Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2191    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,261 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:09 AM

Most individuals define themselves by the jobs they have performed during their life.  Our experience becomes our destinies. We believe in it.  And it becomes who we are.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#2192    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:52 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 May 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

You mean, like this video which was used by 911 conspiracist to attack the official story?



I don't know what ever comes over me to doubt 911 conspiracist.

You mean like this peice of **** that posted the video to manipulate people? Is that what you mean Sky? Cause if it is, and you use it.... what does that say about you? Let's not stop there either.

You knowingly post a video of a guy that intentionly misleads people.. right or wrong... and try to use it to put people down.

Reminds me of the time you minipulated an article to make Babe look bad. I pointed out your lying in that one. Why the hell anyone cares what you think anymore is beyond me.

I'm done with you Sky.


#2193    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,596 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:03 AM

View PostW Tell, on 21 May 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

You mean like this peice of **** that posted the video to manipulate people? Is that what you mean Sky? Cause if it is, and you use it.... what does that say about you? Let's not stop there either.

Let's face the facts! When the video was released, 911 truthers used that hoaxed WTC7 video as their so-called proof that WTC7 was demolished by explosives.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2194    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:17 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

Let's face the facts! When the video was released, 911 truthers used that hoaxed WTC7 video as their so-called proof that WTC7 was demolished by explosives.

And the best you can use agaist them is a "HOAX" video to make your case. You're pathetic.


#2195    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:54 AM

View PostW Tell, on 21 May 2013 - 04:17 AM, said:

And the best you can use agaist them is a "HOAX" video to make your case. You're pathetic.

It does prove a good point.  Most truthers are willing to believe anything that supports their cause without checking facts or proper beforehand.  

Not saying all truther are like that, however...

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2196    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,596 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:27 AM

View PostW Tell, on 21 May 2013 - 04:17 AM, said:

And the best you can use agaist them is a "HOAX" video to make your case. You're pathetic.

I wanted to make a point that 911 truthers are not in a habit of doing homework, or doing it correctly when they do, which is why they have claimed that hoaxed video was evidence that explosives were used to demolish WTC7, but, that is just one example of many.

I can also point out their false claim the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed when it fact, the dusty plumes and falling debris, which are actually outpacing the collapse of those buildings, should have told them that the buildings were not collapsing at free fall speed and in fact, using audio and seismic data, It took WTC1, 22.02 seconds to collapse, which is nowhere near free fall speed, and it took WTC2, 15.28 seconds to collapse, which once again, is nowhere near free fall speed and again, another prime example of 911 truthers not doing their homework.

We can now move on to the Pentagon where 911 truthers claim American 77 flew north of the gas station, which would have been impossible because the path of destruction leading to the Pentagon has proven beyond a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station. In addition, it would have been impossible for American 77 to fly a path north of the gas station and strike the Pentagon. They should have taken notice that the downed light poles clearly indicated a flight path south of the gas station, so with that fact in hand, why did 911  truthers continue to claim Americn 77 passed north of the gas station when the damaged light poles and interior damage within the Pentagon indicated a path south of the gas station?  You see, it is like this, they are not interested in doing homework they are just interested in creating unfounded conspiracy theories.

While on the Pentagon, there were those who have said that American 77 passed over the Pentagon and sneaked in and landed at nearby National Airport, Question is, how do you sneak into an international airport and not attract attention from radar, air and ground traffic controllers? Now you know why I have said that 911 truthers have this Hollywood mindset that belong in the movies, not in the real world. And of course you already know about Cleveland Airport and United 93, so I don't need to go there.

Next, we can take a look at claims that United 93 was shot down. I might add that an Air Combat Patrol (CAP) was set up over Washington D.C., not over the Shanksville area, so why did 911 truthers claim that United 93 was shot down and despite the fact the  shoot-down order wasn't issued until after United 93 had crashed? I consider that another serious blunder on their part..To add to that, the F-16 unit out of Andrews AFB, was not trained to shoot down airliners nor familiar with NORAD's air defense protocol.

An F-15 pilot stated for the record that even if he did intercept an airliner, he would not have shot it down. There were commanders who refused to forward the shoot-down order to their pilots for fear of shooting down an innocent aircraft and killing many innocent passengers and crew.. Many peoplel were also unware that during the CAP over Washington, there were still aircraft flying below the fighters and doing so unimpeded.

Those are just a few examples of 911 truthers not knowing the rest of the story, and not knowing the rest of the story is why 911 truthers have created unfounded conspiracy theories. You have to understand that  I have a long list of other examples, but I think these few examples should be enough to make my point very clear, but should I need to post more examples, I can whip out the next list.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 May 2013 - 06:31 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2197    Reann

Reann

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 893 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 21 May 2013 - 08:38 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 May 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

I didn't have to be there. I have experienced enough bomb explosions for many months during war to know from available WTC videos and audio there were no bomb explosions. There is a BIG difference between explosive-like sounds of structural failures and real bombs and at no time did I see explosions nor heard bomb explosions.

Demolition experts at the scene have also stated they saw no bomb explosions.
I disagree with you. I had family there  ,  first responders at the scene,  so don't attempt  to try and lie to me.

Editing this statement from :  don't attempt  to try and lie to me , to, don't attempt to try and  disinform me !

Edited by Reann, 21 May 2013 - 08:44 AM.


#2198    Reann

Reann

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 893 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 21 May 2013 - 10:29 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 21 May 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

It does prove a good point.  Most truthers are willing to believe anything that supports their cause without checking facts or proper beforehand.  

Not saying all truther are like that, however...
Why isn't anyone checking over the facts that a group of scientist have put forth in their discovery ? They found evidence of a substance . Why would anyone  ignore literal facts ?
Why  would  building 7 just fall down ?   What about the reasearch and discovery  from the grounds  around there. . Will the scientist ever be permitted to testify ?
Why  it  is now unlawful to invesigate 911 ?  Is it   because of scientist such as Dr. Harrit who  can provide facts and evidence ,which he  already discovered  and obtained ?  Is that the real reason why no one is permitted to invesigate 911  anylonger?

Why haven't  the media invited these chemist , these scientist,  on their station ? I haven't seen one of them on mainstream media  , not on  fox  ,not on  cnn , or nbc, or abc, not on cbs  I have seen one interview on   bbc  though they  did  try and disinform him  .Thankfully Dr. Harrit 's honesty, and scientific knowledge  kept that from happening...
.

Why do  "indenial theorist " want for everyone to simply believe the original conspiracy theory  that the  media , politicians,  and those whom these individuals are in the pockets of  want for you to believe.  Believe them , even when they tell you that the air there was safe to breath .


Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen,
was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC. Excellent interview.




#2199    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,540 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 01:36 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 18 May 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

I love the  " I can provide the evidence" Stundie will indeed be digging a deep hole to crawl out of ! :tu:
I love the cheer leading, it's very cute...lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2200    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,540 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 01:37 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Where is that evidence?
Its right in front of you, you just have to open your eyes. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Considering that no bomb explosions were seen on video, nor heard on audio, nor detected on seismic monitors and no evidence of explosives was ever found at ground zero, then it is apparent that no such exvidence exist especially in light of the fact that investigations have concluded that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Wrong on so many counts. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2201    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,540 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:00 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I've already told you several times, but here goes again:
Telling me this....

"The forces are different because the debris layer has mass, which means gravity acts downwards on it."

Is not a coherent sentence when you fail to explain how this force is different??

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

You say that the forces on the upper and lower blocks should be the same.  However, once a debris layer forms, the upper and  lower blocks are no longer in direct contact.
Of course they are not in direct contact, the debris is in contact with both the upper and lower blocks when they collide.

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

In this situation, the force on the upper block is the same as the force on the top of the debris layer.  
Right. So the energy is distributed equally between the upper block and the debris. The top layer of the debris is connect to lower layer of the debris, so why you separate the two is strange but I'm all ears...lol

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

The force on the lower block is the same as the force on the bottom of the debris layer.  
So if the force of the upper block is the same as the force on the top debris and the force on the lower block is the same as the force on the bottom of the debris layer.

Then I am still right am I not? lol In that the energy/force is distributed equally then?? :blink:

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

The two forces on the blocks are can only be the same if there is no net force on the debris layer, ie if the debris layer is in free fall.  
Now this is where you get all NWO physics. So what you are NOW doing is contradicting what you said above. lol

You argument is that the force on the two blocks is the same, but they are NOW not the same because the debris layer isn't in free fall? :blink: lol Are you sure this is the argument you want to defend?? lol

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

However, the lower block is providing resistance so the debris layer is  not in free fall.
Of course the debris is not going to be in free fall if it is met with the resistance of the lower block.

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Therefore the force on the lower block is greater than the force on the upper block, by the amount of force required to prevent the debris layer falling freely.
WHHOA! There!! lol

The force is still the same, if the debris hits the lower block, it will resists as the energy transferred between the lower block and the debris, which means that the lower portion has enough resistance to survive. Then when the top block comes down on the debris, the energy is still transferred equally because the debris as mass and therefore will act as a conduit between the upper and lower block.

View Postflyingswan, on 18 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

So by saying that the forces are equal, you are ignoring the debris layer.
I am not ignoring the debris. What I am doing is ignoring your silly claim until you can substantiate it...lol

"The forces are different because the debris layer has mass, which means gravity acts downwards on it."

What are these forces called? Surely there must be a name for it if it defies newton's law of physics. lol

Or is this where NWO physics comes in because physics is easier to invent and imagine than the possibility of a conspiracy?? :yes:

Edited by Stundie, 21 May 2013 - 02:00 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2202    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Of course they are not in direct contact, the debris is in contact with both the upper and lower blocks when they collide.
Dear me, you have got a lot of learning to do, no wonder you don't understand my argument if your grasp of physics is that poor.

Shall we try a static case, that would be simpler.  Picture three blocks piled vertically.  By Newton's Second Law, there is a force between the middle and top block, acting equally on them and in opposite directions.  Similarly for the force between the middle and bottom block.

The force between the middle and top blocks is the weight of the top block.  The force between the bottom and middle blocks is the weight of the top and middle blocks.  The two forces on the middle block are different, there is a net force on the middle block equal to its weight.

Can you understand all that?  If you can't agree with that, there is no point in taking this to a more complicated dynamic case.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#2203    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:15 PM

View PostReann, on 21 May 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Why isn't anyone checking over the facts that a group of scientist have put forth in their discovery ? They found evidence of a substance . Why would anyone  ignore literal facts ?
Why  would  building 7 just fall down ?   What about the reasearch and discovery  from the grounds  around there. . Will the scientist ever be permitted to testify ?
Why  it  is now unlawful to invesigate 911 ?  Is it   because of scientist such as Dr. Harrit who  can provide facts and evidence ,which he  already discovered  and obtained ?  Is that the real reason why no one is permitted to invesigate 911  anylonger?

Why haven't  the media invited these chemist , these scientist,  on their station ? I haven't seen one of them on mainstream media  , not on  fox  ,not on  cnn , or nbc, or abc, not on cbs  I have seen one interview on   bbc  though they  did  try and disinform him  .Thankfully Dr. Harrit 's honesty, and scientific knowledge  kept that from happening...
.

Why do  "indenial theorist " want for everyone to simply believe the original conspiracy theory  that the  media , politicians,  and those whom these individuals are in the pockets of  want for you to believe.  Believe them , even when they tell you that the air there was safe to breath .


Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen,
was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC. Excellent interview.



If Harriett et al is credible, then why was his group's published paper published by Bentham and not any reputable journal?  Surely the thermite paper cannot withstand proper scrutiny by a journal that does not publish complete scientific garbage.

Here is a link on Bentham being exposed as frauds:

http://www.dailypaul...frauds-they-are

Now, why did Harriett et al offer their paper to a per for peer review journal?  Is it because they willingly knew their paper could not pass standard peer review?  I would like to think so.

Now, as far as truther experts are concerned, are there any other experts that actually have research published by reputable journals?  Take your time finding them Reann,  I am sure it will take you a while...

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2204    MysticStrummer

MysticStrummer

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts
  • Joined:15 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Texas

  • The great path has no gates. Thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this gateless gate, he walks freely between heaven and earth.

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:10 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 May 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

Ask the question as to why he brought up remote control in the first place.



One of my jobs for over 40 years was modifying airplanes, and more recently, military helicopters. I have read many false stories regarding so-called switched and modified aircraft that were spread over the Internet by 911 conspiracy websites. Much of what they have posted is impossible by aviation standards, but I suspect they are hoping that no one will notice.



It means much more than you think. There was no way that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for many months in order for their aircraft to be illegally modified to fly under remote control and do so under the noses of airline mechanics and inspectors, and those of the FAA.

And remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were built and all of those aircraft belonging to American Airlines and United Airlines have been accounted for and I have even posted their numbers on other threads to make my point very clear. Additionally, altitude flight data for each aircraft proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of those aircraft were flown under remote control, so in respect, we can definitely throw out remote controlled aircraft permanently.

Since folks at those 911 conspiracy websites were unable to decipher the meaning of the altitude flight data, they decided to concoct another unwarranted conspiracy and they did so out of pure ignorance of the fact's, which once again, is how unfounded conspiracy theories are hatched.

I'd say it's obvious why he brought up remote controlled planes. That was one of the things being heavily speculated about at the time among the 9/11 conspiracy crowd, and a good number of people who came to his presentation probably thought he'd talk about that angle, along with missiles being used instead of planes and other 9/11 conspiracy theories. Instead he talked about much more plausible things, namely the money trail.

Why do you assume the government would be using a stock plane out the American Airlines fleet? Again, I don't believe they were remote controlled planes, but that seems like an odd assumption.

Having said that, it does seem to me that any plane with an autopilot could be converted to remote controlled flight. It would be expensive, and you'd need quite an elaborate setup to control the thing, but it could be done.

Edited by MysticStrummer, 21 May 2013 - 04:16 PM.

Ummon asked : "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" ~ Zen Flesh Zen Bones

#2205    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,871 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

The US military has been flying drone aircraft since 1948.  Like any other technology, they had to crawl before they could walk, but today they are fleet-footed.  In 2001 they were running quite nicely, thanks very much. :tu:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users