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.


* * * - - 2 votes

911


  • Please log in to reply
990 replies to this topic

#46    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:37 PM

Yes, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.  One can point the way for another, but one cannot make him think.

Raptor

I never claimed to know the answers to your questions.  I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW those answers to understand that I was deceived.  I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW how the magician has deceived me to know that I've been deceived.

I do know the answers to a few of your questions: Evidence of explosives WERE found at WTC.  Besides the by-products of the thermite reaction being found in the dust that coated everything down there, video and audio evidence show explosions.  Many people reported explosions.  Explosions blew huge pieces of structural steel exoskeleton horizontally several hundred feet.

CT is not an organized religion with a given set of dogma, Raptor.  At least, I am not a member of that church.  I am one independent person who believed that nonsense for 4 years (with questions) until I began to study what evidence there actually is.  Maybe beta blocker therapy helped me but the psychic trauma behind me, maybe not.  It doesn't matter.

I cannot help but wonder if you are in that group of people who believed all the lies and leaks of Bush & Co regarding WMD, and Jessica Lynch, and all that other nonsense?

I did not believe Bush & Co for the simple reason that my military training and experience, though decades old and very limited, allowed me to understand that Iraq and its nonexistent navy, air force and whipped army was NO THREAT AT ALL to the US Army I had been in decades earlier.  Just as they lied about all that, they lied about the staged events that let them go to war.

Some folks just never can see the light, some of them don't want to.  In the end, it matters not. :no:

Edited by Babe Ruth, 07 August 2012 - 06:38 PM.


#47    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,142 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:45 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:


I do know the answers to a few of your questions: Evidence of explosives WERE found at WTC.

Wrong!! Demolition experts found no evidence of explosives in the rubble.

Quote

Besides the by-products of the thermite reaction being found in the dust that coated everything down there,...

False!! Upon examination of the steel taken from the rubble, no evidence was found of thermite cutting.

Quote

...video and audio evidence show explosions.

False!! There is no evidence of explosions in the videos nor heard on audio nor detected on seismic detectors in the area. No one heard bomb explosions.

Quote

Many people reported explosions.  Explosions blew huge pieces of structural steel exoskeleton horizontally several hundred feet.

Quote

Elevators were disaster within disaster

Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

http://www.usatoday....ator-usat_x.htm

So you see, no one heard nor saw bomb explosions, which explains why demolition experts have stated for the record that no evidence of explosives was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#48    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:48 PM

Bee

You might be right about the pax/crew being dead, but I think there are other considerations.

Looking at the operation as one who might have planned it, the passengers could easily be seen as cooperating individuals.

Some researchers, not me, but I've read their work, have delved into the biographies of "the passengers".  A curious fact is that while the total number is fairly small considering the number of seats available, only about 200 out of possibly about 800, many of them, not all, were employed in(for lack of a better word) the Military Industrial Complex.  Raytheon and others.  IF they were cooperating individuals, THEN they are valuable assets.  It sounds dramatic, but it IS true, giving people new identifications, papers, is not a difficult thing.

As it happens, one of the flight attendants is from my home town.  I did not know her, but I know a handful of people who DID know her, including a defense attorney she hired for some trouble she got into.  So I know she existed.

Several years after, her widower and children moved away, even though they had family and friends and close community ties.  That does not prove a thing, but they have rather dropped off the face of the earth.  Just interesting, that's all. :unsure2:


#49    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:49 PM

Jimminy Sky, you're the same guy who puts up deceptive videos here.  I should believe you....why....???


#50    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Yes, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink.  One can point the way for another, but one cannot make him think.

Raptor

I never claimed to know the answers to your questions. I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW those answers to understand that I was deceived. I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW how the magician has deceived me to know that I've been deceived.

This statement alone says a lot about your position.

You claim the OCT has holes, yet you cannot even be bothered to answer questions that would  give any of your theories credence.

Who should I believe?  Someone who is able to explain how the magic was done?  or the magician who doesn't want to explain a damn thing?

It is you who goes on blind faith BR, no the OCT

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

#51    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,142 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Jimminy Sky, you're the same guy who puts up deceptive videos here....

How amusing that now, you have added ordinary citizens to the mix of conspiracist. How amusing that you could not figure it out. After all, you DID claim to be a pilot!! :td:

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 August 2012 - 07:06 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#52    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,142 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:


You might be right about the pax/crew being dead, but I think there are other considerations. Looking at the operation as one who might have planned it, the passengers could easily be seen as cooperating individuals.

Evidence please! Otherwise, you have no case. :no: I might add that you have insulted the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Quote

Some researchers, not me, but I've read their work, have delved into the biographies of "the passengers".


Are you implying that Barbara Olson and other passengers were part of the conspiracy?

Posted Image

http://en.wikipedia....i/Barbara_Olson

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#53    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:08 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 07 August 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

This statement alone says a lot about your position.

You claim the OCT has holes, yet you cannot even be bothered to answer questions that would  give any of your theories credence.

Who should I believe?  Someone who is able to explain how the magic was done?  or the magician who doesn't want to explain a damn thing?

It is you who goes on blind faith BR, no the OCT

OK Raptor, I'll play again.  747 is right, ain't nothin' gonna change here, but in good faith....PLEASE show me pictures from Shanksville that show the debris presented in the Moussaoui trial IN CONTEXT.  Please show me a picture of some 757 debris IN THAT FIELD.

Please explain to me how you rationalize molten steel at WTC, or how large pieces of exoskeleton are ejected laterally several hundred feet?


#54    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:13 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

OK Raptor, I'll play again.  747 is right, ain't nothin' gonna change here, but in good faith....PLEASE show me pictures from Shanksville that show the debris presented in the Moussaoui trial IN CONTEXT.  Please show me a picture of some 757 debris IN THAT FIELD.

It has been posted several other times.  Each time it was posted you hand wave it away as fakes.  Why should I have to repost all those pictures again?  Stop playing your games and show us evidence/proof that there was no plane there.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Please explain to me how you rationalize molten steel at WTC, or how large pieces of exoskeleton are ejected laterally several hundred feet?

Which is it BR?  Molten Steel or Molten Metal?  Pick one and go with it.  You seem to change which one it is EVERY SINGLE TIME.

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

#55    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,609 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:22 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Bee

You might be right about the pax/crew being dead, but I think there are other considerations.

Looking at the operation as one who might have planned it, the passengers could easily be seen as cooperating individuals.

Some researchers, not me, but I've read their work, have delved into the biographies of "the passengers".  A curious fact is that while the total number is fairly small considering the number of seats available, only about 200 out of possibly about 800, many of them, not all, were employed in(for lack of a better word) the Military Industrial Complex.  Raytheon and others.  IF they were cooperating individuals, THEN they are valuable assets.  It sounds dramatic, but it IS true, giving people new identifications, papers, is not a difficult thing.



Hiya.....for me...the more people that have to be involved in the CT for it to 'work' ...the less likely it is that it is real (the Inside Job theory)

Because we are talking about accusations of mass murder and high treason here...and it is, IMO....impossible that there would be so

many  people aiding and abetting such a crime. (and then keeping quiet about it)



Quote

As it happens, one of the flight attendants is from my home town.  I did not know her, but I know a handful of people who DID know her, including a defense attorney she hired for some trouble she got into.  So I know she existed.

Several years after, her widower and children moved away, even though they had family and friends and close community ties.  That does not prove a thing, but they have rather dropped off the face of the earth.  Just interesting, that's all. :unsure2:

yes it is interesting....


Perhaps he just wanted to make a new life somewhere else...where his life wasn't dominated by 9/11 and the pity of everyone in

the community....?


:tu:


.

Posted Image


#56    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,142 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:23 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

PLEASE show me pictures from Shanksville that show the debris presented in the Moussaoui trial IN CONTEXT. Please show me a picture of some 757 debris IN THAT FIELD.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Quote

Please explain to me how you rationalize molten steel...

What molten steel? The following photo depicts reflection from a light, not molten steel.

Posted Image

Quote

...at WTC, or how large pieces of exoskeleton are ejected laterally several hundred feet?

Just WTC debris following the law of physics. Seems you are not up-to-speed on physics anymore than you are in aeronautics and aerodynamics.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 August 2012 - 07:26 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#57    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:01 PM

It's your choice Raptor, metal or steel, whichever blows your skirt.  But really, is that the best you can do?  Reduce it to semantics instead of proving your point?  Reminds me of when I was scorned last week for "not knowing anything about photogrammetry", and then the scolder and photogrammetric enthusiast could not provide any photogrammetric art or science to support his position regarding the size of the airplane in the parking lot video.  Jeez Louise! :innocent:

No sir, I'm saying there is no Boeing at Shanksville.  YOU are the one claiming there is.  That's a pretty lame excuse for a grown man claiming to be in a rational public discussion.  If you think there is evidence of one, show me.  Saying "Oh gee, it's been debunked", or some other facile dodge cheapens the discussion.  You guys are the master linkers, I'm the klutz.  Any picture will show no airplane in that field.  Just one.  Just one little link showing anything resembling a 757, anything resembling its 50 some odd passengers and their baggage.

You can't because there ain't.

As for my "proof", pick any aerial shot you want to, and none will show anything identifiable in that field.  Unless, of course, you pick one of Sky's 'modified' pictures. It's very tough indeed defending the indefensible.


#58    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,142 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:32 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:


Reduce it to semantics instead of proving your point?  Reminds me of when I was scorned last week for "not knowing anything about photogrammetry", and then the scolder and photogrammetric enthusiast could not provide any photogrammetric art or science to support his position regarding the size of the airplane in the parking lot video.  Jeez Louise! :innocent:

Well, the video depicts the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background.

Quote

No sir, I'm saying there is no Boeing at Shanksville.

And, photo and documented evidence, and witnesses have proven you wrong.

Quote

Any picture will show no airplane in that field.

Wrong again!!

Posted Image


Quote

Just one.  Just one little link showing anything resembling a 757,...

Posted Image


Quote

...anything resembling its 50 some odd passengers and their baggage.

Posted Image











Posted Image

Posted Image



Posted Image



Quote

You can't because there ain't.

Already been done.

Quote

As for my "proof", pick any aerial shot you want to, and none will show anything identifiable in that field.




Posted Image







Quote

CNN: 'Hijacker' Visa Found in Flight 93 Wreckage


Posted Image


Posted Image

Posted Image






Edited by skyeagle409, 07 August 2012 - 08:43 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#59    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:01 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

It's your choice Raptor, metal or steel, whichever blows your skirt.  But really, is that the best you can do?  Reduce it to semantics instead of proving your point?  Reminds me of when I was scorned last week for "not knowing anything about photogrammetry", and then the scolder and photogrammetric enthusiast could not provide any photogrammetric art or science to support his position regarding the size of the airplane in the parking lot video.  Jeez Louise! :innocent:

No sir, I'm saying there is no Boeing at Shanksville.  YOU are the one claiming there is.  That's a pretty lame excuse for a grown man claiming to be in a rational public discussion.  If you think there is evidence of one, show me.  Saying "Oh gee, it's been debunked", or some other facile dodge cheapens the discussion.  You guys are the master linkers, I'm the klutz.  Any picture will show no airplane in that field.  Just one.  Just one little link showing anything resembling a 757, anything resembling its 50 some odd passengers and their baggage.

You can't because there ain't.

As for my "proof", pick any aerial shot you want to, and none will show anything identifiable in that field.  Unless, of course, you pick one of Sky's 'modified' pictures. It's very tough indeed defending the indefensible.

Here is the problem with the way you seem to want to involve yourself with this discussion BR.

*photo evidence shown of debris in shanksville*

BR: its fake, show me something else

*repeated attempts of photos shown of debris in shanksville*

BR: its fake show me "real" evidence, unfortunately I cannot provide you with links or evidence to prove the photos are faked.

You see where this is going BR?  Do you see how ridiculous you are being at the moment?

You expect for us to show you evidence which you will just hand wave away as being evidence of trickery, yet you fail to provide anything to the debate.

Why not provide us with pictures/links to prove your version of the story? I can't even begin to believe half the crap you are saying at this point.

Edited by RaptorBites, 07 August 2012 - 10:04 PM.

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

#60    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 August 2012 - 01:31 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 07 August 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Here is the problem with the way you seem to want to involve yourself with this discussion BR.



As I read it, he wants to see photos of the crash site from a height, which show wreckage.


Skyeagle is providing pictures that could have been taken on my lawn. Closeup with nothing to reference in regards to what area it is from.


I believe BR is asking you where the proof is that those photos were taken in that field. If a photo taken from further up in the air shows any large pieces of wreckage that would stop BR. So get looking lads. HD preferably.



I'm not taking sides here, but it is surprising to me that none of you appear to understand what he is asking. He just wants a photo from a distance in the sky, showing the same wreckage in the closeups that provide no identifiable area to place them in.


Is it really that hard to understand, or do you guys just want to pretend you don't understand because you can't actually show what he wants? I lean towards this.


So maybe this post was a waste....Keep the blindfold on fellas.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users