911 No Planes thread

[Richard Stanley]

From C's provided video we can see the actual window space in between the hollow box columns with the 0.25" thick steel plate material. Elsewhere, on the original Group Think thread I posted pics showing the 0.25" thick steel plate material in one of the box columns. Note that each successive column assembly is bolted to the one below it, where this forms the weakest link in the lateral axis of movement.



Below you can make out the black access holes to the bolts discussed above. Note the size of the iron workers for scale:


Look how flimsy this wall is in comparison to the kinetic energy of a 767:


Trump said he saw bigly planes strike the buildings, albeit he adds that he thinks that they must have had bombs inside them to allow them to enter the through the walls. So not necessary.

Trump doesn't realize that the buildings' main structural strength came from the inner core beams, and in any case, the traditional buildings that he is used to use I beams, not hollow box columns.

In any case, Agent Orange Leaks says he saw bigly planes.

I don't think you'll find any debate here, that the mainstream media is complicit in false flag operations. The media is heavily dominated by Jewish individuals, although they seem to be mostly secular or liberal in their religious views for the most part, rather than orthodox or chasidic.

Yes, I agree that the MSM, and many in the alt-media, were participants in the false flag and/or disinfo campaign, but given that such as NBC and ABC are completely public corporate owned, can you document the degree of Jewish ownership Jerry? The MSM sure has a lot of Catholic talking heads speaking for in any case.

 

[Jerry Russell]

given that such as NBC and ABC are completely public corporate owned, can you document the degree of Jewish ownership Jerry?

There you go asking for those pesky facts again.

What I think is well known, is that the actors, directors, screenwriters and producers working in the movie industry are largely Jewish. There was a thread here on our forum that provided the documentation.

I'm not sure about TV, and I'm not sure about stock ownership. Large public corporations are typically controlled by relatively small blocks of stock that are still owned by the founders, their heirs, or later takeover artists. It's a bit of an art form, or research project, to figure out who is really calling the shots. I don't know if those studies have been done.

 

[Jerry Russell]

There's been some topic drift here, and Collectivist took advantage of it to post a long, 99% off topic treatise about Chabad. His only comment relevant to this thread was where he said:

Despite the sound logic and evidence of people like Khalezov and Ace Baker, the constant barrage of propaganda from the internet shill will make even well meaning individuals believe that airplanes can slice through metal like butter .

After all we've said in this thread in response to Khalezov and Baker, showing in great detail the flaws in their logic and presentation, this is the best you can do? Ignore all that, and blast on? We pointed out that Khalezov was a former Soviet intelligence agent. He might well still have that connection. Why do you expect us to give this any credibility?

You mention Internet shills, and well meaning individuals, who believe as we do. Which are we, Collectivists? The well meaning individuals who have been deluded by propaganda from internet shills? Or are we the Internet shills ourselves? Our arguments are largely original, I don't see who could even be accused of deluding us. So I think this is a personal attack, and you're transparently accusing us of being shills. I am sick and tired of personal attacks, and there's no reason why I should have to put up with this. STRIKE TWO.

 

[Collectivist]

We pointed out that Khalezov was a former Soviet intelligence agent. He might well still have that connection. Why do you expect us to give this any credibility?

I suspect Khalezov is much worse than just a spy. He most likely was an arms dealer who took advantage of his key intelligence post when the Soviet Union was broken up. He started to sing when MOSSAD most likely double crossed him. I stated this in Group Think but I see you ripped that thread apart which is unfortunate as the material is no longer there.

That aside, I must repeat something to you (Maybe CAPS will help ) ... SEPARATE THE MESSAGE FROM THE MAN...LISTEN TO EVERYONE FOLLOW NO ONE.

Jerry, I will say this to you one more time. I don't care who the individuals are ... what I care about is the message. Focus on the message. Jerry, either you engage me on the validity of individual arguments (regardless of their source) or risk being ignored like Richard. STRIKE TWO

 

[Jerry Russell]

I stated this in Group Think but I see you ripped that thread apart which is unfortunate as the material is no longer there.

I don't think I deleted a single word of material. So whatever you said, it should still on the site somewhere. Wait a few days for Google to index the new structure, then search for Khalezov and hopefully it will turn up.

SEPARATE THE MESSAGE FROM THE MAN

This doesn't have any validity at all in the case of Khalezov, who is asking us to rely on his own words regarding claims on access to inside intelligence, which cannot be independently verified. Specifically, Khalezov asks us to believe that nuclear bombs were placed in the basement of the WTC towers at their construction, because of building code requirements. The claim is not only absurd on its face, but it's unverifiable aside from Khalezov's personal credibility, which is nil. Ad hominem may be a logical fallacy, but it's a perfectly valid forensic heuristic.

I also dispute Khalezov's theory on the grounds that if there was a nuke in the basement, there should have been bomb craters for each tower. Instead there are photos of the intact bathtub. Whether you agree with me or not, I believe I have met your criteria of engaging the individual argument.

Jerry, either you engage me on the validity of individual arguments (regardless of their source) or risk being ignored like Richard.

This is a personal attack on Richard, who has regularly and diligently engaged you on individual arguments. Furthermore, this is not the way things work here. We offer this forum for the purpose of facilitating conversation, not as a free web hosting service for random content. STRIKE THREE.

I have blocked your account for a period of two weeks. Further misbehavior will result in a permanent ban.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Jerry, either you engage me on the validity of individual arguments (regardless of their source)

The validity of the individual arguments? Is this like 666 wrongs make a right?

or risk being ignored like Richard.

Ouchnot