert opinion. I can't count just how many CT's I've read that never get tested or queried properly.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I dont wonder why NONE of the multitude of anti conspitatorial programs dont mention Larry Silverstein or the FACT that the BBC stated building 7 collapsed PRIOR to it's collapse.

Why should they? The only reason to mention it is if you assume there is a conspiracy. Larry Silverstein uses the word 'pull'. Now since that is not a word used in controlled demolition it's only an issue if... A. You choose to believe otherwise against the evidence and B. You believe he's really stupid enough to admit to something like this on TV. It makes much more sense they were pulling the fire-fighters out.

WTC 7 had been making unhealthy noises, noises which the fire-fighters took to be sounds of possible collapse. The news media knew this. The BBC reporter is on record as saying they got the wrong info from one of the news agencies. She was drafted in and didn't even know which building was WTC7. The fluppin building was behind her on the screen, worst CT ever. On a confused day, confused things will happen. If they didn't then there would be something to be concerned about.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I dont wonder why, to prove thermate doesnt cut steel, they poured a pile of thermate on a hotizontal steel beam and set it alight. While we know that thermate needs to be packed tightly/encased to the beam to have full effect.

They didn't say thermite can't cut steel. They were trying to show that because thermite is an uncontrolled chemical reaction it's very very difficult to make that happen. In the experiments I've seen they welded steel 'boxes' onto the girders and covered the insides in clay. Even after doing that they they still couldn't cut the steel properly. Imagine...Exposing dozens of the steel girders by breaking open the walls, carrying in the van loads of steel and clay with tons of thermite then fitting them all. And all this in a building with twenty thousand people working, open 24/7. And not one person, not one, sees anything. Should I believe in santa too?

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Charlie Veitch is an idiot. I just posted this on his facebook page in rage of his turning on day 1 !!!!!!

"Cant believe you caved on day 1 Charlie lol, youre one donkey. Thremate needs to be packed/enclosed to cut the steel, not poured on top of it lmfao. That said, the U.S gov could easily disprove the CT's by releasing the 80+ pentagon videos to prove it was a plane that hit it. Therefore, we must conclude they revel in the discombopulation of the masses. So the conspiracy continues. 1 question remains..... Why am I talking to a donkey ? "

A guy goes there and sees for himself then changes his mind. This isn't a competition. Fair play to the guy for keeping an open mind when confronted with a different viewpoint. Can't believe you went and insulted the guy, says a lot more about you than him.

BTW you do realise that video cameras point at the ground, right? Because unless the video cameras in Washington were pointing into the air for some reason they wouldn't have caught anything. And forgive me but even if every single one was release the CT's would just say they were faked.

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

Check out other threads on the forum. Check out the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 thread where I've spent the last few pages disagreeing with the conspiracy theory. Check out other people who disagree with most of the theories posted. Both sides of the debate are welcome here. Comments like 'tin foil hat' isn't. We have a wide range of posters who believe in many different topics to varying degrees. Tin foil hat doesn't mean someone who is more likely to believe in a conspiracy, it means a crazy person, and it is disrespectful to the posters here.

Like I said, feel free to disagree with anyone's opinions here. I welcome it. It stimulates debate and discussion which is what a forum should be about. But show the people on the other side of the debate some respect.

Any more discussion on this is to be done via PM and not on thread, or I'll have to grab my trusty tin foil banhammer.

Here's the relevant parts of the forum charter too:

LOL'd at this bit