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

King Mob · 30-09-2010 5:31pm

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 5:39pm

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 5:58pm

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 6:06pm

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 6:10pm

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 6:13pm

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 7:17pm

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 7:33pm

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 7:35pm

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

and...?

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 7:40pm

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 7:43pm

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 7:44pm

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 8:35pm

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 8:52pm

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 8:53pm

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 9:05pm

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 9:10pm

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 9:13pm

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 9:56pm

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 9:59pm

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 10:01pm

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 10:04pm

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 10:11pm

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 10:13pm

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 10:39pm

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 · 30-09-2010 11:32pm

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 · 30-09-2010 11:34pm

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 · 30-09-2010 11:35pm

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 · 30-09-2010 11:43pm

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 · 30-09-2010 11:45pm

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?

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 11:45pm

Look, there's a hole in the ground, you can see right into the basement...

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 11:50pm

Look, pulverised. You can still see building 7 in the BG.

Hardly a mountain of rubble, is it ?

gizmo · 30-09-2010 11:53pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Look, there's a hole in the ground, you can see right into the basement...

Well yea, 110 storeys just fell down, surely you'd expect there to be some holes visible in the substructure?

alastair · 30-09-2010 11:57pm

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

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.

No it wasn't. By January 2002 (the first month that anything was shipped abroad) only 60,000 tonnes of steel had been shipped to India and China.

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.

A small pile? As I've already pointed out - the mass of the building (excluding furniture and plasterboard) could notionally have compacted down to 20.5 metres inside it's own footprint. The rubble is by anyone's estimation taller than 20 metres high.

Any idea on the date of the supposedly 'photoshopped' pic of the sun shining through the twin towers btw - you seem to have gone all quiet on that particular 'theory'.

TalkieWalkie · 30-09-2010 11:59pm

gizmo wrote: »

Well yea, 110 storeys just fell down, surely you'd expect there to be some holes visible in the substructure?

yeah it's just odd that we can see the hole through the huge pile of rubble that isn't there.

And the previous 2 pics I posted, no comment on them ?

alastair · 01-10-2010 12:04am

The small pile behind some freakishly tiny firemen.

gizmo · 01-10-2010 12:11am

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

yeah it's just odd that we can see the hole through the huge pile of rubble that isn't there.

And the previous 2 pics I posted, no comment on them ?

But the rubble from the buildings was hardly going to all be in the same area. This was 110 storeys of metal and cement, it would have spread over a huge area as it came down.

alastair · 01-10-2010 12:14am

gizmo wrote: »

But the rubble from the buildings was hardly going to all be in the same area.

Ahh - but you see it did fall into it's own footprint - that controlled explosion/thermite/thermate/nano-thermate/space beam demolition ensured a surgical fall.*

* May not reflect actuality of events.

seannash · 01-10-2010 12:15am

gizmo wrote: »

But the rubble from the buildings was hardly going to all be in the same area. This was 110 storeys of metal and cement, it would have spread over a huge area as it came down.

plus whos to say the ground floor didnt give way and it landed in the basement floors(did someone say it was 6 levels)

now your going to point to your pic with the hole looking into a basement.

the fecking whole of newyork has basements,everywhere.so that pic could have been taken on the outskirts of the collapse peering into a hole but youll make it sound like it was slap bang in the middle.

and even if it was in the middle,it wasnt a controlled demolition so the rubble is not going to be centralised anywhere

Divorce Referendum · 01-10-2010 12:30am

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

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.

Ah come on now this isnt a small pile! The 1.8 million tonnes of rubble removed was tiny wasnt it.

uprising2 · 01-10-2010 1:51am

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Look, there's a hole in the ground, you can see right into the basement...

I've seen more concrete demolishing a shed, also notice the rebar completely stripped of concrete except for one piece slightly bigger than a cavity block.

There's so many things wrong with that photo right there and wasting 15 minutes itemising them will achieve nothing.

10 floors per second, compression, furniture.........this pic, think about it.

uprising2 · 01-10-2010 1:55am

alastair wrote: »

The small pile behind some freakishly tiny firemen.

Thats how pictures from telephoto lens come out, here's a tree thats bigger than the sun.
That pile must be at least 20ft high.

uprising2 · 01-10-2010 2:20am

Let's consider the "Pancake Theory"
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.

meglome · 01-10-2010 2:27am

uprising2 wrote: »

I've seen more concrete demolishing a shed, also notice the rebar completely stripped of concrete except for one piece slightly bigger than a cavity block.

There are lumps of concrete all over that picture. Most are small but there are several bigger pieces. I'm not seeing the problem. What theory are you subscribing to that would have the amount of concrete in doubt?

uprising2 wrote: »

There's so many things wrong with that photo right there and wasting 15 minutes itemising them will achieve nothing.

Maybe if you tell us the theory you are working on we can figure it out for ourselves.

uprising2 wrote: »

10 floors per second, compression, furniture.........this pic, think about it.

So buildings are not 95% air? Looking around my concrete and steel multi floor apartment block it certainly is about right.

Let's consider the "Pancake Theory"
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.

So a falling ten story section of building isn't going to release enough kinetic energy... give me a break. That section of building is bigger than almost every building in Dublin.

uprising2 · 01-10-2010 2:50am

meglome wrote: »

There are lumps of concrete all over that picture. Most are small but there are several bigger pieces. I'm not seeing the problem.

So a falling ten story section of building isn't going to release enough kinetic energy... give me a break. That section of building is bigger than almost every building in Dublin.

Does each floor break into small pieces before or after it hits the floor below causing it to fail, break into pieces and fall on the one below, causing it to break into pieces AND fail the one below, breaking it to pieces causing the one below to fail, break into pieces AND fail the one below.
110 stories in the same time it took to read that, your in fantasy land if you believe this bs.
10 floors per second almost, where was the resistance?, where was the stack?, theres an ambulance there with WTC on both sides of it, so I assume its ground zero, there should be a stack of concrete there somewhere.

uprising2 · 01-10-2010 3:38am

King Mob wrote: »

And now it's funny that you suddenly think that poles are useless..

I never said that!, I love poles, a few fine ones work in the petrol station, make lovely sausage sandwich's.

So then you've no issue with, say, me lumping all CTers into the racist pile? Or is it only okay for you to generalise people who disagree with you.

Surely you can phrase this some other way, or, in another way you could phrase this question/statement, could you?

uprising2 · 01-10-2010 4:11am

meglome wrote: »

Thanks now at least we are getting somewhere. The next point is can we find higher res pictures because I find it odd that these 'cameras' are spaced such short distances away from each other, i dunno almost like lights and not cameras. Though it seems likely that some of them are cameras. Then we'd need to see where they are pointed, cause as I keep saying cameras point at the ground not into the air.
You can see some of the cameras in that entrance shot are point in the wrong direction. Then I'd like to know when those road cameras shot were taken.

No they almost definately look like camera's.
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVZTJ57jzpEJlsW77lwAAwNBNBg-JkZ-HGJY1g0_aTA7u9P6U&t=1&h=178&w=208&usg=__NMpeMDT1EXaK3Nlzxk7BE6XyXYc=

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVZTJ57jzpEJlsW77lwAAwNBNBg-JkZ-HGJY1g0_aTA7u9P6U&t=1&h=178&w=208&usg=__NMpeMDT1EXaK3Nlzxk7BE6XyXYc=

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRK3fmzqXTf2bwlcgH3hUv0TCNOXHPkEz_Lq-OzNMafb4apLgM&t=1&h=183&w=152&usg=__cVjrpB8F0tHJiFLwrJMz2sjRm-c=

Maybe call the pentagon and ask where they were pointing.
And you still assume the pentagon's security system and cctv coverage should be on par with the local sweet shop.

alastair wrote: »

The traffic cameras update every 2 seconds - ie: a longer pause than the the plane would be visible for over that distance. It's pot luck whether they'd pick it up or not.

Yea and you can divide number of cameras that would show pentagon into that as all camera's would not be sync'd, so it gets down to fractions of a second, so surely something was caught on some camera, apart from the video that doesn't show a plane.

old_aussie · 01-10-2010 4:18am

uprising2 wrote: »

Ahmadinejad is right, most people do believe the US was behind 9/11, I'm one of them.

And where do you get that opinion fact from?

You have to be dreaming! WAKE UP

Mahatma coat · 01-10-2010 5:53am

NO, thats 'Uprising',

'Wake Up' will be along Later on in the Day

:D:D

alastair · 01-10-2010 7:36am

uprising2 wrote: »

Thats how pictures from telephoto lens come out, here's a tree thats bigger than the sun.
That pile must be at least 20ft high.

Eh - a telephoto lens won't make the firemen appear bigger/smaller than they are in relation to the background - all it'll do is compress the perceived depth of the image. The tree is going to have that comparative size against the sun, regardless of what lens you use - and the same is true of the firemen and the height of the pile behind them.

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

Comments