there was no moon landing .... discus

[goldstone]

I haven't read all this nonsense, but I think you will find that United did lose a plane or two. If it's not as a result of being flown into the WTC, then where are they?

 

[Manx Shearwater]

And the passengers?

 

[teaboy]

The explosions themselves were not meant to bring the towers down, that was to happen later on with the controlled demolition. The explosions were just to simulate the Boeings hitting the Towers, synchronised with the fake footage shown on TV.

Why? Why not just have a successful bomb plot bring the towers down and film that? Easier, cheaper to arrange and more practical.

But Fox f***ed it up with the nose cone of the CGI plane coming out the other side of the tower. Because when the CGI plane was inserted they didn't account for the footage of WTC2 drifting to the right, as a result of having to give the impression that it was all being filmed from their helicopter.

Why were Fox (a news channel) building and editing CGI on a project of such importance? Surely those running the mission would've employed people who actually do CGI.

Then the networks went into damage control, by having to bombard our TV screens with the faked Hezakhani footage of the plane seamlessly disappearing into WTC2.
Followed later on by screening footage of the clown eye witness in the Harley Tea shirt, a cameraman contracted to Fox.
Within a couple of hours of it all happening this guy in the Harley T shirt shows up already referring to the WTC as ground zero, telling the Fox interviewer how the "plane reamed right on through coming out the other side". Then goes on to explain how the Towers fell due to structural failure because the heat was so intense.
Plus he seems pretty chippa for someone that has supposedly witnessed such devastation.

Exactly what does a large plane look like when it flies into a tower block of steel and glass construction then? At what point WAS the term 'ground zero' supposed to be used? Was this the first tower block to fall after a fire reduced it's structural integrity?

Face it - you're wrong about so many things, in so many ways.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

The term 'Ground Zero' has been around since WWII, and is commonly applied to the epicentre of a devastating occurence (originally, Nuclear Explosions). So there's nothing to stop anyone referring to WTC as Ground Zero at any time after the terrorists struck.

 

[teaboy]

The term 'Ground Zero' has been around since WWII, and is commonly applied to the epicentre of a devastating occurence (originally, Nuclear Explosions). So there's nothing to stop anyone referring to WTC as Ground Zero at any time after the terrorists struck.

I know that, you know that. I'm just wondering how many people at Fox News know that...

 

[beorhthelm]

Why? Why not just have a successful bomb plot bring the towers down and film that? Easier, cheaper to arrange and more practical.

why bring them down at all? simple bombing tied to target group would have sufficed as an excuse to invade Afganistan, i'd have thought.

question raised is, how do you rig an explosion to go off in a buliding and then plan to carry out a controlled demolition shortly afterwards? the first explosion risks cutting or triggering all the finely positioned detcord and explosives. thats before we consider the complete lack of any evidence of the presence of these materials, visual or audio evidence for the hundreds of explosions required, or explaination of how they could have been rigged in two operational buildings unnoticed. thats the problem with conspiracies, they rely on believe on quite alot of other unproven batshit.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

I know that, you know that. I'm just wondering how many people at Fox News know that...

Quite. Just wondering if colinz knows this.

I know what my money's on.

 

[teaboy]

why bring them down at all? simple bombing tied to target group would have sufficed as an excuse to invade Afganistan, i'd have thought.

question raised is, how do you rig an explosion to go off in a buliding and then plan to carry out a controlled demolition shortly afterwards? the first explosion risks cutting or triggering all the finely positioned detcord and explosives. thats before we consider the complete lack of any evidence of the presence of these materials, visual or audio evidence for the hundreds of explosions required, or explaination of how they could have been rigged in two operational buildings unnoticed. thats the problem with conspiracies, they rely on believe on quite alot of other unproven batshit.

It's quite possible to rig the 2 explosions. You'd have the smaller one on a separate floor, and fired using different equipment. There would be the risk of 'cross-firing' them and ending up with 1 explosion though, and it wouldn't be something recommended! It also depends on just how 'operational' the building is - I wouldn't rig EVERY floor, so if every 3rd floor was empty for 6 weeks previous to the event then that would work.

So possible, but absolutely pointless for all the reasons (and more!) stated on this thread, and also SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

If you were using CGI for some of the attack, why not all of it? ALL the eye-witnesses are lying anyway so they could've knocked something up in the studio with no loss of life or destruction anyway...

 

[Gangsta]

One reoccuring engineering theme is the overconfidence people who design superstructures have in the resilience of the thing. A lot of the conspiracy stuff re the WTC started when certain "experts" said that the structures couldnt be brought down by the planes. That Italian cruise ship shouldnt have been able to have fallen on it side either according to expert on TV nor the Japanese Nuclear Power Plant sucumb to natural disaster etc etc. You cannot recreate real life in a simulator.

 

[KZNSeagull]

It's quite possible to rig the 2 explosions. You'd have the smaller one on a separate floor, and fired using different equipment. There would be the risk of 'cross-firing' them and ending up with 1 explosion though, and it wouldn't be something recommended! It also depends on just how 'operational' the building is - I wouldn't rig EVERY floor, so if every 3rd floor was empty for 6 weeks previous to the event then that would work.

So possible, but absolutely pointless for all the reasons (and more!) stated on this thread, and also SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

If you were using CGI for some of the attack, why not all of it? ALL the eye-witnesses are lying anyway so they could've knocked something up in the studio with no loss of life or destruction anyway...

All the eyewitnesses were created using CGI as well, hence they were not credible. I read that on the internet somewhere.......

When is Michael Owen making his debut, by the way? I read that somewhere as well....

 

[Frutos]

I have seen some utter bollocks typed on this site in my time here, but [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] has taken the biscuit, the biscuit tin and frankly the whole bloody biscuit aisle in Tesco.

Of course we live in a world a of diverse opinions and free speech, but at the same time I find it rather scary that a presumably mentally stable adult can actually delude themselves so far as to believe the shite he's spouted.

A list of posters as long as my arm have tried, rationally, sensibly and scientifically to show him how obtuse and absurd he's being but he just can't get it. Presumably the New Zealand educational system doesn't teach comprehension and understanding of the English language.

 

[Nibble]

I find it remarkable, depressing and tragic that the Colonz and Falmers of this world, like all conspiracy theorists adamently refuse to consider another opinion even when that opinion is proffered by a clear expert or someone with vastly superior knowledge to their own.

They're entire life and philosophy is a knee jerk reaction to any world event or historical fact that does not fit into a very narrow, very ill thought set of criteria, essentially "Any event of any importance that occurs in this world is a lie and you are all being fooled"

Their entire life is reactionary not proactive, even their response to facts posed to them is this

1. Quickly scrabble around looking for some other conspiracy theorist's opinion on youtube to counter the facts presented to me in order to crowbar my beliefs unjustly into the argument. or failing that...

2. Tell people they are naive idiots and they have been brainwashed and they will die ignorant and stupid. Under no circumstances offer any evidence to back this inflamatory, ingnorant statement up.

In short, you are a bunch of dolts.

 

[Nibble]

Oh and before I go, Falmer, Colinz, I've got a fantastic business opportunity for you. You don't seem like you'd be taken in by any old guff so have a look and feel free to invest as much money as you like...WOOF! WOOF!! BOW-LINGUAL BOWLINGUAL DOG BARK TRANSLATOR (choose RED or BLUE)

 

[pastafarian]

I find it remarkable, depressing and tragic that the Colonz and Falmers of this world, like all conspiracy theorists adamently refuse to consider another opinion even when that opinion is proffered by a clear expert or someone with vastly superior knowledge to their own.

They're entire life and philosophy is a knee jerk reaction to any world event or historical fact that does not fit into a very narrow, very ill thought set of criteria, essentially "Any event of any importance that occurs in this world is a lie and you are all being fooled"

Their entire life is reactionary not proactive, even their response to facts posed to them is this

1. Quickly scrabble around looking for some other conspiracy theorist's opinion on youtube to counter the facts presented to me in order to crowbar my beliefs unjustly into the argument. or failing that...

2. Tell people they are naive idiots and they have been brainwashed and they will die ignorant and stupid. Under no circumstances offer any evidence to back this inflamatory, ingnorant statement up.

In short, you are a bunch of dolts.

very well put! but dont forget option 3...completely ignore a question especially if you cant explain the answer..by the way [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] you are still free to answer my original question but i get the feeling you havnt got the conviction or guts to answer it,well thats the only reasons i can come up with why you refuse to answer

 

[colinz]

Why? Why not just have a successful bomb plot bring the towers down and film that? Easier, cheaper to arrange and more practical.



Why were Fox (a news channel) building and editing CGI on a project of such importance? Surely those running the mission would've employed people who actually do CGI.



Exactly what does a large plane look like when it flies into a tower block of steel and glass construction then? At what point WAS the term 'ground zero' supposed to be used? Was this the first tower block to fall after a fire reduced it's structural integrity?

Face it - you're wrong about so many things, in so many ways.

Why? Why not just have a successful bomb plot bring the towers down and film that? Easier, cheaper to arrange and more practical.

What Terrorists getting inside the Twin Towers and wiring them up for a 10 second collapse controlled demolition.
The cost of screening a bit of faked footage, would have been bugger all in the over all scheme of things.

Why were Fox (a news channel) building and editing CGI on a project of such importance? Surely those running the mission would've employed people who actually do CGI.

The leading networks are pretty much an instrument of the State, the live 9/11 footage was broadcast from the same studio, although it was a Fox news chopper, the actual footage could have been assembled else where & simply credited to Fox.

Exactly what does a large plane look like when it flies into a tower block of steel and glass construction then? At what point WAS the term 'ground zero' supposed to be used? Was this the first tower block to fall after a fire reduced it's structural integrity?

The Spacing of the steel perimetre columns were a metre apart, towards the upper levels they were closer to 2 foot. Then every 4 metres there is poured concrete flooring about 4inches thick, plus all the flooring trusses.
To say that an aeroplane of hollow aluminium can fly through all this acting as a band saw, over several floors without deceleration is absurd.
Why are you so frightened at confronting the evidence ?

I don't think the term ground zero was used within a couple of hours of 9/11 happening, the video of the 2 fake eye witnesses, is such obviously bad acting, it's embarrassing.
But hey I could be wrong about the term ground zero, down here it happened at about 2am, so I didn't see it unfold. But I know bull shit when I see it.

If you were using CGI for some of the attack, why not all of it? ALL the eye-witnesses are lying anyway so they could've knocked something up in the studio with no loss of life or destruction anyway...

Couldn't have typed this better myself.

 

[colinz]

very well put! but dont forget option 3...completely ignore a question especially if you cant explain the answer..by the way [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] you are still free to answer my original question but i get the feeling you havnt got the conviction or guts to answer it,well thats the only reasons i can come up with why you refuse to answer

Look mate what is your problem ?
I've already told you what I would say to your sister in law if I was to meet her.

At the end of the day she's another eye witness without verification. And your bullshit is simply hear say.
I'm sorry if she's traumatised, but it wasn't me that pulled down the towers after faking a couple of planes flying into them.

 

[shellsuit]

But I know bull shit when I see it.

shaving cant be much fun for you then can it.

 

[colinz]

shaving cant be much fun for you then can it.

Apart from the odd pimple, I feel pretty good about still having a full head of hair, even at my ripe old age.

 

[Falmer]

Do people really still believe a plane can fly straight through a skyscraper (including the wings) melt the re-inforced steel and send 3 buildings tumbling down, one as far as 1 km from the actual plane? Regardless of what a tv teaches you, I'm sure physics teaches more.
If Scientists can't explain 9/11 but the american media can, don't you think somethings up?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Fruitcakes.