Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

dropzone said:
Skipped the middle 32 pages of posts, so I hope EH is joking and someone has taken this extremely cheap shot at the OP: Yes, I believe they are called "air traffic controllers."

If you can't pick the low fruit what's the point of harvesting?
Click to expand...

While ATCs cooperate, those who scheduled the 4 planes with terrorists were not 1 but 3 teams, as they took off from 3 different airports. Scheduling take-off is done locally ;)
 
mehmetin said:
If you consider the times of 4 people taken amongst 50,000,000 , sure it's perfectly possible. But if you reduce that number to 4 known people who should make a known action and who can not contact each other, and who can not control their own startup time, it becomes impossible.
Click to expand...

Sigh...
What you are really saying is: If you clock the arrival, coffee-drinking of any 4 customers, the result will be impossible. It is only possible if 50,000,000 customers go to the cafe.

Last saturday, the German lottery drew the following numbers:
10 - 11 - 16 - 21 - 41 - 46
How do you think this was this possible, when there are about 14 million different possibilities? Or do you think it was impossible to draw these numbers, and there is a conspiracy going on?


Man, get the clue: When 4 planes take off, level off, get hijacked and crash, there MUST be some timeline that emerges. This timeline is as possible as any other. It is extremely likely that the planes will take off in succession, level off in succession, be hijacked in succession and crash in succession when there is no central coordination. Because the only alternative to all this happening in succession would be that some things happen precisely at the same time!
Now, if all planes had been hijacked at the same time, then yes, we would have reason to suspect some kind of fine co-ordination. Because out of the 50,000,000 possibilities, maybe only 5,000 have simultaneous events, and 49,995,000 have successive events.


Another example:
Invite 4 friends separately for dinner at 20:00. Would you expect them to arrive in succession, or would you expect them to arrive at the same time?
If they arrive at the same time, would you think they co-ordinated their arrival (maybe travel together)? If they arrive in succession, would you then think they co-ordinated their arrival (maybe travel together)?



Another example: Again, invite 4 friends, but not to your place, but to 4 different restaurants. This time, they live in 3 different towns and take 4 different trains. When the train arrives ("level off"), they must hitch a taxi ("hitchhike") to get to their respective restaurants ("crash").
Would you be surprised if the trains depart in succession? Would you be surprised if the trains arrive in succession? Would you be surprised if any or all of the trains were delayed? Would you be surprised if one is more delayed than the others? Would you be surprised if your 4 friends take different amounts of time between arriving at the trainstation and hitching a taxi? Would you be surprised if the taxis needed different amounts of time? Would you be surprised if your friends arrived at their restaurants at different times (in succession)? Would you be surprised if the one who started his journey first already hitched a taxi when the last one's train just started? Would you be surprised if the one who started first arrives first, and the one who started last arrives last?
All of which I described here accurately descibed what the terrorists and their planes did on 9/11. And nothing at all there is surprising!
 
Oystein said:
<snip>

Another example:
Invite 4 friends separately for dinner at 20:00. Would you expect them to arrive in succession, or would you expect them to arrive at the same time?
If they arrive at the same time, would you think they co-ordinated their arrival (maybe travel together)? If they arrive in succession, would you then think they co-ordinated their arrival (maybe travel together)?

<snip>
Click to expand...

Apparently, if each guest rings your doorbell within a window of exactly 3 to 9 minutes of the previous doorbell ring, then obviously one person was controlling all of the arrivals. Any other explanation is impossible.
 
I think I've skipped a few pages along the way in this thread. Has even one of our long-time resident truth supporters stepped up to support Mehmetin and/or his line of reasoning? (RedIbis, et. al.?)
 
GStan said:
Apparently, if each guest rings your doorbell within a window of exactly 3 to 9 minutes of the previous doorbell ring, then obviously one person was controlling all of the arrivals. Any other explanation is impossible.
Click to expand...
Stop misrepresenting mehmetin's position!

It's also possible if the guests were all Jews. :p
 
Sideroxylon said:
I know there isn't a language problem here as "design" is "dizayn" in Turkish and you have not demonstrated having done anything of the sort. "Speculated" might be a nicer word but "fantasised" is apt.
Click to expand...

That’s the only kind of words you can tell. And you think that will reach me! You do not know me, and such design problems are all past events for me.

Sideroxylon said:
You come on here with airs of having done research and formulating a strong case but you have nothing. There are no technical designs showing how this might work on your website that I saw, but if there are then post them here.
Click to expand...

You should read my book. Detailed design is explained there, I will not copy my book here up to the smallest detail. Any way, I explained the facts here, but you are unable to understand anything, it’s so much easier to deny! Isn’t it?

Sideroxylon said:
No need to waste your time on such a thing if you haven't done it because you have no good reason to even invoke such a thing as explanation for the events. Your succession = central coordination is just plain silly and the biggest mystery is why you can't see it as such.
Click to expand...

When will you begin to understand anything? Or when will stop denying everything that you refuse to believe?

Sideroxylon said:
The current test of your intellectual honesty is what you will say now that you have been given the airport flight delay statistics. I suspect your current frame of mind will allow you to concede nothing.
Click to expand...

In those 34 pages, you got two right arguments :
1- The install place of the actuators is not in the nose of the plane. It should be under the cockpit.
2- I should consider the influence of the landings on Newark airport.

As you can see, I remain honest and I am ready to concede everything I am wrong, and that will never change. I definitely decided to accept the truth and refuse the wrong. That does not change anything to me. I just come closer to the truth.

But you, you are still unable to understand the reasons of the succession of the hijacks!

I am still waiting your answer: Are you Turkish or not?
 
preptic said:
I don't understand why this discussion is still going on. I have debunked a central part of the thread starter's wannabe-hypothesis. He lost. Time to move on?
Click to expand...

You debunked nothing. On all those 34 pages, you only got two minor arguments, see my precedent post:
-one was right and it chanegs a little bit the install operation which becomes easier than I thought.
- Other one was just extremely minor.

Can you imagine, so many posts only for two minor arguments!
You debunked NOTHING!
 
mehmetin said:
You debunked nothing. On all those 34 pages, you only got two minor arguments, see my precedent post:
-one was right and it chanegs a little bit the install operation which becomes easier than I thought.
- Other one was just extremely minor.

Can you imagine, so many posts only for two minor arguments!
You debunked NOTHING!
Click to expand...
Your claim: "The twin towrs were demolished by using radio controlled conventionnal explosives placed on key positions accessibles from the lifts' shafts. That can be made during the week end."

How did they manage to strip down the internals of the buildings and drilling holes everywhere without anyone working there noticing?

And where did the explosion patterns you would expect from controlled demolitions go? A couple of "booms" won't be sufficient to take down a building.

Never mind the fact that the twin towers fell from the top down rather than bottom up.

Your argument is not a minor one, by the way. I showed it to be wrong, which destroys most of the rest of your claims, and proves that your argument is based on fantasy alone.
 
GStan said:
Apparently, if each guest rings your doorbell within a window of exactly 3 to 9 minutes of the previous doorbell ring, then obviously one person was controlling all of the arrivals. Any other explanation is impossible.
Click to expand...

For intelligent people it so simple to understand. Welcome GStan. You explained it better than me.
 
Keep your meaningless last sentence for yourself. But for the rest, you seem to search anything; let’s see.
preptic said:
Your claim: "The twin towrs were demolished by using radio controlled conventionnal explosives placed on key positions accessibles from the lifts' shafts. That can be made during the week end."

How did they manage to strip down the internals of the buildings and drilling holes everywhere without anyone working there noticing?
Click to expand...

There was no need to make any hole. All places were accessible from inside the lift shafts. There were key places to install explosives to make collapse all the buildings in sequential manner from top to bottom. I explained that in my power point, slides 49 to 54.1.

preptic said:
And where did the explosion patterns you would expect from controlled demolitions go? A couple of "booms" won't be sufficient to take down a building.

Never mind the fact that the twin towers fell from the top down rather than bottom up.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was a conventional demolition. It was a special demolition designed to make the tower collapse from impact level and moving downward. By radio controlled explosives, it’s just necessary to send radio signal at the required speed. For technology tools, it’s a child game.

preptic said:
Your argument is not a minor one, by the way. I showed it to be wrong, which destroys most of the rest of your claims, and proves that your argument is based on fantasy alone.
Click to expand...

As you see, you debunked nothing. I explained how the towers were demolished and it’s consistent with all known evidence. In my power point, I also gave the lies of the official reports.

Notice it definitely; even if small details may need some changes, the main claims of my work are defendable before a justice court against the official story.
 
mehmetin said:
the main claims of my work are defendable before a justice court against the official story.[/B]
Click to expand...

What ya doin here then? Such evidence should be on someones desk! It should be with every media editors office and newspaper editor on the planet! It should be with every head of state on the planet! Yet you spend your days on an obscure forum being laughed at. Cool.
 
mehmetin said:
There was no need to make any hole. All places were accessible from inside the lift shafts. There were key places to install explosives to make collapse all the buildings in sequential manner from top to bottom. I explained that in my power point, slides 49 to 54.1.



I never claimed it was a conventional demolition. It was a special demolition designed to make the tower collapse from impact level and moving downward. By radio controlled explosives, it’s just necessary to send radio signal at the required speed. For technology tools, it’s a child game.
Click to expand...

Mark Loizeaux disagrees with you. Do you know who he is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom