RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

Politesub53 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 5:16:03 PM)

Since i posted yesterday that i didnt think WT7 could have been pulled so neatly in the time frame given, i decided to try and find some evidence. I came across a talk being given by an architect. There are 13 of these and no5 is about the twin towers, this is about WT7. My conclusion is that no matter what else, the explosions used to bring this building down were in place long before it was actually demolished. If nothing else at least watch this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDEJXq3LPEE&feature=related



luckydog1 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 5:17:40 PM)

WTC7 was hit by derbis from towers 1 and 2.  As of yet you have not provided the slightest evidence of tower 7 falling at free fall speed.  Put up your silly evidence if you have any and I will examine it.  Of course I seriously doubt you will provide any.  as usual.  Its not a thoery it is an assertion.  Professor Miller's work is total crap, and only accepted by fools.



Raechard -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 5:18:14 PM)

No no no you are all wrong. It was space monkeys intent on global domination. Monnnnkeeeys!!!!!



Politesub53 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 5:46:56 PM)

Lucky i put up the link. You posted way to fast to have watched it. The architect giving the lecture shows more on the freefall speed of the building.



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 6:03:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

No no no you are all wrong. It was space monkeys intent on global domination. Monnnnkeeeys!!!!!


fema is always looking for good analysists have you considered applying?



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 6:12:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lucky i put up the link. You posted way to fast to have watched it. The architect giving the lecture shows more on the freefall speed of the building.



That was a nice expose. 

May want to hear this one if you did not already






Politesub53 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 6:16:07 PM)

I think on video 1 of 13 this guys says it was the guy in your link who started him thinking. Its late here but i will watch it tomorrow....or more correctly, later today.



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 6:22:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

WTC7 was hit by derbis from towers 1 and 2.  As of yet you have not provided the slightest evidence of tower 7 falling at free fall speed.  Put up your silly evidence if you have any and I will examine it.  Of course I seriously doubt you will provide any.  as usual.  Its not a thoery it is an assertion.  Professor Miller's work is total crap, and only accepted by fools.


So anyone that puts up evidence that goes against your "opinion" is just "silly" evidence.   bit compromised arent you.

You come on here and claim the authority to critique the work of recognized professors of science come to incorrect conclusions and call them all stoopid.

What are YOUR qualifications?




Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 6:38:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

I think on video 1 of 13 this guys says it was the guy in your link who started him thinking. Its late here but i will watch it tomorrow....or more correctly, later today.


Here is another

Scientists Debunk 9/11 Myths


Jeff from Pumpit out! 

Danny Jowenklo 27year demolition veteran examines WTC7 and makes a statement why it fell down.












luckydog1 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 7:05:51 PM)

Real you have not given me a single recognized professor of science yet.  This Guage guy is outside his field of expertise, hence not recognized.  I am sorry watching an unidentifyied building dropping at the same apperant rate as WTC 7 means nothing.  How tall was the other building?  Comapring building of a different design seems rather pointless to me, perhaps some people want to buy that. 

So thats the evidence that WTC 7 fell at the wrong speed????  a video comparison with an undientifyed building.  That's really the best you have?  He does not even provide an exact length of time for the collapse, and we are pretending this is evidence?  You are drawing conclusions form that video?  Sorry I just have to laugh. 

Let's see some numbers and math, not just flashed on a screen, but written down to discuss.



tymeuppls -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 7:06:01 PM)

hmm! maybe the mystery plane is still up there..hiding behind that storm cloud with satans face that we see ocasionally on the front page of the tabloids...hey i'll even bet elvis is the pilot!!



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 7:31:13 PM)



6 seconds!  There is your number.

Explain in detail how every load bearing column throughout the "whole" building can magically give away and lose its strenth at precisely the same time.

Lets discuss the 27 year demolition veteran who examined the damages of wtc7 and assures us that it was a demolition.

Oh and give a definition what a recognized professor of science is?  (someone on the popular mechanics magazine staff?)  LOL




luckydog1 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/7/2007 11:18:20 PM)

Professor of science is a nonsense term that you made up.  It has no actuall meaning.  I would consider someone who actually works in and is credentialed in a relevant field, to be a qualified expert.  Guage designs gymnasiums, not relevant to 110 story buildings in any way.

Ok lets examine your hypthothetical guy who assures you it is a controlled demolition.  Who is he.  Does he have his findings published anywhere that we can examine them?  Or is it just a wild claim on a Video.

Who says every collumn gave way at the same moment?  just you.  How long should the collape have taken.  Exactly 6 seconds?  I dont buy it. 



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 12:55:03 AM)




so "WHAT" is a relevant field?  (sitting at luckys keyboard?)

the guy was mentioned in both politesubs link and mine.

So you examine evidence by not looking at it?   (the 911 commission did it that way too)



luckydog1 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 1:56:08 AM)

I would consider architecture of skyscrapers to be relevant.  I consider architecture of High school gyms to not be relevant.
Some one actually in demolitions.

So you consider Jowelnko to be an expert and his word is fact on this stuff?

I watched the Zembla interview with Jowelnklo by the Socialist run VARA/NPS.  I could not find any actuall credentials for the guy, but will believe he works in Demolitions.  He was being given estimates made up by the interviewer and commenting on them.  And was quite clear that he did not have the data, and needed to see pictures of the side of 7 that was facing 1&2.  He, assuming the estimates and projections provided by Zembla, agreed it was unimaginable.

I did notice that he made no claim as to the speed being wrong.

More importantly he completely disagreed with your assesment of what happened to 1&2. 

Do you cite this guy as an expert when he agrees and consider him ignorant when he disagrees, on the same subject matter? 

I also note that this article states as fact that 7 was damaged by debrie taking out up to 8? collumns, which you have consistently disagreed with claiming it was not damaged.

I wonder what he would say if told the basement was full of Diesel and Propane tanks.

To anyone reading along, explosions do not equal bombs.  All kinds of things can explode in a fire.  And the WTCs were full of them.  Electrical sub stations.  Natural gas lines, Propane tanks, Generators, Computer monitors.



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 2:33:13 AM)



I wasnt aware that pictures were available that show there was any kind of a fire in the basement.  All the reports i have seen show floors 6, 7 and 8 were on which match the testimony that a bomb went off on those floors.

I would like to see pictures of the fire burning in the basement.

DJ looked at a standard damage assessment map that shows all missing columns.  DJ being a 27 year vet after reviewing the structual damage assessment stated that there was no way fire brought down the building.

As for buildings 1 and 2, they also showed on the intervierw that DJ was only shown a distant blurry view.  Not one like is in my footer where you can see the explosions blow out the sides.

fireballs and lobbys all blown to hell, and a 50ton press that just disappeared does = a bomb however

Bright white flashes and dust clouds also equals bombs






Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 2:54:04 AM)



If you consider architecture engineers the only source that is credible then why do you disregard leslie robertson, one of the architectural engineers who designed the building when he said that they were designed to withstand fire and it would sustain several plane crashes and still stand.  That puncturing the exoskeleton is no more threatening than puncturing a mosquito net or screen in a screen door.





Raechard -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 3:51:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard
No no no you are all wrong. It was space monkeys intent on global domination. Monnnnkeeeys!!!!!

fema is always looking for good analysists have you considered applying?


They can't afford me[:D]



Real0ne -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 8:55:29 AM)

yah I suppose with the price of fuel now days travel woudl be pretty high priced.



luckydog1 -> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown (12/8/2007 10:14:49 AM)

Hmmm you cite 2 different people claiming what you now claim Robertson says, and provide no quotes nor sourcing.

A 707 is much smaller than a 757.  And the outer wall was load bearing, so it is not at all like the screen on a screen door, which is not load bearing at all.

Dj said in the interview that he had examined and studied the fall of 1&2, not as you are making up just saw a few  blurry pictures.  You cite him as an expert, yet disreagrd his testiimony.  You are just cherry picking.  I guess you have to resort to such tactics to even have a point.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125