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

by BlueBag on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 11:08

@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.

by tinkier on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 12:36

@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.

by BlueBag on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 16:18

@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.

by aquila on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 16:28

@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.

I'm probably one of the only people on this thread who doesn't think the Twin Towers terrorist attack was anything other than a terrorist attack. I've read lots of conspiracy theories but I still believe it was a terrorist attack and not some global evil elite wishing to rule the world.

by MayMuse on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 17:46

@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?

by sonic72 on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 17:53

First time ever black boxes were not recovered from a land plane crash site.

First time ever a steel framed high rise building has collapsed due to fire (WTC7).

NIST (National Institute of Standards & Technology) said they did not investigate if explosives were used on any of the collapsed buildings because there was no evidence of explosives being used!?!

by sonic72 on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 17:55

@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.

by BlueBag on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 18:18

The plane footage is just CGI imo.

All 70 of them?

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

Really?

by MayMuse on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 19:50

@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.

What is CGI?

Didn't exist? If you tell that to the families of loved ones who perished in 9/11, they may have something different to say!

by JRP on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 21:15

@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.

by tinkier on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 21:32

@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?

Richard D Hall discusses the NO plane theory... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhPCdKguCzo a very convincing argument in my opinion. There are many many more out there. @BlueBag I often agree with your views, but on this occasion no Siree. I haven't actually seen or read an account from any experienced pilot who believed it was actually possible, they all agree it was a physical impossibility.

I know a pilot who has 30 years experience of flying commercial planes (currently works for Etihad) I have discussed this numerous times with him, he doesn't believe it remotely possible... so I agree with him and the many, many pilots who make their living from flying these planes.

by BlueBag on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 21:46

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!

by BlueBag on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 22:00

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.

by MayMuse on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 22:09

@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.

@JRP
Thank you , think I'm in the dark ages big grin

by MayMuse on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 22:13

@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
Thank you, i have never seen this compilation, the enormity is too far reaching to put into words.

Edit, re-watching a few times why do the explosions come after impact? Which is the way I hear them. And why does it look like the plane disappears into the building almost as if it melts yet there is no gaping hole?
It was a clear day yet the plane just looks greyish black?

What ever the truth is ( if ever it comes out) over 3k people lost their lives , for what?

by MayMuse on Sun 2 Oct 2016 - 23:00

@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.

Again thanks for the link, most informative.
My grandparents would have called this "muddying the waters" and to a degree agree this is what is probably happening in a number of cases/events. I would apply it also to the McCann case, those "waters" are very "muddy" indeed!

by Roxyroo on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 0:00

John Lear talks no planes, interesting video and just a short extract from much longer explanations on u tube, I.m no dis info agent, I just happen to believe the pilots who say the manovere was impossible! (Especially for "hijackers"with such limited flying practise under their belts!)

http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc

This is probably a better explanation of military holographic tech

http://youtu.be/ibPfN-PvFJ0

by sonic72 on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 2:07

CGI plane added afterwards. There were a few plants that said they saw planes to make people think there were planes, and most of the plane footage wasn't shown live, it surfaced afterwards. All the 'live' shots either didn't show the plane, or were all showing the same manipulated images. All the more detailed edits came later, the initial shots were much more vague. I could not get my head around this theory at first, took a while for it to sink in.

Even if you think there was planes, the buildings weren't brought down by any planes hitting them, or fire, they were a demolition job, brought own by controlled explosives.

by sonic72 on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 3:14

by BlueBag on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 9:55

I always say I'll never do this again but like wack-a-mole here they come again. You can lead a horse etc...

I've already said my piece, this is the last one in this thread for me.

Believing there were no planes is insanity.

Please engage brain.

There were thousands watching because of the first impact.. the twin towers were visible for miles around.

The government had no way to control who was watching and who was recording.

Any questions you have about videos is due to you not understanding video compression and artifacts.

If you believe in truth then seek the truth even if you don't like the answer. No planes is pure disinformation.

Critical thinking is a bitch, but not for critical thinkers.

by whatsupdoc on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 10:02

Regarding the passengers, I have seen this video / ones like it before. If the perpetrators didn't worry about all those killed in the Towers then the passengers could have been killed on the ground after landing. There are a lot of evil people in this World and a lot of them made a lot of money through 911.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijFAwzudIwI

So planes or no planes , BlueBag can't explain the lack of rubble. There should have been 2 mountains of 100+ floors lying on the ground. Every video I have seen on YouTube showing a controlled demolition has a huge pile to clear away.

Experts say airliners cannot fly at 500+ mph at ground level. It would need 6 times the power that the engines can give out because the air is denser than @ 30,000 feet. So any official figures showing a plane flying at 500+mph and ground level must be incorrect.

How can Dr Judy Wood be a shill, BlueBag? That's just childish.

I ask the same question as she does.."Where did the Towers Go?" and you say NO, you won't answer.

by BlueBag on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 10:13

by Roxyroo on Mon 3 Oct 2016 - 10:17

@BlueBag wrote:

Have u listened to Richard d. Hall's and Andrew Johnston's criticism of Richard Gage bluebag?
We can go on like this forever, but at least we agree 9/11 was not what it was reported to be, I.m happy to leave it at that. flag