• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

There were thousands of witnesses.. there are loads of videos (especially of the plane hitting the second tower) recorded by civilians.. there are hundreds of eye witness accounts..

I've spoken to people that saw the plane.

I suggest you stop getting sources from one side and start looking at both.

So where are the missing planes and people, then? Why would they risk something like digitally imposing planes on live television and CIVILIANS recorded footage (which, btw, has their reaction on it) when they could have just flown the planes into the towers? Where is the logic?

Edit.. sorry i missed the last half of previous page..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

Planes crashes are notoriously unpredictable.. and they found more than what you claim..

A lot of the inside of the pentagon is also unrecognisable.. or did the things inside not exist, either?

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.
Click to expand...

Look at the amount of twisted metal inside the pentagon.. where did that come from?

The Pentagon is a building mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris,
Click to expand...

^ In regards to this picture http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/insert.jpg

What about this audio recording?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdeI2Vi01Gk

And this man was in the south tower when it hit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Praimnath

Or maybe you know this and you are actually working for the government..

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

The damage caused to both the world trade centres prior to collapse were CLEARLY caused by planes.. the shape, the size, everything matches that of the missing planes.. not that of a pixelated fabrication.
 
Last edited:
I'm a fair minded person, and I look at everything you presented, and I will now explain why I don't find it convincing:
rickolasnice said:
There were thousands of witnesses.. there are loads of videos (especially of the plane hitting the second tower) recorded by civilians.. there are hundreds of eye witness accounts..

I've spoken to people that saw the plane.

I suggest you stop getting sources from one side and start looking at both.
Click to expand...
I only saw "one side" until the year 2008 - the official story. Then I saw the other side. Recently I examined yet another side - that of Ace Baker. I have thus far been most impressed by Ace Baker far above all other sources like "Loose Change," Eric Hufscmid, and AE911Truth.org. But, I do consider those three to present many good points themselves.

I can't find "thousands" or "hundreds" of eyewitness testimonies. I found plenty that FIRMLY said they didn't see a plane too. There are only a handful of videos showing the 2nd plane collision. Not "loads" of them.

So where are the missing planes and people, then? Why would they risk something like digitally imposing planes on live television and CIVILIANS recorded footage (which, btw, has their reaction on it) when they could have just flown the planes into the towers? Where is the logic?
Click to expand...
It obviously worked and still works, so they did a great job of suckering people into their scheme. They had 2 gigantic wars over it too. Islamophobic and pro-Israel groups profited immensely with their newfound support against Arabs and Muslims. The PATRIOTUSA ACT was passed, stripping away basic civil rights. Yeah, they did good enough. What risk? Everybody fell in line with it - no questions asked! Ace Baker also nicely answers your questions about the "civilian" videos and their "reactions."

Planes crashes are notoriously unpredictable.. and they found more than what you claim..

A lot of the inside of the pentagon is also unrecognisable.. or did the things inside not exist, either?
Click to expand...
Like you said - it's unrecognizable. So that's not solid proof of anything.



Look at the amount of twisted metal inside the pentagon.. where did that come from?
Click to expand...
Might have been there before hand, or maybe it was something else. Whatever it was, it didn't come from Hani Hanjour, a guy who couldn't even fly a single engine cessna.

What about this audio recording?
Click to expand...
I could make one of those myself.

And this man was in the south tower when it hit
Click to expand...
It's odd how he is the only man that ever appears on TV to explain his "heroic and inspiring" ordeal over and over again. He's a good actor.

The damage caused to both the world trade centres prior to collapse were CLEARLY caused by planes.. the shape, the size, everything matches that of the missing planes.. not that of a pixelated fabrication.
Click to expand...

Everything was made to "look" like it was caused by planes. The world trade center aircraft could not have slammed into the building's exterior columns and went straight through before "detonating" in the manner it did. You fell for it.

How did the flimsy wings cleave through steel? Your F4 Phantom didn't cleave through the concrete block. It smashed and exploded right at impact, proving what I claim about the impossiblity of airplanes slicing through steel columns. The wtc aircraft would have been smashed and exploded on those exterior steel columns which were very strong.
 
MyFinalRest said:
How did the flimsy wings cleave through steel? Your F4 Phantom didn't cleave through the concrete block. It smashed and exploded right at impact, proving what I claim about the impossiblity of airplanes slicing through steel columns. The wtc aircraft would have been smashed and exploded on those exterior steel columns which were very strong.
Click to expand...

Why would a engineer design a vertical support pillar in a skyscraper to be strong against lateral forces?
 
Hundreds.. no.. thousands of students in schools, colleges and universities all over the world have studied the events of 9/11.. do you not think it's a bit strange that 99.999% of these people come to the same conclusions?

I'll come back to your reply later.
 
MyFinalRest said:
I'm a fair minded person, and I look at everything you presented, and I will now explain why I don't find it convincing:

I only saw "one side" until the year 2008 - the official story. Then I saw the other side. Recently I examined yet another side - that of Ace Baker. I have thus far been most impressed by Ace Baker far above all other sources like "Loose Change," Eric Hufscmid, and AE911Truth.org. But, I do consider those three to present many good points themselves.
Click to expand...

I never trusted the official story.. trust me i've spent many hours looking at both sides..

I can't find "thousands" or "hundreds" of eyewitness testimonies. I found plenty that FIRMLY said they didn't see a plane too. There are only a handful of videos showing the 2nd plane collision. Not "loads" of them.
Click to expand...

Go to New York and ask around. The reason you can't find more eye witnesses for the planes hitting is because conspiracy theorists don't show it.. and it's conspiracy theorists that make the most videos, websites and when people look into 9/11 they're mostly looking for the conspiracy theories surrounding it. Most of the quotes and videos are taken completely out of context. They are montages of the parts of the story conspiracy theorists are advertising.

It obviously worked and still works, so they did a great job of suckering people into their scheme. They had 2 gigantic wars over it too. Islamophobic and pro-Israel groups profited immensely with their newfound support against Arabs and Muslims. The PATRIOTUSA ACT was passed, stripping away basic civil rights. Yeah, they did good enough. What risk? Everybody fell in line with it - no questions asked! Ace Baker also nicely answers your questions about the "civilian" videos and their "reactions."
Click to expand...

No questions asked? There's thousands if not millions of people all asking questions.. none of which has much substantial evidence to support their claims. It's all "it's possible that the planes could have been digitally imposed or it's unlikely an amateur pilot could fly like that etc etc..

Like you said - it's unrecognizable. So that's not solid proof of anything.
Click to expand...

Unrecognisable to US from PHOTOS.. There are some recognisable parts even to us.. and proof the plane hit the building? Eye witness accounts, the damage it caused, the missing plane, the missing people, the wreckage found, the phone calls from the planes, etc etc..

What do you think hit the pentagon, then? Look at photos that aren't on conspiracy theory websites and you can clearly see that the damage to the outside of the building looks as if a plane hit it.. you can even see where the wings hit.



Might have been there before hand, or maybe it was something else. Whatever it was, it didn't come from Hani Hanjour, a guy who couldn't even fly a single engine cessna.
Click to expand...

Hearsay and might have beens.

I could make one of those myself.
Click to expand...

Go and ask the people in the control room when it happened and get back to me.

It's odd how he is the only man that ever appears on TV to explain his "heroic and inspiring" ordeal over and over again. He's a good actor.
Click to expand...

Most victims of 9/11 probably don't feel it necessary to go on TV to prove themselves. And most people would have simply witnessed it from the ground.. not really gonna bring in the ratings if a bunch of people are just there saying "yeah i saw the plane hit.." .. most people know that is what happened.

Everything was made to "look" like it was caused by planes. The world trade center aircraft could not have slammed into the building's exterior columns and went straight through before "detonating" in the manner it did. You fell for it.
Click to expand...

I suppose your very educated on what happens when a plane flies into a sky scraper.

How did the flimsy wings cleave through steel? Your F4 Phantom didn't cleave through the concrete block. It smashed and exploded right at impact, proving what I claim about the impossiblity of airplanes slicing through steel columns. The wtc aircraft would have been smashed and exploded on those exterior steel columns which were very strong.
Click to expand...

That was a solid concrete block.. the twin towers were mostly AIR.
 
Oh and you didn't answer my question.. why wouldn't they just fly the planes into the buildings?

And where are the planes / passengers now?

How many people would it take to do what you are proposing? Eye witnesses, demolition experts, reports, helicopter pilot, the pilot and passenger s of the planes, friends and family of all those involved, etc, etc, the list is endless.. remember most of these people are ordinary civilians with no involvement to the government or military.

How many people would it take to go to a third world country and promise riches to the family of a few select people? or torture if they don't comply..

There are a lot easier ways.. all of which involve flying a plane into a building.

http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/34c2d85c42aab2.jpg
 
Last edited:
MyFinalRest said:
You're acting like a real jerk buddy. You can't watch the link either?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds&feature=youtu.be
You would then understand that they are not "holograms" but video edits.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm listening to Hardstyle and if I clicked that link it would load too slow. ;)



Video edits? That's even more unlikely... I've seen home video from that day (a video I was brought to by one of your links) where people are screaming about how a mother fucking plane flew into a building... as you can imagine, people were flipping their shit, understandably so. I mean, to give that theory any credit you has to discredit so many other aspects of it that you just can't question (not because it's wrong to do so, because it's impossible to get any evidence today)

It's just so much easier for them to get a few planes and crash it into a building they already had wired with explosives. If there was just no plane flying around that day, people would have been making a lot more of a stir about the whole thing at the time.
 
superelephant said:
No, I'm claiming that your logic is flawed by virtue of wind being a lateral force.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the vertical support structures are going to have some resistance to lateral forces (else a strong breath would knock 'em over), but overall, I'd say it's a safe bet to assume they are designed mostly to resist a vertical force, and are not so strong in a lateral direction.
 
superelephant said:
No, I'm claiming that your logic is flawed by virtue of wind being a lateral force.
Click to expand...

The phrasing is flawed, the logic is not. As far as I know (which is, admittedly, quite little), the force of powerful winds being distributed throughout a skyscraper's support system is not analogous to the force of a plane striking a specific section of said skyscraper.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Obviously, the vertical support structures are going to have some resistance to lateral forces (else a strong breath would knock 'em over), but overall, I'd say it's a safe bet to assume they are designed mostly to resist a vertical force, and are not so strong in a lateral direction.
Click to expand...

I bet MFR a wholly agrees with the bolded.

MrGrunge said:
The phrasing is flawed,
Click to expand...
I think we're all capable of meaning exactly what we communicate around here.
 
superelephant has never typed an obtuse, misleading, or unclear post on the internet before.

And by golly, it doesn't surprise me - he's smarter than everybody!
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Why would a engineer design a vertical support pillar in a skyscraper to be strong against lateral forces?
Click to expand...

Wind maybe...Hurricane Sandy? Maybe? Trust me, they were bolted in there very good, you are not going to push them over easily. The supposed "airplane" didn't knock any supports over...it cut right through them. To support a vertical load it still must be strong to resist being compressed or bent. Steel columns are strong both vertically and laterally. Go to a skyscraper and try to tackle one. Shit Escher, drive your BMW into a well secured vertical steel column of a similar thickness used in the wtc perimeter, see what happens. (I don't recommend it, I like your beamer Escher ;))

Minus it's sensitivity to water and salt-spray born corrosion, and we have no reason to believe the steel in the wtcs was somehow corroded, steel is an all around winner in building materials. Unlike a non-steel-reinforced brick wall, Steel resists both compressive top-down forces and lateral forces well. I doubt they formulated a particularly brittle steel for the wtc construction.

Think about what you are saying man.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
Hundreds.. no.. thousands of students in schools, colleges and universities all over the world have studied the events of 9/11.. do you not think it's a bit strange that 99.999% of these people come to the same conclusions?

I'll come back to your reply later.
Click to expand...

99.999% Wow, you're not pulling that out of your ass are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top