there was no moon landing .... discus

[readingstockport]

If you go back and read the original post I made on this, PARTS of the plane could, yes. If you think a plane hitting a building like that remains in one piece then again, you need to revisit your old science books.

He can't REvisit them. Going by his understanding of basic science he never visited the f'in things in the first place.

Not even to scribble in the margin in crayon whilst ignoring anything the science teacher said.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

A good point, well made.

 

[The Wizard]

Conspiracy theories really are for dullards aren't they? Watched several programmes on 9/11 its pretty obvious they weren't 'planned' and there was a conspiracy programme a while back that disproved all the myths that moronic theorists could throw at them, its frankly disrespectful to the thousands that died that day including one of our very own. With the Moon Landing, never known too much about that so wouldn't know where to start.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

There have been a few programmes and quite a number of websites debunking every single claim made by conspiracy theorists about the moon landing too. Its quite interesting stuff (for me anyway, I'm into astronomy, and remember watching Neil Armstrong climb out of the module live on telly in the middle of the night).

 

[pastafarian]

This engine was found a few blocks away, and landed under a scaffold, after falling 450 metres, and was taped off within about an hour.

and your theory that the engine was dropped off by the agents of this cover up whilst 1000`s of witnesses were standing within viewing distance,all of whom saw nothing makes much more sense

but thats not the only wreckage is it collinz?
here is some of the fuselage

if there were no planes collinz why is there debris and how is it possible remains of some of those on flights 11 and 175 were identified amongst the debris of the towers?

you wanted eye witnesses well there is a tonne of them here with what they saw that day.

United Airlines Flight 175 Crash Evidence - 911myths

considering you no longer answer any questions put to you on this thread. i suspect because you dont know what you are talking about may i kindly suggest you now off

 

[Manx Shearwater]

I wonder if the cryptic comment with the smiley that colinz has posted stating that it landed underneath scaffolding is relevant?

Are you saying how could it land UNDER the scaffolding?

Or maybe you should have said that it 'came to rest' under the scaffolding, because - as you'll now know from your new found expertise of Newtonian mechanics (and I am using sarcasm here) - it would have still had some forward momentum by the time it reached ground level, and may not necessarily have 'landed' there. But you knew that bit, yes? Even metal will bounce if it's landed at an angle, as opposed to come vertically downwards, and you can see from the accompanying diagrams that it would have come down with both forward and downward velocities, yes?

 

[colinz]

If you go back and read the original post I made on this, PARTS of the plane could, yes. If you think a plane hitting a building like that remains in one piece then again, you need to revisit your old science books.

Where did I say a plane hitting a building remains in one piece ?

Your getting confused with what you've seen on TV.

 

[colinz]

I wonder if the cryptic comment with the smiley that colinz has posted stating that it landed underneath scaffolding is relevant?

Are you saying how could it land UNDER the scaffolding?

Or maybe you should have said that it 'came to rest' under the scaffolding, because - as you'll now know from your new found expertise of Newtonian mechanics (and I am using sarcasm here) - it would have still had some forward momentum by the time it reached ground level, and may not necessarily have 'landed' there. But you knew that bit, yes? Even metal will bounce if it's landed at an angle, as opposed to come vertically downwards, and you can see from the accompanying diagrams that it would have come down with both forward and downward velocities, yes?

Flying through the building penetrating both sides, thus twice negotiating its way through steel outer columns spaced at less than one meter apart, and sweeping aside from it's path what ever was inside the building internally.

Then continually travelling a distance of more than a Hundred of meters, before guiding it self from a height of 400+ meters to land safely under the scaffolding, without causing any indentation to the side walk.
Then a law enforcement officer manages to tape around this important piece of evidence, just in the nick of time before the tower collapses, within the hour.

 

[One Love]

That bloody "law enforcement officer" stopped me taking it away as a souvenir. Bastard!

 

[colinz]

I know we're not going to agree on this, but I don't really understand how 'unlikely' (I use quotation marks because I have no idea of the probabilities involved) results support your argument. One assumes those organising this conspiracy would have had models which suggested the likely result of a plane hitting the building, and that's how they faked the impacts and spread of rubble. If it's incredibly unlikely that an engine would have made it through the building and out of the other side, why would they project the damaged engine in that direction and distance? Surely if the most likely thing was that the engine would either stay in the building or drop at the point of impact, that's what they would have done when trying to fake the impact?

For me, the fact that rubble, etc. ended up in unlikely places is much more likely to indicate a real impact with small probability results than a faked one where I would have thought everything would end up where it was 'supposed' to be.

Thats an interesting point, if the whole thing was faked why do such a bad job.
When it comes to the positioning of the Boeing parts, the places where you would most expect to find them such as at the foot of the towers, may have been to visible to passers by prior to show time.

 

[colinz]

that bloody "law enforcement officer" stopped me taking it away as a souvenir. Bastard!

lol

 

[So.CalGull]

Then continually travelling a distance of more than a Hundred of meters, before guiding it self from a height of 400+ meters to land safely under the scaffolding, without causing any indentation to the side walk.
Then a law enforcement officer manages to tape around this important piece of evidence, just in the nick of time before the tower collapses, within the hour.

Lets assume that you are right for the sake of a sensible debate....how did it get there then?

The average occupancy of a single square mile in New York is 69,400 people over the 22 square miles of Manhattan Island (just over 1.5 million people), which means in the 4 square miles of the financial district there should be at any one time around 280,000 people in that area. Would you agree with that?

Let's reduce that number for the sake of people on vacation, in a building or having a poop etc, and take a percentage of those people, lets say 50% of the 280,000 which is 140,000 people, dont forget that all buildings, especially those that close to the events were being evacuated at this time, so there were probably more people outside than inside.

I would imagine that out of those 140,000 people over those 4 square miles, some one by now would have come forward and said "You know what, I saw a forklift capable of lifting the remains of a 3 to 6,000 pound engine onto the side walk, place it under the scaffolding in broad daylight while complete mayhem was ensuing less than 400 meters away, they then drove off in the said forklift with no explanation."

Most people were running away from the towers and would have taken the road that is on your illustration, straight past the engine, yet no one has ever come forward to say they saw it being placed there, how would you explain that sir?

 

[colinz]

Lets assume that you are right for the sake of a sensible debate....how did it get there then?

The average occupancy of a single square mile in New York is 69,400 people over the 22 square miles of Manhattan Island (just over 1.5 million people), which means in the 4 square miles of the financial district there should be at any one time around 280,000 people in that area. Would you agree with that?

Let's reduce that number for the sake of people on vacation, in a building or having a poop etc, and take a percentage of those people, lets say 50% of the 280,000 which is 140,000 people, dont forget that all buildings, especially those that close to the events were being evacuated at this time, so there were probably more people outside than inside.

I would imagine that out of those 140,000 people over those 4 square miles, some one by now would have come forward and said "You know what, I saw a forklift capable of lifting the remains of a 3 to 6,000 pound engine onto the side walk, place it under the scaffolding in broad daylight while complete mayhem was ensuing less than 400 meters away, they then drove off in the said forklift with no explanation."

Most people were running away from the towers and would have taken the road that is on your illustration, straight past the engine, yet no one has ever come forward to say they saw it being placed there, how would you explain that sir?

A theory & thats all it is. (but at least it shows how easily some things can be done)
The engine could have been sitting on the first tier of the scaffolding covered in taupaulin or what ever, then simply lowered down.
Which raises an interesting point do the other pieces of wreckage also end up in areas under going construction work. Or were they photo shopped like the fuselage on top of WTC5

A classic way of making the horizontal walk way on scaffolding is by using tempory attachable aluminum planks which very easily clip on and off with great ease from the frame…. As demonstrated here

 

[So.CalGull]

I see your picture and agree that it could have been placed there ready to be "lowered down", realistically I do not agree that is what happened, as they would have had to had some kind of jig and lowering system in order to do that, one that can lift a 3,000lb engine, which in its self is quite sizeable and would need something stronger than standard scaffold as shown in your picture.

Can you answer my question how not one person has come forward and claimed they were in on the cover up....using my loose figures above, do you not agree that keeping over 100,000 people quiet and sticking to the same story would be a very hard thing to do?

In fact I do know of 3 people who are not in on the cover up, my brother and two of his work mates, who witnessed with their own eyes planes hitting the second tower.

Honestly, I am interested how your theory can explain this issue away.

 

[So.CalGull]

OK, enough going back and editing pictures with your colored arrows etc.

Simple question: How come not one person has come forward and claimed they were in on the cover up....using my loose figures above, do you not agree that keeping over 100,000 people quiet and sticking to the same story would be a very hard thing to do?

I have given you the benefit of doubt regarding your last few posts, please respect my question and answer it.

 

[colinz]

I see your picture and agree that it could have been placed there ready to be "lowered down", realistically I do not agree that is what happened, as they would have had to had some kind of jig and lowering system in order to do that, one that can lift a 3,000lb engine, which in its self is quite sizeable and would need something stronger than standard scaffold as shown in your picture.

Can you answer my question how not one person has come forward and claimed they were in on the cover up....using my loose figures above, do you not agree that keeping over 100,000 people quiet and sticking to the same story would be a very hard thing to do?

In fact I do know of 3 people who are not in on the cover up, my brother and two of his work mates, who witnessed with their own eyes planes hitting the second tower.

Honestly, I am interested how your theory can explain this issue away.

This question is asked on a lot of forums discussing 9/11. Many truthers just point to the "Manhattan Project" as to an example of scores of thousands keeping quiet about a secret operation.

The whole 9/11 IMHO would have been highly compartmentalised on a need to know basis, probably only a hundred or so people needed to have had, a complete overview on the full operational details.

Firstly you need to know the exact location where your brother & work mates were, they may have seen a missile as discussed by Rosa in an earlier post. Or simply saw the explosion and become influenced by what they saw on television.

There is the case of Clifton Cloud who allegedly submitted footage of the 2nd impact, only to go on record and say that he couldn't remember seeing a plane until he got home and saw it on TV.

On a none 9/11 forum someone submitted a photo from the nearby Millenium hotel, (taken I think minutes after the first hit) which shows the whole WTC plaza/ concourse area deserted. Yet this person goes on to describe seeing burning bodies strapped to airline passenger seats.

OK, enough going back and editing pictures with your colored arrows etc

They are not my pictures I haven't touched the arrows, right click properties, if you want to see who's they are.



.

 

[So.CalGull]

True to form Colin, you answered my direct question with several other questions redirecting from my point, I will ask you for a third and final time:

How come not one person has come forward and claimed they were in on the cover up....using my loose figures above, do you not agree that keeping over 100,000 people quiet and sticking to the same story would be a very hard thing to do?

If you can not directly answer a very simple question then you have bigger issues than the ones you show here, but I digress...

The whole 9/11 IMHO would have been highly compartmentalised on a need to know basis, probably only a hundred or so people needed to have had, a complete overview on the full operational details.

So are you saying he was not at a high enough level to be told to be quiet and forget what he saw, funny how they also forgot to tell over 100,000 other people, you really do give the US government to much credit, if you lived here, you would understand how political life works on a day to day basis, as I said before this is the same government that could not keep one women quiet about a blow job.

Firstly you need to know the exact location where your brother & work mates were, they may have seen a missile as discussed by Rosa in an earlier post. Or simply saw the explosion and become influenced by what they saw on television.

This makes no sense at all, you have stated that no planes were used, my brother flies over 150,000 miles a year on all variations of planes used here in the US domestic airlines. He knows a plane when he sees one...even this year he had a nightmare/flashback about what he saw, when you drive by LAX here in LA you fly under the flight path around 300 - 400 feet, you should see him shiver when he hears the engine noise that close, terrifying, 100 Decibels of very obvious sound. When a plane flies below 1000 feet, as was the case here, the noise was heard 10 - 15 seconds before the plane was seen, people were in the streets looking up...he was there you were not. Who should I believe? My own brother or a Kiwi on an English Football forurm....?

 

[colinz]

and your theory that the engine was dropped off by the agents of this cover up whilst 1000`s of witnesses were standing within viewing distance,all of whom saw nothing makes much more sense

but thats not the only wreckage is it collinz?
here is some of the fuselage

if there were no planes collinz why is there debris and how is it possible remains of some of those on flights 11 and 175 were identified amongst the debris of the towers?

you wanted eye witnesses well there is a tonne of them here with what they saw that day.

United Airlines Flight 175 Crash Evidence - 911myths

considering you no longer answer any questions put to you on this thread. i suspect because you dont know what you are talking about may i kindly suggest you now off

That is the only wreckage of fuselage there is from the 9/11 767s, Just another prop like the engine under the scaffolding.

"New York City, October 25, 2001 -- A portion of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 on the roof of WTC 5. FEMA Photo/Gene Corley"

Plenty of time to get it there for the photo opportunity. Or may be just a bit of photo shopping given the back ground. Who knows ?
.

As for your link.

Here's the Carmen Taylor shot. Which is simply a still from the faked CNN Hezakhani footage.

 

[colinz]

So.CalGull

How come not one person has come forward and claimed they were in on the cover up

Why would they if they've been well rewarded or know of the dire consequences.

So are you saying he was not at a high enough level to be told to be quiet and forget what he saw, funny how they also forgot to tell over 100,000 other people,

Did you mean to say that it would have been mainly eye witnesses that made up your figure of the 100,000 people, that you think would have been needed to pull off 9/11 ?
I thought you were refering to the operational side.

Who should I believe? My own brother or a Kiwi on an English Football forurm....?

To me your also just another anonymous person posting on a footy forum, without verifying an eye witness, you can't even say where they were when they witnessed the 2nd impact.
. I think you've been reading to many of pasta's posts about his sister in law.

 

[So.CalGull]

As I thought, you are unable to answer a simple question, and resort to low level bitchy comments, shame.

For you to question mine or my families reputation when you do not know us, is tantamount to slander....step carefully sir.

More importantly, who do you think should start on Sunday, I assume you will be watching/listenting?