If you wish to ban me from this site - go ahead - it will show you for what you really are
I think the deletion of your posts on certain threads would be a start. Then if you still want to p*ss about and play with your balls a ban. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
The movie 9-11 Mysteries features an Englishman describing how certain floors were mysteriously closed in the period before 9-11 and strange drillings were heard, accompanied by little clouds of dust appearing through the walls and onto the window sills.
When explosives are planted before a controlled demolition there does need to eb a lot of drilling, and in the case of 9-11 whole floors would need to have been closed off for demolition people to have been able to carry out the demolition preparations without detection. Apart from the obsevations of this alert English person they seem to have succeeded.
I fail to see why how the exact means of how did it should remain such a pressing issue here when there's plenty of evidence for controlled demolition already.
However, the smallness of the pile of debris seems to indicate the steel went somewhere.
Another "fact" Judy makes into a big deal... There is ample evidence for steel in the rubble of the towers, just watch any of the videos from ground zero. As for 'where did the steel go?' and 'why is the rubble pile lower than the WTC7 pile?' I don't think it takes a genius, or even a professor, to figure out it filled the 7 sub levels.
The so called "vaporizing steel" video clip is just demolition dust/particulates being knocked from the core columns as they vibrate and collapse. Suggesting its anything else is plainly ridiculous. _________________ Make love, not money.
If you wish to ban me from this site - go ahead - it will show you for what you really are
I think the deletion of your posts on certain threads would be a start. Then if you still want to p*ss about and play with your balls a ban.
Moderators - this persons hurls verbal abuse on 75% of all his postings - yet you do nothing about it?
Your pathetic (with the exception of Andrew)
Are you a little girl or are you just acting like one? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
If you wish to ban me from this site - go ahead - it will show you for what you really are
I think the deletion of your posts on certain threads would be a start. Then if you still want to p*ss about and play with your balls a ban.
Moderators - this persons hurls verbal abuse on 75% of all his postings - yet you do nothing about it?
Your pathetic (with the exception of Andrew)
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I've taken a quick look at some Patrick's of posts and whilst it is true he could at times be more polite and less sarky, in no way do 75% of his posts contain abuse and any abuse is very mild (munky boy, little girl, etc).
Let's face it. This is not about levels of abuse from Patrick per se but whether the moderators are being fair and consistent. I would argue that you believe Andrew to be a 'good moderator' because he is closer to your beliefs. And you believe that I (and other moderators) are pathetic since you perceive that we are further from your beliefs.
So just to be clear where I stand
This is not about the validity or otherwise of the 'controversial theories' ('no planes', TV fakery and beam weapons)
I know the 9/11 truth background of many of the researchers promoting or researching these controversial theories and respect their tireless efforts over the years. The likes of veronica, killtown, nico haupt and so on deserve to be listened to.
However some of the more pugnacious and opinionated voices amongst these researchers have a tendency to accuse anyone who doesn't believe them (or even who chooses to focus on different more mainstream angles eg Nafeez) of being a liar, stooge, shill and a half-truth light-weight. The irony is these voices are displaying the same arrogance and divisive tactics as their critics (eg Mike Ruppert, Mark R) have in the past.
The way I look at it, the proponents of such controversial theories should expect a degree of opposition precisely because these are new and highly controversial ideas and because discussion of these theories will be seen by many to discredit the movement which already has a mountain of hard evidence to present without needing to resort to beam weapons.
The only way to counter this opposition is with politeness and well reasoned, evidence based arguments and not with what I termed bollox (recipes, sarcasm and insults).
Equally however this works both ways. So if you feel the moderators have missed some abuse aimed at you or others from Patrick or others that warrants some kind of intervention, draw it to my or Andrew's attention.
Hopefully with the advent of the new website with its focus on more mainstream angles and campaigning/awareness raising and the repakaging of this site as described on the 'site credibility' thread some of these tensions will reduce
The reason you won't find me expressing an opinion on these controversial subjects is because there are so many other angles where the evidence is so much stronger. I choose to focus on this approach. That doesn't make me your opponent or enemy. It just means we have different campaigning tactics, but continue to post recipes and they will be deleted
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject:
Thermate wrote:
The so called "vaporizing steel" video clip is just demolition dust/particulates being knocked from the core columns as they vibrate and collapse. Suggesting its anything else is plainly ridiculous.
Please supply us with an image of the numerous flat bed trucks that took away the thousands of tonnes of steel. Not a few truck loads. Dozens of them.
The so called "vaporizing steel" video clip is just demolition dust/particulates being knocked from the core columns as they vibrate and collapse. Suggesting its anything else is plainly ridiculous.
Please supply us with an image of the numerous flat bed trucks that took away the thousands of tonnes of steel. Not a few truck loads. Dozens of them.
The WTC upper basements seem to have been fairly clear and accessible from the few images you can find online.
So.. You quoted his statement about the absurdity of the 'dustification' footage, but asked an utterly unrelated question, as a counterpoint?
The WTC upper basements seem to have been fairly clear and accessible from the few images you can find online.
So clear that it took them 2-3 months to reach the bottom? I doubt you'll find an image showing dozens of flat bed trucks in one location, there is ample testimony around for a constant stream of trucks taking it away however. _________________ Make love, not money.
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject:
Quote:
So.. You quoted his statement about the absurdity of the 'dustification' footage, but asked an utterly unrelated question, as a counterpoint?
Both about steel. That's related in my book.
Quote:
The so called "vaporizing steel" video clip is just demolition dust/particulates being knocked from the core columns as they vibrate and collapse. Suggesting its anything else is plainly ridiculous.
The footage of the beam disintigrating is interesting in so far as the dust you claim is just from the debris left on it would in no way be viewable/visible from that distance [if the image is real].
The footage of the beam disintigrating is interesting in so far as the dust you claim is just from the debris left on it would in no way be viewable/visible from that distance [if the image is real].
The smoke is fairly visible. But dust would not be? Interesting hypothesis. _________________ Make love, not money.
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 595 Location: Australia
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:21 am Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
The shills/idiots as you call then are the ones who don't understand that a hypothesis is valid ONLY if it takes into account ALL of the evidence. And that's exactly what the Star Wars Directed Energy Weapon paper does.
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
The shills/idiots as you call then are the ones who don't understand that a hypothesis is valid ONLY if it takes into account ALL of the evidence. And that's exactly what the Star Wars Directed Energy Weapon paper does.
Unfortunately there isn't a shred of evidence for weapons which can vaporise even small buildings, let alone millions of tonnes of steel and concrete.
How can you believe (or prove) beam weapon destruction, when the tools to make it happen do not exist?
Yes.. And this is where people post a bunch of directed microwave, sound wave and invisible light spectrum weapons. None of which are designed or capable of vaporising buildings. Take into "account ALL of the evidence"? Please.
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
The shills/idiots as you call then are the ones who don't understand that a hypothesis is valid ONLY if it takes into account ALL of the evidence. And that's exactly what the Star Wars Directed Energy Weapon paper does.
Unfortunately there isn't a shred of evidence for weapons which can vaporise even small buildings, let alone millions of tonnes of steel and concrete.
How can you believe (or prove) beam weapon destruction, when the tools to make it happen do not exist?
Yes.. And this is where people post a bunch of directed microwave, sound wave and invisible light spectrum weapons. None of which are designed or capable of vaporising buildings. Take into "account ALL of the evidence"? Please.
The evidence of the actual weapon is unlikely to beshown to us by the perps.
The evidence of what the weapon actually did is clear for all to see. the streets of Manhattan had layers of dust 3 to 4 inches deep and hundreds of cars appeared to have been damaged in a way you could not attribute to a convential controlled demolition.
I have attended a conventional controlled demolition of cooling towers - the dust was minimal and the remains of the cooling towers were in huge chunks of concrete.
So can anybody present any evidence of any known technology or explosives which if used would cause the buildings to be pulverized to dust and cause the damage seen to hundreds of cars?
If not then the case for a beam weapon is very strong
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
As I'm constantly banging on about. Tolerance works boths ways. So Ironsnot, stop throwing childish insults about and behave.
The controversial theories involving beam weapons may well be unproveable (within the current system), but that does not mean that the possibility should not be explored.
After all any theory that 9/11 was an inside job requires elements at the highest levels of the US military to be involved. The US military has a long history of developing highly advanced weapons systems in secret (as all advanced militaries do) and a proven track record for keeping such technology secret for decades. So just because you can't be shown the weapon, the possibility should not be dismissed and the investigators labelled shills and idiots. It should be seen as one element (all be it a highly controversial one) of the on-going research.
That goes for everyone. Show some bleeding tolerance for those that hold different opinions and don't just come on these threads to post cheap jibes
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
The shills/idiots as you call then are the ones who don't understand that a hypothesis is valid ONLY if it takes into account ALL of the evidence. And that's exactly what the Star Wars Directed Energy Weapon paper does.
Unfortunately there isn't a shred of evidence for weapons which can vaporise even small buildings, let alone millions of tonnes of steel and concrete.
How can you believe (or prove) beam weapon destruction, when the tools to make it happen do not exist?
Yes.. And this is where people post a bunch of directed microwave, sound wave and invisible light spectrum weapons. None of which are designed or capable of vaporising buildings. Take into "account ALL of the evidence"? Please.
The evidence of the actual weapon is unlikely to beshown to us by the perps.
The evidence of what the weapon actually did is clear for all to see. the streets of Manhattan had layers of dust 3 to 4 inches deep and hundreds of cars appeared to have been damaged in a way you could not attribute to a convential controlled demolition.
I have attended a conventional controlled demolition of cooling towers - the dust was minimal and the remains of the cooling towers were in huge chunks of concrete.
So can anybody present any evidence of any known technology or explosives which if used would cause the buildings to be pulverized to dust and cause the damage seen to hundreds of cars?
If not then the case for a beam weapon is very strong
Explosives will pulverise concrete, the more explosive force, the more concrete. If the perps were looking to take the towers down in chunks then they could have, but they wanted to produce a non-conventional CD collapse by blasting the core to bits. Huge explsives = massive vaporisation.
Now, show me a beam weapon that pulverises thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete, (I'll let you off on the cars because that's already been debunked).
Thanks for that Article Veronica which serves to highlight the evidence and attract some interesting responses from posters with interesting handles....
Hardly worth the effort. Beam weapons are just the latest idiocy of 9/11 'investigators' who are either shills or idiots.
The shills/idiots as you call then are the ones who don't understand that a hypothesis is valid ONLY if it takes into account ALL of the evidence. And that's exactly what the Star Wars Directed Energy Weapon paper does.
Unfortunately there isn't a shred of evidence for weapons which can vaporise even small buildings, let alone millions of tonnes of steel and concrete.
How can you believe (or prove) beam weapon destruction, when the tools to make it happen do not exist?
Yes.. And this is where people post a bunch of directed microwave, sound wave and invisible light spectrum weapons. None of which are designed or capable of vaporising buildings. Take into "account ALL of the evidence"? Please.
The evidence of the actual weapon is unlikely to beshown to us by the perps.
The evidence of what the weapon actually did is clear for all to see. the streets of Manhattan had layers of dust 3 to 4 inches deep and hundreds of cars appeared to have been damaged in a way you could not attribute to a convential controlled demolition.
I have attended a conventional controlled demolition of cooling towers - the dust was minimal and the remains of the cooling towers were in huge chunks of concrete.
So can anybody present any evidence of any known technology or explosives which if used would cause the buildings to be pulverized to dust and cause the damage seen to hundreds of cars?
If not then the case for a beam weapon is very strong
Explosives will pulverise concrete, the more explosive force, the more concrete. If the perps were looking to take the towers down in chunks then they could have, but they wanted to produce a non-conventional CD collapse by blasting the core to bits. Huge explsives = massive vaporisation.
Now, show me a beam weapon that pulverises thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete, (I'll let you off on the cars because that's already been debunked).
Where is your evidence that explosives would pulverize the buildings to dust and where is your debnking of the cars.
I hope it's a bit more convincing that the Popular Mechanics garbage.
Where is your evidence that explosives would pulverize the buildings to dust and where is your debnking of the cars.
Cars + Fire = burnt cars - gasoline.
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
I have attended a conventional controlled demolition of cooling towers - the dust was minimal and the remains of the cooling towers were in huge chunks of concrete.
Ergo, more explsives = more dust and smaller chunks of concrete.
Where is your evidence of beam weapons causing vaporisation of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel?
Where is your evidence that explosives would pulverize the buildings to dust and where is your debnking of the cars.
Cars + Fire = burnt cars - gasoline.
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
I have attended a conventional controlled demolition of cooling towers - the dust was minimal and the remains of the cooling towers were in huge chunks of concrete.
Ergo, more explsives = more dust and smaller chunks of concrete.
Where is your evidence of beam weapons causing vaporisation of thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel?
I have not evidence of the actual weapons only the effects of the weapons
Take away whatever is impossible and whatever is left is THE TRUTH
Indeed like your half baked bean weapon!!
There is no tangible evidence for the half baked bean weapon so why isn't this farce of a thread locked? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
I have not evidence of the actual weapons only the effects of the weapons
Please explain how you know the effects are caused by a beam weapon, even though you've never seen a beam weapon cause such damage.
It's a process of elimination my Dear Watson
Take away whatever is impossible and whatever is left is THE TRUTH
Indeed. So now your mission should be to prove that explosives can NOT produce the vast clouds of dust seen at the towers. Before you start work on that, it might save you some time to watch this little compilation. Enjoy
Take away whatever is impossible and whatever is left is THE TRUTH
Indeed like your half baked bean weapon!!
There is no tangible evidence for the half baked bean weapon so why isn't this farce of a thread locked?
See - you cannot argue the point - so you resort to slagging people off.
I'm not slagging you off I'm just pointing out that your bean weapon is half baked.
I think most people would conclude that explosives are more likely to have been used to bring down the twin towers and building 7. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: dust in the air ok
Hi Fallious'
the compilation shows some dust indeed. Now if you could expand your compilation to show that all the concrete and bricks were pulverised, then it would have some meaning. Dust happens with explosives, but not to the extent at the WTC where ALL the concrete was pulverised, along with many, many tons of steel. The leftover steel did not penetrate the basement levels as someone attempted to put forward above. It was left lying around at ground level. The remainder was turned to dust. This massive pulverisation needs to be accounted for since it happened in truth, and is not up for discussion. Nobody is suggesting that explosives do not cause dust. Alternative theories are being put forward, and a high energy weapon of some kind is being proposed. I would hope that discussions thereof can be held in a rational manner.
Thank you.
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: dust in the air ok
alwun wrote:
Hi Fallious'
the compilation shows some dust indeed. Now if you could expand your compilation to show that all the concrete and bricks were pulverised, then it would have some meaning.
Take a look at the foreground rubble in this pic. Hundreds of concrete blocks of sizes varying from pebbles to paving slabs. Just because there's a few inches of dust settled on top doesnt mean the mass beneath isn't packed with concrete and steel.
The WTC concrete was poured on site, there are no bricks or even blocks which can 'give' in the shockwave of an explosion, the shock wave will naturaly vaporise anything which is close to it, in the case of the WTC's this meant hundreds of tonnes of low density concrete, used in the core, for stairwells (right where the explosives were going off), and a comparably much less quantity in the actual floors, which I suspect where only broken up and pulverized in the process of the collapse.
Quote:
Dust happens with explosives, but not to the extent at the WTC where ALL the concrete was pulverised, along with many, many tons of steel.
See my first pic.
Quote:
The leftover steel did not penetrate the basement levels as someone attempted to put forward above. It was left lying around at ground level. The remainder was turned to dust. This massive pulverisation needs to be accounted for since it happened in truth, and is not up for discussion.
Agreed.
Quote:
Nobody is suggesting that explosives do not cause dust.
TTWSU3 Suggested it a few posts back, that's what I was responding to.
Quote:
Alternative theories are being put forward, and a high energy weapon of some kind is being proposed. I would hope that discussions thereof can be held in a rational manner.
Thanks for the summary and reminder, I would hope you didn't find cause to direct it at me.
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
