What do you think happened on 911? [Archive] - AmeriKan Konspiracy - Free Speech | Conspiracy | Forums | Chat | Blogs

skunk

05-18-2008, 07:00 PM

There are a few questions I have been going over in my head for some time now:

1). Who did it?

2). What really happened to the WTC, Pentagon, and the Shanksville plane (among other events that have been covered up in the meantime)

3). Why; What was their motivation?

4). Where (pretty obvious)

5). When; this would be a time table of events, before and after, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan which are clearly linked to 911

6). How did it happen; linked to the what I guess

I am not entirely convinced with John Lear's assertion that direct energy weapons were used, although I do not deny the possibility. Aliens could have done it for all we know :).

The problem with discussing 911 is that there's so many what ifs and factors that could change the entire outcome of the event.

I believe its possible 'terrorists' hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings, but I don't buy it. Some of the pictures/videos of the planes lead me to believe they're military jets as they have an extra bump on the bottom and no visible windows (aka all shaded in or covered up).

It is possible the planes were holograms. Apparently the technology does exist to create moving holograms with sound. Remember d4rk kn1ght? Well he alluded to the same thing, but this time being used on a worldwide scale to control all of our minds. Far-fetched, but possible as well :) (ah what a bright future we have ahead of us eh?).

I noticed the thermite at the base, the explosions inside the building, but its all hearsay evidence. I have never been down to ground zero, even though I lived about 30 miles away at the time. That place freaked me out.

I began researching the who behind the attacks soon after I figure out the what was next to impossible to prove without first hand accounts and objective evidence. Internet research only gets one so far after all.

mojo

05-18-2008, 07:42 PM

Hard for me to make an objective and well informed post on 9/11 being so far dis[placed from where it happened.

I do believe there is a lot of information that has been covered up.
What that is exactly, im not sure, but i do like reading about all the different possible scenario's.

mojo

Bitchkoma

05-19-2008, 03:07 AM

I think it happened pretty much as the official story. The planes got hijacked by 19 A-rabs and it rammed into the towers and the Pentagon. Whether the authorities were aware of the situation beforehand or not is where I see a possible conspiracy.

theeindiee

05-19-2008, 04:03 AM

I'm pretty sure Jasn hijacked the planes with his remote controlled hijack-o-bots, and then he forgot where he was going because he was eating coooookie crisp, and then jesus died for his sins.

Actually, all I really know is this much, since there is a lot of disinfo and/or crazytalk out there:

World Trade Center 7 was demolished by intentional means.

That means SOMEBODY had been planning this for weeks, months, or years. They'd probably had it planned for 20 years. PNAC was most likely a cue to action. I doubt they could have made sure everything went flawless within the timespan of a year.

John Lear says the government plans these things 30 years in advance. I think it would take a pretty long time and a lot of compartmentalization in order for everything to be put into place exactly where they wanted it. People think the government is stupid. The one we see, people are probably right. They are probably just following orders.

The government we don't see seems to have a lot of patience.

Oblivion

05-19-2008, 04:47 AM

i dont beleive the official story one bit.
to do so would mean accepting a bunch inconsistencies, false logic + general lack of evidence
(yes i know, absence of evidence does not equal proof)

i think shanksville was meant for a building (#7 maybe?) but was shot down mid flight
"no wreckage or bodies left in that smoldering crack in the ground?"
engine found quite some distance away (1/2 mile i think it was?) in nearby trees

building 7 was 100% definately pulled via demolitions and that takes a lot of pre planning and is not something that can be done within a day.

all three buildings fell into their own footprint? OH COME ON NOW!

pentagon plane - i dunno about that one, but one thing i do always ponder is if that place has high security, and they even snatched surveilance tapes from nearby shops then why the hell did we get the most blotchy, shonky handful of frames released publicly as one of the lousiest video/gif animations ive seen?

all of WTC 1 + 2 pulverised and fell in exact same manner, no large chunks toppling off randomly on the way down, just a well contained little descent of debris from the top down.

of all the neaby cameras, high security + surveillance, and all we get is a few of the most shonky frames?

shonky reports from alleged "official" sources that have changed a few times and are only good for bird cage liners?

wtc "meteor" which glowed for several weeks.
rubble which smoldered for weeks, even months after.

all this from a jet which had already used some of its fuel load flying around, the big black fireballs out the side burning up much much more jet fuel. and yet the remainder took down a building from the very top (well above the impact location) descending down each level as it went??

to accept that one of these is a bit dodgy means that the rest then becomes tainted aswell!

someone at the penta-con has been enjoying some really good shit i think! :bong:

jet fuel, my big fat hairy stinky arse crack it was :lol:

theeindiee

05-19-2008, 05:09 AM

Everyone asks for evidence... because what blinds them to the evidence we do have is A) patriotism, B) the fact that they think the government is stupid because they appear to be making stupid moves, C) they don't believe people can have the patience to plan things that far in advance, and D) they have a 'good life' not thinking about these things, so they go so far as to deny these things happen at all... because they wouldn't feel so comfortable with something that was temporary and illusory.

The evidence is right out there in the public!!! Building 7!!! Lookit!!!

9]<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LD06SAf0p9A&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LD06SAf0p9A&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>9]

Now... look at this attempt to debunk wtc7 demolition. It shows approximately where the debris hit wtc7.

9]<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h_JHzuVywQ8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h_JHzuVywQ8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>9]

Use deductive reasoning here...

Look where the debris hit...which is the ONLY thing that could've weakened the building enough to the point of structural failure (because the fires were not rampant at all. we've all seen pictures and videos of rampant fires in buildings, and fire blows out windows and creates quite a scene of havoc. it's called backdraft)... yet it is only hitting that one side, possibly portions hit farther inward....

then look at the clip of the building "collapsing".

How does a steel building with superficial-at-best damage to portions of one side of it's outer facing (and outer portions of it's structure) manage to collapse straight downward upon itself?

Also, notice in the first video, the building collapses center first, followed by the outer structure. The central columns were not hit by anything, yet they are the first to fall. If only one side was damaged, it is common sense to think that the point of collapse initiation would be alligned with the site of damage... but that is not the case, and it doesn't take a mathematician or a structural engineer to see that!

My dad works close with structural engineers, and even he and his friends deny that! Guess what news network they all constantly watch? Do you think they seriously looked into it, or do you think that they can feel confident in poo poo-ing it because they are structural engineers and their friends and family would all approve because they only know the official story, and their opinions are shaped by their favorite news network which they watch religiously? It's a comfort thing.

Now... all of this is nothing new. I'm just re-stating the best evidence I've seen that's the easiest to understand.

One more good piece of info, related to WTC7.

Here's wtc6, after the twin towers had fallen directly ontop of it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-9.jpg

source: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

Badly damaged, but still standing.

Are you to tell me that, even if wtc7 was built on top of some substation, that a bit of grazing from some stray debris is gunna bring a building, designed to withstand hurricane wind gusts as all modern skyscrapers are designed, down like that? It's a completely even and global collapse...and with standard physics... trying to explain away the fact that it was barely hit by anything of significance, or that it wasn't completely engulfed in flames... there's only one 'reasonable' explanation to fit in line with the official story: The building was built with telescopic steel beams, each one hollow and slightly larger than the one above it, and a thousand very fat men began simultaneously jumping up and down in sync with each other on the middle section of the roof.

But that would just be completely silly.

Proof. Your call as to whether you see it or not. Like some people see a tomato and go "It's a vegetable!" because they are always seeing tomatoes near the vegetables, in relation to vegetables, and it tastes vegetabley ... yet people who take the time to study the tomato just a LITTLE bit will discover that it is actually a fruit. Some people will still laugh at you if you tell them that a tomato is a fruit and show them proof, just because they would never put a piece of fruit on their cheeseburger and eat it because that's just gross.

Reguardless... tomatoes ARE fruits.

1972

05-22-2008, 06:28 PM

Why am I here; why am I here.

This will be it for me because I think I hate this more than getting in to a good fight with a God Freak.

I like how people try to tell me what I saw that day.
I like how people tell me what I saw that day on LIVE FUCKING TELEVISION!

No planers?
Missles?
Death Star and Mos Eisley spaceport were somehow involved.

I saw what I saw. Not what some one else wanted me to see.

It happened; we agree on this.
Lots of people are dead that should no be; we agree on this.

Did the Us government have involvement?
Nope.
Unless by involvement you mean helping to create the groups/countries out there that hate us, then yes, we were involved.

And finally:

Did the people of this country think that nothing like this would ever happen here, on our soil? Thats sort of; no, it is VERY naive. It was coming, one way or another. It has happened before and it will all happen again. We aren't some Gods choosen people or country. We aren't special.

Flame away if you want to.
It is pointless.
Sort of like thinking that someday, will will actually know who shot J.F.K.
Because even if we did know, someone else would always think that it was a lie.
Some men . . .you just can't reach.

johnlear

05-23-2008, 12:58 AM

Why am I here; why am I here.

I'm not sure, possibly you are searching for the truth but it seems like you have your mind already made up.

This will be it for me because I think I hate this more than getting in to a good fight with a God Freak.

God is a concept, an idea for people to cling to until they find out what is really going on.

I like how people try to tell me what I saw that day.

I will do my best.

I like how people tell me what I saw that day on LIVE FUCKING TELEVISION!

I am not sure whether you are using this word as an adjective or adverb, in any case it is indicative of a lack of adult vocabulary.

No planers?

That would be me. I am a no planer. There were no planes on 911. No planes crashed into the WTC, or the Pentagon or in the field at Shanksville.

Missles?

No, there were no missiles. Too risky.

Death Star and Mos Eisley spaceport were somehow involved.

It is likely that orbiting platforms with highly advanced Direct Energy Weapons were used to destroy the WTC. Check my website for the latest information on space weapons.(thelivingmoon.com)

I saw what I saw. Not what some one else wanted me to see.

You were the victim of a psyop. If you were born in 1972 it is unlikely you would have any familiarity with psyops.

It happened; we agree on this.
Lots of people are dead that should no be; we agree on this.

You are correct.

Did the Us government have involvement?
Nope.

You have obviously not been following along. You need to read the Qui Tam Complaints filed in New York District Court Southern District by Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood. You can google them both. Each complaint is about 40 pages long and will give you a basic idea of what happend on 911.

Unless by involvement you mean helping to create the groups/countries out there that hate us, then yes, we were involved.

If you mean you believe that arab hijackers hijacked airplanes and them flew them into the WTC or Pentagon then you are not very well informed. This alleged feat would be impossible, not just improbable, for many reasons.

And finally:

Did the people of this country think that nothing like this would ever happen here, on our soil? Thats sort of; no, it is VERY naive. It was coming, one way or another. It has happened before and it will all happen again. We aren't some Gods choosen people or country. We aren't special.

Yes, there was every indication that our own military would attack us to fabricate a reason to invade Afghanistan to take over the poppy cultivation, production, sale and world wide distribution. The Taliban was burning the poppy fields and this had to be stopped. The perps also needed an excuse to invade Iraq to steal her oil.

Flame away if you want to.
It is pointless.

I don't need to flame. I just present the facts. And I agree, it is probably pointless. :)

Sort of like thinking that someday, will will actually know who shot J.F.K.

I don't think you are keeping up but the fact is we know who shot JFK. It was Corsican sharpshooters hired by the Mossad who had been given order by Israels Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to kill JFK for his insistence on inspecting Dimona.

Because even if we did know, someone else would always think that it was a lie.

Yes, many think that is a lie but in fact it is supported by the evidence. Please read "Final Judgement" by Michael Collins Piper. It is 645 pages long and covers every single theory about Kennedy's assassination including the Final Judgement.

Some men . . .you just can't reach.

This is true. But mostly because they just won't read. They want a 20 second sound bite or an explanation on Wikipedia. They want to go with a gut feeling and what they think they saw on f***** television. Many women are the same way. If Ellen De Generes didn't tell them they don't believe it. :)

Yo Mama

05-23-2008, 01:05 AM

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 01:41 AM

Blinders are thicker than you think, literally.

Everyone who denies that something was wrong about what they were telling us on Sept. 11th always says "I saw what I saw, and that's what happened." and then they say "Give me proof."

Look, people have given you the obvious proof, and then when that wasn't enough, they dissected it scientifically in hopes that you would read aand research for yourself and understand the mechanisms involed... but even THAT was not enough...

I'll agree with you on one thing, 1972, debating about September 11th IS like debating with God Freaks... but I think you should be lumping yourself in with those God Freaks.

This may sound like a low blow, but it's not. You can be a good person and be conditioned to believe things. The reason it's called conditioning is because it usually takes a very long time to do, and also (clever analogy alert...) it leaves the lie feeling very silky and smooth and comfortable.

You don't WANT to know. That's all there is to it. You would rather believe in space aliens and other dimensions and the likes, because it isn't the foundation of your whole existence here in this lifetime, and all along the media has been relatively open (comparatively) about the possibility of life from elsewhere. They have definitely NOT been open about the fact that "hmmm maybe society and America IS all one big lie to covertly control our minds without us knowing it...with our approval and our heartfelt love for it."

You're a good guy, most likely, so I don't wish to argue about this with you.

It is what it is.

johnlear

05-23-2008, 01:42 AM

I'd just like to point out that a complaint filed in court is just the opinion of the complainant. Until a judge decides on it, it has no official standing as outright truth. A complaint does not mean that's what happened; it's just what the complainant thinks happened.

Apparently you haven't read the complaint.

Here is a list of the defendants:

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.;
APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
NuSTATS; COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.;
DATASOURCE, INC.; GEOSTAATS, INC.;
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP;
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.; AJMAL ABBASI;
EDUARDO KAUSEL; DAVID PARKS;
DAVID SHARP; DANIELE VENEZANO;
JOSEF VAN DYCK; KASPAR WILLIAM;
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC;
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.;
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & :HEGER, INC.;
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC.;
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP;
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.;
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.;

Now, considering Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United District Court would your opinion be the same?

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 02:00 AM

hey John, can I have a link to the complaint?

I'm on the fence about DEW....imagine that.... I didn't think I'd be on the fence about it... but these are strange times, indeed...and all must be considered.

In your opinion, thermite was used in conjunction with the DEWs, or was it singularly the DEWs?

i still don't believe in the hologram thing... but there's a lot of things I didn't believe in that have decided to show up at my house in recent history.

I'm pretty much rebuilding my version of reality this year.

johnlear

05-23-2008, 02:29 AM

hey John, can I have a link to the complaint?

Sure:

http://www.nomoregames.net/911/federal_ ... plaint.pdf (http://www.nomoregames.net/911/federal_case/07cv4612unsealedcomplaint.pdf)

Take your time reading this please. There is some legalese you have to plow through.

I'm on the fence about DEW....imagine that.... I didn't think I'd be on the fence about it... but these are strange times, indeed...and all must be considered.

In your opinion, thermite was used in conjunction with the DEWs, or was it singularly the DEWs?

I was wrong. No thermite was used and I was wrong when I said it was used to cut steel into 30 foot lengths. Most of the steel just evaporated. It disappeared. Two 110 story buildings collapsed into a pile of debris one story high. Collapsed buildings normally collapse to 12% of their height which would be about 13 stories. It was totally DEW of some sort.

The 'fuming' after effects are still going on and this is why the buildings are being delayed being rebuilt.

See this:

http://www.drjudywood.com/

i still don't believe in the hologram thing... but there's a lot of things I didn't believe in that have decided to show up at my house in recent history.

The jury is still out on this one.

I'm pretty much rebuilding my version of reality this year.

Welcome to the club. :)

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 04:25 AM

johnlear

05-23-2008, 11:55 AM

Thanks, John. I'll be digesting that, and then I'll get back to you.

It looks to be pretty serious, from what I've read so far.

Oh, I was wondering... if per chance, you knew a lot of the United pilots from the 70s and early 80s?

No. I just knew and worked for Clay Lacy. He retired at 60 then found a family bible that said he was 2 years younger and then flew for 2 more years. Clay was a great guy to work for. If I had to pick the worlds greatest pilot I would pick Clay.

My grandfather was a big name in the field, apparently.

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 12:12 PM

that's pretty funny.

Hmm... I was just wondering. I wasn't sure whether you flew big time commercial or not.

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 12:32 PM

Oh by the way, I took a look at the Judy Wood site... and ya know, I'd never even considered that angle.

I am hesitant as crap to think about it that way.... but I should point out a website I found when typing in "energy that can vaporize steel" on yahoo search.

http://www.mz-energy.com/6.html

This guy's name is Manfred Zysk, and I was compelled to read his website almost front to back. Apparently, he worked for SDI, helped design the Bradley Tank, and several other things.

Let me point out several quotes to you:

I also realized that these space based laser satellite systems could also be used directly as weapons to destroy military facilities and major operations centers on the Earth’s surface, and automatic laser beam adjustments would be made to compensate for any atmospheric diffusion of the laser beam. It seemed that laser beams of 4-inch thickness were possible.

he goes on to talk about his disillusionment with the gov't and the beginnings of harassment:

Unfortunately I experienced that our defense system was badly flawed, and I was being mistreated and my life was threatened when I considered of contacting President Kennedy about our missile defense system vulnerabilities. Then I disregarded the government, and just concentrated on developing my own commercial products, but I was ever since under continuous electronic surveillance. My determination of producing many worthwhile products appeared of great interest to the government, and the government appeared to show me that no matter how much I tried, that the government controlled every company and corporation through one way or another. I simply would not believe this was possible, and I continued my efforts to interest many companies with new potential products with patent rights, or just to have a decent paying job. Absolutely nothing worked, and I remained under continuous electronic surveillance.

Here's his separation notice:

http://www.mz-energy.com/resources/5-seperetion+notice.JPG

He goes on in several more pages about his work with making carburetors more efficient, and how the gov't and the corporations kept saying they weren't interested, harassing him (at one point, he was working at a machine shop, and a fellow employee got mistaken for him and beaten up by three unknown men), and then stealing his research.

It's an interesting read, and maybe you should contact this guy.

Enjoy!

johnlear

05-23-2008, 12:52 PM

that's pretty funny.

Hmm... I was just wondering. I wasn't sure whether you flew big time commercial or not.

Yes I flew big time commercial for 31 years which included Boeing 707, Boeing 727, DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and others. I retired with over 19,000 hours, 15,000 of which was command in large jet transports flown in over 60 different countries around the world. I have flown over 100 different types of airplanes including the Mach 2 F-104 Starfighter. At one time for American Trans Air I was the FAA designated Check Airman for North Atlantic operations (MNPS). I held and still hold more FAA certificates than any other airman.

If you want to know whether or not a Arab hijacker could have hijacked a Boeing 767 and flown it into the World Trade Center I believe that I would be an excellent source of information. :)

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 12:55 PM

oh okay.... did you check that Manfred Zysk guy out yet?

He doesn't seem to be a conspiracy theorist or anything of that nature. He just seems to be ranting, but understandably so.

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 01:12 PM

I'm not gunna debate whether you were or weren't what you say you were.

I'm taking your word for it, since you do happen to be directly related to someone who built and designed aircraft for a living. Seems naturally that's the path someone would take.

I highly doubt those pilots could've hit the pentagon, period. I know WTC7 was impossibly taken down.

So... either way, it's a giant lie... and I don't need to kiss up to anyone or be influenced by anyone to see for myself. Things just get weirder and weirder, once you peel back the layers of denial... and ya know, it's REALLY REALLY a hard thing to do. I doubt many people could keep their composure within society if it was just like "Oh yeah, read a website and a few books and you're enlightened... and then keep on functioning normally amidst all the deception. Yeah, sure, it's easy."

I mean... I make no bones about it. I'll tell you the truth. I have a really understanding family whom I still live with... and I'm between jobs a lot... because I KNOW things that most people can't see because they've been completely conditioned into making the lie work for them. Well, I've always subconsciously KNOWN the lie, ever since elementary school, when the police were always called because I just couldn't stand the BS of mainstream educational systems. It's really hard to know this stuff as a reality, and keep on functioning in society. It's damn near impossible, because you can't lie to yourself forever without having a complete breakdown at some point, unless you have a blinding buffer zone. I don't have one of those. I can stare at things now for what they are, pretty much... and my mind is completely open. That doesn't mean I'm gullible. I've been lied to enough, that I've developed filters for that kind of stuff.

This is why it's so hard for people to accept these things we talk about, and this is why most people just consider alternative research a "hobby". Next to music, uncovering reality is my LIFE now... and most people can't claim that. They aren't living it. They're living in a fantasy world where everything will be exactly the same tomorrow as it was today for the rest of their lives... and sadly, they will be caught off guard. I do my best, but people haven't been listening.

I believe that is changing slowly, but I must just be impatient because it's like I'm stuck behind an old lady driving .2 miles per hour.

skunk

05-23-2008, 02:18 PM

I'm actually debating 911 at sohai right now...Guess which side I chose :).

Gotta figure out a story though, which is so difficult because not 1 conspiracy theory is perfect. Not that the government's story is either, maybe I'll have more fun poking holes in their bullshit government conspiracy theory than making my own up.

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 02:31 PM

Most people don't know what "the government" really is. It's corporate interests and very rich and powerful people that would rather NOT be known. The finger is pointed at the government we see, pretty much... and that's like the facade on a building. It just makes it look a certain way.

I assume it's been that way since the beginning of civilization.

I assume this is much stranger than even the main conspiracy theories could handle.

For all we know, an invisible foot of some extradimensional superbeing stomped the towers to dust.

I want royalties if someone makes a theory out of that :wink:

theeindiee

05-23-2008, 02:37 PM

BS... you agree that there was something wrong with the way those buildings collapsed, though, right?

skunk

05-23-2008, 05:20 PM

Yes the 'official story' is completely bullshit. There's no way 2 planes knocked down gigaton buildings, especially at free fall speed. What the fuck happened to the 'pancake' theory where each floor goes bit by bit.

The towers falling looked exactly like a controlled demolition. No way around it.

1972

05-23-2008, 06:26 PM

Most people don't know what "the government" really is.

I said I wasn't going to come back. I lied.

Though I doubt I will address the things John commented on to me. And Indiee, I am not singling you out but you said, so I want to address that. The attitude in above comment. I hear/read it all the time from people. that they are somehow in the know, more so than others. That anyone elses truth is just plain wrong. Your truth is yours and I am mine. Period.

I said I saw what I saw; I did not however say give me proof. Sure it was a shady day and all but I did not say I needed proof. I merely said I saw what I saw that day; whether it was what they wanted me to see or not in a moot point.

And for John: The guy sitting next to me at work is in the 193rd. So I think I know a little about so-called Psy-ops. Because you or others do not like my vocabulary, does not mean it is not "adult" as you call it. Sorry that you feel that way though for I have plenty to bring to the table on many subjects; just as we all do. Sort of psy-ops in and of itself don't you think? Brainwashed into thinking that certain words somehow make me less intelligent?

One more thing for indiee:

This may sound like a low blow, but it's not. You can be a good person and be conditioned to believe things. The reason it's called conditioning is because it usually takes a very long time to do, and also (clever analogy alert...) it leaves the lie feeling very silky and smooth and comfortable.

It is not a low blow. But you might want to look in a mirror. Unless you have some sort of super power and/or immunity. I have no blinders on. Just living in my reality as you live in yours.

You don't WANT to know. That's all there is to it. You would rather believe in space aliens and other dimensions and the likes, because it isn't the foundation of your whole existence here in this lifetime, and all along the media has been relatively open (comparatively) about the possibility of life from elsewhere.

Please do not presume to know what I feel or think. Ever.
I read. I listen. I research. I form my own opinion. And it is an opinion far from what you stated above.

Ducky

05-23-2008, 06:42 PM

What do I think happened when 911 occured?

1. BIG HUGE SET-UP. From the time that the towers were built in the 70's, either the engineers (in unison with the owners etal) went in and previously set up ('detonation devises) before hand...OR...

2. Secretly put in bombing devices prior to 911; then when the 'big day happened', it would 'seem' as though there was a terrorist attack.

3. Planted evidence. How in the hell can 1 hostages's info (passport) be retreived from a melting burndown of a site, when all else has been burnt to shit?

Draig2008

05-23-2008, 07:15 PM

1. BIG HUGE SET-UP. From the time that the towers were built in the 70's, either the engineers (in unison with the owners etal) went in and previously set up ('detonation devises) before hand...OR...

2. Secretly put in bombing devices prior to 911; then when the 'big day happened', it would 'seem' as though there was a terrorist attack.

3. Planted evidence. How in the hell can 1 hostages's info (passport) be retreived from a melting burndown of a site, when all else has been burnt to shit?

1 and 2: Why? The buildings were built in the 1970s (or whenever). Why would they put explosives in there then? "Just in case?"

3. When the Columbia crashed in 2003, they found a patch from one the astronauts in a field. It was a bit singed, but still in one piece.

mojo

05-23-2008, 07:36 PM

I try to stay well out of 9/11 threads because i just don't know. I don't think anyone knows exactly what happened.

I proposed what i thought may have happened once and was roundly attacked, if there could be a debate/discussion regarding 9/11 without all the attendent bullshit and personal attacks i might get interested in the whole thing again.

It seems to be one of a couple of subjects that turns friend against friend consistently (the other's being religion and politics), and perhaps that is a conspiracy in itself.
All the 9/11 discussions end up getting lost in petty bickering sooner or later, which eventually means we all lose, CT'ers and sceptics alike.

In the end the only thing i'm sure of is that there was monumental incompetence from a number of government agency's, the rest, well i don't think we'll ever know for sure.

theeindiee

05-24-2008, 12:11 AM

Fuck it. FUCK IT!!!

It's not my fight.

I'm so pissed right now... and it's not even at anyone here.

If I go on any further, it will sound that way.

People don't understand until they SEE, and I need more patience.

I wish 9/11 happened the way you think, 1972. I REALLY do.

I apologize for offending you. It was non intentional.

This 9/11 thread is laced with pure evil energy. All of them are. It's kinda scary.

It's a hex!

theeindiee

05-24-2008, 12:14 AM

SHHHHIIIITTTTBALLLLSCOCKMONKEYCUNTBITCHFAGGAMUFFIN JERSEYJESUSASSHOLECRAPPINDONKEYFUCKALODEON!!!!

My last post in this thread.

mojo

05-24-2008, 12:15 AM

This 9/11 thread is laced with pure evil energy. All of them are. It's kinda scary.

Which is why i try to stay out of them.
Then i occasionally get sucked back in. lol. like now.

DeadSoul

05-24-2008, 12:27 AM

Well, I have avoided all the 9/11 shit that is all over the net. And it has been hard, but i have made it through the bad times. This day is very personal to me as I lost a great friend from Cantor Fitzgerald and another friend of mine who volunteered for mass casualty duty.
I also have a friend who was working kiddie corner to the towers for citifinancial. He took me to his office in February of 2002 and showed me where he was and described to me exactly what he heard and saw. I have some great photos of the area around his building.
In short, I lean towards 1972. I will not post more on this subject as it makes my heart heavy just thinking about it happening, let alone thinking that our government would have a direct hand in this tragedy as many believe.
Flame me as well, but my feelings will never change on this.

Ducky

05-24-2008, 12:48 AM

We lost A HELLOVALOT of our Canadian boys/girls when they went AWOL to come down across the border an help you guys out.

This SHIT should never have happened at all. NEVER FUCKING NEVER.

This is Goddam disgraceful.

From one country to an anthother.

This SHIT should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!!!

From your neighbors up north.

This is fucking madness.

There is NO GODDAMN REASON why this should have happened!!!!!

What the hellis going on?!?!?!

vckums

05-24-2008, 01:03 AM

I am in agreeance with 1972. I saw what I saw live on the news. I am not in denial. I am making my own opinion after researching. I do not need my eyes opened. I don't believe in any of the guesses on any of the sites. I don't believe there was a laser. I don't believe there was a missle. My opinion is not wrong and neither is anyone elses. I am not a "sheeple".

That day was not a great one for me either. My husband was working in SF at the time and all the local news channels were saying that SF was going to possibly be next to get hit. I couldn't get ahold of him as the cell phone had no service on the ferry. So 6 months preggers, crying hysterically thinking I may never see my husband again. Ended up going into premature labor and rushed to the ER. Thankfully they were able to stop it. Hubby came home to us that night, which to me is all that mattered.

Ducky

05-24-2008, 01:06 AM

I've waited for a reply...and got some/

Do you know what the scary shit is now?

American guvment personnel placing their fucking fingers on the 'nuke' buttons.

You won't find that here in Canada. Then again...

I'm sick to fuck of hearing about the 'powers that be', that caress their fingertips , in either defiance, or otherwise, and will do the harm.

skunk

05-24-2008, 02:43 AM

Shit, my pops was in the WTC that week and one of his best friends worked in tower 7. I don't think you can get much closer to home than that.

My brother's friend lost his dad and I'm sure I know many other people who were impacted. I lived about 30 miles away from NYC at the time and knew a lot of people in the area.

911 definitely is a touchy subject, no doubt about it. As indy has said, this topic is 'cursed.' The dead want the truth, which is clear to me anyway, and the living don't know what to think. There are so many dead ends and questions that this entire topic downgrades into a mini civil war.

I could honestly give a shit what any of you think about 911. We're not the ones buried in the ground. The people who died on 911 and those who have died as a result of the actions of the US/UK/etc governments/militaries because of 911 are the people who deserve the truth.

Fuck us, the dead deserve it more than the living. If muslim terrorist hijacked 4 planes on 911 and hit 3 buildings, I'll be ok with that. I just don't believe it. Too many failures on one day. The US government was running terror drills that involved EXACTLY the same scenario happening. Someone in the government knew about that and tipped somebody else off. The muslim terrorists didn't act alone, IF the 'official' story is to be believed.

No. Fucking. Way.

skunk

05-24-2008, 02:50 AM

I want to add one thing about the 'cursed' 911 topic. To some extent this was a ritual human sacrifice to the evil of this world.

Before you jump all over me let me explain.

The World Trade Centers represented the money of the US, its heart. Washington DC is riddled with masonic symbolism, and some of it is not so positive (the bohemian grove owl for instance).

Destroying the WTC was a symbolic sacrifice to the darkness. 3000 plus people died so that some of us could live, and prosper.

The military-industrial complex has made BILLIONS off of the war on terror. Billions (if not trillions). At least two sovereign nations have been destroyed, and possibly a third (Iran). The US economy has bankrupted as a result of the US military's actions, the American people have less faith in their government than any other time in history, the American image worldwide is shit, etc etc.

The entire world was behind America after the WTC fell. Everyone was pro-US. We were the shit. Now we're a bunch of douchebags running around thinking we own the world and we can do whatever we want.

We completely fucked up. All of us. We let this happen, whether subconsciously or not...

Ok back to the dark sacrifice idea.

I had a discussion with someone at the other site about the blood sacrifice.

More or less I said in order to keep this world going, a huge human sacrifice needed to be made. Remember the Mayans? They attempted to save their civilization by appealing to the 'gods' through blood letting, and later, human sacrifice. That is what these 'people' did on 911!

Think about it.

To keep this society going, a huge price had to be paid. In blood. And thousands of innocents were the price tag for that.

theeindiee

05-24-2008, 06:21 PM

Hey BS. In response to your theory on blood sacrifice... yes I do think it was a blood sacrifice... but I also think it was what they call a hypersigil in sigil magick. You probably are aware of what a sigil is. It is basically a scribed 2-d symbol that is charged with the user's intent. A simple way of making a sigil is to write out what you desire " I want a kitty." and then take out all vowels and repeating consonants "wntky" and then to take those letters, combine them, stretch them, skew them, take out lines, add lines, etc... to make it into a occult-ish style symbol. Corporate logos are all sigils. They must work, because a lotta the biggest corporations make total crap... but they were successful because they had the power of the sigil and the intent of the founder and his cohorts, of which the sigil represented, behind it, and people basically became hypnotized by that intent. Is it any wonder that all big corporation's CEO's, founders, top execs, are almost ALL high level masons or members of occult-like societies?

Now... a hypersigil takes it one step further. A hypersigil is a more complex sigil cast into the 3-dimensional world. These types of sigils have more immediate results. Take for example, a musical composition. You hear, and BOOM you are entranced by it. A dance...you see it, and you're transfixed. A pop icon is a hypersigil, hence the rabid crazed following created by just that one person. A BUILDING is a hypersigil... hence the importance that the builders of those buildings be trained in the occult arts, hence the occult symbolism encoded in building structures.

Paul Laffoley, artist and engineer:
http://freemantv.artopium.com/video/paullaffoley.shtml

Watch the interview above, and pay attention to the part where Paul talks about his days spent working for the designer of the WTC Towers. He was assigned to a certain amount of floors, and he had the idea that it would be smart to have bridges built at several intervals to connect the two buildings, so freight could be moved between the two towers more easily. The head of the project, some Asian guy I can never remember the name, freaked out and said absolutely not... and he got fired from the project. Why?

Some food for thought:

Because the building was A) designed from the start to be destroyed.... notice he mentions working with Bin Laden Construction.... and B) because they were designed to be a hypersigil.
The destruction of the towers and the sacrifice of those 3000 people was designed to CHARGE the hypersigil with intent. Did I forget to mention that sigils have to be charged? Ways to charge sigils can range from constantly keeping the image of the sigil in your minds eye, to burning a sigil, to orgasming while having the sigil in your minds eye, all the way up to human sacrifice. All human sacrifice rituals are accompanied by symbols and symbolic movements....and the act of sacrifice itsself is the charge for those symbols to have their power.

"Divided we fall" I think was the message created by that sigil. The giant eleven that the towers made, and all the elevens associated with that date, represented the division and destruction of America. America is divided from the rest of the world now.... and it is slowly dividing from the inside.... and even my parents think that a civil war is on the horizon...so do lots of people.

I don't know what the final plan is, whether it be one world government, the destruction of civilization, the extinction of man, the enslavement of man by extraterrestrial or extradimensional forces (I think the extradimensional thing has already been accomplished)... but this was NOT what it looked like and what they say it was. It was something much bigger. If you think terrorism is the reason the world is so fucked up right now, you've gotta be joking.
How could incompetance achieve so much on the part of the decievers? Records show that people intimately involved with this had similar plans for decades beforehand, and on that VERY DAY, somebody had the foresight to be running training drills on THE EXACT SAME EVENTS OCCURING!!!!

Jesus, talk about turning a blind eye. Get offended all you want, but that is what you are doing here... and it's not helping anyone. Whether you believe in magick or DEW or even most conspiracy theories... there is enough evidence here to where.... it's just obvious, and I xcan see I touch nerves on the non-believers... but see when we say this stuff, we don't want you to believe what we say we know. We want you to KNOW what we know. What we know is that something huge happened that day, and it ain't what you think. The evidence points to it.

What evidence do you want? A photo of Giulliani in WTC7's emergengy bunker, with a big fat smile on his face, about to push a big red button that says DESTRUCT on it?

Do you even want evidence?

That is irrational. Denying yourself truth in favor of a comfortable lie is irrational behavior.

And ya know, if I offend or make you uneasy... honestly, good... because I know I'm in no way attacking you, and to feel a cringing at someone's mention of anything other than what you wanna hear... it's a sign man. Take a look at your own feelings and defense mechanisms. They play a big part in this. A HUGE PART. This I am confident of, especially from people who are or have been involved in conspiracy websites and debates on the subject of 9/11.

They've subliminally installed certain triggers and blockades inside of your brain through the use of mass media mind control, and only YOU can override them at this point. We're just reminding you.

vckums

05-24-2008, 10:10 PM

I"m sorry Indy, but I don't see any evidence for what you're saying. I'm not turning away from the truth, I just don't see your "truth".

This type of posting makes people not want to post. If that's your intent, great job.

skunk

05-25-2008, 12:01 AM

Indy is telling you to question what you know AND what you say. Great you saw 2 planes hit 2 towers. Fine. I can believe that.

But why did it happen? Who did it? What were the consequences and repercussions?

You need to ask questions. There's no point in living otherwise. Most people simply do not have time to question reality, and 911 is just another piece of the puzzle called life.

I don't know what happened. I will readily admit that. I do not know. That does not mean I believe what the government and media tells me. They're full of shit.

How many other times has the government and media lied? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? I can't count the times.

Why is 911 any different? What about all the conflicting eye witness reports? Some people never saw a plane. Some said they did. Some said they saw explosions, others did not.

What really happened? Was it the government conspiracy theory (yes I call it a CT because that's all it is, a theory and a piss poor construction at that) or did something else happen?

If pissed off muslim terrorists really hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC, and that's the cause of their collapse, I'll eat my shirt.

Look at all the holes in the story.

What happened to tower 7?

How in the world could 2 gigaton buildings be brought down by planes? Are you fucking kidding me?

Ask. Question. Seek. You shall find the truth in pieces.

vckums

05-25-2008, 04:25 AM

Im outta here.

JiveTurkey

05-25-2008, 04:29 AM

Im outta here.

Good idea.

theeindiee

05-25-2008, 04:35 AM

I have to appear in court for walking in the woods after sunset. This happened tonight.

Guess what my court date is. Friday the 13th.

Ponder that bullshit.

The very same woods where people perform satanic rituals in after hours. My Catholic friend was there once after hours, saw a bunch of people in hoods sacrificing a child, and one of them came after him with a knife. I found this out earlier in the day, while coincidentally wearing a t-shirt that says "#13, Born Lucky" on it. Why do innocent people get charged fines for committing the crime of walking in the woods until 9:30pm, yet these Satanic Cults get free reign of the place?

We must stay in civilized territory, or else it is a crime?

While these sick fucks sacrifice innocents in the woods after sundown?

Hmm... the police protecting these people? I have no doubt. We were surrounded by THREE squad cars and questioned for a straight hour!

So... the government fucking us on 9/11 is really the least of my worries. There are things much closer to home, if you care to pay attention.

I say to you... take your patriotic pride and joy and shove it up the law's anus... because they are only out to fuck us.

I'm gunna prove I'm serious this June 13th at 10:30am. Get your fill of me now.

9/11 was a Satanic Ritual. BS.... after tonight, I have no doubt.

JiveTurkey

05-25-2008, 05:02 AM

skunk

05-25-2008, 05:10 AM

Indy, I don't like using the words 'satanic' as that implies there is a devil or a lord of darkness. Its much more complicated than that.

On a metaphysical level, there certainly is 'evil'. I can't really describe it. Hitler would be one embodiment of evil, as would Vlad the Impaler, Stalin (?), Darth Cheney, etc etc. However, these people always have lapdogs who do their bidding. I am not so naiive to think that Hitler acted alone. Neither did any of the others I listed above.

911 was not some simple inside job where Bush signed off on the deed and then muslim terrorists were paid off to hijack planes. No. I don't think one person can begin to put together the entire story because it is so complex.

Satanic ritual? Ok, I'll go with it even though I don't like the implications of the word. Esoteric ritual perhaps would be more fitting.

Whether or not you believe in this shit, its real as night and day. I suggest researching "moloch" and the bohemian grove. It just so happens Mr Bush is a part of the grove.

It just so happens moloch is the god of money and the WTC towers represented the seat of american money. And now they're gone.

Coincidence? I think not.

It was a human sacrifice, paid in the blood of the innocents. To whom may you ask? "The ruler of this world."

theeindiee

05-25-2008, 05:42 AM

Yes yes... you have corrected me, BS. Let me say this... definitely a NEGATIVE esoteric ritual.

My friend used the word Satanic... and it stook.

Jive... I'm insane as a bird.

And now also I am drunk as one, too.

guinnessford

04-21-2009, 08:07 PM

Just remember guinness that jsut because someone benefited from it doesn't mean they had a hand in it.

Understood.

But of the many that did, do you beleive that none of them wanted it to happen?

Or helped plan any of it?

mojo

01-09-2010, 02:24 AM

JaHmaYlXaYk

anarch

01-09-2010, 04:01 AM

1). Who did it?

Elements inside our own government utilizing outside (another governments) military forces. Many are complicit including the news media and it is quite possible not a single one will ever face justice...

2). What really happened to the WTC, Pentagon, and the Shanksville plane (among other events that have been covered up in the meantime)

Lies, Alot of lies. Their are some vids I posted about TV fakery here in the vid section. Real planes have this thing called wake vortex which is not present in the WTC shots. Also real planes can't slice through steel. The force of the explosion would blast through the windows, parts would fly in, but a rel plane does not melt into a building slicing steel and disregarding crash physics.

The pentagon shots are total bunk and their are not shanksville shots.

3). Why; What was their motivation?

Power and greed. Who benefited? New laws got passed new wars got started many folks made alot of money...many incriminating documents burned but nothing regarding americans debts was lost, and a whole lot of gold evaporated. When other nations banks asked for their gold deposits after the clean up they got told it burned up...That was one magical fire eh?

Then their is the Caspian pipeline that was supposed to supply China with oil and indebt their energy needs to US interests. That is no longer an issue with Russia supplying oil to China now. Now the need to be in the middle east is gone. No need to take over Iran. No foreign interest in the Caspian pipeline. That cost us alot of money and we can see that in a nice new depression. What was supposed to be established by the millennium setting us into a new age of economic prosperity has bankrupted us and now requires labor and industry restructuring.

The US is no longer the worlds super power it once was. And the shit is still rolling downhill.

4). Where (pretty obvious)

D.C., Shanksville, and NY. WTC7 more than likely utilized the OEM as operational control but that IS speculation on my part.

5). When; this would be a time table of events, before and after, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan which are clearly linked to 911

That shit had been in the works for YEARS! The only reason it did not come down in 93 is because Salem, the FBI informer refused to obey FBI orders on where to park the van. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtcbomb.html That can be proven cause Salem recorded his FBI conversations when he started to distrust them and their operational methods. A download is available at the link. MAKE A NOTE it was also done near the end of Clintons first year. But Clinton did not get to be a war president.

The murrah building in OKC is also of significance and relation.

The story of bin laden had to of been all worked out as far back as 93. They had to of had their story made and ready back then. Makes sense considering the war was still fresh on everyones mind.

Afterwords I think the original intention may of been a middle east take over for the pipeline. Pakistan was/is our puppet, the take over of Afghanistan and Iraq was never a logistical problem but for the resistance Iran would offer a pincer plan was formed. It would of worked in the 90s. The extra ten years gave them time to advance, the internet, increased relations with Russia and China... Worst of all the original motivations/ profit justifications have also evaporated. New Oil reserves have been found and utilized, new technologies incorporated everything changed.

It was a plan for a new world that was applicable in the 90s but out of date by 2001. Arrogant know it alls went ahead with it anyways and now we all pay the price.

6). How did it happen; linked to the what I guess

Linked but separate. Always ask the 6 Ws. Bombs. Just some well placed bombs. And a variety of them. Two BIG bombs to grab attention and fake plane impacts at WTC. The media was utilized to perpetuate the CGI lie. Bogus witnesses that could accurately identify planes flying at 500 MPH and recite the entire OS before WTC7 fell.

Then their are the demo charges that actually brought down the WTC in an interesting three stage demo. It was the first time a SuperScraper had ever been demoed. Later after all the dirty deeds were done Near the end of a long work day WTC 7 would fall.

The Pentagon was just one BIG ASS bomb ...Most likely a diesel fuel trailer bomb. The photos show no large holes Which say to me it was a low pressure bomb... IT wasn't a sticky fuel like napalm. It did not match any missile explosion I've seen. Proly just a small fuel trailer. The fire did get hot enough to collapse the outter ring as designed. Turning off the sprinkler system helped.

Block traffic ,knock down some light poles, set up witnesses, allow media, Roll cameras and ACTION start spining the bullshit machine.

SHANKSVILLE was nothing but a strip mining that they threw some dynamite in to make a round crater. It is also a nice set up for the HERO aspect of the tale. I suspect the trees in the area near it got a flame thrower applied to them. In the photos they all still stand so no explosion knocked them over. That means the crater blast must of been small.

NONE OF THIS WOULD OF BEEN POSSIBLE WITH OUT IMBEDED JOURNALISTS.

It is on the record that they CIA trains folks at Quanico to enter journalism school. How suck is that? You do 6 years at Quanico just to do four more at another college to earn a degree in Journalism. This allowed the CIA to establish its own agents into the media to act as foreign corespondents to help report the news the way they wanted it reported and to act as intel under the cover of media. Things is .... their were never any safe guards set up to keep there activities strictly limited to operations abroad. Also I suspect we sent our boys to journalism schools in other nations... and that other nations may of sent us some of their intel boys to imbed themselves in our media.

Like a student exchange program.

I can not (and I can not stress this enough) see loyal Americans knowingly participating in this atrocity in any way. I suspect many elements from foreign governments were used to help pull off this operation because they would not have any loyalty to the USA. Now the media May of been all CIA assets but I can not be sure.... If they were then they would of been given there orders to report one thing to the people and a bogus trail of bread crumbs to follow themselves should they desire the real story...

So many false leads have been thrown out there to confuse and distract...
At the end of the day I do not see enough physical evidence in all the photos to support the allegation that planes were used. Just Bombs, CGI graphics, and a willing media.

Weaponized propaganda.

www.scl.cc/

Royal

01-09-2010, 04:06 AM

It's best analyzed with the concept of KISS (Keep it simple stupid). No offense to anyone, I didn't read the whole thread yet.

But What I think happened is that we funded a packistani CIA type group who then funded terrorists to carry out the plan. That it its semi untraceable as far as the funds go.

So like chess, we set up the enemy for a short term win for our ponds to get their queens and kings (Saddam, oil, ancient history... who knows) ...

anarch

01-09-2010, 04:24 AM

Keep It simple? Take the risk of failure to ZERO. 93 was a fail because their was a human element that refused to park where he was told to park. Remove every human element risk. Hi jackers could be stopped killed can change their minds whatever. Hell planes can expect delays for any number of reasons. This all had to be on time, there was a shock and awe schedule to adhere to.

IF suicide pilots is the plan then rather than taking four planes with 19 people why not rent/steal 19 small mini jets , load them with C4 or whatever and hit 19 targets. Its a much better plan that does alot more damage and you don't have to worry about those pesky hostages. One doesn't need to be a genius to figure it out. No offense intended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J6uHjvfrCU

6J6uHjvfrCU

Paroxysm

01-09-2010, 04:31 AM

Royal

01-09-2010, 04:45 AM

202

Too big to fail?

But really the media jumps on anything the government tells it. They are all about sources, not questioning the source. Well, those people who question it never reach a big spot light anyway...

THE JOB CAN BE PLANNED WITH 1-2 PEOPLE!

People inside the pentagon that initiate the mission

- 2 people - Mission Planner who knows the perfect time to stage the attack, and a liaison with Pakistani forces to send mission details and funds.

- 1-2 people setting demo charges in the building. Unless there was already demo charges in the building for some reason?

This makes more sense then having everybody and there momma take part because everyone will have to control themselves from speaking out. Everybody talks.

I would't be surprised if only one person knew what was really going on the whole time.

skunk

01-09-2010, 05:31 AM

Haha this is an entertaining discussion to read from the early days.

anarch

01-09-2010, 05:34 AM

THE JOB CAN BE PLANNED WITH 1-2 PEOPLE!

People inside the pentagon that initiate the mission

- 2 people - Mission Planner who knows the perfect time to stage the attack, and a liaison with Pakistani forces to send mission details and funds.

- 1-2 people setting demo charges in the building. Unless there was already demo charges in the building for some reason?

This makes more sense then having everybody and there momma take part because everyone will have to control themselves from speaking out. Everybody talks.

I would't be surprised if only one person knew what was really going on the whole time.

Something like 911 is not planed and executed with 1 or 2 people.

Bogus witnesses, fake cell phone calls, Media spin doctors that can explain how the wings folded in and back.

Demo charges for two buildings.... That is a team job. And they have to know what they are doing. Indecently the WTC did have a new night time janitor in the weeks prior to 911.

Where is the plane wreckage in shanksville... HELL where is the raging fire that can bring down the pentagon and two buildings?

Where is the Impact hole at the pentagon?

Where is the wake vortex? Do you know what wake vortex is? It would of been observable at the pentagon and at the WTC.

If we are missing a plane here or there then it demands we question the evidence for the other two planes as well. What is the evidence?

Royal

01-09-2010, 05:56 AM

Something like 911 is not planed and executed with 1 or 2 people.

Bogus witnesses, fake cell phone calls, Media spin doctors that can explain how the wings folded in and back.

Demo charges for two buildings.... That is a team job. And they have to know what they are doing. Indecently the WTC did have a new night time janitor in the weeks prior to 911.

Where is the plane wreckage in shanksville... HELL where is the raging fire that can bring down the pentagon and two buildings?

Where is the Impact hole at the pentagon?

Where is the wake vortex? Do you know what wake vortex is? It would of been observable at the pentagon and at the WTC.

If we are missing a plane here or there then it demands we question the evidence for the other two planes as well. What is the evidence?

All those things are odd. yes. But...

"Bogus witnesses, fake cell phone calls, Media spin doctors that can explain how the wings folded in and back. "

Everyone was watching the news. Who is to prevent the media from making shit up to get the highest ratings?

"Demo charges for two buildings.... That is a team job. And they have to know what they are doing. Indecently the WTC did have a new night time janitor in the weeks prior to 911."

WTC was a unique structure right? So maybe it did collapse on itself... This one raises the most questions with me.. especially with WTC 7...

"Where is the plane wreckage in shanksville... HELL where is the raging fire that can bring down the pentagon and two buildings?"

A plane free falling to the ground will explode and burn up once it hits the ground. My father worked with airplane parts, he explained it's easy for disintegration to occur. The raging fires were pretty observable, especially with the tons of black smoke pouring out.

"Demo charges for two buildings.... That is a team job. And they have to know what they are doing. Indecently the WTC did have a new night time janitor in the weeks prior to 911."

One person with plenty of time can do this right? And a new night time janitor doesn't really link to inside job. It also could also mean that it sucks to be a janitor at WTC... People get hired for all positions all the time. Especially at a big place like WTC.

"Where is the Impact hole at the pentagon? "

Plane wings are extremely light and can burn up immediately on impact when heading toward a wall of concrete that's almost bomb proof. Some planes carry fuel in it's wings, so I would research to see if the plane that hit the pentagon carried fuel in the wings.

"Where is the wake vortex? Do you know what wake vortex is? It would of been observable at the pentagon and at the WTC."

Don't know, but it sounds good. I will google this later.

"If we are missing a plane here or there then it demands we question the evidence for the other two planes as well. What is the evidence?"

What? There were planes.

We can say all the events mentioned above are odd because we don;t have much to compare to. History doesn't have dozens of episodes of planes crashing to the same structured buildings or a plane almost doing a full nose dive into the ground...

anarch

01-09-2010, 06:07 AM

If we go with the theory that it was a controlled demolition then the question becomes when did they plant the bombs? I think it was a janitor or phone company weeks before 911.... Memory is foggy....Urban Moving Systems company (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j031302.html), THats what google says...

Whether or not it WAS the or someone else we can conclude this much under our current premise, The bombs were not there in 93. The 93 bomb was supposed to blow out the central column. Had Salem parked next to the central elevators it would of been a messy demo. I am unsure if it would of blown out both buildings but I don't think that would matter because the main goal would of been accomplished and the war in Iraq would of been on again.

This is also an operation that utilized minimal people. Salem had to do all the instigating in the group he was tasked to infiltrate. He drove the van himself under FBI orders..... a lone gunman who knew the details and could be disposed of afterwards.

But he did not follow orders. He also started recording his FBI conversations and went public with the recordings... The mainstream media gave it a sound bite and moved on.

That is the human element. You can silence big mouths. The media is controlled. What you can't do is force a single person to act with absolute certainty he will follow orders. But teams are more likely to follow orders than the individual. Herd mentality works even in small groups.

Royal

01-09-2010, 06:08 AM

Another thought.

This is crazy, but crazy is better then nothing. And this is amkon.

But what if we brought the towers down. Since we focused all our energy upon the two towers were consciously took them down... just a thought...

Royal

01-09-2010, 06:15 AM

anarch

01-09-2010, 07:40 AM

You could still expand your understanding.
You may not like digesting the information I can show but if you follow me I can break it down, destroy the lies and expose some truths.

Ride with me royal.

Everyone was watching the news. Who is to prevent the media from making shit up to get the highest ratings?

Nobody. Not when its there job to distort the facts and entertain the masses. The FCC and BBB does not insist on journalist maintaining the honest integrity that was once expected of the media.

WTC was a unique structure right? So maybe it did collapse on itself... This one raises the most questions with me.. especially with WTC 7... Not entirely true. There is a beta structure in ....Oklahoma I think. It is a single tower half the size. The working prototype to test the model of the Tube with in a tube theory that allows for the stability of the super scraper.

A plane free falling to the ground will explode and burn up once it hits the ground. My father worked with airplane parts, he explained it's easy for disintegration to occur. The raging fires were pretty observable, especially with the tons of black smoke pouring out. Photo time.

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/shankesville/shanksville16.JPG

From this pic we know the angle is on from the furthest "wing tip" facing the forest. Strangely the forest is not on fire in this photo. Equally strange is the dry weeds that are not burning from fires that can level buildings. We can also note the despite the fire truck in the photo the ground is not covered in water. The dirt is dry, the weeds are dry, no puddles in the back round...

To say nothing of the lack of Plane debris. If we were not told a plane crashed here. If you were looking at this photo as some random photo what does it look like happened? Smoking pile of trash? Dynamite? BE HONEST.

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4179/shanksville1994flight93.jpg The above photo was taken 6 years before 911. If you compare photos you can see a road faded, trees grew and more excavation continued and a strip mining scar was used to fake a plane crash.

One person with plenty of time can do this right? And a new night time janitor doesn't really link to inside job. It also could also mean that it sucks to be a janitor at WTC... People get hired for all positions all the time. Especially at a big place like WTC. One person with plenty of time... No. Their are holes to drill, wires to set, lots of explosives to move...Have you never watched any docs on controlled demolition? It is a science that takes dozens of professionals. A small special ops team could do it or a commercial demo company could do it but one or two individuals... That is as improbable as CERN making a world eating black hole . The logistics of it require more than one person even if he had a life time to work.

Plane wings are extremely light and can burn up immediately on impact when heading toward a wall of concrete that's almost bomb proof. Some planes carry fuel in it's wings, so I would research to see if the plane that hit the pentagon carried fuel in the wings.Your father worked with airplane parts you say? ....The majority of planes carry at least some fuel in their wings. The engines... Where are they located and how do they work? Its not hope that makes those turbines spin. Its fuel. (don't take that the wrong way)

Photo time again
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pentagon-hole.jpg

You do understand that the plane was taller than this building and longer than that yellow fire truck. Where is the impact hole? Where are the plane parts the blew back?

http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/6-4ba.jpg

No plane parts no hole.

http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/facade-intactesma2.jpg

No hole that would fit a commercial jet... and look at those unbroken windows! These planes can cut through STEEL but those windows are explosion proof? Or maybe it has a small explosion....Now you might be thinking "Well those a freaking pentagon windows they should be explosion proof"

This plane entered full force up front and only lost momentum as it impacted. Enter the exit hole.

http://spktruth2power.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/physics911pentagon.jpg

Windows survive but this bomb proof wall does not... It makes a neat photo op but a lousy fiction.

Moving on.

We can say all the events mentioned above are odd because we don;t have much to compare to. History doesn't have dozens of episodes of planes crashing to the same structured buildings or a plane almost doing a full nose dive into the ground...We have lots of plane crashes well documented from before Oville and William Wright started flying to this day. Crash dynamics is what happens in any crash. Some parts go forward and some parts go backwards but nothing goes all the same direction.

Planes have crashed into buildings. Many times. That too is well documented.

http://jonjost.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/911-steel-for-sale.jpg

Let the size of this columns weigh in as you compare them to the forklift and the little people in the backround.

This is what aluminum planes are alleged to of flown threw. I can rip apart an aluminum can. It takes temperatures over 1500F to wield that steel. The plane that failed to break windows at the pentagon Ripped through that steal.... Not likely... Not Possible. Look at the size of that steel. A 20MM cannon (the kind that shot down P-40s in WW2) could not put holes in that steel.

The OS is a lie. It sucks but thats truth. No muslim terrorists, No bin laden in a cave , No justice.

theeindiee

01-09-2010, 08:36 AM

I say all in all a good show. And can I be an Al Qieda leader? I would really like to kill lots of Americans, as well. I'm prepared to convert to Islam, as well. As long as I can kill in the name of God and scare people into frenzied stupidity.

anarch

01-09-2010, 08:54 AM

Hell go apply at Fox news if thats all you desire.

Infinite`Eternal`Forever

01-09-2010, 07:27 PM

911 happened so the NWO could start. With the coming of the Anti-Christ and greater technology a superior stranglehold must be placed upon the people. To get us there we need genocides, propaganda, enemy wars, misery and famine to break people down and force them to abandon their beliefs and play their NWO position. I don't really think about 911 often. Seems like it was meant to happen to further other agendas and events. Either they ran them planes into the buildings by remote or let some Arabs do it. Either way it helped average citizens hate Arabs and Islam and not care for the life or death of their civilization and bring us into a war. All these tree hugging hippies and anti war homos are going to have to realize that America doesn't sit on top of the hill because its the most righteous nation on Earth. If you enjoy the way you live you need to support your country when its shitting on people, stealing, murdering, subverting, and destroying everyone for the greater good of America. :D...............................:(

MissA

01-09-2010, 07:52 PM

I think a bunch of player haters wanted to take the US down and the evil mutherfuckers in charge of the US government needed a way to consolidate power and let it all happen and may have helped them out a little here and there.

Infinite`Eternal`Forever

01-09-2010, 08:14 PM

I think a bunch of player haters

Like who?

MissA

01-09-2010, 08:15 PM

Mohammed Atta, for one.

anarch

01-09-2010, 08:17 PM

Mohammed Atta

He is just another Oswald.

MissA

01-09-2010, 08:19 PM

I believe they played right into Dick Cheney's hands, but I do believe they wanted to kill Americans...just like Dick Cheney.

anarch

01-09-2010, 08:19 PM

911 happened so the NWO could start.

I would say that the wheels of the NWO was set into motion the Columbus sailed for the "NEW" world.

Fraternals think in terms of generations not life times.

anarch

01-09-2010, 08:20 PM

I believe they played right into Dick Cheney's hands, but I do believe they wanted to kill Americans...just like Dick Cheney.

LOL DIck Cheny didn't "want to". He has/does/will do again. Don't go hunting with that mutha fucker.

anarch

01-10-2010, 04:52 PM

BUmp for 911

Royal

01-10-2010, 07:51 PM

Ok Anarch.

5-10 people made 9-11 happen.

Infinite`Eternal`Forever

01-10-2010, 08:01 PM

As I've said already, 911 is so 911 ago. :D

Eyeforalie

01-10-2010, 08:22 PM

I believe that the ones who were up to the attacks on the towers knew that they would fall like they did. If one were to include all plausible theories, it can be concluded that too many theories fit into a description to positively identify the true source of the attacks.

Thermite, planes, no planes, missiles and explosives. 120 possibilities right there.

I dont think it really matters though. Its not up to us to stop or solve anything. Youve all been beaten-down so badly that they could come right out and say what happened and no one would believe it. Actually, I bet its been put out there already. Its part of the plausible deny-ability of the situation and the groups behind it.

skunk

01-10-2010, 08:45 PM

Actually, I bet its been put out there already. Its part of the plausible deny-ability of the situation and the groups behind it.

Have you seen the south park episode "the mystery of the urinal deuce"?

Bush explains how he pulled it off lol.

Pretty interesting.

Stan: He was right. You DID cause 9/11.

Bush: Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked, when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania, then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives, then shot down all the witnesses of Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a Cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly-executed ever, ever.

script from urinal deuce (http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_10/episode_1009/epi1009script/)

anarch

01-10-2010, 11:46 PM

Meh, As I have thought about it from all the angels I can only see using real planes in any capacity as a risk.

If we accept that it was a controlled demolition than the risk of using a REAL pane becomes too great. The problems would include : The impact could/would Knock some explosives outta place OR the explosives might detonate early. Either case could cause a failure to collapse.

Building demolition is an exact science and note something that can be achieved with a crash and some gas. See below.

rIEBLdd6W3Q

If you don't put the explosives in the right place it don't come down.

Eyeforalie

01-11-2010, 12:21 AM

Stan: He was right. You DID cause 9/11.

Bush: Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked, when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania, then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives, then shot down all the witnesses of Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a Cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly-executed ever, ever.

script from urinal deuce (http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_10/episode_1009/epi1009script/)

Awesome. The urinal-duce theory. haha.

Im all about it.

Anarch, your dealing with people who's minds know no bounds. You really think Bush was behind this? If so, Im sorry. Why would they go through the trouble and risk of creating CGI? Thats totally bogus. There were holes in the buildings FFS and there were 2 planes. Two planes mean twice the possibility of testomony. I cant dig on that.

anarch

01-11-2010, 12:38 AM

Anarch, your dealing with people who's minds know no bounds. You really think Bush was behind this? If so, Im sorry. Why would they go through the trouble and risk of creating CGI? Thats totally bogus. There were holes in the buildings FFS and there were 2 planes. Two planes mean twice the possibility of testomony. I cant dig on that.

Indeed. The minds that hatched this plot know no bounds. But their is an established pattern.

The USS MAINE was not sunk by the as reported Spanish. Its Boilers exploded. It was still used as a false flag to enter into the Spanish American war.

The Gulf of Tonken never happened. We still went to Vietnam.

Their are more examples but I should hope that I don't have to point them out to establish the pattern.

Our government like many others is more than willing to commit atrocities against itself to garner the populaces support for the further atrocities of war.

Do I think Bush did it? No, he is to stupid. I don't mean that in any bad way but as a point of fact. The man can not remember basic "sayings".. I think he was complicit as in he knew what the plan was and did as he was told but no the plan was not formed by him.

Why would they go through the trouble and risk of creating CGI?

Because their is less risk in doing that than their is in using REAL humans and REAL planes. For starters planes can not tear through steal. The steal in the engines might do something but the wings, the fuselage , the majority of the plane is thin light weight metal.

The CGI was used to sell a lie.

The holes in the buildings came from internal charges. Not planes. If planes flew into the buildings their wake vortex would of followed into the buildings. A planes wake will follow a plane into a crash.

The evidence is against the plane not for.

Eyeforalie

01-11-2010, 12:55 AM

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 01:07 AM

Why would they go through the trouble and risk of creating CGI?

Because their is less risk in doing that than their is in using REAL humans and REAL planes. For starters planes can not tear through steal. The steal in the engines might do something but the wings, the fuselage , the majority of the plane is thin light weight metal.

The CGI was used to sell a lie.

The mathematics required for photorealistic, real-time, computer generated simulations overlayed on top of video did not exist in 2001.

There was nothing available at the time that could not have been proven as fake long before now.

Nice try, but 9/11 was 19 terrorists crashing 4 planes into 3 buildings, one of them was destroyed for one reason or another.

Not a single shred of evidence has ever been provided to the contrary.

If you want to talk about those 19 terrorists being sponsored or assisted by certain elements of the U.S. government, that's another conversation completely.

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:11 AM

The impact could/would Knock some explosives outta place OR the explosives might detonate early. Either case could cause a failure to collapse.

The holes in the buildings came from internal charges. Not planes. If planes flew into the buildings their wake vortex would of followed into the buildings. A planes wake will follow a plane into a crash.

^thats a direct contradiction.

No its not. Not in the context I put it. In the first quote I was explaining the problems of using real planes. In the second quote I was saying those holes came from explosives not panes. And following it up by mentioning the lack of wake...

Human life is just a toy to these people. Why not use planes? Na man, prove it was CGI. The evidence is there. There are multiple angles. If there is a discrepancy, it will only open the doors for more questions.

Yes your correct about life being a toy to those kinds of people but their is a reason not to use real planes. The first and formost being that real planes would not take down those buildings.

The design of those buildings was to snuff fires. The architects had already considered the possibility of planes hitting the building. No fire hoses would ever reach the upper floors so they engineered the upper building portion to be oxygen poor. Ventilation fixes this but in the event of a real crash the fire would consume itself.

Prove it was a CGI... I can try if your open and willing to accept the evidence. The only evidence we have to evaluate if the photos and videos. It is enough.

One thing this video goes into later and I will bring it up now so you can keep it in mind; No crash of any kind (car/boat/plane) is with out blow back. No one object can melt into another object there is always blow back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNU6xUuvgQc

sNU6xUuvgQc

There are more parts to this vid on youtube. More examples of TV fakery to. I do not agree with all of them. To my mind it was all CGI fakery. No missile no plane nothing that would of endangered the pre planted explosives.

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:18 AM

The mathematics required for photorealistic, real-time, computer generated simulations overlayed on top of video did not exist in 2001.

Your wrong Cog. I'm sorry but on this one your just wrong.

Yes I can prove it with a simple vid. A real plane has only one path of entry correct? And even when it is recorded from several different angles it will still have the same path of entry.

It will not appear to be flying from a down ward angle in some vids and from an upward angle in others vids.

The following vid shows many angles of approach and in some of the shots the plane will have different approach angles. This is not possible unless the plane was not real. The majority of the footage is unalterable mainstream media footage that can be double checked for accuracy.

ZPdcEnK4_qY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPdcEnK4_qY

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 01:27 AM

Your wrong Cog. I'm sorry but on this one your just wrong.

Yes I can prove it with a simple vid. A real plane has only one path of entry correct? And even when it is recorded from several different angles it will still have the same path of entry.

It will not appear to be flying from a down ward angle in some vids and from an upward angle in others vids.

The following vid shows many angles of approach and in some of the shots the plane will have different approach angles. This is not possible unless the plane was not real. The majority of the footage is unalterable mainstream media footage that can be double checked for accuracy.

The capability to generate real-time, photorealistic images was invented by NVidia coproration in 2003.

Computer generated graphics are mathematics. You have to have the mathematics invented and refined in order to produce the quality of images required for what you claim.

The mathematics did not exist until two years later, therefore it cannot be CGI.

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:31 AM

Another interesting vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZODt3ktR4

Note the missing building in the BBC vid that appears in the +1 vid... Also note how all the debris in the vids Never seem to hit any other building. In all the infinite possibility with so many other buildings around the debris always goes behind other buildings.

Then their is also the NY morning infamous Nose in Nose out footage.

HkZODt3ktR4

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:41 AM

The capability to generate real-time, photorealistic images was invented by NVidia coproration in 2003.

Computer generated graphics are mathematics. You have to have the mathematics invented and refined in order to produce the quality of images required for what you claim.

The mathematics did not exist until two years later, therefore it cannot be CGI.

Large bold text is not needed to make your point Cog. (and I mean that in the nicest possible way that text can only poorly translate ....after all I am not hissil-fit.) I understand what your saying. What I am saying is that the technology did exist before Nvidia copyrighted in 03.

Since you know this then you should also know that the cell phones (Not the airfones) could not of made those calls as alleged.

.............................................

Look ,either your open to what I can present and or your not. If you are open to it then that means watching the vids I can share. I will do my best. Let me go find the best vid I can. This will of taken me a good bit of time so I hope you will be willing to watch and consider.

Here I think this vid will do it. It focuses on the back rounds and on the CGI aspects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvH8VgN0r4k

cvH8VgN0r4k

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:08 AM

I understand what your saying. What I am saying is that the technology did exist before Nvidia copyrighted in 03.

Since you know this then you should also know that the cell phones (Not the airfones) could not of made those calls as alleged.

Not true.

Cell phones can make calls under 10,000 feet, which is the exact reason why TSA regulations now require all cell phones be turned off during take off and landing.

You cannot prove that the mathematics, much less the technology to take advantage of it, was in existence prior to 2003. The burden of proof is on you.

It's not a matter of being "open" to what you present, it's a matter of you being able to prove your theory.

You require being "open" because in actuality you have no real theory, nor any real proof. You therefore require the audience for your comments to fill in the blanks for you. That's how snake oil salesmen work.

Sorry, I'm not buying.

Paroxysm

01-11-2010, 02:15 AM

Cog how do you feel about these being the first 3 steel frame buildings to collapse due to open air fire....ever?

Infinite`Eternal`Forever

01-11-2010, 02:17 AM

My post was the truth. Fuck the rest (I know I just pulled a hissifit..but seriously it was)

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:25 AM

Cog how do you feel about these being the first 3 steel frame buildings to collapse due to open air fire....ever?
You mean how do I feel about two uniquely constructed, steel frame buildings with 20 year old fireproofing that collapsed due to a fire accelerated by 1,500 pounds of jet fuel and a structural integrity compromised by the impact of a 737 airliner?

I feel that it's an awful tragedy born in the minds of madmen.

WTC7 didn't fall down because of a plane crash, so that wasn't a part of the discussion as it stood.

Paroxysm

01-11-2010, 02:31 AM

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:45 AM

Not true.

Cell phones can make calls under 10,000 feet, which is the exact reason why TSA regulations now require all cell phones be turned off during take off and landing.

”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high.”
Washington Post, 12/9/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50320-2004Dec9.html)

“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”
San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL)

But this is neither here nor there for the subject at hand is the planes and lack there of and not the calls.

You cannot prove that the mathematics, much less the technology to take advantage of it, was in existence prior to 2003. The burden of proof is on you.

It's not a matter of being "open" to what you present, it's a matter of you being able to prove your theory.
I can only prove what your willing to accept. This is why I spoke on openness asking you to view that last vid. If you think the Empire State Building can appear on one side of the screen from one network and on the other side of the screen on another network with all the measurements mathematically pointing out the points of reference then this is not a mathematical matter but a matter of you refusing to accept the evidence that has been presented.

Especially when the two frames are super imposed over one another in 1:42. Take a ruler to your screen if you like.

You require being "open" because in actuality you have no real theory, nor any real proof. You therefore require the audience for your comments to fill in the blanks for you. No untrue. I require you to be open because if your not gonna watch the video or examine the photos then you are not gonna look at the only evidence we can draw conclusions from. The video and photographic evidence. I do not require the audience to fill in any blanks. I will counter incorrect presumptions. I can not counter the rational of a person who has made up there mind about the subject with a steadfast refusal to alter their opinion.

I can not "make you" change you mind. Your opinion is yours.

Sorry, I'm not buying.I know your not and thats sad. The only thing for sale is truth. All it costs is your attention. Not to me but to the Photos and vids.

The pane can only have one approach path not two or ore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9DrbqB9CVY

n9DrbqB9CVY

An aluminum plane can not "melt" into a steel building or any building for that matter with zero blow back. An Aluminum plane can not cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. Not at 500 miles and hour not at mach 2. An aluminum plane can not survive the crash into the building an come out the otherside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAK7-Q18KKg

wAK7-Q18KKg

But if your unwilling to be swayed by measurements and video then your mind is made up on the matter. No math I could prove will change it no "proof" will be enough. Your mind would be closed and the matter a moot point to discuss.

Watch the vids or don't its your choice.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:45 AM

Jet fuel can not combine with anything to produce molten iron...you're the supposed chemist and should already know that though.

There are also plenty of first hand accounts of explosions being heard (and felt) on sub levels of those 2 buildings.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96e411ee1edc.jpg

That image is out of context. The cuts were made during the cleanup... with thermite.

If you source that photo, you'll see it was taken well after 9/11.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:53 AM

”Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high.”
Washington Post, 12/9/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50320-2004Dec9.html)

“Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past.”
San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/15/MNGUMAC6LB1.DTL) Your information proves my point, exactly. Now it is up to you to prove that the calls were made at an altitude above 10,000 feet.

You were the one that brought up the cell phone calls, not me.

I can only prove what your willing to accept.Proof does not require a willingness to accept anything more than solid evidence to support a workable theory, period.

Watching a string of YouTube videos and saying "did you see that!??!" is not evidence, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

All your suggestions might prove is that two different crops or scales of the same video were employed, which is not unheard of by any means. Have you seen the original source footage, or only that which has been provided for your consumption by would-be conspiracy theorists?

Here's the funny thing about physics: it doesn't always look like you think it should when it's working properly.

The space shuttle Columbia was destroyed by a piece half pound piece of foam. No one thought it was possible except the physicists who worked out the equations. However, once the variables were reproduced in exact scale, lo and behold, the foam punched a 2ft hole in the leading edge of the shuttle wing through tile, steel and aluminum.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/columbia/

The collapse of the WTC is an almost exact analogy to the space shuttle Columbia disaster: physics in action defy common sense or observation without a full preponderance of all of the variables.

Paroxysm

01-11-2010, 02:56 AM

Those look like first responders to me....not "cleanup crew".

I am not saying that you are wrong, but you are merely asserting an opinion and you have no way to back up what you just said Cog.

century

01-11-2010, 02:57 AM

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:57 AM

Those look like first responders to me....not "cleanup crew".

I am not saying that you are wrong, but you are merely asserting an opinion and you have no way to back up what you just said Cog.
I've got debris from the WTC, for what it's worth.

The wife and I took a trip there in February of 2002 and went to Ground Zero. Our photos of it got destroyed in a flood, but I've still got the rubble and some police line tape as a souvenir.

As I said, Paroxysm, the photo is presented out of context.

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:58 AM

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 03:00 AM

Steven Jones lecture at University of Texas in Austin

(X-Ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy) analysis of WTC dust taken from the scene showing conclusively the presence of thermate (a hotter reaction than thermite) in iron sphericals. He shows the presence of Sulfer, Aluminium, and Iron in the exact concentrations used in Thermate reactions. This, according to Steven Jones, explains how molton steel was found in the debris since office debris and even JET-A fuel is not capable of melting steel. He is able to scientifically rule out other possibilities (including the torches used at ground zero during cleanup) and even shows the orange glow of the dripping steel that was videotapes pouring out of the WTC towers just 5 minutes before their collapse.

Jones does not prove that the material is melting steel, only presents the supposition required to prove his overall point. There were hundreds of tons of other metals that could have been reduced to a liquid within the WTC buildings. Jones's entire argument rests upon the single assumption that it was steel that was melting and that is never proven.

As I said, thermite was used at the WTC site from the first day of demolition. It's inclusion within the debris material proves nothing.

Paroxysm

01-11-2010, 03:01 AM

I've got debris from the WTC, for what it's worth.

Wow...really? Can I come over some time and touch it? :rolleyes:

I hope you bought a commemorative t-shirt or something. It's cool if you didn't I picked one up for you. I'll give it to you when you let me come touch your debris...

http://www.hallofcgc.com/t4.jpg

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 03:05 AM

http://www.kwtn-blue.com/images/2007/09/21/911_impact_2.jpg

No breaking plane parts. No bits of building and plane flying everywhere. No friction sparks. Total disregard of the law of physics. No respect to action/reaction. Hell between Engine and fuselage a dark black hole can not be observed.You are arguing that you didn't see what you think you should see without a single regard for the fact that what you think you should have seen is completely incongruous with the functioning of reality.

You say there's a total disregard for the laws of physics in those photos, yet the only one seeming to disregard the laws of physics is you.

Paroxysm

01-11-2010, 03:05 AM

http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

http://9eleven.info/MetalGlow.jpg

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2007/1017-moltenmetal.jpg

Out of context....right cog?

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 03:06 AM

Wow...really? Can I come over some time and touch it? :rolleyes:
I was just sharing some side commentary from a personal perspective.

I'll assume that your constant attention to the level of awesomeness of my exploits is some deformed attempt at masking your own jealousy.

Paroxysm

01-11-2010, 03:07 AM

That's it cog....wow you're insightful. :rolleyes:

I'm super duper jealous of you...how'd you guess? :rolleyes:

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 03:11 AM

Out of context....right cog?

Why would you think that that is molten steel when there are tons of non-molten steel lying right next to it?

Perhaps it isn't molten steel, but other metals reduced to molten form?

anarch

01-11-2010, 03:15 AM

You are arguing that you didn't see what you think you should see without a single regard for the fact that what you think you should have seen is completely incongruous with the functioning of reality.

You say there's a total disregard for the laws of physics in those photos, yet the only one seeming to disregard the laws of physics is you.

No Cogurn, You refuse to accept the possibility your wrong about this.

Watch a crash. Any crash. Of anything. Their is blow back Their is reaction.

Even in the next vid the moment the plane begins to hit wall their is a reaction. It does not happen half way into the wall but right away in second 24... By second 27 the blow back is over the wall and half the plane is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4

qR0f8n10DR4

At the EXACT SECOND OF IMPACT REACTION HAPPENS.

http://www.kwtn-blue.com/images/2007/09/21/911_impact_2.jpg

This plane is half way in and nothing is happening yet. If you know this clip then you know the plane will be totally swallowed before explosion begins.

The laws of crash dynamics are not respected.

And again no wake vortex is ever demonstrated. Even propeller planes have wake vortex. It is an effect of the wings not the engines.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 03:19 AM

No Cogurn, You refuse to accept the possibility your wrong about this.

Watch a crash. Any crash. Of anything. Their is blow back Their is reaction.
What you fail to understand is that anything you have yet produced is nothing close to being that represents the exact materials and composition of the structures in question. You are still stating what you expect to see, not an accurate analysis of the behavior of the specific objects in question, at scale.

The devil is in the details, and that is where the truth hides. Truthers fail to understand this simple concept of reality, and that is why you only see the lunatic fringe of any given profession supporting a "no plane" theory.

Comparing apples to oranges will get you nothing but eye strain and panic attacks.

anarch

01-11-2010, 03:41 AM

What you fail to understand is that anything you have yet produced is nothing close to being that represents the exact materials and composition of the structures in question. You are still stating what you expect to see, not an accurate analysis of the behavior of the specific objects in question, at scale.

The devil is in the details, and that is where the truth hides. Truthers fail to understand this simple concept of reality, and that is why you only see the lunatic fringe of any given profession supporting a "no plane" theory.

Comparing apples to oranges will get you nothing but eye strain and panic attacks.

I am not stating what I expect to see. I am stating Newtonian Law. Reaction happens at the exact second of impact and grows larger as force continues to drive impact.

Reaction does not wait for the whole plane to go in before it happens. That is the devil of the details.

A plane does not fly this far in with no reaction.

http://911review.org/_webimages/swallowplane/911plane.JPG

It is a violation of Newtonian Law.

anarch

01-11-2010, 03:55 AM

The shade does not match the sun light?

WTF?!?! Compare shade of the buildings from one shot to the next. Use the plane as a point of reference. Don't forget the shade of the above photo either.

http://septemberclues.info/images/GAMMAPRESSvsSEAN%20ADAIR.jpg

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:04 AM

I am not stating what I expect to see. I am stating Newtonian Law. Reaction happens at the exact second of impact and grows larger as force continues to drive impact.

Reaction does not wait for the whole plane to go in before it happens. That is the devil of the details.

A plane does not fly this far in with no reaction.
You say "no reaction," but what you mean specifically is "no reaction visible from the angle presented." This statement incorrectly implies that a reaction should be visible based upon the construction and materials of the object in question, which is simply not the case.

Again, you imply what "common sense" dictates you should be seeing, however the actual variables in question behave much differently in practice. That is the simple truth of the matter and you've done little else but restate it over and over again in different forms.

The shade does not match the sun light?

The cameras were obviously set at two different exposure settings and/or white balance. This is evident in the change in coloration from between the sun-ward facing sides of the building and other structures in both shots.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:06 AM

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:07 AM

??? Seriously? Just click properties. It is a still frame from September clues made by Simonshack

Also different color ratios do not adjust where shade is produced. The colors maybe screwy from this photo to that one but the shade will always be where the sun casts a shadow. No color ration will change that.

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:08 AM

You noticed the smoke goes behind one buildings and over the other didn't you.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:13 AM

??? Seriously? Just click properties.

No dude, the original source video from which these shots were taken.

I have viewed thousands of hours of 9/11 videos and photographs, both professional and amateur, and I have never seen that shot in that manner.

I want the exact and original film from which that image was extracted.

Anything else proves nothing other than that someone tampered with the video, not who.

I do not trust Truthers because I have seen them lie and falsify evidence.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 04:14 AM

nah....cogs granny saw it all....right cog?

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:17 AM

Nevermind... I'm being retarded.

The reason why the smoke in the video looks the way it does is a function of the freeze-frame of the video feed, not post-production editing or effects.

When the Gamma Press video is viewed at full speed the smoke appears properly three dimensional.

nah....cogs granny saw it all....right cog?

She sure did. It's the reason why 9/11 has any interest for me what-so-ever.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 04:18 AM

Looking at that graphic a bit further, I notice something funny happening with the smoke in the left hand images.

I'd want to see source material to prove that whoever created that collage didn't fuck with the images in order to prove their point.

shame your not so objective with some of NASA's work cog

just keep rotating the image, treat it like a black triangle

KIWI

01-11-2010, 04:22 AM

The devil is in the details, and that is where the truth hides.

I dont think it was hiding mate, the a-holes buried it

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:24 AM

I do not trust Truthers because I have seen them lie and falsify evidence.

And I have seen the exact same thing from PseudoSkeptics.

Kinda like saying different color ratios will make it "appear" like there is a shadow there when it aint. I know your not lying that the statement is your opinion on the matter... but again I can not help my own thought. If you pushed the red to max the shadow would be in the same place. If you put the red to 50 and max out the Green the shadows will still be in the same sopts... That or their was some fakery going on...

You hold on... I will go look for the originals. Not one shot in the photo is not something that can not be sourced... Although don't try calling the sources for verification .... They aren't allowed to talk about it. ;)

Ok off to look for the source material.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:24 AM

shame your not so objective with some of NASA's work cog

just keep rotating the image, treat it like a black triangle

You're an idiot. You rotate it until it fits or a better explanation comes along. Only the intellectually deficient folks that comprise the peanut gallery of the Anti-Cogburn Corps were the only ones expected SketchUp to make an exact duplicate of the photograph. My intent, as stated, was to approximate the image within an acceptable margin of error, which multiple folks did.

You choose to believe in monsters in the closet if you want to. I've got reality to deal with.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 04:29 AM

You're an idiot. You rotate it until it fits or a better explanation comes along. Only the intellectually deficient folks that comprise the peanut gallery of the Anti-Cogburn Corps were the only ones expected SketchUp to make an exact duplicate of the photograph. My intent, as stated, was to approximate the image within an acceptable margin of error, which multiple folks did.

You choose to believe in monsters in the closet if you want to. I've got reality to deal with.

hilarious, I tried to "coogle" it for an answer but got much the same rubbish as above

still a bit touchy after getting "owned" by Apollo huh?

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:29 AM

In the mean time while I look here is some video of photos and impacts.

Images are credited.

Watch the smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfXuaTeWaDc

UfXuaTeWaDc

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:32 AM

watch the shade of the buildings too

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:33 AM

And I have seen the exact same thing from PseudoSkeptics.

Kinda like saying different color ratios will make it "appear" like there is a shadow there when it aint. I know your not lying that the statement is your opinion on the matter... but again I can not help my own thought. If you pushed the red to max the shadow would be in the same place. If you put the red to 50 and max out the Green the shadows will still be in the same sopts... That or their was some fakery going on...

You hold on... I will go look for the originals. Not one shot in the photo is not something that can not be sourced... Although don't try calling the sources for verification .... They aren't allowed to talk about it. ;)

Ok off to look for the source material.
"Pseudo-skeptics" is a Truther word for people who require solid fact and, God forbid, reproduceable evidence. It is used liberally in order to justify their own lack of research and knowledge on the pertinent details being discussed.

When the science gets hard and the requirement of facts gets concrete, Truthers bail crying "pseudo-skeptic."

This is AmKon and that shit doesn't fly here.

You are again confusing apples and oranges. White balance and exposure are settings on the camera. Cheaper cameras adjust such settings automatically, while professional cameras allow for manual adjustment.

Color adjustment would be something particular to the camera in question, which would require the exact make and model used, or it would be a function of post-production.

The color comparison process is very similar to analyzing NASA images, a process which fails completely in the case of these photographs. This indicates to me that there is no evidence of color adjustment being used. The proof of this is easy to replicate: load both source images into the graphics editor of choice and manipulate the color balance until you find a match. Due to the fact that it is the exposure/white balance settings that are different between the images, you will not be able to find a match.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:34 AM

hilarious, I tried to "coogle" it for an answer but got much the same rubbish as above

still a bit touchy after getting "owned" by Apollo huh?

Still? Not hardly the case, although you've been gone a while. Folks have been trying to get a rise out of me with that nonsense for ages.

The only reason I addressed it at all is because it was you. I didn't realize you were still on your "Let's see if I can antagonize Cogburn" kick.

I'll make sure to ignore your future attempts as I have your previous ones.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 04:41 AM

chillax ya grumpy old fuck, you know I love you!

"Pseudo-skeptics" is a Truther word for people who require solid fact and, God forbid, reproduceable evidence

gonna be a bit difficult reproducing that act!

I would have though every scrap of that disaster would have been deemed crucial for an enquiry?

shame the thermite cut steel was shipped off and melted down before the smoke cleared

quite handy the trucks were ready and waiting

building 7 ????????? c'mon man

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:42 AM

.... Yeah... That shit does not fly here.... Your not watching the last vid I posted either.

I know this because I can source the left photo you asked about... Its a still frame from BBC world "gamma press".

Now a am gonna go back to watching it ... in the mean time I suggest you do the same.

Turn off the sound Watch the different flight approach paths. Watch how the smoke appears different from angle to angle... and watch the darn shadows.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:45 AM

building 7 ????????? c'mon man
I don't believe that the destruction of building 7 had anything to do with the true events of 9/11, and that there would have been a like disaster at that building had 9/11 happened or not.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 04:45 AM

theeindiee

01-11-2010, 04:46 AM

*shakes head and sighs*

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:49 AM

THe middle photo graph was taken by Scoot Meyers Copyrighted.

theeindiee

01-11-2010, 04:50 AM

Oh and shadows... As I walk in the Valley of the Shadow of Death, September 11th 2001 really don't matter much to me no more. All I see are Dead Americans.

*emo whimper*

anarch

01-11-2010, 04:55 AM

Lets see... I can source the First photo as a still frame from BBC world "gamma press" And the second photo to Scoot Meyers which is a copyrighted photo... And soon I will be able to confirm the third image as a still from ABC... (I think that is an ABC shoot waiting to confirm) And right as I am getting this far you leave Cogburn?

Jesus Fuck So much for being a Real skeptic... If it threatens your world view you stick your head in the ground and ignore the evidence in front of you?

Dude! Its ten itty bitty minutes. YOu send you spent thousands of hours on this. Whats ten more minutes?

From this one vid I can source the photos and Find the corresponding individual vids on youtube, veho, meta cafe, live leak, or from where ever else...

I verify the shit and you leave....

Weak.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 04:57 AM

I don't believe that the destruction of building 7 had anything to do with the true events of 9/11, and that there would have been a like disaster at that building had 9/11 happened or not.
__________________

not following m8

are you saying 7 was structually deficient?

or was gonna be dropped anyway as it housed the bullion and the dirt on Enron etc?

and that the alledged terrorist "fly-by" was coincidental?

if it is the first query, structual deficiency, how many other buildings of a similar elk are in the same situation?

to your knowledge has there been a national enquiry into all standing buildings that may suffer also?

cog it seems awful "odd" that it dropped perfectly into its own footprint?

that can only tell us that the fatal malfunction that occured, did so the same precise nano-second across the entire "cross-sectional" area of the building itself ?

anarch

01-11-2010, 05:15 AM

Damn it... I know the third shot is from a professional main stream documentary. I do believe it is "ABCs 911 we remember" But I did not see that shot (Dude did say he was missing two) in the previous vid so I am still looking for it.

So I have verified the source of to shots still looking for the third and Cog had bailed.

Hell just watch the one. THe last Vid I put up... There alone you can clearly see the plane has multiple approach angles. And the shadows change from clip to clip....

Can't be bothered to watch? So much for analytical skepticism.

anarch

01-11-2010, 05:34 AM

Jesus Christ I spent more time checking sources independently rather than going to the first photo source.

Sean Adair is photo on the right side. Photo 3. Photo 2 the middle photo is Scott Meyers and the last photo , Photo number 1 is BBC world. Photos 1 and 2 released from Gamma Press.

Now where is Cog?

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 05:35 AM

are you saying 7 was structually deficient?

or was gonna be dropped anyway as it housed the bullion and the dirt on Enron etc?

and that the alledged terrorist "fly-by" was coincidental?

No.

Yes.

Yes. I think that those that were planning on dropping the building simply utilized the opportunity when it presented itself, hence the seemingly long delay between the collapse of WTC1 & 2 and then building 7, as well as the warnings that were issued to first responders actively fighting the fires in the building prior to its collapse. WTC 1 & 2 are not necessarily the same conspiracy as WTC7.

@anarch: I'm not posting because I don't like to repeat myself. While you were scrambling around to find the sources of those shots I was able to explain the effect from watching the original Gamma Press footage at regular speed. Go read back through the thread.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 05:55 AM

Yes. I think that those that were planning on dropping the building simply utilized the opportunity when it presented itself, hence the seemingly long delay between the collapse of WTC1 & 2 and then building 7, as well as the warnings that were issued to first responders actively fighting the fires in the building prior to its collapse. WTC 1 & 2 are not necessarily the same conspiracy as WTC7.

quite plausible..... although a fairly long drawn-bow, no more so than some of mine I confess

to ever reach closure it would ,I spose , require a forensic investigation that has no show of reaching a conclusion, as the vast majority of material has been spirited away

an act of such unbelievable ruthlessness (the whole deal) that the bulk of the American public find it all but impossible to even consider

and if it was a deliberate operation, the dropping of the towers, the point above would be the greatest ally in getting clean away with it that the bad-guys could hope for

anarch

01-11-2010, 06:51 AM

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 06:57 AM

I dedicate this video to Cogburn, A True Believer (TM) of the 911 Propaganda. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories. Lies that shift the guilt away from the guilty.
You're a fool.

I don't believe you're unprovable theory because you are unable to present solid evidence, so I'm suddenly a True Believer(tm) in... what... reality?

A True Believer(tm) in physics? Until the LHC declares that the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, you bet ass I am, lock-stock-and-barrel.

A True Believer(tm) that three months prior to 9/11 Dick Armitage passed $100,000 in cash to Osama Bin Laden via contacts in the Pakistani I.S.I., the details of which were reported on at length by The Times of India, but ignored by the Western press? Abso-fucking-lutely.

A True Believer(tm) in the fact that our five senses and our rational ability are insufficient to explain complex events without a full appreciation of the variables? Take it to the bank and cash it.

Do I believe that there were no planes employed on 9/11 and some sort of mass hysteria/hypnotism/CGI/magic was involved? I find that about as likely as their use of Rife technology to topple the WTC.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 07:07 AM

century

01-11-2010, 07:09 AM

KIWI

01-11-2010, 07:12 AM

polishing my swiss-army-spoon as we speak

century

01-11-2010, 07:14 AM

http://www.gwjokes.com/pictures/tali-bush.jpg

century

01-11-2010, 07:15 AM

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2008/01/0115_george_bush_getty.jpg

century

01-11-2010, 07:16 AM

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/12/04/Bush%20%20&%20Clinton.jpg

Coke buddies

century

01-11-2010, 07:17 AM

As you can see in the background the brothas love gettin high with these 2

KIWI

01-11-2010, 07:18 AM

lol cent....what a crack-up

century

01-11-2010, 07:18 AM

http://baroqueinhackney.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/george-bush2.jpgWe need a war on drugs

anarch

01-11-2010, 07:22 AM

You're a fool.

I don't believe you're unprovable theory because you are unable to present solid evidence, so I'm suddenly a True Believer(tm) in... what... reality?

Awww Now thats just rude. :thumright:

Your a True Believer (TM) because despite the video and photographic evidence against you are unwilling or incapable of accepting the facts in front of your eyes.

In this thread their are pentagon photos showing a distinct lack of a 757 plane sized hole. There are photos showing the flight 93 strip mining scar and where the forest burned and photos allegedly taken semi immediately after impact with no forest fire, no burned grass , no massive mess of plane parts.

Their are vids showing multiple approaches of flight 175 coming in at different angles , with buildings displaying different shade anomalies and smoke also showing strange anomalies.

Their is the physical evidence of the fact that they were light weight hollow aluminum cans. The buildings were made of steel and concrete. Aluminum will never tear through steel not in any reality. I tried to explain crash dynamics and Newtonian Law about action and reaction. How from the moment of impact REACTION begins. I showed a nice jet crashing into a concrete wall to show my point and nice pics and vids showing a Flight 175 melting into a building with no Reaction until after the plane is mostly consumed......

The evidence is against.

But you believe the Official Story (TM)

That makes you a True Believer (TM)

The Gulf of Tonken was faked. The USS Maine was a false flag. 911 is no different. You believe otherwise. :rolleyes:

anarch

01-11-2010, 07:24 AM

great vid.....if indeed the whole deal was rigged I dont think they ever really cared about getting away with it forever

I think there is some nasty shit upcoming for our planet , that will make that little episode pale by comparrissom

True and True. They did not need to get away with it forever. Just long enough for people to stop caring enough to be willing to do anything about it.

TO quote IEF 911 was so 911 ago. Fucked up.

But real.

What will the future bring... I don't know... but shit like this tends to be over shadowed by what comes next.

KIWI

01-11-2010, 07:28 AM

wag the dog.....go on, he wont bite

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 07:39 AM

Awww Now thats just rude. :thumright:

Your a True Believer (TM) because despite the video and photographic evidence against you are unwilling or incapable of accepting the facts in front of your eyes.

In this thread their are pentagon photos showing a distinct lack of a 757 plane sized hole. There are photos showing the flight 93 strip mining scar and where the forest burned and photos allegedly taken semi immediately after impact with no forest fire, no burned grass , no massive mess of plane parts.

I have personally destroyed the no-plane/missile Pentagon theory, and the evidence of such still exists at ATShit to this day. Search my posts under "cogburn". I refuse to have that debate again, so just go read what I posted in direct confrontation with the progenitors of that nonsense. All of my photoanalysis is complete with instructions for reproduction, including the source images, and in complete accordance with Truther provided eye-witness statements. You can reproduce my exact steps and see the results for yourself. That's science.

I also illustrated how the mathematical analysis provided for the Pentagon fly-off theory as proffered by others is physically impossible and their graphical renditions of the mathematics are not just misleading, they are completely false in order to show exactly what they intend, not what the mathematics dictates. That's not science.

I am one smart, crafty sunuvabitch that refuses to take anyone's word for anything.

If there's no missile, the plane was on radar, and there was no fly-off, the plane hit the Pentagon, nevermind the fact that you ignore the actual physical evidence that indicates the correct damage pattern as witnessed.

Sorry that threatens your Alex Jones fantasy-land, but it just so happens to be the plain, simple truth.

Unfortunately what you're missing in the process of focusing on such lies is the actual conspiracy that took place. That's the real shame of all Truther nonsense: they all ignore the truth staring them in the face for the likes of Lear-esque evidence because it makes for a much better blog post.

anarch

01-11-2010, 07:58 AM

I am one smart, crafty sunuvabitch that refuses to take anyone's word for anything.

Indeed. This means ignoring the fact that planes that can ignite fires that bring down buildings fails to ignite grass in Shanksville.

It means crash dynamics , Action Reaction , need not apply to everything.

That aluminum that cuts through steel can be reproduced.

Just because your smart does not make you above being wrong.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 08:12 AM

Indeed. This means ignoring the fact that planes that can ignite fires that bring down buildings fails to ignite grass in Shanksville.

It means crash dynamics , Action Reaction , need not apply to everything.

That aluminum that cuts through steel can be reproduced.

Just because your smart does not make you above being wrong.

You never mentioned Shanksville. The plane was destroyed in mid air which explains the enormous debris pattern, its spread density, and the lack of a major impact point.

The USAF shot that plane down and did not want to own up to it for fear of the negative reaction of the American population at shooting down their own aircraft.

Given the reaction of the right-wing in hindsight, such a decision would have proved rather wise.

Notice that the commentary regarding a USAF shootdown is not refuted all that vehemently by officials as are other theories.

There's a conspiracy there, all right, but I'm not sure it's the one you intend.

anarch

01-11-2010, 08:48 AM

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s-full.jpg

This Tire survived a fireball and the steel mesh of a building to land gently on the curb. The rubber is not even a little melted.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel-full.jpg

This tire also survived the fireball but could not quite make it through the steel mesh despite not being attached to its axle. Again it is not even melted.

Another photo of super tire in spoiler below.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wheelinbrokensteelcolumns.jpg/wheelinbrokensteelcolumns-full.jpg

Now the following is even MORE extraordinary. We are talking about a fire that weakend steel to its critical load bearing strength.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTCDebrisSeatCushionAA11.tiff/WTCDebrisSeatCushionAA11-full.jpg

This foam seat did not burn up. It did not melt. Through steel and concrete and office fixtures this would land on the roof of the Liberty Plaza with only a few singes.

The rubber life preserver would fair even better.

Most amazing though is that infamous passport.

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpg

Either in a luggage or on his person. Either way it freed itself from its spot did not stop for fireball or stuff and would land on the ground to be found by a passer by and turned in to the on scene FBI.

http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/facade-intacte-s.jpg

Here we have a hole not big enough for the fire truck to get through let alone a 757 plane! Where is the Plane sized hole?! Where is the freaking plane parts? I do not think it was a missile. Thats not likely but it damn sure was not a 757 Commercial Jet!

How about an earlier photo?
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/9793/earlypentagonc6yj.jpg

No hole big enough for a 757 here. No plane parts on that lawn...

WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!

And some folks still by the Official Story hook line and sinker.

anarch

01-11-2010, 08:50 AM

You never mentioned Shanksville.

Yes I mentioned Shanksville

http://amkon.net/showpost.php?p=323011&postcount=65

Ducky

01-11-2010, 09:46 AM

The mathematics required for photorealistic, real-time, computer generated simulations overlayed on top of video did not exist in 2001.

What are the 'possibilites' that covert technology could have been used (Black ops, military etc) and hid/continually hide this from the public?

I'm not gonna pull a Lear with this one...just covering plausible angles is all.

What gets me, is the 'terrorist passport' that survived somewhat unscathed when the towers came down in a firey heap. I would have thought that THAT would be one of the first things to dissolve upon impact.

Another thing that bugs the shit outta me, is that there was hardly anything left of the planes in the 'Shanksville field and Pentagon' crashes. There's a lot of shit that doesn't add up overall.

The whole escapade smacks of rediculousness it's not fit.

I remember having this convo with Wraith back when, and to say that the jet fuel 'melted' the internal structures; causing a collapse was CRAZY! We talked about the 'pancake affect' of controlled demos. I'm of the contention that it was just that.

Let me see if I can pull up the pic of where a survivor was standing in the gaping maw (just after the plane hit)

If the heat was THAT unbearable, how in the hell could someone be able to literally stand in that area?

anarch

01-11-2010, 09:49 AM

http://amkon.net/picture.php?albumid=4&pictureid=173

:D

Its in my photo album here.

The purple arrow points to the people

Ducky

01-11-2010, 09:51 AM

http://amkon.net/picture.php?albumid=4&pictureid=173

:D

Its in my photo album here.

The purple arrow points to the people

God bless!!!

There ya have it folks!

Thanks Anarch :D

Ducky

01-11-2010, 10:02 AM

And what are the chances that the vibrations of the collapsing tower would 'somehow' bring down ANOTHER WTC (building 7?) just around the corner of the 2 towers?

There were older buildings in the vacinity, one would think that the structural integrity of these would have been affected as well to the point of having a domino effect. But no.

So that points out something else in my mind. Structural integrity. If the older buildings in the area remained intact, just how shoddilly built were the WTC towers et al?

Like I said, this seemed to me, a 'planned event' from the get go.

skunk

01-11-2010, 12:54 PM

Not true.

Cell phones can make calls under 10,000 feet, which is the exact reason why TSA regulations now require all cell phones be turned off during take off and landing.

What's the maximum airspeed a cellphone can maintain service, based on 2001 technology?

I imagine not all that fast.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 12:57 PM

Ground coverage is different than
air coverage.

No obstacles.

And, IIRC, cell phones would work
up to roughly 50k feet.

Plus, all but two of the calls were
made from the in-plane phones, not
cells.

skunk

01-11-2010, 12:58 PM

Do you have a source for that? I trust you, but I'd like to vet it on my own :D

Lexion

01-11-2010, 12:59 PM

Source for which ?

Going off memory, but I'm
more than happy to look.

It'll give me something to do.

:D

skunk

01-11-2010, 01:04 PM

A source for how fast/high up a cellphone will work if you can find it. I have been having no such luck.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 01:10 PM

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.

Source (http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wireless_final_contact/)

I'm still looking.

skunk

01-11-2010, 01:15 PM

That's a start thanks lex.

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:21 PM

Based on 2001???

in 2001 people still used pagers.

http://digg.com/tech_news/How_the_9_11_Pagers_Got_Hacked

Just to give ya another perspective.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 01:39 PM

the one thing that strikes me about the phone calls is this.

traveling at that speed, they would have to switch between sites.

there should be a record somewhere for which ones, and all of the sites probably wouldnt "keep" the call active.

how many sites would depend on the duration of the call.

again, in 02 i started flying back and forth alot to lax from phi.

the phone rarely ever worked after takeoff.

of course, having to turn it off, then on when climbing, i may have been a bit higher than these flights were.

a few times after way too many heinekens, ive forgotten to turn it off, and didnt really get any voice mail notices until we were around maybe 1000/2000 ft.

thats not scientific atall, just a guess from the cloud level.

i know the call was placed after taking off from a stopover by the time stamp, maybe 45 min before landing, and a few minutes after breaking the cloud bank, and approaching the runway, i got the vm notification.

for better insight to my elevation, i could barely make out the runway at lax.

i could figure what it was by the layout, but couldnt really tell how many planes were on the ground, small things of that nature.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 01:41 PM

Ok, this is Wiki......

The first 1G network launched in the USA was Chicago based Ameritech in 1983 using the famous first hand-held mobile phone Motorola

So, we've had cells since '83.

Old tech, in '01.

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa20/Lexion07/mobile.jpg

So, in '01 almost 60% of the
developed world had cell phones.

People flying are more likely than
bums to have cells, at this point.

(I'm building references)

Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events.

"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.

(emphasis mine)

Source (http://news.cnet.com/Cell-phones-to-take-flight---page-2/2100-1039_3-5727009-2.html?tag=st.next)

At this point, I find the cell
phones a non-issue.

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:42 PM

However, these assertions have already been invalidated by an FBI investigation presented at the 2006 Massaoui trial. The FBI established that in 2001 it was materially impossible to make a cell phone connection at that flying altitude and, what is more, that the telephone companies had no record of any telephone activity for either of these clients.

http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/terror/121983-september-11-2001-flight-aa77-could-not-have-been-hijacked

No better link to be found at this time...But apparently the story changed from lots of folks using cell phones to only two people using cell phones.... Apparently almost everyone used an Air Fone that day ...and the hi jackers did not mind in the least.

And why would they? after all aint their some transcripts of the HI jackers radioing air traffic control themselves?

MissA

01-11-2010, 01:46 PM

My cell service sucked in 2001. It still sucks in parts of the country now and I have that Verizon-we'll follow you anywhere BS plan. Apparently Maine does not exist in "anywhere"

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:47 PM

A valid issue to consider... Did the shanksville area even have coverage in 01...of any kind....It kind strikes me as a bum fuck nowhere area.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 01:56 PM

A valid issue to consider... Did the shanksville area even have coverage in 01...of any kind....It kind strikes me as a bum fuck nowhere area.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.

Source (http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wireless_final_contact/)

Very good article.

Second time I've quoted it.

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:56 PM

An interesting site. http://antennaguy.com/Maps.html

MissA

01-11-2010, 01:57 PM

anarch

01-11-2010, 01:59 PM

Yes, but...that could also be corporate propaganda. I lived in the DC Metro area and during that time my cell went out near Ft Belvoir and Quantico along the 95 corridor. I doubt you could say that DC was less "metropolitan" than areas along that flight path.

YOu know I was just reading about your complaint here http://cellphoneforums.net/

Anyone wanna volunteer to troll their forum for a second and ask a few questions?

Lexion

01-11-2010, 01:59 PM

Yes, but...that could also be corporate propaganda.

Classic paranoia head-in-the-sand.

Presented with facts, they come up
with alternative, less likely scenarios.

I've been in this game over 20 years,
MissA.

Granted it was mainly UFOlogy, but the
same ways of investigation apply.

The same "dig a deeper hole for paranoia"
seems to apply, as well.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 02:02 PM

YOu know I was just reading about your complaint here http://cellphoneforums.net/

Anyone wanna volunteer to troll their forum for a second and ask a few questions?

i got nothing but time.....

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:06 PM

However, these assertions have already been invalidated by an FBI investigation presented at the 2006 Massaoui trial. The FBI established that in 2001 it was materially impossible to make a cell phone connection at that flying altitude and, what is more, that the telephone companies had no record of any telephone activity for either of these clients.

http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/terror/121983-september-11-2001-flight-aa77-could-not-have-been-hijacked

That article is unsubstantiated bullshit.

P4T has manipulated data and information to prove their theories in the past and no evidence from them should be trusted on face value.

As for the Pentagon nonsense you posted, it's worth noting that you didn't bother to read the existing information that I offered to you earlier.

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:06 PM

Classic paranoia head-in-the-sand.

Presented with facts, they come up
with alternative, less likely scenarios.

Seriously?

And your explanation for the planes going in from different angles is?

I mean in some shots the plane flies down from above...in others its a horizontal strait shot...And their are more variations depending on whos vid your watching...

Explanation?

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:07 PM

That article is unsubstantiated bullshit.

P4T has manipulated data and information to prove their theories in the past and no evidence from them should be trusted on face value.

As for the Pentagon nonsense you posted, it's worth noting that you didn't bother to read the existing information that I offered to you earlier.

Shot me post link like I shot you earlier.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 02:09 PM

Seriously?

And your explanation for the planes going in from different angles is?

Digital manipulation to fit some
delusional theories.

Hmmmm....wait.

Do you suggest holograms, too ?

If so, can't have both.

Was it aircraft, or holograms ?

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:12 PM

Digital manipulation to fit some
delusional theories.

Hmmmm....wait.

Do you suggest holograms, too ?

If so, can't have both.

Was it aircraft, or holograms ?

Your right, you can't have both and the answer is neither.

CGI all the way. No missiles no planes just computer graphics and a complicit media...

Great thing about the digital age... Its all archived... We dont forgive we dont forget its all in here forever....One of these days you'll take of your hat and see it too.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:12 PM

Shot me post link like I shot you earlier.

It's at ATShit, as I mentioned.

CIT Witness Account + Security Video Potentially Prove Aircraft Strikes Pentagon AND NoC Theory

Originally I started out with the intent to prove the smoke from the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was dispersed by the explosion based on image analysis alone since the OP didn't want to conduct a scaled phyiscal test and I still felt like playing Devil's Advocate.

I take some pretty harsh shots at 9/11 CTs so I want to put myself out there as well and afford myself the same level of peer review. I'd also like to use this as an example of how just resizing images and running them through Photoshop filters is not all there is to image analysis. I'd also like to use this as an opportunity to prove how if you allow hard evidence to back up eye witness accounts, the story tells itself and it may not be what you ever thought. This is in opposition to the popular notion of attempting to prove a theory by eye witness accounts alone and/or by including (or excluding for that matter) facts not in evidence or not born out by reproducable analysis.

I would also ask right now that any further discussion be kept on topic, scholarly, and most importantly... civil.

Now Open Your Mind.

What The Theory Is
------------------
Frame 1 of security camera 2 as leaked by the AP in 2002 does indeed show evidence of a aircraft about to strike the Pentagon while remaining consistent with the account of Robert Turcios and thereby supporting one eye witness account of the "North of CITGO" scenario.

To boil it down further: I have documentable evidence and one eye witness account that supports my conclusion.

What the Theory Is NOT
----------------------
I do NOT say this is a 757.
I do NOT say this is Flight 77.
I do NOT say this is a commerical aircraft.
I do NOT say that I cannot be 100% wrong.

The Account of Robert Turcios
-----------------------------

From "The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007)"

@19:30 Robert gives his account...
@23:45 Robert says "I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon. All I saw was it headed straight to it, and uh, then the big explosion... the fireball and lots of smoke."

Ranke asks about him seeing the impact to which Robert responds:
"The view was obstructed, I could only see the fireball."

Robert Turcios said his view of the planet at impact was obstructed and could not see the impact. He said he saw the plane lift up "a little bit" (24:15).

The Turcios interview is actually the 2nd video interview offered on the video and was the best conducted interviews. The questions were open ended and Turcios was allowed to give his account without prompting or correction (ie Lagasse). Also unlike other witnesses (the Asian gentleman interviewed first in that video is another), after giving the initial position of the plane above the CITGO the position of the plane only changes by a few feet as he looks at the scenery and fine tunes his account.

Listen to the rest of Turcios's account. When asked about the plane flying over the Pentagon his voice changes notably to a tone of surprise and then replies "No, no I did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon". This is already after he has indicated that he was in the absolute perfect position to witness the plane at such a dramatic angle.

Unfortunately there was no tape measure around so without further evidence the account cannot be verified by Turcios' tale alone.

Follow the link for more. Enjoy.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 02:13 PM

CGI all the way. No missiles no planes just computer graphics and a complicit media...

You really are insane, huh ?

Every fucking media outlet
that filmed it was complicit ?

Every New Yorker that saw
the planes were lying ?

Dude, apply Brer Occam.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:14 PM

Your right, you can't have both and the answer is neither.

CGI all the way. No missiles no planes just computer graphics and a complicit media...

Great thing about the digital age... Its all archived... We dont forgive we dont forget its all in here forever....One of these days you'll take of your hat and see it too.

The other great thing about the digital age is how 99.9% of people living within it don't understand how it works.

Conspiracy theory takes that ball and runs with it.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 02:17 PM

Your right, you can't have both and the answer is neither.

CGI all the way. No missiles no planes just computer graphics and a complicit media...

Great thing about the digital age... Its all archived... We dont forgive we dont forget its all in here forever....One of these days you'll take of your hat and see it too.

there may have been some manipulation, but how do we know that the videos that point them out havent been manipulated, also?

im of an open mind, and dont subscribe to any real theory here.

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:26 PM

It's at ATShit, as I mentioned.

Follow the link for more. Enjoy.

I started to read a little bit there. Kinda nutty of you to expect me to go through mountains of data in moments of time. Sheesh...Yea I did read some of your stuff there... Now How about give the one vid with the measurements a second look..maybe apply your own ruler?...IDK..

captainkiwi

01-11-2010, 02:26 PM

CGI........ give me a break ..... get a grip

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 02:28 PM

I started to read a little bit there. Kinda nutty of you to expect me to go through mountains of data in moments of time. Sheesh...Yea I did read some of your stuff there... Now How about give the one vid with the measurements a second look..maybe apply your own ruler?...IDK..

I didn't require you to knee-jerk respond without reviewing the information. The thread will still be here when you're done.

I've already told you that the difference in size may be related to the focal length of the cameras taking the image. The image would therefore be distorted beyond comparison. How about you find out what the focal length was set at for those cameras and then we can see if the images are scaled appropriately for those values?

Holding a ruler up to my monitor doesn't prove anything, dude.

mur

01-11-2010, 02:30 PM

I have no real theory on 911, but I do have some suspicions.

I don't believe it was an inside job, but I do believe they knew it was coming.

I don't believe the Jet fuel fire alone brought down the towers....the building was probably rigged to collapse with thermite so to control the collapse...the Towers were a known target after all.

The 911 commission was a farce.

The real truth of 911 is not known, and troubling questions remain.

Again I don't believe it was an inside job, but the MIC/IC certainly benefited.

anarch

01-11-2010, 02:35 PM

You really are insane, huh ?

Every fucking media outlet
that filmed it was complicit ?

Every New Yorker that saw
the planes were lying ?

Dude, apply Brer Occam.

Really?

A still From the Michal Hazakari vid.

http://pal2pal.com/BLOGEE/images/uploads/09-11-01_flight_175_hits_south_tower.jpg

A still from the Tina Carot Vid.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/911_flight175.jpg

I think this one is an NBC still....

http://edit.81x.com/Authors/TruthExplosion/dive1.jpg

and one of seans

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/10/06/article-1218401-0558BA6A0000044D-221_468x554.jpg

ONE MORE from the AP

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1031115940768_2002/09/06/wld_worldtrade07.jpg

All widespread mainstream. We don't have to lie. We just accept what is out there. Its not manipulated. Don't insist upon because you don't like it.
If you are gonna claim that any of the pictures are fake then the burden of proof regarding that claim would fall onto you.

Nobody thinks the Spanish sunk the USS MAINE anymore. But it is a bit late to do much about it.

.................................................. .................
I swear these some of these photos look like bigfoots baby.

skunk

01-11-2010, 02:36 PM

Not that I agree with anarch's statement, but the media typically agrees with the government's "official" story no matter what it is.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 02:54 PM

Not that I agree with anarch's statement, but the media typically agrees with the government's "official" story no matter what it is.

and are paid to do so.

Jackinthebox

01-11-2010, 03:27 PM

Did 2 planes hit the towers? Was the pentagon hit with a cruise missile? Was the plane shot down in shanksville?

So many questions, none have really been answered to my satisfaction.

No airliner at Shanksville or Pentagon. There was one plane at WTC. Possibly two. But the buildings were wired up, as was WTC 7.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 03:35 PM

No airliner at Shanksville or Pentagon. There was one plane at WTC. Possibly two. But the buildings were wired up, as was WTC 7.

heres a question, jack. were you in ny then?

did you witness any of it, or aftermath?

not pokin at you, just curious.

maybe you could add a little insight to this if you saw anything.

not the first time ive heard that only one plane hit there.

anarch

01-11-2010, 03:38 PM

Good question as hes a new yorker. Were you in new york at the time jack? Enquiring minds wanna know. Because I forgot and others wanna know too.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 03:47 PM

i forgot too, if he was im sure hell add something of worth.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 06:58 PM

heres a question, jack. were you in ny then?

did you witness any of it, or aftermath?

not pokin at you, just curious.

maybe you could add a little insight to this if you saw anything.

not the first time ive heard that only one plane hit there.

As KIWI pointed out, my grandmother witnessed both impacts. She was also present for the entirety of the events that day, and was located half a block from the WTC when it fell. When the towers collapsed, bits of debris blocked the exit to her building and we didn't know if she was still alive until we saw her in the background of a news report from later that afternoon.

From her eyewitness recount of the day's events to me, one plane hit each of the WTC towers.

There are thousands of New Yorkers that backup this claim, and only a percentage of a percentage have actually had their stories told in the MSM.

guinnessford

01-11-2010, 07:54 PM

As KIWI pointed out, my grandmother witnessed both impacts. She was also present for the entirety of the events that day, and was located half a block from the WTC when it fell. When the towers collapsed, bits of debris blocked the exit to her building and we didn't know if she was still alive until we saw her in the background of a news report from later that afternoon.

From her eyewitness recount of the day's events to me, one plane hit each of the WTC towers.

There are thousands of New Yorkers that backup this claim, and only a percentage of a percentage have actually had their stories told in the MSM.

good enough for me.

then again, ive never really worried about the planes, cgi, media...its always been about why and how it happened.

like a dead body, doesnt really concern me if it was beat to death or stabbed, just that its a dead body.

too much time is spent bickering about that shit.

ON PURPOSE

Jackinthebox

01-11-2010, 08:45 PM

heres a question, jack. were you in ny then?

did you witness any of it, or aftermath?

not pokin at you, just curious.

maybe you could add a little insight to this if you saw anything.

not the first time ive heard that only one plane hit there.

I saw it from a long way off. My Dad was there. Guy I knew was a firefighter who died there. Was there at GZ many times afterward. I can still smell it. And so much ash, even months later. Stuck to the street and in crevasses.

The "no plane" theory has some teeth to it from what I have seen, but I know people who saw the first plane hit. So that is all that I can "confirm" to my satisfaction.

EDIT to add: "No plane" evidence may actually be part of a different conclusion that we don't understand, other than no plane. For example, if they used cgi to show impact, it might have just been to sell news. Or because people would expect it, so they "had to" fabricate evidence for something that actually happened. SO many possibilities to consider when you know the story we were handed is complete BS.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 09:07 PM

"No plane" evidence may actually be part of a different conclusion that we don't understand, other than no plane. For example, if they used cgi to show impact, it might have just been to sell news. Or because people would expect it, so they "had to" fabricate evidence for something that actually happened. SO many possibilities to consider when you know the story we were handed is complete BS.
Such makes for the subject of Truther blogfodder.

The insistence upon accusations of super-complex schemes of trickery and deceit strikes me as more astounding than the actual 9/11 plot, itself.

Imagine, for a moment, the hundreds of people required to pull off such a stunt. The eyeball logistical requirements of faking 9/11 far exceed those of just ramming the planes into the building in the first place, much less the challenges in coordination and execution.

Occam wins again.

The only hoax surrounding 9/11 is Truther movement, its profiteers, and their denial of reality.

If the Truthers are right, they shouldn't be afraid of such savvy folks executing a universal healthcare plan, right?

theeindiee

01-11-2010, 09:14 PM

Such makes for the subject of Truther blogfodder.

The insistence upon accusations of super-complex schemes of trickery and deceit strikes me as more astounding than the actual 9/11 plot, itself.

Imagine, for a moment, the hundreds of people required to pull off such a stunt. The eyeball logistical requirements of faking 9/11 far exceed those of just ramming the planes into the building in the first place, much less the challenges in coordination and execution.

Occam wins again.

The only hoax surrounding 9/11 is Truther movement, its profiteers, and their denial of reality.

If the Truthers are right, they shouldn't be afraid of such savvy folks executing a universal healthcare plan, right?

Why do yo insist on being such a FUCKING Reptilioid Masonic Jewmonster from space? It's OBVIOUS that YOU planned 9/11, and just happened to think it was really funny to fuck with the spacetime continuum the day before, so the old emergency number of 1-800-uh-oh-duh was replaced by 911 in everones past and futre memory and experience.

Very funny. We all laughed. I saw the first plane hit the tower, and I was like "Oh pfft nice one, Cog. Whattya up to this time? Enslaving the world with microchips and one world skynet robot government again? That's like sooooo 50 parallel universes sideways and diagonal ago."

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 09:25 PM

+1 and a screenshot for being the first person to accuse me of being responsible for 9/11.

Jackinthebox

01-11-2010, 09:26 PM

Such makes for the subject of Truther blogfodder.

The insistence upon accusations of super-complex schemes of trickery and deceit strikes me as more astounding than the actual 9/11 plot, itself.

Imagine, for a moment, the hundreds of people required to pull off such a stunt. The eyeball logistical requirements of faking 9/11 far exceed those of just ramming the planes into the building in the first place, much less the challenges in coordination and execution.

Occam wins again.

The only hoax surrounding 9/11 is Truther movement, its profiteers, and their denial of reality.

If the Truthers are right, they shouldn't be afraid of such savvy folks executing a universal healthcare plan, right?

I do see your point, and it is certainly a foundation to base all evidence against.

Why make extra work for yourself when you can accomplish the mission more easily some other way? But I have no doubt that there was a complex conspiracy, with many people, with many goals.

THe truth rests in the balance.

Cogburn

01-11-2010, 09:33 PM

Why make extra work for yourself when you can accomplish the mission more easily some other way? But I have no doubt that there was a complex conspiracy, with many people, with many goals.

I think that this is about as accurate a statement as one can make without making all kinds of outlandish assumptions.

We know that Dick Armitage gave Bin Laden cash at least once.

We know that WTC7 had no reason to fall on 9/11, however it had plenty reason to fall if you were an Enron executive, not to mention a plethora of other na'er-do-wells.

We know that the 19 hijackers are dead, although there was rumor for a time that they were not, but that has since been resolved as mistaken identity down to the last.

We know that the plane in Shanksville could not have possibly be destroyed by an impact with the ground.

We know that all of the passengers of those planes are dead.

We know that the rubble of WTC1 and WTC2 were destroyed wholesale prior to detailed forensic analysis.

If you just stop there, there's about five real conspiracies, supported by real facts that remain nearly ignored for the sake of holographic planes and cruise missiles.

Lexion

01-11-2010, 09:34 PM

THe truth rests in the balance.

The Truth is, the CT'ers are
too afraid to admit that some
guys in caves got the best
of us.

It happened.

Grieve, learn and move on.

Jackinthebox

01-11-2010, 09:42 PM

Excellent points Cog. And of course the whole direction of the war and scandals that came with it as well.

But let me go out into CT left field here with this one.

We know that all of the passengers of those planes are dead.

There were 260 people on board the planes who were rported killed on 9/11.

Two months and a day after 9/11, 260 people were killed when Flight 587 fell out of the sky into Queens NY. Coincidence? Quite possibly. But enough of one to give me pause.

Jackinthebox

01-11-2010, 09:47 PM

The Truth is, the CT'ers are
too afraid to admit that some
guys in caves got the best
of us.

It happened.

Grieve, learn and move on.

I don't believe that. And not because I am too arrogant as an American to believe that, or too sad. But the facts show that it was more complex than that. I would sooner believe that Oswold acted alone.

Truth be told, I really DO wish it were that simple, that some "bad guys" from the other side of the planet did this.

Eyeforalie

01-11-2010, 09:50 PM

I would sooner believe that Oswold acted alone.

How bout it wasn't Oswald at all?

Jackinthebox

01-11-2010, 10:14 PM

How bout it wasn't Oswald at all?

Good possibility.

I saw something somewhere in the past few days of an alternate theory.

Oswald was just sitting there looking out the window at the motorcade, enjoying the day. Then, "Oh shit, oh my god, look at that guy on the grassy knoll!"

He fired a few shots at the real assasin, with the rifle he just happened to have after getting it fixed.

Cogburn

01-12-2010, 12:33 AM

Two months and a day after 9/11, 260 people were killed when Flight 587 fell out of the sky into Queens NY. Coincidence? Quite possibly. But enough of one to give me pause.

... and the reported victims of Flight 587?

You're still creating a debt of 260 souls that is yet unresolved.

Occam doesn't approve.

anarch

01-12-2010, 09:10 AM

..

Occam doesn't approve.

I'll tell you what occam doesn't approve of. Hollow aluminum cans tearing through steel columns.

IF your gonna believe in something like that you might as well believe in alien abductions and vampires.

Jackinthebox

01-12-2010, 01:24 PM

... and the reported victims of Flight 587?

You're still creating a debt of 260 souls that is yet unresolved.

Occam doesn't approve.

They were all from a thrid world country. False identities.

anarch

01-12-2010, 01:51 PM

mur

01-12-2010, 01:56 PM

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/437_map_allflights2050081722-9024-1.jpg

Cogburn

01-12-2010, 02:01 PM

I'll tell you what occam doesn't approve of. Hollow aluminum cans tearing through steel columns.
If you have a high school diploma you should give it back.

It is obviously of no use to you.

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 02:34 PM

extremely good points, cog.

alot, but not all theories and troofer crap has been inserted into the matrix to decieve.

stick with worrying why it happened in the first place.

start at point a, not r

skunk

01-12-2010, 02:35 PM

We know that Dick Armitage gave Bin Laden cash at least once.

We know that WTC7 had no reason to fall on 9/11, however it had plenty reason to fall if you were an Enron executive, not to mention a plethora of other na'er-do-wells.

We know that the 19 hijackers are dead, although there was rumor for a time that they were not, but that has since been resolved as mistaken identity down to the last.

We know that the plane in Shanksville could not have possibly be destroyed by an impact with the ground.

We know that all of the passengers of those planes are dead.

We know that the rubble of WTC1 and WTC2 were destroyed wholesale prior to detailed forensic analysis.

If you just stop there, there's about five real conspiracies, supported by real facts that remain nearly ignored for the sake of holographic planes and cruise missiles.

Ok let's get to work then.

Cogburn

01-12-2010, 02:44 PM

Ok let's get to work then.

That's kinda the problem.

Beyond prosecuting Dick Armitage and his masters, which isn't going to happen, the only actionable item is an investigation into the collapse of WTC7.

Every single in-depth physics simulation performed has shown that the planes did indeed knock down WTC1 & WTC2.

The only "no plane" theory that actually holds water is the one involving WTC7: not a single simulation has been able to explain why WTC7 collapsed.

There's no evidence to be had because all of the evidence was destroyed. Building access logs... CCTV footage... all gone.

The perfect crime. Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if someone probably stuck a few bodies in there just so they could get rid of the evidence of other crimes.

Lexion

01-12-2010, 02:53 PM

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/iranfocus_iran1.jpg

This building was hit by a C-130.

The plane did not go through the building. the building did not collapse.
The fuel tank and reserve tanks were full.

The building was much smaller and not designed to with stand that kind of abuse and yet it stands.

The WTC WAS designed to withstand that kind of abuse and it DID survive the fire of 75 and the bomb of 93.

But two planes that had already spent a good deal of their fuel flying to Ohio (Thats where the OS says the take over happened) and back brought down the towers...

And the Santa lives at the north poll.

Ok, bright-eyes.

C-130 :

What was it's airspeed ?

Angle of descent ?

Fuel capacity/load, where did you get that info ?

How much of the air-frame
actually hit the structure ?

Considering where the pic came from :

911research.wtc7.net

iranfocus_iran1.jpg

Propoganda bullshit.

Insert another quarter.

mur

01-12-2010, 03:05 PM

With regards to WTC7.....One Meridian Plaza burned for 19hrs in Philly....it did not collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza

Jackinthebox

01-12-2010, 03:07 PM

Barry Jennings was about to testify about events at WTC 7, when he died. I never heard how he died.

_DuSeuxjiJQ

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 04:31 PM

Insert another quarter.

smite/equivelent

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 04:35 PM

barry died of a "mysterious" heart illness.

dont quote me on the heart thing, but im pretty sure.

he did have some interesting things to add.

cog, all the enron/insider trading/s&l scams/gold that were missing from under bldng 7 makes for alot of possible culprits.

enron papers alone would implicate hundreds.

and i dont think theres a way to investigate 7 now, like 1 and 2, the evidence was washed on site and trucked away.

that is another of your points to look at, shipping out the steel.

there was probably enuff there to make 6 or 7 ships.

Jackinthebox

01-12-2010, 05:33 PM

I thought I was alone in my suspicions at first. Didn't talk about it with anyone else. Didn't realize there were a lot of other people questioning what happened, right in the middle of the ultra-patriotic fervor. This video is what got me started actually talking about it, and really looking into 9/11...

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 05:36 PM

thanks jack, im gonna watch it in a while.

havent seen this one yet.

Lexion

01-12-2010, 05:40 PM

cog, all the enron/insider trading/s&l scams/gold that were missing from under bldng 7 makes for alot of possible culprits.

enron papers alone would implicate hundreds.

Has this been verifiably proven ?

Not some 9/11 whacko website.

Absolutely proven ?

And, if I get "It was covered up"
as an answer, I'll know it's bullshit.

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 05:46 PM

i had a thread, maybe didnt survive apeci.

not sure exactly what was found.

all enron papers were there.

the s.e.c. was headquartered there.

large amounts of gold were stored there, more than most depositories, and alot of foreign gold.

what would you take as a credible source?

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 05:50 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_Seven_World_Trade_Center

Lexion

01-12-2010, 05:56 PM

About Enron, and 9/11 ?

Not Wiki.

It can be edited by anyone.

Edit to add :

Looked at the Wiki link.

That proves what ?

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 06:00 PM

just so you know what was in the building.

relax, im lookin.

im sure your minds made up already so i dont know why im gonna bother.....

mur

01-12-2010, 06:03 PM

I don't know about what was at WTC7...but I do find it odd it was left out of the 9-11 commission report. There is also no good reason it fell.

Just as strange, to me anyway is all the security camera tapes around the Pentagon, gas stations, hotels.....why not release these images and put the missile theory to bed.

I don't want to believe it was a missile. I don't believe it.

But I'd like to see the security camera footage.

What was released seems inadequate and blurry

anarch

01-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Actually I got the image from one place because it was larger. I got the story from here http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/07/content_501143.htm

anarch

01-12-2010, 06:08 PM

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/437_map_allflights2050081722-9024-1.jpg

Ahhh I stand corrected. Thanks for the map mur.

guinnessford

01-12-2010, 06:12 PM

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

http://current.com/items/89041487_world-trade-center-building-7-the-evidence-read-the-notes.htm

and a foia to look for any remaining:http://www.911blogger.com/node/19242

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f2_1203649865
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=worldcom

anarch

01-12-2010, 06:45 PM

If you have a high school diploma you should give it back.

It is obviously of no use to you.

Snide comments, Enlightenment does one not make.

I know you saw it on TV so it must be true and I also know that nothing I could ever bring up would ever be enough to contradict the testimony of your own family.

The Title of this thread is "What do you think happened on 911?"

I have stated what I think happened on 911.

I have reminded folks of Newtonian law and that reactions do not wait to begin but happen from the moment of impact with I nice vid to back that up.

I have shown where a strip mining operation used to be right at the site of the Shanksville crash. And nice photos showing the immediate after math or lack there of. Not even the grass was on fire and although some trees did eventually burn in the immediate we could clearly see that the forest was not on fire at that time.

I have shown great photos of the pentagon in the immediate aftermath that show us no plane size hole hell there was hardly a hole to speak of...Not to mention the wings. I did not speak much on the pentagon blast... If you compare the video of the blast the pentagon released, how far that explosion extended to some of the immediate aftermath photos then you would note not one singed blade of grass.

I also did not touch on the lamp posts and I know this is one of Cogs favorites so here is a few Lamp posts shots.

http://media.airspacemag.com/images/sept-11-pentagon-388.jpg

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pent_before1.jpg

http://freewebs.com/joecraine/NBCPent1022.jpg

Those must not of been the poles the wings knocked down...Awfully close to the pentagon though...

Oh well.

I did show various videos showing multiple paths of approach... This seems to be ignored. It can be rationalized away irrational logic. One can blame camera angle for only so much.

I also did not address the kind of steel it was at the WTC, how it was forged, how hot the smothered fire could of gotten nor the critical weakening point...But I did mention that it survived the fire on 75 and the bomb of 93. So that should give anyone a basic idea of the buildings resilience.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire14.jpg

Now that is a big ass building fire!

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/30.JPG

Thats is not.