431 replies to this topic

[Spectre1979]

What a load of BS (re post 1). No planes... pfffft

[Rhomphaia]

Revoprod, on 16 April 2010 - 03:22 AM, said:

What, you expected the planes to emerge completely unscathed? ~~

Don't worry about it. That is a form of fallacious argument called a redirection statement. The tactic is used (especially by 9/11 truthers) to try and both foist the burden of proof onto their opponents and to bring unanswered questions as solid evidence that supports their arguments.

[Hocus]

Revoprod, on 16 April 2010 - 03:22 AM, said:

What, you expected the planes to emerge completely unscathed? ~~

No I don't...but both planes disappeared into the towers unscathed, didn't they. No engines or wings fell off. The nose never crumpled. Super plane!

I do expect debris at the pentagon and Pennsylvania...but none of any decent size were found. Pennsylvania was a joke..and anyone who genuinely believes a plane crashed there on that day needs their head checking out.

[Hocus]

Ok, here's one.

If the CCTV footage confiscated by the FBI and CIA from hotels and gas stations over looking the pentagon, and some of the home footage seized from the people who filmed the second plane, showed what we were all told happened in the official 9/11 commission. Why the need to seize so much footage and keep it secret. I mean what's the big secret?

[Alien Being]

Hocus, on 16 April 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

No I don't...but both planes disappeared into the towers unscathed, didn't they. No engines or wings fell off. The nose never crumpled. Super plane!

I do expect debris at the pentagon and Pennsylvania...but none of any decent size were found. Pennsylvania was a joke..and anyone who genuinely believes a plane crashed there on that day needs their head checking out.

Planes are not made out of tin foil and when travelling at velocity can penetrate several metres of concrete.

As an engineering graduate who has studied materials science in depth I can say there is no evidence to suggest planes didnt crash into the buildings or Pentagon. The Pentagon is not made out of normal concrete it is hardened against hostile attacks in times of warfare. It wont even be reinforced with normal steel either it will contain state of the art building materials the type of which battle armour on tanks is made from.

Also the logistical effort to stage 9/11 would of involved 1000's of people and strangly not one of them has coem forward to spill the beans.

Edited by Alien Being, 16 April 2010 - 01:28 PM.

[zenfahr]

aquatus1, on 15 April 2010 - 10:52 PM, said:

There are a couple of different types, but generally they are cutters that use a thermal reaction, usually with either aluminum or magnesium, and oxygen to create unbelievable amounts of heat to melt through practically anything.

The ones usually used in these sorts of situations (cutting massive, thick, walls of steel) are magnesium tubes with aluminum rods, with oxygen pumped through it.  The tip is ignited and the rod is pushed and dragged through the steel, melting its way through.

Ok so we have established thay they were cut.... So what if, they were cut before the attack, not all of them mind you but just some key beams.... just to insure that the buildings would fall straight down after it was struck.  I know, that does not nessisarly mean that our govern't was behind it, as it was pre-meditated by someone. Im just not so quick into buying into the offical story.

[aquatus1]

zenfahr, on 16 April 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Ok so we have established thay they were cut.... So what if, they were cut before the attack, not all of them mind you but just some key beams.... just to insure that the buildings would fall straight down after it was struck.  I know, that does not nessisarly mean that our govern't was behind it, as it was pre-meditated by someone. Im just not so quick into buying into the offical story.

It would be somewhat redundant.  A building that massive wouldn't need to have the beams cut in order to fall straight down.  A building that large has no choice other than to fall straight down.

[TK0001]

zenfahr, on 16 April 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Ok so we have established thay they were cut.... So what if, they were cut before the attack, not all of them mind you but just some key beams.... just to insure that the buildings would fall straight down after it was struck.  I know, that does not nessisarly mean that our govern't was behind it, as it was pre-meditated by someone. Im just not so quick into buying into the offical story.

The beam you posted was cut at the ground. Yet the initiation of collapse of both towers happened in the area of both plane impacts.

They didn't collapse from the bottom. This leads me to believe that that beam was cut after the fact, during cleanup. Think about it - all that debris had to get cut down to fit into trucks, right? So the huge chunks had to have been reduced before loading somehow. Torches had to be used.

[TK0001]

Hocus, on 16 April 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

No I don't...but both planes disappeared into the towers unscathed, didn't they. No engines or wings fell off. The nose never crumpled. Super plane!

Hocus, tell us what it should have looked like. Should the planes have just bounced off the buildings? Or crumpled up into little balls and fallen to the ground, leaving the buildings intact?

[TK0001]

KennyB, on 16 April 2010 - 01:21 AM, said:

Yeah, that might have been used in the cleanup but it's beside the point.

Uhh....no, that's the whole point of this conversation.

KennyB, on 16 April 2010 - 01:21 AM, said:

All 3 of these buildings fell at free fall.

Prove it.

KennyB, on 16 April 2010 - 01:21 AM, said:

Getting that BS about a thermal lance in the conversation is just to confuse the issue.   KennyB

Yes, we're clearly trying to steer the conversation away from the completely obvious mini-nuke which went off in the basement. I suppose you won't be providing any sort of evidence for this, as per SOP?

[TK0001]

KennyB, on 16 April 2010 - 02:27 AM, said:

Hocus means well and he is right. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. It is the biggest conpiracy ever played against the American people. The U.S. Govt and the Mossad murdered over 3000 people right in front of your eyes, blamed it on the Muslims and went and invaded 2 innocent countries for their oil. They got away with it, leaving nothing behind except a c*** and bull story. There probably were no planes hijacked. Those were CIA planes painted to look like the airline planes. They probably went to a secret base while the radio-controlled ones were used as bombs. No plane hit the Pentagon, the plane flew over it and landed. The last one was shot down or delibertly blown up in the air. All the passengers were killed and disposed of. There were not a great number of people that knew about it. The Mossad did most of the dirty work and went home. The CIA and FBI mostly cleaned up behind them. The govt has the edge. They can give any kind of fool excuse they please and you can believe it or not. What can you do about it? Then there's always some that take the govt side and help cover it up.  KennyB

And, in keeping with the SOP, the inevitable attempt to take the conversation in 16 different directions instead of keeping it focused upon the issue at hand.

[zenfahr]

TK0001, on 16 April 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

The beam you posted was cut at the ground. Yet the initiation of collapse of both towers happened in the area of both plane impacts.

They didn't collapse from the bottom. This leads me to believe that that beam was cut after the fact, during cleanup. Think about it - all that debris had to get cut down to fit into trucks, right? So the huge chunks had to have been reduced before loading somehow. Torches had to be used.

Yeah you and Aquatus are probally right.

[aquatus1]

zenfahr, on 16 April 2010 - 03:03 PM, said:

Yeah you and Aquatus are probally right.

Probably.  Not necessarily, but probably.

[shaka5]

Hocus, on 16 April 2010 - 01:23 PM, said:

Ok, here's one.

If the CCTV footage confiscated by the FBI and CIA from hotels and gas stations over looking the pentagon, and some of the home footage seized from the people who filmed the second plane, showed what we were all told happened in the official 9/11 commission. Why the need to seize so much footage and keep it secret. I mean what's the big secret?

I've seen interviews before where people have stated footage being seized and i admit i found that weird...i don't believe the story about PA, plus that video from the Pentagon just don't fly at all...that was like someone spitting on you and telling you its raining.

But again, i can vouch for the towers being hit with planes...i actually saw that, plus friends and family worked right there and saw it with their own eyes

[TK0001]

shaka5, on 16 April 2010 - 03:09 PM, said:

I've seen interviews before where people have stated footage being seized and i admit i found that weird.

I'm no forensics expert, but in a crime scene, I believe it's standard to confiscate all the evidence for analysis. I guess I don't see why it's so fishy.