PhD Kevin Barrett in an interview with Russia Today RT about who really did 9/11

reply to post by Danbones

hope your house doesn't collapse when you light your stove

Either validate your claim , or admit that you were wrong and just made that lie up , thinking you wouldn't be called on it .

And , my house isn't constructed like WTC7 , so that would be irrelevant and moot .

reply to post by backinblack

....whack job theories that were probably started by your mates to muddy the waters..

"Dr." Judy Woods. Look her up. Holograms, space-based weapons. Comes from HER. She isn't trying to make "truthers" look silly on purpose...is she? She IS making them look silly, but doesn't seem intentional... she seems quite convinced of this lunacy.

Former ATS Forum expert John Lear. Check the archives. For threads he participated in. Holograms. DEW (directed energy weapons), all aimed form space-based orbiting platforms. HIS claims, HIS assertions.

You're new at this, it seems. There is a lot of history to catch up on.........

reply to post by weedwhacker


Read it all but the fact is, it's rarely mention or accepted here by truthers..
I only see the debunkers continually bring it up..Wonder why??

BTW, I'll ask one simple question..
How big was the initial hole in the pentagon, before the wall collapsed..??
Just a rough estimate of height and width will do...

Here's a pic to help you..

reply to post by backinblack


Here is a link for you: Pentagon Hole Debunked

In case you choose not to read it, here is a quote from the article:

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

I understand that probably won't do it for you, as Popular Mechanics is a bit of a sore spot for Troofers. A Jew must run the magazine, or something...

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by backinblack

 

Here is a link for you: Pentagon Hole Debunked

In case you choose not to read it, here is a quote from the article:

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

I understand that probably won't do it for you, as Popular Mechanics is a bit of a sore spot for Troofers. A Jew must run the magazine, or something...

And I thought my question was pretty plain..What size was the hole??
Is that too difficult for you??

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Well I guess 'evidence' is subjective at best.

If you mean 'evidence' that gets dissected under a microscope by preselected committees, discussed amongst preselected scholars, printed into text books, disseminated in schools, discussed on government-own television, distributed into brain-dead heads and drilled into society as a whole then, yup....you're right.

reply to post by backinblack


I knew you wouldn't follow the link.

READ THE ARTICLE

It explains why the hole was 75 feet wide and not 125 feet wide.

But it isn't from infowars.net or prisonplanet.com, so I wouldn't expect you to read it.

reply to post by Human_Alien


What are your comments in response to?

I'm sorry you harbor such animosity towards education.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Seems us uneducated peoples knows hows to use them-there back-button much more better than you does. But here, let me. I is sure you is busy doing something really important and educational-ish

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

No offense to you, but people choose not to believe in (or remain skeptical about) alien visitations or 9/11 conspiracy theories because there is no hard scientific evidence to back up such radical claims. If there was inconclusive evidence that pointed to 9/11 conspiracy theories/alien visitations, then many (if not all) skeptics would shift their views. That should go without saying.

I cant speak for weedwhacker, but I come to this site not to argue or angrily debate, but to exchange knowledge and information, and to learn about what other people believe. Things like this interest me.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by backinblack

 

I knew you wouldn't follow the link.

READ THE ARTICLE

It explains why the hole was 75 feet wide and not 125 feet wide.

But it isn't from infowars.net or prisonplanet.com, so I wouldn't expect you to read it.

You are wrong..I did read it..Even looked up Mete's bio..Structural engineer..
But I dont see a 75' wide hole in that pic..Care to point it out to me?
I must be blind

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by backinblack

 

I knew you wouldn't follow the link.

READ THE ARTICLE

It explains why the hole was 75 feet wide and not 125 feet wide.

But it isn't from infowars.net or prisonplanet.com, so I wouldn't expect you to read it.

Maybe if you stopped sounding off to every ones posts, you wouldn't be so confused as to whose saying what.
Give it a rest. You need not comment to everyone.

reply to post by Human_Alien


I was not calling you un-educated, so there is no reason to take offense. I was using the term "education" as a way of seeking knowledge, using evidence, and coming to conclusions. You must be used to personal attacks.

I thought your comments were in response to my earlier post, but I wasn't sure. I apologize for asking you to clarify, but there was really no reason to be facetious about it.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Are you seriously quoting Popular Mechanics as a real source of information? I can tell by your posts, usually calling people racist if they question Israel, that you are in no way free of biases.

Popular Mechanics?

reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp


Yep, and they say a 75' hole which I don't seem to see on the pic I posted above..
Strange huh..A dissapearing hole..

A pair of these 7300lb babies moving at 500+mph will punch twin holes through any edifice or at the very least leave 2 massive dents on the facade yet there was only a little hole... and nothing on either side,please dont try to insult out intelligence by saying the wings conveniently folded neatly just because they said or wrote so..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e213b1bd9aba.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by backinblack


The picture you have displayed obscures the view with smoke, spewing foam, and a fire truck. I'm sure you would not have selected that picture on purpose now, would you? Because that would be disingenuous... And you just want to find out the truth and all.

Well, here is a better picture:



See where the two firefighters are standing, next to the two by the fire truck? It is just to the right and above them (it is also above to spool that is sitting on it's side). There is fire burning in the hole, and substantial damage around it.

Here is another one taken shortly after the crash, and the hole is right about the suited man:



That view is a little obscured, I will grant you that. So here is one, actually from a conspiracy theory website, that highlights the damage and where the plane went in. There are even arrows pointing to where the hole is, directly above the spools (but not really, due to the angle):



Big hole, huh?

Wanna know something funny? All of these pictures were deliberately taken from Conspiracy Theory websites

reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp


When have I ever called anyone an anti-semite? You are referring to a comment I made about an individual post in one of your threads. The post was not directed at you, rather an individual who decided to call Jews, blacks, and Muslims "worthless." I actually never called the guy a racist or an anti-semite, I only said something along the lines of "well, that about sums up this thread for me" meaning that I would not be commenting on it because an individual was allowed to make such a disparaging remark. I was not calling your thread anti-semetic, but I guess it upset you so much that you felt a need to come on to a completely different thread and make note of it.

You will be glad to know that my comment on your thread was removed for being "off topic."

Also, as far as Popular Mechanics is concerned, what about that publication bothers you? Is it libelious? Does it falsify information? Is it a part of the conspiracy? Is it owned by a Zionist or a member of the NWO? I would like to know, in which case I can revoke my subscription.

Thanks.

reply to post by SL55T0T0


Yeah, structural engineers usually don't know what they're talking about.

They are called "portable holes" and they were invented by a guy on Buggs Bunny.
affordablehousinginstitute.org...