The smokescreen theory

alwun · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: I would if I could.

Hi chek,

Trouble is I was elsewhere at the time and that history is not available to me right now, and maybe not at all. Thanks for your reply, anyway.

cheers Al..

andyb · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:36 am Post subject:

here you go Al.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5442

Follow the 911eyewitness link and it is on there.

telecasterisation · Banned Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs

alwun · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: not quite

Thank you Telly, but I do not mean Stevie. Thank you andyB, although this is not the link either. On this short vid a witness was interviewed by a TV news bod, and the witness said "no...no plane, just an explosion" - twice, then he was brushed aside by the reporter who said "we're told it was a plane" or words to that effect. The witness was positive about this.

cheers Al..

telecasterisation · Banned Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs

xmasdale · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject:

William Rodriguez, the last man out of WTC North Tower, is a conjurer among other things and visiting the UK for a week as from this Friday. Conjurers use smoke screens. As Agatha Christie wrote "They do it with mirrors". It would be interesting to sound ourt Rodriguez on smokescreen theories, but not, please not, advance any such theory in any way that it could be interpreted as 911 Truth Movement policy.

Noel

andrewwatson · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:27 am Post subject:

THis is th clip you were lookin for Alwun.

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

andyb · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:51 am Post subject:

do you know where he was standing? Could he not have been on the opposite side to the plane? He could have looked up and only seen the fireball? I'm less inclined to believe the Pentagon story yet there are numerous witnesses saying they saw a boeing coming in. You can't base a case on witness testimony.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

andyb · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:16 am Post subject:

Ity means nothing though. If you really want it to mean something you would have to track down the witness and find out where he was. Even then it would not be very strong evidence.

alwun · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:19 am Post subject: That's the one

Brilliant!
This is the clip I meant. The witness is positive on no plane. If a large passenger jet crashes into a building above your head, I can only imagine that it would be audible.
Of course, maybe not....
Who to believe.. the 'man in the street' or Fox newsman. You decide, as they say.
So this had not been posted here after all.
cheers...well found ..Al

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

Snowygrouch · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: Straws

FACE--------it----------TWSU3-------you're---------clutching---------- -at-------straws

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

ian neal · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject:

andrewwatson · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

I endorse Ian's warning about not attacking each other. That has happened a lot recently on 911blogger and I have now stopped going there as the atmosphere is like a match between rival football teams.

Regarding the clip in particular , and the no-planes theories in general, I agree with Andyb that by itself it doesn't tell you much. What I can't stop thinking about is - okay, we know hundreds of people have said they saw the second plane , but actually very few of them actually saw it crash into the building. There are too many people like the guy in the street who say they were watching the building but saw no plane crash - just the fireball.

Then you have what for many of us is the almost unbelivable images of an aluminium plane simply dissolving into a steel and concrete tower with no breakage or shattering . You have the plane-shaped cut -outs - each a close copy of the other - which are way too small to have been made by 767s. Check the close -ups photos yourself on Killtown and WebFairy.

You have what I find the strangest thing of all = the total absence of an exit hole on the South and east faces of WTC2. That strange grey thing that looks like toothpaste coming out of a tube is about three floor high and as wide - check out the videos on Killtown's second hits page .
Something weird is going on. I'm not yet a no-planer but no way do I buy the OGCT on this.

Snowygrouch · Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: No-PLanes

Hi,
I`m not going to post very much here suffice to say I will have to correct you one ONE point alone.

The size of the holes were actually a perfect match for a 767.

Be careful which websites you read!

C.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

Stefan · Banned Joined: 29 Aug 2006 Posts: 1219

This is close to moronic.

They heard bombs going off because there were bombs going off. There are montages of news footage where are tens of people all saying they heard explosions, journalists, policemen, fire-fighters and bystanders...

A conspiracy theory can only work with an absolute minimum of people knowing about it, all these theories that invlove hundreds of people, including everyone at the scene to be a conspirator hardly bear bothing with.

ESPECIALLY when they are trying to make a case for something which is not even known to exist. And why? When explosives would do the job, why do they NEED to employ a non-existant "Death Ray", when planes are hardly difficult to come by, why use a "Missile & Hologram Combo". The most simple explanation will usually be the right one.

Worse still these sort of far fetched theories do nothing but detract from the credibility of people asking genuine, worthwhile questions.

chek · Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: No-PLanes

telecasterisation · Banned Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs

Snowygrouch · Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: Roadrunner

TWSU3,
Your going to have to explain to me the correlation between a "roadrunner" and simple engineering calculations based on Tensile Strength and Stress forces applied.

Its really very straightforward; tested and also mathematically correct.

Any engineer will tell you the same. But what would engineers know about steel?

C.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

Fallious · Moderate Poster Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 762

chek · Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Roadrunner

flamesong · Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Roadrunner

Snowygrouch · Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: Maths

TWSU3,
I know its correct because I got 82% for Mechanics last year and 81% for maths.

If you want to know what other people think about this I suggest you make a post on www.physicsforums.com

There are alot of fairly well qualified people there who I suspect will confirm roughly what I have suggested.

I`m not here to spoon feed you; if you want independant confirmation off you go and get it. I`ve given you the web address; all you need to do is spend 5 minuites making a post there.

If you keep away from saying "911 inside job" they will probably answer any questions you have.

Hope that helps.

C.

Patrick Brown · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 1201

The smokescreen theory thread started by the mirror-man!!

I was laughing, my mate was laughing, we were laughing at you 4U2P!

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · 9/11 Truth critic Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 1009

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4