Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

Options
  • 08-09-2015 11:11pm
    #1
    fepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭


    9/11 secret explosion was interesting viewing on tv3 tonite


«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Last weeks program about Monroe was excellent however 9/11: The Missing Evidence mirrors TV3’s germanwings program and the coverage of the Boston Bombing by being manipulative propaganda masquerading as investigative journalism. You can hardly claim that this is in any way balanced when it is stated in the program that the outlandish claims of conspiracy theorists using pseudo-science and conjecture are deeply offensive to those directly affected by the disaster and that those people who believe in a conspiracy theory are imbeciles.

    Firstly 9/11 is an obvious conspiracy which the official story claims was planned by a man in a cave in Afghanistan with the help of 19 Saudis who left a deliberate trail of evidence to implicate themselves, at least seven of which are confirmed to be still alive, and none of these conspirators, including Bin Laden, took credit for the attack. If the named hijackers are still alive then how could the actual terrorists have flown using someone else’s passport and why didn’t the FBI attempt to find the identity of the actual hijackers?

    The program champions an untested theory which doesn’t explain how an aluminium explosion could have destroyed the central steel columns. It also falsely claims that only the presence of aluminium can explain the multiple explosions heard prior to the collapse of the towers which directly contradicts an earlier statement in the program that controlled demolition could have brought down the steel structures in the manner we see. Building 7 fell without allegedly having been hit by any plane therefore aluminium was not a factor. Explosive charges could have easily been planted in the buildings by the company run by the then President’s brother, Marvin Bush, who were engaged in upgrades at the towers and who turned off cameras and electricity there the week before 9/11.

    The program doesn’t explain how the aluminium wings of a plane can slice through concrete and steel. How did the planes fly at around 500 miles per hour which is well above the structural limit of such aircraft at these low altitudes when the maximum speed is accepted to be at best 365 miles per hour?

    Interestingly this was the first time in history that a cockpit crew handed over the controls of a plane to a hijacker with a boxcutter, and the second time and the third time and the fourth time. The first time in history that a pilot failed to send a 7500 hijack code, and the second time and the third time and the fourth time. The first time in history that a plane deviated more than 2 degrees off course without being intercepted by Norad within 5 minutes, and the second time and the third time and the fourth time.

    It’s also interesting to note that the Federal Aviation Authority, who keep meticulous records, have no record of flight 11 or flight 77 taking off that day. ACARS data shows that flight 175 and flight 93 both landed at Cleveland. The mayor of Cleveland reported that flight 93 landed safely and these two planes weren’t officially deregistered until September 2005. The hole in the ground at Shanksville was reported to be only about 15 to 20 feet by 10 feet and a United States Geological survey map of Shanksville shows that this hole in the ground was already there in 1994.

    Another anomaly is that the plane engine recovered from Murray Street is exclusively designed for 747’s or 737’s and is not large enough to propel a 767 which is the plane model that allegedly hit both towers.

    Electromagnetic pulses were recorded at the time of impact of both alleged planes which would have temporally disabled conventional camera equipment at those times so how then is independent photographic evidence possible?


  • Options
    #3
    Sanguine Fan
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Sanguine Fan


    fepper wrote: »
    9/11 secret explosion was interesting viewing on tv3 tonite

    Look forward to the sequel explaining how the third tower collapsed, i.e. WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane made from 'explosive' aluminium.

    I won't hold my breath...;)


  • Options
    #4
    Rudiger Glique
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Rudiger Glique


    fepper wrote: »
    9/11 secret explosion was interesting viewing on tv3 tonite

    The only interesting bit I thought was when NIST refused to give up any evidence so they could test the theory.

    Here are some of the things I would like to have had addressed by the program.

    1 - It was claimed that when one floor gave way the entire destruction of the building was inevitable due to the momentum of the falling top floors, and some mathematical models were discussed that apparently demonstrated this. This 'pile driver' theory is pure nonsense. The top floors would obviously attempt to follow the path of least resistance and attempt to collapse away from the internal core columns which are still there and perfectly capable of resisting load. Maybe if you dropped the top part of the building from a few kilometers above it would completely demolish the floors below. Just think about it yourself, you have any steel frame structure, you go up to 80 percent of its height, you remove a 1 percent cross section, what happens? What doesn't happen is the top 19 percent suddenly completely destroys the bottom 80 percent.

    2 - The theory requires that the both planes nestled themselves in piles at the center of both buildings. Does this mean they also severed the central columns and avoided the lift shafts? Even if all that were possible, it does open the question of how after these planes nestled themselves in the center of the buildings the passport of one of the hijackers manged to find its way onto the streets below undamaged?

    Yes, for you to believe this, he either opened the window of the plane before it hit and threw out the passport (as the plane was travelling 500 miles an hour) or it somehow managed to sit in a cool pocket while the 'raging' fires apparently melted aluminium and completely (for the first time in history) destroyed the black boxes. Then after this miracle it somehow got blasted out when the building collapsed, again, undamaged. Far fetched anyone?

    3 - There is no mention of molten steel at any time in the program and that was reported by several eye witnesses (on record) - search for 'nist molten steel' on youtube

    4 - Building 7 :)

    Those are just a few issues I had with the program, but then, when NIST releases the little evidence that wasn't immediately destroyed, we may finally know the truth, but even then I doubt they will release anything that might let us get at the truth.


  • Options
    #5
    Hollister11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Hollister11


    The 9/11 documentaries are always very interesting. Its sad that such a tragic event, makes for great tv.


  • Options
    #6
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Hollister11 wrote: »
    The 9/11 documentaries are always very interesting. Its sad that such a tragic event, makes for great tv.

    Professor Stephen Hawking has suggested we could experience a far worse tragedy on September 23rd.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057490893


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Rudiger Glique wrote: »
    .

    Here are some of the things I would like to have had addressed by the program.

    3 - There is no mention of molten steel at any time in the program and that was reported by several eye witnesses (on record) - search for 'nist molten steel' on youtube

    .

    Yes there was, they even explained it and showed footage of molten metal at the event as it happened dripping out of tower 2. They spent a while on that topic alone.


  • Options
    #8
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    Yes there was, they even explained it and showed footage of it. They spent a while on that topic alone.

    They said that was molten aluminium.


  • Options
    #9
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    omnithanos wrote: »
    That was molten aluminium.

    Aluminium is a metal as I said. I never mentioned steel as there was no molten steel at all anywhere. Physically and chemically impossible for any molten steel to exit during the event.


  • Options
    #10
    Rudiger Glique
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Rudiger Glique


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    Aluminium is a metal as I said. I never mentioned steel as there was no molten steel at all anywhere. Physically and chemically impossible for any molten steel to exit during the event.

    I was clearly talking about molten steel. If you do a little research on youtube as I explained you would find many eye witness reports talking about molten steel. Why NIST completely ignore this is an open question. Maybe because they realize that kerosene and office fires would never melt steel?

    So I am assuming you also want to ignore that evidence? Maybe you would like to ignore the passport as well. It is one of the few pieces of evidence that tie the claimed terrorists to the actual event.


  • Options
    #11
    fepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭fepper


    What they were saying that all this white hot molten aluminium kept seeping down to ground floor where water accumulated and big explosion and buildings fell down,seems logical to me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Sanguine Fan
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Sanguine Fan


    fepper wrote: »
    What they were saying that all this white hot molten aluminium kept seeping down to ground floor where water accumulated and big explosion and buildings fell down,seems logical to me

    And the third tower?


  • Options
    #13
    Rudiger Glique
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Rudiger Glique


    fepper wrote: »
    What they were saying that all this white hot molten aluminium kept seeping down to ground floor where water accumulated and big explosion and buildings fell down,seems logical to me

    Hi Fepper, I don't think that is what they were saying to be honest and it still doesn't answer the questions I raised about molten steel and the passport, which cannot be ignored.

    But from my understanding of the program, they were claiming that a blast happened at the floor where the plane hit the building, and through the combination of this and loss of strength in the steel, the entire floor was taken out simultaneously and this initiated a collapse of the top floors which then completely demolished the bottom floors somehow. That is how they claim their mathematical model worked anyway. I.e. the top acted as a 'pile driver' that instead of falling to the side (the path of least resistance) went straight through the core structure of the building which up until that point was capable of bearing the entire weight of the building.

    I think from your comment though you are claiming that the collapse was initiated at the bottom of the building? That is a bold claim, because there is no video evidence to support it (just look at the collapse). If the bottom columns were destroyed (on their own) the building would not completely disappear, it would just fall over (if it fell at all).

    Perhaps you are claiming that there were simultaneous explosions along the entire length of the building taking out all the support structure, destroying the entire building and thus making it appear like a controlled demolition? If so, you are claiming a lot more than the program, but I do agree it certainly appears just like a controlled demolition. In fact, if it wasn't a controlled demolition, then if they could figure out the mechanics involved, they would be able to put the entire industry of controlled demolition experts out of business over night.


  • Options
    #14
    fepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭fepper


    Really don't know enough about construction on the building sanguine just thought their theory last nite was another angle why it came down so fast


  • Options
    #15
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    I didnt see that program but saw something else, recounting the events.
    After what may or may not be probable, aside from building 7, isn't it amazing that both buildings collapsed in the exact same way?


  • Options
    #16
    Rudiger Glique
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Rudiger Glique


    fepper wrote: »
    Really don't know enough about construction on the building sanguine just thought their theory last nite was another angle why it came down so fast

    Fepper, it was an interesting program, very well made and good at presenting a slice of the evidence in a very particular way. But I think what they don't say in it says so much more than what they do say. Why ignore all those other open questions, for example, completely ignoring that three steel frame buildings had complete structural failure leading to total collapse, and there were only two planes. Surely, that would be one of the very first things you would address?

    I would advise you if you are not sure, just look at some controlled demolitions and then look at the collapse of building seven. Y And if you still don't trust your own eyes, google Danny Jowenko. He was a controlled demolition expert and when shown building seven collapse, he claims it had to be a controlled demolition. On a side note, he died in a car crash.


  • Options
    #17
    Sanguine Fan
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Sanguine Fan


    fepper wrote: »
    Really don't know enough about construction on the building sanguine just thought their theory last nite was another angle why it came down so fast
    You can read a different perspective here from one of the contributors to the TV3 documentary.


  • Options
    #18
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Gravity explains why identically built buildings fall in exactly the same way. As the second poster has already confirmed, it was all down to Satanism. Back to Conspiracy Theories and watch better TV.
    I always love how the Conspiracy and Christianity / Atheist regulars leak into other forums. Via a TV3 filler that nobody bothered watching.
    Next we'll have ISIL being responsible for ITV Ireland.


  • Options
    #19
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    FloatingVoter wrote: »
    Gravity explains why identically built buildings fall in exactly the same way. As the second poster has already confirmed, it was all down to Satanism. Back to Conspiracy Theories and watch better TV.
    I always love how the Conspiracy and Christianity / Atheist regulars leak into other forums. Via a TV3 filler that nobody bothered watching.
    Next we'll have ISIL being responsible for ITV Ireland.

    Identical buildings, hit by two different aircraft at not identical speeds in different places and a different outcome for this leads to the buildings falling in the exact same way, and its gravity makes it all happen virtually exactly the same, what are the odds?

    How do you work gravity into building 7 given it wasnt hit? it seems it was admitted it was knocked down afterwards intentionally, maybe they expected it to get flattened,
    I'm pointing out it looks suspicious, you say satanism/CT,even managed to wangle ISIL in there, so you point out the ridiculous to counter a reasonable question, to what? associate ridiculous with any questioning? of the official line.
    I get hung up on little details like people standing where it was supposedly hot enough to melt the structural steel and people and passports surviving what buildings cant.


  • Options
    #20
    Sanguine Fan
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Sanguine Fan


    cerastes wrote: »
    How do you work gravity into building 7 given it wasnt hit?

    As FloatingVoter points out it was obviously the result of a satanic conspiracy.

    That's much more credible than imagining it was a controlled demolition. :D


  • Options
    #21
    fepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭fepper


    So do you think that some kind of bomb was used to finish off the twin towers and would these have been placed there by the accomplices of the pilots


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    fepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,434 ✭✭✭fepper


    What is a satanic conspiracy?


  • Options
    #23
    Sanguine Fan
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Sanguine Fan


    fepper wrote: »
    So do you think that some kind of bomb was used to finish off the twin towers and would these have been placed there by the accomplices of the pilots
    Your guess is as good as mine...


  • Options
    #24
    Sanguine Fan
    Registered Users Posts: 247 ✭✭Sanguine Fan


    fepper wrote: »
    What is a satanic conspiracy?
    Ditto.


  • Options
    #25
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭FloatingVoter


    Omnithanos explains it all here....


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96279612

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #26
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    fepper wrote: »
    So do you think that some kind of bomb was used to finish off the twin towers and would these have been placed there by the accomplices of the pilots

    If you read my first reply to this topic you will see that I have cited overwhelming evidence that commercial planes could not have been involved. If this point is accepted then one must naturally look to who could have possibly contrived such an amount of evidence to manipulate the mass populous into believing that commercial planes hit the towers. Certainly not a man in a cave in Afghanistan.

    If you still think those planes hit then why does the radar data confirm that one of those two planes landed at Cleveland?

    How come the two United Airlines planes weren't deregistered until 2005?

    Why was the wrong type engine recovered at the scene?

    Why is there no record of the American Airlines flights having taken off?

    Is it just a coincidence that Seth McFarlane and Mark Whalberg who shared the same agent both missed their flights that day?

    How did the planes fly into the towers without the wings coming off like they did when a bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945 killing 13 people?

    How did some of the alleged hijackers live?

    How come we only saw cctv footage of two of the hijackers as they got on a flight from Portland to Boston?

    How come those two hijackers left a deliberate trail buying pizza with credit cards, wandering around the shops to be filmed by cctv the evening before the attacks and abandoning a car with a list of the names of all 19 hijackers inside.

    How did a passport survive the crash in new york and two other passports survived the crash in Shanksville?

    I also mentioned how Marvin Bush headed a company who were working on building upgrades prior to the event. These would be the primary suspects for any rigging of explosives.


  • Options
    #27
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,436 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    omnithanos wrote: »
    If you read my first reply to this topic you will see that I have cited overwhelming evidence that commercial planes could not have been involved. If this point is accepted then one must naturally look to who could have possibly contrived such an amount of evidence to manipulate the mass populous into believing that commercial planes hit the towers. Certainly not a man in a cave in Afghanistan.

    If you still think those planes hit then why does the radar data confirm that one of those two planes landed at Cleveland?

    How come the two United Airlines planes weren't deregistered until 2005?

    Why was the wrong type engine recovered at the scene?

    Why is there no record of the American Airlines flights having taken off?

    Is it just a coincidence that Seth McFarlane and Mark Whalberg who shared the same agent both missed their flights that day?

    How did the planes fly into the towers without the wings coming off like they did when a bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945 killing 13 people?

    How did some of the alleged hijackers live?

    How come we only saw cctv footage of two of the hijackers as they got on a flight from Portland to Boston?

    How come those two hijackers left a deliberate trail buying pizza with credit cards, wandering around the shops to be filmed by cctv the evening before the attacks and abandoning a car with a list of the names of all 19 hijackers inside.

    How did a passport survive the crash in new york and two other passports survived the crash in Shanksville?

    I also mentioned how Marvin Bush headed a company who were working on building upgrades prior to the event. These would be the primary suspects for any rigging of explosives.

    Oh oh oh...... tell them your theory about how there actually wasn't any planes at all that day and what people actually watched on TV were holographic images/cartoons!


    Stick around lads this one is a Doozey :pac:


  • Options
    #28
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Oh oh oh...... tell them your theory about how there actually wasn't any planes at all that day and what people actually watched on TV were holographic images/cartoons!


    Stick around lads this one is a Doozey :pac:

    All I'm saying is there obviously weren't any commercial planes

    If you disagree with this logical conclusion please enlighten us all as to how you can account for the list of anomalies I mentioned above.


  • Options
    #29
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,436 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    omnithanos wrote: »
    All I'm saying is there obviously weren't any commercial planes

    If you disagree with this logical conclusion please enlighten us all as to how you can account for the list of anomalies I mentioned above.

    Did you or did you not in a recent thread in CT claim that no.planes hit the twin towers and that the images seen around the world (live) were in fact computer created to fool the world into believing that passenger planes had been used?

    You also claimed only 200 people died that day.


  • Options
    #30
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Did you or did you not in a recent thread in CT claim that no.planes hit the twin towers and that the images seen around the world (live) were in fact computer created to fool the world into believing that passenger planes had been used?

    You also claimed only 200 people died that day.

    As this is not the conspiracy board I won't be expanding on any conspiracy theories here.

    I previously cited a reference that mentioned the figure of 200 deaths which is just as believable as the reported figure of 2.700 based on close inspection of all the available evidence.

    Anyone who believes everything the media vomits out is completely naive. For example the BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed at 5pm. In the report you can see said building standing in the background. Building 7 subsequently collapsed 20 minutes later without having been hit by a plane.



    These facts speak for themselves. In order to logically prove that commercial planes hit the towers all the anomalies I previously mentioned need to be addressed and convincingly proven to be false.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,436 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    omnithanos wrote: »
    As this is not the conspiracy board I won't be expanding on any conspiracy theories here.

    I previously cited a reference that mentioned the figure of 200 deaths which is just as believable as the reported figure of 2.700 based on close inspection of all the available evidence.

    Anyone who believes everything the media vomits out is completely naive. For example the BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed at 5pm. In the report you can see said building standing in the background. Building 7 subsequently collapsed 20 minutes later without having been hit by a plane.



    These facts speak for themselves. In order to logically prove that commercial planes hit the towers all the anomalies I previously mentioned need to be addressed and convincingly proven to be false.

    But when you make claims that only 200 died and cartoon planes were used then why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?


Advertisement