tinfoilhat Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I think the evidence to support controlled demolition is far stronger and more likely than it being caused by office fires and structural damage at one end. I'm certain of that. If in your heads you believe it would have to involve tens of thousands of people to pull off, then I understand why you can't accept the truth. You have no more idea of the "truth" than anyone else. There have been enough documentaries done from umpteen different sources showing what happened and some big names in the world of engineering have put their names to them. Are they all in on it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 That would be the same David Ike who claimed the world is going to be taken over by Lizard People. Which is relevant to this discussion because...? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 23:52 ---------- You have no more idea of the "truth" than anyone else. There have been enough documentaries done from umpteen different sources showing what happened and some big names in the world of engineering have put their names to them. Are they all in on it ? What are these documentaries that showed what happened please. There's what NIST said- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=youtube_gdata_player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Which is relevant to this discussion because...? .............. because there is a large correlation between people who post on the DIF and people believe in conspiracy theories - 9/11, 7/7, chemtrails, HAARP, Hollie Greig, marijuana cures cancer etc etc............we are all controlled by "TPTB", except of course "truth seekers" - who swallow any old youtube guff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Which is relevant to this discussion because...? ---------- Post added 27-02-2013 at 23:52 ---------- What are these documentaries that showed what happened please. There's what NIST said- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=youtube_gdata_player Goody another YouTube link. Sky one did one as part of a series debunking conspiracy theories. National geographic did one, as did the discovery channel. Bbc might have done one - cripes just turn the telly on every sept 11, you're spoilt for choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 There's what NIST said- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=youtube_gdata_player No - that is what AE9/11truth said NIST said. AE9/11 truth also said (going back to the OP) that; http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/711-historic-case-to-challenge-bbcs-911-coverage.html "On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11." not that "a guy will be up before the magistrates for not paying his licence fee - and as anyone with a passing knowledge of law will know - any guff about 9/11 will be ruled inadmissible." AE9/11truth - professionals - "Historic Court Case" :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 So the judge threw a spanner in the works and it didn't go as expected. Obviously the A&E's are not as good at predicting future events as the BBC Wrong again -any professional would have known that citing the Prevention of Terrorism Act in defence against paying your licence fee was a non-starter. AE9/11truth hardly make the grade as amateurs - all those donations they've had (although drying up fast) and all those architects and engineers haven't produced one even vaguely credible report likely to convince a sane professional. They make youtubes and flog them as DVD's to the incredulous and gullible that inhabit the likes of DIF- a nice living for Richard Gage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I think the evidence to support controlled demolition is far stronger and more likely than it being caused by office fires and structural damage at one end. I'm certain of that. If in your heads you believe it would have to involve tens of thousands of people to pull off, then I understand why you can't accept the truth. The fact that anyone can call a fully fuelled 767 crashing into a building at a few hundred mph an "office fire" just shows how removed from reality they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 What point would that be? The point is if your planning on demolishing a building why make the conspiracy even larger by briefing people prior to it happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I think the evidence to support controlled demolition is far stronger and more likely than it being caused by office fires and structural damage at one end. I'm certain of that. From here: Has NIST responded to those who believe that the WTC towers collapsed in ways other than the mechanisms determined by the NIST investigation? When the final report on the WTC towers was released in October 2005, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety, and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report’s 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards, and practices. However, there have been claims from so-called “alternative theory” groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down. To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (http://wtc.nist.gov/). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11, or that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, the fact sheet describes how photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. NIST respects the right of others to hold opinions that do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. However, the WTC Investigation Team stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report. Perhaps you ought to read the information released by NIST itself rather than someone else's distorted reports of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Hang on one second! This guy was in court for not paying his tv license? But according to so many people on here there's no law that says you have to! Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.