Why the 9/11 Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory is just rubbish.

Posted by: Tarquin Maynard - Portly on 13 May 2013

Various claims have been made, probably while drunk and for a laugh, but some people honestly seem to believe that the WTC wasn't brought down by fires caused by aircraft impact, but by pre-planted explosives.

 

Now, there are various minor impediments to this lunatic theory - the absence of any audible explosions; the fact that these explosives would have had to have been smuggled past very tight security at the WTC; that everyone concerned in the plot has remained totally silent; that the buildings collapsed from the top...

 

But anyway. Despite some long film being made about it, here are comprehensive rebuttals to the nutjobs.

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Sniper

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

 

Read multiple eye witness accounts from building maintenance workers who heard multiple explosions (some before the planes hit the WTC) 

 

But how can this be? According to TMP no such explosions were heard? Who is right, the people who were actually there or an armchair expert who has been taken in by so-called rebuttals? 

 

You see, TMP, this is why I said you need to look at the evidence FIRST before you can look at alleged rebuttals. This is how things are done in the big world. 

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

Looks like every one of your rubbish quotes is from the same rubbish website.

 

I had a look at what happened to one of your fellow nutjobs, Professor Jones..

 

 

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university. The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".

 

He was sacked for being a nutjob.

 

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Sniper

Now TMP, you have been soundly thrashed so just slime your way into a dark hole and lick your festering wounds and get your facts straight before you take me on as I will always squash you like a fly if you don't. Don't forget the little matter of a public apology for mis-quoting me either -  it is time to man up! 

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Sniper
Originally Posted by Tarquin Maynard - Portly:

Looks like every one of your rubbish quotes is from the same rubbish website.

 

I had a look at what happened to one of your fellow nutjobs, Professor Jones..

 

 

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university. The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".

 

He was sacked for being a nutjob.

 

Jeeez you are thick. Why do you think all the US Army Generals and Marine Colonels and USAF senior officers are all retired? Try to work it out on your own without help from a grown up. 

 

I'm off to bed now (it is 11.58 here) but I look forward to reading more of your witless drivel tomorrow. 

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Originally Posted by Sniper:

Now TMP, you have been soundly thrashed so just slime your way into a dark hole and lick your festering wounds and get your facts straight before you take me on as I will always squash you like a fly if you don't. Don't forget the little matter of a public apology for mis-quoting me either -  it is time to man up! 

 

Soundly thrashed? As thrashed as I'd be by a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest.

 

Thanks for the email admitting you're making most of this up, and are fully aware that its all crap, and enjoyed deliberately accrediting Don ( for example) with things he simply never said.

 

You did have me going for a while - i was genuinely astonished that anyone with an intelligence level beyond plankton could fall for all the guff.

 

You had me going, you rascal!

 

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Richard Dane

Sniper and TMP, this thread has pretty much arrived at the only place it was destined from the off.  If it's just going to continue now as vessel for hurling insults at each other then it's maybe time to close it. 

 

I'm sure the question of how and why the towers collapsed will be studied for many years hence.  I do wonder whether age and stress on the concrete and steel over many years (and various previous incidents) may have played their part.  When I used to work on the 103rd floor of the South tower I hated being up there in high winds.  The entire building would sway and twist and if, like me, you had an office looking uptown, you could see the North tower just off to the left and sometimes they would yaw in different directions to a point where it could appear quite alarming.  Apart from the view, which was fantastic, I hated it.  Strange to think it's long gone.

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by CFMF

If one just stands back and looks at the number of professional organizations that are questioning the validity of the official explanation, I think the open minded lay person would deem the official explanation to be, at least, very suspicious.

 

BBM

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly

Don't worry, Richard - the trolling had me going for a while but I've moved on.

 

The theories are interesting / amusing but don't really stand up to much scrutiny.

 

M

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by CFMF

Most often people will believe whatever fits their world view...

 

BBM

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by winkyincanada
Originally Posted by CFMF:

If one just stands back and looks at the number of professional organizations that are questioning the validity of the official explanation, I think the open minded lay person would deem the official explanation to be, at least, very suspicious.

 

BBM

And if one stood back and marvelled at the sheer number of people that watch(ed) Oprah, one would presumably conclude that she is indeed the greatest sage of our times, and quite possibly the messiah.

 

And if one stood back and looked at the sheer number of people who embrace natural medicine, one would conclude that we should simply dismantle the whole mainstream medical system.

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by totemphile

Winky, you really are making a fool of yourself. The less said the better. What are you suggesting, that natural medicine is all rubbish and we'd all be much better off popping yet more pharma pills and have yet more operations instead? Gosh, you had better do some reading and educate yourself on the topic, before uttering such nonsense.

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Sniper:

 

Don, 

 

A bunch of pilots are on record as saying that it would be extremely difficult to fly planes into the WTC towers at such speed at such low altitudes even for qualified and experienced airline pilots and impossible for people like M. Atta. But what do pilots know about anything? Another bunch of fruitcakes surely? 

 

Definitely. You need to be a fruitcake to keep the bloody thing steady at 360 knots, when you can see tracers comming towards you, if you're going to actually hit anything, although most of us managed to pull out at the last moment. I'm with you on this one.

 

Today's airliners are designed to be idiot-proof and guess what ?. Some of the low-cost airlines are hiring idiots to fly them. I feel much safer now, knowing that hitting a tall building is virtually impossible.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Sniper:

Marc,

 

What you say is not unreasonable. However, a great many experts in structural design and architecture say that there is evidence that your, not unreasonable, theory does not hold up to detailed expert analysis. .....not all architects and structural engineers etc. agree

Just ammended it to remove your bias.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by Sniper:


Then I heard that Don Atkinson in the UK said the WTC collapsed in the same way that some old cooling towers collapsed and I realised I was a nutjob and I've been on medication ever since" 

Well, you've mis-quoted me, but nonetheless eventually come to the right conclusion about JE Anderson.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:
Originally Posted by Sniper:

 

Don, 

 

A bunch of pilots are on record as saying that it would be extremely difficult to fly planes into the WTC towers at such speed at such low altitudes even for qualified and experienced airline pilots and impossible for people like M. Atta. But what do pilots know about anything? Another bunch of fruitcakes surely? 

 

Definitely. You need to be to keep the bloody thing steady at 360 knots, when you can see tracers comming towards you, if you're going to actually hit anything, although most of us managed to pull out at the last moment.

 

Today's airliners are designed to be idiot-proof and guess what ?. Some of the low-cost airlines are hiring idiots to fly them.

 

Cheers

 

Don

You mean, even you could fly them?

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by totemphile:

You mean, even you could fly them?

If I was stupid enough to work for a low-cost ailine.

 

Cheers

 

Don

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by totemphile

I sincerely hope you aren't, otherwise England wouldn't be safe no longer!

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Mike Hughes
I just assumed the first fee posts were an indication the forum had been hacked. Nothing I have read since has persuaded me otherwise.
Posted on: 17 May 2013 by totemphile

Interesting article and interview. More to follow...

 

 

Former German Cabinet Minister Attacks 

Official Brainwashing On September 11 Issue 

Points at "Mad Dog" Zbig and Huntington

Source: Tagesspiegel, 13 Jan 2002

In a full-page interview with the Sunday edition (Jan. 13) of the Berlin Tagesspiegel daily, former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow, said he does not buy any of the official theories that have been presented to date, on the events of September 11.

The apparent failure of the U.S. Administration including its 26 secret agencies with an annual budget of $30 billion, to come up with any convincing assessment, was one big problem that von Buelow addressed, in quite some detail.

He then addressed the role of the official "brainwashing of the Western mass democracies" on the Sept. 11 issue, in promoting the new enemy image of "Islamic terrorism," along lines developed earlier, by senior advisors of the U.S. Administration:

"I am not the origin of the idea of the enemy image. It originates with Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two pioneers of American secret intelligence and foreign policies.

"Already in the mid-1990s, Huntington opined that people in Europe and the USA needed someone they could hate -- that would strengthen the identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, that mad dog, already at his time as advisor to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the sole right of the USA to all the world's raw materials, especially crude oil and natural gas."

Von Buelow also addressed the role of Brzezinski, personally, in setting up theafghani operation of armed "Islamic" guerilla warfare against the USSR Afghanistan invasion in and after 1979 -- the Taliban being generated by the same operation, after all.

As for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as such, von Buelow remarked: "Planning the attacks was a master deed, in technical and organizational terms. To hijack four big airliners within a few minutes and fly them into targets within a single hour and doing so on complicated flight routes! That is unthinkable, without backing from the secret apparatuses of state and industry."

He added that laying false tracks of investigation has been an accompanying feature of covert operations ever since they have been launched by influential agencies, so that he is convinced that the full truth behind Sept. 11 still has to be sought.

A partial translation follows.

 

Question:

You seem so angry, really upset.

Andreas Von

I can explain what's bothering me: I see that after the horrifying

Bülow:

 

attacks of Sept. 11, all political public opinion is being forced

 

into a direction that I consider wrong.

Q:

What do you mean by that?

Von Buelow:

I wonder why many questions are not asked. Normally, with such

 

a terrible thing, various leads and tracks appear that are then

 

commented on, by the investigators, the media, the government:

 

Is there something here or not? Are the explanations plausible?

 

This time, this is not the case at all. It already began just hours

 

after the attacks in New York and Washington and --

Q:

In those hours, there was horror, and grief.

Von Buelow:

Right, but actually it was astounding: There are 26 intelligence

 

services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion--

Q:

More than the German defense budget.

Von Buelow:

--which were not able to prevent the attacks. In fact, they didn't

 

even have an inkling they would happen. For 60 decisive minutes,

 

the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay

 

on the ground, 48 hours later, however, the FBI presented a list

 

of suicide attackers. Within ten days, it emerged that seven of

 

them were still alive.

Q:

What, please?

Von Buelow:

Yes, yes. And why did the FBI chief take no position regarding

 

contradictions? Where the list came from, why it was false? If I

 

were the chief investigator (state attorney) in such a case, I would

 

regularly go to the public, and give information on which leads are

 

valid and which not.

Q:

The U.S. government talked about an emergency situation after

 

the attacks: They said they were in a war. Is it not understandable

 

that one does not tell the enemy everything one knows about him?

Von Buelow:

Naturally. But a government which goes to war, must first establish

 

who the attacker, the enemy, is. It has a duty to provide evidence.

 

According to its own admission, it has not been able to present any

 

evidence that would hold up in court.

Q:

Some information on the perpetrators has been proven with

 

documents. The suspected leader, Mohammad Atta, left Portland for

 

Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, in order to board the plane that

 

later hit the World Trade Center

Von Buelow:

If this Atta was the decisive man in the operation, it's really strange

 

that he took such a risk of taking a plane that would reach Boston

 

such a short time before the connecting flight. Had his flight been

 

a few minutes late, he would not have been in the plane that was

 

hijacked. Why should a sophisticated terrorist do this? One can,

 

by the way, read on CNN (Internet) that none of these names were

 

on the official passenger lists. None of them had gone through

 

the check-in procedures. And why did none of the threatened pilots

 

give the agreed-upon code 7700 over the [Steuerknueppel:

 

STEERING NOB?] to the ground station? In addition: The

 

black boxes which are fire and shock proof, as well as the voice

 

recordings, contain no valuable data--

Q:

That sounds like--

Von Buelow:

--like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind

 

them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments

 

with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight

 

instructors with their own names. They left behind rented cars with

 

flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on

 

their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands

 

of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly

 

addressed. Clues were left like behind like in a child's game of

 

hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!

 

There is also the theory of one British flight engineer:

 

According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out

 

of the pilots' hands, from outside.

 

The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby

 

they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer

 

piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique

 

was abused in this case. That's a theory....

Q:

Which sounds really adventurous, and was never considered.

Von Buelow:

You see! I do not accept this theory, but I find it worth considering.

 

And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to

 

the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines,

 

United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200%. It was

 

for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have known something.

 

Who?

Q:

Why don't you speculate on who it might have been.

Von Buelow:

With the help of the horrifying attacks, the Western mass democracies

 

were subjected to brainwashing. The enemy image of anti-communism

 

doesn't work any more; it is to be replaced by peoples of Islamic belief.

 

They are accused of having given birth to suicidal terrorism.

Q:

Brainwashing? That's a tough term.

Von Buelow:

Yes? But the idea of the enemy image doesn't come from me. It

 

comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two

 

policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy. Already in

 

the middle of he 1990s, Huntingon believed, people in Europe and

 

the U.S. needed someone they could hate-- this would strengthen their

 

identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, the mad dog, as

 

adviser to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the exclusive right

 

of the U.S. to seize all the raw materials of the world, especially

 

oil and gas.

Q:

You mean, the events of Sept. 11--

Von Buelow:

--fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the

 

intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex.

 

This is in fact conspicuous. The huge raw materials reserves of the

 

former Soviet Union are now at their disposal, also the pipeline

 

routes and--

Q:

Erich Follach described that at length in Spiegel: ``It's a matter of

 

military bases, drugs, oil and gas reserves.''

Von Buelow:

I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and

 

organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes

 

within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets,

 

with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long

 

support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.

Q:

You are a conspiracy theorist!

Von Buelow:

Yeah, yeah. That's the ridicule heaped [on those raising these questions]

 

by those who would prefer to follow the official, politically correct line.

 

Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and disinformation.

 

Anyone who doubts that, doesn't have all his marbles! That is your

 

accusation.

Q:

Your career actually speaks against the idea that you are not in your

 

right mind. You were already in the 1970s, state secretary in the

 

Defense Ministry; in 1993 you were the SPD [Social Democratic Party]

 

speaker in the Schalk-Golodkowski investigation committee--

Von Buelow:

And it all began there! Until that time, I did not have any great

 

knowledge of the work of intelligence agencies. And now we had to

 

take note of a great discrepancy: We shed light on the dealings of the Stasi

 

and other East bloc intelligence agencies in the field of economic criminality,

 

but as soon as we wanted to know something about the activities of the BND

 

[German intelligence] or the CIA, it was mercilessly blocked. No information,

 

no cooperation, nothing! That's when I was first taken aback.

Q:

Schalck-Golodkowski mediated, among other things, various business

 

deals abroad. When you looked at his case more closely--

Von Buelow:

We found, for example, a clue in Rostock, where Schalck organized his

 

weapons depot. Well, then we happened upon an affiliation of Schalck

 

in Panama, and then we happened upon Manuel Noriega, who was for

 

many years President, drug dealer, and money launderer, all in one, right?

 

And this Noriega was also on the payroll of the CIA, for $200,000 a year.

 

These were things that really made me curious.

Q:

You wrote a book on the dealings of the CIA and Co. In the meantime, you

 

have become an expert regarding the strange things related to

 

intelligence services' work.

Von Buelow:

``Strange things'' is the wrong term. What has gone on, and goes on, in

 

the name of intelligence services, are true crimes.

Q:

What would you say determines the work of intelligence services?

Von Buelow:

So that we don't have any misunderstandings: I find that it makes sense to

 

have intelligence services....

Q:

You don't think much of the earlier proposals by the Greens, who wanted

 

to dismantle these agencies?

Von Buelow:

No. It is right to take a look behind the scenes. Getting intelligence about

 

the intentions of an enemy, makes sense. It is important when one tries to

 

put oneself into the mind of the enemy. Whoever wants to understand the

 

CIA's methods, has to deal with its main tasks, covert operations: below

 

the level of war, and outside international law, foreign states are to

 

be influenced, by organizing insurrections, terrorist attacks, usually

 

combined with drugs and weapons trade, and money laundering.

 

This is essentially very simple: One arms violent people with weapons.

 

Since, however, it must not under any circumstances come out, that there is

 

an intelligence agency behind it, all traces are erased, with

 

tremendous deployment of resources.

 

I have the impression that this kind of intelligence agency spends 90% of

 

its time this way: creating false leads. So that, if anyone suspects

 

the collaboration of the agencies, he is accused of the sickness of

 

conspiracy madness. The truth often comes out only years later. CIA chief

 

Allen Dulles once said: In case of doubt, I would even lie to the Congress!

Q:

The American journalist Seymour M. Hersh, wrote in the New Yorker, that

 

even some people in the CIA and government assumed, that certain leads

 

had been laid in order to confuse the investigators. Who, Herr von Buelow,

 

would have done this?

Von Buelow:

I don't know that either. How should I? I simply use my common sense,

 

and-- See: The terrorists behaved in such a way to attract attention. And

 

as practicing Muslims, they were in a strip-tease bar, and, drunken, stuck

 

dollar bills into the panty of the dancer.

Q:

Things like that also happen.

Von Buelow:

It may be. As a lone fighter, I cannot prove anything, that's beyond

 

my capabilities. I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this

 

all sprung out of the mind of an evil man in his cave.

Q:

Mr. von Buelow, you yourself say that you are alone in your criticism.

 

Formerly, you were part of the political establishment, now you are an

 

outsider.

Von Buelow:

That is a problem sometimes, but one gets used to it. By the way, I know

 

a lot of people, including very influential ones, who agree with me, but only

 

in whispers, never publicly.

Q:

Do you still have contact with old SPD companions, such as Egon Bahr

 

and former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt?

Von Buelow:

There are no close contacts any more. I wanted to go to the last SPD

 

party congress, but I was sick.

Q:

Can it be, Mr. von Buelow, that you are a mouthpiece for typical

 

anti-Americanism?

Von Buelow:

Nonsense, this has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism. I am

 

a great admirer of this great, open, free society, and always have been.

 

I studied in the U.S.

Q:

How did you get the idea that there could be a link between the attacks

 

and the American intelligence agencies?

Von Buelow:

Do you remember the first attack on the WorldTrade Center in 1993?

Q:

Six people were killed and over a thousand wounded, by a bomb explosion.

Von Buelow:

In the middle was the bombmaker, a former Egyptian officer. He had

 

pulled together some Muslims for the attack. They were snuck into the

 

country by the CIA, despite a State Department ban on their entry. At the

 

same time, the leader of the band was an FBI informant.

 

And he made a deal with the authorities: At the last minute, the

 

dangerous explosive material would be replaced by a harmless powder.

 

The FBI did not stick to the deal. The bomb exploded, so to speak, with

 

the knowledge of the FBI. The official story of the crime was quickly found:

 

The criminals were evil Muslims.

Q:

At the time Soviet soldiers marched into Afghanistan, you were in the cabinet

 

of Helmut Schmidt. What was it like?

Von Buelow:

The Americans pushed for trade sanctions, they demanded the boycott of

 

the Olympic games in Moscow....

Q:

.... which the German government followed...

Von Buelow:

And today we know: It was the strategy of the American security

 

adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to destabilize the Soviet Union from

 

neighboring Muslim countries They lured the Russians into Afghanistan,

 

and then prepared for them a hell on earth, their Vietnam. With decisive

 

support of the U.S. intelligence agencies, at least 30,000 Muslim fighters

 

were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a bunch of good-for-nothings and

 

fanatics who were, and still are today, ready for anything.

 

And one of them is Osama bin Laden. I wrote years ago: ` `It was out of

 

this brood, that the Taliban grew up in Afghanistan, who had been brought

 

up in the Koran schools financed by American and Saudi funds, the Taliban

 

who are now terrorizing the country and destroying it

Q:

Even though you say, for the U.S. it was a matter of raw materials in the

 

region, the starting point for the U.S. aggression, was the terrorist attack

 

which cost thousands of human lives.

Von Buelow:

Completely true. One must always keep this gruesome act in mind.

 

Nonetheless, in the analysis of political processes, I am allowed to look and

 

see who has advantages and disadvantages, and what is coincidental.

 

When in doubt, it is always worthwhile to take a look at a map, where are

 

raw materials resources, and the routes to them? Then lay a map of civil

 

wars and conflicts on top of that --they coincide. The same is the case with

 

the third map: nodal points of the drug trade.

 

Where this all comes together, the American intelligence services are not

 

far away. By the way, the Bush family is linked to oil, gas, and weapons

 

trade, through the bin Laden family.

Q:

What do you think of the Bin Laden films?

Von Buelow:

When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations

 

of the highest quality. Hollywood could provide these techniques. I consider

 

the videos inappropriate as evidence.

Q:

You believe the CIA is capable of anything, [wouldn't stop at anything].

Von Buelow:

The CIA, in the state interests of the U.S., does not have to abide by any law

 

in interventions abroad, is not bound by international law; only the

 

President gives orders.

 

And when funds are cut, peace is on the horizon, then a bomb

 

explodes somewhere. Thus it is proven, that you can't do without the

 

intelligence services; and that the critics are nuts, as Father Bush called

 

them, Bush who was once CIA head and President.

 

You have to see that the U.S. spends $30 billion on intelligence services,

 

and $13 billion on anti-drug work. And what comes out of it?

 

The chief of a special unit of the strategic anti-drug work declared, in

 

despair, after 30 years of service, that in every big, important drug case, the

 

CIA came in and took it out of my hands. (Rosalinda: Michael Levin)

Q:

Do you criticize the German government for its reaction after Sept. 11?

Von Buelow:

No. To assume that the government were independent in these questions,

 

would be naive.

Q:

Herr von Buelow, what will you do now?

Von Buelow:

Nothing. My task is concluded by saying, it could not have been that

 

way [according to the official story]. Search for the truth!

 

 

Posted on: 17 May 2013 by Sniper
Originally Posted by Tarquin Maynard - Portly:
 

 

You did have me going for a while - i was genuinely astonished that anyone with an intelligence level beyond plankton could fall for all the guff.

 

 

 

I think I have proved beyond any debate that generals, colonels, professors, Ph.Ds, scientists, engineers, architects and medical doctors together with witnesses who were actually there are neither nuts nor stupid and it is crass in the extreme to suggest they are.

 

Your attempts to ridicule these people many of which consider themselves to be patriots, many of which have flown combat missions and commercial planes, many of which have led professional troops into battle and risked their lives, many of which have been in positions of trust that few could aspire to and many of which who have reached the highest levels of rank, responsibility, respect and authority, by relating them to nutjobs and fruitcakes who believe in faked moon landings and that Elvis Lives in the attempt to show how intelligent and erudite you are has spectacularly backfired. Whatever else these people are (and they are numbered in their thousands) they are demonstrably neither mad nor stupid. Moreover, they are demonstrably more educated, more intelligent and more experienced than you. And  whereas according to some of these people who are highly qualified and prize winning health care professionals such as medical doctors, psychologist and psychiatrists people like you are deluded and in denial. So who is the nutjob and who is the fruitcake here? 


Case proven. 

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Jasonf
Originally Posted by Sniper:

       
Originally Posted by Tarquin Maynard - Portly:
 

 

You did have me going for a while - i was genuinely astonished that anyone with an intelligence level beyond plankton could fall for all the guff.

 

 

 

I think I have proved beyond any debate that generals, colonels, professors, Ph.Ds, scientists, engineers, architects and medical doctors together with witnesses who were actually there are neither nuts nor stupid and it is crass in the extreme to suggest they are.

 

Your attempts to ridicule these people many of which consider themselves to be patriots, many of which have flown combat missions and commercial planes, many of which have led professional troops into battle and risked their lives, many of which have been in positions of trust that few could aspire to and many of which who have reached the highest levels of rank, responsibility, respect and authority, by relating them to nutjobs and fruitcakes who believe in faked moon landings and that Elvis Lives in the attempt to show how intelligent and erudite you are has spectacularly backfired. Whatever else these people are (and they are numbered in their thousands) they are demonstrably neither mad nor stupid. Moreover, they are demonstrably more educated, more intelligent and more experienced than you. And  whereas according to some of these people who are highly qualified and prize winning health care professionals such as medical doctors, psychologist and psychiatrists people like you are deluded and in denial. So who is the nutjob and who is the fruitcake here? 


Case proven. 


       


Very well put sniper, but hollow words based on your previous posts denigrating other well respected scientists from various fields. This only proves that you are happy to subscribe to those views that fit your own world view and show respect to those persons accordingly...and it seems you pursue this enlightened 'yoda' path to fellow forum members.

Nothing proven here sniper...just a dose of hypocrisy.

Jason.
Posted on: 18 May 2013 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Jasonf:
 
Nothing proven here sniper...just a dose of hypocrisy.

Jason.

What's hypocritical? Have you actually looked into the issues or have you just got out of bed and stumbled across this thread, feeling the need to comment?

 

Anyways, it's not about proving anything. Nobody is going to prove it one way or another here on a thread. It's about getting people to open their eyes and consider the facts, not just what's been regurgitated by lobbyists and mainstream media.

Posted on: 18 May 2013 by GraemeH

 
A piece of the tail section allegedly retrieved from the impact site.
Posted on: 18 May 2013 by Onthlam
Originally Posted by GraemeH:

       

 
A piece of the tail section allegedly retrieved from the impact site.

       


I found Elvis!!
Posted on: 18 May 2013 by GraemeH
Originally Posted by Onthlam:
Originally Posted by GraemeH:

       

 
A piece of the tail section allegedly retrieved from the impact site.

       


I found Elvis!!

I'm sorry to break it to you Onthlam but their is no way he could have survived the impact.....or could he?...You do realise what you are saying here....Elvis might infact be alive?. G