| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stefan wrote: |
So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.
|
Rather than switch yet another thread to CC, may I reply here?
Therm?te is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. When will you ever learn?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | Stefan wrote: |
So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.
|
Rather than switch yet another thread to CC, may I reply here?
Therm?te is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. When will you ever learn? |
When will you learn that pulling people up on their incorrect terminology does not change the underlying facts of the theory:
Its thermite used to cut the beams: explosives used to then explode the building
You are demonstrating that you do not understand the theory being put forward!
If you did, you would realise your objection was spurious and irrelevant
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | Stefan wrote: |
So why the Thermate-like-substance? Gordon Ross shows that the direction force of these eposives would have destroyed the perimiter columns and the outer circle of core core columns but not the heavy duty corner sections, or the weaker inner two rows or core columns.
|
Rather than switch yet another thread to CC, may I reply here?
Therm?te is not an explosive. It's an incendiary. When will you ever learn? |
Or better still - read my post properly - I'm perfectly aware that thermaite/mate is not an explosive.
Where your quote starts I've just finished explaining the role of explosives in Ross' theory, then go on to explain why thermite would be used in adition - because the explosives would not break the corner sections.
You've responded to things I've written twice now sam, and both times made a prime ass of your self.
Try reading before posting next time.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Micpsi,
His findings are supported by the majority of the scientists and engineers within 9/11 truth circles - ae911truth, journalof911studies and stj911truth.
His theory is not a "thermite" theory - it is primarily an explosives theory with at thermate-like-substance playing a limited role on the corner sections of the towers.
That you *sigh* regarding the "scientific method" and then go onto link to Judy Wood's site is beyond a joke.
Ross has put forward a working theory which meets all of the empirical evidence. It's a theory. It doesn't mean it's 100% correct but he is the first person (including those in support of the official story) who has put forward a theory which matches every bit of physical and empirical evidence there is.
You should politely request Wood does the same - so far all I have seen from her is deception and psycosis.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You should politely request Wood does the same - so far all I have seen from her is deception and psycosis |
You forgot the character assanation: shes gunning for Fetzer now as well as Jones
Can't say I'm too troubled by that in terms of what Fetzer is like, but it shows her character all too well
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Micpsi,
His findings are supported by the majority of the scientists and engineers within 9/11 truth circles - ae911truth, journalof911studies and stj911truth.
So what? I am equally as academically qualified and experienced as they, so the fact they make the same scientific error in endorsing Jones hardly impresses me.
His theory is not a "thermite" theory - it is primarily an explosives theory with at thermate-like-substance playing a limited role on the corner sections of the towers.
Yes, I am quite aware of that. My point stands, despite your nit-picking over titles of theories.
That you *sigh* regarding the "scientific method" and then go onto link to Judy Wood's site is beyond a joke.
Does, then, every article written by different people and posted on a website that is owned by someone whose approach you deem unscientific have, automatically, to be tarred with the same brush of being 'unscientific'?  I fail to share your prejudiced way of thinking.
Ross has put forward a working theory which meets all of the empirical evidence. It's a theory. It doesn't mean it's 100% correct but he is the first person (including those in support of the official story) who has put forward a theory which matches every bit of physical and empirical evidence there is.
You should politely request Wood does the same - so far all I have seen from her is deception and psycosis.
Whatever you have seen is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because making a link (as I did) to a paper published on someone's website in no way endorses the views of that person. Why you should think it does is a mystery to me. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
So how does a photograph indicating explosives refute that?
Is it simply becuase it means you would have to concede, both to us and to yourself, that you are parroting stuff without realising you are being lied to?
Whats your motivation mate?
Wheres the Truth, huh? |
In my experience complex situations, especially involving shady covert-ops type actions, mean you have to remove yourself from the main thrust of debate and scout round the edges a look for clues. With just looking at the WTC evidence we have no-one is going to agree and more to the point we should not be drawing conclusions as a lot of people here have decided to do.
So a photograph showing a thermate led destruction may say one thing to you but if you then look elsewhere you find images taken further away from ground zero that in no way shape or form can have been caused by a localised, conventional demolition system.
Here's my theory:
After much confusion, anger and bewilderment between 2001-05, Steve Jones turns up as saviour of 9/11 "truth" and provides a SOLUTION to all this anger and resentment by offering his "conclusive" thermate theory.
Many researchers were still in a state of neurological susceptibility at this point - latent shock from finally finding out that some factions of government will kill their own for wider aims and objectives. Thus nervous systems everywhere were "imprinted" with Steve Jones as finally settling things and as some believed at the time - this would allow us to take all the naughty perps to jail or the Hague.
Then it became obvious that Jones' idea did not account for other, wider WTC anomalies such as madly burned cars and bizarre effects on differing materials. However, the imprint was set and some ppl don't like having to update their realities or accomodate more than one idea at the same time so we get a backlash from the conventional demo theorists that ends up looking like something from Stalinist control and PR mechanisms after WWII.
So you ask where the "truth" is Mr White. Well I'm not prescribing anything to anyone at this point. Just the flaws in your arguments - it just seems that even this is too much for some.
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| utopiated wrote: | Here's my theory:
After much confusion, anger and bewilderment between 2001-05, Steve Jones turns up as saviour of 9/11 "truth" and provides a SOLUTION to all this anger and resentment by offering his "conclusive" thermate theory. |
This is incorrect - Jones provided (by means of physical evidence) a working theory, not a conclusive one. That was his first major contribution
| utopiated wrote: | | Many researchers were still in a state of neurological susceptibility at this point ..... Thus nervous systems everywhere were "imprinted" .... |
This might be somewhat interesting if you were talking about some variety of petunia or whatever, but otherwise give the station bookstall type pop-psychology a rest, please.
| utopiated wrote: | | Then it became obvious that Jones' idea did not account for other, wider WTC anomalies such as madly burned cars and bizarre effects on differing materials. |
Oh? Why's that then?
| utopiated wrote: | | However, the imprint was set and some ppl don't like having to update their realities or accomodate more than one idea at the same time so we get a backlash from the conventional demo theorists that ends up looking like something from Stalinist control and PR mechanisms after WWII. |
Pointing out rubbish claims is a required act, no matter what names the pointer gets called. If 'stalinist' is the best comeback the pointee has got then that confirms the validity of the pointer's point.
| utopiated wrote: | | So you ask where the "truth" is Mr White. Well I'm not prescribing anything to anyone at this point. Just the flaws in your arguments - it just seems that even this is too much for some. |
Flaws? What flaws?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Contrarian
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My 2p
I think it is possible that TV feeds were manipulated. Also possible that planes were switched. If planes were used at all remote control is the strongest suit to attain the precision required since 'computers and PSU' floors were targeted in both buildings.
Also is possible that airliners were diverted and no planes used, Instead, the (computer upgrades) were actually the placing of stunt effects to make it LOOK like planes struck.
Who has another explanation for such heavy work on those specific floors pre 911+ Demolishing buildings required placements throughout the buildings, not a single specific floor area. The work done on those floors was specific to requirements for those floors. A homing beacon? Could be the size of and RFID chip. No, those floors were prepared for industrial-strength floor-specific purpose ie something to do with making planes appear to have hit, or enhancing the effect of the hit. Hollywoodizing it.
But if planes really hit why the need for this? To keep fires burning?
Certainly stunt effects have been proven to be a part of the crime in the case of Shanksville, where the 'crash site' has been identified has already having had the 'wing' marks pre-911 - on backdated Google Earth views.
We are left to work out the exact 'how' in the presence of evidence having been removed form the crime scene (but not all). And we can probably get close.
HOW is an interesting question, WHO and WHY are more urgently understood
A good outline of the facts ma'am
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Northwoods Document considered using drone unmanned remote control planes painted in suitable livery. It also considered switching planes, it also considered staging mock funerals. It also considered killing (real or imaginary), it also considered using the world media in its plans. This was all back in the 1960s. goodness knows what these same minds could dream up today.
Within the ideological minds of globalists the world population no longer consists of us and them so they have fewer qualms to purposefully kill their "own" people if it achieves their aims.
To involve TV fakery is just adding another layer of unnecessary secrecy
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 1451
Location: UEMS
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | To involve TV fakery is just adding another layer of unnecessary secrecy |
Arranging the initial shape of the damage to the curtain walls would also have taxed the very best of 'smoke & mirror' surveyors and demolition experts!
Ockhams Razor rooolz, OK!
_________________
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Contrarian
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 42
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
So far I have seen no convincing explanation at all for why heavy stuff was done to the floors allegedly hit by aircraft. Maybe to contain the damage above a certain floor level so that the subsequent demolition sequence would not be compromised by burning fuel spilling down inside the building?
Go to Part 2
http://brasschecktv.com/page/108.html
Watch from '9.30' to '9.00'
Half a minute, forget the rest
We see 2 feeds of the second plane approach. One clearly shows level flight. The other clearly shows a steep descent
case closed
TV footage is faked
also check out this analysis of the famous 'Zapruder' film
http://brasschecktv.com/page/385.html
clearly faked. The lamp-post is a deal breaker.
I am sure the fact Zapruder is Jewish is a coincidence
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Contrarian wrote: |
We see 2 feeds of the second plane approach. One clearly shows level flight. The other clearly shows a steep descent
case closed
TV footage is faked
|
No, it does not. There is no inconsistency between the two feeds. As usual, the no-planers cannot understand differences of perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Contrarian wrote: |
Go to Part 2
http://brasschecktv.com/page/108.html
Watch from '9.30' to '9.00'
Half a minute, forget the rest
We see 2 feeds of the second plane approach. One clearly shows level flight. The other clearly shows a steep descent
case closed
TV footage is faked |
The thread below may help you understand more about how your judgement may be incorrect.
Remember, you will have to look at all the evidence involved.
You may have many an illusion shattered.
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468
Last edited by GodSaveTheTeam on Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That Contrarian goy doesn't know his ass from is oxbow s'all I'm sayin'
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
046920618
Banned
Joined: 30 Jul 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: abd |
|
|
| I'm a computer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christophera
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 41
Location: Santa Barbara california
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | yet again npt/tvfakery has been proven to be based on misleading evidence that only has one purpose in mind, to fool its audience and believers. |
That is the case.
Because of the impact/fall sequence, the NPT and video fakery notion have no logical basis. They explain nothing. They marginalize 9-11 truth severely.
I can recall the impact/sequence being downplayed on september11th.org I think in 2004, and I had a hard tme believing that serious truth seekers would do that. What I now realize is that they were preparing the soil for NPT and vid fakery.
On the icke board I trashed the NPT/fakery crowd with a simple, reasonable question repeated until its simple logic pierced the veil of nonsense belief NPT is founded on.
Here it is.
Why did the perps make people think WTC 1 was hit first with a plane then demolish WTC 2 first?
Clearly, if there are no planes, there is remote control of detonations. The perps created a huge problem for themselves when the tower first hit, hit hardest, burnt worst, fell last.
The same logic dispels the notion of remote controlled planes at the WTC. If remote control planes were used the pilots would have been organized and disciplined.
From the behavior of planes, it can be very logically speculated that flight 11 hit the wrong tower. The direction of fall of the tops of the towers corroborates this.
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11demolitionexplained.html#anchor1207667[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More evidence videos faked:
Ace Baker's videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexander?feature=mhee
Watch parts 06 & 07 for plane video fakery evidence.
I think these are very convincing; I have believed the plane videos were faked since seeing Jimmy Walter's 'Confronting the Evidence', and 'Loose Change 2'.
On other parts, he gives some credence to Dr. Judy Wood's theories, which I don't agree with, but he rubbishes the 'Hutchison Effect' videos.
Also, according to ACARS messages, United Fl. 175 was still in the air 20 minutes after it had supposedly crashed into South Tower of WTC:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LON G-AFTER-CRASH.html
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Evidence Fl 175 didn't hit South Tower from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LON G-AFTER-CRASH.html
Well, maybe they're disinfo as well, did I hear someone say??
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aw, come on, we all saw the 'planes' hit the Twin Towers, now, didn't we?
Well, I'm old enough to have 'seen King Kong' personally, I only wish I had had the presence of mind to have got his autograph, in case people didn't believe I'd seen him. I'm not old enough to have met any Martians, from the radio show 'Martian Invasion', or whatever it was called.
CGI VFX Showreels HD: "Compositing Reel" - by IXOR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyts_mT1RlI
And by the way, nano thermite/thermite IS an explosive, though ordinary thermite isn't:
'FAQ #8: What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?':
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/646-faq-8-what-is- nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.h tml
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
