9/11 lawsuits bill causes Saudi Arabia 'great concern'

@whatsupdoc wrote:BlueBag  Please answer my question.  Where did the Towers go?  Why no rubble?

Can a plane strike cause a building to turn to dust?  The Empire State building was hit accidentally by a bomber without much damage to the building.

The wide shot says it all ...no planes.

@BlueBag wrote:

@whatsupdoc wrote:BlueBag  Please answer my question.  Where did the Towers go?  Why no rubble?

Can a plane strike cause a building to turn to dust?  The Empire State building was hit accidentally by a bomber without much damage to the building.

The wide shot says it all ...no planes.

No.. lets nail the first point first.

Were thousands of people watching the towers when the second plane impacted 20 minutes after the first?

Are there 70+ videos mostly from the public of the event?

As for the wide shot, you just don't understand video compression - perhaps willfully - like most "no-planers" I've argued with over the last 15 years.

You're not a stupid person are you.

@tinkier wrote:

@BlueBag wrote:

@whatsupdoc wrote:BlueBag  Please answer my question.  Where did the Towers go?  Why no rubble?

Can a plane strike cause a building to turn to dust?  The Empire State building was hit accidentally by a bomber without much damage to the building.

The wide shot says it all ...no planes.

No.. lets nail the first point first.

Were thousands of people watching the towers when the second plane impacted 20 minutes after the first?

Are there 70+ videos mostly from the public of the event?

As for the wide shot, you just don't understand video compression - perhaps willfully - like most "no-planers" I've argued with over the last 15 years.

You're not a stupid person are you.

@BlueBag...so how do you explain the many many witnesses, first responders who have said (on record) that they saw NO planes? How do you explain the many, many experienced pilots who have said (on record) that is was just not possible. Why would so many experts put their whole careers worth of reputation on the line to express these opinions if they weren't 100% sure. Just because someone doesn't believe in your theory doesn't make them stupid either.

@BlueBag wrote:

@tinkier wrote:

@BlueBag wrote:

@whatsupdoc wrote:BlueBag  Please answer my question.  Where did the Towers go?  Why no rubble?

Can a plane strike cause a building to turn to dust?  The Empire State building was hit accidentally by a bomber without much damage to the building.

The wide shot says it all ...no planes.

No.. lets nail the first point first.

Were thousands of people watching the towers when the second plane impacted 20 minutes after the first?

Are there 70+ videos mostly from the public of the event?

As for the wide shot, you just don't understand video compression - perhaps willfully - like most "no-planers" I've argued with over the last 15 years.

You're not a stupid person are you.

@BlueBag...so how do you explain the many many witnesses, first responders who have said (on record) that they saw NO planes? How do you explain the many, many experienced pilots who have said (on record) that is was just not possible. Why would so many experts put their whole careers worth of reputation on the line to express these opinions if they weren't 100% sure. Just because someone doesn't believe in your theory doesn't make them stupid either.

Who said they saw no planes?

The ones who were not looking saw no planes and their words are being twisted - show me a first responder saying a plane never flew into the building.

There were thousands watching the towers - maybe tens of thousands from across the river (including dancing Israelis) 20 minutes after the first impact.

There are over 70 videos of the impact.

There is no way a government could control thousands of unknown people watching with an unknown quantity of video equipment.

It would be much easier to crash a plane into the tower.

There is no way a plane didn't hit the tower.

I'm not calling people stupid, I know they are not - they either haven't thought it through logically, don't want to see logic or worse.

I've debated with no-planers for 15 years on many forums, I know the game very well.

@whatsupdoc wrote:

@BlueBag wrote:Judy Wood space beams and "no planes" is complete garbage.

Designed to make people with simpler more direct questions look stupid by association.

BlueBag , could you explain how steel and concrete were turned to dust? A pancake collapse would have left a huge pile of rubble...over 100 floors worth. I have watched many demolition videos and there is always a huge pile of rubble to clear away.

Short of a new, unknown and advanced technology, I don't understand how there was no rubble on the ground. There was no seismic trace of a building hitting the ground.

The videos of the planes were released hours later and were obviously computer generated.

There was no plane on the wide angle shot and then after a couple of zoom ins a plane appears. The editing was set up with a luminance key which went wrong and they did a panic Fade to Black to cover up the nose showing on the other side of the Tower. Also , planes at that height would have been deafening and a speed of over 500mph is just an impossibility. Ask any jet pilot.

Many people were fooled because they didn't understand what was happening.

Many of the mechanical engineers and architects are saying it was an inside job.

If you think an airliner went through a 12 feet hole in the Pentagon without any wing or tail marks on the building then you have been deceived.

If you think it was all honest reporting, then why did the BBC say Building 7 had come down 20 minutes before it did?

@MayMuse wrote:

@whatsupdoc wrote:

@BlueBag wrote:Judy Wood space beams and "no planes" is complete garbage.

Designed to make people with simpler more direct questions look stupid by association.

BlueBag , could you explain how steel and concrete were turned to dust? A pancake collapse would have left a huge pile of rubble...over 100 floors worth. I have watched many demolition videos and there is always a huge pile of rubble to clear away.

Short of a new, unknown and advanced technology, I don't understand how there was no rubble on the ground. There was no seismic trace of a building hitting the ground.

The videos of the planes were released hours later and were obviously computer generated.

There was no plane on the wide angle shot and then after a couple of zoom ins a plane appears. The editing was set up with a luminance key which went wrong and they did a panic Fade to Black to cover up the nose showing on the other side of the Tower. Also , planes at that height would have been deafening and a speed of over 500mph is just an impossibility. Ask any jet pilot.

Many people were fooled because they didn't understand what was happening.

Many of the mechanical engineers and architects are saying it was an inside job.

If you think an airliner went through a 12 feet hole in the Pentagon without any wing or tail marks on the building then you have been deceived.

If you think it was all honest reporting, then why did the BBC say Building 7 had come down 20 minutes before it did?

If there were no planes, where did they go with all those people on board; where did the people go?

The plane footage is just CGI imo.

@sonic72 wrote:

@MayMuse wrote:

@whatsupdoc wrote:

@BlueBag wrote:Judy Wood space beams and "no planes" is complete garbage.

Designed to make people with simpler more direct questions look stupid by association.

BlueBag , could you explain how steel and concrete were turned to dust? A pancake collapse would have left a huge pile of rubble...over 100 floors worth. I have watched many demolition videos and there is always a huge pile of rubble to clear away.

Short of a new, unknown and advanced technology, I don't understand how there was no rubble on the ground. There was no seismic trace of a building hitting the ground.

The videos of the planes were released hours later and were obviously computer generated.

There was no plane on the wide angle shot and then after a couple of zoom ins a plane appears. The editing was set up with a luminance key which went wrong and they did a panic Fade to Black to cover up the nose showing on the other side of the Tower. Also , planes at that height would have been deafening and a speed of over 500mph is just an impossibility. Ask any jet pilot.

Many people were fooled because they didn't understand what was happening.

Many of the mechanical engineers and architects are saying it was an inside job.

If you think an airliner went through a 12 feet hole in the Pentagon without any wing or tail marks on the building then you have been deceived.

If you think it was all honest reporting, then why did the BBC say Building 7 had come down 20 minutes before it did?

If there were no planes, where did they go with all those people on board; where did the people go?

The people either didn't exist or could have been blown up in the air. One of the planes supposedly landed at an airport, so if that is true then people were bumped off en masse. The plane footage is just CGI imo.

@BlueBag wrote:

The plane footage is just CGI imo.

All 70 of them?

And no member of the public had one that was different?

Really?

@JRP wrote:@MayMuse 

CGI = Computer Generated Imagery. 

High Quality CGI was used in Terminator 2 in 1991, plus other films of that year. 1993 Jurassic Park. By 2001 Lord or the Rings.

Not saying planes in 9/11 were CGI but just that the technology existed then.

@BlueBag wrote:Here's a simple question.

Were thousands of people watching the towers 20 minutes after the first impact?

How many said that there was no plane?

(Not "I didn't see a plane").

70 videos from all angles for goodness sake.

SEVENTY.



Where are your critical thinking skills?

How on earth could they expect to pull off CGI with a large but unknown number watching with an unknown quantity of video recording devices?

Come on!

@BlueBag wrote:Anyone who doesn't know the scale of the disinformation game needs to read this.

http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

The truth is not served by unsubstantiated, easily debunked disinformation.

There are people working hard to find out the truth about all kinds of things and they get deliberately submerged in disinformation **** all around.

It goes back to the JFK assassination when questioners were first called "conspiracy theorists".

Don't get suckered.

Do use critical thinking.

This forum should know all about disinformation.

The worse disinfo i saw recently was an Infowars video claiming Hillary Clinton held a rally in front of a green screen. "Look, she's pointing at a wall..." It was embarrassing.

@BlueBag wrote: