3292 replies to this topic

[beale947]

with bells on, on 27 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

haha.. too funny.. this is one of those topics that is kind of pointless even debating.. at the end of the day, i guess we all see what we want.. and your evidence is giving me zero chance of that ever changing for me..

i cant find the photo i want.. its of the hole in the pentagon and how it was such a clean hit, that nothing is disturbed in the rest of the room.. which is proof no plane came through.. yes, not surprising its not easy to find online..  

take care guys..

Blind leading the blind.

[turbonium]

Czero 101, on 27 October 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

And oddly enough they did survive the impacts. Both of them survived the impacts.

The subsequent fires, however, are a completely different story, and one that was not taken into account when the towers were "designed to be hit by planes".

The planes flew on liquified cheese (usually cheddar) back in those days, so fire "was not taken into account" in a plane impact

Or a bunch of complete morons designed it, not a clue that planes have fuel, and lots of it, or what can happen if it's under immense pressure - say, by impacting a steel tower...

You have a choice, No logic required.

[with bells on]

beale947, on 27 October 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Blind leading the blind.

ignorance is bliss..

[MID]

with bells on, on 27 October 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

ignorance is bliss..

And I am thinking (just briefly, as I've little time for this type of junk):

You must be very blissful?

Edited by MID, 27 October 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[MID]

with bells on, on 27 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

haha.. too funny.. this is one of those topics that is kind of pointless even debating.. at the end of the day, i guess we all see what we want.. and your evidence is giving me zero chance of that ever changing for me..

i cant find the photo i want.. its of the hole in the pentagon and how it was such a clean hit, that nothing is disturbed in the rest of the room.. which is proof no plane came through.. yes, not surprising its not easy to find online..  

take care guys..

Actually, those of us who actually know what we're seeing, and who aren't occupied by the CT mindset, and the total distrust of government, and the attendant theory-creating that results from that attitude (oh, and I must include the lack of engineering knowledge), aren't surprized at all at what we've seen, and at what's been concluded from the relatively clear evidence.

Just thought I'd make that clear to you.   You take care too!

[MID]

with bells on, on 27 October 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

cause the workers in the pentagon that survived and walked out through the hole of the missile, said that there was no plane.. i would take their word over whatever rubbish the govt will plant and tell you.. havnt you watched the docos??  i have never seen or heard that they found any plane material at the pentagon.. http://m.youtube.com...h?v=aXUo0Ody-aQ

its ok that you think it was a terrorist attack, but it doesnt take too much research and hearing the testimonies of people that were at these sites (WTC) to see what the truth is.. this is the thing with this world we live in.. people are blind.. they just believe whatever the govt tell them.. i believed it all too.. it was awful.. but the facts are the facts.. and the outcome is that it was a false flag.. sorry.. the truth is ugly..






Nahhh.   No debris at all.



It's getting even harder to locate debris at the Pentagon site...



Yes, there was no debris...other than the tons found and recovered.  No bodies (perhaps you expect the graphic evidentiary photos posted here???)  

I just remember all kinds of fire, all kinds of pieces of airplane, lots of burning stuff of varying types, and uh....lots of human parts and things I'd rather not have to see.


But I suppose there will always be that faction of people who will refuse to see the actuality, and will make up convenient fiction--to somehow make their minds clear and have some peace(???)

[MID]

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

The planes flew on liquified cheese (usually cheddar) back in those days, so fire "was not taken into account" in a plane impact

Or a bunch of complete morons designed it, not a clue that planes have fuel, and lots of it, or what can happen if it's under immense pressure - say, by impacting a steel tower...

You have a choice, No logic required.

And you have no choice.
Sleep is necessary.  Get some.

Your post was truly "affected".   Not really a post, but just some words.

Edited by MID, 27 October 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[turbonium]

MID, on 27 October 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

And you have no choice.
Sleep is necessary.  Get some.

Your post was truly "affected".   Not really a post, but just some words.

You're correct - I was in a giddy state of mind, caused by a lack of sleep.

I'm now refreshed, and good to go!

It was meant to be a sarcastic post. I assumed you wouldn't take "liquified cheese" literally.

It appears to have gone right over your head. Anyway, I'll explain it in basic terms...   

Czero claimed that the WTC towers were designed to withstand plane impacts (like on 9/11).., but they did not take fires into account.

(Sidenote: to make an outlandish claim is one thing, but to not show even a shred of proof for it....well, I felt that deserved the blatant sarcasm in return.

Do you accept this claim as true, like Czero does? If so, then please show me the proof.

I know that Leslie Robertson has said the towers were designed for withstanding a 707 plane impact, but I don't recall him making claims regarding the subsequent fires. And even if he did say it, there is no proof at all. On the contrary, it's in direct contradiction to others, who have stated that fires were taken into account.

John Skillings ...

""We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

http://community.sea...27&slug=1687698

So we have two claims that differ on one specific issue - the fires. Only one of these two claims can be true. So which one makes more sense to you? Not exactly a tough choice, is it? We know a plane has fuel. We know this fuel is highly combustible, flammable, as in 'fires'. We know a fuel tank is combustible, it explodes. And we know that explosions will...you guessed it...cause FIRES.

So, when they designed these buildings to withstand a plane impact - like on 9/11, for example - what would they possibly 'take into account'? You know.

Source of the archived page...

http://911research.w...esign.html#ref3

[Czero 101]

Its interesting that you don't put nearly as much effort into researching YOUR OWN ludicrous claims, Turbs.... maybe you should look into that....








Cz

[skyeagle409]

Why doesn't it surprise me that 9/11 conspiracy folks continue to get taken to the cleaners over false and misleading information, hoaxed photos and videos. It has been more than 11 years since the 9/11 attacks and still no evidence of a government conspiracy in sight.

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 October 2012 - 07:53 AM.

[turbonium]

Why Threads Die

The Anti-Post raises its ugly head.

This is a vile post that offers nothing of value to the thread, and wastes everyone's time reading,

We see the Anti-Post in the last two examples above. One Anti-Post says nothing, That immediately sends another Anti-post into action, playing the role of 'Anti-Post cheerleader', by a liberal sprinkling of 'smiley-face' icons.

The Anti-Post can spread out over a whole page, if left untreated. Soon the entire thread is diluted with poisoned posts, and everyone else leaves it to die. It's quite horrible.

.

[skyeagle409]

MID, on 27 October 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

its ok that you think it was a terrorist attack, but it doesnt take too much research and hearing the testimonies of people that were at these sites (WTC) to see what the truth is.. this is the thing with this world we live in.. people are blind.. they just believe whatever the govt tell them.. i believed it all too.. it was awful.. but the facts are the facts.. and the outcome is that it was a false flag.. sorry.. the truth is ugly..






Nahhh.   No debris at all.



It's getting even harder to locate debris at the Pentagon site...



Yes, there was no debris...other than the tons found and recovered.  No bodies (perhaps you expect the graphic evidentiary photos posted here???)  

I just remember all kinds of fire, all kinds of pieces of airplane, lots of burning stuff of varying types, and uh....lots of human parts and things I'd rather not have to see.


But I suppose there will always be that faction of people who will refuse to see the actuality, and will make up convenient fiction--to somehow make their minds clear and have some peace(???)

Definitely doesn't look like wreckage from a cruise missile in those photos.

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why Threads Die

The Anti-Post raises its ugly head.

This is a vile post that offers nothing of value to the thread, and wastes everyone's time reading,

We see the Anti-Post in the last two examples above. One Anti-Post says nothing, That immediately sends another Anti-post into action, playing the role of 'Anti-Post cheerleader', by a liberal sprinkling of 'smiley-face' icons.

The Anti-Post can spread out over a whole page, if left untreated. Soon the entire thread is diluted with poisoned posts, and everyone else leaves it to die. It's quite horrible.

.

So your solution is to post your own "anti-post" that itself adds nothing to the topic...?

Ignorant irony and Hypocrisy... the true hallmarks of a Turbonium post of late....






Cz

[MID]

Czero 101, on 27 October 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

You'd have to present evidence first. So far all you have is a woefully uninformed and apparently biased opinion.

Cz

Uh, yep Cz.   I can't, nor should I enter anything more to that.

However, you've got yourself a hell of a poster there to teach.  Good luck and all the help you may need is right here!

[Crumar]

At the end of the day you guys can claim there is 757 wreckage there and it might very well have been placed there but the fact still remains even if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon parts of the tail section along with the many engine parts would still be visible and not destroyed.  I read some of the responses and I understand where some of you would think that this was from a 757 but it is not.  Like I said either some of you are a part of the cover-up or just are so skeptical and do not want to believe that you refuse to see the evidence before you.  Again there may very well have been a plane crash but not from a 757 because if there was you would see regardless if it was a bunker proof structure a large part of the tail section, large part of both engines, along with large parts of wing sections which is NOT found there.  Only little pieces dug up here and there a plane that big will not turn into a little jig saw puzzle you can claim otherwise but it just will not happen.  Look at all the other plane crashes that crashed into mountains and still have large parts of the plane showing.  So again show me your evidence of a Large tail section, wings or engine and I mean LARGE not some turbine and very little pieces of debris and I will cease saying a 757 did not crash into the building.  

If you can't show me that then whatever you write is refuted because these things must survive in order for it to have happened.  Jet fuel and re-enforced concrete will not destroy every single large part of a plane it just will not happen end of story.  Finally if you can please explain to me why the FBI and other law enforcement agencies refuse to release to the public other video evidence along with the black box recording that would and should be found at the crash site please enlighten me as to why to this day they refuse to release any of these evidence.  A black box is made to withstand the fire and impacts caused by such an accident and out of all the 100’s of plane crashes that occurred while these were installed only on 9/11 were they not able to supposedly recover them.  The chances of them all being destroyed is absurd as almost always a black box is recovered.  As you know firefighters at the crash site of the world trade center have said that 3 out of 4 black boxes were recovered by the FBI so we know they are out there and although I have not been at the Pentagon crash site I am sure at least one of the two black boxes in that plane should have survived even that impact.