The Star Wars Beam Weapons

by HoratioTarr Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:36 am

The American Government maintains that the Twin Towers were each hit by aircraft and the subsequent fires weakened the steel in the upper stories, initiating a gravity-driven "pancake collapse," as illustrated in Figure 30. There are many problems with this hypothesis. The most obvious problem with it is the near free-fall speed of the destruction of these buildings (see Billiard Balls). A second problem is the paucity of remaining material. Where are the concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where are the bookcases? They were not there, so most of it appears to have turned to dust.

It was widely reported that a substantial amount of WTC steel was sold as scrap, put on barges, and shipped to China to be melted down. But Figure 33 shows how little steel was on the ground shortly after destruction of the WTC towers. There is evidence that steel was transported to Fresh Kills Island to be stored. This steel may or may not have been subsequently shipped to China. But it could not be a large amount of steel.

Why did steel columns turn to dust in mid air?

The Star Wars Beam Weapons Image42

So....has America developed a weapon to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter?

http://www.drjudywood.com/

by Guest Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:05 am

HoratioTarr wrote:The American Government maintains that the Twin Towers were each hit by aircraft and the subsequent fires weakened the steel in the upper stories, initiating a gravity-driven "pancake collapse," as illustrated in Figure 30. There are many problems with this hypothesis. The most obvious problem with it is the near free-fall speed of the destruction of these buildings (see Billiard Balls). A second problem is the paucity of remaining material. Where are the concrete floors? Where is the office furniture? Where is the office machinery? Where are the filing cabinets? Where is the wall board? Where are the bookcases? They were not there, so most of it appears to have turned to dust.

It was widely reported that a substantial amount of WTC steel was sold as scrap, put on barges, and shipped to China to be melted down. But Figure 33 shows how little steel was on the ground shortly after destruction of the WTC towers. There is evidence that steel was transported to Fresh Kills Island to be stored. This steel may or may not have been subsequently shipped to China. But it could not be a large amount of steel.

Why did steel columns turn to dust in mid air?

So....has America developed a weapon to disrupt the molecular bonds of matter?

http://www.drjudywood.com/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

by eddie Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:46 pm

There are plenty of videos debunking the debunking videos you put up, didge.

That’s why it’s hard to find the truth.

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:20 am

eddie wrote:There are plenty of videos debunking the debunking videos you put up, didge.

That’s why it’s hard to find the truth.

Well if you looked very closely, I posted a link, which is a rebuttal to the claim in the opening thread

Second, as stated the onus is on the conspiracy whackjobs, to prove their many crack pot hypoethsis.

None of them have

So there maybe many videos out there, I am showing mine which easily refute the many claims, by truthers, with actual science

Now I have watched many 9/11 truther videos, hence why I also sought out opposing views to these and ages ago came to the following conclusion.

Al Qaeda did this alongside countless other terrorist attacks

Anyone who claims Al-Qaeda did not do this (are apologists for Al_qaeda, based on the overwhelming evidencde they did carry this out), I would ask why they do not question every other terrorist act they have committed?

Here, knock yourself out letting me know which ones you think they did carry out and which ones you also think is a cover up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

by 'Wolfie Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:30 am

eddie wrote:

There are plenty of videos debunking the debunking videos you put up, didge.

That’s why it’s hard to find the truth.

It's not really that hard to narrow things down to a more reasonable level...

A basic understanding of sciences (in this case, physics 101..), along with a "common sense" approach to the engineering and building side of things, always helps to "sort the hay from the chaff"..

Not just with these 9/11 conspiracy plots, but some simple 'rational' thinking, it also helps with conspiracy stories re: JFK, anti-vaxxers, and a lot of pseudo-scientiffic babble concerning food and farming. Suspect

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:43 am

eddie wrote:There are plenty of videos debunking the debunking videos you put up, didge.

That’s why it’s hard to find the truth.

It's fascinating though.

There's footage of firemen talking about the streams of molten metal pouring down the building. Then aviation experts saying there's no way that metal such as steel would melt through aviation fuel only. Also, it was stated that the plane's speed was 500mph, but again, aviation experts say there's no way a jet engine will reach those speeds at a 1,000 ft. The engines only reach top speed at 30 thousand feet due to thinner air density. Some say there's not one single incident of a steel core/framed high rise being brought down by fire alone. And why were jumpers ripping off their clothes before jumping? Why did some of them jump when there was no apparent heat or smoke around them?

But who knows?

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:49 am

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:50 am

If you want my opinion, I don't trust America's high echelons one bit. I think they start wars and perpetuate them.

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:41 am

HoratioTarr wrote:If you want my opinion, I don't trust America's high echelons one bit. I think they start wars and perpetuate them.

The US has started many wars.

Though that does not mean they murdered many of their own people by flying planes into buildings.

Its this line of arguing that, because America has done some wrongs, all evidence is again ignored and as if this then gives legitimacy to 9/11 claims. It does not.

We know Al-qaeda has carried out many terrorist attacks and even against the US before 9/11

So the same points to you. Why are you not questioning the mass of other attacks by Al-Qaeda?

After 9/11 this led to special forces helping the Northern Alliance help defeat the Taliban, as they refused to hand over Bin laden. They did offer to hand him over to Pakistan, which as seen is where he was hiding with the Pakistani authority well aware of this later. There certainly was Al-Qaeda training camps being used to target not only the West, but many Muslims also.

The reality is with conspiracy theorists, they cannot accept the actual reality of what did happen on 9/11 with Al-qaeda commiting such devastating terrorist attack. Some take on a view, that there is some greater unseen evil that is controlling everything and thisis something comparable to religious beliefs. Its not something they can prove, but invent to make sense of such an appalling suicidal attack.

The reality is and as seen, many 9/11 so called truthers have ulterior motives for why they do not want to believe the reality of Al-Qaeda committing such an attack. Whether it be people who hate Israel or Jews, by claiming Mossad did this to those who believe there is some New World order behind this. They thus have agendas, which they fuel with such fantazies.

What most of these conspiracist so called truthers on 9/11 do, is never actually look at the mass of evidence Or from the Commision report. They go off things that seem to them wierd and as seen claim this is proof that it was a set up. Though when someone disproves the truther claim. The truther does not question that they were wrong, they then jump ship onto the next far out claim. Continuing to ignore all the damning evidence it was Al-Qaeda. It does not matter how many times so many of these 9/11 conspiracy claims are easily dismissed. These 9/11 so called truthers are so dogmatic in their beliefs, like in a sense religious radicals. That then beliefs are more important to them, than the actual facts surrounding this event. Like I say, most so called truthers never actually bother to look at the actual evidence, they make fit what they want to believe on this.

They never actually watch anything or read anything that easily challenges the poor claims they hold. Hence like a religious belief. Hence they do not want to listen. They like most radical believers, will never look at their own beliefs as critically. As they certainly would look critically and with skeptism at any other belief they do not believe in. Its called the outsider test of faith. It means they are not even applying their own skeptism and critical thinking to 9/11, to the very 9/11 conspiracy theories and the very claims they believe.

If people really want to understand 9/11, then the place they should first start with, is understanding the ideology of Al-qaeda

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:53 pm

by Original Quill Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:13 pm

Like the Philadelphia experiment.

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:51 pm

Well, look at the murder of JFK. A recent documentary showed he appeared to be accidentally shot by his own security. Nobody would have dreamed that back in the day.

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:01 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:

So why are you not then questioning critically the conspiracy claims on 9/11?

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:05 pm

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

So why are you not then questioning critically the conspiracy claims on 9/11?

Coz I can't be arsed

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:07 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

So why are you not then questioning critically the conspiracy claims on 9/11?

Coz I can't be arsed

Okay, that would explain a lot and why your quote from Einstein clearly does not apply to you then.

by HoratioTarr Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:19 pm

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Coz I can't be arsed

Okay, that would explain a lot and why your quote from Einstein clearly does not apply to you then.

I'm just tucking into a tasty tofu weiner. Fried onions and mustard on a nice crusty roll. Actually, I dispute the onions. I think they're unnecessary and might clash with the Dijon. Ketchup or mustard? Mustard or ketchup? What would Blumenthal do?

by eddie Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:04 pm

I’d have mustard and ketchup. I like a mix of flavours and....one must have onions!

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:05 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

Okay, that would explain a lot and why your quote from Einstein clearly does not apply to you then.

I'm just tucking into a tasty tofu weiner. Fried onions and mustard on a nice crusty roll. Actually, I dispute the onions. I think they're unnecessary and might clash with the Dijon. Ketchup or mustard? Mustard or ketchup? What would Blumenthal do?

That is nice for you and all the above is on prefered personal taste, not any reasoning based on evidence that we find with events.

by eddie Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:10 pm

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

Okay, that would explain a lot and why your quote from Einstein clearly does not apply to you then.

I'm just tucking into a tasty tofu weiner. Fried onions and mustard on a nice crusty roll. Actually, I dispute the onions. I think they're unnecessary and might clash with the Dijon. Ketchup or mustard? Mustard or ketchup? What would Blumenthal do?

That is nice for you and all the above is on prefered personal taste, not any reasoning based on evidence that we find with events.

Much the same as the general rule applied on here to the many who dispute news articles that they don’t “like”.
Wouldn’t you say?

Onions all the way though.

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:21 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

That is nice for you and all the above is on prefered personal taste, not any reasoning based on evidence that we find with events.

Much the same as the general rule applied on here to the many who dispute news articles that they don’t “like”.
Wouldn’t you say?

Onions all the way though.

We are not talking about news articles here, but an event

An event that has those who committed this, admit they did it. That the murderers were Al-Qaeda. It was masterminded by Al-Qaeda. Who have carried out a mass of terrorist acts murdering countless people.

If you put that down to personal preferred taste, I would love to understand, how you would by such reasoning, thus favour Al_qaeda, by preffering that they never did it?

by eddie Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:24 pm

I don’t know who did it, didge. I hope we will know for sure, one day.

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:26 pm

eddie wrote:I don’t know who did it, didge. I hope we will know for sure, one day.

We do know who did it

You just choose not to believe who did it, when all the evidence, proves who did it.

Hence your reasoning is faith based.

Essentially flawed

by eddie Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:29 pm

And your evidence is based on what you believe which goes against what eye-witnesses saw and experts dispute.

It is always about what and who, we choose to believe.

by Guest Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:34 pm

eddie wrote:And your evidence is based on what you believe which goes against what eye-witnesses saw and experts dispute.

It is always about what and who, we choose to believe.

No its is not based on what I believe, but what I have researched

I mean have you actually properly researched 9/11 Eddie?

No you have not, all you have done is read or listen to conspiracies on this?

Have you even read the 9/11 Commision report or any of the evidence?

I examine the many conspiracy claims and as seen they simple do not hold up to scientific reasoning or testing.

Its just people placing doubt based of one claim after another and in many cases, like I say, people have an Ulterior motive in doing so.

The difference between you and me Eddie, is I research and study the evidence. Dont fforget the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists and none have been able to even disprove Al-Qaeda did this. Yes there has been a minor few conspiracies that have turned out to be true, but they were based on overwhelming evidence. The 9/11 so called truthers rely on doubt, based off one claim after another, even when each one is easily refuted.

You just believe the conspiracy theorists on 9/11. You dont even bother to read or listen to rebuttals on them, because in doing so. Just as with religion, it sows the seeds of doubt within your own mind. Like I say, take the outsider test on faith when it comes to the conspiracy theories on 9/11. Look at them as critically as you would anything that you do not believe in.

by 'Wolfie Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:36 am

Didge wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Coz I can't be arsed

Okay, that would explain a lot and why your quote from Einstein clearly does not apply to you then.

Too true that, Didge...

Hpratio's bold admission right there goes a long way to explaining all of the completely ridiculous total bullshit we have witnessed from her over recent years !!!

The Star Wars Beam Weapons 3489511464

by 'Wolfie Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:41 am

eddie wrote:
And your evidence is based on what you believe which goes against what eye-witnesses saw and experts dispute.

It is always about what and who, we choose to believe.

Complete bulldust in your statement there, eddie...

Basic science and engineering disproves the conspiracy theories..

If you decide to support the conspiracy nutters/"truthers", you are simply disputing the science and denying any rational thinking, and instead choosing to believe complete nonsense and outright lies.

by eddie Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:09 pm

I remain open. I would suggest that everyone does the same, really.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:50 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:
And your evidence is based on what you believe which goes against what eye-witnesses saw and experts dispute.

It is always about what and who, we choose to believe.

Complete bulldust in your statement there, eddie...

Basic science and engineering disproves the conspiracy theories..

If you decide to support the conspiracy nutters/"truthers", you are simply disputing the science and denying any rational thinking, and instead choosing to believe complete nonsense and outright lies.

Ok wolfie... you want to talk about basics...?

Answer me these questions...

1. What type of planes were flown into the WTC towers...?

2. How fast were they going at this time...? (as of official story/radar/tracking data etc)

3. What is the maximum speed of these aircraft...?

4. What altitude do they need to be flying at to achieve their maximum speeds...?

5. Why is it that they can fly that fast only at very high altitudes, but nowhere near as fast at very low altitudes...?

6. What altitude were they flying at when they hit the WTC towers...?

7. What would be the max achievable speeds of these planes at this altitude...?

8. Compare your Q.7 answer to the answer you gave for Q.2... and explain how they can both be true...?

by Guest Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:23 pm

Show me the report Tommy on the speeds?

No point asking questions on something without presenting facts is it?

by Guest Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:32 pm

You see, I know the above and it is yet again Tommy just buying into something, he has not properly checked.

Hence I want to see what figures he provides.

This will be a good example to show how blind 9/11 truthers are

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:37 am

Didge wrote:Show me the report Tommy on the speeds?

No point asking questions on something without presenting facts is it?

you claimed to have researched it? You total Eddie you had better sources and analysed the data

answer tommy's questions please Basketball

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:Show me the report Tommy on the speeds?

No point asking questions on something without presenting facts is it?

you claimed to have researched it? You total Eddie you had better sources and analysed the data

answer tommy's questions please

I have researched it and he is going off a flawed claim made by "Pilotsfor9/11 Truth"

Hence why I have asked him for details here.

I will answer the first points to help get this going

1) The two planes that flew into the towers was a Boeing 767-223ER (flight AA11) and a Boeing 767-200 (UA175)

2) AA11 approx speed when it hit the Tower was 430 knots and flight UA175 was approx 510 knots groundspeed on impact

3) No such thing as a maximum speed, but a cruising speed. There is however what is known as V-speeds.

4) They can achive higher speeds in dives.

Lets start there shall we and see what Tommy stats, as its he who is making the claims

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:07 am

Looks like Tommy run away Veya, as he has just logged off.

Never mind eh.

Laughing

Anyway, you can read here about these claims

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.t3359/

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-pilots-for-9-11-truth-wtc-speeds.t2942/

https://www.metabunk.org/pilots-for-9-11-truth-simulations-video-debunked.t4809/

https://www.metabunk.org/easyjet-737-incident-debunks-pilot-for-9-11-truth-v-g-diagram-video.t3160/

So bascially the truthers are lying about the Egyptian Jet, using this as evidence on a break up of an aircraft in flight. Except the aircraft never broke up in flight. As if to claim the UA175 would have broken up at 510 knots. Which is as seen incorrect and not only that, it only achieved that speed within the last 10 seconds before impact.

As soon as people look closer at poor claims and false in fact as seen, their whole theory comes crashing down to earth. (no pun intended)

Night

Laughing

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:12 am

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:And your evidence is based on what you believe which goes against what eye-witnesses saw and experts dispute.

It is always about what and who, we choose to believe.

No its is not based on what I believe, but what I have researched

I mean have you actually properly researched 9/11 Eddie?

No you have not, all you have done is read or listen to conspiracies on this?

Have you even read the 9/11 Commision report or any of the evidence?

I examine the many conspiracy claims and as seen they simple do not hold up to scientific reasoning or testing.

Its just people placing doubt based of one claim after another and in many cases, like I say, people have an Ulterior motive in doing so.

The difference between you and me Eddie, is I research and study the evidence. Dont fforget the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists and none have been able to even disprove Al-Qaeda did this. Yes there has been a minor few conspiracies that have turned out to be true, but they were based on overwhelming evidence. The 9/11 so called truthers rely on doubt, based off one claim after another, even when each one is easily refuted.

You just believe the conspiracy theorists on 9/11. You dont even bother to read or listen to rebuttals on them, because in doing so. Just as with religion, it sows the seeds of doubt within your own mind. Like I say, take the outsider test on faith when it comes to the conspiracy theories on 9/11. Look at them as critically as you would anything that you do not believe in.

Research of this kind is debatable. One can research only what one wants to believe. The jury's out for me. I've taken in the facts on both sides and still don't know what really went on here but I'm keeping an open mind.

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:26 am

More professionals putting their necks on the line

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:27 am

Perhaps people just can't accept something so terrible could actually happen.

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:32 am

So, why did Tower 7 collapse?

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:47 am

HoratioTarr wrote:So, why did Tower 7 collapse?

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:50 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

No its is not based on what I believe, but what I have researched

I mean have you actually properly researched 9/11 Eddie?

No you have not, all you have done is read or listen to conspiracies on this?

Have you even read the 9/11 Commision report or any of the evidence?

I examine the many conspiracy claims and as seen they simple do not hold up to scientific reasoning or testing.

Its just people placing doubt based of one claim after another and in many cases, like I say, people have an Ulterior motive in doing so.

The difference between you and me Eddie, is I research and study the evidence. Dont fforget the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists and none have been able to even disprove Al-Qaeda did this. Yes there has been a minor few conspiracies that have turned out to be true, but they were based on overwhelming evidence. The 9/11 so called truthers rely on doubt, based off one claim after another, even when each one is easily refuted.

You just believe the conspiracy theorists on 9/11. You dont even bother to read or listen to rebuttals on them, because in doing so. Just as with religion, it sows the seeds of doubt within your own mind. Like I say, take the outsider test on faith when it comes to the conspiracy theories on 9/11. Look at them as critically as you would anything that you do not believe in.

Research of this kind is debatable. One can research only what one wants to believe. The jury's out for me. I've taken in the facts on both sides and still don't know what really went on here but I'm keeping an open mind.

Again why do you think its debateable?

Because someone cannot accept that some islamic terrorists carried out a combined suicide attack?

Again how many suicide terrorist attacks do you question?

Why this one only?

The jury maybe out for you Horatio, but many claims made, simple do not hold water and are easily explained. Or people have made the wrong conclusions, based off pictures, views people made etc.

by veya_victaous Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:19 pm

I think the truth is probably somewhere in between

I think Planes flew into those buildings and they were hijack by Islamic fanatics
But I get the suspicion that the gov't allowed it to happen.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they did it themselves, more along the lines, that they discovered and then actively ignored a plot that would allow a false flag exercise.

It's a bit like the moon landing conspiracy, originally it was only that the footage was false (not the entire landing) based on the fact that the wireless signals at the time weren't able to transmit that distance in a timely manner that would have allowed 'live' broadcast. (although the tech that would allow those transmission speeds become commercially available a few year later. could have easily been a 'cold war secret')

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:32 pm

veya_victaous wrote:I think the truth is probably somewhere in between

I think Planes flew into those buildings and they were hijack by Islamic fanatics
But I get the suspicion that the gov't allowed it to happen.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they did it themselves, more along the lines, that they discovered and then actively ignored a plot that would allow a false flag exercise.

It's a bit like the moon landing conspiracy, originally it was only that the footage was false (not the entire landing) based on the fact that the wireless signals at the time weren't able to transmit that distance in a timely manner that would have allowed 'live' broadcast. (although the tech that would allow those transmission speeds become commercially available a few year later. could have easily been a 'cold war secret')

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:39 pm

Steel beams melt at 2700 degrees F (1500 degrees C)

Jet fuel max burning temperature of between is 800° to 1500°F

Thermite burns at 4500 Degrees F and can reach those temperatures within 2 seconds.

Thermite has been used in building demolition

Sulphur was found embedded in the steel beams of the Twin Towers.

NIST failed to investigate demolition as a cause of the collapse

The debris continued to burn underground for a very long time. Thermite is known to be able to burn without an adequate oxygen supply. In fact, it will burn underwater.

Nanothermite was found throughout the dust debris.

So, considering all the above, why wouldn't people question the reasons the Towers collapsed so quickly?

The link below is the The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

What's also very interesting is the last section of this video documentary where psychologists speak about why people are finding this evidence so hard to swallow or believe or accept or even think about. Basically, a deep rooted fear of betrayal by a a force or institution that they had utter trust in.... aka; cognitive dissonance.

Quotes from the psychologists

When your beliefs are challenged, fear and anxiety can be created. What kicks in is denial, our most primitive psychological defence.

Whenever we say, 'I refuse to believe...' you can be sure that the evidence coming our way is unbearable.

Not pursuing the truth about 9/11 disrespects the value of the life of the people that died. Thinking that we are above such things, that it could happen in other countries but couldn't happen here? That's a lack of humility.

We need the truth, in order to heal

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:44 pm

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I think the truth is probably somewhere in between

I think Planes flew into those buildings and they were hijack by Islamic fanatics
But I get the suspicion that the gov't allowed it to happen.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they did it themselves, more along the lines, that they discovered and then actively ignored a plot that would allow a false flag exercise.

It's a bit like the moon landing conspiracy, originally it was only that the footage was false (not the entire landing) based on the fact that the wireless signals at the time weren't able to transmit that distance in a timely manner that would have allowed 'live' broadcast. (although the tech that would allow those transmission speeds become commercially available a few year later. could have easily been a 'cold war secret')

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

Wiki is not a 100 percent reliable unbiased source of info. It's often edited and moderated. Also, people can and do go on there to edit it themselves.

by HoratioTarr Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:45 pm

A South American coati. In July 2008, a 17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, saying coatis were also known as "Brazilian aardvarks". The false information lasted for six years in Wikipedia and came to be propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers (one of which was later cited as a source in Wikipedia) and even books published by university presses.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:46 pm

The steel beams did not melt in the Twin towers

Nobody has claimed this happened, its 9/11 truthers, that get this inherantly wrong

Steel loses 50% of its strengh in fires around just 590 decrees

They expand and sag, until they eventually snap

Watch and learn please from 4 minutes

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:48 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Didge wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_before_the_attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories

Wiki is not a 100 percent reliable unbiased source of info. It's often edited and moderated. Also, people can and do go on there to edit it themselves.

Its not a great source, but the later is actually on the conspiracies themselves and what is known about previous intelligence on the attacks

Its simple listing them, as veya made a view on this and hence posted them for him

by eddie Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:17 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:So, why did Tower 7 collapse?

And it was announced that it had collapsed ten minutes or so before it did.
I watched them say it on the BBC News and it was also annoinced in American news.

Both of those video clips are available on YouTube. It’s an off duty American fireman who says he saw the announcement and rushed to the site and it was still standing....then it fell.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:20 pm

eddie wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:So, why did Tower 7 collapse?

And it was announced that it had collapsed ten minutes or so before it did.
I watched them say it on the BBC News and it was also annoinced in American news.

Both of those video clips are available on YouTube. It’s an off duty American fireman who says he saw the announcement and rushed to the site and it was still standing....then it fell.

by eddie Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:25 pm

I’ve seem it. I’ve seem everything you’ve put up, and yes, I can find one to debunk every one of your debunks but really, what’s the point?
I’ve been down this road and back many, many times in many, many debates.

People will believe what they choose. It’s simple.

I prefer to remain open like so many people are doing now. The mood of believing totally in the official story is waning by the year.

It’s why I don’t bother anymore. Ive already got embroiled enough as it is on here lately!

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:34 pm

eddie wrote:I’ve seem it. I’ve seem everything you’ve put up, and yes, I can find one to debunk every one of your debunks but really, what’s the point?
I’ve been down this road and back many, many times in many, many debates.

People will believe what they choose. It’s simple.

I prefer to remain open like so many people are doing now. The mood of believing totally in the official story is waning by the year.

It’s why I don’t bother anymore. Ive already got embroiled enough as it is on here lately!

You dont bother, because you lied claiming you watched the video. If you did, you would see how scientifcally many claims maybe by the truthers are inherantly flawed and wrong

You post 4 minutes after I put the video up and its nearly 20 minutes long

Its simple to easily show flaws in the many hyposthesis put foward by conspiracy 9/11 addicts like you

When one is easily shown to be flawed, like above from Horatio. Claiming the steel melted in the Twin Towers when it never did. We then see you and others move onto other claims. This comes from a claim seeing molten metal falling from the building where the plane crashed. neglecting the very fact that the planes are made of aluminum. Which does melt under tempretures of burning fuel.

The onus is on you to prove your hypothesis and so far you have failed to prove any

Its like I say, when one is easily disproven. The truthers do not admit this and then move onto the next claim

You have just done that very thing

Now if you were being honest Eddie and watch the 7 videos by Miles, you might actually see how easily people like truthers come to so many poor and wrong views on 9/11

by Sponsored content