1999 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

RaptorBites, on 23 May 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Are you seriously claiming that missles hit the Twin Towers?  



Some people should follow their own advice.

I'm seriously claiming that missiles hit the Twin Towers.   Get a dictionary.  I follow my own advice.

[Czero 101]

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

I'm seriously claiming that missiles hit the Twin Towers.

Missiles that just happened to look exactly like Boeing 767's...?




Cz

[Yamato]

Czero 101, on 24 May 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Missiles that just happened to look exactly like Boeing 767's...?




Cz

Oh so they're not the unmarked green military planes now?   Who became a truther off of that myth, I wonder?   What's that?    Who cares?  Pick whatever nonsense off the wall you want and join the club!?

This kind of question is evidential of the way a truther has to think.  They can't understand those airliners ARE missiles.  They can't look at it like that because they're too interested in irrelevancy such as "campfires don't melt steel"

[Czero 101]

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Oh so they're not the unmarked green military planes now?   Who became a truther off of that myth, I wonder?   What's that? Who cares?  Pick whatever nonsense off the wall you want and join the club!?

This kind of question is evidential of the way a truther has to think.  They can't understand those airliners ARE missiles.  They can't look at it like that because they're too interested in irrelevancy such as "campfires don't melt steel"

Easy there, big fella...

I was merely trying to clarify what your position is since i haven't seen any of your other posts on this topic aside from what you've posted here in the last day or so. There's no need for you to be a d-bag about it

If you'd rather I ask in a long, drawn out fashion, then I can certainly accommodate that...

Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...?




Cz

[Yamato]

Czero 101, on 24 May 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Easy there, big fella...

I was merely trying to clarify what your position is since i haven't seen any of your other posts on this topic aside from what you've posted here in the last day or so. There's no need for you to be a d-bag about it

If you'd rather I ask in a long, drawn out fashion, then I can certainly accommodate that...

Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...?




Cz

Forgive me for applying yet another truther myth into my response, if that's what you mean.   When dealing with such a self-confused heap of misinformation as this is, one never knows where and when the discussion will divert into yet another conspiratorial dead end.  I like to nip the nonsense in the bud head of time, not be a d-bag.

Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...?

No.  If you confer that statement you've isolated out with the rest of my remarks made on this thread in the last 24 hours you wouldn't need to be asking me such a question.

Edited by Yamato, 24 May 2012 - 03:38 AM.

[Yamato]

There's a pattern I see in this thread.  And it involves chopping what is said or written into pieces to deliberately distort the context and create word counts several orders of magnitude greater than they need-be.  This is done with everything, the rhetoric of a bureaucrat, the writing in a report, the reply of a board member.

There's a reason that not a single Engineering Professor currently employed at a single top-10 engineering university is defending truther nonsense.   There's a reason why no PhD candidates attained their doctorates proving truther nonsense in their dissertations.  Because it's a dungheap of politically charged nonsense that serves no purpose whatsoever but to distract people from the truth.   If you dared bring this unschooled partisan nuttery to a professor at my school they would laugh you right out of their office, and rightfully so.   Acting like you know something is earned at a technical school; it isn't brought in from the outside and then unlearned.

[Czero 101]

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Forgive me for applying yet another truther myth into my response, if that's what you mean.   When dealing with such a self-confused heap of misinformation as this is, one never knows where and when the discussion will divert into yet another conspiratorial dead end.  I like to nip the nonsense in the bud head of time, not be a d-bag.

Are you saying by your assertion that "missiles hit the towers" that you don't believe that the WTC Towers were actually struck by fights AA11 and UA175 which were Boeing 767 aircraft...?

No.  If you confer that statement you've isolated out with the rest of my remarks made on this thread in the last 24 hours you wouldn't need to be asking me such a question.

Just so we're clear, Yamato, I am not a "truther".

I don't believe the "controlled demolition" claims, I know that the fires there didn't melt the structural steel nor do I believe in the "nano-thermite" non-starter.

I'm not a "No Planer" and I don't for one second put any faith or credence behind the whole "Directed Energy Weapon" bs....

I'm guessing that you haven't read any of my posts on this (or maybe on any) topic and that you don't know that about me... And that's fair since as I already said, I hadn't read any of your posts before til you showed up here in this thread the other day.

I asked you about the 767's and your "missiles" comments because they were confusing and I wanted you to state your position clearly. Some of the ways that you express your thoughts come across as if they were from an opinion that included one or more of the above CT claims, and if I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize.






Cz

[Yamato]

Czero 101, on 24 May 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

Just so we're clear, Yamato, I am not a "truther".

I don't believe the "controlled demolition" claims, I know that the fires there didn't melt the structural steel nor do I believe in the "nano-thermite" non-starter.

I'm not a "No Planer" and I don't for one second put any faith or credence behind the whole "Directed Energy Weapon" bs....

I'm guessing that you haven't read any of my posts on this (or maybe on any) topic and that you don't know that about me... And that's fair since as I already said, I hadn't read any of your posts before til you showed up here in this thread the other day.

I asked you about the 767's and your "missiles" comments because they were confusing and I wanted you to state your position clearly. Some of the ways that you express your thoughts come across as if they were from an opinion that included one or more of the above CT claims, and if I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize.






Cz

I understood you're not a truther.  Rhetoric about "missiles" in this topic are no doubt reminiscent of truther-speak, in reference to the Pentagon at least.   I understand that the reason for so much word count isn't limited to just truthers.  Truthers are generally good-hearted people wishing to believe what is true, and in the course of their conspiracy, they blame their government for crimes it didn't commit and the sad result they achieve upon doing all of this is that the real crimes and the real crooks escape justice.  I also understand the reason for your question which was answered by my previous commentary, and I also understand our agreement on this topic.

[Q24]

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

That's because I'm not the type of person to be deceived by Israel propaganda as you well know, and that propaganda has nothing to do with truther nonsense.  On the contrary, truther nonsense gives Israel propaganda the biggest favor, by taking our peoples' attention away from the truth and focusing instead on utter nonsense so that truth doesn't get out.

There is evidence that Mossad knew about the attacks before they happened and didn't warn us about it.  And that's tantamount to treason but of course our government and media swept that evidence under the rug and wouldn't investigate it further.  

I know exactly why we were attacked on 9/11 and I can start a brand new discussion once again about that very subject if need be.  But, we are talking about the collapse here and what caused it, a very specific event caused by a very specific thing.  And that's where you're getting lost in the weeds.  Let's understand the collapse correctly or your errant ideas will snowball into all manner of insults of the truth.  When you bastardize the truth into so much laughable nonsense and divert the peoples' attention away from critical facts about our history they should be paying unfettered attention to, you provide the greatest service to Zionist agendas, and you don't even know it.

And again you turn a blind eye to the substance in my post regarding Israeli links to the WTC demolitions and 9/11. You known the history of Israel and their intelligence services. So why would you do that? Why do you completely ignore those facts in your response?

I've read a lot of your posts on the United States and Middle East boards and agree with them all entirely regarding unjust Israeli policies and those who would support them. We have spoken before about that and other subjects. I think I understand your views well, and likewise when it comes to 9/11, Yamato...

For you I believe 9/11 was a deserved consequence of decades of unjust Western and Israeli policy toward the Muslim countries. It is your crux to point out that those powers should get out of the Middle East and their imperialistic wars. It galls you terribly to read a suggestion, not only that takes a level of responsibility for this bloody nose away from Muslims, making them not so important in events, but also indicates the Israelis once again outsmarted the Muslim countries through deception of their intelligence services.

That is the only way one could so vigorously criticise Israel on the one hand yet willfully turn a blind eye to their 9/11 connection on the other. It's an unusual position because on this subject it is more often with Israel or against them - you either accept the demonstrated extremeties they will go to or you don't. The only others I have seen with this almost contradictory view (that Israel are the worst murderers in one breath but would never directly assist the 9/11 attack in the next)... I won't say it but... they come from a community that takes responsibility for 9/11 with some measure of defiance.

Can I ask Yamato, are you Muslim?
Do you believe the U.S. 'asked for' 9/11?
Well honestly, I already know the answer to the second question.

I would only say to you that the 9/11 false flag, perpetrated by elements within the United States, Israel and other sources, does not detract from your own message but works alongside it. The understandable resentment of the Muslim countries toward the U.S and Israel had to exist in the first place for the false flag attack to be viable. And indeed Muslim fighters, or 'Al Qaeda' if you want to call them that, were involved in the setup of 9/11, that is beyond doubt to me. Though the fact remains that agents of the Western powers were all over 'Al Qaeda', drove the hijackers and not only facilitated but directly assisted the attack.

A simple question: cui bono? To whose benefit was 9/11? And there are your lead suspects.

Now we have a strong case for demolition of the WTC buildings here on this thread... are you going to tell me, those Israeli agents, arrested the morning of 9/11 specifically for celebrating the tower collapes, with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van, what was their purpose in the country? Or will you continue to blank out such facts for the above reasons I have given?

Edited by Q24, 24 May 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Yamato]

Q24, on 24 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

And again you turn a blind eye to the substance in my post regarding Israeli links to the WTC demolitions and 9/11. You known the history of Israel and their intelligence services. So why would you do that? Why do you completely ignore those facts in your response?

I've read a lot of your posts on the United States and Middle East boards and agree with them all entirely regarding unjust Israeli policies and those who would support them. We have spoken before about that and other subjects. I think I understand your views well, and likewise when it comes to 9/11, Yamato...

For you I believe 9/11 was a deserved consequence of decades of unjust Western and Israeli policy toward the Muslim countries. It is your crux to point out that those powers should get out of the Middle East and their imperialistic wars. It galls you terribly to read a suggestion, not only that takes a level of responsibility for this bloody nose away from Muslims, making them not so important in events, but also indicates the Israelis once again outsmarted the Muslim countries through deception of their intelligence services.

That is the only way one could so vigorously criticise Israel on the one hand yet willfully turn a blind eye to their 9/11 connection on the other. It's an unusual position because on this subject it is more often with Israel or against them - you either accept the demonstrated extremeties they will go to or you don't. The only others I have seen with this almost contradictory view (that Israel are the worst murderers in one breath but would never directly assist the 9/11 attack in the next)... I won't say it but... they come from a community that takes responsibility for 9/11 with some measure of defiance.

Can I ask Yamato, are you Muslim?
Do you believe the U.S. 'asked for' 9/11?
Well honestly, I already know the answer to the second question.

I would only say to you that the 9/11 false flag, perpetrated by elements within the United States, Israel and other sources, does not detract from your own message but works alongside it. The understandable resentment of the Muslim countries toward the U.S and Israel had to exist in the first place for the false flag attack to be viable. And indeed Muslim fighters, or 'Al Qaeda' if you want to call them that, were involved in the setup of 9/11, that is beyond doubt to me. Though the fact remains that agents of the Western powers were all over 'Al Qaeda', drove the hijackers and not only facilitated but directly assisted the attack.

A simple question: cui bono? To whose benefit was 9/11? And there are your lead suspects.

Now we have a strong case for demolition of the WTC buildings here on this thread... are you going to tell me, those Israeli agents, arrested the morning of 9/11 specifically for celebrating the tower collapes, with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van, what was their purpose in the country? Or will you continue to blank out such facts for the above reasons I have given?

Understanding that airliners collapsed the towers isn't mutually exclusive to Israeli agents playing a role in the 9/11 attacks.  It only restricts precisely what kind of role they may have played.  For example, they didn't attend the flight schools and they didn't hijack the planes.  So while I can talk about what brought the towers down and what roles Israelis did not play easily enough, I'm not denying that anyone had a hand involved due to nothing more than the lack of evidence.   There are plenty of tedious facts about 9/11 that we don't have, and if those facts are uncovered in time, I hope we can all revise our opinions accordingly.  But because I find Israeli policy despicable doesn't mean that an alleged motive is evidence that a crime was committed.   I'm sure the 9/11 attacks made some Zionists very happy because now the US could relate to the brand of modern terrorism the Zionists invented.   I don't take that possibility and glue it together with a lot of other unrelated and unsubstantiated possibilities and think they stack up on one another until conspiratorial heights are reached.   And if I needed a conspiracy theory to despise Zionist rule or the Israeli lobby, I wouldn't have been paying attention to what it's doing right in front of our noses.

I wouldn't deny that 9/11 was made into a false flag attack due to how it was (and wasn't) responded to.   We get conspiracy theory and a war in Iraq.  I couldn't ask for a more unwanted pair of babies for an event that important.

Those who declared war on the US and were chomping at the bit to retaliate against us benefited from the attack.  No, I'm not a Muslim.  No, I absolutely do NOT think the US asked for it; I think US foreign policy did.   Again, it's the policy that matters; it's policy that counts.   It's unbelievable the stretch that so many people make to turn a foreign policy (or ANY policy) into a country, a race, an ethnicity, a religion, or a geographical region.  I will not join in such exercises (hello michaelw) because I don't respect foreign policy enough to honor it with such grand inclusion.   If we change a policy, a lot of good people don't wind up dying on behalf of some very bad people not worth jabbing our fingers at anymore.  And certainly not subsidizing them with foreign aid, government contracts, weapons proliferation, leverage in the oil markets, rampant violations of the constitution, assassinations, the penetration of American politics by foreign interests, UN hypocrisy, preemptive war, chronic violations of civil liberties, and I could go on and on.

This can be a complex subject and strong crosswinds are blowing everywhere.  I haven't explicitly disagreed with any post on this thread you've written.   I'm saying very little in the grand scheme of things, that the airliners brought the buildings down.   There's a lot of damnable evidence we can waste time reminding ourselves about, but none of it confers to this.  There are many guilty hands in creating the dangerous, and in a few cases barbaric world we live in today.  Israel is responsible for its hand in maintaining a western mindset driving militancy and an unholy way of treating people that causes hatred and resentment against us, for creating a climate in the world where terrorist attacks like 9/11 are not only possible, but sadly I believe very likely to happen again given our insolence and inability to stop doing what we're doing.   The world is run by fear and blood and I'd like to see less of that, and more brains and benevolence instead.  I'm sure you agree with that, sir.

Edited by Yamato, 24 May 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 23 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Thank you for that. I'm having trouble finding time to even post at the moment but will try to get a handle on GIMP/Jahshaka when I get chance.

No problem.

Q24, on 23 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

The problem with this theory is that it does not explain why the visible antena piece should come to be in an apparent fixed pivot (rotational) motion at the midpoint of collapse (rather than spinning end on end or simply flung) nor why it should be at a perfect distance from its starting location to fit rotation of the upper block. Due to this I'm certain that the upper block rotated well outside of the tower footprint - that is why we see loss of momentum halfway through collapse and the opposite (North) portion of the core columns initially survive.

I disagree.  You are basing this full rotation assumption on your initial analysis of the initial video, which is extremely difficult to identify details like the angle of the antenna chunk throughout collapse.  There really aren't any great videos that fully capture the motion, but if you review all of them you can start to get a handle on the likely motion of the chunk we see emerge from the debris cloud.

If you watch the antenna chunk emerge in this video, you'll note that the initial angle of the chunk is far too vertical to be consistent with your full rotation theory.  Or at least, you should note this.  It is also clear to me that the movement and continued rotation of the chunk here is completely fluid as it falls, meaning that it broke off from the rest of the antenna before emerging and not after.  This matches precisely with the idea that the section above the guy wires broke apart shortly after descending into the cloud and that the chunk was propelled horizontally outside of the collapse zone by the whipping motions we saw in the videos I previously referenced.

Q24, on 23 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

And again, this alone invalidates Bazant's assumption as it stands: "That must have started the downward motion of the top part of the South Tower, and afterwards its motion must have become predominantly vertical."

The actual observations (rotation, loss of momentum, initial survival of core columns - all indications of severe resistance from the lower block) at the midpoint (rather than beginning) of collapse, are not at all what could be expected of a natural progressive collapse, but actually a process of demolition that was not perfectly timed throughout the destruction.

Your assumption that the antenna chunk was still attached to the antenna is what has been shown to be false Q24, and that is the premise which your full rotation theory relies upon.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I would only say to you that the 9/11 false flag, perpetrated by elements within the United States, Israel and other sources, does not detract from your own message but works alongside it. The understandable resentment of the Muslim countries toward the U.S and Israel had to exist in the first place for the false flag attack to be viable. And indeed Muslim fighters, or 'Al Qaeda' if you want to call them that, were involved in the setup of 9/11, that is beyond doubt to me. Though the fact remains that agents of the Western powers were all over 'Al Qaeda', drove the hijackers and not only facilitated but directly assisted the attack.

All of that just to raise the defense budget??? Why not just do it the old-fashion way: ask for a raise in the budget. Aircrews are having problems getting replacements for their flight suits because the Air Force lacks money, so does that mean that it is time to blow up  buildings so we can go to war and get the budget raised in order to have enough money to replace their old flight suits?

Quote

Now we have a strong case for demolition of the WTC buildings here on this thread...

In reality, you have no case. Demolition experts who were on the scene have said there was no evidence of explosives, no blasting caps, not detonation cords, not even evidence on the recovered structural columns, which would have been expected if explosives were used and you wouldn't have to look for it because it would have been clearly evident in front of your eyes.

Quote

...are you going to tell me, those Israeli agents, arrested the morning of 9/11 specifically for celebrating the tower collapes, with sniffer dogs reacting as though detecting explosives in their van, what was their purpose in the country?

Was their dancing routine considered a crime? I hope you realize they were eventually released and that their van did not contain explosives after all.

[Babe Ruth]

That exchange between Yamato The Missle and Cz really lightened things up alot!  One of the funniest I've read here.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 24 May 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

And again you turn a blind eye to the substance in my post regarding Israeli links to the WTC demolitions and 9/11.

What links?? There are no links involving the Israelis and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[Q24]

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I'm sure the 9/11 attacks made some Zionists very happy because now the US could relate to the brand of modern terrorism the Zionists invented.

You bet...

"It’s very good [9/11]… well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel]."
~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2001


"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq."
~Benjamin Netanyahu, 2008

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I don't take that possibility and glue it together with a lot of other unrelated and unsubstantiated possibilities and think they stack up on one another until conspiratorial heights are reached.

If the building blocks of motive, intent, viability, participation, logic, etc, are all there (which I can prove they are), then why not?

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I'm saying very little in the grand scheme of things, that the airliners brought the buildings down.

When all precedent, science and evidence (or lack of) go against impact and fire induced collapses, and the actual observations suggest demolition, remarkable ownership and insurance deals are put in place by Zionists weeks beforehand, the towers required refurbishment of the asbestos that would have cost more than rebuilding them, the steelwork refurbishment contractor with access to the structures was a Neocon associate, the WTC owner declares interest on the morning to demolish his building, and Israeli agents are detained for celebrating the collapses with the indication of having carried explosives in their van (which you have still turned a blind eye to), amongst so much more...

What else is the objective person to think?

I don't understand why anyone who has thoroughly studied the subject and is objective would think airliners and/or fires brought the buildings down. The WTC buildings were demolished, charges were placed in the core structure to bring them down and propel the event to the required/Neocon pre-stated severity, it's no big deal to accept.

Yamato, on 24 May 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

The world is run by fear and blood and I'd like to see less of that, and more brains and benevolence instead. I'm sure you agree with that, sir.

Absolutely, that is why I believe we need to raise awareness so that the public are not led the fear and blood route through politicians' false flag deceptions as history shows has occurred time and again.  And again this is not meant to detract from the fact the West need to stop interferring in the Middle East and supporting unjust Israeli policies - by doing so, this would ensure events like 9/11, whatever their true nature, are not viable in the first place.