FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Why they wouldn't fly planes into the World Trade Center
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
bottomline



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:59 am    Post subject: Re: Ask the firemen. Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote:

Use logic. If thousands of people were watching the first tower burn and the second one just blew up, doncha think that lots would be saying "what second plane?"





It's good that you know logic and have such confidence in your ability to use it. I could almost buy what you wrote, except a few little details, for example:

If thousands of people were watching the first tower burn and the second one just blew up, doncha think that lots would be saying "what second plane?"


Just because no thousands of people have come out asking "what second plane?" , you would jump to the conclusion that they must have seen it ? what kind of logic is that ?

Have you read the story of "the emperor's with no clothes" ?
No offence meant. It would just save me a lot of explaining and typing if you did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think you've quite grasped the point. People have brains. The only reason the official story works as an official story is that it has surface plausibility. The implausible must be hidden from sight, so far as possible. You're off to a bad start, in other words, by not using planes for your attack and then pretending there were planes, when not using planes has no bearing on the object of the exercise, namely, making it seem plausible to those who haven't considered these matters that plane impacts and associated fires can cause structural failure in steel-framed skyscrapers.

Arguing that there were no planes, when there is not the slightest reason to believe there were not planes, both alienates alternative explanations from those who might otherwise be open to them (because, whatever you might aver, such illusions are technically impossible), but, more important, lets the perpetrators off the hook, because then you're busy speculating about coverups here and psyops there, when the obvious lies in plain sight (no pun desired) - steel-framed skyscrapers cannot collapse in such a manner, which means they must have been demolished deliberately.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, and that's "The Emperor's New Clothes", by the way. You just went and gave away the plot twist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tell ya what I'm a gonna do, a suggestion if you will. I believe the only people who truly saw a 767 Passenger jet were people watching on TV. People actually on the site saw something other than a " 767 Passenger jet " What it was is open to all forms of debate but I'm willing to bet the Farm that it wasn't a Passenger jet 767.

I remember exactly what I saw on TV that morning, the show I was watching and who was announcing. Mark Haynes of CNBC. That piece of footage has never been seen again and it never will because Haynes accurately called the collapse of the towers a deliberate act, I can almost quote him word for word when he said:" these towers just didn't " HAPPEN " to collapse, both in exactly the same manner, one after the other "

It's a piece of the puzzled everyone selling the official story refuses to discuss or even acknowledge because any examination of it would conclude that it was highly unlikely if not all but impossible.

It's way more far fetched to believe than NPT.( IMHO ) Two 110 story buildings collapse at about the exact speed in about exactly the same manner. Anyone who believes this is in desperate need of something.

Has anyone here seen any of the initial debris that fell from or was ejected from the first strike. Here take a close look:




Notice how it's not confined to an area of initial impact but rather wide spread and on all sides of the tower which would indicate that something exploded in the central area of the tower. I think debris from a plane slamming into the towers would have most likely been a bit more localized.

Secondly the impact hole I'll post a pic of it that lacks the Official stories selling point " FIRE " CHECK IT OUT:



Sure there's some fire but far from a raging inferno. I can post other pics that clearly show the fire spreading in a uniform manner just a few minutes before it collapsed. I wonder what they used to create such a scene. It's just odd as hell if you ask me.

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre,

Do you accuse anyone who has the temerity to admit the existence of planes a defender of the official conspiracy theory? It's a logic leap if you ask me. Build a bridge before you dislocate something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where in the hell do you guys come up with this shit? Say it slowly over and over again and again until it sinks in.

No 767 Pass Jets, No 767 Pass Jets. Why~~~~~~~~( NO WRECKAGE CONSISTENT WITH 767 PASS JET ) Planes YOU SAY if so again ( NO 767 PASS JET ) So what kind?

Oh please understand that being told of planes with no actual wreckage as evidence leaves unanswered questions: PARADE THAT WRECKAGE to sell it: They didn't because they can't it simply doesn't exist. Believe me, I'd find it!

Good day,

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:54 am    Post subject: Planes-yes. Demolition-yes. Reply with quote

Hombre wrote:
Tell ya what I'm a gonna do, a suggestion if you will. I believe...

Based on what?
Quote:
... the only people who truly saw a 767 Passenger jet were people watching on TV. People actually on the site saw something other than a " 767 Passenger jet " What it was is open to all forms of debate but I'm willing to bet the Farm that it wasn't a Passenger jet 767.

Based on what?
Thousands of New Yorkers saw the second plane including many firemen.
Many many amateur videos corroborate this reality, not just a few network tv cameras.
Why are you ignoring that?

Quote:
I remember exactly what I saw on TV that morning, the show I was watching and who was announcing. Mark Haynes of CNBC. That piece of footage has never been seen again and it never will because Haynes accurately called the collapse of the towers a deliberate act, I can almost quote him word for word when he said:" these towers just didn't " HAPPEN " to collapse, both in exactly the same manner, one after the other "

Not relevant in the least to questioning the existence of crashed planes at all.
There were planes.

Quote:
It's a piece of the puzzled everyone selling the official story refuses to discuss or even acknowledge because any examination of it would conclude that it was highly unlikely if not all but impossible.

Not relevant in the least to questioning the existence of crashed planes at all.
There were planes.

Quote:
It's way more far fetched to believe than NPT.( IMHO ) Two 110 story buildings collapse at about the exact speed in about exactly the same manner. Anyone who believes this is in desperate need of something.

Not relevant in the least to questioning the existence of crashed planes at all.
There were planes.
Quote:
Has anyone here seen any of the initial debris that fell from or was ejected from the first strike. Here take a close look:


This is a tiny area, maybe 50'x75' near a WTC tower which was over 200'x200' and the location is not identified.
Quote:

Notice how it's not confined to an area of initial impact but rather wide spread and on all sides of the tower which would indicate that something exploded in the central area of the tower. I think debris from a plane slamming into the towers would have most likely been a bit more localized.


A plane ripping through an office building at 400-500 mph with a massive fuel explosion around 800 feet (one-fifth of a mile) in the air would disperse debris in quite a widespread area as seems to be the case in the photo.

Quote:
Secondly the impact hole I'll post a pic of it that lacks the Official stories selling point " FIRE " CHECK IT OUT:


Again, the plane hit that AHEM plane-shaped hole at either 400+ or 500+ mph depending on which one and so the fires were at the OTHER end of the building and short-lived at that since most of the fuel burned up within 10 minutes leaving typical office fires.

Quote:
Sure there's some fire but far from a raging inferno. I can post other pics that clearly show the fire spreading in a uniform manner just a few minutes before it collapsed. I wonder what they used to create such a scene. It's just odd as hell if you ask me.

Hombre


The thermate metallurgical (from a 40lb. sample of previously-molten metal and steel beams) and dust (from EPA's own analysis and samples saved by New Yorkers) evidence has been found and matches the temperature-color of the molten metal pouring out of the WTC just before it was blown up from top-to-bottom to give the illusion of a 'pancake collapse.'

The best paper by an engineering professional describing just how the Twin Towers would've been destroyed in a four-stage demolition is by Gordon Ross and I found it at the website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

From the big list of technical papers-
http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

The link goes to Ross' own site for his paper called
"How the Towers Were Blown Up"-
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

Informative reading which integrates what was seen, found, and required for a controlled demolition of uniquely over-designed towers.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre, I've said this before, and I'll repeat it here. You cite the absence of identifiable plane parts as "evidence" that planes did not hit the towers. But what would be more surprising, given the high velocity at which the crashes occurred, would be to find actual, identifiable pieces of wreckage. High speed plane disasters simply do not happen that way. You can research specific examples if you like. Most plane crashes happen at lower speeds, during the takeoff or landing phases of flight. They are rarely deliberately flown into objects at full speed. In cases where planes have dropped from the sky due to engine failure or crashed into buildings (such as the apartment block crash in Amsterdam) exhibit an interesting characteristic: few, if any, identifiable pieces of wreckage. It's the same phenomenon in this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh lord they turned into a liquid on impact and still ejected debris in all directions through 208' of building.

Stay away from State Fairs, you'll lose your shirt.

I have a question: What does a 767 Passenger jet cruising at 500 mph at 900 feet elevation sound like up close? Please do think before you answer.

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last comment on this topic: moylan I can crucify you on the last post you made about speed crash vs slow crash but I won't I'll draw you a picture instead and then leave it alone.

They sold planes on TV and then in the streets as evidenced by this staged/rigged picture here:


You can't see this because you are not capable of critical thinking at a level that will allow your brain to accept what you really see. They count on this kind of thinking to sell the story.

Here is how they continue to cover it up and it's so simple that anyone willing to accept the though of what really happened as the real truth could never believe the " OFFICIAL STORY " but most can't accept it so it grows and eventually becomes real even though it's a blatant lie and cover up.



Come on now, think, use your head. As for your high speed crash stuff: why any debris at all then? I saw a engine, a wheel/tire which at 500 mph couldn't possibly be right could it. I mean it had to melt into the building or vaporize at 500 mph. WOULDN'T IT??

Dude you're way smarter than this, or are you?

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre, I'm trying to figure you out, I really am. Give me some credit for trying. Can we agree on something? In future, when you advance a point, try to leave the bad logic out? Calling people stupid because they don't agree with you is playground material. I mean, please. The same goes from straw men, well-poisoning, and the rest.

Planes turning into liquid? I beg your pardon? The skin of the plane most certainly disintegrated into small pieces, along with seats, people, etc. They're fragile, and contact at 200mph with structural steel ain't healthy. The Rolls Royce RB211-524 engine, used on the Boeing 767, weighs over 9,000lb. What do we see on the kerb after the crash? Why, a jet engine. In true circular fashion, you claim that this must have been planted, because there were no planes. There were no planes because there was no wreckage! Good call, Hombre.

Again, you'll have to specify this wondrous TV tech of yours that manages both to spill over into amateur videos and photos as well as clouding the perceptions of witnesses.

What's your case based on? One witness who thought the plane was smaller. I'm sold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh and Hombre, let the crucifying begin. I can't wait.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 2 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.