Geezer

Of course, you have a few people who disagree, but the vast majority agree that what trasnpired did transpire, the way that NIST says it did. Also, the dissenters usually pick up on one aspect, which conspiracy theorists then thread into a (in)choerent story. They also quote out of context, as hodgy has shown.

Martin2005

How is that even remotely true?

'Fact' LOL. You wouldn't recognised a fact if it jumped up and bit you on the helmet


We had 4 years of industrial warfare in WW1 that killed 17 million people!

You're just making it up again

jonc

Ok, let's go with the thermite theory, I have a few questions:
http://techportal.eere.energy.gov/te....do/techID=764
1. Where abouts on the floors was the thermite planted?
2. How did the thermite reation start? Who set it off and from where?
4. Thermite is used for cutting steel/concrete and the melting is very localised, how did it produce so much molten steel to pour out of the south tower?
5. How did the ceramic structure used to hold the thermite in place and the charge to set off the thermite survive the crash?
6. How did whoever set the charges know in advance which floors to set the charges on? Presumably they knew exactly which floors the planes, piloted by rookie pilots with zero hours flight time in a commercial airline and were branded incompetent by their instructor, would crash in to in advance for both buildings.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

So you ask me a question then decide what my answer to it would be then come to a conclusion based on that ,
Very good

But to answer the question .
No .
if you look back it was the comment on whether I think the engines would have bounced back onto the lawn that made him sound like a dick

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Hodgy

I've read the scripts you posted but can't see where It says anything recognisable from the Boeing is , did you mean the piece of glass or the unidentifiable green part.

Martin2005

Why do you keep banging on about this, you've already said that it was a plane, so why do you keep returning to this?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

Read through this to better understand the molten steel thing

It's nothing to do with the video of possable molten steel pouring from the building http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I'm trying to Reply to posts directed to me , at this rate it will be never ending .

I've not made my mind up yet , eye witnessas saw a plane that's difficult to dismiss ,

If you look back I was trying to make it clear what one person was talking about because someone else came along behaving all smart **** like but didn't really even understand the comments he was trying to answer

gary77

iTrader: (1)

I like that link and explanation , I'm interested to know the experts opinions of it , the 1600 architects and engineers that aren't happy with the origanal theory

But unfortunately it doesn't explain the firemen seeing molten steel I think in the basement

Not sure if I posted it before but this explains the molten steel http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

hodgy0_2

Sure, but i am still not clear what question you think i am asking

Can you just answer the one i actually am

Which is, what about you posting faked evidence?

Just answer that, thanks

Geezer

You asked about plane parts not being visible, despite all the posts already put up in this thread about what happened, links to sites etc. Yet you still asked a question that has already been answered a number of times.

You still say "I've not made my mind up yet", what sort of reaction do you expect exactly?

Why don't you just say "I don't care what you say, I think it was a missile"? At least we could move on instead of having to repeat the same stuff over and over.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

i didnt realise it needed answering . you discovered the you tube video,(like many others) wasnt a true representation of the news report. its good you found that out .

but the actuall report doesnt contain anything to prove a boeing crashed into the building

i'm actually playing devils advocate here because i find it hard to believe that the eye witness reports are fake , and the only alternative would be that the plane they saw actually flew over the top of the pentagon and landed at the airport behind it which i think i read somewhere is only a mile away . but i find this harder to believe than the plane just crashed into the pentagon . the only thing that put doubt in my mind is the lack of damage to the building before it collapsed ,no evidance of a boeing in the early reports and pictures , and the very poor video evidance later released , i do still think that the many cctv cameras on and around the pentagon would show something

hodgy0_2

ok, so you uncritically post faked youtube stuff, that took 5 mins to prove faked - and yet I have a closed mind, and you an open - sure

again if you read the transcript - the reporter states

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

anyway lets move on to the rubbish you posted about WT7

from this website

http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

by another amature with no expertise in the field (as I said in the climate thread - <sigh> they always are)

"retired high school physics teacher named David Chandler"

he posts this video


showing the collapse and does all sorts of wonderful but pointless maths on it - to prove "free fall", something that the official theory accepts btw - just not how this goon describes it


but can you tell me where he has gone wrong - to help here is another view of the collapse


and a similar angle to that "truther" video


skip to 3.40 sec

can you tell me what the difference is please, between the "truther" video and what actually happened

between fantasy and reality

thanks

Geezer

When you say Boeing, do you mean a plane, or does the make have some bearing?

If it's the former, then it is undeniably a plane. There are plenty of eye witnesses that say they saw a plane hit it. Thers is remains of a plane at the scene. The damage is conistent with a plane impact.

If it's the latter, I'm not sure why that is relevant, but I wouldn't imagine many of the people would have known it was a Boeing (or cared), However, there were identifiable pieces of a Boeing 757 at the scene.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

hodgy i like your posts,they are usefull and interesting , geezer i cant be bothered wasting my time replying to yours sorry mate ut they are pointless.but i say boeing because i forget if it was a 757 or 747 so leave it out , thats all

e thing i find interesting about the reporters transcript is that he only saw one large part that was silver painted green and red . how did he not see the other parts that were pictured later that are clearly from an aa plane. and it is also possable that he assumed the large part he saw was from a boeing because of the eyewitness reports not because he could tell from anything lying around

i'll take a look at the videos now ,

i have allready come to the conclusion that most you tube videos are bollocks

gary77

iTrader: (1)

unfortunatly i cant , you will have to explain the differance

hodgy0_2

the WTC7 in the "truther" video has already suffered catastrophic failure

the penthouse suite on the roof has fallen through the building

the building is already collapsing - he is not showing you the start, truther videos very rarely show the penthouse collapsing

his WT7 has the penthouse already missing - why

no one disputes free fall, and when seen in the context of an already fatally compromised building it is totally logical

free fall does not = controlled demolition btw

free fall is simply free fall - and easy to test with a simple "thought" experiment

gary77

iTrader: (1)

the thing that needs to be established is whether the building could have fallen at free fall speeds without the use of explosives

the fact that the penthouse collapsed earlier shouldnt in my opinion be taken into account when timing how long the bulk of the building itself took to fall. unless it is considered that the penthouse colapsing did enough damage to the building to make it possable for the rest to collapse un hindered

another thing , i really should have a good look at the oficial report , im confused now to how they say it collapsed , ive all ways understood it was due to fire , how did the penthouse collapse and what fires were there exactly , i need to look at the nist report

hodgy0_2

yes that is exactly what is considered by experts - not a retired physics teacher

by the time that truther starts his video - the facing wall he measures is just that, a facing wall, the rest of the building has to all intense an purposes gone - I,e it has no support

so it falls at freefall

why does he not take into account the start of the collapse - can you imagine if NIST ignored it

the truther just measures a single face on a single plane - the building is a complex 3d object

gary77

iTrader: (1)

i dont know enough about how or why it colapsed or the official theory on how and why to be able to say much more about it but to try and answer your question why did he start timing the colapse from after the penthouse collapse.

like i said earlier this all depends on what damage was done up to that point but the reason he didnt include it is as i understand it because , if for example you film a house and the chimney collapses then a day later the whole building desintigrates into a pile of rubble in the space of 5mins, would you consider it took a day to colapse or 5mins

but again , if there was damage to the supporting walls going on unseen , through out the many floors enabling the building to colapse at then free fall speed, then fair enough .

and to say that the people carrying out the official report said it did isnt enough because they are part of who we are questioning

so the question being asked by the conspiretards (as you call myself and thousands more)is what damage was being done to the entire supporting structure to take it all out of the equation.

can some of you ****wits (my name for the believers of the official theory ) find an independant report on how it happened ,

ps take this in the spirit it is intended and dont expect me to have any response to comments made about MY choice of name for the believers