"All the witnesses are lying and are in on it"
Moderator: Moderators
just to demonstrate the problems i see i will ask this question, so you can understand that untill you all get your story straight there will always be confusion which leads to yet more questions.
here is the question:
Fred claims all the video footage has been faked, buildings, planes, everything. so if all the videos are faked why would one video of a witnesses say they saw NO plane be real?
surely every bit of footage would not beable to be taken as fact if all video was faked, or are we just selective when it fits your arguements?
here is the question:
Fred claims all the video footage has been faked, buildings, planes, everything. so if all the videos are faked why would one video of a witnesses say they saw NO plane be real?
surely every bit of footage would not beable to be taken as fact if all video was faked, or are we just selective when it fits your arguements?
To clarify my POV, I have a very low tolerance for selective evidence being quoted to promote NPT which on even cursory inspection doesn'tKilltown wrote:People who hate the no-plane theory.Stefan wrote:What exactly is a "no-plane-hater"?
do anything of the kind.
Fred quoting people who are on the other side of town saying they didn't see a plane in support of NPT for instance.
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
I’d like to ask a question of Killtown. I heard the aforementioned interview w/ Mike Swenson. I was glad to hear that at least KT doesn’t subscribe to the hologram theory that Popular Mechanics loves to use against us so much. I’ll give him credit for at least that much.
But this is what I want to know. KT often referred to the no plane theories of the Pentagon and equated it with the towers and said there was no difference. But in my case there is a difference. I do believe a plane hit the Pentagon but that it wasn’t a Boeing. It was something much smaller.
I would like to know if KT would consider the possibility that planes did indeed strike the towers but they weren’t Boeings? I'm not saying that I believe that but I'm just curious.
But this is what I want to know. KT often referred to the no plane theories of the Pentagon and equated it with the towers and said there was no difference. But in my case there is a difference. I do believe a plane hit the Pentagon but that it wasn’t a Boeing. It was something much smaller.
I would like to know if KT would consider the possibility that planes did indeed strike the towers but they weren’t Boeings? I'm not saying that I believe that but I'm just curious.
Yes, but IMO nothing bigger than a CALCM bunker busting missile.
So why exactly have you settled on those particular dimensions?
Did any eyewitnesses ever report seeing a missile or something that resembled one?
Also, to be fair to KT, while he did insinuate that some of the eyewitnesses might have been lying he also said that others were probably just wrong about what they thought they saw and influenced by the news reports afterwards.
With that being said, I still don't agree with KT's assertions. The hologram, blue screen theory is really what gets to me though. I was already very skeptical of Fetzer and Wood for pushing those and other bizarre theories. Then I read this and was convinced that they’re working for the other side. It's either that or they've been totally bamboozled by the deliberate disinformation.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/lett ... asquez.pdf
I think that’s why so many people are so hard on no planers KT, even your watered down version. As I’ve already mentioned at least you distance yourself from the goofy hologram deal. I still respect a lot of the work that you’ve done in other areas.
Fetzer and Wood have NEVER promoted holograms or blue screen explanations for planes crashing into the towers. To claim so is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
As to Vasquez's article criticising Wood for persisting in claiming that the molten metal in two photos remains uncertain in spite of the author of the book containing the photos saying that they were of iron, this is an example of someone not wanting to admit that her opponent had been right on this narrow point. It is NOT evidence of deceit or disinformation. She is quite right to point out that the metal pouring out of the South Tower could have been aluminium at a very high temperature and that Professor Jones' argument that it cannot be this is wrong because it is only silvery when it is at its melting point, whereas the metal could have been much hotter than that. However, Wood still needs to explain what could have melted aluminium to such a high temperature that it glowed and lost its high reflectivity before the towers fell. I don't think she can. I believe the metal was lead from the large racks of lead batteries kept on the 81st floor as a backup power supply for the computers in the case of a power failure. See:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Thermate-WTC.html
I suggest that the lead melted (MP = 327.5 degrees Centigrade) and flowed through the damaged floor of the building because all the batteries were bolted onto a raised floor about three feet above the 81st floor, which had been reinforced by Fuji Bank.
In other words, the molten metal flowing from the South Tower is NOT necessarily evidence of the presence of thermate, as Jones thinks. If I am right, Wood has turned out to be right on this issue as well.
As to Vasquez's article criticising Wood for persisting in claiming that the molten metal in two photos remains uncertain in spite of the author of the book containing the photos saying that they were of iron, this is an example of someone not wanting to admit that her opponent had been right on this narrow point. It is NOT evidence of deceit or disinformation. She is quite right to point out that the metal pouring out of the South Tower could have been aluminium at a very high temperature and that Professor Jones' argument that it cannot be this is wrong because it is only silvery when it is at its melting point, whereas the metal could have been much hotter than that. However, Wood still needs to explain what could have melted aluminium to such a high temperature that it glowed and lost its high reflectivity before the towers fell. I don't think she can. I believe the metal was lead from the large racks of lead batteries kept on the 81st floor as a backup power supply for the computers in the case of a power failure. See:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Thermate-WTC.html
I suggest that the lead melted (MP = 327.5 degrees Centigrade) and flowed through the damaged floor of the building because all the batteries were bolted onto a raised floor about three feet above the 81st floor, which had been reinforced by Fuji Bank.
In other words, the molten metal flowing from the South Tower is NOT necessarily evidence of the presence of thermate, as Jones thinks. If I am right, Wood has turned out to be right on this issue as well.
As they say, that's a distinction without a difference.As to Vasquez's article criticising Wood for persisting in claiming that the molten metal in two photos remains uncertain in spite of the author of the book containing the photos saying that they were of iron, this is an example of someone not wanting to admit that her opponent had been right on this narrow point.
What you're telling me is that it was more important for her to protect her ego than it was to tell the truth.
And it's not a narrow point either........
No way, we have pictures and video of the steel beams themselves melting like candles as the giant debris removal claws pulled them out.I believe the metal was lead from the large racks of lead batteries kept on the 81st floor as a backup power supply for the computers in the case of a power failure
Besides, if it what you were saying was true it would be much more common. This was certainly not the first building fire where computers were involved. There ought to be other examples from previous fires where so many first responders confused computer parts with molten steel. Don’t you think they would be able to recognize that by now? Or are you saying that this is the first time that this has ever happened so there's no precedent to base it on? It sounds to me like you’re reaching for straws here.
Then how do you explain this?Fetzer and Wood have NEVER promoted holograms or blue screen explanations for planes crashing into the towers. To claim so is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9346
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9345
I've heard them promote it on his radio show.
-
- Minor Poster
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:00 pm
Killtown and John White-THIS MUST STOP!!
We are trying to get people to see that the 9/11 official story is a lie.
You two have detailitis disease-it does not help.
Imagine what new people to the movement would think if they were directed to this web-site only to see you two bicker.
C'mon guys-we are all on the same side and that goes for everyone.
Both of you are respected here and should not be at each others throats-we all have slightly differing opinions but the crux is TRUTH.
Peace.
We are trying to get people to see that the 9/11 official story is a lie.
You two have detailitis disease-it does not help.
Imagine what new people to the movement would think if they were directed to this web-site only to see you two bicker.
C'mon guys-we are all on the same side and that goes for everyone.
Both of you are respected here and should not be at each others throats-we all have slightly differing opinions but the crux is TRUTH.
Peace.
- Killtown
- 9/11 Truth critic
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:48 am
- Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
- Contact:
1) Because the only thing I know that's been built to penetrate is something like a CALCM.Me wrote:1) So why exactly have you settled on those particular dimensions?
2) Did any eyewitnesses ever report seeing a missile or something that resembled one?
2) Yes, there are various reports of people thinking they saw a missile. See the Woolworth building evidence.
Some of the 1st reports of what hit the tower were a helicopter, just like at the Pentagon.
Bunker busters don’t explode immediately upon impact. They burrow through a pre-determined distance of their target before detonating. Is your position that the immediate fire ball that blew out from the perimeter of the towers was faked? I’m not putting words in to your mouth here, I’m just asking.1) Because the only thing I know that's been built to penetrate is something like a CALCM.