Survivalist Forum - Reply to Topic
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Controversial News and Alternative Politics The conspiracy theory section

Advertise Here
Thread: World Trade Center - 15 years - Who did it? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
10-15-2019 10:37 PM
DTAG1307 BTW, if you don't think Bin Laden was the true instigator and facilitator of 911 you do have support of one very public person.

Louis Farrakhan
10-13-2019 10:09 AM
Corpus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revmgt View Post
I told you a month ago I had no intention on sending anyone an email, i’ll Tell you the same thing again.

I have no intention on sending anyone an email. I’m definitely not sending an email to prove something to you.

SNIP
.

I’m not asking you to prove it to me.

What I am saying is that you have ZERO credibility on this subject when you make a statement like:
“”AIA endorses Gage/AE911truth””, then when I prove that is not true you cannot even be bothered to prove it to yourself.

What you have succeeded in proving is that you don’t care about the truth at all. You just want it to be true so you are willing to believe any clown that puts up a website or a YouTube vid.
10-13-2019 09:45 AM
Exarmyguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTAG1307 View Post
No... It's PIG Newton!
More like fig newton.
10-13-2019 09:40 AM
DTAG1307 No... It's PIG Newton!
10-13-2019 02:21 AM
Central Scrutinizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revmgt View Post
Your posts are getting just too hard to answer.
There you go.
10-13-2019 02:19 AM
Central Scrutinizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revmgt View Post
This story and video actually makes our point, thanks for sharing. This is how a progressive collapse actually occurs, asymmetrically, off the the side. This building should have fallen directly into it’s own footprint if it was following the new physics in this new age of “coincidental physics”
No what it proves is that the floors below the initial collapse failed because they could not hold the live load of the floors above. Imagine if this had been an occupied building filled with people, furnishings and equipment.
10-13-2019 02:17 AM
Central Scrutinizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exarmyguy View Post
Something more in line with the size of the supposed aircraft.
The remaining volume and size of the aircraft was somewhat smaller after being extruded into the hole outside the building. The fuselage started out roughly round so no dice on a square hole.
10-12-2019 07:04 PM
Revmgt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
Here we have now today a progressive collapse of a building.

https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/l...e-0bd480274f44

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
This story and video actually makes our point, thanks for sharing. This is how a progressive collapse actually occurs, asymmetrically, off the the side. This building should have fallen directly into it’s own footprint if it was following the new physics in this new age of “coincidental physics”
10-12-2019 06:59 PM
Revmgt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
What geometry hole would you expect in those walls?

Square? Triangular? Rhomboid?
Your posts are getting too stupid to answer.
10-12-2019 06:57 PM
Revmgt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corpus View Post
Just wondering if you’ve bothered to search for the truth at AIA yet?

As you know I did email them about your statement and AE911truth’s claim that AIA endorses their views. I posted their(AIA) response here (see below)in which they state there is no such endorsement. Since you called me a liar and you profess to be searching for the truth I’d imagine you would contact them yourself.
No?
Still have no intention of contacting them??

I was surprised that you admitted you have no intention of contacting them, you could easily have made up a response in which they back your opinion, or you could insist that “Tha Gubmint” got to them.


How can you or any “truther” expect to be taken seriously when you won’t even bother to send a lousy email?

SAD!!!
I told you a month ago I had no intention on sending anyone an email, i’ll Tell you the same thing again.
I have no intention on sending anyone an email. I’m definitely not sending an email to prove something to you.

Your grammar school psychology doesn’t impact me, say it’s sad all you want. Even though I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time countering you on this thread I give zero ****s what you think is sad or not, I give zero ****s about your opinion. I make my points to contribute to this thread for anyone who may come along and read it.
I also told the alleged lawyer that maybe he should send an email to John Gross and ask him why he did any check for explosives. Or maybe send a letter to Larry Silverstein and ask him why he signed a 99 year lease on a building that needed a half a billion dollars worth of asbestos abatement. Contact whoever you want, I gave you my answer on contacting AIA a month ago.
10-12-2019 03:24 PM
Exarmyguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
What geometry hole would you expect in those walls?

Square? Triangular? Rhomboid?
Something more in line with the size of the supposed aircraft.
10-12-2019 01:41 PM
Central Scrutinizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revmgt View Post
(snip)

There are round holes punched through those 18 inch walls, so using YOUR flawed logic, explain how that happened.


(snip)
What geometry hole would you expect in those walls?

Square? Triangular? Rhomboid?
10-12-2019 12:34 PM
Central Scrutinizer Here we have now today a progressive collapse of a building.

https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/l...e-0bd480274f44

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
10-12-2019 10:45 AM
Exarmyguy All that ,protected because of failed national defence, camera footage would go a long way to prove it was an aircraft that hit the pentagon . Of course proponents of the official "jet theory" like to use the camera footage is secret because it will somehow stop it from happening again. What trash,kind of like closing the door after the cows have left the barn. There was nothing secret about what happened. Something hit the pentagon. Showing what hit the pentagon is whats being kept secret.
10-12-2019 06:49 AM
Justme11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revmgt View Post
I didn’t say anything about a nose cone being intact. I didn’t say a nose cone could have penetrated at all, that’s what we’re told as a part of the official story, which is bull****.
I also never said anything about a 9 foot thick wall, I said 9 feet of steel rebar reinforced concrete. The walls of the pentagon are 18 inches thick and they’re made of steel rebar reinforced concrete, and we’re told the airplane managed to pierce 6 of those walls.

Have you ever bothered to look at pictures of the pentagon after the incident? There are round holes punched through those 18 inch walls, so using YOUR flawed logic, explain how that happened.
Do you know the vertical stabilizer was higher than the pentagon? The facade of the building about the impact was intact, undamaged, and collapsed from lack of support. For a while after the impact, before it collapsed, there was a round hole in the outer wall of the pentagon. Was that a special model without a vertical stabilizer? An experimental aircraft maybe?

Anyone who is unsure should look at the pictures for themselves. You either never saw the pictures or you’ve seen them and just spout bull**** figuring others won’t look at the pictures. Either way, you have no credibility
Yes, unless that jet liner jettisoned the engines and tail, and had folding wings, it wasn't a jet liner.

https://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html
10-12-2019 06:20 AM
Corpus
World Trade Center - 15 years - Who did it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revmgt View Post
So when I take what you say literally you consider that me fixating on nonsense? Might be right, I should pay less attention to the nonsense you say. I’m going to start now.

You think it makes sense to compare a bullet going through a book to a projectile going through 6 18” concrete walls, that’s truly nonsense


Just wondering if you’ve bothered to search for the truth at AIA yet?

As you know I did email them about your statement and AE911truth’s claim that AIA endorses their views. I posted their(AIA) response here (see below)in which they state there is no such endorsement. Since you called me a liar and you profess to be searching for the truth I’d imagine you would contact them yourself.
No?
Still have no intention of contacting them??

I was surprised that you admitted you have no intention of contacting them, you could easily have made up a response in which they back your opinion, or you could insist that “Tha Gubmint” got to them.


How can you or any “truther” expect to be taken seriously when you won’t even bother to send a lousy email?

SAD!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corpus View Post
I pointed out in my other post that I had emailed Matt Tinder Director Media Relations at AIA and I got a response from Jessie Cornelius Sr. Director, Media Strategies at AIA

Here is the response from AIA:
_____________________________________
We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. The AIA does not have a position on this organization, nor does the AIA endorse its views. The organization is no longer an approved AIA Continuing Education provider.

Thanks again for letting us know what you found on YouTube, and please don’t hesitate to reach out again. Receiving information like this is extremely helpful so that we can follow up on any unauthorized use of the AIA name.

Best,
Jessie
_____________________________________

My original email:

I apologize in advance if you have addressed this before, but these films are still being promoted as approved by AIA. The implication being that your organization recommends them for use in schools to teach what happened on 9/11, specifically the collapse of WTC1&2 and Bldng 7.
I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify the AIA’s position on Richard Gage, the AE911truth group and their theories.
I cannot imagine an organization such as yours would promote or endorse the views in these films but if so perhaps I need to re-evaluate my understanding of the events on that day.

Below is the title of the video on YouTube and below that a link to the video.
The very first words on the video are: “”welcome to our AIA/CES Approved course...””


9/11: An Architect's Guide - Part 1 - World Trade Center 7 (4/6/17 Webinar - R Gage)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIQif42iJg

Thank you in advance for taking a moment to address this issue.

______________________________________

This leaves little room for doubt but you are certainly welcome to contact them yourself, it seems to me that is something you would have done already if you wanted to verify the video’s implication of endorsement by AIA.
10-11-2019 08:08 PM
Revmgt
Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Windshields are indeed hardened to the extent that they can absorb several hits from a blunt object, and they are designed to be stronger than typical glass. I.e. "hardened." You're fixated on nonsense, again.



Your statement is, not surprisingly, misleading. Six 18" walls is different than the one 9' thick wall you're comparing to. A bullet will travel farther thru widely spaced individual pieces of paper than it will a single thick book of paper. Try it. Simple science example. Same thing. Six thinner walls offer less stopping power than one thick wall. So you're misleading or simply don't understand.

18" isn't impenetrable. Hold up your hands at 18" apart. Even six of them spaced a distance apart isn't impenetrable. Obviously the plane did it. The plane was traveling around 500mph and weighted 255,000 lbs according to open sources information. Do you expect it to just bounce off a concrete/rebar wall or 6 walls? Nope.

Further, the plane was entirely destroyed in going thru six walls. And it barely made a hole in the final wall. So more like 5 walls, plus a hole in wall 6.
So when I take what you say literally you consider that me fixating on nonsense? Might be right, I should pay less attention to the nonsense you say. I’m going to start now.
You think it makes sense to compare a bullet going through a book to a projectile going through 6 18” concrete walls, that’s truly nonsense
10-11-2019 08:00 PM
Revmgt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
What you are saying is nonsense. Do you have a picture of a fiberglass nose cone/radome remaining intact?

Your logic is flawed. There was no 9 foot thick rebar reinforced wall.

You are implying that the outer wall must have been 9ft thick. Most of the mass in the aircraft was within the fuselage and the contents of the fuselage.

Once the plane hit the building, that jumbled mass had only one way to go and it was the direction it was already committed to travel. It was not going to bounce off the building.

And to answer your next question, the earth is not flat.
I didn’t say anything about a nose cone being intact. I didn’t say a nose cone could have penetrated at all, that’s what we’re told as a part of the official story, which is bull****.
I also never said anything about a 9 foot thick wall, I said 9 feet of steel rebar reinforced concrete. The walls of the pentagon are 18 inches thick and they’re made of steel rebar reinforced concrete, and we’re told the airplane managed to pierce 6 of those walls.

Have you ever bothered to look at pictures of the pentagon after the incident? There are round holes punched through those 18 inch walls, so using YOUR flawed logic, explain how that happened.
Do you know the vertical stabilizer was higher than the pentagon? The facade of the building about the impact was intact, undamaged, and collapsed from lack of support. For a while after the impact, before it collapsed, there was a round hole in the outer wall of the pentagon. Was that a special model without a vertical stabilizer? An experimental aircraft maybe?

Anyone who is unsure should look at the pictures for themselves. You either never saw the pictures or you’ve seen them and just spout bull**** figuring others won’t look at the pictures. Either way, you have no credibility
10-11-2019 06:31 PM
leadcounsel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
I was simply stating which parts of the story are impossible, and offering explanations as to what was actually possible. In the physical world, that obeys the laws of physics.

Not hard to understand that the WTC was the "Big Stage". They needed a big splashy video taped attack to generate the hatred and calls for a massive war of retribution. Super high population density means that they had to use airplanes of some sort.

And the anthrax was thrown in I suppose to generate even more fear and panic.

There was a planned terror plot by the terrorists. And as Susan Lindhauer stated, the CIA knew that they were unable to succeed. But the CIA used them and augmented the actions of that day to make it appear they succeeded. This is what the CIA does. They pull off the slight of hand needed to produce justification for war (or in the case of Sandy Hook and the Pulse nightclub shooting, and several others for gun control).

Since 9-11, they have tried again multiple times, faking many so called chemical weapons attacks and bombing attacks.

Just recently there were 2 chemical weapons attacks they blamed on Syria and were trying to drum up a war with them. When the world saw through and exposed their lies, we finally pulled out.

As I said, they were needing to kill thousands of Americans that day. So killing a few more passengers on the planes was not an ethical problem.

There are not millions of people living next to the Pentagon, so a cruise missile and a camera retrieval squad was the plan there. along with a couple of planted official witnesses.

Remember the official witness interviewed at ground zero of the WTC?
My god, he was so obvious. He gave the whole official story, right down to the beam weakening mechanism of the tower collapse. Just noticed from the comments, that the black man behind them is obviously a CIA agent.
Wow, read the comments.
9/11 Eyewitness - "Harley Guy" Mark Walsh/Nick Pugh - YouTube


Why did they drill a hole in the ground at Shankesville? No idea. Like I said, I only point out when stuff is impossible. In the world we live in.
It is quite impossible for a plane with thousands of gallons of kerosene to crash into the ground and leave zero detectable trace of kerosene in the dirt, which was lab tested. That fact alone disproves the plane theory at that location. Of course there were many other bits of data that prove there was no plane there. But all you need is one bit of proof and you can save your time.

Why is it all so complicated? Well, that's how the CIA works. Thousands of people working together to fashion a "reality" to accomplish their objectives.

Here, the objectives were a huge war with unlimited budget and demolishing the US Constitution with the Patriot Act, and expanding their reach with the Dept of Homeland Security, the TSA, etc.
The plane hit at an angle and the fuel vapored and burned up in the forest - notice the acre of burned forest.
10-11-2019 06:04 PM
Justme11

Just happened across a very clear pic of the tower collapse. Remarkable how much dust was created.

https://www.crystalinks.com/911-aerial.jpg
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net