Please stop with the crazy claims!

reply to post by johnlear


Wow. That is one confused and convoluted story.

I would refer you to the title of the thread.

Thank you for the entertainment.

reply to post by Netstriker


If you wanna play with the big dogs you gotta pee in the tall grass.

How about reading up on the full picture before rushing to judgment and calling things ‘confused and convoluted’. Or were you talking about the original official ‘theory’?

There were no planes on 9-11, that’s for sure. Holograms are optional. Believe whatever you want. But there were no Boeings.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/23/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Of course there was, what about the crash victims, the plane wreckage that people had seen, The planes that people had seen! I just don't understand why you don't believe their was any planes, it would have been cheaper, easier, and more simple for the government if there was planes.

reply to post by open mind


Dear open mind:

Just a year and a half ago, I knew nothing about 9-11 conspiracy theories. Because I didn’t want to know. I thought it unfathomable that 9-11 was entirely self-inflicted false flag. I didn’t think we were that stupid or mean. But then, whilst researching the Anthrax issue, something that had always bothered me, I stumbled across 9-11 stories and a ‘whole new world’ opened up for me. I researched every possible scenario and was able to put the total puzzle together. There is no longer a single 9-11 issue for me without a logical explanation.

The 9-11 (USA government) operation got the go-ahead because accessible oil reserves had reached a critical lowpoint, and Israel would not allow us to buy — en masse / in large quantities — oil from Saddam. Something had to ‘give’, something needed to be ‘done’. So the 9-11 ‘emergency brake’ was pulled. But all this is part of a bigger plan to commandeer the last of the world’s remaining economically accessible petroleum reserves — which happen to all be in the Middle East. Therefore, Iran is next on the list. Her oil fields are directly next to the Iraqi ones (some as in less than 100 miles away). We don’t give a hoot about Teheran or Tabriz, or their nuclear program. But we will occupy those Persian oil fields, that’s a certainty.

Sorry about that digression, but I had to put things in context. Our government didn’t use planes because it wouldn’t have worked.

They wouldn’t have vanished into the towers. They would have made a ‘mess’. Fuselage, wings, engine parts, passengers strapped in their seats, etc. would have been strewn all over the streets. The drama would have been everywhere except at the twin tower perimeter column walls where the impact holes would have been much smaller and looked completely different.

We the American public would have never made the mental connection between cause of the damage to the WTC’s (planes) and their effects (complete annihilation of the buildings). And this failed false flag event scenario is only even theoretically imaginable if we discount everything life-long pilots such as John Lear have said — that it would have been near impossible to precision pilot the aircraft into the buildings in the first place. Not to mention the Pentagon ‘crash’ which would have been theoretically impossible no matter what — planes can not hovercraft/skim five feet horizontally above the ground.

Open mind, if you’re really interested in understanding 9-11, research it and read whatever you can get your eyes on. It, the revelation, will then come to you.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by open mind

 

They wouldn’t have vanished into the towers. They would have made a ‘mess’. Fuselage, wings, engine parts, passengers strapped in their seats, etc. would have been strewn all over the streets. The drama would have been everywhere except at the twin tower perimeter column walls where the impact holes would have been much smaller and looked completely different.

Except for the fact that physics say that is what would have and did happen. Please refer to the Purdue University animation for example.

Also, if the could perfectly time explosives with holograms, they would have been able to perfectly time the explosives to allow for a real plane to penetrate into the building so once again, no need for an impossible hologram.

And once again, not a shred of evidence showing a hologram of the sophistication needed, is even possible. More importantly, a hologram would not be needed.

reply to post by jfj123


The wizard is right on the money as is Lear with the exception of a few key points which are not enough to debunk their theories. The people have been deceived on a scale so massive that it defies comprehension- which is exactly what it was designed to do. It is not a failed red-flag op. Quite the contrary- it worked like a charm.

The government does not give a hoot about conspiracy theorists and never has- in fact most conspiracy theorists are unwittingly propagating disinformation causing even more confusion and distrust with facts- clearly affirming incompetence- which only serves to support the government not being able to pull off such a massive ruse.

It all becomes a self reinforcing delusion leaving the people split and in argument- securing the public trust by revealing a certain lunacy towards conspiracy theorists.

The repetition of another magic bullet scenario- yet again the people fall for it. More aptly put its called divide and conquer. This allows the people to fight amongst ourselves thereby separating us even farther apart- while the elite laugh all the way to the bank- and they certainly milked this one for all its worth.

David Copperfield made a jet disappear on the tarmac- the Statue of Liberty disappeared and many more events. The powers that be are even better magicians- thus anything is possible.

And while we argue fact and fiction- our freedoms are being systematically destroyed and many times with our go ahead for the safety of the nation.

Everyday this becomes more evident- the debunker's are relentless, repetitive and they will never stop- EVER.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by dk3000]

Originally posted by jfj123
Please refer to the Purdue University animation for example.

You mean the animation that shows the plane being shredded as soon as it hits the building, and not makeing it too far inside? And that the wings barely make it inside the building.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

If you actually watched the video, you would see that quite a few support columns were severely damaged by the plane. This is very easy to see and not debatable unless you believe the animation itself is not accurate. Do you believe the Purdue animation is accurate? YES or NO?

If you say yes, then you must agree with the fact that the video shows the plane damaging a number of columns as it goes into and out of the building AS SEEN ON THE VIDEO.

If you say no, please explain why the Purdue video is wrong.
Thanks

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you believe the Purdue animation is accurate? YES or NO?

Yes, it is acurate in the way that it shows the planes did not do enough damage to cause the collapse.

So obviously you agree that the plane damaged alot of core and perimeter columns which would lead to building instability. One column support wasn't damaged. Two column supports weren't damaged. A LOT of column supports were damaged according to the video with which you agree.

Originally posted by jfj123
So obviously you agree that the plane damaged alot of core and perimeter columns which would lead to building instability.

NO, The planes did not damage that many collums according to reports.

NIST and all other reports state the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.

Then you disagree with the Purdue video

Originally posted by jfj123




Then you disagree with the Purdue video

No i agree with the way it shows the plane being shredded and caused little damage to the collums because it was in little pieces.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


But you can actually see those columns being damaged in the video. It's not debatable. You can actually count quite a few columns being broken or damaged by the plane debris.

Originally posted by jfj123
You can actually count quite a few columns being broken or damaged by the plane debris.

Yes you said it,, "A FEW COLLUMNS"

A few collumns out of hundreds.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


OK you've been accused of misquoting multiple times. This is another very obvious example. I did not say a few columns, I said QUITE A FEW.

You say several hundred columns, I'll take that to mean 200.

I counted 24 columns in the video.
That means 12 percent of the weight had to be redistributed to other columns. Obviously I am being very conservative as I am not including damaged columns outside of the frames from the Purdue video. An almost instant 12 % shift in weight is a big adjustment for a building to make.

Please stop MISQUOTING people. Instead of opening up debate points, misquoting makes it look like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

Originally posted by jfj123
Please stop MISQUOTING people. Instead of opening up debate points, misquoting makes it look like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

I did not misquote you.

Please show me any evidence from a reliable source that states that the amount of collumns hit by the plane was enough to cause the collapse.




[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please stop MISQUOTING people. Instead of opening up debate points, misquoting makes it look like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

I did not misquote you.

Yes you did. Here's the proof.

I said this

You can actually count quite a few columns being broken or damaged by the plane debris.

This is you misquoting what I said

Yes you said it,, "A FEW COLLUMNS"
A few collumns out of hundreds.

You dropped the word "QUITE" from my statement to change my statement to what you want it to say. This is proof you did indeed misquote me.

I understand you may have a different viewpoint and that is fine but misleading and misquoting is not a good way to present your point and intentionally misquoting people is just not acceptable in my book. Things like this completely derail and bring down a discussion and frankly it is beneath what ATS stands for-IN MY OPINION.

Originally posted by jfj123
You dropped the word "QUITE" from my statement to change my statement to what you want it to say. This is proof you did indeed misquote me.

Even with "quite" you still stated the few collumns part with agress with what i have stated.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Even with "quite" you still stated the few collumns part with agress with what i have stated.

Obviously by this statement you are intent on purposely misquoting and misrepresenting information on this thread. To me, thats fraud, plain and simple. So whats the point? Why bother? You are obviously not interested in finding answers, presenting reasonable view points, etc... Why drag down this thread and ATS in general?