The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
It didn't go through the concrete below it, I don't see why the WTC would either. After all, the debris is going to be hitting the ground in stages, not the entire weight from height all at once.
EDIT: Why would magnetism move a hurricane btw? Are clouds made of iron?
That building was a quarter of the size of the twin towers, not an accurate comparison.
The Kingdome hit the ground in stages, it was a fraction of the size the towers, yet still registered a greater set of ground tremors than the twin towers.
Are clouds made of iron? You know that to be absurd, but seem unaware that storm clouds, hurricanes, and atmosphere still hold a charge.
The only proof you have of planes being used are what you've seen on TV, the amount of people who report seeing these planes is tiny.
The ballistics can be altered and we don't have any independent tests, the ballistics would be the same if some droned planes were used and that the Boeings were either projected onto them or altered later with CGI.
There are not many independent films of the event, thus we only have the msm and some 'film crew' that happened to be filing the WTC at the time....
SO it could be CGI on the news reels, that is covering the drone planes that are being used no only as missiles but as projection screens for Boeings.
The reason that for all we know passengers could have been killed anywhere, they could have been moved off the planes and been toldabout drills?
The possibilities for that is endless.
Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.
In a city where the majority of the sky is obscured by buildings and the fact thhat most people don't go about their day constantly looking at these rooftops I would imagine it to be quite normal that most people didn't see the planes. Afterall, even if they were missiles or missiles with holographic projections, most people didn't see that either.
''Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.''
If that's your exception than those bits like the black boxes were planted, they could have been used during a simulation and later planted, at the scene, or put in the 'drones', Bits of Boeing could have been put in the drones.
Edit I had to reconstruct the post, I'd made a mistake with the lay out
Fair enough, but you must ask which is more likely given the evidence. Would it not have been far easier just to crash a plane into the towers if you had to plant the evidence of it happening? Especially considering all such other evidence such as radar data, which would confirm the size of the plane as it was travelling. I doubt a hologram could be faked like this.
If you believe it more likely that it was a hologram, then fair enough but I personally think that a near impossibility given the other factors.
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
It didn't go through the concrete below it, I don't see why the WTC would either. After all, the debris is going to be hitting the ground in stages, not the entire weight from height all at once.
EDIT: Why would magnetism move a hurricane btw? Are clouds made of iron?
That building was a quarter of the size of the twin towers, not an accurate comparison.
The Kingdome hit the ground in stages, it was a fraction of the size the towers, yet still registered a greater set of ground tremors than the twin towers.
Are clouds made of iron? You know that to be absurd, but seem unaware that storm clouds, hurricanes, and atmosphere still hold a charge.
Ofc they hold a charge, what you are suggesting though is that magnetism can change the path of a hurricane at distance.
That kind of magnetic force would be enough to pull every steel object within hundreds of miles to it lol.
Cars would've been pulled through the air ffs lol.
As for it not being the same size, the wtc still hit the ground in stages, we all saw the vid
I saw the squibs, the windows popping out, then it went down. There was actually some ground penetration and indeed molten metal for quite some time in the rubble. Again indicative of thermate.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 11:37 #445
The only proof you have of planes being used are what you've seen on TV, the amount of people who report seeing these planes is tiny.
The ballistics can be altered and we don't have any independent tests, the ballistics would be the same if some droned planes were used and that the Boeings were either projected onto them or altered later with CGI.
There are not many independent films of the event, thus we only have the msm and some 'film crew' that happened to be filing the WTC at the time....
SO it could be CGI on the news reels, that is covering the drone planes that are being used no only as missiles but as projection screens for Boeings.
The reason that for all we know passengers could have been killed anywhere, they could have been moved off the planes and been toldabout drills?
The possibilities for that is endless.
Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.
In a city where the majority of the sky is obscured by buildings and the fact thhat most people don't go about their day constantly looking at these rooftops I would imagine it to be quite normal that most people didn't see the planes. Afterall, even if they were missiles or missiles with holographic projections, most people didn't see that either.
''Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.''
If that's your exception than those bits like the black boxes were planted, they could have been used during a simulation and later planted, at the scene, or put in the 'drones', Bits of Boeing could have been put in the drones.
Edit I had to reconstruct the post, I'd made a mistake with the lay out
Fair enough, but you must ask which is more likely given the evidence. Would it not have been far easier just to crash a plane into the towers if you had to plant the evidence of it happening? Especially considering all such other evidence such as radar data, which would confirm the size of the plane as it was travelling. I doubt a hologram could be faked like this.
If you believe it more likely that it was a hologram, then fair enough but I personally think that a near impossibility given the other factors.
I'm not sure what is likely for false flag behaviour, people who agree with the official story will say 'laser guns' 'space weapons' are less likely than alqaeda
that's not my view but theirs.
are we done here yet?
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
It didn't go through the concrete below it, I don't see why the WTC would either. After all, the debris is going to be hitting the ground in stages, not the entire weight from height all at once.
EDIT: Why would magnetism move a hurricane btw? Are clouds made of iron?
That building was a quarter of the size of the twin towers, not an accurate comparison.
The Kingdome hit the ground in stages, it was a fraction of the size the towers, yet still registered a greater set of ground tremors than the twin towers.
Are clouds made of iron? You know that to be absurd, but seem unaware that storm clouds, hurricanes, and atmosphere still hold a charge.
Ofc they hold a charge, what you are suggesting though is that magnetism can change the path of a hurricane at distance.
That kind of magnetic force would be enough to pull every steel object within hundreds of miles to it lol.
Cars would've been pulled through the air ffs lol.
Really? That doesn't happen during a thunderstorm. I don't suppose it matters that we're talking about the upper atmosphere then.
The only proof you have of planes being used are what you've seen on TV, the amount of people who report seeing these planes is tiny.
The ballistics can be altered and we don't have any independent tests, the ballistics would be the same if some droned planes were used and that the Boeings were either projected onto them or altered later with CGI.
There are not many independent films of the event, thus we only have the msm and some 'film crew' that happened to be filing the WTC at the time....
SO it could be CGI on the news reels, that is covering the drone planes that are being used no only as missiles but as projection screens for Boeings.
The reason that for all we know passengers could have been killed anywhere, they could have been moved off the planes and been toldabout drills?
The possibilities for that is endless.
Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.
In a city where the majority of the sky is obscured by buildings and the fact thhat most people don't go about their day constantly looking at these rooftops I would imagine it to be quite normal that most people didn't see the planes. Afterall, even if they were missiles or missiles with holographic projections, most people didn't see that either.
''Except for the parts of the planes found on site of course.''
If that's your exception than those bits like the black boxes were planted, they could have been used during a simulation and later planted, at the scene, or put in the 'drones', Bits of Boeing could have been put in the drones.
Edit I had to reconstruct the post, I'd made a mistake with the lay out
Fair enough, but you must ask which is more likely given the evidence. Would it not have been far easier just to crash a plane into the towers if you had to plant the evidence of it happening? Especially considering all such other evidence such as radar data, which would confirm the size of the plane as it was travelling. I doubt a hologram could be faked like this.
If you believe it more likely that it was a hologram, then fair enough but I personally think that a near impossibility given the other factors.
I'm not sure what is likely for false flag behaviour, people who agree with the official story will say 'laser guns' 'space weapons' are less likely than alqaeda
that's not my view but theirs.
are we done here yet?
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
It didn't go through the concrete below it, I don't see why the WTC would either. After all, the debris is going to be hitting the ground in stages, not the entire weight from height all at once.
EDIT: Why would magnetism move a hurricane btw? Are clouds made of iron?
That building was a quarter of the size of the twin towers, not an accurate comparison.
The Kingdome hit the ground in stages, it was a fraction of the size the towers, yet still registered a greater set of ground tremors than the twin towers.
Are clouds made of iron? You know that to be absurd, but seem unaware that storm clouds, hurricanes, and atmosphere still hold a charge.
Ofc they hold a charge, what you are suggesting though is that magnetism can change the path of a hurricane at distance.
That kind of magnetic force would be enough to pull every steel object within hundreds of miles to it lol.
Cars would've been pulled through the air ffs lol.
Really? That doesn't happen during a thunderstorm. I don't suppose it matters that we're talking about the upper atmosphere then.
I don't see what the weather has to do with 911 anyway? I've missed out on that one.
Anyways, here is a vid of a guy actually doing backyard research on thermate and this pretty much sums it all up.
It takes a few minutes before he starts doing the science bit.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
The easiest and simplest thing to do would be to just let the planes hit the buildings, pre-load them with thermate in the core columns (during the evacutated time for security check) and demolish the buildings some time after the planes hit remotely.
Then blame al-ciada and ship off the evidence to china, job done.
No fancy tech needed.
A couple of massive problems with that though andy, if a building the weight of the towers fell onto the ground, it would rupture the concrete beneath it and flood new york.
Seismic data refutes beyond a reasonable doubt that the total weight of the towers hit the ground
Magnetic interference was documented on a scale large enough to move a hurricane.
It didn't go through the concrete below it, I don't see why the WTC would either. After all, the debris is going to be hitting the ground in stages, not the entire weight from height all at once.
EDIT: Why would magnetism move a hurricane btw? Are clouds made of iron?
That building was a quarter of the size of the twin towers, not an accurate comparison.
The Kingdome hit the ground in stages, it was a fraction of the size the towers, yet still registered a greater set of ground tremors than the twin towers.
Are clouds made of iron? You know that to be absurd, but seem unaware that storm clouds, hurricanes, and atmosphere still hold a charge.
Ofc they hold a charge, what you are suggesting though is that magnetism can change the path of a hurricane at distance.
That kind of magnetic force would be enough to pull every steel object within hundreds of miles to it lol.
Cars would've been pulled through the air ffs lol.
Really? That doesn't happen during a thunderstorm. I don't suppose it matters that we're talking about the upper atmosphere then.
I don't see what the weather has to do with 911 anyway? I've missed out on that one.
Anyways, here is a vid of a guy actually doing backyard research on thermate and this pretty much sums it all up.
It takes a few minutes before he starts doing the science bit.
Some interesting weather effects were noticed on 9/11 by Dr Judy Wood and support her theory of DEW's. It has been discussed in some detail in this thread.
I'm not disputing that a thermitic reaction could have been used to bring down the towers, but the seismic data would suggest this not to be the case.
Looks to me like birdies cause more damage to aeroplane nose cones than WTC's which are built from construction steel and reinforced concrete.
The nose cone of a plane is made out of very lightweight material.
So even if by some miraculous event this lightweight aeroplane nose cone managed to use kinetic energy at 500mph to bore it's way through construction steel and reinforced concrete, how did it manage to use the same kinetic energy again to bore through another layer of the same ?
Surely once the energy has been expended it's been expended, the aeroplane would not be able to rebuild the lost momentum again?
This means that the tip of the nose cone of the aeroplane would not have be damaged by the first impact, to enable it's aerodynamic design to permit it to drive the nose cone through another layer of material that was stronger than itself.
The question of penetrating a weaker material through stronger material by use of kinetic energy is one thing, and possibly arguable, even though I disagree, but then for the 'aeroplane's' nose cone to break through another layer is impossible if we're assuming that kinetic energy was the 'permit' on the first instance.
Just so we're clear, are you referring to the 'nose out' video or is there some further evidence to suggest that the nose came out of the other side?
This.
^this is not a plane's nose & it actually changes direction upwards.
I've seen the nose out stuff millions of times BT.... it's still not the nose of an accidental cartoon plane! Why would it go upwards in the last frame?
I don't see it going upwards. even if it is slightly it could be due to explosions.
It's the last still I posted that shows a change in its trajectory which is followed by an explosion.
I also edited the last post regarding inconsistencies in its speed.
It could be that the back of the plane hit something causing the nose to rise, of course imo it's because someone fucked up the CGI so it's an editors masking job, ''yeah it's not a plane see it's debris that resembles a planes '' even though its very similar in shape and size.
See SB whether you believe it to be debris or plane, either way, why would it be 'going upwards' why do you think it impossible for a plane but not debris to be 'going upwards' or tilted upwards ever so slightly' ?
But as I say imo it's CGI and not aeroplane shaped debris.
Edit How would ''the debris '' breach the steel frame ?
If a plane is able to penetrate the building anyway there is no reason why some of it couldn't come out of the other side.... especially given the speed & large mass involved..... plus, whatever is ejected from the building is propelled by an explosive force.
So if this was a cartoon error, you'd expect the nose of the plane to remain a constant shape and at a constant trajectory, yet it doesn't, and you can see this in the final frames here as its trajectory is altered by the blast from inside the building. I know there's more stuff in the September Clues vid which I must say is quite convincing, but it's been shredded to bits & everything in it has been explained away logically & rationally.
Theres no experimental evidence to show conclusively what a building like the wtc towers would look like on a seismograph apart from the event that happened.
Ergo no-one will ever prove what happened without building an identical tower and then demolishing it.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 12:46 #453
Theres no experimental evidence to show conclusively what a building like the wtc towers would look like on a seismograph apart from the event that happened.
Ergo no-one will ever prove what happened without building an identical tower and then demolishing it.
But what we do know is a great deal about physics. We also know it can be used to calculate the probable force of a building like WTC 1 & 2 crashing in to the ground at free-fall speed. We also know, that the seismic data collected about the event defies our current understanding of physics.
Theres no experimental evidence to show conclusively what a building like the wtc towers would look like on a seismograph apart from the event that happened.
Ergo no-one will ever prove what happened without building an identical tower and then demolishing it.
But what we do know is a great deal about physics. We also know it can be used to calculate the probable force of a building like WTC 1 & 2 crashing in to the ground at free-fall speed. We also know, that the seismic data collected about the event defies our current understanding of physics.
Not really no.
Who is to say what is normal and what isn't in a unique case?
This is the difference between theory and fact, science is about establishing facts, which is what the guy managed to do in his back garden with thermate.
Its a lot simpler an explanation and it certainly has opportunity for it tbh instead of building destroying muslamic ray guns lol.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 13:46 #457
Theres no experimental evidence to show conclusively what a building like the wtc towers would look like on a seismograph apart from the event that happened.
Ergo no-one will ever prove what happened without building an identical tower and then demolishing it.
But what we do know is a great deal about physics. We also know it can be used to calculate the probable force of a building like WTC 1 & 2 crashing in to the ground at free-fall speed. We also know, that the seismic data collected about the event defies our current understanding of physics.
Not really no.
Who is to say what is normal and what isn't in a unique case?
This is the difference between theory and fact, science is about establishing facts, which is what the guy managed to do in his back garden with thermate.
Its a lot simpler an explanation and it certainly has opportunity for it tbh instead of building destroying muslamic ray guns lol.
It happened twice on 9/11. Couldn't really be unique then could it? But pointing that logic back at you, who's to say the expected results are indeed that and it couldn't of been wavelength technology?
Theres no experimental evidence to show conclusively what a building like the wtc towers would look like on a seismograph apart from the event that happened.
Ergo no-one will ever prove what happened without building an identical tower and then demolishing it.
But what we do know is a great deal about physics. We also know it can be used to calculate the probable force of a building like WTC 1 & 2 crashing in to the ground at free-fall speed. We also know, that the seismic data collected about the event defies our current understanding of physics.
Not really no.
Who is to say what is normal and what isn't in a unique case?
This is the difference between theory and fact, science is about establishing facts, which is what the guy managed to do in his back garden with thermate.
Its a lot simpler an explanation and it certainly has opportunity for it tbh instead of building destroying muslamic ray guns lol.
It happened twice on 9/11. Couldn't really be unique then could it? But pointing that logic back at you, who's to say the expected results are indeed that and it couldn't of been wavelength technology?
Because of the complete lack of evidence of such weaponry.
You're always left with occams razor basically.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 14:25 #459
You can see in this video from 11:04 the total collapse of Building 7:
There has been some conjecture over whether or not this was 'freefall speed'. But I think you can see quite clearly from this that it takes about 6 seconds. For me, there's just no conceivable way this can possibly be an unaided collapse. That's before you go into the vertical nature of it. Maybe that's possible, although it's a pretty unique phenomenon only ever observed previously in the highly suspicious Oklahoma City incident, but even if it is possible, I cannot see how it can possibly happen in six seconds the way that it has been asserted that it occurred. Again, that's before you go into the fact that the explanation given that floors had failed one by one, etc, which is pretty damned unlikely anyway, clearly hasn't happened because you can see that the building is still completely intact at the time that the 'collapse' begins.
For me there's not even the slightest chance that is a building collapsing due to fire damage, even if it had been absolutely engulfed in fire, which it wasn't. And I've read the supposed debunking stuff / videos, etc, and for me they're just complete bullshit.
I've taken some second-by-second frames of the collapse here:
You would struggle to drop a stone from the top of the building and have it fall quicker. For me, there's just no way that can happen due to fire damage. That's one of the primary reasons why I can't accept the OS, although some of the things that happened with the pilots / NORAD response is equally ridiculous.
The true measure of a man is not his intelligence or how high he rises in this freak establishment. The true measure of a man is this: how quickly he can respond to the needs of others and how much of himself he can give - Philip K. Dick.
Wub, I tend to stick to WTC7 too when discussing 9/11 for the reasons laid out in this thread!
It's the one building that wasn't hit and therefore defies logic that it collapsed as did the twin towers due to aviation fuel etc.
I have been kicked off a forum before for sticking to this point when the site owner insisted that WTC7 was designed in such a way that as a safety precaution it was constructed with one central column which if compromised brings the whole building down. The laughable notion that this was a safety factor was all he had.
The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....
With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...
Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021,
in USD.
No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.
Why would it go upwards in the last frame?
