Re: Richard D. Hall

by MRNOODLES on 04.09.16 0:05

@MRNOODLES wrote: Tony's book placement

Someone who isn't me might say. If he was an ordinary man in the street, he would've been *cough* held responsible.

by willowthewisp on 04.09.16 16:18

Mr Noodles,No he just struck it Lucky that the Police didn't give him a hard time during the Investigation,but Michael will tell you different as he is seeking compensation from the Police isn't he?
I haven't seen the Didcot Murders and do not know if Jed allen was the "Patsy"but Two people are at HMP detention facilities and the Third party element is thought to be in Thailand,until he is reprimanded by the Police and questioned about the family Deaths,it will remain an unknown?

by whatsupdoc on 23.09.16 7:10

Latest show is now available to watch here ...

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=231&part=1

Further programmes will air online every fortnight (on Fridays) on these dates,

7th October
21st October
4th November

Thankyou,
Richard D. Hall

Thanks for the email, Richard.

... and Part 1 YouTube link is... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604lHPgHfhk

by whatsupdoc on 23.09.16 11:12

I've watched all 3 parts this morning. The problem I have with David Icke is that I never see any proof for what he says and , of course, it does all sound very far fetched.

When people have said they have seen others shapeshifting, are they witnessing a manipulated hologram? I have no problem believing that holographic techniques have advanced dramatically without our knowledge. We watched all the V episodes and I saw the later High Definition seasons which I thought were excellent... shame they didn't make any more.

So, without any firm evidence, and not in my area of interest I haven't pursued David Icke's videos.

I have bought the book "Where Did the Towers Go? by Dr. Judy Wood and can highly recommend it. The only problem I have with 9/11 is the technology used, namely turning concrete and steel to dust. You can see steel beams dissolving in mid air. Nothing hit the ground except dust. No seismic trace of the building hitting the ground. The inside of Building 6 had a large clean hole with all the office desks clearly visible and is not easy to explain.

I agree with both Richard & Andrew with what they say in the last 5 minutes of Part 3.

by JRP on 06.10.16 9:17

New Richplanet video on line this morning, is it one day early? Anyway "The Middle East and Staged Terror" is on Richards YouTube and website.

by whatsupdoc on 06.10.16 22:18

Thanks for the info, JRP. Yes,sometimes the videos appear on a Thursday.

Here is the Richplanet link for Part 1... http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=232&part=1

and the YouTube link for Part 1... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9x3hE3d_S4

by Equity on 07.10.16 10:30

@whatsupdoc wrote:Snipped...
I have bought the book "Where Did the Towers Go? by Dr. Judy Wood and can highly recommend it. The only problem I have with 9/11 is the technology used, namely turning concrete and steel to dust. You can see steel beams dissolving in mid air. Nothing hit the ground except dust. No seismic trace of the building hitting the ground. The inside of Building 6 had a large clean hole with all the office desks clearly visible and is not easy to explain.

Nothing hit the ground except dust? Surely more than just dust hit the ground?

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FF_Debris7.jpg

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FF_pile_flag3.jpg

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Overview-WTC2-.jpg

by JRP on 07.10.16 13:18

@Equity wrote:
@whatsupdoc wrote:Snipped...
I have bought the book "Where Did the Towers Go? by Dr. Judy Wood and can highly recommend it. The only problem I have with 9/11 is the technology used, namely turning concrete and steel to dust. You can see steel beams dissolving in mid air. Nothing hit the ground except dust. No seismic trace of the building hitting the ground. The inside of Building 6 had a large clean hole with all the office desks clearly visible and is not easy to explain.

Nothing hit the ground except dust? Surely more than just dust hit the ground?

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FF_Debris7.jpg

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FF_pile_flag3.jpg

https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Overview-WTC2-.jpg

Not everything turned to dust, debris was at the scene of "ground zero" as shown in the photos of the aftermath. This debris was removed in trucks and included steel as can be seen in the pics in the links.
I think the question of whether the pile of rubble adds up to the mass of the buildings is an interesting one.
2006 when I first took an interest in this, the main theory was detonations, little puffs of smoke on each floor could be seen. Problem solved?
But detonations don't explain steel girders disappearing into thin air (dust) and neither does it explain the state of some vehicles near the scene which burned and levitated.
It doesn't explain the news video camera man who stated he levitated a block.
It doesn't explain how steel toe shoes "melt" without burning the feet inside.

While I understand the reason's why people think Judy Wood is wrong, I'm yet to hear one explain any of the above phenomenon.

by whatsupdoc on 07.10.16 15:05

Equity and JRP When I said nothing hit the ground I meant the 100+ floors of concrete and steel. There were explosions visible on different floors as the Towers came down and there were explosions in the foyer before the planes struck as the firemen said. There was a very small amount of debris compared to what we should have seen.

Seismic traces didn't show anything of significance.

I haven't seen a picture of the pile of rubble of Building 7 but I bet it was quite big. Could the majority of the steel shipped out have come from Building 7?

I think the pictures of cars nearby that are half burned are not normal car fires. Parts of the cars that should have melted didn't.

For levitation see John Hutcheson effect.

by Roxyroo on 07.10.16 17:21

Yes, I think Judy Wood quotes there should be a million tons of debris, each tower was 500,000 tons approx. We definitely did not see that amount at ground level and as she says, if we had, the basin would have been broken and flooded Manhattan

by JRP on 07.10.16 18:09

@whatsupdoc Yes I've seen the Hutchinson experiments.
I've no idea whether the remains of building 7 makes up the total contents of the trucks. My point was there was debris, where the 2 towers fell, but as Roxyroo points out no where near enough.
What came down didn't add up to any where near what were 2 very enormous buildings.

Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, the story is it caught fire, burned it's interior fittings... desks? Paper? And collapsed in its own footprint.
Makes you wonder why other buildings need all the explosive charges to bring them down, when all that's needed is a rolled up newspaper and an old desk.

by whatsupdoc on 07.10.16 19:27

@JRP wrote:@whatsupdoc Yes I've seen the Hutchinson experiments.
I've no idea whether the remains of building 7 makes up the total contents of the trucks. My point was there was debris, where the 2 towers fell, but as Roxyroo points out no where near enough.
What came down didn't add up to any where near what were 2 very enormous buildings.

Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, the story is it caught fire, burned it's interior fittings... desks? Paper? And collapsed in its own footprint.
Makes you wonder why other buildings need all the explosive charges to bring them down, when all that's needed is a rolled up newspaper and an old desk.

Brilliant, JRP laugh

When you have the plans already drawn up for the new Building 7 , the old one has to come down.

I remember my mother showing me how to light the fire with newspaper and a few pieces of wood.

by whatsupdoc on 08.10.16 13:48

Just received an email from Richard in which he is appealing for help...

Greetings,

Latest show is now available to watch here ...

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=232&part=1

Further programmes will air online every fortnight (on Fridays) on these dates,

21st October
4th November

I am appealing for information on a recent news story. 23 year old RAF serviceman Corrie McKeague allegedly went missing on 24th September from Bury St Edmonds after a night out drinking with friends. A news conference was held on 3rd October where Corrie's mother Nicola Urquhart made an appeal for information. There are many questions which mainstream media have not asked or published about this case, and in my opinion there is some doubt as to the veracity of the story. I have looked into the background of Nicola Urquhart who lives in Dunfermline and there are a few facts I have discovered which suggest to me there may be more to this story than is being reported. I am appealing for more information from anyone who knows of the family. If anyone has any information at all about Nicola Urquhart, however insignificant, please get in touch by emailing richard@richplanet.net.

Thankyou,
Richard D. Hall

by BlueBag on 10.10.16 13:02

@JRP wrote:My point was there was debris, where the 2 towers fell, but as Roxyroo points out no where near enough.

Can I see your calculations please?

by JRP on 11.10.16 8:29

@BlueBag wrote:
@JRP wrote:My point was there was debris, where the 2 towers fell, but as Roxyroo points out no where near enough.
Can I see your calculations please?

You'll have to forgive me because I don't have an accurate calculation, it's based on what I see as rubble and how quickly the site was cleared.
I didn't realise you were such a stickler for accuracy, with the "space beams" quote. What page of Judy Woods book is that on?

I say accuracy because as a Liverpool fan I read your opinions on Hillsborough earlier in the year, and I thought they were fascinating too... not quite in line with the official findings. But what the heck... just your opinion.

Like my opinion above!

by BlueBag on 11.10.16 8:39

@JRP wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@JRP wrote:My point was there was debris, where the 2 towers fell, but as Roxyroo points out no where near enough.
Can I see your calculations please?

You'll have to forgive me because I don't have an accurate calculation, it's based on what I see as rubble and how quickly the site was cleared.
I didn't realise you were such a stickler for accuracy, with the "space beams" quote. What page of Judy Woods book is that on?

I'm a stickler for the truth, I have no time for psuedoscience - as people here will tell you.

So how do you know there wasn't enough rubble?

Let's start with the size of the area the rubble was scattered over... do you know that?

by JRP on 11.10.16 9:22

@BlueBag wrote:
@JRP wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@JRP wrote:My point was there was debris, where the 2 towers fell, but as Roxyroo points out no where near enough.
Can I see your calculations please?

You'll have to forgive me because I don't have an accurate calculation, it's based on what I see as rubble and how quickly the site was cleared.
I didn't realise you were such a stickler for accuracy, with the "space beams" quote. What page of Judy Woods book is that on?
I'm a stickler for the truth, I have no time for psuedoscience - as people here will tell you.

So how do you know there wasn't enough rubble?

Let's start with the size of the area the rubble was scattered over... do you know that?

Which people here?
I think you got your Hillsborough gaffs from the Sun's 1989 front page.
What you think about 9/11 doesn't interest me in the slightest.
Wrong on two occasions.

End of conversation

by BlueBag on 11.10.16 12:47

@JRP wrote:

End of conversation

Fine, so... no calculations and you don't even know the size of the rubble field.

But you know it wasn't enough.... I can see why you don't want to discuss it.

Read this:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html

by whatsupdoc on 11.10.16 13:00

The quickest way to prove there were no planes is to see the size of the hole in the Pentagon. It was a small hole and no chance of an airliner going through it. No marks of any wings or tail/rudder. More likely to be a cruise missile. It's the 3rd photo down.

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/how-we-know-an-airliner-did-not-hit-the-pentagon/

I would like Richard's views on this next video. It's a rather poor quality but I did manage to see something very interesting.

Look between 2:14 and 2:16 and in the top right you should see a ball curve in and then straighten up. It then suddenly disappears. If you follow the trajectory it ends up on the left of the Tower just as the camera has finished a zoom. On a good monitor, you can see a small square round the ball just like when a small area is keyed in. It doesn't quite match the sky background colour. I couldn't see a plane coming in before the explosion. When an object is approaching it shouldn't disappear as it gets bigger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDrbhFxKK-Y

by whatsupdoc on 11.10.16 13:22

@BlueBag wrote:.

Read this:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth_9853.html

Quote: Conclusion

We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence.

End of quote.

Just because they don't know about DEW, it can't be a possible answer. So say some non-experts. DEW is highly secret so the public won't know anything about it and how it works. I take it you have seen the NASA footage of a weapon being fired into space at a UFO?

I think there was ample time to plant explosives in the building to muddy the water. It did fool a lot of people for quite a time till we realised that wasn't the whole answer.

by BlueBag on 11.10.16 16:22

@whatsupdoc wrote:

Just because they don't know about DEW, it can't be a possible answer. So say some non-experts. DEW is highly secret so the public won't know anything about it and how it works.

This is zero evidence of DEW from space.

That's nil, nothing, zilch - which you admit yourself in your two sentences.

There is just as much evidence that mutants using kinetic mind power did it.

I take it you have seen the NASA footage of a weapon being fired into space at a UFO?

You mean the one of the ice crystals formed from shuttle waste products being pushed about by the reaction control system?

I think there was ample time to plant explosives in the building to muddy the water.

The logic here is bizarre to say the least...
So you admit there were some explosives but that was to cover for DEW?
Eh?

It did fool a lot of people for quite a time till we realised that wasn't the whole answer.

Why isn't explosives the whole answer?

If you say "not enough rubble" then I want to see your calculations of what would constitute enough rubble.

by aquila on 11.10.16 16:25

Sorry to interrupt the debate but what is DEW?

by whatsupdoc on 11.10.16 18:13

@aquila wrote:Sorry to interrupt the debate but what is DEW?

DEW is Directed Energy Weapon.

by aquila on 11.10.16 18:17

@whatsupdoc wrote:
@aquila wrote:Sorry to interrupt the debate but what is DEW?

DEW is Directed Energy Weapon.

Thank you for the reply. I don't understand what a directed energy weapon is.

by whatsupdoc on 11.10.16 18:27

So what did you think of the small hole in the Pentagon, BlueBag? Could YOU fit an Airliner through that?

You really sound more like a WUM every day. You don't appear to be able to quote any FACTS at all!

It's no good saying rubbish, zero evidence , nil, nothing, zilch. You are just firing blanks.