Banana peels you can cut arteries with

ScumLord · 24-07-2015 05:19PM #1

pueblo wrote: »

Ok, so you respect 'expert' opinion. Fair enough.

With regard to 9/11 I presume then you have had a look at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/?

A quick google search shows that website is under a lot of scrutiny, it's been accused of "Excessive Dishonesty", that's just at a quick glance. I haven't had time to go into detail on either site.

"Expert" can be a funny word, a pilot is an expert at flying a plane, that doesn't mean they're experts on planes. Just like a formula 1 driver is an expert driver, but that doesn't mean he knows everything there is to know about F1 cars.

Dohnjoe · 24-07-2015 05:34PM

pueblo wrote: »

Ok, so you respect 'expert' opinion. Fair enough.

With regard to 9/11 I presume then you have had a look at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/?

Here you can find the expert opinion of actual pilots with thousands upon thousands of flight hours collectively which claims all is not right with the official 9/11 story.

It's a website that quote-mines commercial pilots to create doubt about the accepted version of events

Pprune.org is a forum for actual pilots, it's a better place to ask technical questions about planes

Reg'stoy · 25-07-2015 10:57AM

Had a look at that 9/11 pilots for truth video and it's an alex jones or david icke video with a bit more 'science' and 'engineering' thrown in. It quotes an official US document which sets out a plan to have acts of terrorism on Home soil be blamed on Cuba as a ruse to invade them. Kennedy didn't agree and so with a wink the narrator says"we know what happened him" as the infamous head shot is shown to reinforce the suggestion that he was taken out.
Numerous war games scenarios I imagine exist on paper for nearly every conceivable situation. That's what the military and intelligence agencies do, plan for hopefully all eventualities. Were there plans in place to overthrow Castro, I have no doubt yes, were some more off the wall than others, absolutely. Someone even, I remember reading about, suggested poisoning his cigar. Does that plan to poison his cigar exist on paper somewhere, yes, does its existance on paper mean it was taken seriously, no.

Now this video like most 9/11 truthers suggests that the American Government or those who control the American government were somehow complicatant in either the planning/execution or having gained intelligence that it was going to happen allowed the events to unfold. The conspiracy being, IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. How INSIDE depends on the theory. This video puts forth scientific evidence that the planes could not under normal operating conditions have hit the towers or the pentagon. Lots of charts and data is offered to support this. The dramatic conclusion is, the aircraft had to be modified to allow them to hit the towers. If they were modified it was done with government help so QED it was an INSIDE JOB.

So lets deals with science first, as another poster has mentioned, that science was shown to be stretched to fit in with their theories. The problem with (for me) most CT's is they have a result and work backwards using cherry picked snap shots of scientific evidence to prove the result. I can start with a result 'the earth is flat' and show evidence and call it scientific, I jump and I land on the same stop I left. If the earth was curved and spinning surely I would not land on the spot I jumped from. The earth is flat truther ignores the evidence against for obvious reasons.

In this video they ignore certain cold hard facts, passengers, families, eye witness accounts while chosing to accept some witness statements, ya da ya da.... The thing is I'm willing to accept certain theories re 9/11, such as, was prior knowledge of the possibility of it happening available; yes. Did those people who having received possible intelligence and they were from different agencies, communicate with each other; sadly no. Did they know exactly what was going to happen, again no because the jijsaw of information was been put together upside down and so no one saw the whole picture.

This 9/11 video is Sherlock Holmes like in its conclusion, where truthers having studied the evidence and shown it to be 'impossible' conclude that what remains however improbable must be the truth, IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. However the evidence they put forward is flawed and so their conclusion is incorrect. Others obviously will say their evidence is overwhelming correct and again we join the circle.

My tuppence worth, the planes did hit; to say no planes hit is flat earth territory. Did the CIA or other American agency plan it; no. Did other state agencies known something was 'afoot'; I'm open to that. Did American state agencies through intelligence know something was in the planning, well in fairness I would imagine someone somewhere is always planning something against the'great evil'. Had these agencies spoke to each other could 9/11 have been prevented; possibly. Was this lack of communication deliberate; no, it was the age old problem with government departments; why should I help them look good and risk my budget been reduced and go to them.

weisses · 25-07-2015 12:55PM

I will just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Reg'stoy · 25-07-2015 01:30PM

weisses wrote: »

I will just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

Ah yes supposition been paraded as fact and if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

Why is it that CT'ers tend to rely on youtube for proof of their truth. I for one will never be dissuaded from my belief that we have all been fooling into thinking we live on a globe rather than the scientific certainty that we do in fact reside on a flat earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qu37-A_S-I

weisses · 25-07-2015 01:39PM

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Ah yes supposition been paraded as fact and if my aunt had testicles she'd be my uncle.

Why is it that CT'ers tend to rely on youtube for proof of their truth. I for one will never be dissuaded from my belief that we have all been fooling into thinking we live on a globe rather than the scientific certainty that we do in fact reside on a flat earth.

I thought I posted something that promoted critical thinking

Any big fat lies in that short clip ?

Reg'stoy · 25-07-2015 04:52PM

weisses wrote: »

I thought I posted something that promoted critical thinking

Any big fat lies in that short clip ?

From the beginning, does dialysis somehow reduce your cognitive ability. Does not been an American living in a nice house with a swimming pool again reduce your cognitive ability. Next, we sent men to the moon (......oh yes we did) with less computing power than your smart phone, so what planning required the latest Apple Mac PC. One would assume they communicated by e-mail and all the planning would have been done when they either were all together or the plans were drawn up and individuals tasked with jobs separately.

The didn't 'penetrate' the highest protected airspace, they purchased tickets and boarded aircraft like 10,000's do every day. The treat of violence and not necessarily the tools used to make that treat can be enough to subdue people/passengers/cabin crew. Box cutters could indeed have been enough. Remember no one on board would have even imagined what would happen to them, cabin doors were not as secure and at worst the pilots might have imagined that they would have been made land and await their hijackers demands. Watching someone die horribly, throat cut, arterial spray, would make the bravest person compliant. Military pilots would not have the same combat training as your trench soldier, these were retired and made soft by a cushy airline job. Only on the last aircraft were people aware of their fate and so fought back.

What effect does their personal proclivities, be it drink drugs or women have on their abilities to hijack an aircraft. As a Muslim and doing what they did (to fit in?) shows just how dedicated they possibly were.

Are we to believe that the attack was orchestrated to cover up losses in the pentagon, well for me having the ability to plan and carry out such an attack and then fail in the primary reason; hide the loss of money, is a firing offense.

So the FBI who are training in scene of crime examinations in the search for evidence; find some but this proves the conspiracy

The reason for the attack is not now it seems to cover the loss of money but to bring down building seven.

You ask what "big fat lies" there are in the clip, well the most obvious one is that Bush and members of the government were somehow behind the attack. Even within the clip two different reasons are given for the attack, are both correct is one wrong/one right; they're just guessing aren't they.

I stand over my earlier statement calling it supposition and not real evidence.

weisses · 26-07-2015 07:15AM

Reg'stoy wrote: »

From the beginning, does dialysis somehow reduce your cognitive ability. Does not been an American living in a nice house with a swimming pool again reduce your cognitive ability. Next, we sent men to the moon (......oh yes we did) with less computing power than your smart phone, so what planning required the latest Apple Mac PC. One would assume they communicated by e-mail and all the planning would have been done when they either were all together or the plans were drawn up and individuals tasked with jobs separately.

The didn't 'penetrate' the highest protected airspace, they purchased tickets and boarded aircraft like 10,000's do every day. The treat of violence and not necessarily the tools used to make that treat can be enough to subdue people/passengers/cabin crew. Box cutters could indeed have been enough. Remember no one on board would have even imagined what would happen to them, cabin doors were not as secure and at worst the pilots might have imagined that they would have been made land and await their hijackers demands. Watching someone die horribly, throat cut, arterial spray, would make the bravest person compliant. Military pilots would not have the same combat training as your trench soldier, these were retired and made soft by a cushy airline job. Only on the last aircraft were people aware of their fate and so fought back..

They could have done it with Banana peals ..Fact remains they entered (were allowed) the highest protected airspace when everyone knew what was going on

Reg'stoy wrote: »

What effect does their personal proclivities, be it drink drugs or women have on their abilities to hijack an aircraft. As a Muslim and doing what they did (to fit in?) shows just how dedicated they possibly were.

Devoted Muslims willing to Die for their religion would not do drink and drugs I think

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Are we to believe that the attack was orchestrated to cover up losses in the pentagon, well for me having the ability to plan and carry out such an attack and then fail in the primary reason; hide the loss of money, is a firing offense.

You can make up your own mind regarding this ..It was just mentioned as a fact ... If you don't believe this to be true fine

Reg'stoy wrote: »

So the FBI who are training in scene of crime examinations in the search for evidence; find some but this proves the conspiracy

What are the odds to find the passport of one of the Hijackers Intact after the plane he was (allegedly to some) flying crashed into the WTC ? .. At least its reason for a proper discussion right ?

Reg'stoy wrote: »

The reason for the attack is not now it seems to cover the loss of money but to bring down building seven.

Where was that stated ?

I think you should be more concerned how that building could collapse anyway

Reg'stoy wrote: »

You ask what "big fat lies" there are in the clip, well the most obvious one is that Bush and members of the government were somehow behind the attack. Even within the clip two different reasons are given for the attack, are both correct is one wrong/one right; they're just guessing aren't they.

My believe is that they knew it was gonna happen and let it happen ... so the neo conservatives could push their patriot act and engage in another few wars

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I stand over my earlier statement calling it supposition and not real evidence.

If it was all "real evidence" it wasn't a (conspiracy) Theory

Why is that so difficult to accept and understand?

Reg'stoy · 27-07-2015 03:17PM

weisses wrote: »

They could have done it with Banana peals ..Fact remains they entered (were allowed) the highest protected airspace when everyone knew what was going on

Devoted Muslims willing to Die for their religion would not do drink and drugs I think

You can make up your own mind regarding this ..It was just mentioned as a fact ... If you don't believe this to be true fine

What are the odds to find the passport of one of the Hijackers Intact after the plane he was (allegedly to some) flying crashed into the WTC ? .. At least its reason for a proper discussion right ?

Where was that stated ?

I think you should be more concerned how that building could collapse anyway

My believe is that they knew it was gonna happen and let it happen ... so the neo conservatives could push their patriot act and engage in another few wars

If it was all "real evidence" it wasn't a (conspiracy) Theory

Why is that so difficult to accept and understand?

When you say banana peels you obviously accept the accretion that "they did it armed with only box cutters" was made for dramatic effect, indeed you are right in saying that the instrument of use in the hijacking could have been anything.

They were already inside the airspace when they hijacked the aircraft, if they had snuck onto an airforce base in Canada, stole a jet and flew it to the States; then they would indeed have penetrated highly protected airspace.

The video producers use the terms box cutter, laptop, satellite phone, living in a cave and on dialysis as hyperbole to make it seem that only seal team 6 could have carried out the hijackings. I'm glad to see that even you accept that box cutters were ample enough.

To think that an individual who would knowingly crash an aircraft with women, children and indeed the possibility of members of the own faith on board, would somehow baulk at the idea of drinking alcohol or sleeping with women (both of which have been shown to be possibly untrue) seems a bit of a stretch. They had been 'brain washed into committing horrible acts in the name of their religion, who knows what indulgences they were awarded for their 'act'.

The pentagon attack, the 'missing' money was unaccounted for, semantics maybe but it wasn't money all of which had been fraudulently transferred to peoples bank accounts (think gold plated (sic) toilet seats) . The announcement of these losses was made before the attack and remains on the public record. The fact that some people in the office doing the audit on these monies died (not all of them, or indeed were all the records destroyed) was the luck of the 'draw' they were just unfortunate. If they had been deliberately targeted, why not delay the announcement on the 'missing' money and make sure everyone died and that all the records were destroyed so no one would ever find out about the losses.

Are we to believe that all evidence that showed the actual reality of the attack was 'planted', but any evidence no matter how flimsy which pointed to the possibility of an inside job; is to be seen as Gospel.

Building seven is mentioned because it was supposedly brought/took down to hide something or other. Building seven has been argued over enough. I mentioned it because it is used to show an inside job. If this building was the target, why not simply park a dumper truck full of explosives next to it, rather then have one building fall onto another and bring it down.

Why go to such lengths in the planning and execution of the attacks with the risk of exposure and failure ever present. The planes might have missed, passengers might have fought back or a member of the conspiracy might have blabbed. Could they not have set off a bomb in the Senate or Congress buildings. Bush and Cheney could have blown up their opposition and enacted martial law.

weisses · 28-07-2015 01:07PM

Reg'stoy wrote: »

When you say banana peels you obviously accept the accretion that "they did it armed with only box cutters" was made for dramatic effect, indeed you are right in saying that the instrument of use in the hijacking could have been anything.

Prior to 9/11 On a few occasions I even talked to the pilots during toilet breaks because they had the door open.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

They were already inside the airspace when they hijacked the aircraft, if they had snuck onto an airforce base in Canada, stole a jet and flew it to the States; then they would indeed have penetrated highly protected airspace.

The alleged plane that entered the Pentagon was outside of restricted airspace at a time authorities knew about the hijackings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Are we to believe that all evidence that showed the actual reality of the attack was 'planted', but any evidence no matter how flimsy which pointed to the possibility of an inside job; is to be seen as Gospel..

What alleged evidence was planted that showed the reality of the attack ?

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Building seven is mentioned because it was supposedly brought/took down to hide something or other. Building seven has been argued over enough. I mentioned it because it is used to show an inside job. If this building was the target, why not simply park a dumper truck full of explosives next to it, rather then have one building fall onto another and bring it down.

There are so many things not adding up regarding building 7 .... the fact you nor I can fully explain the motives does not mean there is none

Buiding 7 is discussed and analyzed to death because what happened there is not possible (according to people who know what they are talking about)

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Why go to such lengths in the planning and execution of the attacks with the risk of exposure and failure ever present. The planes might have missed, passengers might have fought back or a member of the conspiracy might have blabbed. Could they not have set off a bomb in the Senate or Congress buildings. Bush and Cheney could have blown up their opposition and enacted martial law.

The attacks where allowed to happen is my theory .. What happened after is a big puzzle

pueblo · 31-07-2015 10:32AM

Anyone like to try and explain how the fires at the WTC burned for 3 months?

The fires were fueled by almost everything inside the towers, from documents to office furniture. As demolition and rescue crews toiled to clear the debris air pockets would open, allowing fresh oxygen to cause hot spots to flare up. - ABC News

That's really quote amusing, how thick do they think people are???....documents and office furniture burning for 3 months! especially when the Guardian quotes..

"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley, a firefighters' union representative. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

Has anyone ever heard of Nanothermite? Which by the way is produced only in Military grade labs :P)

Overheal · 31-07-2015 04:38PM

Nanothermite wouldn't explain 3 months of smoldering ruin, nanothermite is actually valued for its ability to release its energy quickly.

weisses · 31-07-2015 06:15PM

Overheal wrote: »

Nanothermite wouldn't explain 3 months of smoldering ruin, nanothermite is actually valued for its ability to release its energy quickly.

Maybe an interesting piece to read through

http://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

pueblo · 01-08-2015 10:15AM

Overheal wrote: »

Nanothermite wouldn't explain 3 months of smoldering ruin, nanothermite is actually valued for its ability to release its energy quickly.

Can you show me some proof that Nanothermite releases it energy quickly? The Wiki piece below states that 'it cannot be smothered', this does not match with what you are saying about 'quick energy release'.

...and if it wasn't Nanothermite how would you explain the 3 month long fires?

...they poured 4 million gallons of water on to the site in the first 10 days which collected at the bottom of the site in 'the bathtub' - Nanothermite burns well under water ...

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be easily extinguished with water, although enough water will remove heat and may stop the reaction.[17] Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. Even so, thermite is used for welding underwater.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

DamagedTrax · 01-08-2015 12:31PM

Overheal wrote: »

Nanothermite wouldn't explain 3 months of smoldering ruin, nanothermite is actually valued for its ability to release its energy quickly.

This is quite an interesting lecture from Dr Judy Woods.

Evidence examination rather than theory, she actually shys away from answering anything thats not related to her field of materials science.

If you're interested in the idea of focused energy weapons and their broader ramifications, this will keep you watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqbcsU0_RjU

Banana peels you can cut arteries with

Comments