Is there any real counter argument to the Conspiracy theorists of 9/11

reply to post by NWOwned


You need your head examined if you think that video shot at that res at what 29 fps then shown on youtube can actually show ANY DETAIL to back your claims just

reply to post by wmd_2008


sorry m8 you show a photo of thick grey smoke and you try to say the fires are bad.....Thick grey to black smoke are signs of oxygen starved fires...simple as that....OR that there are petroleum products burning.....so I guess there was petroleum products burning in large amount...Oh i guess that is the diesel fuel for the generators that have been conveniently put forth as the cause of the major so called fires in WTC7.....but hmm...strange is it not....Sprinkler systems fails...Fire proofing fails....oh right there was not fire proofing in building 7 now too...is that the case..... when it is compared to the oklahoma building because when things do not pan out fot the OS you come up with some other excuses...the damage from the towers to the front of the building.......ok right.

you will say..see .....concrate....right and concrete survives so much better than steel...yet in steel demolition do the take out the structure so it drops straight down...guess...what...no they don't they try to topple steel structures....as dropping them straight down means they have to take out so many elements to ensure it comes down properly....but heck we shal ignore all these things...and just believe you...so you keep going on about concrete in the building....Show people where steel structures suffer straight down collapses due to fires.....could you do that please....I bet you can't.

reply to post by plube

Show people where steel structures suffer straight down collapses due to fires.....could you do that please....

Wow. Do you really think anyone is going to forget that the buildings were subject to more than just fires?

reply to post by hooper
Wow. Could you tell us what, other than fire, caused these buildings to fall? Up 'til now, that's been your whole case. What's changed?

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper

 

Wow. Could you tell us what, other than fire, caused these buildings to fall? Up 'til now, that's been your whole case. What's changed?

Not really.

Crappy steel...

Incompetent architects....

Faulty design....

Missing a chunk of the corner on building 7....

Anything except the blatantly obvious: Controlled demolition.

Remember?

It makes one wonder why the '93 Bill Clinton inside job didn't bring them down like a house of cards. Obviously they really were made from camel crap dried under the sun and not steel as we have been led to believe.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by plube

 

Show people where steel structures suffer straight down collapses due to fires.....could you do that please....

Wow. Do you really think anyone is going to forget that the buildings were subject to more than just fires?

Building 7 was pulled, to set the charges, wiring, and examine the blue prints it means the
charges were set ahead of time.

A building that size is not rigged to be demo'd in that short of time.

You know it, I know it, and the demo experts know it.

Silverstein even admitted on camera he told them to pull it.

One news reporter even said it was down before it was down.

It was all theater for the sheeple.

Not to mention the dancing israeli's who admit the were sent to document the event.

reply to post by eurodesign


You are right of course, and Sibel Edmonds revealed that Al-CIA-da and the Taliban
worked for the US right up until the day of 9-11.

For her bring this up she was fired even though she should have got whistle blower protection.

The website called "The complete 9-11 timeline" has all the info anyone needs if the want
to chase this rabbit hole to its end.

A film was made based on the sites findings, the film is called "9-11 press for truth"

I highly recommend it, and it and the web site with the timeline have not been refuted,
even by the paid disinfo agents that are often here on this site.

reply to post by Dinogur


nice "friend" you got there...

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
and the web site with the timeline have not been refuted,
even by the paid disinfo agents that are often here on this site.

that's prolly why "debunkers" never ever mention that website...

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

It was all theater for the sheeple.

The best theatre, however, is the spectacular fantasy in your imagination.

reply to post by plube


WELL Mr fire expert smoke colour ALSO depends on whats burning

reply to post by wmd_2008


well mister you do not read....i did say that also...but nope you could not bother....you read the first two maybe three words and went off on one didn't you....read first...then reply.

reply to post by hooper


you my friend do not pay attention either...but that ok....your game is the same...i choose to ignore your ploy of lies...are you going to say...the damage from the towers to the front of the building weakend it...this damage would have progressed from top down....yet builing seven According to NIST fails at the lower floors....So therefore damage from the twoers does not apply does it...how can you just say things without even considering what your saying.....if debris (which i am sure it did) struck wtc7....it fell onto it...unless of course gravity also disappeared on 9/11.....so in your infinite wisdom...how can upper damage cause the building to fail from the fires on the lower floors.

there isn't really a point to asking you for a answer to a question though is there...really now...because you will deflect and try to say some other thing...rather than just think it through....oh i forgot....building seven also had no resistance to falling objects...just as none of the buildings that day had lost all resistance in the lower structure.

Terminal Velocity

For anyone who grows weary of seeing this link posted in various threads, rest assured I grow weary of posting it.

I urge anyone who has not read that link to do so, then review various posts recently made to this thread. Please note that several of them ignore and violate the minimum standards for courtesy in this forum. Then consider what logically comes next.

Ignorance is no excuse. Every rude post made in this forum is deliberate, members who have been with us for years do know better, and those who persist in making obnoxious comments will, sooner or later, be escorted to the exit.

Rather than go down that dark road, let's please exercise some basic self-control, confine our comments to the topics and avoid the need for further unpleasantness.

Thanks.

reply to post by plube

it...how can you just say things without even considering what your saying.....if debris (which i am sure it did) struck wtc7....it fell onto it...unless of course gravity also disappeared on 9/11.....so in your infinite

Uh - where did I say any of this? You are arguing with yourself - and losing.

Originally posted by ritualmurders911

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
and the web site with the timeline have not been refuted,
even by the paid disinfo agents that are often here on this site.

that's prolly why "debunkers" never ever mention that website...

I commented in the 'press for truth' video thread recently, and brought it to the top of the pile, should still be on this page, guess what?

Not one 'debunker' posted in it!

reply to post by plube


Think there might just be some, oh, I dont know.....plastics involved? You know, that wonder material that starts out as petroleum? Causes thick, black, smoke.....

one could argue that no one knows if it was just like operation north woods suggested back in 62. It could be a real threat that put to use legislation written long before 9/11 (patriot act) that made possible the safest, least liked place on earth as far as militant enemies. So you don't know anymore really if the chicken came before the egg.

Did they attack us because we are at war with them or did we attack our selves or let ourselves be attacked so we could go to war with them. ?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by NWOwned

 

You need your head examined if you think that video shot at that res at what 29 fps then shown on youtube can actually show ANY DETAIL to back your claims

just

The only thing, I contend, that needs 'examining' here is the Naudet 'Fireman's Video'... which I am doing btw.

Pay attention, I'm not actually using DETAIL, resolution or even frame rate to make my evidence based argument.

No, I am using TIMING SEQUENCE and MECHANICAL DESIGN to outline what is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE no matter what the resolution or detail of the Naudet clip is.

Halve the resolution of the standard consumer DVD version of the clip I don't care, the degraded clip will still show, and therefore, STILL PROVE the IMPOSSIBILITY of which I speak.



What TIMING SEQUENCE?

Take a look at the North Tower on the left side of my noted up composite pic. Yes it's BLURRY. No it doesn't show much DETAIL. FPS? It's a single frame capture! But you know what? All of those limitations don't matter.

Why don't they matter? Because the only thing I'm curious about, the only thing I'm interested in is the timing of the apparent damage to the face of the North Tower. The TIMING SEQUENCE of the apparent damage coupled with its LOCATION. You follow?

When we judge the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' clip on this criteria what do we find?

Now keep in mind, I'm not trying to invent something that isn't there, nor am I trying to make something not be there that everyone seems to accept was there, nor am I trying to create multiple posts on the same topic for no good reason, no, I'm just looking at THE EVIDENCE and asking an important intelligent logical question.

What is that question?

It is this: How come when I watch the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' clip very very closely, it clearly shows damage occurring on the face of the North Tower where the right wing tip would impact before it shows damage where the right engine would impact when the wings on a Boeing 767-200 aircraft taper back and have engines on the wings that are actually forward of the wing tips on a head first in trajectory hit?

I need me an answer to this because THE EVIDENCE as viewed in the clip considering how a 767 is actually built says that such apparent damage is impossible if what we see impacting the North Tower is a 767 aircraft. You follow? Does anybody follow? Has anyone really really looked at what I'm saying? Everyone, try now, ok?



What MECHANICAL DESIGN?

Have a close look at this plan view diagram of a 767-200 aircraft. See the right engine? See the right wing tip? See how much further ahead the right engine is to the wing tip? Now I ask you, you seem intelligent, if we were to crash a 767 into a large tower or a giant screen door which would you say would hit the tower face or screen door first on a head first trajectory, the right engine or the right wing tip? That's right. The RIGHT ENGINE. The right engine would damage the building face BEFORE the right wing tip, why? Because of MECHANICAL DESIGN. Because the right wing tip is back further than the engine etc.

Now everyone have a look above at my noted pic, look at the left frame:1299 of the Naudet DVD clip. In the clip, what appears to hit the building first, the wing tip or the engine? Simple question. What is the answer to this simple question? Anybody? Correct, 'The right wing tip!' That is the correct answer to the question based on a careful examination of the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' clip. Congratulations.

But now see, we have a SERIOUS, I dare say "IMPOSSIBLE" PROBLEM.

And what is that?

There is no physical way possible for the right wing tip to hit the face of the North Tower before the right engine on the very same wing! NO WAY. It is impossible. So the Naudet clip contains an impossibility THAT NEEDS TO BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED (it hasn't been yet). In fact, I'm the only person on ATS and THE NET even talking about it.

It cannot be simply brushed away with the resolution, detail, frame rate, video artifact arguments because I'm not using those things in the proof. My proof rests on the TIMING SEQUENCE of the damage pattern and its LOCATION. And on the MECHANICAL DESIGN of the right wing of a Boeing 767 200 aircraft. And that's all.

And when you put all that together what do you get? What does a careful logical intelligent look at the available evidence get us?

It PROVES that it is impossible for the right wing gash on the North Tower to have been made by the right wing of a Boeing 767 200 aircraft. Period.

I don't want it to be that way even. Like I don't really have a preference you see? I'm just looking at the evidence and that's what the evidence SAYS. Look at what I'm saying PROVE to me how it is wrong. I DARE YOU ALL.


Cheers

Click here to learn more about this warning.