Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I'm sorry - you've completely lost me here.editor said:
Only one person here mentioning 'invisible missiles, pre-wired WTC towers, holographic planes and remote control aircraft' on this thread. That's you.
...but as you've bought it up - what was your rationale for dismissing the notion that the aircraft could have been 'remote-controlled', again?
<joke>I wanted a source for your figures because (in light of what John Young said) 66% of the papers being 'unavailable' didn't make sense. I couldn't find it on the BBC, so I asked you.
Well, it turns out that the remainder are due for release in July, this being only the 'preliminary' report. So it's not as if the rest is being hidden from public scrutiny...
Your complete inability to address Jangla's points perhaps indicates that you were not that familiar with your source material?
Jangla's questions are perfectly valid when considered in the light of - for instance - "Fire Engineering" magazine's January 4, 2002 comments regarding a previous investigation:
Fire Engineering said:
editor
hiraethified
Oh forgive me - I naturally assumed that when certain people were expressing doubts about the findings of the official report into the WTC collapse, their doubts would be based on their endlessly repeated 'alternative' claims about what hit the towers in the first place - ergo, any report would be, by definition, a 'cover up'.Backatcha Bandit said:
If we're all agreed that there were no remote controlled planes, invisible missiles, missile-firing pretend planes or self-imploding towers, I apologise for raising the subject and will be happy to issues relating to the report.
So, are we all agreed then?
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
searching for something relevent to the thread i came across this.... http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/2004/05/liberal_media_s.html
now that's proper derailing, we're just a bunch of amateurs here
now that's proper derailing, we're just a bunch of amateurs here
editor said:
Well, the computer simulation of the south tower attack does not bear any resemblance to the reality we all witnessed that day. It is an indisputable fact that the aircraft was banking hard to port at the moment it impacted the south tower, but according to the NIST simulation it shows the plane hitting the building in the horizontal plane. It is also an indisputable fact the aircraft entered the southeast corner of the building and then burst through the east face in a huge fireball of burning fuel and debris, after all untold millions of us watched the event actually unfolding live on TV, however, for reasons best known to themselves the NIST simulation does not show this happening. Instead, it shows the plane following a completely different trajectory to the one we know it took!
So, who should we believe editor - our own eyes bearing witness in all there millions that day, or a report compiled by 200 blokes who appear not to have seen what we all saw?
A brainwashed religious nut is someone who refuses to accept evidence he sees with his own eyes, preferring instead to reserve judgment to some higher authority... rather like you reserve your own judgment here to the "higher authority" of 200 so called "experts." In fact, you barely miss an opportunity to give the benefit of any doubt to the war criminals in Washington, Whitehall and the mainstream media, every chance you get.
slaar said:
Well, if you want to demolish my argument slaar, why don't you produce photographic evidence for the forum of the plane striking the building in the horizontal plane, thereby corroborating the NIST simulation?
I have produced a famous photograph that appeared on the front page of the New York Times, clearly showing the plane banking hard to port, just a split second before it impacted the building. In addition, the aircraft is estimated to have been traveling at 590 mph - that is 865 fps - which means, given the arc of the planes trajectory, its immediate proximity to the target building and its steep banking angle, that it had no window in which to level out and correct its aim for the centre of the building before it hit the southeast corner. Furthermore, I have also provided photographic evidence of the aviation fuel fireball that exploded before all our eyes outside of the east face of the building only a moment after the initial impact. This image flatly contradicts the NIST simulation which shows all of the aircrafts fuel spilling out inside the building!
So, what should we believe in your opinion slaar? Our own eyes or the NIST simulation?
editor said:
By "everyone else" you mean YOU, right?
This...
And this...
And NOT this...
(Real Player download) http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/wtc_plane_segment_2.rm
Given that you're accusing the US government of the biggest and most influential cover-up in history, you'll forgive me for suggesting the burden of proof is on you. If you'd like to post details of your, presumably extensive, physics and engineering qualifications along with an argument slightly more detailed than one still photo and one cartoon drawing then I might reconsider. I have no idea where the plane would have struck would it have continued, I have no idea where it was coming from, how fast it was banking, how responsive its controls were, how close it was to the building. You've got to be more accurate than that.bigfish said:
slaar said:
You mean that very same US government that lied through it teeth to the UN and the world in order to start an illegal and brutal war? Why don't you take the same tack with the NIST report slaar, instead of simply deferring to its "higher authority" without question?
I have presented a single photograph of a fireball of aviation fuel and debris exploding out of the east face of tower 2. There are literally thousands of similar images freely available from multiple sources all showing the same event from various angles taken at fractionally different time intervals. The evidence, as they say, is incontrovertible, an aviation fuel fireball really did explode outside of the building, honest to god. And yet, the NIST computer simulation wants us to believe all of the aviation fuel got dumped inside the building... which is very odd indeed, don't you think?
fela fan said:
Why don't you go off and enjoy the Thai New Year, fela. You're not doing yourself or anyone else any good here.
Lock&Light said:Why don't you go off and enjoy the Thai New Year, fela. You're not doing yourself or anyone else any good here.
Oh look, another spokesman. I'm doing myself lots of good mate, i enjoy what i do. As for the other people you speak of, any names?
I'm leaving tomorrow lock, so you can drop your watchdog duties for a while mate.
And how given that fireball is it possible that a passport of of one of the hijackers floats down to street level to be discovered days later and yet black boxes do not survive?
fela fan said:
Now, now, fela. There's no need for such bitterness.
Lock&Light said:Now, now, fela. There's no need for such bitterness.
No bitterness mate, never was. But i have seen your posts towards me in recent times get somewhat nastier. Perhaps that explains my post just now. A bit of your own medicine perhaps? That was all, i just felt you deserved it! Ta ta for now.
fela fan said:
My opposition to your point of view is as it always has been, but my personal regard for you has also remained quite unchanged. I'm afraid that you have read nastiness where none was intended.
]
fela fan said:
Accepted. Enjoy yourself, fela, and try to get conspiricies out of your mind.
editor said:
I think rasin was talking about a passport and a black box, not questioning the actual object that hit the towers.
It is of course a good question. A fireball like that and one of the hijacker's passports flutters down to the ground completely unsinged .
As if by miracle. I think that is the single biggest piece of evidence that the official story of ineptitued is complete and utter bullshit. How on earch can anything survive such a fireball?
editor
hiraethified
..and directly linked from the homepage of that site...bigfish said:
But there's more! Alex Merklinger is also promoting Why, Golf Power on the very same site!
And what else is Alex keen to promote? How about the Sacred Heart Medical Diet
Naturally. there's the usual slew of 'Mind Development' tapes available too.
Every fucking time, it's the same old story: bonkers sites linking to even more bonkers sites. How the fuck are sane people taken in my these fruitloops?
Lock&Light said:Accepted. Enjoy yourself, fela, and try to get conspiricies out of your mind.
I don't have any in my mind mate! It's completely empty of such crap. It might surprise you, but anything that approaches being a conspiracy then huge alarm bells go off in my head. I have no truck with things that come under this banner. I'm only really intereseted in things i can verify for myself, or that i believe to be the case based on all my own experiences and readings in life.
That's why i cannot accept the conspiracy theory that i see the official version as being. But there we go.
We do not know. Do you?editor said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Raisin D'etre said:
Who is 'we'?
Similar threads
- Locked