1211 replies to this topic

[Sky Scanner]

Babe Ruth, on 11 April 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Dredimus

Can you imagine how easy it might be to place that thermate if the outfit that ran security at the complex were owned by a friend?  

I wish I had as much faith as you have in a small element of associated agencies being able to pull these many elements of this conspiracy off. No offence intended to my fellow US posters, but with the absolute exception of your space agency(ies), I just don't think you're competent enough to be able to pull a major conspiracy like this off...

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 11 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

I don't think so but the centre image of the five I posted above shows how a small, extremely crude thermite device can cut a steel beam in an engineer's back garden.

It has been estimated that it would have taken thousands upon thousands of tons of thermite to bring down a WTC tower. I even posted on another thread an experiment where 175 pounds of thermite was unable to burn through a steel box beam.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 April 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 11 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Your excuses are just as stupid as the last time you were corrected on them.

Your claims are just as unfounded as the last time you made them.

Quote

The colour is an ideal match: -

Yeah, yeah, just make a claim and don't back it up.  In every picture the centre is washed out white, but the thermite is still near-white at the far end of each flow, while the WTC flow rapidly becomes reddish.

Quote

At the WTC the surface was a concrete floor which would be further difficult to penetrate.

That's a pretty dubious claim from someone who's just posted a picture of thermite apparently cutting through a block of concrete.

Quote

The WTC2 flow is a perfect match to thermite in every regard.

It's amazing how easily some people confirm their own beliefs.  Never mind the wrong colour, no damage, and volume of material much greater than your suggested thermite charge.  That's what you want to believe, so ignore all that.

Quote

There are no alternatives.  If you provide what you think is an alternative, I’ll let you know why it is not.

The two top proposals for alternatives are a mixture of aluminium and other building debris or lead from the battery room which was right where the flow originates.  Both match the colour and lack of damage to the building much better than thermite.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky Scanner

No offence taken.

Consider the low occupancy rate at WTC, and consider that several of the major tenants had very close connections with the White House.  For example, a tenant occupying 6 of the 8 floors involved in one of the impact zones went on shortly thereafter to become the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.  That would be Paul Bremer, acolyte of Henry Kissinger, who was Bush's first choice to head up what became the 911 Commission.

Consider the company providing security for the WTC towers, and that a Bush son was involved in that company.

Consider that the towers had been under some sort of maintenance projects for many months before, and the weekend before, according to a Brit who worked there, the entire electrical grid in the towers was shut down--tenants had been advised.

The closer one looks, the more one finds.  

[Q24]

The Sky Scanner, on 11 April 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

I wish I had as much faith as you have in a small element of associated agencies being able to pull these many elements of this conspiracy off. No offence intended to my fellow US posters, but with the absolute exception of your space agency(ies), I just don't think you're competent enough to be able to pull a major conspiracy like this off...

Yet, in the Lavon Affair, there is an on record case of the Mossad planting explosives to be blamed on Muslims.

The man who recommended privatisation of the WTC.
The man who oversaw the 2001 sale of the WTC.
The WTC owner himself.
The five agents arrested on the morning for celebrating the WTC collapses.
The man with links to all the above who described 9/11 as “good” for Israel.

What did these individuals have in common… ?

All Jewish.

Heck one of the ‘hijackers’ had a relative working as an Israeli informant.

It was not U.S. ‘agencies’.  Only isolated elements in the U.S. were involved.  The main bulk of the operation was carried out by foreign intelligence with the blessing of U.S. Neocons who wanted a “new Pearl Harbor” pretext to drive their agenda.  Lewis Eisenberg, one of the Jewish individuals I referred to above, even did them the favour of comparing the attack to “Pearl Harbor” on the very day of 9/11.

Listen: -

“They did it. I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at its headquarters, Marine Corps and I made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period.”
~Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College - 2010

[RaptorBites]

OverSword, on 11 April 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Way to knitpick.  You really prove your point.

You're obviously correct.  It should be fairly easy for someone who has never flown before to exactly hit a relativley small target while under extremely stressfull circumstances.  How silly of me.  

But on the serious side I recomend you give it a try yourself.  Go download microsofts flight simulator and give it a try.  Otherwise you can just stick with correcting my verbage because that's the important part, right?

Again, just because you cant do it in a simulator does not mean it cant be done.  What part of that do you not understand?

You responding to my quote with your snide remarks and obvious sarcasm does not help your position.

Only reason why I am correcting your verbage is because you claim it is "nearly impossible".

So tell me.  Who was flying the planes?  Where they remote controlled?  Where they drones?

If a human cannot accomplish this feat, then what is your theory?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Well, it hasn't taken long for this to turn into Yet Another Generic 9/11 Thread (version 122.0).

[OverSword]

RaptorBites, on 11 April 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Again, just because you cant do it in a simulator does not mean it cant be done.  What part of that do you not understand?

You responding to my quote with your snide remarks and obvious sarcasm does not help your position.

Only reason why I am correcting your verbage is because you claim it is "nearly impossible".

So tell me.  Who was flying the planes?  Where they remote controlled?  Where they drones?

If a human cannot accomplish this feat, then what is your theory?

I don't have a theory, I'm just stating my own experience with flight simulations makes it seem unlikely that the official story is fact.  I've seen several programs that propose that the pentagon was hit with a missile and not a plane.  

But again I urge anybody who is interested in this subject to give my flight simulator experiment a try.  Point of interest, my attemp to hit a building in the simulator was before 9/11 ever took place.

[RaptorBites]

747400, on 11 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Well, it hasn't taken long for this to turn into Yet Another Generic 9/11 Thread (version 122.0).

completely agreed.

Why bother posting a new topic on the same old babble instead of joining the ones already available.

[OverSword]

747400, on 11 April 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Well, it hasn't taken long for this to turn into Yet Another Generic 9/11 Thread (version 122.0).

suprised?

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 11 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Yeah, yeah, just make a claim and don't back it up.  In every picture the centre is washed out white, but the thermite is still near-white at the far end of each flow, while the WTC flow rapidly becomes reddish.

Yeah yeah, people will look at the pictures and make up their own minds whether the WTC2 flow matches thermite.

flyingswan, on 11 April 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

The two top proposals for alternatives are a mixture of aluminium and other building debris or lead from the battery room which was right where the flow originates.  Both match the colour and lack of damage to the building much better than thermite.

The first suggestion has been proven through experiment not to reproduce the observation: -
http://www.journalof...11SciMethod.pdf
(see “Molten Material Pouring out of the South Tower” on pg. 15)

The second suggestion has never been shown to reproduce the observation in any case, at any time, anywhere, ever.  In fact the information you provided previously showed that a battery short circuit may cause very focused vaporization of a few lead molecules (with a bang)… not a large volume of 1,000^oC+ molten lead.

As usual, there is zero evidence or comparative example that your “alternatives” could produce the WTC2 molten flow.  You are clinging to belief that is entirely without merit because you can’t face the obvious best fit (indeed the only possible) answer.

[Sky Scanner]

OverSword, on 11 April 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

I don't have a theory, I'm just stating my own experience with flight simulations makes it seem unlikely that the official story is fact.  

That really doesn't mean much i'm afraid. I couldn't stay afloat on an iceberg for weeks on end, row some 800 miles across the roughest seas on the planet in a boat not much bigger then a bath tub, and then scale mountain peaks to get from one side of an island to another....yet it's been done (shackelton)....remarkable things happen by determined people all the time, just because 'joe public' doesn't deem it possible doesn't mean anything.

[Corp]

So what? As soon a someone turns 15 the secret government brainwashing kicks in?

[OverSword]

The Sky Scanner, on 11 April 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

That really doesn't mean much i'm afraid. I couldn't stay afloat on an iceberg for weeks on end, row some 800 miles across the roughest seas on the planet in a boat not much bigger then a bath tub, and then scale mountain peaks to get from one side of an island to another....yet it's been done (shackelton)....remarkable things happen by determined people all the time, just because 'joe public' doesn't deem it possible doesn't mean anything.

Then go download the simulator and hit a building the first time, and remember, be eXtra determined.  Itried 4 or 5 times, I'm generally really good at video games, and I didn't hit it once.  If you're not willing to find out for yourself then you don't really have room to comment.

[Sky Scanner]

OverSword, on 11 April 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Then go download the simulator and hit a building the first time, and remember, be eXtra determined.  Itried 4 or 5 times, I'm generally really good at video games, and I didn't hit it once.  If you're not willing to find out for yourself then you don't really have room to comment.

Oh I do have room to comment, for the reasons I just explained that you clearly didn't read.

So if I can't do it 1st time it can't be done then? Is that what you're saying?

What about if I tried it 4 or 5 times and succeeded on the 5th time? so what, that proves nothing either since the pilot on 9/11 didn't try 4 or 5 times, so your logic fails there too. What about if I did it on the 7th time, does that then mean it can be done then?