Jump to content
The Education Forum

Steven Phillips

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steven Phillips

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

6,297 profile views
  1. what I have a problem with Dave is that during all the so called `moon landings`the astronauts were hit several times by high energy particles (re: the flashes in eyes)but the cameras managed to evade being hit even on the more exposed lunar surface where we know high energy interactions take place. Now that I just dont get.
  2. Also - new techniques have been developed that enable scientists to test the interaction of various types of ionising radiation on human flesh, as opposed to a blanket figure in rads. I think that is what part of the proposed British lunar trip (Moonraker) will do - use new techniques to analyse lunar radiation more accurately than they could in the 1960's. Dave! I wonder weather these `new techniques` will also analyse the effects of radiation on kodak film after all nasa claims the film they used is impervious to a range of different radiations and a very wide range of temperature variatio
  3. Thanx for keeping us updated on this case Sid, as with all these `terror scares`braught to us courtesy of the intelligence services & media; when they are scrutinised carfully there is no substance and no foundation other than assertion and hype. The only evidence you need is to point to the track record, there is precedent here and the `mo` is always the same: anounce the case with an explosion of hype and fanfair and then quietly forget when nothing sticks with an explosion of silence; this is just another hoax in a long list of terror hoaxes like the `bombing of Old Trafford`hoax, the `
  4. John, I think truthful objectivity should be applied to all subjects equally, its extremely important that scolarship have the freedom to investigate historical events and draw conclusions from the evidence they uncover. People who want to clarify history by going back over events to see if maybe a different interpretation holds should be able to do so without being villified or labeled or mollested by the powers that be for trespassing on their statements of historical fact. History by definition is revision and as more understanding accrues and more evidence comes to light historians are
  5. Steven...the plane yous show is the United Airlines plane from the second hit, if I recall right. The AA plane Flight 11, was first to hit and was not clearly photographed. Though both were Boeings, the underside configuration was different. Jack Its all so confusing Jack, I mean the second plane to hit the towers, I cant tell one from the other.
  6. I think this site explains it quite well: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html Evan! I dont think that link explains anything; it tries to make it all sound so plausible but fails misserably; where it says that the head on view shows no pod, what has actually happened is that the view is casting too much shadow to make out anything really, but he has pointed out a bulge that clearly must be the pod when juxtaposed with the other views; pointing an arrow at it and calling it `end of fuselage`doesnt make it not a pod. When John Gotti went to court during his criminal career he had a
  7. This is a picture of the plane that hit ww2, the red arrows show the length of the engine mounting fin and the black shows the distance between the fuselage and engine: as you can see from this photo the plane appears to have 2 left handed engines attached. Is this normal practice at AA? There is also a bulge on the fuselage.....could this be a missile pop as others believe?
  8. As already pointed out* the impact the towers were meant to survive was much weaker than the ones that occurred on 9/11 and things don’t always work as planned. Do you think the Titanic and the terminal at DeGaulle were sabotaged as well? Yeah right, then how do you account for the collapse of building 7 that sustained no impact? So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions? No I think they would make loud rumbling and crashing sounds; I think explosives would make a sound resembling explosions. Not “every bit of concrete” was
  9. As already pointed out* the impact the towers were meant to survive was much weaker than the ones that occurred on 9/11 and things don’t always work as planned. Do you think the Titanic and the terminal at DeGaulle were sabotaged as well? Yeah right, then how do you account for the collapse of building 7 that sustained no impact? So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions? No I think they would make loud rumbling and crashing sounds; I think explosives would make a sound resembling explosions. Not “every bit of concrete” was
  10. The arms `industry`is like the car industry: you have the big dealerships selling the latest models to drop of the production line and politicians breaking the law to do fleet deals with the scum of the earth occasionally offering their rear ends in gratification whilst proffessing that it was all in aid of jobs. Then you have the used car market that has a knock on effect where shady `intelligence`services supply the next Savimbi or KLA with the means to murder and wreak havoc in places where independent thaught might become a problem. The used arms market is by far bigger than the new and
  11. Your posts are always well researched John and very illuminating. The behaviour of the Blair crowd has been very suspicious over Iraq and Afganistan, Blair was verging on the psycotic over wmd and he came across as disingenuous over the whole affair. I thaught I could see right through him therefor parliament would but they voted for that war and because of it the price of food has gone up in the last few years as well as energy. I often wonder how we ever got to the state where the criminals are running things like this and believe me Blair is just another criminal prostituting himself to
  12. These buildings were built on the same principles as pagodas with a strong central core, they had to withstand occilations caused by high winds, so are you saying it was the kinetic energy of the impact that braught these buildings down? The steel frame was designed to absorb an impact, the central core was designed to absorb occilations like a giant shock absorber, so it certainly wasnt the impact that braught these buildings down. If you check my link previously you can hear the explosions bringing that building down, as the camera points up you can hear bang, bang, bang,roar, bang........
  13. Sorry that last one was the wrong link..............................................................here`s the right one..................................... http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...&PAGE_id=63
  14. No explosions at the world trade centre, whats this then scotch mist?................................................................................ ....... http://letsrollforums.com/phpwebsite/index...w&ANN_id=26
  15. any and all stories of Hijackers still being alive came out soon after 911 before the FBI release their final and official list. After that the stories stopped. This points to the stories being mistaken identity with people with similar names. Another thing to think about is why would Saudi Arabia admit that 15 of the hijackers were their citizens if they were in fact alive? http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html This was not mistaken identity because some of these guys saw their pictures on the news. The seismic data only appears to show explosions when viewed in a highly compressed
×
×
  • Create New...