An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

reply to post by GenRadek


When I said they had ten years to wire the buildings, why do you automagically assume they were wired 10 years earlier? They could have easily done it six months earlier...the point was they had plenty of time.

Besides, missiles were the likely cause of at least the North Tower's impact:

letsrollforums.com...

reply to post by Yankee451




Oh lord. Youre one of them arent you? Great, 10 years later and we still have people believing it was missiles!! Good grief.

But hey, you know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Show me any missile in the world's arsenal (including Russia, China, Iran, Israel, etc.), that has the same shape, wingspan, length and engines that match up to a 767. Or to make it easier, any missile with a 767's wingspan and two engines hanging off them.

Originally posted by Turkenstein
reply to post by -W1LL

 

There are very few conspiracy theories that I believe in. 1) JFK was executed by proponents of our government and I truly feel Bush Sr. had a direct hand in it. 2) 9-11 was executed by proponents of our government with bush Sr. (and company) had a direct hand in. 3) Obama is not a natural born American and his election was an executed plan by TPTB, which I am sure Bush Sr. would have had knowledge of seeing how he was the CIA director (not immediately) after #1. There is one common link in these three attrocities and my only question is, WHY does bush Sr. hate America (or love money) so much that he is willing to ruin it for all of us "undeserveds?" [/quot


A kinder gentler Nazi Germany .....he doesn't hate America trust me. We are cousins with Rome and Nazi Germany(ashkeNAZI)

reply to post by Yankee451


My two favorite lines from that exercise in delusion:

If the Towers were mostly pre-demolished, with floors empty or nonexistent, some missiles would have traveled right through the building:

Multiple missiles must have been used, from multiple angles:

That is almost beyond reason. The buildings were pre-demolished? Multiple missiles? And no witnesses to those "multiple missiles" a few hundred feet over their heads? In downtown Manhattan? In the middle of the morning on a business day? That would mean the conspiracy must now include all residents of New York City. And all persons working in Manhattan. And all tourist.

reply to post by GenRadek


They have these things called "hyperlinks" now.

reply to post by hooper


It is a discussion best left for that thread, no? I am allowed to link elsewhere, you are allowed to follow the link, or not follow it, but it's rude to discuss it on this thread.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by -W1LL

 

what are your thoughts on this it is somewhat new to me is there any evidence for what Clarke claims.?

Clarke is controlled opposition.

Planes can't do what we were shown on TV; it's not possible. By pretending to shed suspicion on CIA regarding "hijackers", Clarke is reinforceing the lie that it IS possible.

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says they can is either lying or a fool.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

Give it up. It's you who are a fool.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ecoparity

 

I dont doubt in a controlled setting they would be stable, but how well would they last out of the packaging, rigged up, exposed to the elements?

We are talking about them being indoors in a climate controlled environment, basically.

reply to post by Yankee451


There's no doubt that something impacted the towers, but this is also where it gets to confusion.

In my most subjective possible thought, a missile alone would not guarantee a success nor a 'plane on its own, but a 'plane equipped with an explosive device, (could be a missile) would be more successful a scenario.

There are problems visa ve the North tower being hit by a 'plane as large as a 767- as the Naudet brothers film has clearly be doctored with, you only have to look at the video to see the wing hole expanding before your eyes after collision, and of course later video from other angles show a reduced hole. That does not mean that it was not a 'plane that hit it though, on the contrary it means that a fairly larged winged object did hit it, just not something as large as a 767. That brings in all manner of awkward questions of which I do not as yet, have answers for, but as to the video, it was tampered with, no doubt about that, and people of any persuasion have to take that into account.

That also means that Clarke is not necessarily a control figure, and in all cases it does not mean that it was the initial attacks from the air that brought down the two towers.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by -W1LL

 

what are your thoughts on this it is somewhat new to me is there any evidence for what Clarke claims.?

Clarke is controlled opposition.

Planes can't do what we were shown on TV; it's not possible. By pretending to shed suspicion on CIA regarding "hijackers", Clarke is reinforceing the lie that it IS possible.

Lightweight aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns. Anyone who says they can is either lying or a fool.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

CARE TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE HOW THIS HAPPENED DURING THE WAR.



So how did this aircraft with a fraction of the mass traveling at a fraction of the speed go through the steel hull of this ship! Unlike the towers NO windows etc so lets hear what you have to say!

reply to post by Yankee451


Still on about your missiles then with NO real evidence ,found any drawings with a concrete core yet?

Your grasp of the energy and physics in this is really sad.

Also what about your machine that you claimed was able to do real time graphics of the planes when all it could do was a coloured line on screen!

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Yankee451

 

There are problems visa ve the North tower being hit by a 'plane as large as a 767- as the Naudet brothers film has clearly be doctored with, you only have to look at the video to see the wing hole expanding before your eyes after collision,

Care to link to this video I must see this expanding hole you talk about?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Still on about your missiles then with NO real evidence ,found any drawings with a concrete core yet?

We had a discussion about it, and this is an example of my changing my position based on new information. Something no one in the OS camp has been able to do. I have changed my position several times based on previously unknown info. Does that make me weak in your eyes?

WMD, I have been studying the core, and it appears we both may be right.

The plans and the permits were in place before 68 when the building codes changed...this makes sense as to why so many folks wrote about the concrete cores, but why there's so little photographic record of it. They may have started with the concrete cores, but then changed the plans after the building codes changed...it'd be a big money saver.

Check this discussion:

letsrollforums.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your grasp of the energy and physics in this is really sad.

Also what about your machine that you claimed was able to do real time graphics of the planes when all it could do was a coloured line on screen!

Anyone bringing physics into the mix is muddying up the waters and I don't know what you mean about the graphic capability of my aging computer, but again, if you'd like to discuss, or in your case criticize my missiles thread, I suggest growing a set and doing it in the appropriate forum. Most ATS posters are too scared to go there though, as you can see by the hijacking of this thread.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Oh yeah...you don't read threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by wmd_2008


I've linked it that many times and I should not have to as it is the only one in town by the Naudet brothers.

Just keep looking at the North tower footage, over and over again.

reply to post by wmd_2008


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I've linked it that many times and I should not have to as it is the only one in town by the Naudet brothers.

Just keep looking at the North tower footage, over and over again.

You DONT see the hole till the smoke clears ! so how does it enlarge?

This I really must hear about!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Come now WMD. You know very well any thread which strays from the approved spectrum of hypotheses are verbotten on this forum and will be banished to HOAXland; if not for that we could be happily sparring here on ATS.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Oh yeah...you don't read threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He mentions ships because

a) made of steel
b) hit by way way smaller lighter plane at a far slower speed
c) it goes through the steel!

You claim aluminium cant go through the steel, the reason it can is the same reason this can happen!

bird strike



or this

Damage to shuttle window



So are you going to explain how the Kamikazie plane went through a steel hull or should that be why it shouldn't under your warped idea of physics!

Also like you I would change my mind if you could actually PROVE anything you claim.

Maybe you could draw a diagram with that machine you claim faked the aircraft images not only on live tv but in every video or picture taken by anyone round New York is that not what you claim!

reply to post by wmd_2008


not really interested. apples to banans.