ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 51 of 417
« First < 414748495051 5253545561101151 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>911 was an inside job.
Taco John 12:06 AM 02-09-2006
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.
[Reply]
banyon 04:56 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Reading comprehension was not one of your strong suits was it?

Tell me that you read the whole set of articles and links on the website.

I think it would be wise for you to find your own proof.
Why don't you give me THAT link instead of the preliminary one you gave me? Am I supposed to mind-read and guess which of the 100 links on that page I am supposed to follow? BTW I don't need additional video evidence, since I've seen the exact same footage on CNN/Fox countless times. That footage is widely available. Your position that the video is fake is not.

Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
Did you read the commentary that went with the link? Did you understand what was said? I'm guessing that you didn't
I don't know. At this point I'm not sure that you can read at all.

This is what's on your page:

"Skeptics seized on the video as evidence that the Pentagon was struck, not by a jetliner, but by a small plane, such as a remotely controlled drone, and that a missile was also involved in the attack. The failure of officials to release additional frames, ones that might show the plane clearly and reveal the first moments of the explosion, seemed to validate the five frames. Although peculiarities in the timecodes on the bottom of the cropped versions of the frames were widely noted, few bothered to ask whether the imagery in the frames had been edited....
...Motive for Fabrication
This evidence that the video frames were manipulated, though not conclusive, further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics."


The PENTAGON released this video, not DYLAN AVERY.

You have this bass-ackwards. The "official story" of the Pentagon video is that it is accurate and unblemished. The "conspiracist" position is that the video is doctored.

You original claim was that the WTC video in Dylan Avery's "Loose Change" was faked. That position would be consistent with countering conspiracy theories, but difficult since there is so much footage of the Second Tower falling.

2 different videos got it? :-)
[Reply]
Taco John 05:14 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express:
You do realize that when steel is heated it loses tensile strength? Have you ever witnessed what fire does to steel? With light gage steel it is very obvious, with heaver gage steel sometimes it is not as noticable, but all the same it is weakened. You might want to consult some structural engineers and/or civil engineers that could give you a more technical explanation of how the collapse could have happened due to fire.


Would they be able to explain why WTC 7 is the first steel structured building in the history of steel structured buildings to suffer complete progressive collapse due to fire?
[Reply]
Taco John 05:17 PM 02-13-2006
Check this out:
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/...3,%202001a.pdf


A report about this very thing written a month prior to 911...

This report presents the background, test set-up, specimens, test procedures and the test results of
“column-drop” tests of a one story steel structure. The specimen was a 60ft by 20ft one story typical
steel structure with steel deck and concrete slab floor and wide flange beams and columns. The
connections were either standard shear tab or bolted seat angle under bottom flange and a bolted
single angle on one side of web.
The main objectives of these studies were to explore the strength of a typical steel structure and
floor system to resist progressive collapse in the event of removal of a column by a blast and to
establish failure modes. An added objective was using the test results to provide the AISC with
design-oriented information on what is the potential of existing typical steel structures to resist
progressive collapse and what are the possible research needs in this particular field.
The tests indicated that after removal of the middle perimeter column, due to catenary action of steel deck and girders, the design dead load and live load of the floor could be resisted and the floor is not
expected to collapse in the event of removal of one such column.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 05:22 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Would they be able to explain why WTC 7 is the first steel structured building in the history of steel structured buildings to suffer complete progressive collapse due to fire?
Lookout folks, TJ has a new question/observation to make a bajillion times.

Has there ever been, in the history of the CP, a thread with as many posts and as little accomplished?

A: There's a ton of questions
B: Here are some answers
A: Those answers are The Man whitewashing your brain
B: Whatever, dude.

Rinse and Repeat.
[Reply]
Taco John 05:24 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Lookout folks, TJ has a new question/observation to make a bajillion times.

Has there ever been, in the history of the CP, a thread with as many posts and as little accomplished?

A: There's a ton of questions
B: Here are some answers
A: Those answers are The Man whitewashing your brain
B: Whatever, dude.

Rinse and Repeat.


Shouldn't you be watching some TV?
[Reply]
Chiefs Express 02-13-2006, 05:30 PM
This message has been deleted by Chiefs Express.
Chiefs Express 02-13-2006, 05:32 PM
This message has been deleted by Chiefs Express.
Logical 05:33 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by tiptap:
Have we covered the fact that both the Secret Service and the CIA had operations offices in WTC 7? What about the idea that their cache was part of the contribution to the fire/building damage. Not necessarily intentionally but provided fuel.
I knew that but I do not recall it being discussed in this thread, but I have not by any means read all 700+ replies.
[Reply]
Logical 05:35 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by banyon:
Other people in this thread are at least offering legitimate arguments.

As usual all I have is your assertion, without any argument, facts, sources, etc.

I was just making fun of your dramatic misinterpretation of American media.

You should just post the following from now on:
Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by Chiefs Express
My information seems to have been incorrect.

Continue with your discussions.
:-):-):-)
[Reply]
Logical 05:37 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
Next week on Planet CSI.....

The gang draws straws to see who gets doused with jet fuel and set on fire to test the theory that it doesn't burn THAT hot.
I nominate Tom Cash and Kotter they have plenty of BB lives to spare.:-)
[Reply]
Baby Lee 05:41 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
Shouldn't you be watching some TV?
I get the vague sense that TJ thinks I should feel insulted by this rejoinder. D@mned if I know how or why.

Umm, shouldn't . . you. . . be eating . . . a peanut butter sandwich or something?



BURN!!!!!!
[Reply]
Logical 05:44 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Lookout folks, TJ has a new question/observation to make a bajillion times.

Has there ever been, in the history of the CP, a thread with as many posts and as little accomplished?

....
Clearly you missed endelt260's I Love Mer thread.
[Reply]
Boozer 05:44 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
D@mned if I know how or why.
Is that a "filter avoider?" Are you posting on a 1930s message board?
[Reply]
Baby Lee 05:49 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
Clearly you missed endelt260's I Love Mer thread.
If chuckling at Endo's adventures is not an 'accomplishment' than I've really wasted my time he. . .


Ugh.

:-)
[Reply]
Taco John 06:32 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
I get the vague sense that TJ thinks I should feel insulted by this rejoinder. D@mned if I know how or why.

Umm, shouldn't . . you. . . be eating . . . a peanut butter sandwich or something?



BURN!!!!!!

Actually, I was just reccommending something better to do with your time, given you aren't willing to discuss any aspect of the multitudes of anomolies that have cropped up, and instead just use your time to poke fun at the people willing to take a look. Since you spend so much time watching television, I figured that would be a natural fit.
[Reply]
banyon 07:19 PM 02-13-2006
Building 7 stuff

*edit*

Building 7 stuff

for other videos:

other nutso 9-11 stuff
[Reply]
Taco John 09:28 PM 02-13-2006
Originally Posted by banyon:
Building 7 stuff


No dice
[Reply]
Page 51 of 417
« First < 414748495051 5253545561101151 > Last »
Up