View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 30 Sep 2011, 20:49

Jayhawker30 wrote:It might be just me, but I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a skyscraper to crumble after a passenger jet or two crash into it.

Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby NinjaPuppy » 30 Sep 2011, 21:09

ProfWag wrote:
Jayhawker30 wrote:It might be just me, but I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a skyscraper to crumble after a passenger jet or two crash into it.

Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)

I was gonna let Jayhawker's quote go without comment because I agree to a point, but ProfWag has inspired me now.
I recall being amazed that after the first hit, the building stayed as stable as it did. Then the second hit came and both towers seemed no worse for the wear. All I can remember is thinking, "WOW!" Probably the reason that's all that I can remember is because I was in shock at the time. I watched two big assed jets fly smack into a structure and they sucked those planes up like butter on a hot biscuit. Shortly after, I recall fear that they would both topple over and take out surrounding city blocks. Instead they "pancaked" straight down. To me that was a freakin' miracle, not some possible engineering design. It didn't seem possible that at some point, some part of either of those two buildings didn't go ass over tea kettle and tumble upon anything else.

I went to the site shortly after and I couldn't understand why there wasn't more debris piled up. There was nothing but dust. Well, dust and office papers for blocks and blocks.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby Craig Browning » 01 Oct 2011, 03:47

I was chatting with a lady friend of mine last week; she and her husband had to be in NYC this past 9/11 and managed to catch-up with some friends who happen to have a business located in a nearby high-rise and likewise an apartment that faced the towers. Her big question being how the doubters explain away the planes when so many people saw them. . . UP CLOSE!?

While holographic projection has come a long way, I just don't think it's good enough to fools so many people -- it just wouldn't be a sound way to mask the covert antics of creating an implosion. Then there is the theory that the planes were actually taken over by military Remote Control experts and not religiously obsessed idiots. . . :shock: wait a minute, that's a double-edged thought there :o The guy working the R/C system could have been a Baptist :twisted:

I do think some money needs to be set aside for building a special mental hospital just for helping the Conspiracy Crack Pots that can't accept a less than subtle truth. :geek:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (Must S

Postby Scepcop » 01 Nov 2012, 16:34

Check out this new trailer for the film "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out". It's pretty good.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby Scepcop » 01 Nov 2012, 16:40

ProfWag wrote:
Jayhawker30 wrote:It might be just me, but I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a skyscraper to crumble after a passenger jet or two crash into it.

Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)


That's very bad logic. A jetliner hitting the top of a skyscraper would only damage THAT part. At worst, the damaged part could tip over. But it's not going to make the thousands of tons of structure UNDERNEATH it to collapse with zero resistance. That's not logical or possible at all. Buildings don't have zero resistance. If they did, the roof over you would collapse on you right now. So you are definitely wrong. It is not perfectly reasonable at all. You can't destroy the top of a skyscraper and expect the whole structure beneath to collapse at zero resistance. Even a child can understand this. Why can't pseudoskeptics?

Furthermore, Building 7 was not even hit by a plane. Did you forget that? That smoking gun didn't even make you raise an eyebrow? If not, then you are disinfo trolls with an agenda, not normal people with good common sense. Even rednecks have more common sense and logic than you.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby SydneyPSIder » 01 Nov 2012, 19:45

ProfWag wrote:Winston, just what is your most compelling argument that supports a controlled demolition in any of the buildings? I'm just looking for one thing to keep it simple and then, let's debate it. Is it concerning WTC 7 turning steel into dust or whatever you call the rubble? Something else? Maybe with WTC 1 & 2? Just what piece of evidence do you find so compelling that you are convinced this was a controlled demolition?


Image
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby really? » 02 Nov 2012, 04:19

Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Jayhawker30 wrote:It might be just me, but I think that it's perfectly reasonable for a skyscraper to crumble after a passenger jet or two crash into it.

Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)


That's very bad logic. A jetliner hitting the top of a skyscraper would only damage THAT part. At worst, the damaged part could tip over. But it's not going to make the thousands of tons of structure UNDERNEATH it to collapse with zero resistance. That's not logical or possible at all. Buildings don't have zero resistance. If they did, the roof over you would collapse on you right now. So you are definitely wrong. It is not perfectly reasonable at all. You can't destroy the top of a skyscraper and expect the whole structure beneath to collapse at zero resistance. Even a child can understand this. Why can't pseudoskeptics?

Furthermore, Building 7 was not even hit by a plane. Did you forget that? That smoking gun didn't even make you raise an eyebrow? If not, then you are disinfo trolls with an agenda, not normal people with good common sense. Even rednecks have more common sense and logic than you.


And yet the pseudoincredulous saw just what you said can't happen live on tv .
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby SydneyPSIder » 02 Nov 2012, 13:22

really? wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)


That's very bad logic. A jetliner hitting the top of a skyscraper would only damage THAT part. At worst, the damaged part could tip over. But it's not going to make the thousands of tons of structure UNDERNEATH it to collapse with zero resistance. That's not logical or possible at all. Buildings don't have zero resistance. If they did, the roof over you would collapse on you right now. So you are definitely wrong. It is not perfectly reasonable at all. You can't destroy the top of a skyscraper and expect the whole structure beneath to collapse at zero resistance. Even a child can understand this.
Why can't pseudoskeptics?

Furthermore, Building 7 was not even hit by a plane. Did you forget that? That smoking gun didn't even make you raise an eyebrow? If not, then you are disinfo trolls with an agenda, not normal people with good common sense. Even rednecks have more common sense and logic than you.


And yet the pseudoincredulous saw just what you said can't happen live on tv .



I've just seen a very interesting analysis online a couple days ago of how the footage and pics have been faked. Will have to re-google it later and post a link , unless other forum members are happy to just google it like I did .


For instance, the shots taken from a helicopter have had the helicopter stuff faked in around it by a study of the movements of the fakery vs the background. then the brooklyn bridge keeps changing size, distance and location in different shots, as though using backmask software with a foreground and background being brought together -- and what was with that strange footage we've all seen with the WTC towers suddenly becoming grey wireframes in one shot as it goes out? bit hard to do in a real video shot, it's more like the early stolen copy of 'wolverine' that got out there with missing special effects! also, the analyst shows how the plane hitting the building with the nose coming through the other side intact and in exactly the same profile went awry -- attempting to mix a shot of the scene with a faked airplane using realtime or near realtime technology, and the real helicopter shifted slightly in flight, meaning the superimposed shot of a fake plane kept going out the other side. the guy involved in ostensibly 'taking' the shot is extremely quiet about it, and just says 'I don't know, that must have been what happened, that was the shot I took'. (Of course it's impossible for the soft empty nose of a plane to hit umpteen streel columns and come through the other side intact and in exactly the same profile). the analysis makes perfect sense and clears up a few mysteries.

also shows how the very limited number of street shots and some actor appearances by stooges were faked or set up.

ther's one piece of footage out there where one guy's arm goes *right through* another person, i.e. characters were dropped into the video later.

It's also interesting that some of the photos show a clear blue sky and others show a smoggy day. You can't have it both ways. On the day of 9/11 it was a clear blue sky, no thermal inversions or smog.

Funny how 4 different networks carried identical footage also, except they were all different colours as though filters had been applied to make them look different.

Here's an example site, 'September Clues', not sure if that was the site I was looking at. Be sure to follow all the links in the index bar on the right -- unless you're a pseudoscep, of course, you won't want or need to see any of the evidence or think about it, that's not in the playbook.

http://septemberclues.info/frameindex.htm
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Postby Scepcop » 12 Nov 2012, 04:31

Russian general exposes the truth about 9/11.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Postby Scepcop » 19 Nov 2012, 19:16

Check out this skyscraper in Beijing, China which was on fire in a raging inferno for a long time, yet did not collapse. Yet Chinese architecture is subpar compared to the US. How do you explain that?

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Postby Arouet » 19 Nov 2012, 19:48

Seriously scepcop? Whatever the truth of 911 you can't possibly think that the claim is that whenever a building is on fire it collapses!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Postby SydneyPSIder » 19 Nov 2012, 21:58

Arouet wrote:Seriously scepcop? Whatever the truth of 911 you can't possibly think that the claim is that whenever a building is on fire it collapses!

the claims that have been made in the official account from the US govt are just ridiculous, from a scientific, metallurgical point of view.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Postby Arouet » 19 Nov 2012, 23:25

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:Seriously scepcop? Whatever the truth of 911 you can't possibly think that the claim is that whenever a building is on fire it collapses!

the claims that have been made in the official account from the US govt are just ridiculous, from a scientific, metallurgical point of view.


Whether or not that is true - their claim is NOT that any time the top of a building goes on fire the building should fall down. Do you disagree?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New beautiful 9/11 truth song, in memory of 9/11

Postby really? » 20 Nov 2012, 00:07

ProfWag wrote:Oh c'mon Jayhawker, that's thinking logically. Some people around here find that offensive. (I would say who, but I don't want Scepcop to think I'm pointing him out...oh wait...)


Scepcop wrote:That's very bad logic. A jetliner hitting the top of a skyscraper would only damage THAT part. At worst, the damaged part could tip over. But it's not going to make the thousands of tons of structure UNDERNEATH it to collapse with zero resistance. That's not logical or possible at all. Buildings don't have zero resistance. If they did, the roof over you would collapse on you right now. So you are definitely wrong. It is not perfectly reasonable at all. You can't destroy the top of a skyscraper and expect the whole structure beneath to collapse at zero resistance. Even a child can understand this.
Why can't pseudoskeptics?

Furthermore, Building 7 was not even hit by a plane. Did you forget that? That smoking gun didn't even make you raise an eyebrow? If not, then you are disinfo trolls with an agenda, not normal people with good common sense. Even rednecks have more common sense and logic than you.

really? wrote:And yet the pseudoincredulous saw just what you said can't happen live on tv .





SydneyPSIder wrote:I've just seen a very interesting analysis online a couple days ago of how the footage and pics have been faked. Will have to re-google it later and post a link , unless other forum members are happy to just google it like I did .


For instance, the shots taken from a helicopter have had the helicopter stuff faked in around it by a study of the movements of the fakery vs the background. then the brooklyn bridge keeps changing size, distance and location in different shots, as though using backmask software with a foreground and background being brought together -- and what was with that strange footage we've all seen with the WTC towers suddenly becoming grey wireframes in one shot as it goes out? bit hard to do in a real video shot, it's more like the early stolen copy of 'wolverine' that got out there with missing special effects! also, the analyst shows how the plane hitting the building with the nose coming through the other side intact and in exactly the same profile went awry -- attempting to mix a shot of the scene with a faked airplane using realtime or near realtime technology, and the real helicopter shifted slightly in flight, meaning the superimposed shot of a fake plane kept going out the other side. the guy involved in ostensibly 'taking' the shot is extremely quiet about it, and just says 'I don't know, that must have been what happened, that was the shot I took'. (Of course it's impossible for the soft empty nose of a plane to hit umpteen streel columns and come through the other side intact and in exactly the same profile). the analysis makes perfect sense and clears up a few mysteries.

also shows how the very limited number of street shots and some actor appearances by stooges were faked or set up.

ther's one piece of footage out there where one guy's arm goes *right through* another person, i.e. characters were dropped into the video later.

It's also interesting that some of the photos show a clear blue sky and others show a smoggy day. You can't have it both ways. On the day of 9/11 it was a clear blue sky, no thermal inversions or smog. Funny how 4 different networks carried identical footage also, except they were all different colours as though filters had been applied to make them look different.



Here's an example site, 'September Clues', not sure if that was the site I was looking at. Be sure to follow all the links in the index bar on the right -- unless you're a pseudoscep, of course, you won't want or need to see any of the evidence or think about it, that's not in the playbook.

http://septemberclues.info/frameindex.htm


To the bold.So what ? Here's what I see. I see in all 4 of the photos showing the same amount of haze near the horizon.
The pseudoincredulous masquerading as truth seekers constantly amaze me with their silly CT fabrications.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New Film! 9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Postby SydneyPSIder » 20 Nov 2012, 02:35

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:the claims that have been made in the official account from the US govt are just ridiculous, from a scientific, metallurgical point of view.


Whether or not that is true - their claim is NOT that any time the top of a building goes on fire the building should fall down. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. Where does this line of sophistry take you?

The only way they could make the claim that a low temperature avgas fire could 'weaken the structure' was to claim some fire retardant had been stripped off beams on a couple of floors -- at the very least, if it were true, a very convenient reno for the 'terrorists' who once again showed amazing insights and intelligence gathering, working much more skilfully than the entire FBI who studiously ignored suspicious tip-offs! In fact, their case rested on it. They also claimed that burning office materials 'must' have increased the temperature, also highly unlikely.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron