How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead? [Archive] - Page 2

coco

15-03-2009, 07:51 PM

Sure concrete is porous and holds air. Air and porous materials fragment on impact at high speeds. Watch any airplane crash test. WTC concrete outer structure is also made with aluminum derived concrete. The WTC is not designed to absorb damage. The steel framework on the outer areas act like a mosquito mesh. One architect on the buildings stated that it would be like poking a pencil into metal screen door or window screen. There is no absorption of energy where the law of motion is observed:

Someone says it looks like a cartoon, which shows their level of knowledge about kinetics. Do you think straw has never penetrated concrete? What do you think about that scenario? Is that a merger with steel (cartoon)? Okay, I got confused...with someone else stating cartoon. It wasn't you.

It has been found in the aftermath of hurricanes, most notably in my memory Andrew back in 92, that blades of grass were found poking out of trees, not many, though. And such things do not occur frequently during those types of storms. The extreme and unusual wind conditions stuck them in there. No I don't have evidence to offer anymore. I learned of such things growing up in Florida and seeing a photo in a newspaper story about Andrew - a category 5+.

He was a 5'+' because measuring instruments either broke completely or were incapable of transmitting information when the storm was at its height. A category 5 hurricane contains winds that are at greater than 155 miles per hour.

Thank you, done. A pleasant day to all.

tannah

15-03-2009, 10:57 PM

Tannah,

I have yet to see a post of yours with any substance at all.

Or perhaps you can point me to something uniquely yours .. if there is something.

Do have a pleasant day.

Stann :)

Bet I get another post from Stann with no substance at all.

As for anything I've posted with substance, well dude, you and Gamolon avoid the "sensitive" questions asked of you.

Let's see you whip the offical theory, or even defend it Stann. Would hate to think you're a biased sadist. You and Gamolon just enjoy pulling to pieces anything else but the OT? There is no middle ground here Stann, you are either angry enough that the OT is taking the proverbial piss out of people, or you think it is a reasonable theory. Don't BS people here by saying you want to clear the trash so that the truth movement can see more clearly. Humans see quite clearly around here, and don't buy the official BS. And you
don't act like it angers you that so many humans lost their lives, and the obvious intent has been covered up by some half baked theory that remains officially unchallenged.

stannrodd

15-03-2009, 11:13 PM

Bet I get another post from Stann with no substance at all.

As for anything I've posted with substance, well dude, you and Gamolon avoid the "sensitive" questions asked of you.

Let's see you whip the offical theory, or even defend it Stann. Would hate to think you're a biased sadist. You and Gamolon just enjoy pulling to pieces anything else but the OT? There is no middle ground here Stann, you are either angry enough that the OT is taking the proverbial piss out of people, or you think it is a reasonable theory. Don't BS people here by saying you want to clear the trash so that the truth movement can see more clearly. Humans see quite clearly around here, and don't buy the official BS. And you
don't act like it angers you that so many humans lost their lives, and the obvious intent has been covered up by some half baked theory that remains officially unchallenged.

Hardly worthy of a response but ...

The Official Fairy Tale isn't the issue in this thread.

It's title is "How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?"

It's author is Chris Brown .. someone who is doing what he is accusing others of doing. Staying on topic and pointing the finger in the right direction is what I am doing here.

You however have to introduce unsavoury remarks...

Stann

tannah

16-03-2009, 01:32 AM

Hardly worthy of a response but ...

The Official Fairy Tale isn't the issue in this thread.

It's title is "How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?"

It's author is Chris Brown .. someone who is doing what he is accusing others of doing. Staying on topic and pointing the finger in the right direction is what I am doing here.

You however have to introduce unsavoury remarks...

Stann

Ok, firstly apologies for the insult.

But you're not being rational Stann. I have seen you posting on breakfornews, and I have seen you posting here. I'm calling for another side of you to be presented. You can't just exist to rile Chris Brown, and question all alternative theories about 9/11. Somewhere amongst all that I'm asking for your reasons for not whipping the OT regarding 9/11. These kind of forums are for presenting alternative thoughts. If you are going to rile them because they show inconsistencies, then I'd like to know where you stand yourself.

I make my feelings known pretty quick,and sometimes I get a little carried away when I sense a pretender in the midst. I have my reasons for considering you a person that wants to undermine the questioning of the official theory. Start a thread and put the record straight. Where do you stand regarding 9/11? Why is it a fairy tale Stann?

There is unsavoury and then there is unsavoury.

As far as Chris Brown's theory goes, he seems committed enough. I don't know how you can consider the documenary he mentions to being non existant. I don't see why it isn't possible that there was a concrete core. I don't see you providing the examples he mentions you can't provide.
The way you are dealing with Chris has the hallmarks of a someone who needs to over criticise a theory. And I can't believe I'm the only person suspicious of your intentions here.

How easily have people been deceived regarding 9/11? Could that be the purpose of this thread?

stannrodd

16-03-2009, 02:10 AM

Tannah,

Rational ?

Discussion of alternative theories should be just that. Rational.

Where there is merit then look deeper.

Where pseudo science is used to embellish a theory .. the red flag goes up.

No planers for example simply dismiss the concept of an airliner penetrating the towers, as being impossible, but offer no proof of that other than "common sense say so " .. well that's bollocks in my book... but it plays a very important role in their theory. They have moved into other areas such as video fakery, but again they have yet to prove conclusively anything other than the video footage as seen on TV can be replicated. This doesn't mean it was faked .. but that is their implication. Can they prove " "fakery"? I dunno .. time will tell. In the meantime all aspects of all theories (including OT) should be scrutinized.

Chris has a "documentary" for his source but it can't be proven to exist. I know that doesn't mean it doesn't exist... but it has to exist for anything further of his theory to be validated. Otherwise you must rely on his imagination and your faith in that, for it to be meaningful.

This doesn't mean .. that by default the doco does exist nor does it prove a concrete core.

Moving on to the Official Theory .. it isn't an alternative theory is it. All the other ideas are the alternative ones.

To side with the Official account of "real planes" being used doesn't imply that I am on the OT side of the fence .. it shows that I have concluded that it is more likely that Real Planes were used. I don't believe that they were the planes that we are told they were, and I absolutely believe that a 767 could penetrate the towers. This scenario holds much more water than any other explanation, but I can't prove it is the truth.

You and others are very quick to apply labels on others who are challenging what you see as established "fact" when in reality .. it's about looking for truth beyond speculation.

Stann

tannah

16-03-2009, 02:51 AM

Moving on to the Official Theory .. it isn't an alternative theory is it. All the other ideas are the alternative ones.

To side with the Official account of "real planes" being used doesn't imply that I am on the OT side of the fence .. it shows that I have concluded that it is more likely that Real Planes were used. I don't believe that they were the planes that we are told they were, and I absolutely believe that a 767 could penetrate the towers. This scenario holds much more water than any other explanation, but I can't prove it is the truth.

You and others are very quick to apply labels on others who are challenging what you see as established "fact" when in reality .. it's about looking for truth beyond speculation.

I see, that's your idea of whipping the OT is it? While your whipping every other theory the one that is doing the most damage gets compared to a planes/no planes by you. Ok, I'll go along with that for now, there were planes. Got a second to question the idea that they brought the towers down? How about the people crashing the planes? Qualified to fly them into the towers? What about the non existant passports found by the "good" guys? How about the rather weak NIST report? Does that rile you just a little?

I can see you obviously like to challenge established "facts". I'm just trying to turn your attention toward the real nasty stuff, wind you up and let you at 'em. Stann chasing the BS would be a sight to behold.

stannrodd

16-03-2009, 03:46 AM

Did you understanned what I wrote .. ?

Is it so important to be seen to be thrashing and whipping the OT. It appears that, that is what you want me to be seen to be doing. Am I right with that?

Well it may surprise you .. but I don't actually do that, never have, and probably never will .. so give it a break.

If something can be proven to be fact then it probably is. If it is beyond the realms of possibility then it's probably BS, but it may not be .. depending on how one has been educated.

When it is glaringly incorrect then it's most likely to be false.

Now have you ever considered that a combination of fact and skulduggery might form a better basis for a psy-op than total BS. That's where I come in, because that's what I believe was the case for 9/11.

Determining the facts within the 9/11 "plan" will assist in determining the deception. Chris has taken this to an extreme with his concrete core issue, and is attempting to retro design a deception by FEMA, by inventing fake plans, a documentary .. an exploding concrete core and then trying to create an evidence trail to prove it.

It is simply disinformation .. google him and his core and have a look at the time he has wasted of others who could be doing just what you suggest.

He deceives and misleads without a care in the world. Probably enjoys watching all the responses to his silly claims. I doubt he cares one iota for anyone except himself.

It's over for Chris .. he knows it, but he will continue to find forums to post his underwear, and never take his theory any further. It's a joke.

Stann

christophera

16-03-2009, 04:32 AM

Chris has a "documentary" for his source but it can't be proven to exist.

Stann

There were several documentaries made from the video transfers of stills and 16 mm, why wouldn't there be such a video? Of course the PA wouldn't want it, but public money paid for the towers so Americans would appreciate it. Since the concrete core is proven with independent, verifiable evidence, and steel core columns are not, you have no argument, just complaints.

Dr. Ron Larsen Ph.D explains the search for the video in this .mp3 download.

6/20/07 interview (documentary search update 17:50 minutes)
http://www.mediafire.com/?syi4xmtikmm

bryan

16-03-2009, 11:09 AM

Where pseudo science is used to embellish a theory .. the red flag goes up.

But no red flag when the total destruction of a steel-framed building at near freefall speed is attributed for the first time in the history of structural engineering to a 'progressive gravitational collapse'.

No planers for example simply dismiss the concept of an airliner penetrating the towers, as being impossible, but offer no proof of that other than "common sense say so " .. well that's bollocks in my book... but it plays a very important role in their theory.

No red flag when experts build a computer model of a WTC tower but don't bother to include the 52" deep steel spandrel plates or the 4" deep concrete floors that the plane's wings would have to push aside as they entered the building.

No red flag when photo's of plane crashes show how easily the nose and cockpit crumple and fold up, the wings and tail section break off, and the fuselage snaps into two or three parts.

No red flag when aeronautical engineers laugh at the idea that a large jet plane could fly at 500mph at low altitude.

They have moved into other areas such as video fakery, but again they have yet to prove conclusively anything other than the video footage as seen on TV can be replicated. This doesn't mean it was faked .. but that is their implication. Can they prove " "fakery"? I dunno .. time will tell.

Nice try, but no planes and video fakery are not unrelated areas of 9/11 research. The fact that the plane impacts seen in the videos are at the very least anomalous, combined with the proof that the images can be replicated using computer software should be a red flag to any bull that hasn't had its bollocks removed.

In the meantime all aspects of all theories (including OT) should be scrutinized.

There's scrutiny and there's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is your speciality.

gamolon

16-03-2009, 02:35 PM

tannah

16-03-2009, 03:05 PM

Did you understanned what I wrote .. ?

Is it so important to be seen to be thrashing and whipping the OT. It appears that, that is what you want me to be seen to be doing. Am I right with that?

No, didn't you read what I wrote? If you're in whipping mode, I'm just suggesting you include the OT. It's a question of priorities and the real harm one particular set of BS can do.

Well it may surprise you .. but I don't actually do that, never have, and probably never will .. so give it a break.

I didn't say it would surprise me that you come here after having spent time over at breakfornews whipping Chris Brown. Job done, no more posts at breakfornews, but now over here continuing with the whipping. You're a serial whipper.

Whereas these kind of forums are for whipping the OT. Some are attempting to figure out the truth by providing alternative theories, and others simply want to find "facts" from the OT that don't add up.

But you're trying to convince people that you do what you do in order to get to the truth. That, Stann, is BS.

Now have you ever considered that a combination of fact and skulduggery might form a better basis for a psy-op than total BS. That's where I come in, because that's what I believe was the case for 9/11.

I consider the combination of facts and BS too. From a scientific point of view, by adding BS to the facts makes the whole thing BS, and time to take the whip out.

Isn't it about time you really came in?

Determining the facts within the 9/11 "plan" will assist in determining the deception. Chris has taken this to an extreme with his concrete core issue, and is attempting to retro design a deception by FEMA, by inventing fake plans, a documentary .. an exploding concrete core and then trying to create an evidence trail to prove it.

More BS mate. You are not attempting to determine any facts. Your history is of someone undermining any efforts to do that. Or at least you've spent all your time on the negative approach.

It is simply disinformation .. google him and his core and have a look at the time he has wasted of others who could be doing just what you suggest.

You outscore him on the time wasting front.

He deceives and misleads without a care in the world. Probably enjoys watching all the responses to his silly claims. I doubt he cares one iota for anyone except himself.

BS. Here you are saying that no planes and concrete core relies on all the perceived facts as told us by those in authority being wrong, and you want me to believe that Chris's obvious anger at the murder of 3000 people is just deception by him because he wants to peddle BS. You need a forum that caters to ten year olds.

Something you said earlier that I'd like to clarify:

I don't believe that they were the planes that we are told they were, and I absolutely believe that a 767 could penetrate the towers.

Are you saying that the planes they showed on video are not the real ones?

I've also looked up how a piece of straw can penetrate steel. It's to do with an outside object penetrating another object before the other object has time to react with the opposing force. This is how Karate masters can break big chunks of concrete, they are in and out before the concrete can react with it's opposing force. In the case of a straw it does mean it could penetrate steel. But the steel will finally react and the straw goes no further. In that respect, a plane would probably outwit steel for a fraction of a second, the steel would finally react and the plane would smash to pieces and not penetrate any further. it wouldn't go all the way in, which is not what we saw on 9/11.

nhenchyfaill

16-03-2009, 06:57 PM

Just more proof Chris that your claims are bogus.

Hi G. Are you the same poster from the monster "realistice" thread?

Can't believe 'ole Chris is still pumping out the same old stuff.

I see much embellishment of the mythical documentary a few pages back. Perhaps he's replaced the old Polaroid he used for his photographic memory?

Can't see much mention of freefall or Mohawks though. Oops. Don't forget about the C4 coated rebar!

N

bryan

16-03-2009, 08:23 PM

Hi G. Are you the same poster from the monster "realistice" thread?

N

Hi N. Are you another JREFer promoting the pancake collapse theory?

nhenchyfaill

16-03-2009, 08:32 PM

Hi N. Are you another JREFer promoting the pancake collapse theory?

Hi B. Are you another twoofer butting into another persons business?

N

stannrodd

16-03-2009, 09:37 PM

I've also looked up how a piece of straw can penetrate steel. It's to do with an outside object penetrating another object before the other object has time to react with the opposing force. This is how Karate masters can break big chunks of concrete, they are in and out before the concrete can react with it's opposing force. In the case of a straw it does mean it could penetrate steel. But the steel will finally react and the straw goes no further. In that respect, a plane would probably outwit steel for a fraction of a second, the steel would finally react and the plane would smash to pieces and not penetrate any further. it wouldn't go all the way in, which is not what we saw on 9/11.

Hilarious !!

Now we have intelligent steel !! I guess the WTC towers got surprised when the planes flew right inside them .. woops .. better react before they fly out the other side.

Case closed.

Totally deceived and mislead.

Have a pleasant day. I'm going to .. now that I've had a good laugh !!

Stann :D

tannah

17-03-2009, 12:01 AM

stannrodd

17-03-2009, 04:04 AM

I didn't say it would surprise me that you come here after having spent time over at breakfornews whipping Chris Brown. Job done, no more posts at breakfornews, but now over here continuing with the whipping. You're a serial whipper.

Whereas these kind of forums are for whipping the OT. Some are attempting to figure out the truth by providing alternative theories, and others simply want to find "facts" from the OT that don't add up.

But you're trying to convince people that you do what you do in order to get to the truth. That, Stann, is BS.

I didn't say you said anything .. that's a figment of your imagination. I note your join date here is about the same time Hombre and aAzzAa left BFN. You do seem very familiar with that forum and what I did there.

At least I was up front about what I was doing right from day1. I actually spelt it out if you recall.

Just reading the posting guidelines for these forums ... I don't find any express indicator that ..

..these kind of forums are for whipping the OT.

In fact it says something quite different .. perhaps you should read them again if you have at all.

But you're trying to convince people that you do what you do in order to get to the truth. That, Stann, is BS.

That tannah is only your opinion .. which, when dealing with facts is irrelevant.

What is important to me is that disinformation is identified and debunked. That is an essential part of anything "we" do as a group. If anything has merit it will prove itself without my help or hindrance .. OK ? !

Chris is not a dullard .. he just has some issues he should deal with. He knows that too.

I still don't know where you sit in terms of THE fence .. so how about telling us a bit about what you do or don't believe. Rather that than listening to your almost constant personal attacks .. it would be good to "know".

Stann

tannah

17-03-2009, 04:30 AM

[QUOTE=stannrodd;868798]I didn't say you said anything .. that's a figment of your imagination. I note your join date here is about the same time Hombre and aAzzAa left BFN. You do seem very familiar with that forum and what I did there.

Sorry but where have I stated that I am familiar with that forum? I'm familiar with the thread I was sent to, and the goings on there. It's amazing how things are only a mouse click away nowadays. and I recall those two names you mention, as also questioning your motives. There were a few others too right?

At least I was up front about what I was doing right from day1. I actually spelt it out if you recall.

Spelt what out?

Just reading the posting guidelines for these forums ... I don't find any express indicator that ..

In fact it says something quite different .. perhaps you should read them again if you have at all.

Well I'll reword what I was trying to say. You're a hypocrite basically. All the BS about trying to get to the facts, and no real criticism of the OT. It smells.

That tannah is only your opinion .. which, when dealing with facts is irrelevant.

What is important to me is that disinformation is identified and debunked. That is an essential part of anything "we" do as a group. If anything has merit it will prove itself without my help or hindrance .. OK ? !

Much merit has drowned in the sea of chaos. I'm much more inclined to identify the real cause of chaos.

Trying to pretend you are refining stuff to squeeze the truthfulness out of it.
if that were true I'd respect you even less for it. There is a mountain of BS to clear up with this OT. Your way stalls the whole chance of people seeing clearly why they should unite with a common purpose against that BS. And unlike some people, I still think it is a very important issue.

I still don't know where you sit in terms of THE fence .. so how about telling us a bit about what you do or don't believe. Rather that than listening to your almost constant personal attacks .. it would be good to "know".

Stann

You haven't been reading my posts. I've made it clear on a number of occassions where I stand. I've also noted that any questions I'd asked people like Gamolon (another old breakfornewser) just get ignored. The impression others had of you and Gamolon over at the other forum is the impression you two are giving me.

One big impression seems to be that you always expect others to talk about where they stand, but always avoid it yourself.

And quite honestly mate, you can win for all I care. if davidicke.com is going to entertain you here, then it has become a waste of time , just like the other forums you've no doubt managed to keep busy with the fine details.

christophera

17-03-2009, 05:27 AM

More proof Chris.

Here is a screen capture taken from a video somebody shot from inside the north tower (WTC1). They even state that in the video.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc1manwaiting.jpg

Interesting. What is that man on the left waiting for? Why are there railings around that area? Waiting for an elevator perhaps?

Just more proof Chris that your claims are bogus. Here is the youtube link to the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-ZQez5iM1g

The idea is that you prove your point by using competent evidence.

I prove my point with a direct image of the structure I claim stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

Your evidence is incompetent because an audio track can be faked, ........... and you have a historical association with fakery trying to pass of the WTC 2 lobby as WTC 1 by photoshopping the WTC 1 exterior on a layer behind the perimeter columns of WTC 2 and trying to say the image was taken from inside WTC 1..

To disprove the concrete core, your only chance is to prove steel core columns. Otherwise you just prove you're supporting secrecy with deception, evasion, manipulation and distraction.

stannrodd

17-03-2009, 07:23 AM

Try this .. with a 767 v steel mosquito net !!

Jenga pistol video by pbhomepage on Photobucket@@AMEPARAM@@file=http%3A%2F%2Fvid0006.p hotobucket.com%2Falbums%2F0006%2Fpbhomepage%2FCool %2520Videos%2FJengaPistol.flv@@AMEPARAM@@file=http %3A%2F%2Fvid0006.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2F0006%2 Fpbhomepage%2FCool%2520Videos%2FJengaPistol.flv

Stann

stannrodd

17-03-2009, 09:17 AM

I prove my point with a direct image of the structure I claim stood.

I prove my point ...dah de dah

.. with a direct image .. dah de dah

..of the structure .. dah de dah ..

.. I claim..(which) .. stood .. RIGHTO and we should believe that CHRIS..

Good luck Chris !! http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/rofll.gif

Lots of claims Chris but no proof ..!

Stann
PS http://media.photobucket.com/video/Jenga%20Pistol/pbhomepage/Cool%20Videos/JengaPistol.flv?q=2

nhenchyfaill

17-03-2009, 10:06 AM

Hey Chris take a long, hard look at these clips. They are taken from a History Channel broadcast called "The Man Who Predicted 9/11." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482544/)

I do believe people in those clips are entering the elevators there directly from the WTC Tower lobby areas.

If so, what are the implications for your concrete core theory? Please be honest.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

N

gamolon

17-03-2009, 11:20 AM

The idea is that you prove your point by using competent evidence.

I prove my point with a direct image of the structure I claim stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

Your evidence is incompetent because an audio track can be faked, ........... and you have a historical association with fakery trying to pass of the WTC 2 lobby as WTC 1 by photoshopping the WTC 1 exterior on a layer behind the perimeter columns of WTC 2 and trying to say the image was taken from inside WTC 1..

To disprove the concrete core, your only chance is to prove steel core columns. Otherwise you just prove you're supporting secrecy with deception, evasion, manipulation and distraction.

Historical fakery? That's a laugh.

Have you shown ANY proof of the WTC core at the lobby level as ahving no access outside the core?

Nope. I have shown you photos showing otherwise.

Have you talked to anyone who worked there?

Nope. I have and they say you're crazy.

Why haven't you talked to anyone?

bryan

17-03-2009, 12:00 PM

Hilarious !!

Now we have intelligent steel !! I guess the WTC towers got surprised when the planes flew right inside them .. woops .. better react before they fly out the other side.

Case closed.

Totally deceived and mislead.

Have a pleasant day. I'm going to .. now that I've had a good laugh !!

Stann :D

Well, it does sound a bit like the effect described in this science article.

Impact force

At normal speeds, during a perfectly inelastic collision, an object struck by a projectile will deform, and this deformation will absorb most, or even all, of the force of the collision. Viewed from the conservation of energy perspective, the kinetic energy of the projectile is changed into heat and sound energy, as a result of the deformations and vibrations induced in the struck object. However, these deformations and vibrations can not occur instantaneously. A high velocity collision (an impact) does not provide sufficient time for these deformations and vibrations to occur. Thus, the struck material behaves as if it were more brittle than it is, and the majority of the applied force goes into fracturing the material. Or, another way to look at it is that materials actually are more brittle on short time scales than on long time scales: this is related to time-temperature superposition.

Impact (mechanics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trouble is, there are so many dishonest scientists around, it's hard to tell which science is real and which is bogus.

Doctor Admits Pain Studies Were Frauds, Hospital Says
Published: March 10, 2009

In what may be among the longest-running and widest-ranging cases of academic fraud, one of the most prolific researchers in anesthesiology has admitted that he fabricated much of the data underlying his research, said a spokeswoman for the hospital where he works.

The researcher, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist in Springfield, Mass., who practiced at Baystate Medical Center, never conducted the clinical trials that he wrote about in 21 journal articles dating from at least 1996, said Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health.

Drug companies routinely hire community physicians to conduct studies of already-approved medicines. In some cases, prosecutors have charged companies with underwriting studies of little scientific merit in hopes of persuading doctors to prescribe the medicines more often.

“When researchers are beholden to companies for much of their income, there is an incredible tendency to get results that are favorable to the company,” said Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/health/research/11pain.html?_r=1&ref=us

These studies were published in medical journals and accepted by doctors.

So it's not just Stann and the JREFers who are easily taken in by the fake experts and their pseudo science.

Maybe good old common sense is not so useless after all, Stann.

gamolon

17-03-2009, 03:23 PM

The idea is that you prove your point by using competent evidence.

I prove my point with a direct image of the structure I claim stood.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

Your evidence is incompetent because an audio track can be faked, ........... and you have a historical association with fakery trying to pass of the WTC 2 lobby as WTC 1 by photoshopping the WTC 1 exterior on a layer behind the perimeter columns of WTC 2 and trying to say the image was taken from inside WTC 1..

To disprove the concrete core, your only chance is to prove steel core columns. Otherwise you just prove you're supporting secrecy with deception, evasion, manipulation and distraction.

Looks like I have to take care of you garbage claims of me photoshopping images to prove my point in a couple of threads. I can see the "bleed through" of the windows on the original.

Here is the original photo:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/nycfoto_PC220092.jpg

Taken from this site:
http://www.nycfoto.com/showPage.php?albumID=52&start=24

It's picture 33. So no, I didn't edit the picture as you claim based on your "trained" eye. Are you know going to retract your claim that I photoshopped that image? You're a joke.

dusthead

17-03-2009, 07:07 PM

christophera

17-03-2009, 09:33 PM

For Christ's sake! Who's going to go to all the bother of photoshopping an image for hours just to win a crappy argument on an internet forum?! You'd have to be a very sad person to do that. The words 'storm' and 'teacup' are sadly evident.

This is getting silly guys.

The photographs are almost certainly in their original form from source. If anyone wants to question their origin fair enough.

Just post a link to where the photographs are from and leave it at that.

Those who think enough to question are currently questioning the questioners. If that sounds confusing then read through this debate & consider how it looks to a stupid outsider like myself.:confused:

I detect that you deem the truth of how 3,000 were murdered as "crappy" information. The perps would think the truth is "crappy" information. See my post in the infiltration thread and how I prove the photoshopping.

As if your "original" wasn't photoshopped. And, as if that evidence was all there is. The proportions of the windows are incorrect for the perspective view that existed from the WTC 1 lobby out to the footbridge and the image that proves this is in this very thread about 8 pages back, posted again at the bottom.

stannrodd

17-03-2009, 10:30 PM

Impact force

At normal speeds, during a perfectly inelastic collision, an object struck by a projectile will deform, and this deformation will absorb most, or even all, of the force of the collision. Viewed from the conservation of energy perspective, the kinetic energy of the projectile is changed into heat and sound energy, as a result of the deformations and vibrations induced in the struck object. However, these deformations and vibrations can not occur instantaneously. A high velocity collision (an impact) does not provide sufficient time for these deformations and vibrations to occur. Thus, the struck material behaves as if it were more brittle than it is, and the majority of the applied force goes into fracturing the material. Or, another way to look at it is that materials actually are more brittle on short time scales than on long time scales: this is related to time-temperature superposition.

The instantaneous behaviour is therefore what bryan .. the object being struck is more likely to be fractured in a high speed collision than in a slower speed collision. I've bold typed the part to which I refer in the Wiki quote which you posted.

So if the plane was traveling at a somewhat lower speed than what is alleged .. the perimeter steel would be more malleable (less brittle) and we would be more likely see the plane smash to pieces on the face of the tower.

I guess my common sense was correct after all.

Stann

bryan

18-03-2009, 09:31 AM

The instantaneous behaviour is therefore what bryan .. the object being struck is more likely to be fractured in a high speed collision than in a slower speed collision. I've bold typed the part to which I refer in the Wiki quote which you posted.

So if the plane was traveling at a somewhat lower speed than what is alleged .. the perimeter steel would be more malleable (less brittle) and we would be more likely see the plane smash to pieces on the face of the tower.

I guess my common sense was correct after all.

Don't get carried away, Stann. Its not saying aluminium can slice through steel like a hot knife cuts through butter.

The effect seems to come into play with projectiles like nails or bullets, which are not soft hollow tubes.

Applications

A nail is normally pounded with a series of impacts, each being a single hammer blow. These high velocity impacts prevent friction with the wood on the sides of the nail from retarding the forward motion of the nail.

A pile driver does the same thing, on a much greater scale.

An impact wrench is an analogous device designed to impart torque impacts to bolts to tighten or loosen them. At normal speeds, the forces applied to the bolt would be dispersed, via friction, to the mating threads. However, at impact speeds, the forces act on the bolt to move it before they can be dispersed.

In ballistics, bullets utilize impact forces to puncture surfaces that could otherwise resist substantial forces. A rubber sheet, for example, behaves more like wood at typical bullet speeds. That is, it ruptures, and does not stretch or vibrate.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/aviation/impact_depth.html

matrix911

18-03-2009, 11:46 AM

Don't get carried away, Stann. Its not saying aluminium can slice through steel like a hot knife cuts through butter.
The effect seems to come into play with projectiles like nails or bullets, which are not soft hollow tubes.
http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/aviation/impact_depth.html

the bottom line is that Stann and his minions refuse to accept there were basic laws of physics broken which PROVE beyond a doubt what was "seen" were not commerical jets that hit the towers. Hence NO PLANES...

Something that looked like a plane, perhaps...

Holographic imaging or cgi and fakery, probably...

but I challenge anyone to show and prove that a real plane hit the towers.

It can't be done because the evidence that supports the RPT, is contradictory and factually flawed.

FACT 1: Its physically and structurally impossible and against the laws of physics for a boeing 767 to have acheived the speed that the OCT claims it did. That LIE about the SPEED alone, proves NO PLANE/BOEING 767 could have been there.

FACT2: the Law of Inertia proves NO BOEING/PLANE did the damage or was there that day...

FACT2b: There was NO DE-ACCELERATION of this alleged "plane".

FACT3: The photographers who took the pics of the so-called planes contradict each other in their accounts and also claim not to have heard the roar of the engine that a boeing 767 would have made as it flew DIRECTLY OVER them... thats their EYE WITNESS TESITMONY. A FACT that should have any investigator baffled and needing a logical answer to before accepting any RPT.

but technically, the NPT'ers don't have to prove there were no planes, they only have to prove that the facts and evidence claimed by the OCT about planes hitting the wtc, are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE and false since that FACT is far more powerful than any proof of NO PLANES.

So Stann, please tell me what could have hit the towers if the above evidence is correct that it couldn't have been a boeing 767?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
there's direct visual and forensic proof that there definitely could not have been planes at the wtc and pentagon. "The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them -because people saw them, that proves they were there." Deduction isn't proof of planes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the evidence and facts above are false, then please show exactly how and where they're factually incorrect.

If you can't, then how can you call the NPT bs?

a wise man here said recently, if you haven't seen enough evidence of controlled demolition or NP's in five years of researching 9/11, you've been looking with the intention of not finding it.

with that said, Stannrodds agenda is beyond obvious.

gamolon

18-03-2009, 12:42 PM

I detect that you deem the truth of how 3,000 were murdered as "crappy" information. The perps would think the truth is "crappy" information. See my post in the infiltration thread and how I prove the photoshopping.

You have no idea about perspective do you? There is a very easy way to show that you are full of crap and once again, don't know what you are talking about. I can take the layout of WTC1 and the footbridge, put it on a drawing, then project the view that someone would have while standing on the mezzanine in WTC1 while looking out the windows. It will match the photo I posted PERFECTLY. The perspective of the windows, EVERYTHING.

So why would anyone need to photoshop the picture when taking a photo from the viewpoint of the mezzanine is EXACTLY what somneone would/should see? How stupid.

Are you arguing that they wouldn't see what is in the photo? Do I need to prove you wrong yet again? Have you ever done a projected view on a blueprint or do you even know how?

Tell you what. I will do one and post it here. Then people can see how foolish and how much of a bullshitter you really are.

You make this too easy.

the nine

18-03-2009, 02:58 PM

as regards the title of this thread...NOT VERY GULLIBLE!!

I have some magic beans in my pocket which I swapped for some cattle..now that is shrewd, hardly gullible.

dusthead

18-03-2009, 07:07 PM

I detect that you deem the truth of how 3,000 were murdered as "crappy" information. The perps would think the truth is "crappy" information. See my post in the infiltration thread and how I prove the photoshopping.

I don't think information on how 3000 people were murdered is 'crappy'. In fact, I'm hard pushed to think of a situation where you would describe such a scenario as 'crappy' (the word just doesn't seem to fit).

Rather, it is the argument about photographs that is crappy.

There are very few people on the face of this planet who would go to such great lengths to win an argument on an internet forum. To suggest they are working for a higher power is a little heavy handed.

If I were in a position of emmense power and employed someone to act as an 'agent for misinformation', I would be more than a little annoyed if they spent most of the day doctoring photographs on davidicke.com. It would be a massive waste of time and resources, as comparitively few people would actually bother to read that 'misinformation'.

Such 'agents' (should they exist) are probably far busier working on subliminal messages in Coca Cola adverts, or bribing the BBC. Either that or working on some horrid new political ideology to win voters for a new administration.

The majority of people who use the forum on davidicke.com have consistently proven they are rarely swayed in their opinions on 9/11 being anything other than an inside job. You Christophera, are living proof of that. It would be utterly pointless to even attempt to 'misinform' these people.

Furthermore, such a strategy would be uncovered pretty quickly (there's a lot of paranoia here). It would provide proof of an inside job in no time. An organisation intelligent enough to orchestrate such things would also know that there are far more constructive ways to use their time.

Potential agents would probably avoid this board like the plague, unless it was to locate potential 'whistleblowers'.

stannrodd

18-03-2009, 10:04 PM

FACT2b: There was NO DE-ACCELERATION of this alleged "plane".

I'm fairly confident that there was deceleration .. otherwise the plane would have continued through the building .. emerging on the other side at the same speed.

If you are referring to the nano second which it took for the 500+ mph aircraft to traverse the perimeter columns .. and we go with the claim that the aircraft is a soft malleable aluminium tube .. and we observe it in real time .. then the visible (undamaged) portion of the aircraft will not be decelerating will it. Because if it was seen to be decelerating then the aircraft must be an incompressible rigid solid object. (The impacting front of the "rigid" aircraft should cause the whole aircraft to decelerate as one unit) But we know that aircraft aren't rigid solid objects so the visible portion of the aircraft can't logically be seen to be decelerating, and it doesn't.

However the unseen parts of the aircraft which are now in the building, having contacted the office fittings partitions etc and then the steel core, will have decelerated .. we know this because the building "contained" the majority of the aircraft debris.

Having "proven" that "FACT2b" above to be a load of snake droppings I will rest my case because none of the other "facts" are relevant having proven the above "fact" to be BS.

Therefore your argument doesn't work how you want it to.

In reality, if the NPT is correct, then the video fakery is done very well because it shows the plane doing what it logically should do. Not what you purport in order to claim video fakery for the NPT!! :D

Stann

matrix911

18-03-2009, 10:30 PM

I'm fairly confident that there was deceleration .. otherwise the plane would have continued through the building .. emerging on the other side at the same speed.

uhm stannly... No there wasn't.

and anyone can see that FACT just by looking at the VISUAL EVIDENCE that exists.

I challenge you or ANYONE to disprove the evidence presented regarding this.

wheres the counter-argument to the visual evidence etc? And where exactly Stannly, is the scientific argument or basis as to how it was ever concluded there was de-acceleration?

If you are referring to the nano second which it took for the 500+ mph aircraft to traverse the perimeter columns .. and we go with the claim that the aircraft is a soft malleable aluminium tube .. and we observe it in real time .. then the visible (undamaged) portion of the aircraft will not be decelerating will it.

Because if it was seen to be decelerating then the aircraft must be an incompressible rigid solid object. (The impacting front of the "rigid" aircraft should cause the whole aircraft to decelerate as one unit) But we know that aircraft aren't rigid solid objects so the visible portion of the aircraft can't logically be seen to be decelerating, and it doesn't.

However the unseen parts of the aircraft which are now in the building, having contacted the office fittings partitions etc and then the steel core, will have decelerated .. we know this because the building "contained" the majority of the aircraft debris.

Having "proven" that "FACT2b" above to be a load of snake droppings I will rest my case because none of the other "facts" are relevant having proven the above "fact" to be BS.

Therefore your argument doesn't work how you want it to.

In reality, if the NPT is correct, then the video fakery is done very well because it shows the plane doing what it logically should do. Not what you purport in order to claim video fakery for the NPT!! :D

the ONE KEY FACT that destroys your entire argument is the FACT that its PHYSICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a Boeing 767 to have acheived the 540mph speed that the OCT/NIST ETC claims it was going.

FULL STOP.

EOS

You cannot refute that LAW OF PHYSICS, stannly.

Nor can you ignore the Law of Inertia, Stannly

but most important, you can't have a contradiction in nature, stannly

and thats exactly what the OCT is doing throughout the entire LIE they've created and covered up.

So to coin your phrasing...
Having "proven" your above logic to be a load of snake droppings I will rest my case because none of the other "facts" you're asserting are relevant having proven your argument to be BS.

Therefore your argument doesn't work how you want it to.

sorry Stannly.

stannrodd

18-03-2009, 11:13 PM

First off matrix911 .. the name is Stann .. thanks.

Secondly you claim that the visual evidence is faked .. therefore any visual evidence can't be used in your argument. I however can use that evidence because I favour the real plane scenario.

The visual evidence as you quite rightly say .. shows no deceleration when we look at all the impact footage at WTC2 .. and I have shown you why.

No smoke and mirrors shit just plain and simple stuff which any high school kid could point out as well. My post is based on the laws of physics, inertia etc. Nothing to refute here .

In fact it almost sounds like you didn't understanned all of my post.

I actually agreed with you about the deceleration thing .. didn't you get that bit.

the ONE KEY FACT that destroys your entire argument is the FACT that its PHYSICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a Boeing 767 to have acheived the 540mph speed that the OCT/NIST ETC claims it was going.

And this KEY FACT is based on what?? Can you point me to some references which demonstrate this claim.?

From what I can gather from the 767 Air NZ pilot who lives next door it is possible but never recommended to fly a 767 at these speeds at such a low altitude. The aircraft is a passenger plane not an aerobatic thing.

Did you know that a prototype Boeing 707 once did a barrel roll for a demonstration at Seattle ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ546BEps-M

Re-read my post matrix .. slowly.

Stann

christophera

19-03-2009, 01:31 AM

I do believe we are seeing the infiltration of the truth movement attempt to mislead the viewer into thinking that either of you actually seek the truth of how 3,000 dies on 9-11.

This is a precision engineered concrete container for explosives detonating with delays just faster than free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexplodinglines.jpg

The red line is the bottom of a vertical valley formed by the expanding particulate of the debris wave originating from 2 vertical planes then moving outwards horizontally at 90 degrees from each other.

The yellow is the approximate edge of the expanded debris wave or ridge over the valley.

The image is the south side of WTC 2. The right side is a wide side of the core, the debris wave is longer than the debris wave of the left side, where it is deeper proportionate to the thicker concrete walls on the core ends.

I just provided a completely feasible and consistent method to achieve every single effect seen on 9-11 at the WTC with the twins.

free fall
total pulverization
superfine, heated particulate
smooth, square cut column ends x the 1,000's
heavy steel assemblies heaved hundreds of feet (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11fivephenomena.html)

stannrodd

19-03-2009, 02:07 AM

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/sfgallery04kl9.jpg

Are you serious Chris .. look at the pics mate .. there is no ferking concrete core..

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtcsmvz8.jpg

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/corecloseupbest.jpg

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im958lguq5.jpg

If you think there was, .. then it is you who is attempting to mislead and deceive.

Get a grip and get a life ludd !! Go back to minuteman forums and help them to renew America.

AGENT :) Stann

stannrodd

19-03-2009, 02:22 AM

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtccore2.jpg

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtccore1.jpg

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/wtccore3.jpg

No concrete core Chris

AGENT Stann knows this ..!:)

christophera

19-03-2009, 06:31 PM

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/sfgallery04kl9.jpg

But you show the partial core of WTC 2 during construction and don't even know it. Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

No way those vertical elements are "core" columns. What is seen is way too large for steel columns.

If you think there was, .. then it is you who is attempting to mislead and deceive.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im958lguq5.jpg

Get a grip and get a life ludd !! Go back to minuteman forums and help them to renew America.

AGENT :) Stann

Then you show the wooden exterior forms for the WTC 2 concrete core being set inside the interior box columns. The wood is inside the inner face of the box columns and correspond to the point seen here where the interior box columns leave the encasement of concrete seen for WTC 1 core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1.core.wall.base.annot4.jpg) at ground zero.

WTC 2 had a very different concrete core that was redesigned to allow elevator entry at lobby level with twice as many hallways per floor as the top image shows. No, the core orientation has nothing to with the appearance of hallways.

Logically if WTC 2 has 2 hallways running the length of the long, narrow axis as it is viewed, then WTC would also have 2 crossing the narrow axis, and we only see one.

Your failure to post this image,

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

and explain it mirrors the failure of ALL 9-11 research sites (except http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) to explain what is seen.

The entire 9-11 truth movement that is visible in a quasi leadership role is cherry picking and failing to use or explain that image.

They are ALL misrepresenting construction photos showing elevator guide rail support steel as "steel core columns". On 9-11, the core is always empty and concrete walls surround it. (http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww168/S_N_A_F_U/core_animation_75.gif)

bryan

19-03-2009, 07:33 PM

I'm fairly confident that there was deceleration .. otherwise the plane would have continued through the building .. emerging on the other side at the same speed.

If you are referring to the nano second which it took for the 500+ mph aircraft to traverse the perimeter columns .. and we go with the claim that the aircraft is a soft malleable aluminium tube .. and we observe it in real time .. then the visible (undamaged) portion of the aircraft will not be decelerating will it. Because if it was seen to be decelerating then the aircraft must be an incompressible rigid solid object. (The impacting front of the "rigid" aircraft should cause the whole aircraft to decelerate as one unit) But we know that aircraft aren't rigid solid objects so the visible portion of the aircraft can't logically be seen to be decelerating, and it doesn't.

However the unseen parts of the aircraft which are now in the building, having contacted the office fittings partitions etc and then the steel core, will have decelerated .. we know this because the building "contained" the majority of the aircraft debris.

Genuine plane-believers should read the above quotes carefully and ask themselves whether they're happy to support a theory that relies on so many illogicalities and circular arguments. Bear in mind that if Stann had any evidence, there wouldn't be any need for him to go through all these contorsions.

stannrodd

19-03-2009, 09:02 PM

But you show the partial core of WTC 2 during construction and don't even know it. Bwahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

No way those vertical elements are "core" columns. What is seen is way too large for steel columns.

Don't cwy Cwissy .. big boys don't cwy !!

The WTC 1 which is the one on the right is at full height.

The WTC 2 which is the one on the left is almost at full height.

The building is quite happy to stand there without a secret concrete core ..like the one you have on your website. So why would you install a concrete core in a building which obviously doesn't need it .. ? Curious isn't it.

Let me guess ..

They discovered they'd done their sums wrong and the towers were going to fail unless they fixed it up. So they apply the fix .. a 110 storey concrete core, which is reinforced with 3 inch thick C4 coated rebar so they can demolish the thing 30 years later in a faked terror attack.

Oh but hang on ... the concrete floor pans also had c4 rebar in it too so they must have planned the core before they knew the tower was designed all wrong and had to put it in .. then they somehow built this massive monolith inside an already built building without anyone's knowledge .. and GET this .. they then produced a documentary telling everyone (=Chris) all about the engineering failures and how they fixed it all up so that on 9/11 it would work how Chris says so on his BS website.

This is good stuff.

But then the core still doesn't fit in the tower as Gam has shown conclusively.

So all you have Chris is a blurry photo which shows an indistinguishable part of the tower in a state of collapse .. and from this blurry photo evolves the CCC.

Give us all a break Chris. Let it die.

@ bryan

Thought you'd gone for good M8 .. shame really.

Genuine plane believers can believe what they want to bryan.

But remember to quote all of my post so they don't miss the important bit.

Originally Posted by stannrodd
I'm fairly confident that there was deceleration .. otherwise the plane would have continued through the building .. emerging on the other side at the same speed.

If you are referring to the nano second which it took for the 500+ mph aircraft to traverse the perimeter columns .. and we go with the claim that the aircraft is a soft malleable aluminium tube .. and we observe it in real time .. then the visible (undamaged) portion of the aircraft will not be decelerating will it.

Because if it was seen to be decelerating then the aircraft must be an incompressible rigid solid object. (The impacting front of the "rigid" aircraft should cause the whole aircraft to decelerate as one unit) But we know that aircraft aren't rigid solid objects so the visible portion of the aircraft can't logically be seen to be decelerating, and it doesn't.

However the unseen parts of the aircraft which are now in the building, having contacted the office fittings partitions etc and then the steel core, will have decelerated .. we know this because the building "contained" the majority of the aircraft debris.

Having "proven" that "FACT2b" above to be a load of snake droppings I will rest my case because none of the other "facts" are relevant having proven the above "fact" to be BS.

Therefore your argument doesn't work how you want it to.

In reality, if the NPT is correct, then the video fakery is done very well because it shows the plane doing what it logically should do. Not what you purport in order to claim video fakery for the NPT!!

I've bold typed the funny bit for you.

Stann

matrix911

19-03-2009, 10:01 PM

Genuine plane-believers should read the above quotes carefully and ask themselves whether they're happy to support a theory that relies on so many illogicalities and circular arguments. Bear in mind that if Stann had any evidence, there wouldn't be any need for him to go through all these contorsions.

couldn't have said it better.

and thats the power of the TRUTH...

so its quite sad really to see these planers like Stannly trying desperately to rationalize the IMPOSSIBLE when so much basic common sense and VISUAL evidence let alone SCIENCE, MATH and NEWTONS LAWS, are against them.

you can't defend yourself or win an argument if you don't have facts to support you.

no wonder more and more are beginning to wake up and seriously consider NP.

stannrodd

19-03-2009, 10:38 PM

couldn't have said it better.

and thats the power of the TRUTH...

so its quite sad really to see these planers like Stannly trying desperately to rationalize the IMPOSSIBLE when so much basic common sense and VISUAL evidence let alone SCIENCE, MATH and NEWTONS LAWS, are against them.

you can't defend yourself or win an argument if you don't have facts to support you.

no wonder more and more are beginning to wake up and seriously consider NP.

So admitting you couldn't have said it better .. shows the power of Truth ?

You did nothing and proved something ??

Hey Matrix .. would you care to counter my post with your expertise in Truth, forget the NP or P concepts .. Just deal with the alleged event and how you analyze it.

You see I actually out maneuvered you here, and your argument fell flat on it's face.

Your claim is, that because there was no observed deceleration of the impacting plane that the video is faked.

This means you expect deceleration for the video to be genuine. I have shown that if deceleration was observed then the video can't be showing facts.

In your book .. no deceleration = faked video.

Physics shows .. no deceleration = genuine or a very good example of "faked".

Therefore you can't use "expected deceleration" as a tool to support faked video.

NPT fails using that ruse. You need to try harder !

Stann

tannah

19-03-2009, 10:50 PM

But then the core still doesn't fit in the tower as Gam has shown conclusively.

I've not seen anything conclusive set out by Gam. Perhaps you mean he's convinced you Stann? Strange, you seem to have very high standards before anything convinces you. What did it in Gam's case?

stannrodd

19-03-2009, 11:10 PM

I've not seen anything conclusive set out by Gam. Perhaps you mean he's convinced you Stann? Strange, you seem to have very high standards before anything convinces you. What did it in Gam's case?

Perhaps you need more time to understanned what Gam has researched.

Yes I do have high stanndards before I am convinced by the likes of NPT and CCC .. however Gamolon is very methodical and logical, and his work is seriously convincing, because it's honest and isn't supported by conjecture and speculation.

Stann :)

bryan

19-03-2009, 11:21 PM

This means you expect deceleration for the video to be genuine. I have shown that if deceleration was observed then the video can't be showing facts.

In your book .. no deceleration = faked video.

Physics shows .. no deceleration = genuine or a very good example of "faked".

Therefore you can't use "expected deceleration" as a tool to support faked video.

no deceleration = no resistance

steel + concrete = resistance

building resists + no deceleration = plane destroyed on outside of building

plane goes inside of building = video faked

A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

christophera

20-03-2009, 12:24 AM

The building is quite happy to stand there without a secret concrete core

Stann

Ahhhh, you missed something, ......... and it is pretty big to be a secret that your puny methods can keep.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif

and you have failed to show that the core of WTC 2 on the left is anything but the concrete walls between hallways.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg

They are too big for steel columns.

The image proves the opposite of wht you suggest.

Just as this one shows the walls and light coming through the hall openings and across the core diagonally.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC2.coreariel.jpg

narrow blue lines are edges of hall openings on narrow end of concrete core.

Just like this one shows no steel core columns while the light is not travlling directly dwn the halls because they are not aligned with the sunrize perfectly.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

The light is reflecting off of the inside walls formed with breakdown steel forms that left a very shiny surface on the concrete. Steel core columns will not appear as we see. There will be many vertical shafts of light coming through directly.

stannrodd

20-03-2009, 12:26 AM

Avoiding the issue bryan.

The issue is whether .. because of no deceleration the video is declared faked .. AND which is then used in evidence to support NPT.

The building obviously resists the impact and destroys the plane in the process .. this is clear. This is what happened in Amsterdam when the El Al cargo 747 destroyed the centre section of an apartment complex. The plane was also totally destroyed, no major aircraft sections to be found.

The plane is not destroyed as a unit .. all at once ... but progressively from the front to the rear of the aircraft in a very short period of real time.

In my opinion there actually would be a slight deceleration but not enough to be visibly measurable. If there was a very obvious deceleration then the aircraft must be more structurally like a rigid object .. which it isn't.

No obvious deceleration is how it should look, and it does .. therefore the video is genuine (or if you want to believe in video fakery) a very very very good fake.

I will stick to the genuine for now because it makes more sense in the whole picture.

@Chris

There was no concrete core! Got that !!

Stann

tannah

20-03-2009, 01:23 AM

Perhaps you need more time to understanned what Gam has researched.

Yes I do have high stanndards before I am convinced by the likes of NPT and CCC .. however Gamolon is very methodical and logical, and his work is seriously convincing, because it's honest and isn't supported by conjecture and speculation.

Stann :)

Really, perhaps Gamolon would like to share the sources for his conclusions?

stannrodd

20-03-2009, 02:17 AM

Really, perhaps Gamolon would like to share the sources for his conclusions?

I'm quite confident he is capable of doing that. If you have anything in particular you want to discuss then perhaps you should direct a question his way.

Stann ;)

tannah

20-03-2009, 02:40 AM

I'm quite confident he is capable of doing that. If you have anything in particular you want to discuss then perhaps you should direct a question his way.

Stann ;)

Mmmmmm well he's convinced you, no doubt. How did you manage this exclusive conclusive Gamolon? Specifically, how has your work disproved this concrete core theory?

I thought you were already convinced of that Stann, long before you met Gam.

christophera

20-03-2009, 03:13 AM

I've not seen anything conclusive set out by Gam. Perhaps you mean he's convinced you Stann? Strange, you seem to have very high standards before anything convinces you. What did it in Gam's case?

stan' got byan and matrix 9-11 running interference, enabling evasion until our facts or questions are on the second to last page. Misinformation, although useless for getting more truth, can be utilized by the disinformationalists as a distraction when the going gets tough.

Hence the title of this thread has ironic meanings or interest for viewers.

stannrodd

20-03-2009, 03:15 AM

Mmmmmm well he's convinced you, no doubt. How did you manage this exclusive conclusive Gamolon? Specifically, how has your work disproved this concrete core theory?

I thought you were already convinced of that Stann, long before you met Gam.

Twisting words tannah.

Gamolon's work is convincing.

Chris convinced me that the concrete core is bullshit because his work is not convincing. :D

There is a difference.

Stann

stannrodd

20-03-2009, 08:07 AM

stan' got byan and matrix 9-11 running interference, enabling evasion until our facts or questions are on the second to last page. Misinformation, although useless for getting more truth, can be utilized by the disinformationalists as a distraction when the going gets tough.

Hence the title of this thread has ironic meanings or interest for viewers.

The only comment I have is.. that stannrodd didn't do this ..

Chris you wanted it ?? It's your thread remember ?? !!

You chose it and you created your own nightmare .. you have also shown how low an American go for a false Truth.

Stann

bryan

20-03-2009, 10:39 AM

Avoiding the issue bryan.

The issue is whether .. because of no deceleration the video is declared faked .. AND which is then used in evidence to support NPT.

Deceleration on its own is not the issue.

The issue is why the videos don't show the destruction of the plane taking place "progressively from the front to the rear of the aircraft in a very short period of real time", as you described yourself.

Another issue is how a plane that's not rigid enough to decelerate in a collision can make a hole in a building and completely disappear into it.

No obvious deceleration is how it should look, and it does .. therefore the video is genuine (or if you want to believe in video fakery) a very very very good fake.

It would be more difficult to decelerate the cgi. No deceleration would be the default. Why do you want to seem impressed by a simple effect that would happen anyway, without the video editor giving it a thought?

You say the videos show exactly what we'd expect to see. Out of interest, if the videos had shown the wings and tail section breaking off, would that have been evidence of video fakery?

tannah

20-03-2009, 01:15 PM

Twisting words tannah.

Gamolon's work is convincing.

Chris convinced me that the concrete core is bullshit because his work is not convincing. :D

There is a difference.

Stann

I ain't a twister mister. So what work of his convinced you? All I am interested in is this idea of "conclusive".

gamolon

20-03-2009, 01:35 PM

Really, perhaps Gamolon would like to share the sources for his conclusions?

My conclusions are based on research, articles, math, and eyewitness accounts.

To make it simple, I will first explain the one major fault in Chris' theory. At the start of Chris' journey, he had always claimed that his SOLID concrete core surrounded EVERYTHING contained therein. Elevators, stairwells, the steel columns, etc.

When I first encountered Chris at the JREF forums, I found something odd about his claim. He says that his core dimension, based on the documentary he supposedly has seen, was that the core of WTC1 was composed of 12' thick concrete walls of the long axis of the core and 17' thick concrete walls of the short axis walls. Here is a drawing that Chris did for me awhile back the confirms what he is visualizing:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc1footprint.gif

The two inner rectangles represent the inner and outer edges of the concrete core wall. Hence his claim that there was no access to the elevators from ANYWHERE outside the core walls shown above. Chris says that EVERYTHING was accessed from within. He had always maintained that BOTH towers had no access to anything from outside the core.

That is until I found photos of express elevator access from outside the core. He ADMITTED to me in a thread, after seeing these photos, that I had indeed found access from outside the core at the lobby level. He then changed his tune that ALL photos showing said elevator access were of WTC2 and none were of WTC1. Chris now claims that WTC1 and WTC2 were "radically different" as far as the core's design was concerned. Chris claims that the core of WTC2 was totally redesigned after the construction of WTC1 had already started, because WTC1 was hard to rent due to the lack of elevator access, being that all access to everything was from within the core only. So they redesigned WTC2 to have access from OUTSIDE the core. Funny that the engineers couldn't figure that out BEFORE they started construction eh?

So now the debate rages on.

As far as my sources? I have talked to people who used to work in the towers. They have confirmed that there was indeed access to the express elevators from outside the core at the lobby level in BOTH towers, not just WTC2. I ask anyone here to ask people also. Don't take my word for it. There are articles about how the elevator system worked in both towers. Here is a link to just one of them: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9805-003.html-ssi

So, how could Chris 12', SOLID concrete wall stand stand between the outside of the core and the express elevators when there was clearly access to the elevators at the lobby level from outside the core? Why do you think he hotly contests the photo I have shown here with the footbridge outside the tower windows as being WTC1? Because it shows elevator access.

I have questions for Chris that he REFUSES to answer because he knows that if he does, he'll be forced to admit he's competely wrong about ALL his fantastical claims. Here are some of them.

1. I have asked him to provide a scaled drawing of the lobby level, fitting everything within his core dimensions. 23 express elevators, 24 local elevators that serviced the lower third of the towers (per the article linked above), stairwells, structural steel, a 16' wide hallway running down the length of the core, code clearances, etc. He was in construction and designed blueprints before, so he should have no problems. He also took the time to draw out his assumptions as to how the explosives were planted, so why can he not do this?

2. Where is his proof of the redesign of the core from WTC1 to WTC2?

3. Where are his photos of WTC1 having no access to the express elevators?

4. Has he talked to anyone who worked in the towers about elevator access? No he hasn't. He won't because it'll destroy his theory.

5. Where is the documentary? He can't produce it and makes claims that it was intercepted. Proof of this?

6. Ask him about Mr. Hill sometime. Mr. Hill is his "friend" that has signed a declaration that he did indeed see "a documentary about the construction of the towers", but says nothing of it being the SAME documentary that Chris saw. He says that Mr. Hill is afraid to come forward with his knowledge, yet Chris, knowing that Mr. Hill was afraid, came to a PUBLIC forum and posted his written declaration and discussed Mr. Hill's position. If Mr. Hill was afraid, then why did Chris take it upon himself to coem to the forums and post about it? What a great guy.

7. Ask Chris about all his mistakes he has in his theory that I (and others) have pointed out, but he refuses to correct them.

8. Ask Chris about the "leaked blueprints" that he claims are fake, yet I can match them to almost any 911 debris photo out there. If they are fake and have been edited, how can they match what was there?

Here is a blueprint that I marked up. The larger rectangles with "X's" in them along the top and bottom of the core are the express elevators. The smaller rectangles with "X's" in them in the middle are the local elevators. The red lines represents where Chris thinks his core was. He completely displaces the express elevators fromt heir true position and "squeezes them into his concrete core. The express elevators had two doors on them. One in front and one on the opposite side. How did they access the one door that was against the inside of the core wall?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/lobbycore.jpg

So tannah, if you want to discuss more about Chris fantasy, let me know.

gamolon

20-03-2009, 01:56 PM

and you have failed to show that the core of WTC 2 on the left is anything but the concrete walls between hallways.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/silhouettenoontosouth.jpg

They are too big for steel columns.

The image proves the opposite of wht you suggest.

You are just too funny. See those cranes at the top Chris? They sit in between the first two rows of columns. I see 5 spaces in between the columns of the short core wall.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC_Core_01s-full.jpg
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/9999004225-l-full.jpg

Just as this one shows the walls and light coming through the hall openings and across the core diagonally.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/WTC2.coreariel.jpg

narrow blue lines are edges of hall openings on narrow end of concrete core.

Here is MY markup of the same photo above.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/WTC2coreariel.jpg
Answer a question for me. Look at the distance between the light blue lines. How can the distance of what Chris claims are the "corners" of his core (the red lines) be GREATER than the FACE of the outside of the tower?! The outside face of the tower was approximately 208'. Chris core wall (between the red lines) was 104' from corner to corner? Just another mistake in what Chris "thinks" he sees. As you will see, he'll ignore this.

Just like this one shows no steel core columns while the light is not travlling directly dwn the halls because they are not aligned with the sunrize perfectly.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg

The light is reflecting off of the inside walls formed with breakdown steel forms that left a very shiny surface on the concrete. Steel core columns will not appear as we see. There will be many vertical shafts of light coming through directly.

I have already explained this to you Chris. Here is a marked up blueprint that shows you that the core columns were enclosed with the gypsum planking in that photo. The blueprints below match the shadowed dark areas perfectly.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/64floor.png
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/83rdfloor.png

gamolon

20-03-2009, 02:01 PM

Here is a screen capture from the Naudet video when the firefighters were in WTC1:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/FDNYWTC1withgearrollups-full.jpg

Elevators in the background. Although Chris claims that they are just "polished facades" that don't lead anywhere.

tannah

20-03-2009, 04:07 PM

To make it simple, I will first explain the one major fault in Chris' theory. At the start of Chris' journey, he had always claimed that his SOLID concrete core surrounded EVERYTHING contained therein. Elevators, stairwells, the steel columns, etc.

Ok, and where would this information have come from? A documentary?

The two inner rectangles represent the inner and outer edges of the concrete core wall. Hence his claim that there was no access to the elevators from ANYWHERE outside the core walls shown above. Chris says that EVERYTHING was accessed from within. He had always maintained that BOTH towers had no access to anything from outside the core.

Because this is what he remembers from the documentary?

That is until I found photos of express elevator access from outside the core. He ADMITTED to me in a thread, after seeing these photos, that I had indeed found access from outside the core at the lobby level. He then changed his tune that ALL photos showing said elevator access were of WTC2 and none were of WTC1. Chris now claims that WTC1 and WTC2 were "radically different" as far as the core's design was concerned. Chris claims that the core of WTC2 was totally redesigned after the construction of WTC1 had already started, because WTC1 was hard to rent due to the lack of elevator access, being that all access to everything was from within the core only. So they redesigned WTC2 to have access from OUTSIDE the core. Funny that the engineers couldn't figure that out BEFORE they started construction eh?

Yeah I can see what you mean here. But I'm still not seeing the conclusive proof yet. Stranger things have happened. What does Chris say about this "admission"?

As far as my sources? I have talked to people who used to work in the towers. They have confirmed that there was indeed access to the express elevators from outside the core at the lobby level in BOTH towers, not just WTC2. I ask anyone here to ask people also. Don't take my word for it. There are articles about how the elevator system worked in both towers. Here is a link to just one of them: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazi...5-003.html-ssi

OK, so now we've got you saying you've talked to people.
I've read the article. It does assume both towers had the same elevator construction.

So, how could Chris 12', SOLID concrete wall stand stand between the outside of the core and the express elevators when there was clearly access to the elevators at the lobby level from outside the core? Why do you think he hotly contests the photo I have shown here with the footbridge outside the tower windows as being WTC1? Because it shows elevator access.

Wouldn't there need to be an intial access from outside the core? But once inside, was the rest of the elevator journey conducted within the core? Or am I getting this wrong? For there to be no access to elevators from outside the core, would mean Chris envisions the whole tower to be a concrete core with no access to the elevators, making the towers impenetrable! You gotta get in somewhere from outside the core, or you'll have to get a pick axe to the elevators. So I would imagine there has to be access from outside to begin with.

Do any images exist of elevator access outside the core at the higher levels?

1. I have asked him to provide a scaled drawing of the lobby level, fitting everything within his core dimensions. 23 express elevators, 24 local elevators that serviced the lower third of the towers (per the article linked above), stairwells, structural steel, a 16' wide hallway running down the length of the core, code clearances, etc. He was in construction and designed blueprints before, so he should have no problems. He also took the time to draw out his assumptions as to how the explosives were planted, so why can he not do this?

I don't know much about this, but is there no room for error in Chris recalling what he saw in the documentary? Will it never work out if he can't be completely sure about the measurements? Do no possible measurements exist, and how far would Chris's assertions be wrong compared to them?

2. Where is his proof of the redesign of the core from WTC1 to WTC2?

I give up, where is it?

3. Where are his photos of WTC1 having no access to the express elevators?

Give up again. Where are your photos that there was access at the higher floors?

4. Has he talked to anyone who worked in the towers about elevator access? No he hasn't. He won't because it'll destroy his theory.

Can't comment on that. Besides, second hand knowledge is a dodgy subject. As you know from your questioning Chris about a documentary.

5. Where is the documentary? He can't produce it and makes claims that it was intercepted. Proof of this?

Indeed. But I was looking for the conclusive here. I already know some of these questions have been asked.

6. Ask him about Mr. Hill sometime. Mr. Hill is his "friend" that has signed a declaration that he did indeed see "a documentary about the construction of the towers", but says nothing of it being the SAME documentary that Chris saw. He says that Mr. Hill is afraid to come forward with his knowledge, yet Chris, knowing that Mr. Hill was afraid, came to a PUBLIC forum and posted his written declaration and discussed Mr. Hill's position. If Mr. Hill was afraid, then why did Chris take it upon himself to coem to the forums and post about it? What a great guy.

Maybe he was overly keen to stand his ground against the opposition. Again, what of it?

7. Ask Chris about all his mistakes he has in his theory that I (and others) have pointed out, but he refuses to correct them.

Again, this shows conclusive proof of you being right?

8. Ask Chris about the "leaked blueprints" that he claims are fake, yet I can match them to almost any 911 debris photo out there. If they are fake and have been edited, how can they match what was there?

Depends if what they match has relevence to the concrete core? Now this would convince me, if you can conclusively show by real images of 9/11 that a) the blueprints are not fakes and b) they show steel core columns and not a concrete core. To show that the blueprints are not faked it isn't a question of having them match certain things anyway, but everything (and how do we do that?). I read that they are not the originals, nor specify the core elements.

Here is a blueprint that I marked up. The larger rectangles with "X's" in them along the top and bottom of the core are the express elevators. The smaller rectangles with "X's" in them in the middle are the local elevators. The red lines represents where Chris thinks his core was. He completely displaces the express elevators fromt heir true position and "squeezes them into his concrete core. The express elevators had two doors on them. One in front and one on the opposite side. How did they access the one door that was against the inside of the core wall?

I can see it wouldn't fit into this diagram. My interest will end here once I get a response from Chris about this, and he sends in a diagram about how he can get a concrete core to fit

None of this really shows the real important thing about 9/11. That is that it was planned not only by them muslim terorrists. I sometimes wonder if alternate theories are not encouraged in order to stop the simple notion of demanding answers from the offical one.

stannrodd

20-03-2009, 08:30 PM

I can see it wouldn't fit into this diagram. My interest will end here once I get a response from Chris about this, and he sends in a diagram about how he can get a concrete core to fit

Best of luck !! You will be waiting a while I suspect.

Stann

tannah

20-03-2009, 09:10 PM

Best of luck !! You will be waiting a while I suspect.

Stann

But maybe you can see what I am getting at. If it's possible to fake planes hitting the towers, then it may also be possible to fake all sorts of stuff. Anyone can make up stuff now that we don't have the possibility of checking the towers.

If gamolon's evidence isn't conclusive, then I am wondering why you favour his take over Chris's. If it is conclusive, I am still wondering why you are wasting time with a fake theory. It won't fool anyone in the long run will it? You protecting the public from BS? Again, I'd say you are choosing the wrong theory in order to do that.

But yeah, I'll wait to see the response.

What's difficult here, you see, is that no one really knows where you yourself stand. Nor Gamolon.
You have a lot to say about these theories. Nothing to really say about the OT. And you both don't place yourself in the position of being questioned about your stance. It comes accross as you actually supporting the OT. So, is there things about the OT either of you want to question?
What do you say to those that suggest the whole thing was an inside job? Do you think that Osama Bin Laden was given a go ahead to do it? Or do you support the rhetoric coming from those that stand by the NIST report?

I feel I'll be waiting a long time before you open up on these issues.

gamolon

20-03-2009, 09:44 PM

But maybe you can see what I am getting at. If it's possible to fake planes hitting the towers, then it may also be possible to fake all sorts of stuff. Anyone can make up stuff now that we don't have the possibility of checking the towers.

If gamolon's evidence isn't conclusive, then I am wondering why you favour his take over Chris's. If it is conclusive, I am still wondering why you are wasting time with a fake theory. It won't fool anyone in the long run will it? You protecting the public from BS? Again, I'd say you are choosing the wrong theory in order to do that.

But yeah, I'll wait to see the response.

What's difficult here, you see, is that no one really knows where you yourself stand. Nor Gamolon.
You have a lot to say about these theories. Nothing to really say about the OT. And you both don't place yourself in the position of being questioned about your stance. It comes accross as you actually supporting the OT. So, is there things about the OT either of you want to question?
What do you say to those that suggest the whole thing was an inside job? Do you think that Osama Bin Laden was given a go ahead to do it? Or do you support the rhetoric coming from those that stand by the NIST report?

I feel I'll be waiting a long time before you open up on these issues.

What adifference does it make what I believe or not? Honestly? If I present you with evidence that makes sense, why do you need to know what I believe?

If I say that I believe that something doesn't sit right with me about the official story, does that make my evdience any more valid in your eyes?

If I say I seem to think the official story is crap, then we're all friends and you take what I say at face value and all the official story supporters label me as a truther.

If I say that I think the official story has merit, I'm called an agent and that I need to open my eyes to what is really out there and to stop being a "sheeple".

Can anyone in here have an honest debate without the labels and answer questions honestly? When I do that, I'm an agent and all my photos are photoshopped.

tannah

20-03-2009, 10:26 PM

What adifference does it make what I believe or not? Honestly? If I present you with evidence that makes sense, why do you need to know what I believe?

That wasn't really the point. What is it that motivates you here Gamolon?
You've followed Chris to ,what is it, three forums now, with the same argument and diagrams? Chris seems to not see your case as conclusive. Stann does. But Stann is someone else that only comes out to comment when a "twoofer" makes some anti government noise.

Let's forget the burdensome job of highlighting Chris's fantasy, for a post at least. Is there anything else that would motivate you to follow a theory around from forum to forum?

I assure you, I'm not trying to look down on you for not kicking the OT in the teeth. I'm simply observing that your motivations are to what you describe as complete BS, and it's obviously enough to spur you into action. You sound like a clever person when it comes to construction. How do you see the likelihood of the NIST report being correct? Doesn't the whole scenario surrounding 9/11 concern you? What's your take?

It's these kind of questions that I never seem to get an answer to, from people like Stann and you. Once again you have chosen not to answer by suggesting it should be none of my business what you believe.
At least answer me this; are you happier with your efforts to discredit Chris than you are to look into this OT theory? Would you be doing us a bigger favour if you had reason to doubt it, or even to declare it the truth? The OT is the one that really counts, above all other theories right? I consider respect an important quality. I don't seem to respect people who obviously care about some theories and not others. If you're going to play the game, then help me respect what it is you do believe, not only what you want to discredit.

There it is. Why do you seem motivated to write when it comes to giving Chris a hard time, but not when someone would like you to defend your own beliefs regarding something like 9/11?

How easily are you deceived? That's the title of this thread.

stannrodd

21-03-2009, 12:50 AM

Like I said tannah, you will be waiting a long time for Chris to provide you with anything other than his constant regurgitation of the same blurry photos and links to his pathetic website.

The title of the thread should be a clue as to what he is up to. He is the deceiver and misleader .. hasn't that dawned on you yet.

He's probably laughing his head off at the amount of time some people go to, to support his "theory" on his behalf. He loves to get banned so he can play the martyr routine .. to again mislead and deceive .. he loves the sympathy that comes from the people (like you) who get annoyed at people like me.

If there was less emotive "speak" and more simple analysis, backed by research .. Chris wouldn't even get onto a forum.

Take a look at Matrix911 and the outbursts when I get logical with NPT'ers.

I have now looked at the NPT idea and find it to be an unusual concept .. but to start with it wasn't anything like what it is today. I've seen it evolve from simple trolls being assholes to an almost full blown theory.

Basically dreamt up by another group of time wasters, who are now desperately looking at ways to provide proof of "nothing".

Where it falls apart is when the dismissive and ad hominums come in. They have no function in logical analysis. I'm prepared to look at anything and work through the merits or otherwise .. then come to a conclusion.

Chris uses FEMA photos to provide the images for some of his theory .. but at the same time dismisses FEMA as being untrustworthy in all other respects.

That doesn't add up to me. He wants the cake and eat it too.

He provides one photo of "what can only be a concrete core" but fails to show the rest in the sequence. This is called misleading evidence.

The alleged documentary which was allegedly "found" and "shipped" 3 times.. but intercepted 3 times.

He cannot provide any evidence of this claim .. or any of the paperwork .. nor can he tell you how he KNOWS it was intercepted. How can you know something was intercepted unless you have inside knowledge of that. Which begs the question .. since he must know .. why doesn't he tell us.

His logic fails to deliver .. ??

I could go on but there really isn't any point.

My beliefs about 9/11 are that it was an inside job and that the towers .. all three .. were intentionally demolished .. that real planes did impact the towers .. but they weren't the prime reason for the towers failure .. I worked with a great team over at LetsRoll and there is little tolerance for BS there .. and that is why I liked the place.

Good open discussion and excellent moderation.

Why Chris is targeted ?? Why not !! He's wasting peoples time from an educational level for things 9/11. Just take a look at his posting history around all the other forums.

But hey if you want to debate with him .. forget it .. he preaches.

Stann

tannah

21-03-2009, 01:03 AM

stannrodd

21-03-2009, 01:09 AM

.... he must be really laughing at how much of your time he's managed to waste over the years then!

It was never a waste of my time tannah .. :D

Stann

tannah

21-03-2009, 09:09 AM

It was never a waste of my time tannah .. :D

Stann

Ever heard of that bible saying "all things done in the dark will be brought out into the light"? Wonder how true that is. For example, people say that we'll never really find out the truth of 9/11. If that quote is right then not even the veil of the internet can hide our intentions forever.

bryan

21-03-2009, 10:11 AM

I worked with a great team over at LetsRoll and there is little tolerance for BS there .. and that is why I liked the place.

Why is it that the Pod Theory was tolerated at LetsRoll?

Is it because the theory was invented by the site's owner, Phil Jayhan?

Good open discussion and excellent moderation.

Below is an example of the open discussion and excellent moderation found at LetsRoll.

Phil Jayhan
Site Admin

U2,

Tell you what. You want to push this crap on our forums, your outta luck. There are one or two threads in the X-files forum where you can push this happy horseshit. If I find one more single hologram post anywhere else in the forum, you will be banned permanently on sight. And I will be cleaning this thread up in a little while. If you want to shit on someones front room carpeting, then get the hell out of here, and leave and find another forum for your crap!

cheers-
phil

I'll tell you what. I just changed my mind. No more of your bullshit here. Find another forum. Your banned for being stupid.

http://letsrollforums.com/colonel-george-nelson-confirms-t10776p6.html

nhenchyfaill

21-03-2009, 05:31 PM

Chris now claims that WTC1 and WTC2 were "radically different" as far as the core's design was concerned. Chris claims that the core of WTC2 was totally redesigned after the construction of WTC1 had already started, because WTC1 was hard to rent due to the lack of elevator access, being that all access to everything was from within the core only. So they redesigned WTC2 to have access from OUTSIDE the core

Ahhh now I understand. I didn't know, or have forgotten, that Chris had done this. All part and parcel of the Chrisophera method though huh? This is of course a fair indication of the lengths Chris will go to to sustain his fantasy. His story is totally unfalsifiable. You have done a very good job exposing his fantasies Gamolon. I think however, that you will still be here in another 2-3 years arguing the toss with him.

Is it worth it?

N

tannah

21-03-2009, 06:49 PM

Ahhh now I understand. I didn't know, or have forgotten, that Chris had done this. All part and parcel of the Chrisophera method though huh? This is of course a fair indication of the lengths Chris will go to to sustain his fantasy.

And the money he will spend, from his own pocket. That bit doesn't add for me.

You have done a very good job exposing his fantasies Gamolon.

I'll assume you already know Chris and Gamolon from elsewhere.

I think however, that you will still be here in another 2-3 years arguing the toss with him.

Is it worth it?

It may depend on what's at stake. if Chris's theory is so bad, it shouldn't pose any threat.

stannrodd

21-03-2009, 10:20 PM

Below is an example of the open discussion and excellent moderation found at LetsRoll.

U2,

Tell you what. You want to push this crap on our forums, your outta luck. There are one or two threads in the X-files forum where you can push this happy horseshit. If I find one more single hologram post anywhere else in the forum, you will be banned permanently on sight. And I will be cleaning this thread up in a little while. If you want to shit on someones front room carpeting, then get the hell out of here, and leave and find another forum for your crap!

cheers-
phil
I'll tell you what. I just changed my mind. No more of your bullshit here. Find another forum. Your banned for being stupid.

I found the quote rather funny really ... !

The pod thing was an indeterminate thing for me so I didn't bother too much with it. If you wanted to debate the pod thing it was open and free discussion.. so what's the big deal bryan ? .. that the NPT and hologram ideas are considered happy horse shit by Phil.??

That's how Phil's "perception that something was bullshit" was dealt with. Good on him !! Free world .. if you didn't like the environment .. feel free to leave .. piss him off ... and you were out. Simple rules which worked well for him.

It was his opinion, his forum, and he had the bann button .. didn't worry us too much. We were mostly in agreement. The poo pushers simply trolled off to another forum and did the same crap.. Got banned there and ultimately some ended up here I guess.

The way I looked at it was, .. if the forum was about cat breeding for example, and someone insisted in debating perceived unwanted issues, it's not unreasonable to send them on their merry way.

I wouldn't get too upset about it mate. This forum allows free discussion on almost anything .. from what I can gather .. the one thing that is frowned upon is shit slinging matches .. so ....

... dragging up how another forum operated 4 years ago isn't very useful to good discussion and debate .. is it ??

I've got a new angle coming up about the NPT .. stay tuned .. I might even start a new thread..!

Stann :)

gamolon

23-03-2009, 02:49 PM

Ahhh now I understand. I didn't know, or have forgotten, that Chris had done this. All part and parcel of the Chrisophera method though huh? This is of course a fair indication of the lengths Chris will go to to sustain his fantasy. His story is totally unfalsifiable. You have done a very good job exposing his fantasies Gamolon. I think however, that you will still be here in another 2-3 years arguing the toss with him.

Is it worth it?

N

Is it worth it? To me, yes. He passes bogus information around as fact and people STILL believe him. So I will continue to post the information I have that proves him wrong.

gamolon

23-03-2009, 02:59 PM

And the money he will spend, from his own pocket. That bit doesn't add for me.

And what money is that?

I'll assume you already know Chris and Gamolon from elsewhere.

I am not familiar with him/her.

It may depend on what's at stake. if Chris's theory is so bad, it shouldn't pose any threat.

Do you think Chris' theory is "so bad"? Do you think his theory has any merit?

tannah

23-03-2009, 03:29 PM

And what money is that?

I am not familiar with him/her.

Do you think Chris' theory is "so bad"? Do you think his theory has any merit?

Ummmm, you haven't replied to a previous post of mine. What makes you think you can do that and expect people to keep bowing to your questions?
You and Stann are extremely good at avoiding the focus.

If it is true that you only want to follow Chris around, because you don't want his "bad info" influencing anyone, then go for it, as I don't feel I need your input when it comes to my views on 9/11. Getting past you and Stann, and people like you never comes into it with me. Getting your approval wouldn't bring us any closer to catching the culprits of 9/11.
In other words, you've proved nothing of any significance.
Whilst we're getting stuck in to criticising all these theories, have we gotten any closer to the perpetrators? Isn't that the real reason you turn up, refusing to answer anomalies about the official 9/11 takes , but turned on by the endless little points you can occupy others with.

What I've always favoured is the public questioning of the OT, the NIST report, the many anomalies surrounding 9/11, before and beyond. And I know you won't give your input on that. And it's becuase the holes are too big for even you to fill with silly fine adjustments.

Oh, and name one person that "still" believes Chris. Anyone here believe him? Anywhere else? Where are these masses that you need to save from Chris?

gamolon

23-03-2009, 03:51 PM

That wasn't really the point. What is it that motivates you here Gamolon?

What motivates me? The fact that he is just plain wrong yet there are people out there that will read his garbage and put faith in it. That's what motivates me.

You've followed Chris to ,what is it, three forums now, with the same argument and diagrams? Chris seems to not see your case as conclusive.

Why should Chris see my case as "conclusive"? I'm arguing against him. He has so much credibility at stake that he cannot turn back now as it would ruin him. Why has his story and evidence changed so much over time, yet mine has not?

Stann does. But Stann is someone else that only comes out to comment when a "twoofer" makes some anti government noise.

When you say "someone else", are you speaking of me? If so, you'd better go back and check my posts because 99% of mine have been dealing with the bogus "evidence" that Chris posts and NOT anything to do with which side of the government fence he sits.

Let's forget the burdensome job of highlighting Chris's fantasy, for a post at least. Is there anything else that would motivate you to follow a theory around from forum to forum?

Nope. It's just that fact that he's a smug, untruthful person person trying to spread garbage on the internet. Some people believe him because he tried to make himself out as a construction expert using "big construction" words and false descriptios of what he sees in photos. Blurry photo nonetheless.

I assure you, I'm not trying to look down on you for not kicking the OT in the teeth. I'm simply observing that your motivations are to what you describe as complete BS, and it's obviously enough to spur you into action. You sound like a clever person when it comes to construction. How do you see the likelihood of the NIST report being correct? Doesn't the whole scenario surrounding 9/11 concern you? What's your take?

It's these kind of questions that I never seem to get an answer to, from people like Stann and you. Once again you have chosen not to answer by suggesting it should be none of my business what you believe.
At least answer me this; are you happier with your efforts to discredit Chris than you are to look into this OT theory? Would you be doing us a bigger favour if you had reason to doubt it, or even to declare it the truth? The OT is the one that really counts, above all other theories right? I consider respect an important quality. I don't seem to respect people who obviously care about some theories and not others. If you're going to play the game, then help me respect what it is you do believe, not only what you want to discredit.

There it is. Why do you seem motivated to write when it comes to giving Chris a hard time, but not when someone would like you to defend your own beliefs regarding something like 9/11?

How easily are you deceived? That's the title of this thread.

I believe construction/scientific/evidence apsects of the official story so far. I have yet to be convinced about apsects of the official story as being wrong.

Whenever I present information or evidence aganist a conspiracy theory, all I ever get back is that I'm a government agent, shill, I photoshopped some pictures, "you're a sheeple", you're blind, "open your eyes", blah, blah, blah.

Never has anyone giving me scientific backup as to what they are claiming is true as opposed to the ofiicial story being true.

Example. The squibs as evidence of a controlled demolition. I have brought up the fact that they could be air and debris being forced through the windows as the towers collapsed. I have asked is they were squibs, what explosives are they coming from? The perimeter columns? People compare videos of controlled demolitions to show that they are similar. Really? Why is it in controlled demolitions I see MANY explosions around the perimeter of a building at the same level when they blow the columns yet in the towers I see only one or two "squibs" at the same level?

Example: If Chris' theory was so sound, why does he refuse to draw a floor plan of the lobby level with all the components inside? He uses the excuse that we don't now the sizes of the items in the core like the elevator sizes. That's bullshit in my opinion. How is it that he can draw up schematics of how the explosives were supposedly planted by the columns and in the floors? He has no factual information about that, yet he has drawn detailed drawings.

Here's another thread I'm involved in where someone is speculating the the Andres Barilla video was altered or doesn't look right.
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=6166&st=0 How many times in the above linked thread has wrong information been presented? Someone used the wrong dimensions in there analysis and people just blindly believe them without doing any research. That's just one example of all the wrong assumptions/info in that thread.

Do I think the government is capable of doing something as devious as this? Yes I do. Is the goverment smart enough to pull it off? No.

So pick something about the tower's demise that you find suspect and let's discuss it. I'm all for that. Free fall? Squibs? Anything.

gamolon

23-03-2009, 03:56 PM

Ummmm, you haven't replied to a previous post of mine. What makes you think you can do that and expect people to keep bowing to your questions?
You and Stann are extremely good at avoiding the focus.

Ummmmm. I just did.

If it is true that you only want to follow Chris around, because you don't want his "bad info" influencing anyone, then go for it, as I don't feel I need your input when it comes to my views on 9/11. Getting past you and Stann, and people like you never comes into it with me. Getting your approval wouldn't bring us any closer to catching the culprits of 9/11.
In other words, you've proved nothing of any significance.
Whilst we're getting stuck in to criticising all these theories, have we gotten any closer to the perpetrators? Isn't that the real reason you turn up, refusing to answer anomalies about the official 9/11 takes , but turned on by the endless little points you can occupy others with.

What I've always favoured is the public questioning of the OT, the NIST report, the many anomalies surrounding 9/11, before and beyond. And I know you won't give your input on that. And it's becuase the holes are too big for even you to fill with silly fine adjustments.

Oh, and name one person that "still" believes Chris. Anyone here believe him? Anywhere else? Where are these masses that you need to save from Chris?

1. Obviously you haven't read some of the other threads. There are still people out there.

2. Ok. Pick an anomaly in the official story that really sticks out at you and let's discuss.

tannah

23-03-2009, 05:45 PM

Do I think the government is capable of doing something as devious as this? Yes I do. Is the goverment smart enough to pull it off? No.

So pick something about the tower's demise that you find suspect and let's discuss it. I'm all for that. Free fall? Squibs? Anything.

Ok, you're playing, cool.;-) You've limited the scenario to the actions of the government. Look there, but also to personalities in the background that are not part of the government as such.

Ok, the first suspect anomaly regarding the towers demise is the dodgy stock market activity just prior to the attacks. Have a read, and explain this in terms of the official story, that is, only Bin Laden and his supporters knew what was about to happen on 9/11, and it caught America by surprise.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

main link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

gamolon

23-03-2009, 06:39 PM

Ok, you're playing, cool.;-) You've limited the scenario to the actions of the government. Look there, but also to personalities in the background that are not part of the government as such.

Ok, the first suspect anomaly regarding the towers demise is the dodgy stock market activity just prior to the attacks. Have a read, and explain this in terms of the official story, that is, only Bin Laden and his supporters knew what was about to happen on 9/11, and it caught America by surprise.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

main link:

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

bryan

23-03-2009, 07:05 PM

The pod thing was an indeterminate thing for me so I didn't bother too much with it. If you wanted to debate the pod thing it was open and free discussion.. so what's the big deal bryan ? .. that the NPT and hologram ideas are considered happy horse shit by Phil.??

Here's the big deal:

Phil Jayhan dreams up the pod theory and promotes it on his forum, where you're a mod. Years later the very same pod theory is an embarrassment to the truth movement and few truthers would dare to even mention it in public.

There's also a theory that says no planes hit the towers. You and Jayhan call it horseshit and boot people off the forum just for bringing up the subject. Years later that theory has gained so much ground that the topic has to be banned from all the main 9/11 forums to stop it being accepted by the majority of the truth movement.

Are you and Phil Jayhan really crap when it comes to evaluating theories? Or is there some other explanation?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

This kind of misses the point. The idea is that al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. So why go looking for ties to al Qaeda? :confused:

2. Ok. Pick an anomaly in the official story that really sticks out at you and let's discuss.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf (pdf download)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Elias%20Davidsson%20-%20No%20Evidence%20of%20911%20Hijackers%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%2028%20Oct%202008.mp3 (mp3 download)

There is no evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11
By Elias Davidsson
10 January 2008
Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names, deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that there is no evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded as a lie.

tannah

23-03-2009, 07:09 PM

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Right,it was all coincidental. You're choosing to agree with this article ok? Gamolon agrees with the snopes article, and rejects the 9/11 research article. You don't see that the snopes article is playing the significance down right? Here's some of what you are rejecting from the 9/11 research article:

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time

An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them.

But you have no suspicions about any playing down of figures, and you're happy with the official version thus far?

That's cool. Let's carry on then:

On top of this "coincidence" there is more anomalies. The air security:

Please give me your opinions on this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html

gamolon

23-03-2009, 07:24 PM

Right,it was all coincidental. You're choosing to agree with this article ok? Gamolon agrees with the snopes article, and rejects the 9/11 research article. You don't see that the snopes article is playing the significance down right? Here's some of what you are rejecting from the 9/11 research article:

But you have no suspicions about any playing down of figures, and you're happy with the official version thus far?

That's cool. Let's carry on then:

On top of this "coincidence" there is more anomalies. The air security:

Please give me your opinions on this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html

And this is the kind of horseshit that I am talking about. Who said I reject the article? I said let's debate and discuss. I reply with one link and you go of the handle and want to move on to the next subject. That's not what I call discussion.

I used that link as a reply to your link. You posted another clip about the Bloomberg report which I would like to look into.

This is the kind of crap that I speak of. Instead of debating and discussing, you assume that I am set in my ways and cannot be convinced otherwise, make a couple smart ass comments and then decide to move on.

Nice.

I would like to look into this a bit further If you don't mind.

gamolon

23-03-2009, 07:28 PM

Here's the big deal:

Phil Jayhan dreams up the pod theory and promotes it on his forum, where you're a mod. Years later the very same pod theory is an embarrassment to the truth movement and few truthers would dare to even mention it in public.

There's also a theory that says no planes hit the towers. You and Jayhan call it horseshit and boot people off the forum just for bringing up the subject. Years later that theory has gained so much ground that the topic has to be banned from all the main 9/11 forums to stop it being accepted by the majority of the truth movement.

Are you and Phil Jayhan really crap when it comes to evaluating theories? Or is there some other explanation?

This kind of misses the point. The idea is that al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. So why go looking for ties to al Qaeda? :confused:

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/imag...noevidence.pdf (pdf download)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audi...Oct%202008.mp3 (mp3 download)

Your links aren't working for me. They say "not found".

tannah

23-03-2009, 07:37 PM

And this is the kind of horseshit that I am talking about. Who said I reject the article? I said let's debate and discuss. I reply with one link and you go of the handle and want to move on to the next subject. That's not what I call discussion.

I used that link as a reply to your link. You posted another clip about the Bloomberg report which I would like to look into.

This is the kind of crap that I speak of. Instead of debating and discussing, you assume that I am set in my ways and cannot be convinced otherwise, make a couple smart ass comments and then decide to move on.

Nice.

I would like to look into this a bit further If you don't mind.

You can understand the questions in my last post?? No good at multitasking perhaps? I've asked you if you are choosing to agree with the snopes article. I've asked you if you are suspicious of any playing down. Without any words of your own, you posted a link. Is that your idea of discussion? You made it seem like that was your response, supporting the link you sent in. And I replied accordingly.

Look, while you're looking into it further, see if you get a spare second to take in some of the other anomalies. I'm taking for granted that other people are like me and can do a few things at the same time. Don't think I'm not willing to discuss your doubts. But say a bit more than posting a link in response eh? I've posted a discussion point by quoting this bit especially:

An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them.

It's a pattern that is quite common regarding 9/11.

There are many more anomalies too. So many, that I think the official story is no more than a pile of murderous dung. At least you know where I stand.
I don't take that position lightly either.

bryan

23-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Your links aren't working for me. They say "not found".

Sorry, I copied and pasted from the displayed version in another thread. These should work:

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf (pdf download)

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Elias%20Davidsson%20-%20No%20Evidence%20of%20911%20Hijackers%20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%2028%20Oct%202008.mp3 (mp3 download)

gamolon

24-03-2009, 02:53 PM

You can understand the questions in my last post?? No good at multitasking perhaps? I've asked you if you are choosing to agree with the snopes article.

You sure did ask, but then you posted an answer for me right after:
Gamolon agrees with the snopes article, and rejects the 9/11 research article.

Then you ask me a couple more questions:
You don't see that the snopes article is playing the significance down right? Here's some of what you are rejecting from the 9/11 research article:

But you have no suspicions about any playing down of figures, and you're happy with the official version thus far?

And then reply with a closing statement saying that you are ok with my dismissal of the two links you posted and that you want to move on to your next point:
That's cool. Let's carry on then:

You didn't even wait for my reply without further discussing any of the point s you bring up.

I've asked you if you are suspicious of any playing down. Without any words of your own, you posted a link. Is that your idea of discussion?

This is irony at it's best. You accuse me of posting a link as a response to your question and then accuse me of "not using any words of my own"?! Why it was ok for you to post two links to articles in place of "words of your own" to pose the questions to me? IS that YOUR idea of discussion?

You made it seem like that was your response, supporting the link you sent in. And I replied accordingly.
And you posed your question using to links to other articles. Instead of answering your questions for me, why didin't you wait for me to respond?

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time

An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them.

Here's an article discussing the "put" options and opther things. Have a look and comment. It looks like American Airlines stock was falling since July 16th, 2001 with more bad news to come.
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
or
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

gamolon

24-03-2009, 02:55 PM

gamolon

24-03-2009, 03:25 PM

Right,it was all coincidental. You're choosing to agree with this article ok? Gamolon agrees with the snopes article, and rejects the 9/11 research article. You don't see that the snopes article is playing the significance down right? Here's some of what you are rejecting from the 9/11 research article:

But you have no suspicions about any playing down of figures, and you're happy with the official version thus far?

That's cool. Let's carry on then:

On top of this "coincidence" there is more anomalies. The air security:

Please give me your opinions on this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html

Let's discuss. Here is a site that I looked at
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

In particular, let's dicuss the fighter speeds. Here is a link to another calculation using more realistic figures http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html. I have a few questions for you.

1. Why was 153 miles used and not 189 miles which is the actual distance from Otis to WTC towers?

2. Did the fighters fly at afterburner speed (1875 mph) all 189 miles? If so, I would like proof of this.

3. Did the fighters leave the base at afterburner speed and fly a direct line righ to to the towers? Proof?

4. Did you read the article in your link and then stop there and not look to see if there were other pieces of the calculation that might be wrong (hence the actual distance used from Otis to the towers)?

tannah

24-03-2009, 05:05 PM

You sure did ask, but then you posted an answer for me right after:

Then you ask me a couple more questions:

And then reply with a closing statement saying that you are ok with my dismissal of the two links you posted and that you want to move on to your next point:

You didn't even wait for my reply without further discussing any of the point s you bring up.

Easy to say that now eh Gamolon? What do you expect? I send a link, ask for your comments. You reply with no words but just a link. I read the link and assume this is where you stand. But now you have the words. cool. I prefer it that way.

This is irony at it's best. You accuse me of posting a link as a response to your question and then accuse me of "not using any words of my own"?! Why it was ok for you to post two links to articles in place of "words of your own" to pose the questions to me? IS that YOUR idea of discussion?

Again, your clouding the thing here. I am prepared to discuss. But I'm not a mind reader. All you had to do was come back and explain as you are doing now in the last post.

And you posed your question using to links to other articles. Instead of answering your questions for me, why didin't you wait for me to respond?

That doesn't make sense. You did respond, with just a link. Was that your answer at the time? I assumed so.

Here's an article discussing the "put" options and opther things. Have a look and comment. It looks like American Airlines stock was falling since July 16th, 2001 with more bad news to come.
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
or
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

Ok, bad figures were given by the American airlines and so apparently the spike can be justified through this. Was there any other "bad figures" around that time? Did they result in similar spikes?

The gist of the article is claiming that puts were placed on American airlines and united airlines all year long. Here is what they say the real figure is for September:

American Airlines: 4516 puts
United Airlines: 3150 puts
http://www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-nws-trade20.html

Compared to activiity during the year:

Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml

Obviously it is a big jump for American Airlines, but the United Airlines has seen activity that surpassed Septembers figures. What do I conclude so far? Well, I doubt if 9/11 was planned the week before is one thought on the matter. Another thought is that I doubt if the habit of making plenty of money from the stock market is a one off regarding 9/11. Having played the financial markets for a few months , I came to know how easily speculation can land money in the laps of those that really know how to play it.

So we would need to look around and at all the companies that delivered bad figures, and at the resulting spikes in the stock figures for those companies. I'll start doing some of that. I bet I can find bad figures that didn't result in spikes of that degree, and I bet it is the more common scenario. Too busy right now, but will definately do a bit of research soon.

Shall we look at air Italia's figures for that year?

Previous state aid to Alitalia included some €1.5 billion in 1998 from the government of premier Romano Prodi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_situation_of_Alitalia

The consolidated accounts at December 31, 2000, show a net negative result of 495

billion lire compared with a profit of 12 billion for the previous year.

http://www.alitaliaamministrazionestraordinaria.com/comunicati/fn_02_04_2001_2_tcm6-817.pdf

The question is, have we seen spikes of the kind that happened in 2001 not only applying to American airlines and United airlines, but consistently? Where are these figures?

I'll sum the 9/11 myths site up so far by saying that they have not proved that the allegations are unfounded. Rather they have presented the facts as nothing untoward. The facts are still there and are one anomaly. Let's add them up later Gamolon when most of the pile of anamalies are presented.

btw, this 9/11 myths site is proving to be a bit of a joke. Just clicked on their take regarding flight 77 and the Pentagon. They've covered a lot there, but haven't touched on the neat unscathed lawn after this planes hit the building. Haven't got time at present to peruse their take on the rest.

Back later

gamolon

24-03-2009, 05:26 PM

btw, this 9/11 myths site is proving to be a bit of a joke. Just clicked on their take regarding flight 77 and the Pentagon. They've covered a lot there, but haven't touched on the neat unscathed lawn after this planes hit the building. Haven't got time at present to peruse their take on the rest.

Back later

Just curious since you brought this up. Since you say that the lawn is unscathed, are you citing this is partial proof of:

1. It wasn't a plane that hit the Penatgon, but explosives that caused the damage
2. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile
3. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but something else
4. Something else entirely

tannah

24-03-2009, 05:56 PM

Just curious since you brought this up. Since you say that the lawn is unscathed, are you citing this is partial proof of:

1. It wasn't a plane that hit the Penatgon, but explosives that caused the damage
2. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile
3. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but something else
4. Something else entirely

No, I'm saying we need to hire more Muslim terrorists if they're that good at piloting planes!

gamolon

24-03-2009, 06:13 PM

No, I'm saying we need to hire more Muslim terrorists if they're that good at piloting planes!

Ok. So you are saying that an American Airlines plane DID hit the Pentagon, just not piloted by terrorists?

bryan

24-03-2009, 06:20 PM

Ok. So you are saying that an American Airlines plane DID hit the Pentagon, just not piloted by terrorists?

I think tannah was using irony, Mr Spock.

gamolon

24-03-2009, 11:05 PM

I think tannah was using irony, Mr Spock.

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Mr. Spock!!!! I get it!!!!

Comedy at it's best!!!!

*wipes tears from eyes*

Did you miss your calling to be a comedian!!!!

:rolleyes:

As you can see Sherlock (see, I can do it too. It's just not as funny as yours), I asked him 4 different questions to which he didn't answer.

bryan

24-03-2009, 11:12 PM

I asked him 4 different questions to which he didn't answer.

Because they were red herrings, like all your questions.

tannah

24-03-2009, 11:24 PM

Let's discuss. Here is a site that I looked at
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

In particular, let's dicuss the fighter speeds. Here is a link to another calculation using more realistic figures http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html. I have a few questions for you.

1. Why was 153 miles used and not 189 miles which is the actual distance from Otis to WTC towers?

2. Did the fighters fly at afterburner speed (1875 mph) all 189 miles? If so, I would like proof of this.

3. Did the fighters leave the base at afterburner speed and fly a direct line righ to to the towers? Proof?

4. Did you read the article in your link and then stop there and not look to see if there were other pieces of the calculation that might be wrong (hence the actual distance used from Otis to the towers)?

Surely a more reasonable approach is to extrapolate from the “likely takeover time” (the earliest time anyone would have known about the hijacking) until the point each plane reached its final target. Which gives us the following elapsed times: Flight 11 (8:14 to 8:47 - 33 minutes), Flight 175 (8:42 to 9:04 - 22 minutes), Flight 77 (8:51 to 9:38 - 47 minutes), Flight 93 (9:27 to 10:04 - 37 minutes). See http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Why would they have to know about a hijacking? The Payne Stewart case wasn't anything to do with hijacking was it? Why use that as an example? Four commercial airliners not reporting in should make one smell an impending rat.

Problem #1 is that this document talks about intercept missions relating to planes coming into the US, not flights originating in US airspace, a reason given by NORAD for their inability to intercept planes on 9/11. In "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" Griffin rejects this idea, interpreting a point made by Jamie Gorelick as "expressing incredulity at the idea that NORAD could really have been thinking that its mission was only to defend against external threats [page 261]", yet that's exactly what his source suggests. On what basis is he choosing which parts of the document are reliable, and which are not?

Well, what is NORAD's intercept mission for inside the US? Paint fingernails for a while and watch the ball game, then get on the case? America had the Oklahoma bombing and a previous attempt to blow the towers up as experience. You telling me that NORAD only got into shape after 9/11? Are your security people that dumb?

Then this 9/11 myth site mentions Cheney's involvement. Arguing that he was picked to oversee the WMD program, planning etc. But it also argues that this doesn't mean he has to be personally involved in every procedure. Who cares about Cheney anyway. The question is was the coincidence that the air security being slack that day was due to war exercises a true coincidence or a manipulated one?

Where are the references to NORAD? It mentions the Department of Defence, yes, but only in connection with “programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management “. These seems to be more about planning and training for what might happen if a WMD were to be used in a US city. To claim this let Cheney take charge of NORAD exercises on 9/11 is reaching, to put it politely.

Again are 9/11 myth site suggesting that there was a slackness of procedure when dealing with events inside the Us, but an amazing tightening of procedures for outside US threats?

To be blunt that particular link was full of waffle. Was there or was there not overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted?

Turning to this little snippet here:

The story...

It's very suspicious that F-16s were scrambled from Langley to protect Washington from attack, and not Andrews Air Force Base, which was much closer.

Our take...

According to the 9/11 Commission, Andrews had no available fighters on alert that morning..

Some sites say this is hard to believe, because it’s known that Andrews had “combat ready” fighters.

http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html

The article then goes on to suggest combat ready doesn't mean "available to launch within minutes", and uses some quotes to justify that. But what about Andrews? Wouldn't that be in the same combat ready position? So why not still choose the closest?

As for your average speeds of the jets, wasn't there a point in all that travelling where one of the towers were hit? And how many minutes before the next tower was hit? Are you suggesting the jets never thought of travelling at their top speed, or pretty close? Would they have known there was more than one unaccounted for plane around New York?

So the fine details of the speeds is not as important as the sense of urgency that would have overtaken the situation.

And lastly, it seems that 9/11 myths is happy to support the humble slap on the face NORAD are giving themselves "well, never happened before, we were cool at outside threats, but not so cool with inside threats"

All in all, there is no real conclusive proof here that everyone acted innocently that day.
The fact that not even one attack was thwarted is downright pathetic.

And no credible excuse has been offered for this:

New York City
Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

9/11 myths isn't in questioning official story mode. It looks for the fine details, and admittedly shows some of the figures used are not accurate. Yet it does nothing to answer the more pressing questions regarding the other bases that could have been used, any sense of urgency once it was discovered that there was an attack "oh we were not so good with internal conflicts, we need overseas stuff before we are supercool with our exercises", nor does it actually look into the "war games" exercises that day.

I'd like to think , yes, security is crap. But I think there is more to it than that. Want to carry on with other anomalies, or do you want to stick around on these still?

tannah

24-03-2009, 11:27 PM

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Mr. Spock!!!! I get it!!!!

Comedy at it's best!!!!

*wipes tears from eyes*

Did you miss your calling to be a comedian!!!!

:rolleyes:

As you can see Sherlock (see, I can do it too. It's just not as funny as yours), I asked him 4 different questions to which he didn't answer.

Gimmee a friggin chance!! I got other things to do as well ya know.

gamolon

24-03-2009, 11:46 PM

Gimmee a friggin chance!! I got other things to do as well ya know.

I understand that tannah. My response was to Bryan because he obviously missed the part where I asked you different questions to which you hadn't answered yet.

tannah

25-03-2009, 07:26 PM

I understand that tannah. My response was to Bryan because he obviously missed the part where I asked you different questions to which you hadn't answered yet.

Have you or 9/11 myths got stuff to counter this?

Twin Towers
The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel, a behavior inconsistent with the known behavior of steel structures outside of explosive demolition.

* The South Tower was struck 17 minutes after the North Tower, and in a less damaging manner, and it had less severe fires, yet it collapsed 29 minutes before the North Tower.
* The South Tower's core structure was largely undamaged by the off-centered jet impact, unlike the North Tower, yet it collapsed sooner.
* The South Tower had much less severe fires than the North Tower, and yet collapsed sooner.
* Smoke from the fires in the South Tower became progressively darker up to the time it collapsed.
* Firefighters reached the crash zone of the South Tower and calmly described controllable fires.
* Both towers started to disintegrate at regions above and below the crash zones in the first seconds of their falls.
* Both towers fell straight down, through themselves, following the path of maximum resistance, a behavior never before observed in spontaneous collapses of any type of vertical structure.
* The collapses of both towers exhibited features never otherwise seen except in controlled demolitions: sudden onset accompanied by thunderous bangs, visible explosions ringing their perimeters, energetic ejections of dust at regular intervals, and copious production of dust.
* Both towers exploded outward and were shredded and pulverized -- a pattern of destruction much more destructive than normal controlled demolitions, yet this result was supposedly produced without the added energy of explosives

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html#collapses

tannah

27-03-2009, 12:34 PM

Given up so soon Gamolon? Gam"let's debate"olon?

gamolon

27-03-2009, 12:45 PM

tannah

27-03-2009, 01:36 PM

Nope.

Still waiting for you to answer this in a serious manner:

Just curious since you brought this up. Since you say that the lawn is unscathed, are you citing this is partial proof of:

1. It wasn't a plane that hit the Penatgon, but explosives that caused the damage
2. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile
3. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but something else
4. Something else entirely

I love how you just ignored it and then expect me to answer all your questions. Have an answer yet?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
What a frigggin cop out. Let's stick to the intention, and stop messin around.
We're talking about the official story regarding 9/11. You've posted some counter arguments about the first two points, being the stock market anomalies and the air space security. I asked you to peruse that previous list I sent and counter argue the points raised. I'm sure 9/11 myths must have covered this.

As for your side issue, was the lawn unscathed? Are those pretty pictures I see fakes? And if muslim terrorists did hit the pentagon with a plane, why do we waste so much money on training pilots who mostly leave the most abysmal mess when they crash their planes?

tannah

27-03-2009, 02:02 PM

Check out the videos too.

Questions For NTSB/FBI Regarding Flight Data Recorder Information

1. The current FDR shows 480' MSL True Altitude, too high to hit the light poles. What are your findings of True Altitude at end of data recording 09:37:44. Why did you provide a Flight Data Recorder that shows the aircraft too high without a side letter of explanation? How did you come to your conclusion.
2. What is the vertical speed at end of data recording :44. How did you come to your conclusion.
3. What is the Absolute Altitude and end of data recording? How did you come to your conclusion.
4. Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).
5. Why do the current G Forces for the last minute of data correspond to the changes in vertical speed, yet at end of data :44-:45 it shows an increase in vertical speed never accounting for any type of level off to be level with the lawn as shown in the DoD video?
6. Do you have any video showing a clear impact and/or of the plane on its approach to impact?
7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?
10. How did you come to the conclusion of 09:37:45 as the official impact time?
11. What is the exact chain of custody of the FDR? What date/time was it found? Where exactly was it found? Please provide documentation and names.
12. Why does the hijack timeline show a 3 min interval for hijacking to take place? Why was Capt. Burlingame reported to have not followed protocol for the Common Strategy prior to 9/11?

My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

gamolon

27-03-2009, 02:12 PM

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
What a frigggin cop out. Let's stick to the intention, and stop messin around.
We're talking about the official story regarding 9/11. You've posted some counter arguments about the first two points, being the stock market anomalies and the air space security. I asked you to peruse that previous list I sent and counter argue the points raised. I'm sure 9/11 myths must have covered this.

As for your side issue, was the lawn unscathed? Are those pretty pictures I see fakes? And if muslim terrorists did hit the pentagon with a plane, why do we waste so much money on training pilots who mostly leave the most abysmal mess when they crash their planes?

Why is it so hard for you to answer the question and then we can move on? I'll make it simple for you.

Do you believe a plane hit the Penatgon or not?

tannah

27-03-2009, 03:16 PM

Why is it so hard for you to answer the question and then we can move on? I'll make it simple for you.

Do you believe a plane hit the Penatgon or not?

I'll make it even easier than that. I think there are some lies regarding the Pentagon on 9/11. Have you perused the pilotsfor911truth web site? Seen the animation? Listened to the phone call video directly underneath? What do you make of these discrepencies?

In other words, you wanna focus on the Pentagon, that's fine by me after all.

gamolon

27-03-2009, 03:26 PM

tannah

27-03-2009, 03:31 PM

Still won't answer huh? Why can't you just answer the question?

BAsed on the fact that you are telling me to go to the PFT website, it seems that you believe that a plane DID NOT hit the Pentagon, but flew over.

Correct?

That's pathetic Gamolon. For a start, how about you explain the discrepency between the NTSB video and professional pilots analysing it and pointing out that it doesn't add up? Then when they called the NTSB office, the caller was fobbed off.

What you're doing instead is pretending to have me cornered. You are the one that believes there isn't any reason for you to doubt the official story. Wanna back that up or not?

gamolon

27-03-2009, 03:35 PM

That's pathetic Gamolon. For a start, how about you explain the discrepency between the NTSB video and professional pilots analysing it and pointing out that it doesn't add up? Then when they called the NTSB office, the caller was fobbed off.

What you're doing instead is pretending to have me cornered. You are the one that believes there isn't any reason for you to doubt the official story. Wanna back that up or not?

Nope. You're pathetic because you won't answer a simple question.

Did a plane hit the pentagon or not? Since you are telling me to go view the PFT site, this tells me that you believe there was a flyover and that a plane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon.

Will you answer the question or not?

tannah

27-03-2009, 03:40 PM

Nope. You're pathetic because you won't answer a simple question.

Did a plane hit the pentagon or not? Since you are telling me to go view the PFT site, this tells me that you believe there was a flyover and that a plane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon.

Will you answer the question or not?

Now you're being very transparent here gamolon. Yes, I'm asking you to go view that site. I am not going as far as saying no plane hit the Pentagon. I'm going as far as you agreeing or disagreeing with the analysis of the NTSB animation. Why are professional pilots questioning the story?

dusthead

27-03-2009, 07:44 PM

What adifference does it make what I believe or not? Honestly? If I present you with evidence that makes sense, why do you need to know what I believe?

If I say that I believe that something doesn't sit right with me about the official story, does that make my evdience any more valid in your eyes?

If I say I seem to think the official story is crap, then we're all friends and you take what I say at face value and all the official story supporters label me as a truther.

If I say that I think the official story has merit, I'm called an agent and that I need to open my eyes to what is really out there and to stop being a "sheeple".

Can anyone in here have an honest debate without the labels and answer questions honestly? When I do that, I'm an agent and all my photos are photoshopped.

I'm still amazed that this static argument is rambling on with no end in sight.

I think Gamolon's quote above sums everything up.

I certainly can't be bothered posting in the 9/11 section anymore. It has nothing to do with 'evidence' or 'facts', just a blinkered view of the world where people are placed in one of the above categories according to their opinions.

That David Icke speaks ill of the divisions people place between themselves is curiously ironic when you look at a bunch of 'no planers' arguing with a bunch of 'plane huggers' and 'truthers' arguing with 'sheeple'.

The 9/11 debate is dying on it's arse. Debunkers and skeptics are rejoicing because they are winning this sad pissing contest (internet link available). These people are the vultures of such debates, swooping down and feasting on the carcass of a festering argument. Interest in an 'inside job' is seriously flagging.

When even the truthers can't agree amongst themselves, the argument is truly lost. If you want to know who is slowly killing the truth movement just take a look at some of the posts on this forum.

People have finally alienated themselves from each other and paranoia is a growing cancer in the truth movement. Consequently, 9/11 will soon be a small pimple on the arse of Fortean Times.

tannah

27-03-2009, 08:05 PM

I'm still amazed that this static argument is rambling on with no end in sight.

I think Tannah's quote above sums everything up.

I certainly can't be bothered posting in the 9/11 section anymore. It has nothing to do with 'evidence' or 'facts', just a blinkered view of the world where people are placed in one of the above categories according to their opinions.

That David Icke speaks ill of the divisions people place between themselves is curiously ironic when you look at a bunch of 'no planers' arguing with a bunch of 'plane huggers' and 'truthers' arguing with 'sheeple'.

The 9/11 debate is dying on it's arse. Debunkers and skeptics are rejoicing because they are winning this sad pissing contest (internet link available). These people are the vultures of such debates, swooping down and feasting on the carcass of a festering argument. Interest in an 'inside job' is seriously flagging.

When even the truthers can't agree amongst themselves, the argument is truly lost. If you want to know who is slowly killing the truth movement just take a look at some of the posts on this forum.

People have finally alienated themselves from each other and paranoia is now a growing cancer in the truth movement. Consequently, 9/11 will soon be a small pimple on the arse of Fortean Times.

Obviously you mean tthe gamolon quote. Well, he asks for an honest debate, and within a few posts starts getting totally unreasonable. Gamolon is a stickler for detail, and yet won't make a comment on the 400 feet that the NTSB animation miscalculates regarding the plane that hit the pentagon.

I'm concluding at the moment that gamolon doesn't care about truth. He is either an ordinary citizen in denial about 9/11, or it is more sinister than that.

Pilots tried to get answers from the NTSB. They hit a brick wall. And that is why an independant investigation is the only way to force people like that to answer questions.

It has everything to do with official facts that do not stand up to scrutiny.
The same kind of official facts recently about the recession that won't stand up to scrutiny. But the method is clear. Get the media to paint a story, and then laugh at those "conspiracy nuts" that have bothered to find out that things don't add up. It's amazing how, once the media tell folks how it is, then anything else that contradicts the media is scoffed at.

I'm not giving up personally. I never asked for any games here. If mr Gamolon wants a fair discussion, he knows I'm willing to go along. Insisting I answer the question "do you believe no plane hit the pentagon" is nowhere near as
relevent as he reading what the pilotsfor911truth are sayng about the discrepencies of the NTSB animation, and their efforts to get answers from them.