Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Recommended Posts

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 pulverized I’m not even sure most of it was.

- Even Hoffman admits much of the concrete would be pulverized by the force of the collapse. Each tower was about 1366 feet (416 meters) tall, and 500,000 tons. I’d like to see your calculations with references as to the KE released by the collapses then the KE needed to pulverize the concrete.

What nonsense! not all the concrete was pulverised, just most of it and collapsing buildings do not turn into pyroclastic flows.

Thats a bit rich asking me to prove my argument with mathematics. In all the earth quakes of recent years show me one building that collapsed in the manner that these buildings collapsed, I know you cant show me a building of steel and high grade concrete that gets pulverised by collapsing. I can show you a building that collapses in an almost identical manner.

Is it your theory that explosives were placed on every floor in “every nook and cranny”? That seems like far more than necessary. In normal controlled demo explosives are only placed in a few select locations on a few select floors.

Power downs, evacuations, relocations, Sundays, empty floors and drills were all happening in the months leading up to 911, besides workmen could access the areas where the trusses were without raising suspicion. Explosives dont neccessarily have to be placed on every floor so long as the right type of explosives is used and some investigaters believe that thermate was used in this case and when you look at who owned the building and who was in charge of security, it wouldnt be difficult to plan this demolition so long as you got rid of the bomb sniffing dogs for when you planted the really big stuff in the sky lobbies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 pulverized I’m not even sure most of it was.

- Even Hoffman admits much of the concrete would be pulverized by the force of the collapse. Each tower was about 1366 feet (416 meters) tall, and 500,000 tons. I’d like to see your calculations with references as to the KE released by the collapses then the KE needed to pulverize the concrete.

What nonsense! not all the concrete was pulverised, just most of it and collapsing buildings do not turn into pyroclastic flows.

Thats a bit rich asking me to prove my argument with mathematics. In all the earth quakes of recent years show me one building that collapsed in the manner that these buildings collapsed, I know you cant show me a building of steel and high grade concrete that gets pulverised by collapsing. I can show you a building that collapses in an almost identical manner.

Is it your theory that explosives were placed on every floor in “every nook and cranny”? That seems like far more than necessary. In normal controlled demo explosives are only placed in a few select locations on a few select floors.

Power downs, evacuations, relocations, Sundays, empty floors and drills were all happening in the months leading up to 911, besides workmen could access the areas where the trusses were without raising suspicion. Explosives dont neccessarily have to be placed on every floor so long as the right type of explosives is used and some investigaters believe that thermate was used in this case and when you look at who owned the building and who was in charge of security, it wouldnt be difficult to plan this demolition so long as you got rid of the bomb sniffing dogs for when you planted the really big stuff in the sky lobbies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Is that you strategy when you can no longer argue a particular point, change the subject? The collapse of “Seven” doesn’t have anything to do with let alone override the facts that 1) numerous other structures have failed in conditions they were meant to survive and 2) Roberson’s study only indicated the “Twin Towers” would be able to survive impacts far weaker than the ones they suffered on 9/11.

Why did 7 collapses? I’m not an engineer but I suspect that the ones who studied it are right and that 7 hours of unsuppressed fierce fires, being struck by debris from a 1368 foot 500,000 ton building (which tore out large chunks of its façade {including probably some support columns} several thousand gallons of diesel fuel and its unorthodox architecture (it was built over an electrical substation, some of the columns didn’t go top to bottom) had something to do with it. Numerous firemen and other emergency personnel said they suspected it was going to collapse for several hours and reported seeing 20 story tall holes, bulges and the building leaning over. The NYFD ordered all personnel away from the building, I guess they were “in on it” too.

ME: So you don’t think 4000 ton floors crashing on to each other would make loud noises resembling explosions?

STEVE: No I think they would make loud rumbling and crashing sounds; I think explosives would make a sound resembling explosions.

You think they sound like explosions I think they sound like crashing and rumbling. Elsewhere on this forum I posted quotes (with links to the sources) of people (including war veterans) saying things like collapsing bridges, earthquakes, tidal waves and trees struck by lightning sounded like bombs.

ME: Not “every bit of concrete” was pulverized I’m not even sure most of it was.

- Even Hoffman admits much of the concrete would be pulverized by the force of the collapse. Each tower was about 1366 feet (416 meters) tall, and 500,000 tons. I’d like to see your calculations with references as to the KE released by the collapses then the KE needed to pulverize the concrete.

STEVE: What nonsense! not all the concrete was pulverised, just most of it and collapsing buildings do not turn into pyroclastic flows.

I have yet to evidence that most of the concrete was pulverized let alone that there were any pyroclastic flows (nice moving target) why evidence do you have that they weren’t merely dust clouds?

"Thats a bit rich asking me to prove my argument with mathematics. In all the earth quakes of recent years show me one building that collapsed in the manner that these buildings collapsed, I know you cant show me a building of steel and high grade concrete that gets pulverised by collapsing. I can show you a building that collapses in an almost identical manner. "

No asking you to provide evidence for your claim (that the pulverization of concrete can only be explained by CD) isn’t “rich” it’s called ‘burden of proof’. As I already pointed out even Jim Hoffman, who was the first (AFAIK) CD proponent to bring up the pulverization issue, acknowledged that the collapses would have released enough KE to pulverize a lot of the concrete. Earthquakes are poor analogy because they often knock over structurally sound buildings. The collapses were similar to CD in that collapse was initiated by damage to a few floors and gravity did the rest. What do you think would happen to several tons of concrete that drops about 1300 feet or falls a lesser distance and has several tons of debris collapse on it? Might not we expect some to get pulverized?

ME:Is it your theory that explosives were placed on every floor in “every nook and cranny”? That seems like far more than necessary. In normal controlled demo explosives are only placed in a few select locations on a few select floors.

STEVE: Power downs, evacuations, relocations, Sundays, empty floors and drills were all happening in the months leading up to 911,

You’re bringing up an issue not relevant to what we’re debating. The evidence for these claims is very weak and based on only two witnesses Scott Forbes who has contradicted himself at times and Rodriguez who true to form only started saying such things AFTER Forbes’ claims started to draw attention. Forbes' claims don’t make much sense and he hasn’t been able to provide any evidence to corroborate his story. Even some “inside jobbers” have questioned his story. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html , http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

“…besides workmen could access the areas where the trusses were without raising suspicion."

But they would have raised attention; do you have any reports of workmen accessing the trusses? Besides one of tenets of the CD theory is that collapsing trusses couldn’t have brought down the core or perimeter columns.

“Explosives dont neccessarily have to be placed on every floor so long as the right type of explosives is used…”

Exactly, though most CD theorists think they do but it’s your theory that the pulverization of all or most of the concrete can only be explained by explosives.

So let’s say explosives would have been necessary on every 10th floor in select locations. How does your theory explain pulverization of the concrete on the other 99 floors and the parts of those floors not close to the cutter charges?

“…and some investigaters believe that thermate was used”

- The evidence for such theories is weak.

- Thermate doesn’t pulverize concrete.

“…in this case and when you look at who owned the building…”

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

“…and who was in charge of security…”

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

“…it wouldnt be difficult to plan this demolition so long as you got rid of the bomb sniffing dogs for when you planted the really big stuff in the sky lobbies.”

- So, you think the PANYNJ was in on it too?

- Don’t you think the thousands of people who changed elevators on those floors not to mention the numerous people who worked on them would have noticed?

- There still were bomb sniffing dogs in the complex, the extra ones that had briefly were added (for about 2 weeks) one even died in the collapse.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

- The difficulty or ease of planting explosives has nothing to do with there was enough energy in a purely gravity driven collapse to explain the degree of pulverization of cement from the towers.

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites

Len

This video has been released from the Doubletree Hotel (I wrote Arlington Hotel..edited).

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...eoid=1507751455

The red circle, I suspect, is glass from the lamp. As it was dumped on the asfalt, it broke. The windshield is caved inward. So any loose glass from the windshield should be inside.

From Loose Change 15 min 38 sec. About the plane to pick up Bush Sr., and clipped a lamppost on approach.

Compare to:

I was not talking about the wires.

Maarten.

Edited by Maarten Coumans
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Maarten, so what does any of this prove? you still have the same insurmountable problems with proving anything other than a very large plane hit the Pentagon, namely, 1 Overwelming eyewitness testimony, 2, wreakage found on the lawn, and inside the penetratored outer wall, and 3, DNA evidence found at the crash site.

i am no fan of Bush and his neo-Con buddies, and it may be possible to latter lay sightly lesser charges at their door, such as gross negligence, and even possibly foreknowledge of the terrible events for political, and economic gain. But having studied the actual physical evidence it is, to me at least, certain beyond a reasonable that doubt that the official reports are largely correct, and remember nothing can ever be proven to 100% certainty....Regards, Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The red circle, I suspect, is glass from the lamp. As it was dumped on the asfalt, it broke. The windshield is caved inward. So any loose glass from the windshield should be inside.

His side window is also appears broken.

Regarding the other lamppost hit by a plane, it appears to be a different style of lamppost, and it was hit higher up by a plane travelling much slower. Can really expect them to react the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Len

This video has been released from the Arlington Hotel

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...eoid=1507751455

That's the Doubletree (not the Shereton) hotel video. I don’t think it proves anything one way or the other.
The red circle, I suspect, is glass from the lamp. As it was dumped on the asfalt, it broke. The windshield is caved inward. So any loose glass from the windshield should be inside.
Yes and your point is…?

[

From Loose Change 15 min 38 sec. About the plane to pick up Bush Sr., and clipped a lamppost on approach.

Compare to:

As Kevin pointed out there were numerous differences: speed, altitude, type of plane and presumably type of lamppost.

As I wouldn’t trust Loose Change as a source numerous errors have been pointed out and the “producer” admitted they intentionally included disinformation “…We know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves” http://smithmag.net/2006/08/10/korey-rowe-...e-cannon-of-911

I was not talking about the wires.

Now I see what you’re talking about, we can’t really say it “flowers out in all directions” because we can only see two (out of four) sides. There is some sort of flange on the left but not on the top, I doubt there is one on the bottom because it appears to be lying flat on the ground, can say about the right side because it's hidden from view. Is this consistent or inconsistent with what we’d expect from a lamppost of that type being struck by a wing of 100 ton jet hitting it at 800 KPH (500 MPH)? I don’t think either of us or anyone on this board (except perhaps Steve Ulman, a traffic engineer) can say. It looks like a flange consistent with a break to me. The post also could have been made that way perhaps that's where the mast attached to larger part just above it.

As Steve pointed out there is overwhelming eyewitness and forensic evidence indicating the Pentagon was struck by a jetliner. The “no planers” have yet to come up with a reasonable motive for the plotters to swap a 757 for a missile, drone or fighter plane etc. No one reported exploding lampposts

Len

EDIT - The first time I tried the video link it didn't work, a few minutes later it did so I changed my repy accordingly.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

One theory why Alexander Litvinenko was murdered was because he had discovered a “9/11” type conspiracy. Last week saw the publication of Litvinenko’s “Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within” (co-written with the Russian historian, Yuri Felshtnsky). In the book he argues that the official rationale for the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1999 was a fabrication. In September of that year terrorist bombings of apartment blocks in Moscow killed hundreds of innocent citizens. Chechen separatists were blamed for the bombings and therefore Putin gained popular support for sending in the Russian Army into Chechnya in December, 1999.

According to Litvinenko’s book, Russian security agencies had arranged for the apartment blocks to be bombed. Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist who was shot dead on Saturday, 7 October 2006 in the elevator of her apartment block in central Moscow, also subscribed to this theory. As the authors pointed out, Bush and Blair kept quiet about the invasion of Chechnya in return for Putin’s support for their war on terror.

The book includes a confession from Achemez Gochiyaev, who claims he was responsible for some of the bombings. Gochiyaev, a Karachai and not a Chechen, claims he was used by Putin as a pretext for the invasion.

Those politicians from the State Duma who have questioned the truth about these bombings have also been dealt with. Sergei Yushenkov and Vladimir Golovlyov were gunned down in Moscow and Yuri Schekochikhin died from suspected poisoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One theory why Alexander Litvinenko was murdered was because he had discovered a “9/11” type conspiracy. Last week saw the publication of Litvinenko’s “Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within” (co-written with the Russian historian, Yuri Felshtnsky). In the book he argues that the official rationale for the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1999 was a fabrication. In September of that year terrorist bombings of apartment blocks in Moscow killed hundreds of innocent citizens. Chechen separatists were blamed for the bombings and therefore Putin gained popular support for sending in the Russian Army into Chechnya in December, 1999.

According to Litvinenko’s book, Russian security agencies had arranged for the apartment blocks to be bombed. Anna Politkovskaya, the journalist who was shot dead on Saturday, 7 October 2006 in the elevator of her apartment block in central Moscow, also subscribed to this theory. As the authors pointed out, Bush and Blair kept quiet about the invasion of Chechnya in return for Putin’s support for their war on terror.

The book includes a confession from Achemez Gochiyaev, who claims he was responsible for some of the bombings. Gochiyaev, a Karachai and not a Chechen, claims he was used by Putin as a pretext for the invasion.

Those politicians from the State Duma who have questioned the truth about these bombings have also been dealt with. Sergei Yushenkov and Vladimir Golovlyov were gunned down in Moscow and Yuri Schekochikhin died from suspected poisoning.

There's a small problem with the scenario that Putin ordered Litvinenko's murder because of the imminent publication of the latter's expose of the 1999 bombings.

These are not new claims - and Litvinenko has made them before.

He has published extensively on this topic since 2002.

Most folk in the west were probably unaware of these accusations (as they were unaware of Litvinenko himself).

The liklihood is that many more are aware of him and his claims now he's dead.

This doesn't exonerate Putin from foreknowledge of the 99 bombings - or from Litvinenko's murder.

However, Litvinenko admitted in this reference that:

By the time of the apartment-house bombings, Litvinenko was long out of the agency. He acknowledges he has no proof Putin was involved but believes he must have known the truth.

Putin does not seem to me to have had much of a motive to kill Litvinenko in late 2006 - if his supposed goal was to 'silence' claims Litvinenko and Berezovsky had been making for years.

For that reason alone, Putin fails the qui bono test, IMO.

Having watched some of the prolific coverage of the Litvinenko murder on the BBC/CNN/Fox 24x7 spin machines, I'd say it's more likely Putin was framed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having watched some of the prolific coverage of the Litvinenko murder on the BBC/CNN/Fox 24x7 spin machines, I'd say it's more likely Putin was framed.

I agree. Putin is being framed in the same way that Nixon was framed over Watergate. However, that does not mean he was not guilty of the original offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the day will come when false flag operations are immediately suspected by most people as being false flag operations. I mean, such operations have been around from time immemorial, and qui bono is usually quite obvious, yet here in the 21st century people who suspect 9/11 or the apartment bombings in Russia to be false flag ops are mocked as wearing tinfoil hats.

Not to say that 9/11 or the Russian bombings WERE false flag ops, but even the suspicion based on evidence will get one labeled a wacko. And while people will allow that there are "unanswered questions," they do nothing to try to get answers.

Why are people collectively so slow, given centuries of history to learn from? I guess the best answer is that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if the day will come when false flag operations are immediately suspected by most people as being false flag operations. I mean, such operations have been around from time immemorial, and qui bono is usually quite obvious, yet here in the 21st century people who suspect 9/11 or the apartment bombings in Russia to be false flag ops are mocked as wearing tinfoil hats.

Not to say that 9/11 or the Russian bombings WERE false flag ops, but even the suspicion based on evidence will get one labeled a wacko. And while people will allow that there are "unanswered questions," they do nothing to try to get answers.

Why are people collectively so slow, given centuries of history to learn from? I guess the best answer is that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Tony Benn - the best Prime Minister that Britain never had, IMO - claimed the mass media, in modern society, plays the same role that the Catholic Church played in Medieval Europe.

It sets the boundaries for popular belief. It defines what's respectable thought - and what's not.

That's not to say it's impossible to think outside the box. Luther did it all those centuries ago - and he certainly wasn't the only critic of Papal dictats.

But taking on the Church and its entrenched verities, in those times, was not for the faint-hearted or ill-educated.

The same is true today.

A minority see through the mass media's deceptions. Most do not.

Nevertheless, I think it's clear that disbelief is waxing and the mass media's hex over the western mind set is loosening.

Growing use of the term 'false flag' operation is indicative of the change that's afoot. People ARE waking up, one by one, ten by ten, hundred by hundred...

Perhaps it is accurate to descibe humanity as a 'race'.

We're in a race to wake up and overthrow the lying opinion-minders who repeatedly lead us to the slaughter-house.

It's a race we must win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a veteran researcher who would like to open a discussion of the events of 9-11 on this website. I know that many of you who have done research in other conspiracy areas (JFK, MLK, Watergate) also have done work and have opinions about the events of 9-11.

My name is Wallace Milam, and I was a JFK and MLK researcher from 1968 until recently. I did over 500 speeches in colleges and civic organizations, worked for almost two years with the HSCA, assisted the ARRB, and wrote a lot of Internet pieces and one short treatise on NAA and the Kennedy case. I knew some of the people who post here - Jack White, John Newman, and Larry Hancock (who shares my wife’s passion for office supply stores).

My interest in 9-11 began two years ago. Before that time, I had developed a decided and deliberate “non-interest” in the events. I had backed away from JFK research, had married, had been devastated by the death of my long time friend, Mary Ferrell, and had decided to study more light-hearted and simple things, to write about things that didn’t require a forest of footnotes and larger appendices than body of text. Several of my JFK friends sent me materials about 9-11, wrote me essays about how something had to be wrong with the government’s accounts. I put them aside without reading them.

Like the nation (and like the nation was supposed to react), I was outraged and bought the government’s line completely. It was not until I saw the first televised public hearings of the 9-11 Commission in 2004 that I snapped out of my funk. I looked on in amazement - it was, in Yogi Berra’s words - déjà vu all over again. It was the Warren Commission and HSCA replayed - only worth. Once a person has seen a government commission coverup from within, you never forget it and recognize that animal when it appears again. After the initial shock, I began to read everything I could find, to watch videos, and to prowl the Internet. I set up files and began a new research life. In the past month, I have presented 4 audio-visual programs in colleges in this area. The reception has been both good and tumultuous. Far more people note an aroma from Denmark that you might have thought, even conservatives….but there is also a strong barrier of denial and scorn, I have to admit.

I feel especially guilty about my response (or lack of response) to 9-11. So often during the JFK research days, we would talk about how much false information was injected into the public record in the first few days after Kennedy was killed. I remember that Mary Ferrell often spoke of how she got the first Dallas newspapers off the docks in the days following November 22, clipped and filed them. I always swore that if anything like JFK ever happened again, I would make it a point to look behind the scenes from the first, to jerk the curtain aside before it became so firmly set in place, to gather evidence from between the lines. . So what happened? Nearly forty years passed, I grew older and tired, the most important event of my lifetime unfolded before my eyes - and I relied on Fox News and the New York Times for the truth!! That is certainly cause for guilt.

In “Kennedy Time,” this is 1968-69, 5 years after the event. Some of you remember what was going on in New Orleans, in Washington and with JFK research at that early stage. Today, I think people are not as well educated, are more cynical yet more gullible, less inclined to use logic, but the Internet is the great equalizer, so maybe the playing field is equal to JFK research in those years. . (If the Internet and FOIA had existed in 1964, matters would have been expedited indeed.)

I invite you to join me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to this forum, Wallace. It needs more researchers like you dedicated

to exposing the horrible hoax of 911. If we still had Mary, she would be right on

top of everything. But there are a few who carry on in her tradition.

If you want to see my studies of the 911 events, go to:

911 ATTACK PHOTOS

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm

As usual, I approach it from a study of the photos, of which there are many.

Don't be deterred on this forum by the presence of about five or six full-time

provocateurs who support "official govt stories" like the SBT, 911, and the Apollo

hoax. I suggest that you not even respond to their personal attacks. A few

of them are from faraway places like Australia, Brazil, Norway, etc. Their mode

of operation is personal attack, not facts.

So welcome...we truthseekers look forward to your contributions.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like the nation (and like the nation was supposed to react), I was outraged and bought the government’s line completely. . . . I feel especially guilty about my response (or lack of response) to 9-11. . . . the most important event of my lifetime unfolded before my eyes - and I relied on Fox News and the New York Times for the truth!! That is certainly cause for guilt.

I know exactly how you feel. I bought the official line completely, just like I bought the official line on JFK for years. (I did entertain the idea of a possible JFK conspiracy during the Garrison and HSCA investigations, but not once did I consider the outrageous idea that the U.S. government had anything to do with it. If there was a conspiracy, it was carried out by weird losers like Oswald and a guy in New Orleans who wore false eyebrows.)

I reluctantly supported the invasion of Iraq, because of the importance of keeping Saddam's WMDs (was there any doubt that he had them?) out of the hands of terrorists for a future, even worse attack on America. (BTW why hasn't there been another attack?)

I certainly feel guilty about my reaction. Concomitantly I feel guilty about accusing other people of denial, when I've experienced it myself, first about JFK and then about 9/11. It's a seemingly automatic state of mind that doesn't even allow you to think.

I also feel guilty that as a taxpayer I have financially supported such monstrous crimes and their coverups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...