FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

MORE EVIDENCE FOR NO PLANES
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
This is a presentation explaining no planes

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.htm


Come on, that's really you in the lounge of your house. Admit it.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
This is a presentation explaining no planes

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.htm


All he needs is a well used Bong in his right hand and some Bacofoil on his head to complete the picture.

_________________
Make love, not money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't see the laser on this clip:


Link

EDIT: Sorry this comment was posted to the wrong thread!

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<


Last edited by Patrick Brown on Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But I can hear a plane on this clip:


Link

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
Having "arranged" for airliners to slam into the Twin Towers, why go to trouble to set up a parallel CD to accompany it?

....
By the way, I think your forgetting Lucky Larry Silverstein needed them to come down to claim his $7,000,000,000 ...

He'd paid hundreds of millions for the Turkey Towers, it was both impractically expensive to remove the asbestos fire cladding (as the NYC Port Authority were insisting) AND impractically expensive to pay for a legal demolition due to the massive hazardous materials management that would've been required.


Thermate, one of these days somebody from here will be out on the campaign trail (a TV debate? who knows) and make this kind of comment about Silverstein Properties' insurance affairs at WTC. A well-informed opponent will absolutely slaughter you with:

The total insurance on the main complex was $3.5b. Only some of the insurers were (conceivably) liable for double payment, so the total payout to SP could never hit $7b.

Wrecked (but not demolished) buildings would still attract the full insurance given the astronomical cost of dismantling or (implausible) repair.

The insurers eventually won the case. Payout will be $3.5b

SP were badly underinsured. In fact they wanted even less insurance, but the insurers talked them up

Isurance would, in any case, only be payable to rebuilding. Just like you and me if our properties were badly damaged.

WTC7 was insured separately, for $861m. Rebuilding costs topped $900m


There seems to be a mood of "let's tidy up our theories" going at the moment. It's in this spirit that I'm posting the above.

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignatz wrote:
Thermate wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
Having "arranged" for airliners to slam into the Twin Towers, why go to trouble to set up a parallel CD to accompany it?

....
By the way, I think your forgetting Lucky Larry Silverstein needed them to come down to claim his $7,000,000,000 ...

He'd paid hundreds of millions for the Turkey Towers, it was both impractically expensive to remove the asbestos fire cladding (as the NYC Port Authority were insisting) AND impractically expensive to pay for a legal demolition due to the massive hazardous materials management that would've been required.


Thermate, one of these days somebody from here will be out on the campaign trail (a TV debate? who knows) and make this kind of comment about Silverstein Properties' insurance affairs at WTC. A well-informed opponent will absolutely slaughter you with:

The total insurance on the main complex was $3.5b. Only some of the insurers were (conceivably) liable for double payment, so the total payout to SP could never hit $7b.

Wrecked (but not demolished) buildings would still attract the full insurance given the astronomical cost of dismantling or (implausible) repair.

The insurers eventually won the case. Payout will be $3.5b

SP were badly underinsured. In fact they wanted even less insurance, but the insurers talked them up

Isurance would, in any case, only be payable to rebuilding. Just like you and me if our properties were badly damaged.

WTC7 was insured separately, for $861m. Rebuilding costs topped $900m


There seems to be a mood of "let's tidy up our theories" going at the moment. It's in this spirit that I'm posting the above.
how much did he buy for? then how much did he make overall?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another bit of footage showing the second impact:


Link

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignatz wrote:
Payout will be $3.5b
He claimed $7billion. How ever much he gets its a tidy return on his ~$150-200m investment wouldn't you say? Who cares what the exact figure is, its a motive.

Remember that he has effectively traded a development site people were leaving in droves because of old technology infrastructure and asbestos poisoning worries for a brand new cutting edge prime real estate site, at the insurance companies expense.

If you seriously think he, his company and his friends won't get to keep a significant amount of that "rebuild" money you don't know much about accounting or purchasing and tendering decisions...

_________________
Make love, not money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
This is a presentation explaining no planes

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.htm


All he needs is a well used Bong in his right hand and some Bacofoil on his head to complete the picture.


Bong? Surely that should read 'Boeing'?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
I can't see the laser on this clip:


Link


Do you believe there is a laser?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Do you believe there is a laser?

Tele I think I've messed up my posts as my last few comments were meant to be replies to this thread: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5825

Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

One of the pitfalls of tabbed-browsers perhaps although I think this is the first time I've posted to the wrong thread.

And just for the record I don't buy the half-baked-bean-weapon, no-planes and I don't think the real planes were laser-guided.

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
Payout will be $3.5b
He claimed $7billion. How ever much he gets its a tidy return on his ~$150-200m investment wouldn't you say? Who cares what the exact figure is, its a motive


What he tried to claim (less than double the total insurance, as not all the insurers were subject to the double-attack wording) is not what he got. The entire double-payout business has failed.

But - have it any way you like, no skin off my sceptic nose.
It would be interesting, one day, to discuss 9/11 with CTists who have a semi-plausible, semi-coherent case. As long as you guys fling around patent nonsense about "Lucky Larry" that day will never come. And your case will never gain any public credibility.

Anyhoo - you've probably got drones,lasers and holograms to discuss with the rest of the crew, so bye for now.

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Wrecked (but not demolished) buildings would still attract the full insurance given the astronomical cost of dismantling or (implausible) repair.

Well that must be true as you say so. The insurance company would just bear the cost of removing the asbestos from the 75% of the buildings not damaged. Course they would.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:


Its not the petrol that's burning, its the vapour coming off it.



Wey hey!

Yes mate
My mate
His mate
Her mate
Thermate!!


I still can't believe I had to post such a basic illustration of the basic behaviour of petrol/kerosene, which, of course are technically different substances - so there's another wrinkle for you to argue over.

Thermate wrote:
Coming from someone who peddles a totally baseless, unneeded and illogical theory...

ANSWER the question NPT'ers, look in the mirror if you dare.

Well, it all fits the profile! Looks like a pretty standard type of pernicious debunking post if you ask me. Of course, you could reveal your identity and prove me wrong. Will you take the UK9/11 FORUM IDENTITY CHALLENGE?
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15861#15861

Enjoy!

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!


Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignatz wrote:

Quite possibly (from a CT point of view)
It could be argued that taking 2 years or more to dismantle the charred stumps of WTC1+2 would be even more humiliating - and enraging - than the utter shock of 9/11 as it happened. And with much less risk from blabbermouths.
Depends on how many levels of cunning you want to consider (from a CT point of view, naturally)


You should be posting in CC - so please do so. Thanks.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Ignatz wrote:

Quite possibly (from a CT point of view)
It could be argued that taking 2 years or more to dismantle the charred stumps of WTC1+2 would be even more humiliating - and enraging - than the utter shock of 9/11 as it happened. And with much less risk from blabbermouths.
Depends on how many levels of cunning you want to consider (from a CT point of view, naturally)


You should be posting in CC - so please do so. Thanks.


A number of critics and disinformation operators - overt and covert - post on the General Forum, Andrew. At least I'm being honest about my views.

Maybe a gardener or two over here to remove the odd diseased carrot from the CT soil would actually serve a useful purpose?

And Thermate, Chek and me were having a reasonably civilised discussion I reckon, you old spoilsport. Ah well

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A No Planer Resigns from S.P.I.N.E.
Morgan Reynolds — August 1, 2006

Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.
Q: Why did you resign from SPINE?
A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago.
Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.
Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed.
Q: Why is the video phony?
A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them!
Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?
A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes.
Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong.
Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?
A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” “Yes, it’s fake,” he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.
Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked?
A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.
Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?
A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.
Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.
Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.
A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.
Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.
Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?
A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.
Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?
A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.
Q: So there’s no deceleration?
A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:
1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.
2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.
3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.
Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.
A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.
Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.
A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).
When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.
Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.
Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test?
A: His university won’t let him.
Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.
A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes.
Q: So do you believe there were no planes?
A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.
Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.
A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.
Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?
A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed!
Q: Is SPINE or Scholars for 911 Truth doing any good?
A: Absolutely not, they haven’t done anything for a couple of years. SPINE is defunct. In 2004, for example, I sent something by Gerard Holmgren against the plane huggers to Kee and nothing came of it. SPINE never puts up anything controversial so it is just safe stuff, orthodoxy now.
Q: Nila Sagadevan is a big defender of planes at the WTC.
A: When he joined SPINE I called him up because he lived in southern California and found he lived only 6-7 miles from me. We talked about going for a beer but when I got around to the NPT, he said that was nonsense. “My friend Greg Szymanski visited ground zero and reported a jet engine so I know a plane hit the bldg,” and he hung up. Nila has some weird beliefs and I forwarded an email from him to Kee and wrote, “Ask this guy if he’s ever interviewed an ET.” Nila wants to get on talk shows, peddle his weird beliefs, and he depends on the media to sell his books. Gurus are liars.
Q: Why is there such resistance to NPT?
A: NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good job THETRUTHWILLSETU3, keep it bumped. Wouldn't want new members thinking this place had any credibility would we!? In fact why not ask your pal AJ to make it sticky for you? Save you the time and trouble.
_________________
Make love, not money.


Last edited by Thermate on Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please Please Please Lock this thread someone. Crying or Very sad
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate to say this Thermate and Patrick Brown...

You both bumped this thread yourselves by posting to it. You could've left it alone., thereby not further bumping it.

You can see my logic, can't you?

Besides, what are you so worried about? Me and TSWU3 being pals? Oh dear.....

This really makes me smile! Sorry! Smile

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Besides, what are you so worried about? Me and TSWU3 being pals?

You know the saying “shills of a feather...”

Your secret is safe with me sweety! Wink

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:09 pm    Post subject: Larrys insurance payout Reply with quote

Ignatz,
You are correct he didnt get 7bn. He did get 4.6Bn and he DID get the "double occurance" payout after a court battle on December 6th 2004.

See below:

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/041208wtc.asp

C.

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:


Your secret is safe with me sweety! Wink


Ooh thanks xxxx!

All other moderators know of my association with TSW so it's certainly no secret! Thanks for the extra smile!

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A No Planer Resigns from S.P.I.N.E.
Morgan [the shill] Reynolds — August 1, 2006

Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry and just resigned from a professional group known as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE) founded by Canadian scientist, A.K. (“Kee”) Dewdney. The website is www.physics911.net. Curious about why he resigned (I’m still a SPINE member), I interviewed him from his home in southern California.

Q: Why did you resign from SPINE? [because he's a spine-less shill]
A: Well, I was a founding member in 2002 but I have little patience. With all the arguments I have gone through with Kee, I’ve spent so much time with Kee, it’s led nowhere. A plane never hit the second trade center tower, WTC 2, that’s what started our disagreement about 4 years ago. [nutter me thinks Shocked ]
Leonard Spencer first came out with what I thought was a smoking gun, the pod. I thought that pod must be a smoke screen device to hide the fact that a real airliner flew by but did not hit the building. And then editors doctored the tape after the fact.
Later on I decided the pod was a distraction since I determined that the video was fake. Case closed. [what pod? the vid was fake yeah right]

Q: Why is the video phony?
A: The video is phony because airliners don’t meld into steel and concrete buildings, they crash against them! [ Laughing ]

Q: Why would the establishment elite pull off a phony video?
A: The video had to be phony because the Illuminati, or whatever we want to call them, had to eliminate all possibilities of a foul up. [I can smell your foul up from here Laughing ] They needed the hijacking scam to implicate the Muslims, but they couldn’t afford any risk. They had to Keep-It-Simple-Stupid so they faked the crashes. [So he thinks no planes is simpler the real planes Shocked ]
Since we know that the rich will always hang together, have their children intermarry, and do anything to protect their wealth, they must have an organization, an interlocking directorate, if you will, that is compartmentalized. I could have done a better job, but they faked the video in an amateurish way. [so they had no planes so they wouldn't foul up and then they foul up] A friend of mine could have done a much better job of faking an airplane crash—break a wing off, break a part of the body, throw some fluff in and then I wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong. [this guy is an idiot]

Q: When did you realize something was amiss about 9/11?
A: I watched 9/11 on TV that day and my next-door neighbor is a pilot for SkyWest Airlines. We were good friends and when 9/11 happened I called up right away and said, “Turn on the TV.” He came over to my house. I said, “It’s fake.” [balls] “Yes, it’s fake,” [and more balls] he said. Later, we decided that the networks did not get the real-time feed of the crash and simulated it instead. In about a week we were convinced by neighbors that the networks were displaying the real thing. His wife is an American Airlines flight attendant and she’s very outspoken. Every 9/11 anniversary they put out a big display about praying for 9/11 flight attendants and all that. She thinks I’m a stupid conspiracy nut. [no just a nutter] Kee used to ask David, through me, airline questions, but now David is not allowed to talk to me. Laughing because you're a nutter] I don’t know if Kee is personally contacting him now.

Q: You knew right away it was an inside job because the WTC hit was faked? [he knew F all]
A: I have spent lots of time trying to figure out how the New World Order could screw up so badly, and the only conclusion I can come to is that there must be some high-ranking insider, or possibly group, that is trying to warn the world of the danger of allowing such a powerful force to rule. In another era, the most powerful force in the World was the Holy Roman Empire and it was brought down by an insider who exposed the document that gave it its power as a fraud. I can’t go into the details now but it later led to the Reformation. I wrote a paper on it 50 years ago.

Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?
A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.
Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. [what a twat] A plane should crash against the building. [what because you say so?] It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.

Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.
A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.
Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing
. [this guy is really full of it]

Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?
A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. [balls] Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane. [that's just a lie]

Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. [compelling my arse] What else? [Err a lobotomy perhaps?]
A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building. [Jones has proven that this is balls as the plane does slow down a fraction]

Q: So there’s no deceleration? [no there is]
A: Right. [that's a lie] It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:
1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.
2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.
3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.
A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.

Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.
A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. [this guy is an idiot as we all know that most of the floors were open plan] The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).
When Jerry Longspaugh, an aerospace engineer and SPINE member, saw a photo of a hole in one of the towers and thought he saw the core, he wrote to Kee and me, “It looks like the NPT is true.” Maybe Kee said something to him, I don’t know.
Kee’s got to be a phony. He’s been saying how sorry he was about the hassle I’m suffering from the plane huggers. [interesting that he uses that phrase!] That kind of thing is not unusual in my life.

Q: Why won’t Kee do the video test? [wait for it]
A: His university won’t let him. [ Laughing what so this Kee chap hasn't got a DVD player at home and the university are watching his every move?]

Q: But he’s done a lot exposing 9/11 lies like proving the cell phone calls were impossible.
A: Kee is allowed some freedom but NPT is the key to the kingdom. [Yawn] It would topple the kingdom, so he won’t go there. Physics911.net has this “What may have happened” and “What did not happen” and he won’t use ‘em. He won’t run your article. They have to have Arab hijackers, so they have to have airplanes. [sorry that's just shilly]

Q: So do you believe there were no planes? [wait for it]
A: Logic tells me there were no airliners involved. [that's mind-warp logic right?] They never showed any wreckage, the hole was empty, and the government showed a few parts but no serial numbers, no part numbers.

Q: The government could have crashed a plane, say, in Pennsylvania, by remote control.
A: Too many problems. Somebody could pick up a part with a serial number.

Q: What about the controversy over high-energy explosives at the WTC?
A: Well, I tend to agree with those who believe they were used but my problem has always been the video. It was fake and that was the end of it for me. Case closed! [wish this chap would close his figging mouth!]

Q: Is SPINE or Scholars for 911 Truth doing any good? [not since Reynolds and woods went all baked bean weaponish]
A: Absolutely not, they haven’t done anything for a couple of years. SPINE is defunct. In 2004, for example, I sent something by Gerard Holmgren against the plane huggers to Kee and nothing came of it. SPINE never puts up anything controversial so it is just safe stuff, orthodoxy now.

Q: Nila Sagadevan is a big defender of planes at the WTC.
A: When he joined SPINE I called him up because he lived in southern California and found he lived only 6-7 miles from me. We talked about going for a beer but when I got around to the NPT, he said that was nonsense. [we have a winner Razz ] “My friend Greg Szymanski visited ground zero and reported a jet engine so I know a plane hit the bldg,” and he hung up. Nila has some weird beliefs and I forwarded an email from him to Kee and wrote, “Ask this guy if he’s ever interviewed an ET.” Nila wants to get on talk shows, peddle his weird beliefs, and he depends on the media to sell his books. Gurus are liars.

Q: Why is there such resistance to NPT? [Err because it's ball maybe?]
A: NPT is a direct attack on the head of the snake. You can go after Bush, Cheney and that whole compartmentalized entity but not the head of the snake. NPT is the only thing that we have direct evidence of, so it is very threatening. [Yeah like a fluffy monkey] The media control everything because they can point the finger at anybody. The media is the enforcement arm of the head of the snake that controls everything. It can topple any government. And NPT is direct proof of their enforcement of the 9/11 scam. It’s the propaganda arm of the ruling class and NPT would break it all open. They’d be done.

What utter sh*t but what else would you expect from Morgan Reynolds?

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
You both bumped this thread yourselves by posting to it.


Not quite. If you check the dates there was ~3 day gap until TWSU resurrected it (we can only guess why Rolling Eyes ). The damage was done by him, not us.

I'm not going to bother responding to NPT/BW threads in future, they've been debunked plenty already. I suggest others do the same.

_________________
Make love, not money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
You both bumped this thread yourselves by posting to it.


Not quite. If you check the dates there was ~3 day gap until TWSU resurrected it (we can only guess why Rolling Eyes ). The damage was done by him, not us.

I'm not going to bother responding to NPT/BW threads in future, they've been debunked plenty already. I suggest others do the same.

Why "damaga"? Oh sorry - whatever you say, big boy. I can see you are an authority on these things.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Larrys insurance payout Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
Ignatz,
You are correct he didnt get 7bn. He did get 4.6Bn and he DID get the "double occurance" payout after a court battle on December 6th 2004.

See below:

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/041208wtc.asp

C.


It went on till Oct 2006 when the latest (final?) episode was played out :

http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca/msg03461.html

But you're right, Oct 2006 simply upheld Dec 2004. Seems some temporary insurance is still covered by the "double occurence" nonsense, so they do get a $1b bonus. Who'd be a "temporary insurer"when 2 planes each hitting one building counts as 4 disasters? CT aside, the logic of it totally escapes me.

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

check this out

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More NPT advertising TTWSU3? Perhaps you should address the deadly serious issue that NPT video's have been proven to be fakes themselves?

The author of the video I took this still from claims the two shots overlaid in this image are "perfectly aligned". That's a lie. Why would he lie?



When the two clips ARE perfectly aligned, the planes are in the same position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Compliments of Prole Art Threat who has now joined the No Planers

What's your answer to this plane huggers?

This woman saw no plane just an explosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVcc5AxE5M0&mode=related&search=

Do we have any more NP converts? - come on don't be shy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 14 of 16

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group