i never said it was gospel. i have read the "official" explanation, the reports in the paper and on TV and then watched documentaties and read reports which argue why it didnt happen as was reported. Its called comparing, and after that i made my decision, which is more than some of you probably have done who take for granted what sky news tell you.
9/11 Third Tower mystery "solved".
- Thread starter checjb
- Start date
- Status
i never said it was gospel. i have read the "official" explanation, the reports in the paper and on TV and then watched documentaties and read reports which argue why it didnt happen as was reported. Its called comparing, and after that i made my decision, which is more than some of you probably have done who take for granted what sky news tell you.
It has never been used to demolish a building.
As I said to have free fall ALL columns had to give way at the same place at the same time omfg I give up.
It has a more rapid reaction to standard thermite. It doesn't explode, it works as regular thermite does simply faster. That's just how thermite works, regardless of it being "nano" or not.
I've seen nano-thermite used to cut through "prison bars" but I don't think that particular tech branch could be used to cut through vertical concrete and steel support columns with any kinda useful application - the kinda hacked up way of doing it would only work for specific situations under ideal circumstances.
It's a waste of time as it is filled with lies and quotes taken out of context.
Is this going back to "you aren't being open minded enough" because I don't believe in every bit of gullible ******** I read on the net?
You are of course right. I am astounded that you could think of such a complex plan whilst the government are unaware of it. How could I have been so blind. We certainly need to get you working for MI5/6 as soon as possible or the country is doomed.
Yes, I have got to the "I have suddenly remembered why I don't normally bother with these threads" moment again. I knew all was lost as soon as Loose Change was mentioned.
oh you can prove that can you? please be my guest.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
i have audio evidence of explosions before the second impact.
plus we have the video evidence of the lobby destroyed, we have 911 eye witness video which is video across the river where sounds of explosions at demolition time is clearly audible and distance calculations are done to show that they are coming from the building.
video evidence of explosions.
eyewitness testimony of explosions before the impacts after the impacts and during demolition.
Bob Kerrey (911 comm) admits 911 was Pre-Planned
One of the 911 Commissioners Bob Kerry (Gov Nebraska) was speaking on
Climate Change at a conference .
After it was ended , he was answering questions as he was walking to his next
engagement. He stopped and talked for a few minutes to people of the "We Are Change LA "
One of the 911 Commissioners Bob Kerry (Gov Nebraska) was speaking on
Climate Change at a conference .
After it was ended , he was answering questions as he was walking to his next
engagement. He stopped and talked for a few minutes to people of the "We Are Change LA "
The columns buckled and provided minimal resistance for a brief period over several floors. Remember we do not have equipment attached to the building to analyse in nano seconds. The total fall ti9me was 40% larger than freefall time should have been.
We have gone through this all before. You would not even read the links I gave you.
Yes I can.
The time for free fall of wtc 1+2 was calculated at totally the wrong point, clearly after the building started collapsing.
Loose change also said WTC7 had minimal damage from wtc 1+2 collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf p92
The debris did match teh plane at the pentagon. Looschange forgot to say airlines could have several different engine models fitted when purchased.
Misiles can not cut down lamp posts or push a 10 tone generator out the way.
Last edited:
You still haven't said how they flew the missiles into the buildings without anyone noticing yet....
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
well they hacked the media, norad and the ffa, you see the mossad built the it systems for ffa and norad. they obviously had back doors into the systems and inserted the fake planes, this on top of the training exercises that was going on that day. confused the **** out of everyone. even if they scrambled jets to intercept there would be no planes and plus they were not sure it was real or training.
the missiles ?
raytheon anyone ? government conspiracy pfft, you think the government could pull that **** off, the government could barely pick up my rubbish
most of the above is speculation and based on my own research, with little to no evidence to back it up.
the israeli doing the IT systems is fact though.
but we have evidence that proves that the media was manipulated and edited on the day, in the video and in the audio. this is provable.
the missiles ?
raytheon anyone ? government conspiracy pfft, you think the government could pull that **** off, the government could barely pick up my rubbish
most of the above is speculation and based on my own research, with little to no evidence to back it up.
the israeli doing the IT systems is fact though.
but we have evidence that proves that the media was manipulated and edited on the day, in the video and in the audio. this is provable.
...
So in a matter of minutes they "hacked" footage of the planes into live media streams along with actors?
And once again the CT's descend into crazy jerk off fantasies...
So in a matter of minutes they "hacked" footage of the planes into live media streams along with actors?
well they hacked the media, norad and the ffa, you see the mossad built the it systems for ffa and norad. they obviously had back doors into the systems and inserted the fake planes, this on top of the training exercises that was going on that day. confused the **** out of everyone. even if they scrambled jets to intercept there would be no planes and plus they were not sure it was real or training.
the missiles ?
raytheon anyone ? government conspiracy pfft, you think the government could pull that **** off, the government could barely pick up my rubbish
most of the above is speculation and based on my own research, with little to no evidence to back it up.
the israeli doing the IT systems is fact though.
And once again the CT's descend into crazy jerk off fantasies...
No you don't are you a sound expert. have you analysed the audio to ascertain if it is an explosion or a massive lump of debris hitting ground level. Both "sound" like explosions to normal people.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,262
- Location
- Saudi Arabia né Donegal
This thread has really cheered me up on this depressing Monday afternoon.
So there was a perfectly positioned camera, focused just right, at a speed that would let it catch the plane as it flew past it's field of vision at high speed and get a good picture?
You are of course aware how most cameras that are set to cover specific areas are setup - normally they are fixed focus, on the area they are meant to be watching, usually they are not high quality, and often sharing the recording system with other cameras to cut costs.
And yet one of these will have got a good picture, of something that expert cameramen, using high quality film/video cameras and the ability to track the unexpected will have trouble getting a picture of.
Seriously, it's lucky that any of the cameras got a picture of anything at all given they would have had maybe a frame or two to get it in shot, and they were not focused in the air (why would they be, they are petrol station, and parking lot cameras intended to catch crime, or provide security on the ground).
Even cameras used on things like airport runways intended to watch the landing on an aircraft tend to have very serious limitations in regards to the picture quality of anything that is out of the intended field of view/focal range.
Have you ever even tried using a cheap camera to catch a fast action shot, whilst the footage is being recorded onto a Longplay (or super long play) VHS tape, as is/was often the case?
- Status