ann_a Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 blip.."this IS exciting,".......? ? ? I prefer your summing up, "It's corrupt,it makes me sick. KenH Let's ignore the drivel in your last post and stick to your first sentence. "You don't post any evidence." ..Right..Building 7.You have ignored this question at least twice.So here it is again. If Building 7 was" extensively" (your words) damaged,why did it fall down so symmetrically? By the way,which news outlet would you recommend?Fox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 KenH Let's ignore the drivel in your last post and stick to your first sentence. "You don't post any evidence." ..Right..Building 7.You have ignored this question at least twice.So here it is again. If Building 7 was" extensively" (your words) damaged,why did it fall down so symmetrically? By the way,which news outlet would you recommend?Fox? Firstly, you should point out some drivel in my post. Secondly, I would be interested to know where I have claimed anything about building 7? I don't comment on the buildings, except to say that I am convinced by the entirely reasonable and believable evidence of structural engineers. I comment on aviation related matters, because I know a great deal about these. I find that it works best if I comment about those areas where I clearly know far more than the fruitcakes posting the garbage. However, I believe building 7 had a big building fall on it from a great height and so collapsed. Perhaps you should now spend some time and look back through my notes about how wrong Bowman was and then condem him for his daft ideas? Alternatively you can choose to believe Bowman rather than me, which then puts you in a strange situation because Bowman then rubbishes the theories from other fruitcakes about the interceptor timings. Alternatively call up a flight training school and ask them what happens when your radio doesn't work, or the transponder goes offline, or perhaps post such a question on an aviation bulletin board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Have just gone back through the posts and found that it was Tony who said that Building 7 was extensively damaged..so I apologise for that,however you lost your crediblity when you said losing radio-contact,transponder off AND flying off-course was of no concern. I'm also surprised that you didn't know how long it took for the fighter jets to be scrambled..five minutes I'm told,tho' the official site has apparently changed this from five to fifteen. It comes down to this. Too many lies. Too many discrepencies. Far too many coincidences. ..........And wer'e the fruitcakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 lost your crediblity when you said losing radio-contact,transponder off AND flying off-course was of no concern. . I never said that. I explained what the procedures are for such eventualities and pointed to official documents to support this. I also have substanial personal experience in these areas. ATC would certainly be concerned if an aircraft did all of these things, the question is, in a pre-911 world what would they make of it? In busy controlled airspace, the loss of a transponder is a slight concern but happens and gets dealt with easily. Loss of comms in such a situation is more of a concern but there are also procedures to follow to keep everyone safe. In the event that comms fail there is an option to leave controlled airspace and so the controllers wouldn't necessarily assume something had gone terribly wrong. Let's not forget that we are talking about ATC staff who had never seen a mass hijack with the intention of making the aircraft into large flying bombs. ATC staff expect technical problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 If Building 7 was" extensively" (your words) damaged,why did it fall down so symmetrically? ann_a, the answer is clear. It fell down like that because it did! Why shouldn't it? If a portion of the structure fails first then yes, the rest of the structure will follow it. That's why demolition is planned that way. This is no more evidence of a planned demolition than I am made of cheese. Where is the evidence that is was planned? Who planted the explosives? How did they do it undetected? Why was no trace of explosives found by investigators? And most of all... Why has not a single one of the thousands of people that would be needed to perpetrate this huge conspiracy felt a pang of conscience and come forward either in person or by (say) anonymous letter to the BBC? Try giving it a moments thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Didn't you watch any of the video's posted earlier?All your questions can be answered there. The BBC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 No, none of my questions are answered there, in fact most of the proponents of ideas there do little more than prove their incredible stupidity and / or naivety. We obviously have a very different opinion of what stands up as credible evidence so I guess we'll have to leave it there ann_a. Rather than just pass me back to a piece of 'work' that I consider to be easily debunked why don't you answer me this; Why has not a single one of the thousands of people that would be needed to perpetrate this huge conspiracy felt a pang of conscience and come forward either in person or by (say) anonymous letter to the BBC? (Pick a news channel of choice - even Al-Jazeera will do if you don't like the BBC) Heck there isn't even a page on the internet by someone involved! Where are the whistle blowers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 This is actually really freaky!! What do you think now? I honestly dont think that the murdering pigs had gone into as deeply as that to be honest. Though I must admit that the last bit is very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I honestly dont think that the murdering pigs had gone into as deeply as that to be honest. Though I must admit that the last bit is very strange. See my post, no 1288 - that flight number with the Wingdings translation was a wind up that was put out years ago. It's not the real flight number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 See my post, no 1288 - that flight number with the Wingdings translation was a wind up that was put out years ago. It's not the real flight number. I shall have to start paying more attention to you Barty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.