Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-07-2018, 08:59 PM   #21
thermion
Senior Member
 
thermion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 835 (554 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlincove View Post
It's not just a stupid theory, it is a theory without any logical thought put into it.

If it were filmed prior to 911, and broadcast on sept 11th for the 'world' to see, these American's living in NYC who (aprently) "were watching it on TV," could easily have taken a camera and filmed the TV footage showing the towers covered in smoke, and then filmed the real towers out of their window(s).

And then the entire thing would have been shown to be fake.

The story holds about as much water as a bucket with no bottom in.

The faker crowd really do need to do their research with some due diligence.
Sometimes posts appear that are so nonsensical (like snowleoprd's in this thread) that it gives the impression someone is deliberately trying to make the DI forum look stupid...
Likes: (3)
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2018, 09:32 AM   #22
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Sometimes posts appear that are so nonsensical (like snowleoprd's in this thread) that it gives the impression someone is deliberately trying to make the DI forum look stupid...
Lol. It's common practice today for shills to get together and invent the best outragous theories they can think of for mainstream use. Would it be no surprise to anyone that their only deciding factor is merely the stats of which ones got the most interest.

You can be guaranteed those ones got a big budget.

Perhaps Snowleopard is on holiday and some Noob has been left in charge. When the cats are away the mice will play.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2018, 07:01 PM   #23
snowleopard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 530
Likes: 78 (42 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Sometimes posts appear that are so nonsensical (like snowleoprd's in this thread) that it gives the impression someone is deliberately trying to make the DI forum look stupid...
I always know I'm on the right track when I'm being attacked on conspiracy forums because it's pretty obvious they are filled with disinformation agents who don't want anyone to know the real truth about 9/11. So thank you everyone for your comments. They are very helpful for my research.

Dear Thermion, people who think the world is controlled by reptilians don't need me to make them look stupid.

For those of you who are interested in my theory, here's more proof of fakery:

Donald Trump being interviewed 2 days after 9/11 by a German tv station. Oh but wait! Is he really in NYC?? Hmm... anyone with a bit of expertise in image analysis can tell very easily he's in front of a green screen. Which would mean it was pre-recorded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoYXihwcp8c

Here's a scene from Forrest Gump that is 100% fake according to the director Robert Zemeckis. Looks pretty real doesn't it? It was made 7 years before 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2QGUkVqv-M

If the planes were fake, then the towers also had to be fake in order to crash CGI/holographic planes into them. Pure logic.
snowleopard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2018, 08:17 PM   #24
thermion
Senior Member
 
thermion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 835 (554 Posts)
Default

Oh yes. The old "I'm being attacked so must be close to the truth" trope. Not a convincing response snowleopard.

Firstly, not everyone here thinks the world is controlled by reptilians. There are some informed, clear thinkers here.

Second, you appear to be confusing a false flag with an unbelievably faked event. It may have been the former, but no sane person could believe it was the latter. It was seen FFS. There was smoke, rubble and yes, a number of destroyed buildings.

Why do some people believe in the provably false? Well, the following are not my words, but I think they explain a lot:
Quote:
Mostly it seems, because they have no knowledge of science, failed at school, are ignorant, but still want to appear as special.

Sadly, nowadays, any twat can broadcast bollocks, and there are even those who will defend the right for his opinion to be as valid as anyone else's.

Unfortunately, these busybodies do little to prepare the ignorant for the real world, where most other people know it's bollocks.
We'll be interested to see the results of your research. You might like to collaborate with others - there are bound to be others...

Quote:
If the planes were fake, then the towers also had to be fake in order to crash CGI/holographic planes into them. Pure logic.
(Where does one even start with this 'logic'? )

But you haven't come close to explaining how these fake planes and fake buildings were faked. You might like to start there.

On the other hand, if you can't do that, how about starting a thread claiming Australia is a hoax? Have you ever been there? I haven't, but I know some confused souls who believe they have. But where's the evidence? Anyone can fake photos and videos. Oh, and kangaroos are real, but were genetically engineered in the early 1950s as 'proof'.

And another thing. Seems you're an expert of video effects with you're quote: "...since anyone with a bit of expertise in image analysis can tell very easily he's in front of a green screen". Therefore could you supply some technical descriptions of your observations for those of us without this expertise? (Actually, I'd be more inclined to say that's not even Trump, but anyway...)

.

Last edited by thermion; 25-07-2018 at 07:56 AM. Reason: clarity
Likes: (2)
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2018, 08:53 AM   #25
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowleopard View Post
Pure logic.
This unhealthy obsession with CGI is really bending some peoples minds beyond the realm of reality to the point it's making them sound more and more stupid.

I fail to see the logic or any scientific link to Ocean's 11 being the absolute plot behind the 9/11. It's common knowledge there was huge financial profit made from insurance claims. One person who is publicly acknowledged to benefit finacially from the situation was literally just up the street from the buildings. Larry Silverstein.

Somehow, you think this person and others felt the need to spend huge amounts of money on

a) Using holograms to fake the attacks

and then

b)maintain that illusion by turning New York into one huge hologram to hide the evidence from tourists and worldwide TV.

Somewhere in the physical space that OWTC sits are two enormous towers and WTC 7, cloked from the public eye.

This is what you think based on the "science" you took from watching Oceans 11.

If the events were pre-recorded, and that CGI was so amazing back then, why would any of it have needed to have been done in the city and not on computer?
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2018, 09:43 AM   #26
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowleopard View Post
Donald Trump being interviewed 2 days after 9/11 by a German tv station. Oh but wait! Is he really in NYC?? Hmm... anyone with a bit of expertise in image analysis can tell very easily he's in front of a green screen. Which would mean it was pre-recorded.
Trump was also quoted in an interview saying that he didn't believe the buildings fell down because of the planes alone. He knows how strong they are. Of course he does. He lives in his own tower. He is a New Yorker. They pride themselves in engineering.

What does that say to the rest of the world? That they can't build safe buildings? This is why AIA got involved. They are basically saying that according to NIST, the Architects and Engineers that built the WTC developed buildings could not withstand a plane crash to the point it maintains its structural integrity no matter what damage or resulting problems occured.

Why would that significantly affect AIA? Because it is an insult to their professional standards and actually falsifies correct data across the board.

On paper:

WTC 7: Collapse due to intense structural damage and fires.

North and South Tower: Collapse due to plane crash and structural weakening of steal caused by fires as a result of ignited jet fuel.


What it should say:

WTC 7: Collapse due to controlled demolition using nanothermite explosives.

North and South Tower: Both collapses due to nanothermite explosives.

Evidence to support these claims?

Countless witness testimonies and camera evidence that documents pre-weakeing and event specific demolition explosives during the whole event from point of first plane collision. Unignited Nanothermite found in dust samples taken from across all of Lower Manhattan. Collapse consistent with free fall speeds achieved during controlled demolition. No fires located in enough floors to weaken structural steel integrity to the point of no resistance.

That may not mean much to you but in the real world of business, it makes a big difference. Why? Because this affects legislation. Fires can appartently cause refall collapse. Every scientist in the world knows thats bollocks.

Bare in mind, Trumps comments were made a day after this happened, a year before the NIST conclusions. This is hardly something someone lets go to air if one is trying to maintain the illusion of a pre-recorded CGI lie is it nor inserts explosions it into all of the video coverage on the street and surround areas.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 25-07-2018 at 09:46 AM.
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2018, 11:43 PM   #27
snowleopard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 530
Likes: 78 (42 Posts)
Default

What I don't understand is that you reject the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers because they couldn't have fallen at free fall speed in their own footprints without explosive devices. It would defy the laws of physics. BUT, you accept the official version of the plane crashes even though it's also scientifically impossible.

The very fragile wings of a plane cannot slice through a steel building without falling off. A plane cannot disappear in a building without parts falling to the ground. The planes just vanished inside the buildings and that makes sense to you?

Secondly, all the photos of the victims are faked/photoshopped. That's weird. If a family member of mine died in the attacks and I was asked to send of photo of them, why would I send a photoshopped one?

9/11 was a giant hoax and the truth movement is controlled opposition. It was put into place so that we would spend years analyzing fake images and chasing fake victims and fake/military family members. Just keep looking at the fake planes and towers while we steal all your money and eventually bankrupt the United States.

https://911planeshoax.com/

Last edited by snowleopard; 26-07-2018 at 11:46 PM.
snowleopard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2018, 08:42 AM   #28
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowleopard View Post
What I don't understand is that you reject the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers because they couldn't have fallen at free fall speed in their own footprints without explosive devices. It would defy the laws of physics. BUT, you accept the official version of the plane crashes even though it's also scientifically impossible.

The very fragile wings of a plane cannot slice through a steel building without falling off. A plane cannot disappear in a building without parts falling to the ground. The planes just vanished inside the buildings and that makes sense to you?

Secondly, all the photos of the victims are faked/photoshopped. That's weird. If a family member of mine died in the attacks and I was asked to send of photo of them, why would I send a photoshopped one?

9/11 was a giant hoax and the truth movement is controlled opposition. It was put into place so that we would spend years analyzing fake images and chasing fake victims and fake/military family members. Just keep looking at the fake planes and towers while we steal all your money and eventually bankrupt the United States.

https://911planeshoax.com/
Oh the old wing tip theory again.

If all the New Yorkers were in on this conspiracy, then why were there no witnesses on camera to quote the plane numbers and physical description given by the government? Someone involved in a conspiracy doesn't go on camera and says to the world "It wasn't a jetliner, it looked like a military plane to me." or "The plane was grey with no markings. It looked Military."

So, if the plane was military, how would you or a commerical airliner pilot for that matter have any idea what those planes were built from and what methods were used to get them into the buildings?

And finally, crash test footage using fighter jet aircraft thrown into a solid flat surface isn't a good basis for comparison, especially when they are designed with materials to be lightweight. The face of the WTC wasn't one solid windowless lump of concrete or steel, it was a lattice of steel columns and glass windows that run up each face of the building. The planes involved were was also travelling at 400mph. The B-25 plane that crashed in the Empire state in the 1940's was travelling no where near that speed because of fog conditions and it's top speed was around 271mph. Yet it still managed to go through a concrete encased steel column. The Empire State is also a completely different design to the WTC Towers.

There are plenty of videos that discuss AWACS and the un-usual command module that was observed on the bottom of the plane. As Ive said before, if someone was going to use holograms for a full scale event like this, the first thing people do is keep the story consistent with the details and not use a plane that looks exactly like a remote controlled military aircraft. The final problem with using Holograms is sound. Some idiot I challenged this point on thought all over lower manhattan was rigged with a sound system to replicate the sound of the engine. He realised then that the plane moves and so does the direction of sound. Then said what if they put the speaker under the hologram? I simply replied, "Wouldn't it be far easier and cheaper to just use a real plane."

Again, if everything was faked, including the victims then why was the WTC 7 building leveled on live TV. Bit of a risk don't you think? And to blame it on office fires? I suppose that was a hologram as well yes?

So in summary, if this was a pre-recorded event based on your highly scientific observations of Oceans 11, it was the worst heist ever conducted. Why? Because all of these apparent "shills" admitted the truth to the world that the planes were military, bombs were going off everywhere (witness testimony and countless video evidence), three massive skyscapers came down at free fall demolitions speeds and the offical investigation tried to claim this happened because of "office fires". That just scratches the surface of how how daft this pre-recorded theory is.

Explain to me. What truth movement exactly is out there disinfo'ing everyone? As far as I'm concerned, your more an expert on that than having any idea what went on during 9/11.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 27-07-2018 at 09:09 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 05:51 PM   #29
aurora025
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 83
Likes: 5 (2 Posts)
Default Zemeckis

This event in my opinion was a scripted hoax with no or almost no deaths. Even if it was a false flag done from the inside, it must have needed one or more producers just like a movie. I really believe Zemeckis was part of the producers since he gave hints in his movies Back to The Future and The Walk. He is also one of the leading experts in Hollywood special effects.

Looking at his filmography, he did not produced a movie between 1997-1999 and also not in 2001. He also is a private pilot, so he knows a few things about planes. He also had a own company called ImageMovers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMovers specialized in special effects. He certainly would make the ideal candidate for this. And of course he is Jewish

Last edited by aurora025; 03-08-2018 at 09:20 PM.
Likes: (1)
aurora025 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2018, 09:07 AM   #30
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aurora025 View Post
This event in my opinion was a scripted hoax with no or almost no deaths. Even if it was a false flag done from the inside, it must have needed one or more producers just like a movie. I really believe Zemeckis was part of the producers since he gave hints in his movies Back to The Future and The Walk. He is also one of the leading experts in Hollywood special effects.

Looking at his filmography, he did not produced a movie between 1997-1999 and also not in 2001. He also is a private pilot, so he knows a few things about planes. He also had a own company called ImageMovers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMovers specialized in special effects. He certainly would make the ideal candidate for this. And of course he is Jewish
It's been hinted at so much in film that it may have been an open secret to some extent. I doubt Zemeckis had direct involvement. Certainly if this was scripted, then no-one stuck to it. No shill or actor calls out the planes for looking military.

There is a famous video on you tube of the band Tool filmed in concert not long after 9/11 where James Maynard Keenan basically tells the entire audience that the Government were responsible. Have a watch of that video and see how confused the crowd reaction is. It was at a time where most of America believed that Osama Bin Laden was responsible and the full report of the NIST investigation wasn't shown to the world until at least a year later.

A few reasons why he would know those facts for certain. The first is that he served in the Military so was likely to have connections who would have an idea about what was going to happen. The second is that Tool released Lateralus earlier in 2001 which was based around the Fibonacci Theorem. If you don't know what that is, I recommend researching it. But in a quick summary, it relates to Hurricane Erin that was present on the day. The form of a Hurricane is a natural example of the Fibonacci pattern.

Tool's music is noted for being deeply symbolic.The album Anemia which they released in 1996 is very much geared towards "conspiracy" rhetoric using the work of Bill Hicks as a centre piece. It also has art work with apocolyptic themes such as floods and over population.

Not all of the songs are about Bill Hicks, even the song Eulogy where the lyrics "He had a lot and nothing to say, well miss him....we're gonna miss him." is thought to be about martyrs like Jesus Christ. So the album is very much double edged.

Bill Hicks is perhaps the most outspoken "anti-establishment" speaker next to Lenny Bruce. He was very much known for his outbursts against hecklers in his audience and was no doubt very open about conspiracy theories. JMK is really doing exactly what Bill Hicks used to with his audience, especially in the 9/11 concert speech.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 05-08-2018 at 09:08 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2018, 12:59 PM   #31
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,323
Likes: 4,578 (2,571 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowleopard View Post
What I don't understand is that you reject the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers because they couldn't have fallen at free fall speed in their own footprints without explosive devices. It would defy the laws of physics. BUT, you accept the official version of the plane crashes even though it's also scientifically impossible.

The very fragile wings of a plane cannot slice through a steel building without falling off. A plane cannot disappear in a building without parts falling to the ground. The planes just vanished inside the buildings and that makes sense to you?

Secondly, all the photos of the victims are faked/photoshopped. That's weird. If a family member of mine died in the attacks and I was asked to send of photo of them, why would I send a photoshopped one?

9/11 was a giant hoax and the truth movement is controlled opposition. It was put into place so that we would spend years analyzing fake images and chasing fake victims and fake/military family members. Just keep looking at the fake planes and towers while we steal all your money and eventually bankrupt the United States.

https://911planeshoax.com/
Check out Richard d halls latest release
I think the new theory explains the seemingly impossible physics that day..
Planes flying into buildings cartoon style, even the wing tips..
Makes much sense to me than Nanothermite which only dissolves steel and not concrete
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
Likes: (1)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2018, 09:22 PM   #32
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Check out Richard d halls latest release
I think the new theory explains the seemingly impossible physics that day..
Planes flying into buildings cartoon style, even the wing tips..
Makes much sense to me than Nanothermite which only dissolves steel and not concrete
You mean.....you are a no planer?

LMAO - Suddenly everything becomes clear.

Nb. The physics is not the problem, just you and your "grasp" of it are.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 10:09 AM   #33
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Check out Richard d halls latest release
I think the new theory explains the seemingly impossible physics that day..
Planes flying into buildings cartoon style, even the wing tips..
Makes much sense to me than Nanothermite which only dissolves steel and not concrete
Be careful with that word theory, even Dr. Judy Wood states in her lectures to the audience many times and in her book "Where Did the Towers Go?" that what she is saying is based on empirical evidence (observation) and not that exctracted from collabortive data. Ultimately, its all speculation just as much as what her side show Richard D Hall thinks about the planes. They are talking about Tesla type technologies. As for Hutchinson, most of his work looks like it came straight out of industrial light and magic. Again, his work isn't conclusive. The guy just used to play around with frequencies randomly to see what they did. At least from what can be seen in his videos.

Therefore, I think they are exceptionally selective when dealing with the facts and being as they have nothing to lose as a consequence, when its all empirical, one has the licence to be a bit more creative with speculation. Architect and Engineers don't have the same luxury because it has to match with what is already known. Dr Judy Wood and Richard D Hall dont have to go out and build buildings, nor explain to cilents what went wrong if something did go wrong. Therefore they are answerable to no-one.

Really, to write off Nanothermite so readily is a bit foolish. If an independant investigation were to challenge the official account, I would say all the data currently know about these chemical metal cutting incendiaries would be very much be researched to the hilt.

Most of the plane/nanothermite deniers think that AIA are trying to cover up some kind of Direct Energy Weapon and Holographic projector.

If the intension was to keep this as un-obvious as possible I seriously doubt the planes used in question would have the appearance of AWACS type aircraft. I mean that's like saing they wanted to make it obvious almost as obvious as the Pentagon attack where no plane was actually accounted for.

As for being cartoonish in appearance, you could say the same for the way modern drones are able to function today. AWACS are able to be remote piloted, so yes they are going to be able to perform split second maneuvers last second like the South Tower plane did. Considering the kinetic energy they were generating at 400mph, the wing tips were probably either pulveruised or just cut straight though. Not only that, the plane exploded on impact throwing debris everywhere.

So according to DJW and RDH, why is it a direct energy weapon be used to bring down two buildings but not pre weaken steel to let in two assumed passenger jets, which lets face it, where clearly and obviously military planes. Certainly if DJW claims "Not everything that goes off is a bomb" then the explosion that went off in the North Tower lobby seconds before the plane crash would indicate in her estimation of events that a direct energy weapon was used to weaken steel to let the plane into the building so easily.

Based on that, this is why I think she and RDH are full of shit.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 07-08-2018 at 10:25 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 11:39 AM   #34
Floyd001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 10
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Wow... there are some serious extra time thinkers here.

The whole event didn't happen, it was a pre recorded "movie".
Surely as pointed out previously these threads are made to make the forums look like a big joke.. like there will be a MSM story hitting soon about Icke or conspiracy's and they'll use this to show the "people" how crazy it is
Likes: (1)
Floyd001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2018, 12:23 PM   #35
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd001 View Post
Wow... there are some serious extra time thinkers here.

The whole event didn't happen, it was a pre recorded "movie".
Surely as pointed out previously these threads are made to make the forums look like a big joke.. like there will be a MSM story hitting soon about Icke or conspiracy's and they'll use this to show the "people" how crazy it is
Well we are "in season" for all the usual shit that comes out in the MSM these times of year.

At the moment it's the "Fake News" agenda or more precisely, Donald Trumps war on Fake News that started not long after he came into power, news that doesn't fit his viewpoint.

We are all still waiting to hear who is responsible for 9/11, because you know, he did pull that one out of the can at one point. Supposed to be the Saudis apparently. Oh yeah, didn't Obama create "Isis"???!???

He'll be that President who almost had a Nuclear war with North Korea then made peace (sort of) whilst North and South Korea declare peace after god knows how long. But we aren't too sure its because their nuclear test site collapsed. The man who wanted to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He'll be eating Nachos out of a sombreo next week.

And with all this going on Hilary Clinton still roams free. Wasn't he going to put here on trial?

So far, I'm wondering where all this fake news is coming from.
Likes: (1)
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 03:11 AM   #36
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,184
Likes: 1,308 (849 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowleopard
Most New Yorkers were watching the towers on tv that day, they were not looking directly at the towers.
Indeed like they did on Die hard 4!!! (On TV it looked like they blew up the white house but they really didnt)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPU036Ju638
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 05:50 AM   #37
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,723
Likes: 259 (141 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
Indeed like they did on Die hard 4!!! (On TV it looked like they blew up the white house but they really didnt)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPU036Ju638
Everyone knows that they destroyed the White House on Independence Day. Everyone saw it happen, so they had to make a film about it. The current White House is a hologram to fool the public.

They are rebuilding it with TARDIS material found at Area 51 so that Trump can get all his mistresses and hair products in without it being too cramped.

True story.
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 07:38 AM   #38
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,323
Likes: 4,578 (2,571 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
You mean.....you are a no planer?

LMAO - Suddenly everything becomes clear.

Nb. The physics is not the problem, just you and your "grasp" of it are.
I honestly don't know how it happened.
I think the softening of the structure to allow the plane to be absorbed must be considered unless its proven false.

What do you think happened that day?
How did 3 planes drop 4 buildings?
Melted granite under the site..
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 07:42 AM   #39
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,323
Likes: 4,578 (2,571 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
Be careful with that word theory, even Dr. Judy Wood states in her lectures to the audience many times and in her book "Where Did the Towers Go?" that what she is saying is based on empirical evidence (observation) and not that exctracted from collabortive data. Ultimately, its all speculation just as much as what her side show Richard D Hall thinks about the planes. They are talking about Tesla type technologies. As for Hutchinson, most of his work looks like it came straight out of industrial light and magic. Again, his work isn't conclusive. The guy just used to play around with frequencies randomly to see what they did. At least from what can be seen in his videos.

Therefore, I think they are exceptionally selective when dealing with the facts and being as they have nothing to lose as a consequence, when its all empirical, one has the licence to be a bit more creative with speculation. Architect and Engineers don't have the same luxury because it has to match with what is already known. Dr Judy Wood and Richard D Hall dont have to go out and build buildings, nor explain to cilents what went wrong if something did go wrong. Therefore they are answerable to no-one.

Really, to write off Nanothermite so readily is a bit foolish. If an independant investigation were to challenge the official account, I would say all the data currently know about these chemical metal cutting incendiaries would be very much be researched to the hilt.

Most of the plane/nanothermite deniers think that AIA are trying to cover up some kind of Direct Energy Weapon and Holographic projector.

If the intension was to keep this as un-obvious as possible I seriously doubt the planes used in question would have the appearance of AWACS type aircraft. I mean that's like saing they wanted to make it obvious almost as obvious as the Pentagon attack where no plane was actually accounted for.

As for being cartoonish in appearance, you could say the same for the way modern drones are able to function today. AWACS are able to be remote piloted, so yes they are going to be able to perform split second maneuvers last second like the South Tower plane did. Considering the kinetic energy they were generating at 400mph, the wing tips were probably either pulveruised or just cut straight though. Not only that, the plane exploded on impact throwing debris everywhere.

So according to DJW and RDH, why is it a direct energy weapon be used to bring down two buildings but not pre weaken steel to let in two assumed passenger jets, which lets face it, where clearly and obviously military planes. Certainly if DJW claims "Not everything that goes off is a bomb" then the explosion that went off in the North Tower lobby seconds before the plane crash would indicate in her estimation of events that a direct energy weapon was used to weaken steel to let the plane into the building so easily.

Based on that, this is why I think she and RDH are full of shit.
How is it possible for those planes to achieve those speeds at those altitudes?
The fuel in the wings would make the pentagon attacks a flight impossibility

This a a huge robbery in my opinion.
Building 7 and the pentagon being the prime target
The twin towers a distraction and insurance job to muddy the waters
How I see it so far
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine

Last edited by the nine; 23-08-2018 at 07:43 AM.
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2018, 10:02 AM   #40
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
How is it possible for those planes to achieve those speeds at those altitudes?
The fuel in the wings would make the pentagon attacks a flight impossibility

This a a huge robbery in my opinion.
Building 7 and the pentagon being the prime target
The twin towers a distraction and insurance job to muddy the waters
How I see it so far
Pentagon and WTC were two separate attacks and I never said that the Pentagon attack used a plane. For some reason that must make some think I'm a "no planer". Only in the case of the Pentagon. I think its clear there was something to hide there considering there were 100's of cameras in the area and only a few happened to be on.

I agree, a plane wouldn't have been able to have been navigated at the heights seen at the Pentagon. However, with the WTC you are talking about a good thousand feet more.

Again, the WTC planes did not fit the description of the Jetliners. No markings. So the materials used in the those planes, including engines could have been modified significantly for the purpose to travel at those speeds at low altitude. Perhaps using prototype technology that is around today such as carbon fibre.

If you consider a jetliner such as the A350 (built from carbon fibre) can perform a near vertical takeoff pulling serious G-Forces you can image how strong the chassis is.

The main point made by an expert a few years after the attacks is that the line needed for the plane to hit the Pentagon was obstructed by freeways. He pointed out that at the bare minimum, the plane would have clipped the freeway lamposts. There was not sign of any collision in these areas.

Its most likely the reason why no plane was used to attack WTC 7. The logic to why is based around that the WTC was built on a huge concrete bathtub. If a plane flew straight down into the ground, the concrete could crack and flood the whole area. Much the reason why Nanothermite was used to limit the weight stress hitting the ground. With most of the integral steel dustified, most of the harder material split up into parts would remove mass weight. It was all about future planning and cost.

For example, had the buildings stood, the likely senario is that the Twin Towers would have to have either been repaired or demolished. Both would cost huge amounts of money and time. Considering the largest skyscraper in New York to be demolished was 47 stories and that it was done manually indicates that if any of New Yorks largest skyscrapers developed a problem, they would also have to be manually demolished to avoid damage to surrounding buildings. Also consider how difficult it would be for Firefighters to deal with a blaze like that. You can see from the videos taken on the day that getting up there to deal with the situation was near impossible. You compare this to something like the Plasco building, firefighters were able to use cranes to try and control the fires. At 90 stories high? That would involve methods that are normally reserved for forest fires. That being airplanes that dump thousands of gallons of water in one go. It would be the only way I can think of where a blaze like that could be managed. But even then, that would require skills similar to that of the dambusters. Most of the water would likely be wasted because it wouldnt be able to get far enough inside the main building. But again, water isn't used to tackle fires like this. In a typical office fire involving electrical fires/items or flammable liquids, C02 is used. Wither air conditioning units in buildings of this size could be utilized to fill the building with C02 is debatable but after a plane crash it would probably be near useless.

To date, no Skyscraper above 47 stories has been manually demolished let alone brought down with explosives.

You can see why by the way the Twin Towers fell. The implosion threw out debris like a fountain.

The Pentagon in contrast is a low level concrete structure.

If "no planers" want to compare penetrative effects of trucks or planes flying into solid walls, it would apply more to the Pentagon. Hence why bunker buster bombs exist. It is the only device that could navigate at those speeds, altitude and ultimately cause sever damage to a building like that. In comparison the WTC buildings were designed much differently.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 23-08-2018 at 10:29 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.