Charlie Veitch - The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

reply to post by ANOK


You should ask him if his friend who is a engineer working in mining works with the explosives or is a structural engineer for any tunnels.

If he works with the explosives he is likely a chemical engineer with experience in thermodynamics and would not really be useful in determining the structural integrity of a skyscraper.

The individual would be able to discuss the potential explosives and their properties such as burning temps and force vectors of the blasts, but aside from that . . . .

I suggest the individual in question peruse through this group of engineers and read their interpretations.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
www.ae911truth.org...

These would people who actually work in the field.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

^This is the guy who was protesting his image being used.

No ^ this guy is dead.


And ^ this guy is still alive.

Any evidence for any of the hijackers still being alive dated after Sept 27 2001 yet ?

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Sankari

 

The burning of Washington? No, I'm from the U.K.

We had the Great fire of London, but that was due to all the houses being made from wood.

As a consequence they re-built using bricks and mortar, there's never been a repeat!!

Well the towers didn't burn down. A few floors were weaken by the massive fires on a support structure designed to support from an inner core. 100,000 pounds of fuel and massive forces in the crashes weaken those few floors causing the weight above to collapse the weaken floors that also caused a continued collapse of the lower floors as the forces from above grew exponentially in weight and an speed.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe....

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

^This is the guy who was protesting his image being used.

No ^ this guy is dead.

And ^ this guy is still alive.

Any evidence for any of the hijackers still being alive dated after Sept 27 2001 yet ?

Any evidence that the image of the man you have there ever boarded the plane?

Like airport security footage?

And I will not accept footage of Atta from a different airport that did not occur on the day of the flights.

Anything of the sort would be acceptable, I mean its an airport yet we have nothing . . . . even the Columbine school shootings had video.

Its things like this that make me doubt official stories. Especially when a family member of the former head of the CIA runs the security company for the airport the hijackers flew out of and the buildings they flew into (well until the week before the planes flew into the buildings).

EDIT

I will accept that this could all just have been a mistake and will believe that a man with a very similar name trained at the facility around the same time and had his photo released under the wrong name by a major news broadcast which was then hyped by the BBC and corrected later.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


You were the one who claimed several of the hijackers are still alive, remember ?

Not to mention that the NIST report still claims the original names produced by the regime are the hijackers despite several of those people still being alive and claiming stolen identities.

So which of these hijackers are still alive and where are they now.

reply to post by waypastvne


Did you not read my response?

I will accept that this could all just have been a mistake and will believe that a man with a very similar name trained at the facility around the same time and had his photo released under the wrong name by a major news broadcast which was then hyped by the BBC and corrected later.

The site says that the Arabic under the guy's photo says Walid, but their links to the official sources do not work and a quick search shows no results confirming this.

So it is likely this was a mistake.

The issue that develops from this is proving that these men were actually aboard the flights which flew into the buildings. Do you have any footage showing images of these men actually boarding the planes or even being in the airport which these planes departed from?

Now you say that these are the hijackers so you should at least be able to provide some visual documentation that these men whose photographs were provide were actually present at the time and date specified.

EDIT
I do not take any government officials word for anything unless it is made evident by clear evidence.

Just look at the IRS or Benghazi scandals currently taking place, or Iran Contra.

You see extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the public has been provided none of that.

reply to post by SirMike

I tend to agree with your surmise but this sticks out to me.

but IMO this incident really spotlights the mental defects and personality disorders in hard core conspiracy theorist.

After reading the replies up to page 5 I completely agree with you on that subject.

Of course I don’t think they are all whack jobs but it certainly seems like the majority are.

I hope they eventually leave this guy alone those people are really screwed up for harassing him and his family.

Originally posted by ANOK
Can you really look at this with a straight face?...

So lightweight trusses managed to snap box columns? And you seriously buy this?

You realise that this is not a NIST animation right? It's from a TV documentary.

reply to post by exponent


I mentioned NOVA.

Do you have any other representation of what they claim happened?

Do you not agree with the NOVA documentary?

So how did the trusses sag and pull in columns if not as that gif? I am really interested in seeing a different representation of it.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ANOK
Can you really look at this with a straight face?...

So lightweight trusses managed to snap box columns? And you seriously buy this?

You realise that this is not a NIST animation right? It's from a TV documentary.

Common sense says it would break at the weakest point, not the strongest as the gif suggests. Surely the trusses would have detached from the outer columns causing the internal floors to collapse.

The above animation makes no sense.

Originally posted by byteshertz

I do not have the knowledge to say if the NIST report is correct or not, but more than 1,900 architects and engineers at AE911Truth are demanding a new investigation and they do have that knowledge.
I do however have the knowledge to see when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, and the fact the NIST report has not undergone scientific peer review seal the deal for me.

Your credentials please sir...

1900 and not all of them are even engineers or architects also if you really want to know about structures and loadings it's a structural engineer not an architect you turn to because guess what structural engineers best customers tend to be architects

Also 1900 what % of architects/engineers does that represent for the USA never mind the rest of the world!

As for the NIST report NO one on either side will ever know 100% the exact damage caused to WTC 1,2 & 7 by the events that day.

Was structural damage done to the Towers YES, can office fires weaken steel enough to cause problems YES, did debris hit WTC 7 YES, did fires burn in that building for many hours YES.

There is enough evidence for people like myself who have worked in the construction industry for a long time on all types of projects to see how the events that happened could have caused the destruction of those buildings, now if there is a conspiracy on how the terrorists got on the planes and did what they did that's a different matter.

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by Sankari

 

Hmm, well you can believe what you like of course, but youtube has thousands of examples of buildings collapsing from controlled demolitions.

Good compilation here

In every single one there is not a single large piece of material ejected sideways, and in every one of these examples there are explosives used and still there is no lateral movement.

So what you are proposing is that air can move heavy objects better than explosives.

In some of the examples shown there are some small pieces that fly off but these are blown off by the explosives and even then the pieces are small and they don't go very far.

At wtc massive sections traveled sideways hundreds of yards. Air can't do that.

So the youtube videos of controlled demolitions don't look anything like the WTC collapses? The explosives don't cause the lateral movement?

So why do you think this is evidence of it being a controlled demolition?

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli


The site says that the Arabic under the guy's photo says Walid, but their links to the official sources do not work and a quick search shows no results confirming this.

So it is likely this was a mistake.

The issue that develops from this is proving that these men were actually aboard the flights which flew into the buildings.

So you're now happy that these guys were the hijackers, but you now want further proof that they were, um, the hijackers?

On being shown footage of them at the airport, you would presumably require footage of them actually boarding the plane. And on receiving that, you might require a signed affidavit from somebody - not a government employee, obviously - stating they didn't leave the plane.

The point being that we can all demand ludicrous levels of proof. The fact that most of 9/11 Truth's claims fail even the most basic evidential demands probably has something to do with the theories' total lack of success.

A recent interview with Charley.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli


The site says that the Arabic under the guy's photo says Walid, but their links to the official sources do not work and a quick search shows no results confirming this.

So it is likely this was a mistake.

The issue that develops from this is proving that these men were actually aboard the flights which flew into the buildings.

So you're now happy that these guys were the hijackers, but you now want further proof that they were, um, the hijackers?

On being shown footage of them at the airport, you would presumably require footage of them actually boarding the plane. And on receiving that, you might require a signed affidavit from somebody - not a government employee, obviously - stating they didn't leave the plane.

The point being that we can all demand ludicrous levels of proof. The fact that most of 9/11 Truth's claims fail even the most basic evidential demands probably has something to do with the theories' total lack of success.

I would like any video of them . . . even in the airport . . . . your idea of ludicrous . . . well

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

I would like any video of them . . . even in the airport . . . . your idea of ludicrous . . . well

If we provide you with some Airport security videos of the hijackers at the airport, will you supply us with some video of the hijackers that are still alive ?

I would like any video of them . . . even at the beach . . . . well.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

I would like any video of them . . . even in the airport . . . . your idea of ludicrous . . . well

If we provide you with some Airport security videos of the hijackers at the airport, will you supply us with some video of the hijackers that are still alive ?

I would like any video of them . . . even at the beach . . . . well.

edit on 9-6-2013 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

^ Was this supposed to be clever?

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli


^ Was this supposed to be clever?

^ Was this supposed to be an answer?