Jump to content

The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Spam. Blurred video already answered. I don't care whether you agree or not.

 

How was the exterior blown inwards. 

 

Shhhhhhhhhh.

Hush now baby cakes no one is interested in your cluster B thoughtless ramblings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

911 was a huge scam. Regardless of the precise details. We all agree it was an orchestrated scam... Don't trust your Government. That we can agree on. Full stop.   

WTC Building 7 Primed for Demolition Prior to the day of September 11th 2001.   There is a video of "Lucky Larry" Silverstein, the owner of the WTC Complex, where he says he had a conversati

By elephant in the room I mean exactly what you're saying in regards to people like Silverstein and his pals. Most normies don't talk about that stuff, they just post jet fuel can't melt steel beam me

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Spam. Blurred video already answered. I don't care whether you agree or not.

 

How was the exterior blown inwards. 

 

Shhhhhhhhhh.

 

Blurred or not, there's no plane shaped hole. That means a plane didn't cause the hole. How the exterior was blown inwards is your problem, you need to prove a plane did it. The available footage shows the planes to be CGI.

 

I don't care what you think, Rupert.

 

And no, I won't fucking Shhhhhhhh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reet Hard said:

Hush now baby cakes no one is interested in your cluster B thoughtless ramblings.

 

So after your "just asking questions phase" the real you emerges. You are a no planer then? You aren't the spokesperson for "no one"

 

None of my thoughts are "ramblings" and I don't fumble around pigeon holing a cast of hundreds and hundreds into silly compartments that don't work. If you were interested in who I was it is on my profile page.

 

We have a no planer citing a bloody building with smoke in front of it on a blurred video saying I can't see the hole....therefore ludicrous-shite.com.

 

And you by association agree with his dopey claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JacksonsGhost said:

 

Debate is good as it allows us all to reach greater comprehension.  Sadly, it's a skill that is disappearing.

 

My experience of debate with "truthers" tells me that no such comprehension will ever be reached. It is dig your heels in and maintain the belief at all costs....every single time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mishy said:

 

Blurred or not, there's no plane shaped hole. That means a plane didn't cause the hole. How the exterior was blown inwards is your problem, you need to prove a plane did it. The available footage shows the planes to be CGI.

 

I don't care what you think, Rupert.

 

And no, I won't fucking Shhhhhhhh.

 

Smoke in the way......are you blind. It's blurred as well.

 

The shhhhhh was for everyone waiting for your answer...because it was never going to come. You cannot explain in any way how the blast went inwards and you are using absurd circular logic to dismiss it.

 

YOU claim you can't see an obscured hole...therefore the most ridiculous shite.....it is YOUR burden of proof to explain damage that is plane sized....plane direction and consistent with colossal kinetic force. People saw planes, heard planes, video taped planes, boarded planes and disappeared forever. You have no idea how to explain your brain numbing crap.

 

How was the blast done? There is no mechanism to push an explosion of necessary force inwards. There should be your logical start point. But no planers don't use logic and buttwater carries no logical value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

My experience of debate with "truthers" tells me that no such comprehension will ever be reached. It is dig your heels in and maintain the belief at all costs....every single time.

You get conformation bias amongst all groups of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

You get conformation bias amongst all groups of people.

 

Nice typo, people do like to conform, but obviously you meant confirmation bias.

 

Of course it's true, but reasonable people are capable of looking at conflicting data without throwing a hissy fit and labelling the messenger a shill or other such crap. Look at the no planers (you as well?) they will not answer to something as completely fundamental as the inwards facing columns on the blast. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm undecided about whether there were planes or not.

 

If it was a false flag, as I believe it was, the planes hitting the tower or at least appearing to creates the drama and show they needed for the false flag to be effective.

Edited by Reet Hard
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

Now admittedly we don't know what speed the aircraft was going at but it shows a wooden telgraph pole cutting through the aluminium wing.

 

Yet we are to believe an aluminium wing would cut through the steel beams on the tower

 

 

Well firstly that is a smaller plane and narrower wing. I have no idea as to the fuel situation in relation to how it is deployed on the first video plane, but 767's load it in the wings. Quite obviously both are somewhere around landing speed.

 

Smaller planes, slower speed narrower wings and unknown whether the first one contains fuel. The DC7 is quite small compared to a 767.

 

All in all, vastly different.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Holy crap....John Lear???? No dude, let it go....the bloke is a serious crank.

 

Posted for reference only....don't watch...your eyes will start bleeding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSnclzdyIpw

 

 

Doesn't meen he is wrong about everything.

 

 

Now then that geezer who talks utter nonsense about lizards and was laughed at on Wogan has been proven right about many other things over the last 20 odd years.

 

I forget his name now pike something not trike no that was it Daniel Dyke.

Edited by Reet Hard
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

Doesn't meen he is wrong about everything.

 

I know, but he hasn't a great track record and has a nice income on the zany. Shall I get some stuff from pilots who don't have any problems?

 

3 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

Now then that geezer who talks utter nonsense about lizards and was laughed at on Wogan has been proven right about many other things over the last 20 odd years.

 

Ahhh ok, well I'm not going there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2020 at 7:24 AM, Carlos said:

 

Apparently all because there was a possibility the "big lumbering jet" might miss its target.

 

https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

" I propose a conspiracy theory that the conspiracy theories are themselves part of a conspiracy, intended to discredit the idea of there being a conspiracy — and to divide and conquer those who might sleuth out certain facts."

 

"1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets

This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77.  Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon.  The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes.  They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.

Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill.  The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all.  They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building.  Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be).  Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops.

Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness.  If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was.  To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it.  Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult.  To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.  If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely.
As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt.  As somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight.  Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Smoke in the way......are you blind. It's blurred as well.

 

The shhhhhh was for everyone waiting for your answer...because it was never going to come. You cannot explain in any way how the blast went inwards and you are using absurd circular logic to dismiss it.

 

YOU claim you can't see an obscured hole...therefore the most ridiculous shite.....it is YOUR burden of proof to explain damage that is plane sized....plane direction and consistent with colossal kinetic force. People saw planes, heard planes, video taped planes, boarded planes and disappeared forever. You have no idea how to explain your brain numbing crap.

 

How was the blast done? There is no mechanism to push an explosion of necessary force inwards. There should be your logical start point. But no planers don't use logic and buttwater carries no logical value.

 

I've given you my answer several times. But just so we're clear, the hole wasn't caused by a plane because we have video footage and that footage shows no plane shaped 

hole at the moment of impact. Yes, that's right, VIDEO FOOTAGE. It doesn't matter if it's in Ultra HD 4K or pixelated 240p...there's no hole. What DID cause the hole is still up for debate. But as the videos show, it wasn't a plane, so we can therefore deduct that the official story that you seem to cling to so dearly, is a lie.

 

It's clear to me that you're just arguing from a position of disbelief. Sadly, that's your problem, Rupert.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mishy said:

 

I've given you my answer several times. But just so we're clear, the hole wasn't caused by a plane because we have video footage and that footage shows no plane shaped 

hole at the moment of impact. Yes, that's right, VIDEO FOOTAGE. It doesn't matter if it's in Ultra HD 4K or pixelated 240p...there's no hole. What DID cause the hole is still up for debate. But as the videos show, it wasn't a plane, so we can therefore deduct that the official story that you seem to cling to so dearly, is a lie.

 

It's clear to me that you're just arguing from a position of disbelief. Sadly, that's your problem, Rupert.

 

 

You and your ludicrous circular logic ...the plane shaped hole goes inwards thetefore it is a plane.

 

Your blurry Smokey video is woefully short of even being inconclusive and your straw grasping is laughable. You simply have no clue....boxed in by a simple fact.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...