IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags pentagon

Reply
Old 6th February 2008, 03:06 PM   #81
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
Of Course Cutting Torches Were Used During The Cleanup Operation

Hi Pete:

Quote:
Pete >> Why are you ignoring the fact that workers in the clean up operation used oxy acetylene flame cutters?

Iron workers definitely used all kinds of torches during the WTC cleanup operation. Why would Pete intimate that I believe otherwise? This massive column over the Confused Fireman’s head was NOT cut by any cutting torch. Christopher Bollyn showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion. He writes,


Quote:


Christopher Bollyn >> There is substantial evidence that thermite was used to cut the central support columns, which caused the towers to fall.

Evidence can be seen on photographs of the columns from the rubble of the World Trade Center.

In this photo, for example, the column directly above the fireman's helmet shows that it was cut with thermite. There is a substantial amount of hardened molten iron which can be seen on both the inside and outside of the box column. This is precisely what one would expect to find on a column which had been cut with thermite.

Experts who have viewed this photograph say that this column was not cut with a torch.

Does Christopher Bollyn or his experts believe that “oxy acetylene flame cutters” were NOT used in the aftermath of these attacks? Only if they are MORONS. :0) The reason we draw this conclusion is because of the molten metal residue that frothed up and literally boiled over on the outside ‘and’ the inside of the column. This massive column was ‘cut’ chemically and not physically using any kind of cutting torch at all. Practically every steel-frame building demolition job includes cutting torches, but that does not mean this 45-degree angle cut some 40 to 50 feet in the air was cut with anything like that.

Quote:
Pete >> Everytime someone shows you evidence that the cuts were not made by thermite, but by oxyacetylene you duck dodge ignore the evidence presented. Don't be frightened Terral, this is not an attack on you, just a contradiction of your theory.

The fact is that your ‘cutting torch’ assertions do nothing to challenge my WTC-7 OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence or Conclusions one way or the other. Your job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed due to BUILDING FIRES, which has nothing to do with any torches or any cleanup operation.

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)

I swear one of you guys is going to make me bust a rib laughing . . .

GL,

Terral
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:09 PM   #82
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Notice in your other post, you said ALL (in nice caps even) but in his post you quoted: Terral states: Bolding mine. Does plenty equal ALL? Not in my book. In your book for some reason, plenty equates to ALL. BTW, thanks for the posting of that scorched shiny metal debris piece that does not have the rivet holes ripped away.



Aww twinstead, I only pointed out one piece of debris that doesn't look like it should ie, ripped rivet holes, indented rivet holes, scorch marks, etc. (Thanks again lapman for posting that pic.) And where did I even post what I thought the Pentagon crash site should look like? I'm giving Terral the benefit of doubt to see where this leads.
You’re giving Terral the benefit of the doubt? Well maybe you should ask him about one of his sources, rense.com. This link for example.

< http://home.att.net/~south.tower/Pen...ongEngine1.htm >

As you can see they say that the two parts are "dead ringers". Do you notice any differences between the two? Hardly dead wringers by any means, maybe to the untrained eye.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:09 PM   #83
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Hi Pete:

Iron workers definitely used all kinds of torches during the WTC cleanup operation. Why would Pete intimate that I believe otherwise? This massive column over the Confused Fireman’s head was NOT cut by any cutting torch. Christopher Bollyn showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion. He writes,

Does Christopher Bollyn or his experts believe that “oxy acetylene flame cutters” were NOT used in the aftermath of these attacks? Only if they are MORONS. :0) The reason we draw this conclusion is because of the molten metal residue that frothed up and literally boiled over on the outside ‘and’ the inside of the column. This massive column was ‘cut’ chemically and not physically using any kind of cutting torch at all. Practically every steel-frame building demolition job includes cutting torches, but that does not mean this 45-degree angle cut some 40 to 50 feet in the air was cut with anything like that.

The fact is that your ‘cutting torch’ assertions do nothing to challenge my WTC-7 OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence or Conclusions one way or the other. Your job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed due to BUILDING FIRES, which has nothing to do with any torches or any cleanup operation.

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)

I swear one of you guys is going to make me bust a rib laughing . . .

GL,

Terral
You are making up lies based on ridiculous hearsay. Are you making this up on your own? Are your dumb posts your own, or are you getting help making the dumbest posts on the internet about 9/11? Not very good either. (you better check the names, many are fake; but 1000 idiots who say it is so, are still 1000 idiots who have been wrong)
You do not even take time to support your rants of hearsay. Not a single thing you say makes sense. How can you post so much ridicules hearsay without checking it out?

Last edited by beachnut; 6th February 2008 at 03:26 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:10 PM   #84
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Terral don't forget to add that it's not necessary to talk to these people (iron workers on site)because you know the "truth".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:17 PM   #85
peteweaver
Graduate Poster
 
peteweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,006
Terral, I don't care what Christopher Bollyn said, the mans a buffoon. I've used cutting torches and they are the only things which were in that area which could have made those cuts.

Thermite burns downwards and it is VERY VERY messy.

Its also the case that number of firefighters remained at ground zero for months during the clean up so they could search for their fallen comrades.

That photo you show Terral, shows firefighters at the scene AFTER the cleanup had begun, and the dismantling of the remaining structure had begun.

There is no evidence whatsoever that thermite is even capable of making a cut like that. The Truthburn project bottled out of trying to demonstrate that at the burning man festival last year. Cuts like that cannot be done with thermite, they can however be done with oxy acetylene, and thats how those cuts were made.
peteweaver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:18 PM   #86
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Quote:
I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)

A.There are damn few REAL Architecs or Engineers at that site . It's like 1% real engineers and Architects (whom have sadly allowed their politics to overrule their professional judgement) and 99% wackjob supporters.
B. Of all the kooky websites there are on the Web,you would be hard pressed to find one that is kookier the "Prison Planet". Alex Jones is such a total wackjob that some truthers consider him a "disinfo" agent.
I am amazed that Terral has not learned that by citing crackpot CT websites for his sources of Information he is only digging himself deeper into a hole..although he should be reaching China by about now.

Last edited by dudalb; 6th February 2008 at 03:19 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:22 PM   #87
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
The DoD Created Their Own AA77 Flying BOMB

Hi AMTMAN:

Quote:
AMT >> As you can see they say that the two parts are "dead ringers". Do you notice any differences between the two? Hardly dead wringers by any means, maybe to the untrained eye.

Someone else mentioned in another thread that I ‘should not use’ specific links, because the author there drew a different set of conclusions. I say “poppycock!” We can all benefit from the ‘evidence’ gathered by many different 911Truthers, even if we draw ‘different conclusions.’ Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else. However, the EVIDENCE shows Pratt and Whitney Jet parts common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything, but in this case they needed one that looked like a real 100-Ton Jetliner. Their eyewitnesses would not be trained military people, but regular Joe’s going to work simply driving by the Pentagon.

GL,

Terral
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:31 PM   #88
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
Do no post plane parts, Swing will be confused, he has never see a 500 mph aircraft crash, he is ignorant on the subject as is bofors, terral, and the entire cast of 9/11 truth. If they had knowledge of high speed aircraft crashes they would see all the parts. Are these guys no plane dolt idea people?

Pieces of the jet indicative of a 500 mph aircraft crash will only confuse those who are prone to believe the lies and hearsay of 9/11 truth.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:31 PM   #89
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Quote:
By Terral
I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)
Have you ever heard of NIST. There are more engineers involved in that report then aetwoofers will ever have. So to answer your question, Look at the NIST contributors.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 6th February 2008 at 03:36 PM. Reason: edit last line to make sense
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:38 PM   #90
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Hi AMTMAN:
Someone else mentioned in another thread that I ‘should not use’ specific links, because the author there drew a different set of conclusions. I say “poppycock!” We can all benefit from the ‘evidence’ gathered by many different 911Truthers, even if we draw ‘different conclusions.’ Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else. However, the EVIDENCE shows Pratt and Whitney Jet parts common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything, but in this case they needed one that looked like a real 100-Ton Jetliner. Their eyewitnesses would not be trained military people, but regular Joe’s going to work simply driving by the Pentagon.
GL, Terral
A post of pure ignorance on this subject. Lies and implying people were in on it without evidence is an ignorant thing to do. Since 77 hit the Pentagon, your lies are exposed.

You say you do not care if your own references debunk you, you stand by your lies.

Your post proven wrong by thousands of pieces of evidence, your ideas backed by thousands of idiots on 9/11 who are as ill informed as you are on 9/11.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911p...videncesummary

Last edited by beachnut; 6th February 2008 at 03:40 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:39 PM   #91
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet...
Well, then what kind of jet was used? What was the make and model? To date you've kept talking about the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior.

Originally Posted by Terral View Post
...to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals.
You do realize that doing that would seriously change the aerodynamics of the aircraft model so modified? You can't slap a bunch of new exterior parts onto an airframe thereby changing its shape and expect it to fly just the same as it always did.

Wouldn't it just be easier to use an actual 757 rather than go through all the trouble of trying to disguise some other jet type?
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:41 PM   #92
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Just as I suspected, Swing. You aren't paying attention. I'm disappointed in you playing that whole argument by incredulity game. The Pentagon crash doesn't look like you think it should look, therefore it must be fake.

This is beneath you.
Beneath him? No, it isn't. It's S.O.P. for him.
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 03:46 PM   #93
peteweaver
Graduate Poster
 
peteweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,006
Er Rolls Royce RB211-535e's are EXTREMELY COMMON POWERPLANTS.

The RB211 was initially developed for the Lockheed L1011 tristar in the 1970's, and saved Rolls Royce from bankrupcy. The RB211 proved to be an excellent engine, which was test flown in 1974 on a modified Super VC 10, with 1 RB211 on one side, and two Conways on the other, it provided almost as much thurst as the two Conways conbined, and warped the airframe of VC10 registration G-AXLR.

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

The RB211-535e is used on everything from Boeing 747's to Tupolevs. It is an excellent workhorse and can be found on airliners the world over.

757's in the American Airlines fleet are fitted with RB211-535e's, and the wreckage matches RB211-535e parts, which are manufactured in the UK.

The RB211-535e can generate 43100 pounds per square foot of thrust.

Incidentally the JT8D, was never used on A3 Skywarriors, but was used on boeing 727's, 737's, DC9's and other airliners, it was based upon the P&W J52 turbojet which was developed for the Grumman A6 Intruder.

And look at this Terral, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml
RB211-535e parts in pentagon wreckage matched to spares catalogue.
peteweaver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 04:40 PM   #94
Skibum
Graduate Poster
 
Skibum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,659
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Christopher Bollyn showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion.

Strange, I showed the same pic to my experts and all 10,329 of them disagree with his.


Who are his "experts"?

My guess would be they are similar to the other "experts" the idiot movement trots out, experts at nothing, only fellow idiots.

Last edited by Skibum; 6th February 2008 at 04:41 PM.
Skibum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 04:52 PM   #95
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Maybe we should all concentrate on one fact at a time, repeating it until Terral either runs screaming to a dark corner where the facts can't find him, or is forced to admit the error.

I vote we start with the fact that Therm?te cannot burn sideways, but that's just me.
Maybe someone has an easier start-point for us to use. Something simple, to test the idea out.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

Last edited by X; 6th February 2008 at 04:53 PM.
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 04:59 PM   #96
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by [X] View Post
Maybe we should all concentrate on one fact at a time, repeating it until Terral either runs screaming to a dark corner where the facts can't find him, or is forced to admit the error.

I vote we start with the fact that Therm?te cannot burn sideways, but that's just me.
Maybe someone has an easier start-point for us to use. Something simple, to test the idea out.
It's no use. He knows he is right, and for crying out loud he's delusional enough to think he has THOUSANDS of experts to support him! He's beyond hope.

On an up note, he of course will never do more than spread this crap on an internet forum, and his movement will NEVER be able to garner support from anybody who can even begin to do anything about anything.

That's kind of our little revenge for having to put up with him.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 05:06 PM   #97
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Hi Pete:




Iron workers definitely used all kinds of torches during the WTC cleanup operation. Why would Pete intimate that I believe otherwise? This massive column over the Confused Fireman’s head was NOT cut by any cutting torch. Christopher Bollyn showed the same picture to his experts and they came to the same exact conclusion. He writes,





Does Christopher Bollyn or his experts believe that “oxy acetylene flame cutters” were NOT used in the aftermath of these attacks? Only if they are MORONS. :0) The reason we draw this conclusion is because of the molten metal residue that frothed up and literally boiled over on the outside ‘and’ the inside of the column. This massive column was ‘cut’ chemically and not physically using any kind of cutting torch at all. Practically every steel-frame building demolition job includes cutting torches, but that does not mean this 45-degree angle cut some 40 to 50 feet in the air was cut with anything like that.




The fact is that your ‘cutting torch’ assertions do nothing to challenge my WTC-7 OP Thesis, Claims, Evidence or Conclusions one way or the other. Your job is to prove that WTC-7 collapsed due to BUILDING FIRES, which has nothing to do with any torches or any cleanup operation.

I have over a thousand Professional Architects, Engineers and Supporters agreeing with my “Controlled Demolition” Hypothesis. Prison Planet used Christopher Bollyn’s evidence to support ‘their’ CD explanations here. Where are your professionals willing to put their reputations on the line by endorsing ‘your’ Building Fires Did It claims? :0)

I swear one of you guys is going to make me bust a rib laughing . . .

GL,

Terral

But the Neo-Nazi Bollyn has no experts. No demolition experts believe that thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks because thermite is not used in demolition and there no evidence of thermite. Why do you continue to lie?
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 05:22 PM   #98
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Lets see...here's a question Terral asks himself..and he answers it right away:

Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No!

So Terral doesn't believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon. He does claim the Department of Defense practices jet retrofitting to make their planes replicate commercial airliners.

Quote:
The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else.
Gee Terral, who made the decision to retrofit the planes? How would they select those that did the retrofitting without raising suspicion from co-workers? Why haven't there been leaks or allegations from the DoD? Who decided American Airlines was the company of choice to replicate?
Oh wait! There is something...

Quote:
However, the EVIDENCE shows
What?? Evidence?? You understand what REAL evidence means???
Lets observe YOUR evidence (cough..speculation...cough).

Quote:
[url=http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/PentagonA3wreckage1.htm]
Wait a minute..what did you say above?

Quote:
Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No!
Why have you posted a URL that makes this claim; PentagonA3wreckage??

And this claim...

Quote:
Pratt and Whitney Jet parts are common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything
Sure thing, they can go out and make a military jet look like....a military jet.
Back in the retrofitting department, they are operating on a budget so the decision is made to use Pratt & Whitney engines. Rolls Royce engines will break the DoD inside job bank, therefore the plan was made to exclude them.
Terral do you suppose any of those in the retrofitting group had a question about the engine choice? A question like RetroRays;

Ray: Since we are using Pratt & Whitney engines, and fabricating the plane to be a replicate of a civilian airliner, why would we have them believe it was an airliner when the crash evidence will show it to be a military plane instead of an airliner?

Supervisor: Because the American Airlines paint scheme will fool the witnesses.

Ray: But if they find Pratt & Whitney engines instead of the Rolls Royce ones used on airliners, they won't believe it was an airliner. Don't we want them to believe it was an airliner?

Supervisor: The paint scheme will fool the witnesses. That is all we need.

Ray: How are we going to switch this with an actual passenger plane at the airport without AA or their ground crew noticing or the pilot noticing when he does a pre-flight check?

Supervisor: Stop asking questions and get to work!!

__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo

Last edited by MIKILLINI; 6th February 2008 at 05:23 PM.
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 05:36 PM   #99
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Hi AMTMAN:




Someone else mentioned in another thread that I ‘should not use’ specific links, because the author there drew a different set of conclusions. I say “poppycock!” We can all benefit from the ‘evidence’ gathered by many different 911Truthers, even if we draw ‘different conclusions.’ Do I believe an A-3 hit the Pentagon? No! :0) The DoD retrofitted a retired Jet to mirror ‘their’ version of a real 100-Ton Jetliner with lots of new framework, sheet metal, paint and AA decals. The finished product looked more like a real AA Jetliner than anything else. However, the EVIDENCE shows Pratt and Whitney Jet parts common to military jets, which are much cheaper and more common than the pricey Rolls Royce engines. The DoD can go out and retrofit a retired military jet to make it look like just about anything, but in this case they needed one that looked like a real 100-Ton Jetliner. Their eyewitnesses would not be trained military people, but regular Joe’s going to work simply driving by the Pentagon.

GL,

Terral
You don't beleive an A-3 hit the Pentagon? Seems you are contradicting yourself at every turn.

What makes you think it's a Pratt motor? Do you know what a PW motor looks like compared to a RB211? I'm gussing you could not tell the difference between the two. I asked you before if you noticed a difference between the two engines in the picture on the rense link. Here's a little help.

< http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rb211he7.jpg >
< http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rb2113sy6.jpg >
< http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rb2112bp3.jpg >
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 05:39 PM   #100
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by peteweaver View Post
Er Rolls Royce RB211-535e's are EXTREMELY COMMON POWERPLANTS.

The RB211 was initially developed for the Lockheed L1011 tristar in the 1970's, and saved Rolls Royce from bankrupcy. The RB211 proved to be an excellent engine, which was test flown in 1974 on a modified Super VC 10, with 1 RB211 on one side, and two Conways on the other, it provided almost as much thurst as the two Conways conbined, and warped the airframe of VC10 registration G-AXLR.

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

The RB211-535e is used on everything from Boeing 747's to Tupolevs. It is an excellent workhorse and can be found on airliners the world over.

757's in the American Airlines fleet are fitted with RB211-535e's, and the wreckage matches RB211-535e parts, which are manufactured in the UK.

The RB211-535e can generate 43100 pounds per square foot of thrust.

Incidentally the JT8D, was never used on A3 Skywarriors, but was used on boeing 727's, 737's, DC9's and other airliners, it was based upon the P&W J52 turbojet which was developed for the Grumman A6 Intruder.

And look at this Terral, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml
RB211-535e parts in pentagon wreckage matched to spares catalogue.
Rolls Royce makes a good engine, something you Brits can ge prouf of.

Yes the A-3 never was powered by the JT8D. However on one of the rense links I believe they say it was modified to accept the JT8D. Which makes no sense when you think about it. Modifying one aircraft to carry an engine which had never been used on it before.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.

Last edited by AMTMAN; 6th February 2008 at 05:41 PM.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 09:44 PM   #101
Mel Odious
NWO Public Relations Dept.
 
Mel Odious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 587
Terral:

Take a look at this ...

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...ugh-steel.html

Also, please note the molten iron that appears beside the cut.

Can Christopher Bollyn give us a similar demonstration with thermite?

Last edited by Mel Odious; 6th February 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason: typo
Mel Odious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 09:59 PM   #102
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Chris Bollyn or his experts??

Experts?? What experts??
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2008, 11:38 PM   #103
EvilBiker
Spectral Challenger
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,602
One thing that has always bugged me about that pic:

If, like the CTs claim, the pillar was cut (by whatever means) to bring down the building, surely that would have meant a very very very large amount of material directly above the pillar in question.

Assuming that the building then fell down around this cut pillar, surely there would be some damage to the cut end? I don't notice any scores or marks that would have been made by debris smacking it on the way down. Hell, the first thing that would hit that pillar top would be the remainder of the pillar above it, which would leave some nice deep gouges, at the very least.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 06:33 AM   #104
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
One thing that has always bugged me about that pic:

If, like the CTs claim, the pillar was cut (by whatever means) to bring down the building, surely that would have meant a very very very large amount of material directly above the pillar in question.

Assuming that the building then fell down around this cut pillar, surely there would be some damage to the cut end? I don't notice any scores or marks that would have been made by debris smacking it on the way down. Hell, the first thing that would hit that pillar top would be the remainder of the pillar above it, which would leave some nice deep gouges, at the very least.
Also, this looks like a pillar from the very bottom of the tower. Since it's very clear that the towers collapsed from the top and not (like a "normal" demolition) by collapsed support from underneath. So, exactly WHEN was this pillar supposed to have been "thermited" (hmm, I think I just invented a new word)? When the upper half was on it's way down the place where this pillar resided were still unharmed (sort of).
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:19 AM   #105
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
Please Debate The OP Topic And Resist The Urge To Bash Terral's Head In. :0)

Hi Beachnut:

I provided a good answer to Pete’s Opening Post concerns in Post #5 of this thread to which Beachnut writes,

Quote:
Beachnut >> You are making up lies based on ridiculous hearsay. Are you making this up on your own? Are your dumb posts your own, or are you getting help making the dumbest posts on the internet about 9/11?

Please forgive, but we need a little bit of enforcement of the “attack the theory and not the theorist” guidelines that dominate all these Discussion Boards, when all Beachnut can do is come out here and attack my person. Members often stoop to using these underhanded debating tactics, when they have no case for anything at all. I am sorry that ‘your’ explanations cannot withstand the test of meaningful debate, but that is no reason to begin attacking Terral over your own frustration . . .

Quote:
Beachnut >> Not very good either. (you better check the names, many are fake; but 1000 idiots who say it is so, are still 1000 idiots who have been wrong).

Please forgive again, but ranting aimlessly about ‘dumb posts’ and ‘1000 idiots’ is not finding Beachnut in a very good Light this morning. Please try again when you ‘do’ come up with an opposing argument. Remember that we do have large numbers of ladies, gentlemen and their children reading the content of these threads.

GL,

Terral

Last edited by Terral; 7th February 2008 at 07:58 AM. Reason: added "all," added Post #5 link
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:21 AM   #106
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Terral:
Who are Bollyn's experts?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:30 AM   #107
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 15,161
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Terral:
Who are Bollyn's experts?
Um... Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, and Heydrich?
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:43 AM   #108
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
CD And Building Fires Are The ONLY Theories For What Took WTC-7 Down. Pick One . . .

Hi DGM:

Quote:
DGM >> Terral don't forget to add that it's not necessary to talk to these people (iron workers on site) because you know the "truth".

Please listen up ALL of you: I have shown you clear evidence of WTC-7 Controlled Demolition in Post #5 of this thread to which you either have a “Building Fire Did It” rebuttal OR you simply DO NOT. Period. As already explained, I have over 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters that agree 100 percent with my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Hypothesis. Dr. Steven Jones agrees 100 percent with my CD proposal and uses many of the same pictures in making his own CD case. Interviewing WTC iron workers ‘after the fact’ is not going to change THE EVIDENCE pointing directly to a WTC-7 Demolition Job. Period! Do Americans have to worry about the steel-framed skyscraper where they work collapsing into its own footprint from building fires? No! This kind of skyscraper has burned like a Roman Candle for more than a day (story) and remained standing, because building fires do NOT burn hot enough to melt Structural Red-iron Steel AND the steel-frame network itself carries heat ‘away’ from the fuel source more quickly than any single component can be melted or softened or anything else.

These are the facts known to MANY Architectural and Engineering professionals and scientist/professors like Dr. Steven Jones, whether you guys ever decide to wake the heck up or not. If you disagree with Terral and all of these building professionals and supporting scientists, then your job is to begin proving how BUILDING FIRES took down WTC-7. Those are the only two theories on the table to my knowledge, so standing against Terral in ‘this debate’ means believing building fires took down WTC-7 ‘and’ in just a few cotton picking hours. If ‘you’ cannot make ‘that’ building fire case (that is impossible), then the time has come to begin accepting the CD Explanation adopted by all these professionals demanding a new 9/11 investigation.

GL,

Terral

Last edited by Terral; 7th February 2008 at 07:59 AM. Reason: added Post #5 link
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:49 AM   #109
e^n
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
If ‘you’ cannot make ‘that’ building fire case (that is impossible), then the time has come to begin accepting the CD Explanation adopted by all these professionals demanding a new 9/11 investigation.

GL,

Terral
I believe I can make such a case to at least the same standards of evidence as you accept. For example I made an attempt to discuss this with you here but you have not yet responded. If you would like a discussion on either topic I am more than happy to oblige.
__________________
Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!
e^n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:51 AM   #110
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Terral:
Why do you feel the need to lie about that cut column. You have shown no evidence to support your theory on it. Saying a convicted felon thinks so is not evidence?

WHO ARE HIS EXPERTS?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 07:51 AM   #111
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
The Facts In This Little Video Blow Your "Building Fire" Case Sky High!

Hi Twinstead:

Quote:
Twin >> It's no use. He knows he is right, and for crying out loud he's delusional enough to think he has THOUSANDS of experts to support him! He's beyond hope.

The facts in this case are made clear in this single little video.

GL,

Terral
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:10 AM   #112
Calcas
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
As already explained, I have over 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters that agree 100 percent with my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Hypothesis.
NO you don't. We've pointed this out to you before but you continue with this lie.

The vast majority of that site is "supporters." Apparently, they support the mission of ae911truth for a new investigation. WHO SAYS THEY SUPPORT YOUR THEORY? Only you say that.

BTW, quite a few of us here (myself included) joined up over there just to get on Gage's mailing list. His regular pleas for money are hilarious and disturbing at the same time. So, by your logic, I agree 100% with your hypothesis, right?

Additionally, I didn't just join as a supporter but am listed as an engineer...which I am not. Gage sure does a good job "verifying" credentials, doesn't he?

Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again? Why do you ignore even addressing posts like this?

You are really among the worst of the twoofers because you just keep slinging the same crap up against the wall hoping some of it will stick. Even when it's proven to be false (as in your "1000 people agree with my hypothesis" claim) you just keep right on repeating it.

Pathetic.
Calcas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:20 AM   #113
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
Send The PM If You Really Believe Your Post Threatens My Position

Hi en:

Quote:
En >> I believe I can make such a case to at least the same standards of evidence as you accept. For example I made an attempt to discuss this with you here but you have not yet responded. If you would like a discussion on either topic I am more than happy to oblige.

I read your post that included the comments:

Quote:
En >> You seem to imply that because the F4 is much smaller the two are not comparable, but the argument being made here is for the amount of plane destruction. With a much higher mass the kinetic energy involved is much greater, but a 757 is arguably much weaker, it is not designed to handle anywhere near the same G forces as an F4 and as such is not designed with such heavy reinforcement.

Nothing in your entire post means anything, because your job is to prove that a real 100-Ton Jetliner passed through this 18-feet 3-inch second story entry hole. Do you see those large cable spools talker than a man??!! Okay then. How did your almost 50-feet tall Jetliner pass over those spools ‘and’ under the still-intact second floor? How did your 100-Ton Jetliner crash into this E-Ring wall without breaking a single window on the third floor? You are talking about little baby F-4 Jets versus 100-Ton Jetliners, which is a watermelon to apple comparison at best. Begin a real comparison by crashing a real Jetliner like this (the movie) and then start squawking like that means something AFTER you have made the appropriate damage assessment report. My job is to defend attacks against ‘my’ OP hypothesis, which your F-4 nonsense does not begin to do even a little tiny bit.

If anyone here thinks their rebuttal to ANYTHING from my work deserves a thoughtful reply, then the Private Messaging System appears to be working just fine. Simply send me a PM with the link to your post and I will decide if a response is even necessary. When I show up here to begin defending my positions in these debates, AND I see a big goose egg in the PM box, then I am free to answer any post I wish. Anyone unwilling to send the PM is not concerned enough about the topic or his reply to consider himself worthy of anything . . .

GL,

Terral
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:28 AM   #114
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Hi en:




I read your post that included the comments:




Nothing in your entire post means anything, because your job is to prove that a real 100-Ton Jetliner passed through this 18-feet 3-inch second story entry hole. Do you see those large cable spools talker than a man??!! Okay then. How did your almost 50-feet tall Jetliner pass over those spools ‘and’ under the still-intact second floor? How did your 100-Ton Jetliner crash into this E-Ring wall without breaking a single window on the third floor? You are talking about little baby F-4 Jets versus 100-Ton Jetliners, which is a watermelon to apple comparison at best. Begin a real comparison by crashing a real Jetliner like this (the movie) and then start squawking like that means something AFTER you have made the appropriate damage assessment report. My job is to defend attacks against ‘my’ OP hypothesis, which your F-4 nonsense does not begin to do even a little tiny bit.

If anyone here thinks their rebuttal to ANYTHING from my work deserves a thoughtful reply, then the Private Messaging System appears to be working just fine. Simply send me a PM with the link to your post and I will decide if a response is even necessary. When I show up here to begin defending my positions in these debates, AND I see a big goose egg in the PM box, then I am free to answer any post I wish. Anyone unwilling to send the PM is not concerned enough about the topic or his reply to consider himself worthy of anything . . .

GL,

Terral
No! YOUR job is to prove the plane (757) didn't hit there. So far you FAIL miserably.

FACTS prove it did as with the FACT the physical EVIDENCE PROVES it

Note the use of BOLD so it has to be TRUE.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:47 AM   #115
e^n
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
My job is to defend attacks against ‘my’ OP hypothesis, which your F-4 nonsense does not begin to do even a little tiny bit.
I'm afraid not Terral, as a person making claims about the happenings at the Pentagon that day, the burden of proof is on you. You may feel you are entitled to be the arbiter and judge of opinions however this is irrelevant. Your theory is little more than a few pictures which often don't imply what you believe coupled with your own arrogant dictation of events.

Tell me, what value does X have here?
__________________
Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!
e^n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:53 AM   #116
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Hey terral, out of your 1000 "architects, engineers, and supporters", how many of them have published work in a scientific journal regarding their belief that WTC7 was a CD? Have any of them ever had a paper scientifically peer reviewed by anyone other than themselves?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:56 AM   #117
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
Terral:

Do you need more IPC references? Or do you still continue to insist on believing anything rense.com puts out?
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:57 AM   #118
Terral
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 257
Calcus And Senor Bushie Make A Nice Pair . . .

Hi Calcus with Gravy:

Quote:
Terral Original >> As already explained, I have over 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters that agree 100 percent with my WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Hypothesis.

Calcus >> NO you don't. We've pointed this out to you before but you continue with this lie. The vast majority of that site is "supporters." Apparently, they support the mission of ae911truth for a new investigation. WHO SAYS THEY SUPPORT YOUR THEORY? Only you say that.

No sir. A look at ‘our’ AE911truth.org Webpage shows exactly 264 A/E professionals and 899 Supporters, which is exactly 1263 Architects, Engineers and Supporters. My statement above mentioned only 1000 Architects, Engineers and Supporters, so the missing 263 are part of the “OVER 1000 . . .”.

Quote:
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

"264 architectural and engineering professionals and 899 other supporters including A/E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."

There are only TWO THEORIES for what took WTC-7 down and those are:

1. Controlled Demolition.
2. Building Fires.

Anyone believing theory number 2 has no reason to be signing any petition for a new investigation, because that is the Official Government Cover Story. All you will see from the top to the bottom of the AE911Truth Webpage is Controlled Demolition Explanations, because that is the only theory we believe has any basis in reality. My WTC-7 Thesis paper was the very first one posted on the AE Website in the WTC-7 Forum, so I have the knowledge contained in the responses from other AE members that YOU have perhaps never seen. Maybe Calcus does NOT have access to all the facts to be making these kinds of ridiculous statements, OR to be drawing these kinds of conclusions. The idea that we have “Building Fires Did It” theorists running around the AE site is nothing more than RIDICULOUS. However, Terral is my real name and my membership status and credentials have been part of the equation from the beginning, but Calcus can say he is anybody. :0) Right away these readers should realize that members using their real names have MUCH more credibility than people hiding behind tags like Gravy, Calcus and other nonsense.

Quote:
Calcus >> BTW, quite a few of us here (myself included) joined up over there just to get on Gage's mailing list. His regular pleas for money are hilarious and disturbing at the same time. So, by your logic, I agree 100% with your hypothesis, right?

My logic? Nonsense. I can tell by the evidence that a large number of JREF members disagree with ‘our’ CD hypothesis, which does not require any genius IQ. :0) Yes. The ‘real’ AE members agree with ‘our’ CD Explanations, but obviously that does not include JREF “Building Fires Did IT” debunkers (heh) like you. Let's see: We have Richard Gage a professional architect versus Calcus . . . Hmmmm . . .

Quote:
Calcus >> Additionally, I didn't just join as a supporter but am listed as an engineer...which I am not. Gage sure does a good job "verifying" credentials, doesn't he? Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again? Why do you ignore even addressing posts like this?

Anyone willing to lie to Richard and the AE membership is certainly willing to lie to everyone here the very same way. What would elpresidente Bush say about that? :0) Thank you for helping these readers define Calcus who once again sent me a post containing no argument for anything at all.

GL,

Terral
Terral is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 08:57 AM   #119
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by Terral View Post
Hi Twinstead:




The facts in this case are made clear in this single little video.

GL,

Terral
By the way i watched the first 30 seconds of that video and could already tell that it was completely false. It is suggesting that the official story says that jet fuel melted the steel core. This is false, and no where in the NIST report does it say that jet fuel melted steel. Your video is a sham.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2008, 09:00 AM   #120
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,526
Mod WarningI have merged these two practically identical threads. Another reason why these 'call-out' threads are a bad idea.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.