Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 For these people who haven't heard or seen any evidence that disproves 9/11 was an inside job or that the moon landing was faked, you are obviously not trying. For everything that is stated for the conspiracy theory to be true it has been proven false. Eat a penis hamburger and chips and go back to searching for UFO's lads!!! It all reminds me of the recent Louis Theroux programme where he went back to see the Woodsboro baptists. They were banging on about how the bible says that disbelievers are idiots etc and that they would burn in hell for eternity. His 6 word reply pretty much rendered everything they were saying useless "Well the bible would say that".
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 i'm an atheist here you are babylon , you can play the part of the guy in shades talking to the architect richard gage about wtc 7
mancunianfox Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Don't have an opinion on 9/11 one way another as I don't think either side presents a case that is without the fault. I have followed the developments within the inside job over the last few years and the way the towers collapsed was undeniably odd and hasn't been completely explained. However the inside job theory still has massive holes and while I think the arguments presented do provide us with some perspective on what happens they are a long way short of being believable as well. There is also just as much evidence to debunk the current inside job theories as well. I'm not opposed to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job but nobody has yet come up with a feasible argument as to how or why.
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 in 1948. The fires burned for much longer. The building was weaker and older than the WTC's that were hit. It was partly because of this incident that Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand big plane impact. My link Another point, the planes on 911 were travelling nowhere near speeds of 500mph as some of you keep saying. They were way too low to be going that speed and were probably only doing half that speed. The dense air at the low altitude acts like an air brake. The NIST report is not trustworthy, and neither is the 911 Commission Report. They're just part of a whitewash or cover up. Just like most other 'official' investigations. Can't believe some of you still believe that all three buildings just happened to break the laws of physics and ALL crumbled into their own footprints at freefall speed. Wowzers. Perhaps the laws of physics took a day off in 2001 for the first and only time ever.
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 This dude has shwon more with his own simple experiments than any official experiment has. Great little video.
marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 in 1948. The fires burned for much longer. The building was weaker and older than the WTC's that were hit. It was partly because of this incident that Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand big plane impact. My link Another point, the planes on 911 were travelling nowhere near speeds of 500mph as some of you keep saying. They were way too low to be going that speed and were probably only doing half that speed. The dense air at the low altitude acts like an air brake. The NIST report is not trustworthy, and neither is the 911 Commission Report. They're just part of a whitewash or cover up. Just like most other 'official' investigations. Can't believe some of you still believe that all three buildings just happened to break the laws of physics and ALL crumbled into their own footprints at freefall speed. Wowzers. Perhaps the laws of physics took a day off in 2001 for the first and only time ever. They didn't fall at free fall speed!!! Look at the top two images on this link - it doesn't look like it's falling in its own footprint to me. Link
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 They didn't fall at free fall speed!!! Look at the top two images on this link - it doesn't look like it's falling in its own footprint to me. Link They took about 2 or 3 seconds longer than freefall speed, but at one point for about 2 seconds they were falling at freefall speed. If they fell naturally due to damage they would have taken much, much longer to drop. And they would have fallen through the path of least resistance, meaning off to the sides and all over the oche. Basic physics, surely? And, I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of those 911 debunking videos or papers, because I've seen some of the explanations they give for the US Air Force not being in the air, among other obvious bullshine! I have seen many scientists, engineers and architects debunk the '911 debunked' stuff.
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Have any of you guys listened to all the firefighters and office workers accounts yet? What do you think of what they say about the explosions in the basements and different lower floors way before the buildings collapsed? Here's another one.
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 And, I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of those 911 debunking videos or papers, because I've seen some of the explanations they give for the US Air Force not being in the air, among other obvious bullshine! I have seen many scientists, engineers and architects debunk the '911 debunked' stuff. Exactly why everyone should just ignore you. You'll use partial quotes and videos showing nothing much at all... but heck you won't believe a video showing that one of the buildings took 12 seconds more to collapse than it would under freefall.
mancunianfox Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 in 1948. The fires burned for much longer. The building was weaker and older than the WTC's that were hit. It was partly because of this incident that Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand big plane impact. My link Another point, the planes on 911 were travelling nowhere near speeds of 500mph as some of you keep saying. They were way too low to be going that speed and were probably only doing half that speed. The dense air at the low altitude acts like an air brake. The NIST report is not trustworthy, and neither is the 911 Commission Report. They're just part of a whitewash or cover up. Just like most other 'official' investigations. Can't believe some of you still believe that all three buildings just happened to break the laws of physics and ALL crumbled into their own footprints at freefall speed. Wowzers. Perhaps the laws of physics took a day off in 2001 for the first and only time ever. Well that is a presumption that most people don't agree with. I agree that both the FEMA and NIST investigations reached unsatisfactory conclusions but there is no evidence to suggest that is because they are part of a whitewash or cover up. This presumes a huge amount of efficiency and co-operation which really doesn't exist in society. People are just naturally incompetant. There are huge problems with the physics of the way those towers collapsed because nobody has provided an adequate explanation yet. I think the more investigations into the event the better but I don't think there is much to suggest that 'it waz teh president' yet and I think a lot of the 9/11 truth scene are filling in the gaps a bit too eagerly at the moment.
marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 They took about 2 or 3 seconds longer than freefall speed, but at one point for about 2 seconds they were falling at freefall speed. If they fell naturally due to damage they would have taken much, much longer to drop. And they would have fallen through the path of least resistance, meaning off to the sides and all over the oche. Basic physics, surely? And, I'm sorry, but I can't believe any of those 911 debunking videos or papers, because I've seen some of the explanations they give for the US Air Force not being in the air, among other obvious bullshine! I have seen many scientists, engineers and architects debunk the '911 debunked' stuff. 2-3 seconds?! Behave!!! They took about 7-8 seconds longer. Much, much longer?! really? why is that then? please explain these basic physics to me that I seem unable to grasp. What ever video I show you or countless academic journals that disprove some hearsay trotted out by some supposed "expert" will never be enough. And those videos you any Zingari posted yesterday contradicted each other - there were massive variations in the accounts of "key" witnesses with regards to timings, number of explosions etc. If the Government came out with such a varied account of what went on you'd be all over it like white on rice - case in point the Bin Laden sequence of events.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 well , the wtc 7 collapse and controlled demolition of a similar building collapse look pretty similar to me
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Exactly why everyone should just ignore you. You'll use partial quotes and videos showing nothing much at all... but heck you won't believe a video showing that one of the buildings took 12 seconds more to collapse than it would under freefall. You should be ignored much more than me when it comes to this subject. Which building took 12 extra seconds? And that proves absolutely nothing. A demolition job is always slightly slower than freefall speed. You should be ignored because you say that people should ignore the laws of physics, and that three buildings can fall into their own footprints because of asymmetrical damage!! Sort ya'sen out. Don''t listen to this guy people, his tongue is really, really, really far up the 'powers that be' asses. He loves it.
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 "A new religious movement was born September 11th, 2001. This movement was conceived by the American government and comprises many members of the American and European elite, politicians, editors of mass and so-called alternative media, publishers and academics. The movement's unifying faith is the legend of 9/11, namely that 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four airliners and flew these airliners into the known landmarks in a suicide operation. The legend of 9/11 is composed of a number of distinct beliefs. Here are ten of the most tenacious beliefs that unite cult members: 1. They believe that 4 young pilots who love money, alcohol and sex, could be convinced to kill themselves for a religious purpose. 2. They believe that four teams of four to five rather smallish men could subdue 40 to 80 passengers without using firearms and without raising the suspicion of the pilots. 3. They believe it is possible to subdue a pilot and co-pilot in their flight cabin before either can transmit a hijacking code, a verbal Mayday message, or raise the suspicion of the crew. 4. They believe a person who could hardly control a one-engine Cessna can fly a Boeing passenger airliner on instruments alone for more than an hour in a foreign country and crash this airliner at 500 mph into the side of a building 20 feet above ground. 5. They believe the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. , is undefended against approaching unidentified aircraft. 6. They believe crashing aircraft can disintegrate, leaving no visible debris such as fuselage, wings, tail or engine. 7. They believe an airliner with 45 passengers can crash without leaving visible bodies and blood. 8. They believe debris from a crashing airplane can be found eight miles away. 9. They believe it is possible to induce a free-fall collapse of a skyscraper by hitting it with an airplane (even if the skycraper was designed to withstand such a strike) and then letting the resulting fire bring it down. 10. They believe that 19 Arab terrorists actually boarded the four aircraft that crashed on 9/11. Religious movements are generally peaceful, but this is not the case with the 9/11 Cult. The cult's members control weapons of mass destruction and the information flow to the public. When such powers are concentrated in the hands of cult members who base their decisions on irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs, rather than on facts, everyone is in danger. Members of this cult, no matter their status, fame or power, must be designated as madmen. It is important to secure the removal of such madmen from positions of influence and power as soon as possible, in order to give international peace and security a chance. - Elias Davidsson" The above is Babylons religion. Even worse than the frickin Raelians!!!! Most of the 10 Commandments of the above cult can be proved false in a court of law. Easily.
mancunianfox Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 I notice that you haven't also posted one of those for the eve greater leaps of faith required to also believe in the other extreme (that the 9/11 attacks where planned by the American government). You should also question your own beliefs if your going to question someone elses.
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 well , the wtc 7 collapse and controlled demolition of a similar building collapse look pretty similar to me Collapsing buildings fall down and create mess shocker. Call the cops!
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Now, you seem keen on physics, I just wish you were consistent.... Freefall mentioned about 100 times in this thread, then all of a sudden they are falling slower than freefall "as that's what demolitions do". Make your minds up. Can't believe some of you still believe that all three buildings just happened to break the laws of physics and ALL crumbled into their own footprints at freefall speed. Wowzers. or is there a critical amount of floors between 32 and 47 that makes a building so unstable due to fire that makes it liable to total freefall collapse ? how many more times ? a building hit by debris would not fall symmetrically at free-fall speed .
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 The above is Babylons religion. My religion is fact, something that none of you have so far been able to present.
marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Now, you seem keen on physics, I just wish you were consistent.... Freefall mentioned about 100 times in this thread, then all of a sudden they are falling slower than freefall "as that's what demolitions do". Make your minds up. I think it's what they call 'make it up as you go along', Babylon.
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 I think it's what they call 'make it up as you go along', Babylon. Indeed.... I've been through this a hundred times before as well. I think it's time to let it die a death.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Collapsing buildings fall down and create mess shocker. Call the cops! its the way they are falling that is significant , both look very similar in the nature of the collapse and one is known to be a controlled demolition .which is a good indicator as to the cause of the other if i drop 2 bricks from a high building i expect them to fall at the same time , if i drop 2 bricks and one of them has to meet resistance from ojects below......................blah blah blah
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Now, you seem keen on physics, I just wish you were consistent.... Freefall mentioned about 100 times in this thread, then all of a sudden they are falling slower than freefall "as that's what demolitions do". Make your minds up. i think freefall only happens in a vacuum so obviously cannot happen , what is being cited by us is "close to freefall "
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.