• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

Heiwa said:
Nothing.
Click to expand...

It means nothing to you because like all good truthers you dismiss anything that proves you are utterly and completely wrong. It proves you are as dismissive as you are clueless. It proves you are a heartless individual who believes he as a grasp on reality when you have none. PEOPLE died, fool, they jumped to their deaths because of the intense heat inside the towers. This intense heat came from the fires. The fires you dismiss as irrelevant.

Maybe you could actually prove you are a human being and actually acknowledge you were wrong and made an inappropriate comment and apologies for being highly offensive.
The topic raised by me is the NIST statements about WTC2 collapse. There is no evidence that global collapse ensued due to the alleged east wall buckling i.w.o. the impact area causing load redistribution. There are pictures/videos showing the wall being deformed - none that it collapses causing load redistribution, etc. NIST suggests the core was softened, etc. but there is no evidence
Click to expand...
.
Wow how to totally contradict yourself in one easy move. the external columns buckled inwards, stop making up nonsense.
Then there is the NIST statement about the undamaged 100 m section above quickly moving its CoG >6 m eastward due to this east wall buckling. This can be also be seen on pictures/videos but then the whole section above disappears in smoke. This is very strange. You would expect that undamaged section to continue moving eastway and not disappear at fall. It should fall down to the ground and be damaged there.

There are many indications on the other hand that the global collapse was initiated/caused by control demolition by remote control and that the also the undamaged section above was blown up in the air by controlled demolition before hitting the ground.

The lack of forensic examination of the tower steel structure wreckage is frightening
Click to expand...

Are you on something ? seriously ? Are you just making this up as you go along ? The top section was blown up in midair? Seriously ? This is a wind isn't it ? NOBODY can be serious with this one, please, please tell me you are just having a laugh here. It is not funny by the way , you do realise that people were still alive inside the top section of WTC 2 when it fell towards earth, you do realise that this top section contained real people, with real families and real thoughts and aspirations .


The lack of forensic examination of the tower steel structure wreckage is frightening.
Click to expand...

I will tell you what is frightening sunbeam is your complete lack of understanding of anything and your complete lack of any moral fibre. You are lacking in so much it is actually mind boggling you can actually make it though the day. It is actually frightening to believe that somebody like you who claims to know what he is talking about can be so wrong in everything he says.

It is a worry that crackpots and loons who make it all up as they go along , actually believe they deserve to heard rather than simply dismissed as crackpots and loons, but hey I guess it goes with the internet where you are free to say what you like, irrespective of how disrespectful it is and irrespective of how completely and utterly insane it may sound.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
It means nothing to you because like all good truthers you dismiss anything that proves you are utterly and completely wrong. It proves you are as dismissive as you are clueless. It proves you are a heartless individual who believes he as a grasp on reality when you have none. PEOPLE died, fool, they jumped to their deaths because of the intense heat inside the towers. This intense heat came from the fires. The fires you dismiss as irrelevant.

Maybe you could actually prove you are a human being and actually acknowledge you were wrong and made an inappropriate comment and apologies for being highly offensive.
.
Wow how to totally contradict yourself in one easy move. the external columns buckled inwards, stop making up nonsense.


Are you on something ? seriously ? Are you just making this up as you go along ? The top section was blown up in midair? Seriously ? This is a wind isn't it ? NOBODY can be serious with this one, please, please tell me you are just having a laugh here. It is not funny by the way , you do realise that people were still alive inside the top section of WTC 2 when it fell towards earth, you do realise that this top section contained real people, with real families and real thoughts and aspirations .




I will tell you what is frightening sunbeam is your complete lack of understanding of anything and your complete lack of any moral fibre. You are lacking in so much it is actually mind boggling you can actually make it though the day. It is actually frightening to believe that somebody like you who claims to know what he is talking about can be so wrong in everything he says.

It is a worry that crackpots and loons who make it all up as they go along , actually believe they deserve to heard rather than simply dismissed as crackpots and loons, but hey I guess it goes with the internet where you are free to say what you like, irrespective of how disrespectful it is and irrespective of how completely and utterly insane it may sound.
Click to expand...

Moral and my alleged lack of any moral fibre is OT but I will reply anyway. The analysis of the scientific NIST report has nothing to with moral or lack of it. Many persons in this discussion ask me various specific questions what happened at 9/11 and why I do not answer. But I have. I have answered somebody and therefore everybody:

"If you have read the 9/11 Commission report about all events that took place on 9/11 prior impacts as I assume you have, do you believe everything in it? I do not (and millions others)."

Very soon after 9/11 the answer to all questions were given by the authorities (It was 19 arabs, etc). And it was added that if you didn't believe THAT, then you were worth nothing or part of some evil group. Moral? Of course - it is moral to believe authorities according to the same authorities. But it has nothing to do with justice and science.

Many years later the 9/11 Commission reported that the early findings of the authorities were 100% correct (It was 19 arabs, etc). What else could they report according to the present moral standards?

I fear that the NIST engineers were also influenced by the moral threats of the authorities and thus produced reports to suit. But, I repeat, it has nothing to do with justice and science.

Actually - to stand up for justice and science in the present situation requires moral fibre shown by prof. S. Jones & Co.
 
Heiwa said:
words
Click to expand...


Do you believe that videos that show planes hit the Twin Towers are forged?

A simple "yes" or "no", will suffice.

stateofgrace said:
Now that is a simple summary, please offer up your own, do not have a go at mine, after all I am just a sheep who buys into anything, so why don't you tell , in your own words what happened?
Click to expand...

An as simple summary as stateofgrace's will suffice.

/S
 
Last edited:
SLOB said:
Do you believe that videos that show planes hit the Twin Towers are forged?

A simple "yes" or "no", will suffice.

/S
Click to expand...

Yes, I do not believe the 9/11 Commission report (as stated 10 minutes earlier).
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, I do not believe the 9/11 Commission report (as stated 10 minutes earlier).
Click to expand...

What does the 9/11 Commission report have to do with the various videorecordings of the planes hitting the Twin Towers?

But thanks for your straight "yes".

/S
 
SLOB said:
What does the 9/11 Commission report have to do with the various videorecordings of the planes hitting the Twin Towers?

But thanks for your straight "yes".

/S
Click to expand...

The 9/11 Commission report suggests that AA175 collided with WTC2. But I do not think anybody has been able to identify AA175 as that plane shown on various videos of the collision (the videos are too bad?). BTW - the original 'live' footages by several news media of the collision have later been edited to remove the 'Fade to Black' sign that pops up and various beeps in the live versions, etc. that some researchers suggest indicate live editing (!!), i.e. that the live show was delayed 17 seconds in order to 'paste in' a plane in the sky while the voice continues reporting no plane but an explosion, etc. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice . Amazing observations.

It seems the 9/11 Commission just guessed that it was AA175 colliding with WTC2 and never considered, e.g. 'live editing' as a means to confuse the public?

Evidently no witness on the ground ever saw AA175 colliding with WTC2.

It is easy, in a confusion about high-jacked planes and collisions with towers, to assume that the planes collided with the towers but it has nothing to do with justice and science that require real evidence.
 
So what hapened to the planes full of people, then?

What did the witnesses on the ground actually see?

What did the witnesses on the ground actually hear?



Give us your theory on what happened, we really do want to know.

edit

Evidently no witness on the ground ever saw AA175 colliding with WTC2
Click to expand...

that is a very stupid statement.
 
I note that in above message #188 the link goes to part 6 of socialworkers analysis. See it - and then click on part 1 further down; Enjoy.
 
Heiwa said:
The 9/11 Commission report suggests that AA175 collided with WTC2. But I do not think anybody has been able to identify AA175 as that plane shown on various videos of the collision (the videos are too bad?). BTW - the original 'live' footages by several news media of the collision have later been edited to remove the 'Fade to Black' sign that pops up and various beeps in the live versions, etc. that some researchers suggest indicate live editing (!!), i.e. that the live show was delayed 17 seconds in order to 'paste in' a plane in the sky while the voice continues reporting no plane but an explosion, etc. http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice . Amazing observations.

It seems the 9/11 Commission just guessed that it was AA175 colliding with WTC2 and never considered, e.g. 'live editing' as a means to confuse the public?

Evidently no witness on the ground ever saw AA175 colliding with WTC2.

It is easy, in a confusion about high-jacked planes and collisions with towers, to assume that the planes collided with the towers but it has nothing to do with justice and science that require real evidence.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow., I am speechless.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
So what hapened to the planes full of people, then?

What did the witnesses on the ground actually see?

What did the witnesses on the ground actually hear?



Give us your theory on what happened, we really do want to know.

edit



that is a very stupid statement.
Click to expand...

You haven't seen the info in the link then?

There is no evidence that AA175 is the plane on the video colliding with WTC2.

We do not know what happened to the people in AA175. They disappeared somewhere and are missing? Then ask FBI about them! FBI looks for for missing people.

What did people on the ground see? Nobody saw AA175. They saw something else. But didn't have a possibility knowing it was AA175.

What did people on the ground actually hear? Probably an explosion ... but not a plane approaching before that. Did the 9/11 Commission analyse the sound recordings? Apparently not.

What really happened? I have not got a clue. I am just a structural engineer in ship building happily far away from USA. If I hint at foul play about the WTC2 collapse that ensued I am accused of being amoral by some allegedly moral people. But it seems foul play was also involved prior to the collapse ... to fool all these moral people.
 
I don't think you want him to spread the message he was referring to when the "speechless" line was uttered to the screen.

TAM:)
 
Heiwa said:
the original 'live' footages by several news media of the collision have later been edited to remove the 'Fade to Black' sign that pops up and various beeps in the live versions,
Click to expand...

Yes, I seem to recall you claimed that even all the archived material at Wayback Machine has been edited prior to being uploaded, to remove that "fade to black" you seem to think, for some reason, indicates live realtime editing. You failed, however, to explain as to why while the clips from BBC, FOX5 and ABC had no Fade-to-black, CNN still had it. But, oh, its obvious. NWO slipped there didn't they, yeah, thats right.

Heiwa said:
etc. that some researchers suggest indicate live editing (!!), i.e.
Click to expand...

Who but "Socialworker"?


Cheers,
SLOB
 
Last edited:
kookbreaker said:
Sorry, but spreading that kind of insanity as a 'message' is like spreading the bubonic plague as a 'purification ritual'.
Click to expand...

You are quite right even if OT. The US moral majority however needs a little shaking up. There is a real world outside Springfield.
 
doh!!

Wait til I tells Cleatus...hes gonna be pissed. I told him, gosh darn it, that the world stops at dem der "springfield" town limit signs.

TAM;)
 
T.A.M. said:
doh!!

Wait til I tells Cleatus...hes gonna be pissed. I told him, gosh darn it, that the world stops at dem der "springfield" town limit signs.

TAM;)
Click to expand...

Sometimes some people at my coffee house wonder if the US cowboys see what's ahead of the ears of their horses.
 
sometimes people at my coffee house wonder if CTists see anything that doesn't fit into their world view of the NWO and the 9/11 plot.

TAM;) (A Canadian Urbanite)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom