Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 You can't be serious Empty. Babylon has demonstrated that the "pod" is clearly a wing fairing. Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? its clearly not the fairing ,, its on one side only http://www.911inplanesite.com/new_york_magazine.htm
BoneDog Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 You can't be serious Empty. Babylon has demonstrated that the "pod" is clearly a wing fairing. Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? Yes I am serious! (and no I'm not a member of the Flat Earth Society I'm a follower of The Hollow Earth theory. Only joking). Babylon hasn't demonstrated anything on the subject of the pod. All Babylon has done is shown us what a few people 'In the club' have told us. Everything he quoted in that post is pure baloney. As for Popular Mechanics They have not been reliable on this since they were bought out just after 911. I personally tend to believe the people in this video on this subject (including Colonel George Nelson and Major Glen MacDonald among others) rather than the lying muppets mentioned earlier. I'm sure that most folk who watch this video might agree. Let's not forget that many people at the scen, including reporters, said that the plane had no windows and was not a normal plane.
BoneDog Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 You should all read '9/11 The New Evidence' by Ian Henshall. I'm not saying it's true, but it makes for interesting reading.There's also a load of stuff about 'controlled demolitions' and explosions seen around the outside of the towers before they fell all over youtube. It all adds to the conspiracy theories, rightly or wrongly. I've not read that one, never even heard of it, which is surprising cos I always on the look out for books and stuff on this subject. Just checked it out on Amazon and am definitely gonna buy it after reading the review : "The book became a non-fiction bestseller despite a wall of silence by the broadcast media and condemnation in a special web page set up by the US State Department. Since then the story has produced many sinister new twists, including: Pentagon whistleblowers have accused the 'Independent 9/11 Commission' of lying; long-suppressed eyewitness testimony has been released confirming multiple explosions in the Twin Towers before and during their collapses; the much vaunted video purporting to prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon showed nothing at all; and an analysis of terrorist trials and arrests since 2001 indicates that far from the '600 Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the US' (CIA) there were none at all." Any book that gets special condemnation from the US State Department has got to be worth a read.
BoneDog Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Oh and one last thing, that really detracts from the conspiracy thearoist cause is that their's money in making a conspiray theory, but there isn't in proving what is already thought to be the established truth. All the books, documentaries, scientific research etc - someone at the end of this would be making money from it. Just look at 24 - they've made 7 (or is 8) series out of conspiracy type theories. Most of the people who are writing books and doing lectures on this issue have given up good livings elsewhere and are no better off. Many are worse off financially since speaking out. I think you do them a great dis-service if you are suggesting they are in this for money 'cos I believe that they are only trying to stand up for the American people and expose the corruption of their government. You are right about 24 making money out of conspiracy, cos they do. They make money out of planting a totally false belief of how the US government and intelligence agencies work. It's amazing how many people I've met who actually base their view of the US administration and CIA etc. on this programme!
BoneDog Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 That message from Borat goes out to Zingari too for his contributions Love the little old lady right at the end of easilees video
Babylon Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 its clearly not the fairing ,, its on one side only http://www.911inplanesite.com/new_york_magazine.htm Oh deary me.... the sun can only shine in one direction you know. Of course the two sides aren't going to look the same. Look at the engines, light on one side dark on the other makes them look different on either side. You probably think their is a man on the moon also. Planes have cargo holds, what would be the point in strapping something to the outside of the plane anyway? Maybe they couldn't put it inside the plane as it was full of plane windows El Empty, so everyone who speaks out on the subject is talking baloney and a muppet, even though they are equally as qualified as anyone you can mention. What's the point in even discussing it if you are completely blind to anyone else's opinion. Your evidence includes shitty low res pictures of an aeroplane, you'd get laughed out of court for even submitting it as evidence. Oh lets not forget "some spanish university says it's not a trick of the light" wow I'm sold!!!!
Babylon Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Also... for one minute lets pretend it actually was a pod of some kind (it wasn't). How did the plane take off exactly? The images you are showing have the "pod" on the bottom of the plane, but just off to the side. Exactly where landing gears come out and go in.
Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Oh deary me.... the sun can only shine in one direction you know. Of course the two sides aren't going to look the same. Look at the engines, light on one side dark on the other makes them look different on either side.You probably think their is a man on the moon also. Planes have cargo holds, what would be the point in strapping something to the outside of the plane anyway? Maybe they couldn't put it inside the plane as it was full of plane windows El Empty, so everyone who speaks out on the subject is talking baloney and a muppet, even though they are equally as qualified as anyone you can mention. What's the point in even discussing it if you are completely blind to anyone else's opinion. Your evidence includes shitty low res pictures of an aeroplane, you'd get laughed out of court for even submitting it as evidence. Oh lets not forget "some spanish university says it's not a trick of the light" wow I'm sold!!!! so why is the image visible from 4 different angles ? look at the previous set of pics and a plane with an external pod could probably take off like this one
Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 listen to Eisehower's farewell speech ,, it sounds very much like a man who has had a glimpse of the nightmare scenario of the military industrial complex and their steathful seizure of power he wasn't the most colourful of presidents , but maybe one of the most aware http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU
Babylon Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 so why is the image visible from 4 different angles ? look at the previous set of pics The photos are all from the same side. Meaning they all capture the same lighting effect. so why is the image visible from 4 different angles ? look at the previous set of pics and a plane with an external pod could probably take off like this one That is centrally fitted and not off to one side, the wheels can come down on either side of it. The positioning of the "pod" you are suggesting is sitting directly over where the landing gear comes down.
hairy Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 You probably think their is a man on the moon also. Of course there's a man on the moon Sorry. I am getting bored of all this conspiracy about 9/11. What about Haiti? The Yanks are kidnapping the kids now for their own experiments!
Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Look at the 4 pictures of Osama bin laden Which one looks different ? Which one admitted to the 911 attacks ?
skinnydipper Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Look at the 4 pictures of Osama bin laden Which one looks different ? Which one admitted to the 911 attacks ? I don't know but number 1 is on Singstar so I'm guessing it's not him unless he's doing the " I did 9/11" rap Number 4 looks like Gary Lineker in fancy dress as Osama bin Laden so I suppose it could be that one
Edmund Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 it's all kicking off now! Looks like the works of 'The Club'. Check this photo out : Add that with this covert lighter : Coupled with this wrapper found in the vicinity: Are you telling me that this wasn't a set up?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Most of the people who are writing books and doing lectures on this issue have given up good livings elsewhere and are no better off. Many are worse off financially since speaking out. I think you do them a great dis-service if you are suggesting they are in this for money 'cos I believe that they are only trying to stand up for the American people and expose the corruption of their government.You are right about 24 making money out of conspiracy, cos they do. They make money out of planting a totally false belief of how the US government and intelligence agencies work. It's amazing how many people I've met who actually base their view of the US administration and CIA etc. on this programme! Ok there maybe some not in it for purely Money - but fame, notoriety and generally pissing the goverment off all stand as pretty good reasons to look for the alternative truth. After all the post before this reply you were looking to purchase a best selling book. And going by 24 standards - surely a lot more people would have had to be killed to keep this kind of conspiracy quiet? I'm now growing tired of the little differences in pictures and oooh what about this being brought up by you and Zingari. Considering you are both well read on the subject, I would like a full report of a.) who did it b.) why c.) how and what was used Please include links to co-orberating evidence in your workings. The others will mark (or ridicule) your work later.
Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Consider this , it's a commonly held belief that most scientists. architects and structural engineers are not suspicious that the planes and subsequent fires brought the WTC buildings down . OK now consider this ; Why did they not raise concerns, when it was claimed by the scientists, architects and engineeers, who where involved in the construction of the WTC Buildings , that "the WTC buildings could easily sustain multiple strikes by Boeing 707s and not collapse " Surely they should have been shouting from the rafters " you can't possibly build a structure that won't fall down if an aeroplane hits it and it catches fire !!! " They should have been telling them ( and us of course )in no uncertain terms " if an aeroplane hits the towers , they will fall down , its a certainty , only a fool would believe that a steel structured building won't fall down if an aeroplane hits it !!! What was the reason for their silence prior to the event ? Perhaps someone can tell me of a scientist/engineer that doubted "prior to 911" that the WTC buildings could have withstood a strike by aeroplane and fire . I've looked , i can't find any , but i'm sure there must be millions, because there is always a common consensus among scientists ?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Perhaps someone can tell me of a scientist/engineer that doubted "prior to 911" that the WTC buildings could have withstood a strike by aeroplane and fire . Wikipedia re WTC Have a read of this - seems the planes were not the first instances affecting the structual integrity of the building. In answer to you question, I would expect at the time of building the towers (throughout the 1940's to 1960's) the thinking behind structural engineering was somewhat different to the thinking now. The building itself was a revolutionary technique, so no-one could be sure what would have happened if a plane hit it, but the designers were clearly going to be of the opinion it could withstand a hit. Your asking something that at the time was an unknown and wouldn't have been able to have been proved on that scale. We are of course always better informed after an event, so of course now the general opinion has changed. Remember the world was flat, the world was round debate? It doesn't really beg the question, what is the full picture behind this being a 'conspiracy' rather than an attack against the west by a group known to want to attack the west? Are you also questioning other terroist attacks? Take your pick from these!
Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Wikipedia re WTCHave a read of this - seems the planes were not the first instances affecting the structual integrity of the building. In answer to you question, I would expect at the time of building the towers (throughout the 1940's to 1960's) the thinking behind structural engineering was somewhat different to the thinking now. The building itself was a revolutionary technique, so no-one could be sure what would have happened if a plane hit it, but the designers were clearly going to be of the opinion it could withstand a hit. Your asking something that at the time was an unknown and wouldn't have been able to have been proved on that scale. We are of course always better informed after an event, so of course now the general opinion has changed. Remember the world was flat, the world was round debate? It doesn't really beg the question, what is the full picture behind this being a 'conspiracy' rather than an attack against the west by a group known to want to attack the west? Are you also questioning other terroist attacks? Take your pick from these! no i'm not , everyone on these boards that agree with the official line say its "basic physics " you can't have it both ways
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 no i'm not , everyone on these boards that agree with the official line say its "basic physics "you can't have it both ways Well maybe basic physics was different then? After all at that point we weren't on the moon. Physics itself changes all the bloody time, we are learning more and more and more so it is surely understandable that the basic theory level could also change? Even the bloody planes were different back in 1960's, the pilot had to flap the wings himself!
Zingari Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 Well maybe basic physics was different then? After all at that point we weren't on the moon. Physics itself changes all the bloody time, we are learning more and more and more so it is surely understandable that the basic theory level could also change? Even the bloody planes were different back in 1960's, the pilot had to flap the wings himself! yes basic physics changes quite often why believe anything in it then ?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 2 February 2010 Posted 2 February 2010 yes basic physics changes quite often why believe anything in it then ? So let me get this right - your saying physics is unbeleivable, but you want a different method of physics (i.e. gunpowder not plane) to support your arguement against another theory of physics regarding the 9/11 attacks? Haven't you just rounded on yourself on this point in terms of discounting both theroies? It was the pink elephant that sat on the buildings that made them fall down? I'm still not swayed into the arguement that this was not a terroist attack. What was the purpose of this self inflicted attack if it was the goverment and how many people would you estimate would be involved in the conspiracy?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.