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

#2206    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:36 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Its right in front of you, you just have to open your eyes.
Wrong on so many counts. lol

Yeah, right, and after more than 11 years,  not one shred of evidence of a government 911 conspiracy. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2207    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:38 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 21 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

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.

I concur!  It is very clear that he has no understanding of physics.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2208    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:45 PM

View PostReann, on 21 May 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I disagree with you. I had family there  ,  first responders at the scene,  so don't attempt  to try and lie to me.

Brent Blanchard and members of his company were in fact, at ground zero. He is considered one of the top demolition experts in the world. He did in fact, confirm that no explosives were used.
Check it out.

Quote

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm


Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

Now, what was that you were saying?!

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 May 2013 - 05:49 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2209    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:22 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 May 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

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:

View PostMysticStrummer, on 21 May 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

I'd say it's obvious why he brought up remote controlled planes.

Apparently, he didn't understand why those aircraft could not have been modified to fly under remote control and not draw serious attention. One of my jobs was the modification of aircraft, large and small, including helicopters, and when I see someone claiming the aircraft were modified to fly under remote control, then that tells me they have no idea what they are talking about. In addition, the airlines would not have grounded those aircraft for many months in order to have them illegally modified to fly under remote control and do so under the noses of their mechanics and inspectors. The aircraft were not  flown under remote control and all he had to do was to look at the altitude flight data chart  to make that determination.

Quote

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.

Missiles are easily ruled out with radar data alone and remember, you still have to account for the passengers and crew of those aircraft if you claim the aircraft were switched.

Quote

Instead he talked about much more plausible things, namely the money trail.

There are those within the 911 truther movement who seem to think that $2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon, however, they were unaware of the rest of the story. Had they done their homework, they would have determined that the money wasn't missing at all, instead, they created another unfounded conspiracy theory.

Quote

Why do you assume the government would be using a stock plane out the American Airlines fleet?

A stock plane? You have to remember, there were only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft built and all are accounted for. In fact, I have even posted B-767 and B-757 fleet histories and add to the fact that American Airlines and United Airlines have confirmed the loss of their aircraft and they said nothing of so-called, "stock planes.".


Quote

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.

First of all, you would have to redesign the control system of the B-767s and the B-757s and that takes a large facility, a lot of engineering and tech data, special equipment, tools, and lots of people and money, which means that a very long and traceable paper trail will be generated. In addition, the pilot in the cockpit can easily override the autopilot.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2210    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:26 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 .

No they didn't!

Quote

Why  would  building 7 just fall down ?

The result of fire, which was evident when WTC7 buckled before it collapsed as was the case with the WTC towers.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2211    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,652 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:53 PM

Wait ! What about all the Families that had people on the Planes ? Were they made up out of the Fogg ? These C.T`s have not a foot to stand on
It happened just as it`s been proven to Happen. Two Jet Airliners with people and Souls All Lost What part of the Truth do they not Get?

This is a Work in Progress!

#2212    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:05 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 21 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

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.
I think we will find when you abandon this for my so called lack of understanding and grasp of physics, that its not my understanding that is the problem, it's your explanation/argument, it will fall apart as it did when Newtons Bit tried to explain it. But we will see.;)

View Postflyingswan, on 21 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

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.
:blink: lol Yes! Jesus Christ....

Now are you going to explain how these net force come into play with your theory of how an upper block and a cushion of debris which on one side is soft and fluffy guiding the upper portions downward in a floaty manner, while on the other side, is like a jack hammer pounding the lower much stronger block into oblivion?

Or are you going to patronise us by stating the obvious again?? lol

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

#2213    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:08 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 05:36 PM, said:

Yeah, right, and after more than 11 years,  not one shred of evidence of a government 911 conspiracy. :no:
There is evidence and the reason you keep repeating that there is no evidence of a conspiracy, is because there is evidence. If you say it enough times, you will convince yourself.  If you honestly believed that there is no evidence, you wouldn't be here on this thread. lol

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

#2214    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:13 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Brent Blanchard and members of his company were in fact, at ground zero.
Of course he was...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

He is considered one of the top demolition experts in the world.
So his website says even though he has never demolished a building.

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

He did in fact, confirm that no explosives were used.
Check it out.
I'll take my word from experts who have real life experience in demolishing buildings and not just attending them. lol

Check it out. Facts and Evidence...lol
John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer
I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."
I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 May 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Now, what was that you were saying?!
Is that your guy with no experience confirms there was no explosive, my guy with real experience confirms there was explosives.

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

#2215    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:49 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Of course he was...

No he didn't! :no: And, he got certain facts all wrong. Ask him what the significance of finding no barium nitrate means, and then, you will see what I mean. :yes:

Quote

Check it out. Facts and Evidence..
John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer
I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."[/qute]

With no evidence of explosives on video, nor on audio nor detected by seismic monitors and no evidence of explosives found, he has no case either. :no:
I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy!


With no evidence to back that up, he has no case.

Quote

There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!


He failed to take into consideration that temperatures of 1500 degrees can weaken steel in  relatively short period of time, now why wasn't he aware of that fact?

Quote

...
Is that your guy with no experience confirms there was no explosive, my guy with real experience confirms there was explosives.

It is of no surprise to me why demolition experts and firefights, architects and civil engineers disagree with him as well and why firefighters have onfirmed that fire, not explosives was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, so the fact remains, you have no evidence of explosives, which simply that means that  you have no case.

.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2216    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

There is evidence and the reason you keep repeating that there is no evidence of a conspiracy, is because there is evidence. If you say it enough times, you will convince yourself.  If you honestly believed that there is no evidence, you wouldn't be here on this thread.

After more than 11 years, where is the evidence? The investigative reporters with major news agencies didn't uncover explosive evidence either.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2217    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:51 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Check it out. Facts and Evidence...lol
John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer
I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."
I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!
Is that your guy with no experience confirms there was no explosive, my guy with real experience confirms there was explosives.

Hahaha!  That's a good one, Stundie, "facts and evidence".  You sure have an odd definition of 'confirms' if you are offering up the opinion of this 'journeyman' (snicker) 'operating engineer' who has 'helped' (lol) in the planning of demolitions and 'often' (LOL!) works for a demolition company, who also apparently moonlights as a psychologist who we can trust to correctly ascertain what people 'fear' (Bwaahahaha!) the most.  What incredibly high standards you do have for who qualifies as an expert....

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2218    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 May 2013 - 11:53 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 21 May 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Wait ! What about all the Families that had people on the Planes ? Were they made up out of the Fogg ? These C.T`s have not a foot to stand on
It happened just as it`s been proven to Happen. Two Jet Airliners with people and Souls All Lost What part of the Truth do they not Get?

911 truthers don't think of important things like that, which is why they concoct unfounded conspiracy theories which have been debunked with true evidence time after time.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2219    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:16 AM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

."
I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects,...

How many of those buildings were struck by a B-767? The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire as has been the case in other steel-framed buildings.

Quote

the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these

A  pure Hollywood mindset considering that a number of countries around the world had also warned the United States that Muslim terrorist were going to attack America, and some of those warnings mentioned the use of aircraft in their attacks.

With those facts in hand, just consider yourself another duped victim.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 May 2013 - 01:16 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2220    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,675 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:08 AM

View PostStundie, on 21 May 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Now are you going to explain how these net force come into play with your theory of how an upper block and a cushion of debris which on one side is soft and fluffy guiding the upper portions downward in a floaty manner, while on the other side, is like a jack hammer pounding the lower much stronger block into oblivion?

Well, what is happening here and remember, no explosive is used during this demolition process.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users