Chit Chat
The structure of the building was comprised by 2 big planes flying into them.
Even you have eventually posted something to claim that planes hit the towers.
It did not really matter if the towers, stood upright, collapsed above the impact or totally collapsed.
The news story was rhat planes flew into twin towers.
There is loads of evidence to suggest planes few into WTC & zero evidence to suggest they were holograms.
Dr Wood's observation of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 led her to the conviction that the towers did not collapse but were "dustified" by a directed energy weapon. According to her, dustification involves molecular dissociation and transmutation.
Another nutter.
Sep 20, 2019 -- 10:40AM, terry mccann wrote:
Excellent interview with Dr. Judy Wood ," WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO"? So any questions,so few answers--so far.
The video you were talking about yesterday was an outright lie.
Today you've come up with another video. What are the odds that just like yesterday, this video also doens't exist?
Why do you lie so much?
Impossible to imagine either or them being involved in any nefarious activities!
Such a trustworthy man! He really really cares about the American people
Sep 20, 2019 -- 12:46PM, terry mccann wrote:
I see why a troll would try so hard to discredit what this experts has to say--f ucking hell this is serious stuff "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO"?
The video you are referring to doesn't exist. If it did you would have shared the link by now.
) so as to review it ? https://911planeshoax.com/2014/01/11/proof-that-no-real-planes-were-used-on-911/
Sep 20, 2019 -- 1:04PM, John.W.Henry. wrote:
What did my m8 mexico make of this lot of evidence ? Did he take time off from his latest project for nasa ( sending a man to the north pole apparently ) so as to review it ? https://911planeshoax.com/2014/01/11/proof-that-no-real-planes-were-used-on-911/
1. As terry already told us with his Alaska report, planes did indeed crash into the towers. That subject is done and dusted.
2. The above link is the same that you showed when you claimed the damage done to a person will be the same if he dropped himself on a block of concrete or a block of concrete dropped on him. You did a runner when we asked you to explain that. Im surprised you've brought it up again.
This world is nothing like you think it is 
As you say, you don't have to answer anything. Im just giving you food for thought.
But has decided to present the same argument regardless.
There is nothing in Newton's laws which say a fast moving plane won't damage a building.
All we established John, is that your knowledge of Physics is almost nonexistent.
You could not even answer that really simple Physics question which probed your garbage post was totally incorrect.
Birds are light, which is how they are able to fly. Yet, look at the damage the birds do to an aircraft. If a bird can do that degree of damage to a plane what chance would a plane have against robust steel columns at the World Trade Center?
He sort of got the point then completely forgot it.
Sep 20, 2019 -- 2:28PM, terry mccann wrote:
Thanks John. Lets let these racist liars **** together
You lied for two days in a row about non-existent videos. You are the liar.
This is from the lad who claimed he bought a copy of Agenda21 and looked at the maps in the document.
This from the lad posting racist lies about Rothchild & Henry Kissinger (& many others)
John why would you post anything you claim is Physics related? It is clear you don't have any knowledge of the subject.
For instance I can live with the missiles painted as airplanes theory for the twin towers. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shanksville was just a hole dug up, no plane involved.
In return John gives up his physics theory and terry stops posting on 9/11(5G should keep him busy for a few years).
What you guys say?
Happy to discuss any theory but really do need to know what the theory is before discussing it. Explaining what believe did happen should be on page 1 of the book.
It is not a trick question to ask what happened.
John is an embarrassment posting "Physics " when a child could tell it is garbabage.
Would behaving like adults mean not swearing & no racist posts? If so I doubt our KKK member would agree.
I believe this idea is an extremely high barrier for most people to overcome
however, my views are that this...
Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shanksville was just a hole dug up, no plane involved.
is completely correct
reason being that I see no evidence of a plane having crashed at either sites
if you google plane crashes on land, parts of the plane fuselage are visible post-crash in all pictures
you don't see plane fuselage at either the pentagon or shanksville on 9/11
You are unique in the 9/11 conspiracy believers in the fact you actually express an opinion as to what happened.
It is the WTC crash which has many witnesses so I believe it was 2 planes which crashed.
I do respect you for actually expressing a theory you believe in - John & the racist refuse to do that.
Although Tery has recently posted a link to suggest he believes planes crashed into WTC - needless to say he refused to answer any questions regarding his new beliefs.
Sep 20, 2019 -- 5:49PM, wondersobright wrote:
mexico...the theory is that the planes involved on 9/11 were to some degree fakeI believe this idea is an extremely high barrier for most people to overcomehowever, my views are that this...Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shanksville was just a hole dug up, no plane involved.is completely correctreason being that I see no evidence of a plane having crashed at either sitesif you google plane crashes on land, parts of the plane fuselage are visible post-crash in all picturesyou don't see plane fuselage at either the pentagon or shanksville on 9/11
Ok an opinion but not supported by any links or facts.
Pentagon was hit by a missile. Give us some evidence.
Shanksville was just a hole dug up, no plane involved. Give us some evidence.
I've posted many times on the difference between a high-impact crash and those occurring at take-off or landing. There is a huge difference. I suggest you look into the differences and then reconsider your opinion.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/369576713144561832/
That sure does look like evidence of a plane crash to me.
You can see the fuselage-- but it's in thousands of pieces because that what happens in plane crashes.
The first crash I thought of to make a comparison was the concorde crash. Again fuselage in thousands of pieces.
What was the name of the hurricane.
WTF has it got to do with planes crashing into WTC - as you have said happened??
so if you google united airlines 93 crash, that is the only photo where any significant plane parts (wings etc) are showing
reason being that plane is white
and therefore cannot be UA93 as UA93 was dark blue & grey
also, plane parts of that size would be unmissable even from ground level, and all the video footage from that day shows no sign of any plane parts
If you want to show me a particular photo it's best to post a link.
Shame you failed to comment on the Concorde crash scene.
the plane is the wrong colour & this massive amount of "plane" wreckage cannot be seen in any other photo or video from that day
significant size plane parts there
and there
I've posted many times on the difference between a high-impact crash and those occurring at take-off or landing. There is a huge difference. I suggest you look into the differences and then reconsider your opinion.
Have you done this wonder?
In fact it's very unusual for wings to be any other colour.
Where did the plane, and all of the people onboard it, go?
Whilst not always the most reliable of sites, have a look at the relevant Wikipedia page.
It includes relevant photographs of wreckage along with links to the material referenced within the page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Forty miles further down the new flight path, in rural Somerset County, Terry Butler, 40, was pulling the radiator from a gray 1992 Dodge Caravan at the junkyard where he works. He had been watching the news and knew all flights were supposed to be grounded. He was stunned when he looked up in the sky and saw Flight 93 cutting through the lingering morning fog. "It was moving like you wouldn't believe," he said.
The rogue plane soared over woodland, cattle pastures and cornfields until it passed over Kelly Leverknight's home. She too was watching the news. Her husband, on his regular tour of duty with the Air National Guard's 167th Airlift Wing in Martinsburg, W.Va., had just called to reassure his wife that his base was still operating normally when she heard the plane rush by. "It was headed toward the school," she said, the school where her three children were.
Had Flight 93 stayed aloft a few seconds longer, it would have ploughed into Shanksville-Stonycreek School and its 501 students, grades K through 12. Instead, at 10:06 a.m., the plane smashed into a reclaimed section of an old coal strip mine. The largest pieces of the plane still extant are barely bigger than a telephone book. "I just keep thinking--two miles," said elementary principal Rosemarie Tipton. "There but for the grace of God--two miles."
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174655-4,00.html
By Nancy Gibbs Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2001
people at most.But on this thread we're well into the hundreds of co conspirators.
this...
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/113856696808963105/?lp=true
or this?
The largest pieces of the plane still extant are barely bigger than a telephone book
If you read her article though, it is evidently clear that her approach is that of human interest rather than a forensic engineering study.
No shortage of people saw the plane crash but no one seems to notice this hole being dug,
which is a coincidence because no one noticed the explosives being placed in the building.
So we are back to providing evidence that the photo was photoshopped.
The largest pieces of the plane still extant are barely bigger than a telephone book
totally meaningless out of context.
all I've said is I don't think it was UA93
Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shanksville was just a hole dug up, no plane involved.
is completely correct
reason being that I see no evidence of a plane having crashed at either sites
How about you realise this is not my disclosure about the physics. They are the current laws of physics which we work with !!!!!!
When i research ( sorry look into as Charlie prefers that ) I look at what the evidence tells me . Not what MMS and forum no marks spew out.
I have no interest in the Hollywood movie which shows the Wile E Coyote silhouette punctured holes in the buildings. God give me strength !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I looked at numerous conclusions and decided that the official spin was indeed just that. Those commercial planes would have broken up on impact as per the reasoning, they would not have disappeared into the abyss of the steel constructed fortress.
Far too much evidence to make me think anything else, however, everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Far too much information included in that simple document * to show the reasoning offered makes sense.
Mex.. As well as dissing the current laws of physics you have offered a new word for us to decipher ...garbabage You really are a waste of space. No theories just appraisal of evidence. You don't have theories when you do that.
Read this presentation again and see if you can understand it .. although i doubt it. * https://911planeshoax.com/2014/01/11/proof-that-no-real-planes-were-used-on-911/ *
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
— ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, German philosopher (1788–1860).
Enjoy your evening
And obviously far to much evidence to share and discuss.
He's on a completely different intellectual level to McCann but at the moment he's nothing more than a preacher.
It is obvious you did not study Physics even to O level/ GCSE level. That is a very basic level where children are introduced to Newton's laws. No calculus needed at that level yet you fail.
John you must realise you have zero understanding of Newton's laws so why post such rubbish. Clearly you would fail any common sense & logic test .
You still haven't answered that simple Physics question regarding energy of objects of different masses travelling at the same velocity.
Why post lies John?
SO when the americans found out they did two things. One they faked an attack on Pentagon so they could burn some files currently they were under investigation for. Second they set up explosives in the twin towers and WTC7 so that they could bring the buildings down and surprise the illuminati people. On the day of the attack two planes crashed into the twin towers but the one that was supposed to crash into WTC7 had already crashed in Shanksville. It was too late though and the WTC7 explosives went off exactly when they were supposed to and brought the building down. True story.
Sep 20, 2019 -- 10:46PM, boxingthefox wrote:
Since when did America start killing their own to go to war, FFS, do you really believe what you think?. I suppose Hitlers crimes against the world (your legacy) twist your reasoning, or lack of.
USS Maine?
Pearl Habour?
Supposed attack on U.S. Navy ships in Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin in 1964
The Northwoods Paradigm
Made public for the first time in 1997, the 200-plus pages of Northwoods material illuminate seven key goals of what the JCS called “pretext operations.”
Create indignation among Americans. Or as the JCS stated, “place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances.”
Depict the enemy as a violent rogue actor. To make the bogus charges of terrorism stick, the Northwoods planners said, “Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement would also be helpful to projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”
Contrive an “unprovoked” attack on the United States. The Northwoods planners said “It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs [Soviet-made fighter jets] have destroyed a USAF [U.S. Air Force] aircraft over international water in an unprovoked attack.”
Mimic real enemy actions, if possible. “Justification for U.S. intervention probably would be more convincing to the American public and rest of the world if it could be related to real and valid provocations rather than based wholly on manufactured cases which entail risk of compromise.”
Go to great lengths to generate false but incriminating detail. To stage a fake hijacking, the Northwoods planners suggested:
“An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization… At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft would be loaded with selected passengers, all board under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
“Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being [sic] transmitting on the international distress frequency a ‘MAY DAY’ message…”
If necessary, sacrifice human life to make the operation credible. In the Northwoods proposal to “sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated),” the merciless parenthetical shows that even people fleeing the target regime were considered potentially expendable to achieve U.S. goals.
Exploit the news cycle to promote false claims. In early 1962, the United States was preparing to launch astronaut John Glenn into space. Operation Dirty Trick would be mounted to “provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists… This could be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference…”
9/11?
Anthrax 2002
Sep 20, 2019 -- 11:18PM, boxingthefox wrote:
When losing revert to puerile gestures, grow up!.
Looks like you don't know what these 9/11 threads are about :)
Sep 20, 2019 -- 11:27PM, boxingthefox wrote:
Pearl harbour, REALLY!!. My talking to morons allocation is fully used up, detroller how do you ever find time to bet, or is spouting drivel on here your raison d'être.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory
Sep 20, 2019 -- 11:27PM, boxingthefox wrote:
Pearl harbour, REALLY!!. My talking to morons allocation is fully used up, detroller how do you ever find time to bet, or is spouting drivel on here your raison d'être.
As i said, you dont know what these threads are about. Best you stay out.
Is it naivety or some kind of national pride?
1 = not at all
10 = very surprised
Sep 20, 2019 -- 11:37PM, boxingthefox wrote:
Oh dear, carry on kiddies, carry on hating, carry on indulging in conspiracy theories about things over which you have no influence let alone a say. Feeling 'empowered' with ones own scribbles on a (dimishing) gambooooling forum must be so fullfilling.
for the third time, you dont know what this thread is about.
i'll help, its about who can come up with the most ridiculous conspiracy theory. you're the fool for taking my post seriously,
Sep 20, 2019 -- 11:35PM, jucel69 wrote:
DT if tomorrow the headline was that the US was behind 9/11, what would your level of surprise be1 = not at all10 = very surprised
1.
You obviously despise anyone on here who disagrees with you, takes me back in history to the 1930s. Mimicking is a way you Germanicaly think is clever or intelegent/satirical, ....it is actually way out of date by decades.
You pontificate on everything!, fckn hell you must be a genius.
There's a guy here who thinks 6 billion people will be killed by 5G by 2025.
There's another who says if you dropped yourself on a block of concrete, the damage done to your body will be the same as if the concrete block was dropped on you.
There's another who's been searching for answers for over a year now and is on autopilot now.
Pardon me for my arrogance and pontification(whatever that means)
Stay here long enough and you'll go crazy like the rest of us. Or just take it easy and live with the way we all are.
I own the rest of the nonsense I post though. I just request you not to take any of it seriousy.
to you, and acknowledge that fact. My 'broad brush' criticisms of your origins were also wrong, and you not rising to the bait is indeed a credit to you.
I will cease and desist as of now and wish you a fond good day.
Tbf, his ramblings are tedious.
