COMMENTS:
It's the homecoming float for the Army/Navy game.
It contains just a fraction of the overwhelming evidence that it wasn't a huge commercial jet airliner that dissappeared and evaporated with its wings and engines into that neat 14 foot hole.
'...the missile that hit this building...'
- Donald Rumsfeld, speaking the truth for the first time in his life, less than an hour after the hit.
Wait! Wait!! It's a flying sawser!
Voted : I don't know but I'll have a guess! (see comment)
They're carrying a tent.
Yes Ken, the same missile that can knock down lamp posts in a zig-zag line.
"It contains just a fraction of the overwhelming evidence"
Seeing as there is no bottom to this container I guess they're holding it upside down.
It's a tent.
'Seeing as there is no bottom to this container I guess they're holding it upside down.' - 'It's a tent'
by wideheadofknowledge
....yeah that figures, they emptied all the evidence.
But if the facts be known folks - it DOES have a bottom, so more misinformation from the 9/11 truth denialists, we can only speculate as to what it is that is being concealed within it, and why they feel the need to have such security surrounding it, they are hiding something for sure.
'...the missile that hit this building...'
That is called a metaphore. And after all, the planes were used by the Islamic terrorists as "missiles". Planes also hit the WTC towers like missiles.
Merriam Webster Dictionary states that a missile is somthing
"capable of being thrown or projected to strike a distant object."
So Rumsfeld's comments were a logical figure of speech.
Its an empty tent ken, get over it.
'...the missile that hit this building...'
That is called a metaphore.
by Jinn_the_Kafir
It's actually spelt 'metaphor', you also got the meaning of the term/word wrong too.
And it's actually called a Freudian slip, when the truth is revealed by an apparent 'slip of the tongue'.
Its an empty tent ken, get over it.
by wolf_nipple_chips
The only thing I can't get over is your absurd claims and denial of reality concerning everything about 9/11, how much further can you lot stick your heads up your own asses?
Like at least eight adult men need to lift an empty tent?
It's almost certainly not empty, now YOU get over it.
You can clearly see there is no bottom to that tent.
You can see in the following picture, the pentagon lawn, covered in loads of blue tents, white tents, green tents, brown tents...
defenselink . mil / photos / Sep2001 / 010914 - F - 8006R - 005 . jpg
That's it Ken, keep believing what Dylan Avery tells you to believe.
Like at least eight adult men need to lift an empty tent?
^^^ nice dodge Nipple^^^
Why at least eight men to lift an tent if it's empty Nipple?
You can clearly see there is no bottom to that tent.
You can see in the following picture, the pentagon lawn, covered in loads of blue tents, white tents, green tents, brown tents...
defenselink . mil / photos / Sep2001 / 010914 - F - 8006R - 005 . jpg
That's it Ken, keep believing what Dylan Avery tells you to believe.
- Nipple
See how nipple uses the straw-man argument folks, a devious cheat in a debate whereby they infer you claim or believe something that is entirely untrue;
For instance he infers here that I believe it's not a tent, when I clearly stated and accept it is a tent.
Then he claims I listen to a guy called Dylan Avery, someone I'm happy to admit I've never even heard of, though if Nipple doesn't like him, he must be the most decent honest guy of the highest integrity, traits Nipple wouldn't recognise if they slapped him in the face.
And all those blue tents did have bottoms in them, WHoK tried to claim this one didn't.
And interestingly enough in the link Nipple provided it appears that the one in the photo on this ballot is the same tent that was closest to the impact point of all the tents, there are two in together in the distance, but it seems likely this was the one in the photo here given it's proximity to the impact point, and the security surrounding it's removal.
It looks like one of those tents they set up. Some of them for recovery of body parts. Obviously it is very light, hardly a missile of some kind.
It's large and it requires at least eight men so that they don't drag it across the ground.
And look - you can see up into the interior!
"Then he claims I listen to a guy called Dylan Avery, someone I'm happy to admit I've never even heard of..."
Oops.
"Loose Change is masterpiece of objective critical analysis, produce by intrinsically honest people with no agenda other than the truth, it is a tribute to the victims memories and the most watched 9/11 video on the Aver et Al should be and are rightfully proud of their work in unmasking these PNAC monsters."
This is from my public message page. We'll ignore the omitted words and letters (we all do it from time to time) but I think it's clear - Ken knows who Avery is. He's the director of "Loose Change".
Hmmm. Why the lie?
It's large and it requires at least eight men so that they don't drag it across the ground.
And look - you can see up into the interior!
by wideheadofknowledge
It wouldn't require at least eight men to stop an empty tent dragging across the ground, and these tents DO have floors, there are several photos of them with their floors visible, including the one provided in the link above by Nipple.
"Then he claims I listen to a guy called Dylan Avery, someone I'm happy to admit I've never even heard of..."
Oops.
"Loose Change is masterpiece of objective critical analysis, produce by intrinsically honest people with no agenda other than the truth, it is a tribute to the victims memories and the most watched 9/11 video on the Aver et Al should be and are rightfully proud of their work in unmasking these PNAC monsters."
This is from my public message page. We'll ignore the omitted words and letters (we all do it from time to time) but I think it's clear - Ken knows who Avery is. He's the director of "Loose Change".
Hmmm. Why the lie?
by wideheadofknowledge
(Why the lie? - wrong question - the question should be 'why would I want to lie about something as irrelevant and trivial as to the identity of the director of Loose Change?' - but before I continue I have to state that the above post only serves to demonstrate the desperate lengths these neoconscripts will go to to convince themselves of their own fake reality, but pssst... folks, against my better judgement I'll humour them anyway ;o)
Why the Lie? - NMoG aka WHoK
You're asking yourself that aren't you?
Well I've news for you LIAR -
I have yet to even watch Loose Change in it's entirety! :o)
Comprende?!!!
I've seen one or two brief clips of it on the internet and that's all I needed to see, and in that quote from God knows when I even got the guys name wrong -'Aver', probably repeating the same typo as the guy who posted the comment that was issued in the first place.
You see you just don't get it, I don't need to see it, I use my brains and free will to find out the truth of 9/11 - something you denialists don’t have the intellectual fortitude or moral courage to even begin to undertake or understand.
And even if I did see Loose Change in it’s entirety it doesn't necessitate that I should know the name of the producer or director, (more lessons about the obvious for the half-witted PNAC murderers defenders folks, not that they'll learn anything)
....and I certainly didn't know the name of the guy who produced it and anyway I would have no reason to lie about something as irrelevant as that.
Which is rich coming from vegetables like you who swallow every lie that's pissed down your lying mouths everyday by Bush et. al.
Now be a gentleman for once in your life and do the honourable thing - by withdrawing that LIE - yet another in the countless lies you poison this website with.
"Loose Change is masterpiece of objective critical analysis, produce by intrinsically honest people with no agenda other than the truth, it is a tribute to the victims memories"
by Ken_from_Dublin
"I have yet to even watch Loose Change in it's entirety! I've seen one or two brief clips of it on the internet and that's all I needed to see"
by Ken_from_Dublin
At least now the b&w community will be able to judge your ability to make worthwhile comments on topics you clearly know nothing about.
At least you have the balls to admit that you don't check the accuracy or validity of the nonsense you copy and paste.
This is one of those (many) things which you silly shills are avoiding;
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo, video, or anything else.
and I'll repeat this nice and big since you seem to have problems reading it NO MENTION OF THE WORD "FIRE", YOU'RE IMAGINING IT!
Now please hurry and respond with some FACTS to back your bullshit!
Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
"EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition."
Firstly, no other building has been deliberately targetted by jet airliners, ever.
Secondly, if when a building collapses, it damages building hundreds of feet away, it hasn't collapsed into it's own footprint.
Have you seen the video of your demolition expert Jowenko, saying that not only is the WTC demolition theory wrong, but it's actually impossible.
{Firstly, no other building has been deliberately targetted by jet airliners, ever.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sun Oct 01, 06 10:56am}
WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane.
Other buildings have had jet planes hit them before too, and they didn't suffer catastrophic collapse. So I fail to see why "deliberately" is some kind of magical excuse for anything. On top of which, you have yet to actually answer and back your bullshit.
So, I'll repeat;
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo, video, or anything else.
Now, can you answer this or not? All you do is dance around and avoid it, but you never come up with anything.
{ Secondly, if when a building collapses, it damages building hundreds of feet away, it hasn't collapsed into it's own footprint..
by wolf_nipple_chips on Sun Oct 01, 06 10:56am}
WTC 7 collapsed 95% within it's own footprint.
WTC 1 and 2 were HUGE buildings, in close proximity to other buildings, just as WTC 7 was in close proximity to other buildings. I fail to see how it would be possible to demolition such steel-framed hi-rise buildings that are in such close proximity with other buildings without causing ANY DAMAGE to other buildings nearby - are you claiming that controlled demolitions have forcefields around them? I think that you're just making up more silly excuses because you can't get around the actual FACT that those collapses bear all the signs of controlled demolitions.
And Mr Wolf, I couldn't help noticing that you completely FAILED to address this question of mine about WTC 1.
WTC 1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
Please hurry up and address this anomaly.
Voted : I think I know! (see comment)
Hauling off the missle caseing that realy hit the pentagon
"EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition."
So what?
This is an invalid line of argument, Lovelynice. It is a logical fallacy to make this any basis for a controlled demolition.
Show us some solid physical evidence that there were explosives there.
Show us some evidence that teams of demolition experts worked for months rigging the towers with explosive charges.
Show us something - anything - that is not just speculation.
Remember Lovelynice that speculation is NOT evidence no matter how much you want it to be.
{It is a logical fallacy to make this any basis for a controlled demolition. by widehead ofknowledge on Sun Oct 01, 06 7:08pm}
Boo booh!
WRONG! That's a very dumb circular excuse there.
Now please hurry up and ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS!
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo, video, or anything else.
Now, can you answer this or not? All you do is dance around and avoid it, but you never come up with anything.
I couldn't help noticing that you ALSO completely FAILED to address this question of mine about WTC 1.
WTC 1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
Please hurry up and address this anomaly.
You haven't provided me a source to refer to, lovelynice
And the word "deliberately" is important, when discussing the plane impacts, very important.
And no, a debris fields with a 500ft diameter is not the buildings footprint.
And we've discussed WTC7 already.
""EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition." "
Ignoring the errors in that sentence, so what? What do you think that proves exactly? Nothing!
Show us some solid physical evidence that there were explosives there.
Show us some evidence that teams of demolition experts worked for months rigging the towers with explosive charges.
Show us something - anything - that is not just speculation.
Remember Lovelynice that speculation is NOT evidence no matter how much you want it to be
{It is a logical fallacy to make this any basis for a controlled demolition. by widehead ofknowledge on Sun Oct 01, 06 7:08pm}
Boo booh!
WRONG! That's a very dumb circular excuse there.
Actually Lovelynice it's not a circular argument, it's called logic and it invalidates your line of reasoning completely.
The very fact you don't understand this seriously undermines your credibility.
Got any evidence yet?
Any parts of planes, missiles, explosives etc that back up your claims?
{it's called logic by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:47am}
No it's a circular argument and you just invalidated your own excuses by claiming otherwise.
Now please hurry up and ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS!
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo, video, or anything else.
Now, can you answer this or not? All you do is dance around and avoid it, but you never come up with anything.
I couldn't help noticing that you ALSO completely FAILED to address this question of mine about WTC 1.
WTC 1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)
Please hurry up and address this anomaly.
{so what?
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 3:45am}
Hmm,...so you CAN'T answer it can you?
That's what it proves. If you don't mind, I'll just keep posting those increasing numbers of questions which you can't answer until you start answering them.
{And we've discussed WTC7 already
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 3:45am}
Yes, and I showed quite thoroughly that not only are you trying to ignore what the firemen and witnesses stated, but you try to ignore video evidence, seismic data, and everything else.
You tried to play a strawman argument by pretending that I was saying that the firemen lied, when in truth I was pointing out quite clearly that NONE OF THEM WERE LYING, including the firemen who mentioned the bombs in the building. (and that was WTC 7, despite your BS excuses).
any aerial photo of WTC 7 will also show that it went down within 95% of it's footprint, so your excuses are only LIES when you claim otherwise.
missiles, by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:47am
why are you going on about "missiles" when I know damn well that I have never said anything about missiles hitting the Pentagon. Playing strawman games again? Seems like it.
However, I would just love to see VIDEO of the alleged huge passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. I don't the videos show that at all; if they did, then the USA government would've released it already.
Perhaps I'm trying to ignore the hundreds of flashes and deafening explosions before WTC7 collapsed, right? Oh wait...there weren't any.
Regarding your question, I asked you to provide a source. Can you read?
"No it's a circular argument and you just invalidated your own excuses by claiming otherwise."
Lovelynice, you clearly do not understand the rules of logic.
It is not valid to argue that "EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition" THEREFORE the wtc collapses were controlled demolition. This is a logical fallacy and IT IS NOT A VALID LINE OF REASONING.
I could write: on every occassion before and after 9-11 that a jetliner was hijacked they were NEVER deliberately crashed into the WTC twin towers.
A statement like that has absolutely no meaning or relevance to the reality of the events and neither does yours. Logically speaking there is no difference between my statement and yours.
The same goes for your claims about no one modelling the collapses to your satisfaction. So what? That doesn't mean anything.
The "evidence" you parade about is nothing more than anomalies you unearth and cannot explain (or don't accept the official explanation for), speculation about what you think you should have happened and of course questions or requests that can never be fully addressed.
Your constant dismissal of forensic evidence and investigation is irresponsible in the extreme.
{clearly do not understand the rules of logic...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 5:07pm}
It's clear that YOU don't.
(I could write: on every occassion before and after 9-11 that a jetliner was hijacked they were NEVER deliberately crashed into the WTC twin towers.by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 5:07pm}
Yes, you could, and it still doesn't counter the point that I'm making. You are claiming that it's reasonable for THREE BUILDINGS to do on one day what no other steel-framed buildings have ever done before or since, worsened in extremity by the simple fact that NOBODY has been able mathematical simulate those collapses as being due the alleged "official cause". We're talking about PHYSICS.
Logic is on my side, simply because of this. All you have is faith-based excuses that ignore physics, science, hundreds of witnesses, videos, seismic data, times on atomic clocks, and contradictions in official reports. Lots of people ignore the contradictions in the Bible too, and that's the way you carry on about the "Official Conspiracy Theory". It doesn't matter apparently to you that something is OUTRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE, according to your faith-based argument, the Official View is always correct....even when the Officials have been caught out LYING on numerous occassions.
{the same goes for your claims about no one modelling the collapses...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 5:07pm}
Usually having a successful mathematical model that matches an event is considered vital in modern physics, and engineering in particular.
In the case of the WTC 1, 2, & 7 destructions, it's been considered VITAL that they be provable as gravity-driven collapses. If they can't be modelled as such, then the only rational reasonable conclusion is that they were controlled demolitions. The reason is simple; EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. To make the claim that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were not also controlled demolitions then it requires a successful mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) that can PROVE that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse
{ Your constant dismissal...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 5:07pm}
Fuckoff. It's YOU who dismisses all evidence, not me. You very selectively play a game of ignoring witnesses which don't fit what you try to push.
A perfect example being WTC 7.
Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
youtube . com / watch ? v = W53wd u8IGlE &NR
{.... deafening explosions before WTC7
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 1:35pm}
Yes there were.
Just because you listen to silent video doesn't mean there was no sound.
I've seen footage of an interview taking place at exactly the same time the building fell - no loud cracking sounds.
youtube . com / watch ? v = ZlINYVXgBvE
AS for your video, firstly no where does it mention WTC7.
Secondly it is just rumour!!
There were also alot of reports saying there were car bombs outside the stock exchange - does that make it fact?
You seem to be having trouble understanidng the importance of analysing your sources.
Just because it agrees with your argument, it doesn't make it fact.
Did these people see the "bomb"? Did someone else see it and tell them? Where were they? Which building are they refering to? What time of day? You can't answer those questions can you? In which case, as evidence it is worthless.
Your videoclip of firefighters is not proof or evidence, Lovelynice.
I am not ignoring it - I am simply saying that it is not reliable proof of anything. You do not accept comments from the FDNY that state clearly that WTC7 was damaged due to falling debris and weakened by raging infernos and I don't accept your three-line conversation snippet as evidence.
As for the rules of logic you have been well and truly caught with your intellectual pants down.
Just because a collapse like the WTC never happened before without demolition it does not logically follow that it could only happen that way.
You are basing this on intuition or common sense NOT logic.
Your argument is invalid, Lovelynice I can assure you of that.
And Lovelynice you appear to have 'accidentally' strayed off topic. I know you wouldn't do that on purpose after berating another user for doing the same thing....
Could you tell us please what do you think hit the pentagon if not flight 77?
And what happened to the passengers?
{You do not accept comments from the FDNY that state clearly that WTC7 was damaged...
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Oct 03, 06 5:21pm}
MORE RUBBISH AND STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS.
I have NEVER stated that I don't accept what the firemen said. It's you are who doing that.
I accept that WTC 7 was damaged, I accept that there were fires, I accept what I see in those pictures and videos and the evidence that those fires not infernos like some have claimed (even the firemen don't claim there were infernos). You've linked to videos which show DUST, but you have yet to show any inferno in WTC 7.
At the same time, you deliberately ignore what Indira Singh said, and the other firemen who said there were bombs in the building and to clear out.
All that tells me is this;
WTC 7 was too damaged, and the decision was made to pull it. It was pulled.
The only people picking & chooseing which firemen's statements that they prefer, and pretending the others are lying/delusional are the "Arabs Did It With Boxcutters" side.
"...it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose."
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden.
|
