Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[yebiga]

Have to give them credit for having such wonderful imaginations.

Have to give you credit for your gullibility.

 

[Crankitup]

No time yet big guy...but have no fear, I havent forgotten you..

Found time yet? Why are you silent in this thread from this point? What weren't you able to refute?

 

[BustedWing]

Found time yet? Why are you silent in this thread from this point? What weren't you able to refute?

Hah!

Can't remember! What was it?

 

[Crankitup]

Hah!

Can't remember! What was it?

No *ing idea. That was the point of asking you.

 

[BustedWing]

No f*n idea. That was the point of asking you.

I think it was about the study that UAF was doing on behalf of AE911T.

It got released (finally!) last month as it happened.

 

[Crankitup]

I think it was about the study that UAF was doing on behalf of AE911T.

It got released (finally!) last month as it happened.

Fair enough. Only fair I should give the other side fair right of reply. nut is that what you were waiting for as a response from BustedWing?

 

[BustedWing]

Fair enough. Only fair I should give the other side fair right of reply. nut is that what you were waiting for as a response from BustedWing?

I wonder if even he remembers given this was three years ago.

Nontheless...Looking forward to some ernest discussion with a hardcore believer of the 9/11 conspiracy...not many left nowadays.

 

[Crankitup]

I wonder if even he remembers given this was three years ago.

Slight exaggeration there. A little over two years actually.

Nontheless...Looking forward to some ernest discussion with a hardcore believer of the 9/11 conspiracy...not many left nowadays.

Meaning me?

 

[ThunkaHunka]

In review of the evidence that the towers were empty and hollowed out, likely no one even died in the WTC on 9/11.
It was very well-planned in advance. Which means that for near-flawless vertical demolition, the towers had to be
gutted.

See this video

 

[ThunkaHunka]

 

[ThunkaHunka]

Naudet Video of North Tower Impact: Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged

www.serendipity.li

I have excerpted some of the best from the main article linked here:

Naudet Video of North Tower Impact: Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged

www.serendipity.li

Definitely worth the read. Details how the Naudet Brothers ('accidentally right there') documentary on the New York
Fire Dept. that day was impossibly lucky.
A documentary team, the Naudet Brothers, just happened to be near the World Trade Center (filming the NYFD's adventures) for a completely
unrelated film project, when the World Trade Center was hit by a plane.

Explaining why these guys were already in perfect position
with a stabilized camera on a tripod already running, tilted at the perfect angle, to capture a plane hitting the top the of the WTC.

It is very difficult to see the top of the WTC from that close at street level due to all of the many tall buildings blocking views of the top of the WTC from street- level. Yet the Naudet brothers were in the perfect spot, a very rare spot, at the perfect time.

Similarly, they happen to be right in place to capture drama every single key event of that adventurous day right when it happens.

​ Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged​ by Leslie Raphael 6 February 2006​

​

" either Jules Naudet performed the greatest miracle in the entire history of photography, with not one film or still picture remotely comparable to it — no other event of such historical importance, or as unlikely, given its brevity and unexpectedness, to be captured on film, ever has been filmed; or, like so many other miracles before and since, it is a total fraud, the product of dishonesty. The Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination started off as film of a public event — a Presidential visit to Dallas; the explosion of the Hindenburg in 1937 — as in the "Oh, the humanity!" film — took place at a public event. There was no public event going on in Lispenard Street in Manhattan on 11 September 2001: no-one (or almost no-one) was expecting a President or an airship — or a hijacked jet. If someone had been filming the Grand Hotel in Brighton in the small hours of 12 October 1984 while making a documentary about the Metropolitan Police, and captured a bomb going off, there might be questions asked as to how the film-maker could be so "lucky" — or whether he might in fact be in league with the IRA. Not an exact analogy — the IRA has never had any interest in filming its bombings, for example -but roughly equivalent to Naudet's achievement. Another example might be a Japanese photographer in August 1945 capturing a large bomb being unloaded from an American plane called the "Enola Gay." No such film or photograph exists — for obvious reasons —"

"How probable is it that not only did Jules Naudet capture Flight 11 — as if that were not enough on its own — but that he and his brother Gédéon Naudet then went on to record the rest of that day's events — and survive them? Who else could be almost simultaneously inside the towers, out on the streets and back at Duane Street firehouse, eight blocks away, than a pair of miracle workers like these? They even managed — by pure accident, of course — to record the totally unexpected collapse of No. 7 World Trade Center, seven hours after No. 1 fell."

"He was there for one reason — to film the firemen: why is he prematurely filming the Trade Center, as if he somehow knows it is about to become the subject of the film, seconds before it does? "


"he says "I can see the Trade Center." So what?
Unless he knew that was going to happen, why would he need to make the statement? How could he have made it? How could he possibly have known the answer to "so what?" before the plane supplied it? "



"Most bizarre of all, perhaps, is the scene where the north tower collapses, and Jules Naudet has to move fast. "And I don't even have time to think at that point. I just — I just run." How many of us would choose to hold on to a video camera while running for our lives from a collapsing skyscraper? But Naudet is devoted to his art: he doesn't care that he could always buy a new camcorder, but not a new life. He hangs on to his machine, and leaves it running — and it's still running when he (surprisingly gently) hits the deck, with Pfeifer allegedly on top of him. Only damage — some dust on the lens. How about that? Saves his life and his camera, and films it happening. Quite something, on top of recording the mass murder of 3,000 others who didn't have his literally unbelievable luck. I would have instinctively flung the camcorder and anything else I was carrying — I would have had no interest in filming what might well have been my horrible death: but I don't have photography in my veins, like Jules Naudet"

"since the brothers were the honorees at the 2nd annual United Firefighters Association celebrity golf benefit at Lake Success on Long Island on 23 June 2003, with Evander Holyfield, Jerry Orbach, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others, Jules and Gédéon Naudet have effectively dropped off the radar: no film projects, no news, no interviews, no photographs. The Emmy and Peabody laureates have gone back to obscurity — and the world of journalism seems not to have noticed, or cared. How could they just forget the makers of such a cinematic tour de force? The Flight 11 shot alone was worth an Academy Award."

"Jules Naudet makes filming the plane, a moving subject, look just as easy as filming the burning tower, a stationary one: simplicity itself. In reality, what could be harder than capturing an unexpected and unrepeatable scene of a jet flying at 1,200 feet for two seconds at 450 miles an hour, from a ground level street in New York, the city of skyscrapers? How could such a film be shown many thousands of times, all around the world, without attracting the suspicion it deserves?"

"Jules Naudet just happened to capture the first plane hitting the WTC (24:46); Gédéon Naudet just happened to capture the second one hitting the WTC(33:55);

"Jules Naudet just happened to film - and identify - out of the hundreds of firemen passing through the lobby of WTC 1: Father Judge, the Chaplain (walking about on his own - making himself enormously useful), who was purportedly later killed (by a falling occupant of the WTC) (47:41);
They also just happened to (dramatically) capture the chance last encounter of Chief Pfeifer with his brother Kevin, a Lieutenant with Engine 33, before Kevin was later killed (31:33)"

"They also filmed lovable old (57) Chief Richard Prunty of Battalion 2, before he was later killed (21:11)"

"Chief Pfeifer just happened to be looking towards the camera, trying his radio, when the south tower came down, so that Jules conveniently gets a good reaction shot (50:53) "

"Jules Naudet and his group just happened to come across, in the pitch-blackness and confusion after the collapse, the body of the Chaplain, Father Judge (55:24)" ( who has just been killed, and conveniently previously identified earlier in the drama)

"Jules Naudet just happened to be far enough away from the north tower to escape when it collapsed – and film his escape as it happened (1:08:2 )"

"Seven hours later, one of the brothers - we are not told which - just happened to be filming the top of the No. 7 building as it suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed (1:28:27) etc etc."

"If this string of improbabilities was presented as the script of a fictional film, people would quite rightly laugh at it. But this film is a documentary, we're told - and so.....millions accept this insult to their intelligence, if they have any."

 

[BustedWing]

Slight exaggeration there. A little over two years actually.



Meaning me?

Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[BustedWing]

likely no one even died in the WTC on 9/11.

This is a new one.

 

[Crankitup]

Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

I'm agnostic on the issue. Holes in both the official and the conspiratorial stories. Landed in this thread purely by accident searching for something else.

BTW on the basis of me asking you a question you posted this.

Looking forward to some ernest discussion with a hardcore believer of the 9/11 conspiracy...not many left nowadays.

Had I been a 'hardcore believer' as you initially thought, I'm not sure how earnest any discussion might've been since you can't spell the word and were willing to label me as a 'hardcore believer on the basis of me merely asking a question.

 

[BustedWing]

View attachment 759394

I'm agnostic on the issue. Holes in both the official and the conspiratorial stories. Landed in this thread purely by accident searching for something else.

BTW on the basis of me asking you a question you posted this.



Had I been a 'hardcore believer' as you initially thought, I'm not sure how earnest any discussion might've been since you can't spell the word and were willing to label me as a 'hardcore believer on the basis of me merely asking a question.

I would argue if your rebuttal to any arguments put to you begin with "but your spelling was off", then deep down you may know your foundations aren't all that strong.

But i digress....

You say there are holes in both sides of the story. I would argue the number of holes on the conspirator side vastly outweigh any perceived holes on the "official story" side.

Lets start here.

In your opinion, whats the biggest hole in the official story? The one that, above all else, screams something is dodgy to you?

 

[BustedWing]

BTW on the basis of me asking you a question you posted this.

In the interest of clarity - I was referring to the other poster your tagged, Nut, and I was being somewhat sarcastic. We had some great chats over the years, but the guy clearly takes his bigfooty handle a little too literally.

 

[Crankitup]

I would argue if your rebuttal to any arguments put to you begin with ....

Excuse me??

Arguments put to me? So your statement 'looking forward to some earnest discussion with a hardcore believer' was an argument I needed to rebut now?

Mate, I didn't rebut any argument. You didn't make one. I merely pointed out that since you'd labeled me as a hardcore believer based on nothing, I wasn't sure how earnest such a discussion would have been. To flesh out what I was alluding to a little, in order to make it clearer, what I was saying was, if you're willing to jump to such hasty conclusions about a person so early in the piece and attach labels to them when you have no evidence for doing so, I wouldn't trust any professions to earnestness on your part in the slightest.

But i digress....

You say there are holes in both sides of the story. I would argue the number of holes on the conspirator side vastly outweigh any perceived holes on the "official story" side.

....

So in answer to my statement that there are holes in both sides, you refute that with an idea that there are no holes in the official story, only 'perceived' holes. Have I understood you correctly? You don't believe there are any holes whatsoever in the official story? Based on a very shaky start I'm hesitant to discuss this issue at all with you, let alone share what my biggest problems are with either side. I probably haven't read or seen enough at this stage to be too definitive in any case.

 

[BustedWing]

Excuse me??

Arguments put to me? So your statement 'looking forward to some earnest discussion with a hardcore believer' was an argument I needed to rebut now?

Mate, I didn't rebut any argument. You didn't make one. I merely pointed out that since you'd labeled me as a hardcore believer based on nothing, I wasn't sure how earnest such a discussion would have been. To flesh out what I was alluding to a little, in order to make it clearer, what I was saying was, if you're willing to jump to such hasty conclusions about a person so early in the piece and attach labels to them when you have no evidence for doing so, I wouldn't trust any professions to earnestness on your part in the slightest.




So in answer to my statement that there are holes in both sides, you refute that with an idea that there are no holes in the official story, only 'perceived' holes. Have I understood you correctly? You don't believe there are any holes whatsoever in the official story? Based on a very shaky start I'm hesitant to discuss this issue at all with you, let alone share what my biggest problems are with either side.

Goodness me!

Everything ok mate? You've jumped up a couple of notches on the outrage dial from the get go it seems.

Lets take your post piece by piece shall we...

Arguments put to me?

It was a rhetorical point designed to show you the silliness in attacking a fellow poster based on their spelling. It seems you missed my point entirely. Oh well, moving right along.

I merely pointed out that since you'd labeled me as a hardcore believer based on nothing

I'll kindly refer you to my post made a few minutes ago:

In the interest of clarity - I was referring to the other poster your tagged, Nut, and I was being somewhat sarcastic. We had some great chats over the years, but the guy clearly takes his bigfooty handle a little too literally.

Did you miss this one?

labeled

Is this where I get you dismiss your position because you misspelled a word?

if you're willing to jump to such hasty conclusions about a person so early in the piece and attach labels to them when you have no evidence for doing so

Pot, kettle black shall we say, given the points I raised above? But hey, lets let bygones be bygones here, and move along...

you refute that with an idea that there are no holes in the official story, only 'perceived' holes.

Close. Any "holes" in the official story are either misunderstandings, misrepresentations, exaggerations outright lies or untruths, or simply minor, inconsequential inconsistencies that are quite understandable when discussing such a complex event.

On the other hand, the amount of drivel put forward as "100% proof of an inside job!!!1!!1" is amazing to me.

Based on a very shaky start I hesitant

"I'm"... Ok last time i'll do this. Carry on.

hesitant to discuss this issue at all with you, let alone share what my biggest problems are with either side.

Thats up to you, but so far your outrage towards me has been based on a spelling error and a misunderstanding of who I was referring to in an earlier post. Thats it. I would like to think you would be ever so slightly more lenient, but hey, you do you.

 

[Crankitup]

Goodness me!

Everything ok mate? You've jumped up a couple of notches on the outrage dial from the get go it seems.

Lets take your post piece by piece shall we...


It was a rhetorical point designed to show you the silliness in attacking a fellow poster based on their spelling. It seems you missed my point entirely. Oh well, moving right along.

I'll kindly refer you to my post made a few minutes ago:

Did you miss this one?

Is this where I get you dismiss your position because you misspelled a word?

Pot, kettle black shall we say, given the points I raised above? But hey, lets let bygones be bygones here, and move along...

Close. Any "holes" in the official story are either misunderstandings, misrepresentations, exaggerations outright lies or untruths, or simply minor, inconsequential inconsistencies that are quite understandable when discussing such a complex event.

On the other hand, the amount of drivel put forward as "100% proof of an inside job!!!1!!1" is amazing to me.

"I'm"... Ok last time i'll do this. Carry on.

Thats up to you, but so far your outrage towards me has been based on a spelling error and a misunderstanding of who I was referring to in an earlier post. Thats it. I would like to think you would be ever so slightly more lenient, but hey, you do you.

I was right all along. No chance of an earnest or honest discussion with you at all.

 

[ThunkaHunka]

 

[Crankitup]

In review of the evidence that the towers were empty and hollowed out, likely no one even died in the WTC on 9/11.
It was very well-planned in advance. Which means that for near-flawless vertical demolition, the towers had to be
gutted.

See this video

Pretty 'out there' statement I must say.

So the presence of people in the towers would have affected demolition how??

 

[BustedWing]

I was right all along. No chance of an earnest or honest discussion with you at all.

Oh dear!

Whatever you say mate.

I asked a simple question. If you don’t have an answer, that’s ok, just say so.

Have a good one.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankitup]

Oh dear!

Whatever you say mate.

I asked a simple question. If you don’t have an answer, that’s ok, just say so.

Have a good one.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Let's recap.

(1) After stumbling across this thread and reading intently the conversations between you and nut where it seemed for the most part you had all the answers, suddenly you didn't. You promised a reply to him on something but never did. He even asked if you'd forgotten about it and you then assured him you would respond but still, you never did. I lost track of where and what that was, so I asked you.

(2) Your response seemed fine initially. When I tagged nut to see if he would agree with your explanation, you made a statement I thought was curious. "Looking forward to some earnest discussion with a hardcore believer of the 9/11 conspiracy...not many left nowadays." The hardcore believer part of which I took to be referring to me and the "not many left nowadays" part I took to imply that 'anyone who still believes there is a conspiracy is part of a rapidly diminishing lunatic fringe'.

(3) To make sure I wasn't jumping the gun I asked a question in order to clarify - "Meaning me?" which I tied to the bolded statement you'd made above - #958. A question which you responded to by strangely refusing to answer which was a surprising direction to take for someone purportedly interested in an 'earnest discussion'. Instead of answering, you posed a question of your own. "Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?". After seeing that question I thought, he's having second thoughts. He can see he's possibly jumped the gun.

(4) You've subsequently tried to have me believe that the statement bolded above wasn't directed towards me at all. I'd missed your second reply initially because I had multiple Bigfooty pages open (mainly to do with the Tim Kelly trade) and after responding to your initial post went back to reading the other pages not realising you'd made a follow-up. I have to say I find your claim quite hard to believe. If however I'm wrong then so be it. The confusion would never have arisen in the first place had you just answered my question seeking clarification instead of avoiding it.

I'm just as happy for you not to reply to this as I am for you to respond. Just didn't want you to leave the mistaken impression in this thread that you're entirely the innocent party in our failure to get anywhere. Having said that, if I could go back in time there are some things I would have done differently too.

To err is human and all that.

 

[Exe Gesis]

" either Jules Naudet performed the greatest miracle in the entire history of photography, with not one film or still picture remotely comparable to it — no other event of such historical importance, or as unlikely, given its brevity and unexpectedness, to be captured on film, ever has been filmed

the Hindinburg disaster was by far the bigger miracle.

those days they had cameras that needed to be prepped etc and taken on plate not easy film. they were big heavy things that only journalists had.

in the 9/11 days there are billions of digital camera everywhere, everyone has access to one.

not disagreeing they were tipped off etc. but for sheer miracle power nothing beats the Hindinburg disaster.

side note...there are many youtube videos or online photo collections of both historical photos and just bizarre/funny/impossible photos where someone took a snap at the perfect moment.

 

[BustedWing]

Let's recap.

(1) After stumbling across this thread and reading intently the conversations between you and nut where it seemed for the most part you had all the answers, suddenly you didn't. You promised a reply to him on something but never did. He even asked if you'd forgotten about it and you then assured him you would respond but still, you never did. With all the back and forth I lost track of where and what that was, so I asked you.

(2) Your response seemed fine initially. When I tagged nut to see if he would agree with your explanation, you made a statement I thought was curious. "Looking forward to some earnest discussion with a hardcore believer of the 9/11 conspiracy...not many left nowadays." The hardcore believer part of which I took to be referring to me and the "not many left nowadays" part I took to imply that 'anyone who still believes there is a conspiracy is part of a rapidly diminishing lunatic fringe'.

(3) To make sure I wasn't jumping the gun I asked a question in order to clarify - "Meaning me?" which I tied to the bolded statement you'd made above - #958. A question which you responded to by strangely refusing to answer which was a surprising direction to take for someone purportedly interested in an 'earnest discussion'. Instead of answering, you posed a question of your own. "Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?". After seeing that question I thought, he's having second thoughts. He can see he's possibly jumped the gun.

(4) You've subsequently tried to have me believe that the statement bolded above wasn't directed towards me at all. I'd missed your second reply initially because I had multiple Bigfooty pages open (mainly to do with the Tim Kelly trade) and after responding to your initial post went back to reading the other pages not realising you'd made a follow-up. I have to say I find your claim quite hard to believe. If however I'm wrong then so be it. The confusion would never have arisen in the first place had you just answered my question seeking clarification instead of avoiding it.

I'm just as happy for you not to reply to this as I am for you to respond. Just didn't want you to leave the mistaken impression in this thread that you're entirely the innocent party in our failure to get anywhere. Having said that, if I could go back in time there are some things I would have done differently too.

To err is human and all that.

That’s a lot of words for you to simply say “I missed your post where you clarified that it wasn’t directed at me”.

I mean...the time stamps on the posts make it indisputable, wouldn’t you have to agree?

After missing said post (which is fine, we all do it occasionally) you went on a bit of a mission at me.

Nut and I go back a long way on 9/11 stuff. If you’re so inclined, check out the other 9/11 threads (the main ones) and you will see we’ve gone at it for years, until this lengthy gap in “debate”.

But again, all this doesn’t matter at all. So let’s drop it totally.

I’m still happy to discuss 9/11 with you - so if you’re interested, back to my original question....

You say the official story has holes. I feel that it’s very likely I disagree with your opinion on any alleged “holes”, as you see them.

What’s the biggest hole, in your opinion? Perhaps I can change your mind, or show you something you haven’t seen before that may change it?



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app