Two events separated by over 60 years. What has that got to do with anything we are talking about?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
there was no moon landing .... discus
- Thread starter Pevenseagull
- Start date
Two events separated by over 60 years. What has that got to do with anything we are talking about?
How can my brain hold so much bullshit? It's you trying to claim your the scientist, not me! that's whats bullshit!
Since1982
Well-known member
I've been half following this thread with an increasing sense of disbelief at the arguments presented by those who see conspiracy at every turn. So, a couple of questions from me:
1. Please provide evidence for this statement made by Falmer "why do the people who helped design and construct the actual towers all claim it impossible for it to have fallen down as if it were a tower made of matches." Really? They have all said this, in public and in a way which can be evidenced?
2. If they weren't real planes, what were they?
Ta.
1. Please provide evidence for this statement made by Falmer "why do the people who helped design and construct the actual towers all claim it impossible for it to have fallen down as if it were a tower made of matches." Really? They have all said this, in public and in a way which can be evidenced?
2. If they weren't real planes, what were they?
Ta.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
Erm errhh well errh it was a terror attack caused by hitler on his own people blamed on the russians so they'd all justify a war. It's the tactic used for war.
yes i can supply you with evidence but it seems for some reason anything via a video (visual learning) is deemed on NSC nonsense with little evidence.
If this is true, some historians believe it to be, then the situation then was pulling the wool over the eyes of the citizens of a nation will limited media, no internet, civil rights groups, official investigations etc etc etc.
No relation to the situation today.
And why can't a modern day government do the same? N.Korea has all the things you've mentioned yet you'll admit they're just as brainwashed?
Because most of the videos I imagine you believe are not produced by experts in their field or backed up by scientific evidence.
I'll give you an example.
Regarding the videos spread around the internet that no planes struck the towers and that they were CGI. A video EXPERT said the following:
Holmgren and Webfairy base their analysis on the fact that a 767 is not visible in the 1st strike mpeg, and therefore was not there in real life. Of course it's not visible-the reduction in resolution removed half the visual data, and compression artifacts distort the shape of the plane. Holmgren and Webfairy show a profound lack of knowledge of digital imagery by failing to consider that this movie was a highly compromised version of the original footage.
readingstockport
New member
Brunel University. Graduated 1984. Your scientific qualifications are what? For the sake of not making you look a complete f***ing retard I will allow you to claim your 11 plus.
Is this for real? Falmer you think this supports your case?
A man who is wanted for the murder of his first wife in the US is saying he can't face these charges because the government will kill him because of what he knows about 911.
My God this has got too funny.
Seriously, you don't have to prove yourself to me, remember I'm just your stupid conspiracy freak-show, why do feel the need to impress?
You did your 11 plus, you must be at least in your 40's and your bragging about your education and intelligence on a discussion forum. Well done mate, i hope I end up like you.
I think this supports my case? yeah along with the other 2 videos, care to right them off too?
jesus your dumb, It's a man who helped design the twin towers in an interview way before 2001 proving the towers can't be knocked down by planes, not a murderer!
Last edited:
See my post a few up
Alleged anomalies in the few low-resolution frames of this video that show the moment of impact have been amplified into ludicrous conclusions.
Since1982
Well-known member
Thanks for the video link. This suggests one person, pre the actual event, believed the towers could withstand multiple strikes by an airliner - I guess he wouldn't be the first person whose theoretical view was later proved wrong by actual events but I take your recommendation of his view in good faith. However, the expertise of the person in this video may not be quite what it might first appear as it is reported that he was neither an engineer nor involved in the design or construction of the towers thus his views on what the towers could withstand can not be considered expert opinion. An architect he first started working there when Leslie R. Robertson hired him to assess the damage done by the Feb. 1993 bombing. Robertson was the structural engineer who had designed the towers and had a contract with the Port Authority. In a certain sense though he was right as none of the professional reports indicated that impact damage was the principle cause of the collapses which are blamed on the failure of structural elements exposed to fire after their fireproofing had been removed. He did of course die in the attack, reporting back via his radio that the express elevators were in danger of collapse minutes before the buildings fell.
So my original question remains - where is the evidence that all experts agree the towers could not collapse in this way.
And my second question remains as well please.
Ta
Probably because that was what he was contracted to do. Guess what, he failed.
And I'm dumb, please give examples of why you would think that. I can give numerous examples questioning your intelligence.
