Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:06 am Post subject:
Oh yeah, cuz considered deliberate debate has really worked on the npt, tvf DEWdy Wood massive in the past (see links below and whatever else thread you care to choose from in the controversies section) yeah, nothing but actual full on debate works....(they're so ready to always defend their corner without any need for any sarcasm)...you are so right in your oh so open minded way oooh you've seen the pictures in a spliffy haze and got it all worked out...lollazallooo _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 173 Location: liverpool; the city that speaks out, always, scouseland, in the island formerly known as the UK
Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
you are so right in your oh so open minded way oooh you've seen the pictures in a spliffy haze and got it all worked out...lollazallooo
hmmmm, I remember george monbiot saying that anyone who said 9/11 was an inside job was a gibbering idiot who had had their brains removed.
oh and now it seems that anyone who is willing to challenge what they see on tv and 'official' vids/pics is living "in a spliffy haze", or maybe we are all mentally ill, unpatriotic and an enemy within..... or maybe we're just pissed.
So, isn't it also funny how when people challenge the 'official 9/11 truther stance' they are labelled in a manner which implies degradation of mental capacity
to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction _________________ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Einstein
golden ratio
mass and gravity both exist only as a means to acheive mathematical self-embedding of everything.
Very poor show GSTT. I look forward to something of substance next time that I/we can learn from. That's why I came here. There's a lot to rummage through on here and name calling and flippant remarks don't help.
you are so right in your oh so open minded way oooh you've seen the pictures in a spliffy haze and got it all worked out...lollazallooo
hmmmm, I remember george monbiot saying that anyone who said 9/11 was an inside job was a gibbering idiot who had had their brains removed.
oh and now it seems that anyone who is willing to challenge what they see on tv and 'official' vids/pics is living "in a spliffy haze", or maybe we are all mentally ill, unpatriotic and an enemy within..... or maybe we're just pissed.
So, isn't it also funny how when people challenge the 'official 9/11 truther stance' they are labelled in a manner which implies degradation of mental capacity
to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
The most famous shot of the 'knife into butter' shot of the South Tower hit is all you ever need to know that something is very wrong with the 'real planes' theory. The explosions after the tail fin goes in... Very wrong
That's all that you need to perceive _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:19 am Post subject:
hatsoff wrote:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
you are so right in your oh so open minded way oooh you've seen the pictures in a spliffy haze and got it all worked out...lollazallooo
hmmmm, I remember george monbiot saying that anyone who said 9/11 was an inside job was a gibbering idiot who had had their brains removed.
oh and now it seems that anyone who is willing to challenge what they see on tv and 'official' vids/pics is living "in a spliffy haze", or maybe we are all mentally ill, unpatriotic and an enemy within..... or maybe we're just pissed.
So, isn't it also funny how when people challenge the 'official 9/11 truther stance' they are labelled in a manner which implies degradation of mental capacity
to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Who mentioned anything whatsoever to do with you hatsoff?
Paranoid are we?
The simple fact is many people on here like to think they're alternative but when anything comes along that challenges their belief system they just ignore it.
I've said it before and will repeat myself again and again this is not truth seeking. It is cult behavior to the extreme.
I certainly haven't implied anyone on here has mental health problems although some definitely do.
There's a difference between truth seeking and just accepting any old theory that comes along just because it's not on the telly.
There isn't an official truther stance. Unless of course one is a fan of September Clueless. Then anyone who disagrees with you is a "mass murderer protecting shill".
You can repeat laws of motion all day long but that doesn't change the fact that the buildings were designed to take the impacts of jetliners.
As Frank DeMartini said, "the jet plane is like a pencil puncturing the screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting"
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:30 am Post subject:
paul wright wrote:
to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
paul wright wrote:
The most famous shot of the 'knife into butter' shot of the South Tower hit is all you ever need to know that something is very wrong with the 'real planes' theory. The explosions after the tail fin goes in... Very wrong
That's all that you need to perceive
So you know better than Frank De Martini who was a WTC engineer do you?
Have any of you actually read any of this thread?
The jet liner broke the welds and bolts that held the panels of spandrels together. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The fact is the buildings were designed to take the impacts of jet liners. They were designed to do that and that's from the horses mouth.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 173 Location: liverpool; the city that speaks out, always, scouseland, in the island formerly known as the UK
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:28 pm Post subject:
Quote:
GSST said - Who mentioned anything whatsoever to do with you hatsoff?
I think you missed the point and then turned the post another way.......
Quote:
GSST said - Paranoid are we?
only in a healthy way since you ask!
Quote:
GSST said - I certainly haven't implied anyone on here has mental health problems although some definitely do.
well now you are not only implying it but stating it as fact (are you a psychiatrist?? or just commiting libel) _________________ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Einstein
golden ratio
mass and gravity both exist only as a means to acheive mathematical self-embedding of everything.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:43 pm Post subject:
hatsoff wrote:
I think you missed the point and then turned the post another way.......
You imply that I think anyone who believes in various theories has mental health problems. That was not said because I dont believe that. I do regret that post as it was a little less than adult. But born out of total frustration with certain members of this forum which just repeat the same old mantras and totally and utterly ignore any evidence which challenges their belief system.
Monbiot's quote refers mainly to those who watch and totally believe without queston the old favourite "Loose Change 2nd Ed.".
A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact
Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense
The version he is talking about is the second version, which, admittedly even by its makers, is heavy on speculation. The L.C. crew have since (after reconsidering much of the film's speculative material) remade the film twice and discarded much of that material which does not stand up to scrutiny, unlike many people here on this forum which just repost the same old stuff without considering the evidence which casts serious doubt on their speculative theorizing.
In a sense Monbiot's quote is an ideal one to use in this context because it highlights some key points.
It highlights the fact that Monbiot himself thinks that one film alone is indicative of and responsible for the many unanswered questions that constitute what was formerly known as the 9/11 truth movement.
It also highlights the fact that Monbiot has relied on that belief and not investigated for himself the many points of contention which are not included in L.C. 2nd Ed.
So in a sense Monbiot is condemning himself to his own "gibbering idiot" label. He has not investigated 9/11 for himself and is relying on his own belief that one film is the be all and end all of 9/11 Truth.
This is the sort of behaviour which seems to be now reverberating with many here on this forum. They take without question the words of S. E. Jones, DEWdy Wood, her apprentice Johnson, the faceless Simon Shack as gospel and instead of calling anyone with questions and evidence which counter their belief system "gibbering idiots", they either ignore it or accuse them of being "mass murderer protecting shills".
Reliance on one film or a theory without question is not truth seeking.
The one and only "official stance" of a "9/11 truth seeker" should be to seek the truth at all costs. That means using critical thinking and questioning everything.
hatsoff wrote:
GSST said - Paranoid are we?
only in a healthy way since you ask!
Ok then. But considering you were not mentioned whatsoever in the post and then picked it up as though you were I think it was a valid question.
hatsoff wrote:
GSST said - I certainly haven't implied anyone on here has mental health problems although some definitely do. well now you are not only implying it but stating it as fact (are you a psychiatrist?? or just commiting libel)
As I said I haven't implied anyone has mental health issues on this forum. Which, if I accused someone in particular, could be considered as libelous.
I do believe that some people on this forum have mental health issues. I can think of at least one. Well two if you include me.
No I'm not a psychiatrist and I'm not committing libel either.
What about Dewdy and her apprentice? Have they committed libel?
They accuse S.E. Jones of fraud and anyone who recommends "9/11 Press for truth" as a government agent.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject:
Daniel Elliott wrote:
Very poor show GSTT. I look forward to something of substance next time that I/we can learn from. That's why I came here. There's a lot to rummage through on here and name calling and flippant remarks don't help.
All the best.
Dan
Very poor show?
So you think that the plethora of posts and threads which cast serious doubt on the belief system of many here being totally and utterly ignored is of an Oscar winning nature do you?
I've been looking forward to advocates of your belief system to engage with counter evidence for years as have many others here on this forum. How long is it going to take you?
to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
paul wright wrote:
The most famous shot of the 'knife into butter' shot of the South Tower hit is all you ever need to know that something is very wrong with the 'real planes' theory. The explosions after the tail fin goes in... Very wrong
That's all that you need to perceive
So you know better than Frank De Martini who was a WTC engineer do you?
Have any of you actually read any of this thread?
The jet liner broke the welds and bolts that held the panels of spandrels together. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The fact is the buildings were designed to take the impacts of jet liners. They were designed to do that and that's from the horses mouth.
You have been seriously duped by the faceless Simon Shack and his merry band of perspective deniers.
Nonsense. I watched Shack's contributions rather late on. 'deniers', for god's sake, what, like holocaust or climate change 'deniers'?
I formed my opinions in about 03 mainly derived from webfairy's work
De Martini's comments may work with the fuselage, but don't include wings, engines and tailfins
Nor the video footage
Pencils don't have sticking out parts
Anyway it was only an analogy, not a realistic matter vs matter scenario
He was only trying to demonstrate indestructibility
Even given the low quality of the footage, some counterforce should be evident. There is none. No more physical force counters the entry of the plane into the building (disputed here), than counters the freefall of the building (undisputed here)
The same physics is involved. _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
what saddens me is just how willingly some people allow themselves to be fooled by some of the most obvious nonsense imaginable. you'd think they'd be embarassed really - but instead it's almost as if they're proud of being ignorant and gullible.
what we see over and over again from the tiny number of people who promote judy wood's "research" is that they are invariably incapable of discussing why they believe what they believe or of addressing the evidence against what they believe.
in fact they generally act like cult members or mindless cheerleaders who are apparently incapable of thinking for themselves.
just like pookzta, who seems to spend all hours of the day and night spamming hundreds of forums all over the internet with the same pre-prepared time-wasting garbage which he then refuses to actually discuss. try googling on "My name is Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez" and you'll see what I mean - over and over and over again....
for example - why do you think pookzta makes the ludicrous claim that birds are harder than aluminium, and then when asked to explain himself, just ignores the question and carries on posting more of his pre-prepared spam?
how do you explain the fact that people who are allegedly seeking the truth simply go around blindly repeating other people's discredited pseudoscience - while keeping themselves in a state of wilful denial about the truth that the snake oil they're peddling is utterly laughable? _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Show me the evidence
I'm still weighing up the evidence, especially since the recently belated release of aerial photos. Anyway, I was carefully reading GSTT's 18 March post and as I followed the line of argument I began to think if they could fake images of the Twin Towers planes, why not the Pentagon, when GSTT got there already...
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
Quote:
People say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon but, unlike the Twin Tower witnesses, they were seeing things.
Some 9/11 truthers say that but not me. And I'm sure not all. Again one would have to ask, why didn't they just fake plane footage of the pentagon?
I think, as circumstantial evidence, or logic, this is compelling enough for me. (Unless they were double-bluffing and, seasoned plotters that they are, anticipated the division and confusion it would cause amongst conspiracy theorists ). (hey!)
I asked a fellow truther some time ago where he stood on the 'No Planes' theory and this was his reply, and might be a good way of wrapping up:
Quote:
[I]n reply to your query of where I stand on the planes issue, the short answer is 'I don't' and I don't really care. I see it as a distraction from what should be focused on i.e. the actual events and anomalies that occurred on the day. My own point of view is that perhaps there were planes and also digital enhancement and thermite and mini nukes and all the rest and why not? Does it matter ? Surely the point is to highlight all the verifiable, known, and empirical facts about the impossibilities and improbabilities needing focused on and not the divisional tactics of who holds the best, most likely, or most bizarre belief as to what initiated or preceded these events. Until there is undeniable proof, all this peronal speculation creates is division amongst those who should be united in their aims.
_________________ "For truth has now come to light, and falsehood [by its nature] is bound to perish; for, falsehood cannot bring forth anything new, nor can it bring back [what has passed away]."
to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
paul wright wrote:
The most famous shot of the 'knife into butter' shot of the South Tower hit is all you ever need to know that something is very wrong with the 'real planes' theory. The explosions after the tail fin goes in... Very wrong
That's all that you need to perceive
So you know better than Frank De Martini who was a WTC engineer do you?
Have any of you actually read any of this thread?
The jet liner broke the welds and bolts that held the panels of spandrels together. What's so difficult to understand about that?
The fact is the buildings were designed to take the impacts of jet liners. They were designed to do that and that's from the horses mouth.
You have been seriously duped by the faceless Simon Shack and his merry band of perspective deniers.
Nonsense. I watched Shack's contributions rather late on. 'deniers', for god's sake, what, like holocaust or climate change 'deniers'?
I formed my opinions in about 03 mainly derived from webfairy's work
De Martini's comments may work with the fuselage, but don't include wings, engines and tailfins
Why not? Such heavy lumps of metal smashing into spandel plates at 400-500mph would bend and tear them away from their bolts, as observed in photos of the holes., their speed carrying them forward into the building.
paul wright wrote:
Nor the video footage
Pencils don't have sticking out parts
Irrelevant. The kinetic energy of such "sticking out parts" was so high as make them smash into the building. Blancmange would have done the same if it had hit the towers fast enough.
paul wright wrote:
Anyway it was only an analogy, not a realistic matter vs matter scenario
He was only trying to demonstrate indestructibility
Even given the low quality of the footage, some counterforce should be evident. There is none.
Untrue. The well-known footage of Flight 175 appearing to melt into the South Tower does not show the huge explosion on impact visible in other videos because of the low resolution, highly compressed nature of this footage. You and no-planers have been duped by it and don't want to admit it. Or perhaps some of you failed GCSE O level physics!
paul wright wrote:
No more physical force counters the entry of the plane into the building (disputed here), than counters the freefall of the building (undisputed here)
Again, you have been duped by a poor-quality video that does not show the immediate explosion caused by its impact with the South Tower. It is clearly visible in other videos, especially in the well-known one taken from the side of the South Tower.
paul wright wrote:
The same physics is involved.
Not so. The kinetic energy of the debris in the towers free-falling under gravity was never sufficient to cause their level of pulverisation. But the high kinetic energy of the plane was certainly enough for it to smash through the spandels. The hardness of steel compared with aluminium is totally irrelevant. How many more times does this need to be pointed out to no-planers? What is relevant here are the equations F = d/dt(mv) and E = 1/2mv^2. If an atom of element A hits an atom of element B at a high-enough speed, its kinetic energy E will be partially converted into work done during the inelastic collision to rupture the atomic bonds between atoms of element B even if the latter is much harder and stronger than element A. If sufficient atoms are involved moving at high enough speeds, this will cause visible, macroscopic fracture, whatever the element A.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 173 Location: liverpool; the city that speaks out, always, scouseland, in the island formerly known as the UK
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:24 pm Post subject:
paul wright seems to be one of the few people on here that understands Newtons Laws of Motion _________________ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Einstein
golden ratio
mass and gravity both exist only as a means to acheive mathematical self-embedding of everything.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:50 pm Post subject: Re: Show me the evidence
letthemeatmadeiracake wrote:
I'm still weighing up the evidence, especially since the recently belated release of aerial photos. Anyway, I was carefully reading GSTT's 18 March post and as I followed the line of argument I began to think if they could fake images of the Twin Towers planes, why not the Pentagon, when GSTT got there already...
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
Quote:
People say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon but, unlike the Twin Tower witnesses, they were seeing things.
Some 9/11 truthers say that but not me. And I'm sure not all. Again one would have to ask, why didn't they just fake plane footage of the pentagon?
I think, as circumstantial evidence, or logic, this is compelling enough for me. (Unless they were double-bluffing and, seasoned plotters that they are, anticipated the division and confusion it would cause amongst conspiracy theorists ). (hey!)
I asked a fellow truther some time ago where he stood on the 'No Planes' theory and this was his reply, and might be a good way of wrapping up:
Quote:
[I]n reply to your query of where I stand on the planes issue, the short answer is 'I don't' and I don't really care. I see it as a distraction from what should be focused on i.e. the actual events and anomalies that occurred on the day. My own point of view is that perhaps there were planes and also digital enhancement and thermite and mini nukes and all the rest and why not? Does it matter ? Surely the point is to highlight all the verifiable, known, and empirical facts about the impossibilities and improbabilities needing focused on and not the divisional tactics of who holds the best, most likely, or most bizarre belief as to what initiated or preceded these events. Until there is undeniable proof, all this personal speculation creates is division amongst those who should be united in their aims.
This is where I'm at now.Whichever way you look at it the events involved criminal treasonous acts,aided by an unquestioning colluding media and the rest followed.
Our personal opinions on the plane/no plane issue does not matter in the big scheme of things.The only thing for sure is, it weren't 19 muslim guys wot did it guv _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Another reason I question whether or not large airliners hit the WTC buildings is because many witnesses and many reporters did not seem to think it was a plane.
for more videos related to 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect, please see my YouTube channel:http://www.youtube.com/pookzta _________________ Abrahm Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject:
Yes,as you know I question the Big Boeing theory also, but ultimately how does it affect our understanding of the events of the 3 towers being demolished as observed by other means?
No question the whole scenario given by the Official account is a fairy
story,laughable and insulting to the intelligence (services).Neither planes or no-planes proves guilt of those officially alleged.
The only proviso I can think of is another so called terrorist attack given us that is totally devoid of any reality at all. _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
paul wright seems to be one of the few people on here that understands Newtons Laws of Motion
Not really. As someone who has a M.A. (Cantab), M.Sc. and Ph.D. in theoretical physics, with many years as a university lecturer in physics and 50 research papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals and four books published about particle physics, I feel confident in stating that your support for Mr "Wright" is wrong.
But don't let that inhibit you from persisting in your delusions.
Another reason I question whether or not large airliners hit the WTC buildings is because many witnesses and many reporters did not seem to think it was a plane.
Flight 175 was flying so fast that it hit the South Tower at over half the speed of sound. It is therefore not surprising that people did not hear the plane coming before they saw the explosion. Of course some witnesses did not seem to think it was a plane! It was traveling too fast for them to hear it before the explosion, nor were they looking up to spot it before it hit the South Tower, so they assumed that some kind of explosion had occurred in the South Tower. It is as simple as that.
Your reason for doubting whether planes hit the towers is not based upon sound science and common sense.
Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Posts: 173 Location: liverpool; the city that speaks out, always, scouseland, in the island formerly known as the UK
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
hatsoff wrote:
paul wright seems to be one of the few people on here that understands Newtons Laws of Motion
Not really. As someone who has a M.A. (Cantab), M.Sc. and Ph.D. in theoretical physics, with many years as a university lecturer in physics and 50 research papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals and four books published about particle physics, I feel confident in stating that your support for Mr "Wright" is wrong.
But don't let that inhibit you from persisting in your delusions.
ok.
there seems to be a lot of confusion about Newtons Laws of Motion, so seeing as you are a physicist, give us all a lesson about them that we can all understand and I don't just mean quoting Newtons Laws of Motion. _________________ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Einstein
golden ratio
mass and gravity both exist only as a means to acheive mathematical self-embedding of everything.
Another reason I question whether or not large airliners hit the WTC buildings is because many witnesses and many reporters did not seem to think it was a plane.
of course you conveniently ignore that fact that many witnesses did see the first plane or the second plane or both.
I realise that you're just a mindless spambot and I'm almost certainly wasting my time trying to talk sense to the self-deluding reality deniers on this thread - but the fact that some people didn't see a plane or didn't immediately realise that a plane had struck the WTC doesn't mean that there were no planes (as has already been discussed hundreds of times on this forum).
and if you think about it - there are plenty of pretty obvious reasons why such people may not have been able to see the plane.
for example - the woman in your video said she came out of Bowling Green subway station just as the first plane hit.
try looking up the location of Bowling Green subway station on a map of Manhattan, then remind yourself which face of the North Tower was hit by the first plane - and see if you can work out why she might not have seen it....
this video - like the rest of your recycled spam - is just another insult to the intelligence.... _________________ Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
In fact, BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum (see below).
...only flicked through the posts but it seems everyone missed it!
...the image posted by Poo` is a bird embedded in a fibreglass wing not an aluminium wing!... look closely and you will see! _________________ ...not only do the people not know!... they dont know that they do not know!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
). (hey!)
