Truck bombs on 9/11! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Truck bombs on 9/11!

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 12:52 AM
:eek:

KlPz30dCFwU

Also reported by:

ABC
CBS
CNN
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
Fox News
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
Army Radio
The police themselves
etc

The suspects, who failed lie detector tests, served in military intelligence and explosives ordinance units. They were employed by a "moving company" that was actually a front for an intelligence operation. The company received a 500k$ loan prior to 9/11 and did work in the towers. The company shut down it's operations on the day of 9/11. Leaked FBI documents show that it's CEO is a 9/11 suspect, unlike Bin Laden because of a lack of evidence tying him to the attacks.

A second "moving van" was stopped on that infamous day, because witnesses reported they had filmed the attacks and cheered, which photos confiscated by the FBI confirmed. That van had traces of explosives.

Funny thing, the authorities received this emergency call that day:

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.
Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He's dressed like an Arab

When the moving van with traces of explosives was stopped, at gunpoint, the first thing out of their mouths were:

"We are not your problem... The Palestinians are your problem."

The suspects were quietly released after 71 days in detention.

This is the truck full of explosives duo.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3367/mossadtruckbombers911.png

The police report on their arrests is 90% censored.

The FBI and the NYPD told the media they believe truck bombs went off in the basement of the towers when the planes hit, as reported by the USA Today.

Explosive witness testimony:
c2cViy34b1A

wIZtqKiidlo

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 01:04 AM
More reports of bombs.

_rIvm0GDbCQ

ar6BdjqfL_4

_DuSeuxjiJQ

ZaHEIUxVIxQ

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 01:20 AM
:facepalm:

shiaben
11-21-2011, 01:26 AM
9/11, Moscow Theater bombings, Beslan Hostage Crises, there's usually plenty of them. Some of these situations are false flag operations used to give an excuse to invade innocent countries abroad for oil, wealth, and other means.

Patriotic idiots usually buy into each and every single situation. It's not to say that terrorist attacks don't exist, I'm sure some do, but it's silly to deny that world powers have a hand in some of them, unfortunately.

Gagsquet
11-21-2011, 10:14 AM
Eh Mjau! I'm sure you are a 'no-plane' theory believer. This brilliant conspiracy school of thoughts seems to fit you perfectly :)

Stensland
11-21-2011, 11:26 AM
very interesting. hadn't heard of this before. let's hope the truth will never come out - for the sake of world peace.

MaxPower
11-21-2011, 11:43 AM
Yeah when tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete violently collapse with all the air, pipes and other hollow spaces it does make some sounds that could be mistaken for explosions by the average citizen. Trust me on that. I passed my physics course.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 04:49 PM
Eh Mjau! I'm sure you are a 'no-plane' theory believer. This brilliant conspiracy school of thoughts seems to fit you perfectly :)

No-planes is :cuckoo:

very interesting. hadn't heard of this before. let's hope the truth will never come out - for the sake of world peace.

:facepalm: It's the other way around. The official story is what has lead to war and continues to threaten world peace.

Yeah when tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete violently collapse with all the air, pipes and other hollow spaces it does make some sounds that could be mistaken for explosions by the average citizen. Trust me on that. I passed my physics course.

It's really annoying when :stupid: ignore the evidence and come up with an explanation that doesn't fit at all. It doesn't explain explosions at the base of the towers before the planes hit, it doesn't explain explosions at the base of the towers before the collapses started (which was supposedly initiated at the impact site), it doesn't explain explosions in the lobby in between and it certainly doesn't explain the truck bombs.

Put on your physics cap and watch AE911Truth's material.

Stensland
11-21-2011, 05:08 PM
:facepalm: It's the other way around. The official story is what has lead to war and continues to threaten world peace.


if that local conflict was already war to you, brace yourself for what's coming if one day the truth starts trickling through. we've seen nothing yet.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 05:25 PM
if that local conflict was already war to you, brace yourself for what's coming if one day the truth starts trickling through. we've seen nothing yet.

Why on earth would it lead to more wars??? The source of our wars will have been dismantled.

Stensland
11-21-2011, 05:30 PM
Why on earth would it lead to more wars??? The source of our wars will have been dismantled.

so you believe the actual victims will just stand idly by and refrain from retaliation? puh-lease. :rolleyes:

MaxPower
11-21-2011, 06:01 PM
It's really annoying when :stupid: ignore the evidence and come up with an explanation that doesn't fit at all. It doesn't explain explosions at the base of the towers before the planes hit, it doesn't explain explosions at the base of the towers before the collapses started (which was supposedly initiated at the impact site), it doesn't explain explosions in the lobby in between and it certainly doesn't explain the truck bombs.

Put on your physics cap and watch AE911Truth's material.

Are you kidding? If bombs go off there are traces. If you blow something up with C4/Semtex (or what other explosives that would be suitable) its clearly visible. You don't have to on some "eye witness" that was in a state of panic anyway. Things just don't evaporate. It would be easy to clearly prove even what kind of explosives that was used in this "mysterious explosion" at the base of the tower. And if that BS is true there was truckloads of explosives used.

So you say that all investigators also conveniently didn't find any proof? Or are all the thousands of people that have worked many months going through the rubble and documenting everything in reports spanning many thousands of pages bribed?

Makes about as much sense as the moon-landing conspiracy. Or scratch that. Makes even less sense. Because for the moon-landing there was mostly one organization involved that at least had a small small chance of keeping things in the dark. Here it was so many organizations and people involved that someone would have talked. It just doesn't work that way that you can keep things in the dark with so many people involved.

Case in point: Look at World War 2 and how quickly everything leaked. Even the very most sensitive things like the A-bomb research and construction leaked long before it was even completed. And that was a military operation that was top secret! And this was even before you had all the high tech opportunities of today to spy on people or even go out "anonymous" and rat out a conspiracy. Major conspiracies just doesn't work. The 9/11 one is borderline impossible to pull off. And even if some retard thought out a plan like that there are a million better ways to accomplish whatever goal it had

Pirata.
11-21-2011, 06:29 PM
It's really annoying when :stupid: ignore the evidence and come up with an explanation that doesn't fit at all. It doesn't explain explosions at the base of the towers before the planes hit, it doesn't explain explosions at the base of the towers before the collapses started (which was supposedly initiated at the impact site), it doesn't explain explosions in the lobby in between and it certainly doesn't explain the truck bombs.

Put on your physics cap and watch AE911Truth's material.

What about the video by the French brothers where the one brother was inside the first tower when the second collapsed, and later standing just outside the first one as it fell? I don't recall hearing or seeing

There's also the audio of that guy on the phone in the second tower where you can hear the rumbling in the background as the tower collapses and the call ends abruptly.

I'm sure someone would've reported explosions at the base of the towers considering how many people, law enforcement, firemen and civilians, were standing in the near area when the second tower fell :cuckoo:

star
11-21-2011, 06:33 PM
What about the video by the French brothers where the one brother was inside the first tower when the second collapsed, and later standing just outside the first one as it fell? I don't recall hearing or seeing

There's also the audio of that guy on the phone in the second tower where you can hear the rumbling in the background as the tower collapses and the call ends abruptly.

I'm sure someone would've reported explosions at the base of the towers considering how many people, law enforcement, firemen and civilians, were standing in the near area when the second tower fell :cuckoo:

Just go to skeptic.com. Most of these silly “explosion” theories are debunked there. Do a search on the site.

That documentary by the French brothers is really one of the best made.

star
11-21-2011, 06:35 PM
Are you kidding? If bombs go off there are traces. If you blow something up with C4/Semtex (or what other explosives that would be suitable) its clearly visible. You don't have to on some "eye witness" that was in a state of panic anyway. Things just don't evaporate. It would be easy to clearly prove even what kind of explosives that was used in this "mysterious explosion" at the base of the tower. And if that BS is true there was truckloads of explosives used.

So you say that all investigators also conveniently didn't find any proof? Or are all the thousands of people that have worked many months going through the rubble and documenting everything in reports spanning many thousands of pages bribed?

Makes about as much sense as the moon-landing conspiracy. Or scratch that. Makes even less sense. Because for the moon-landing there was mostly one organization involved that at least had a small small chance of keeping things in the dark. Here it was so many organizations and people involved that someone would have talked. It just doesn't work that way that you can keep things in the dark with so many people involved.

Case in point: Look at World War 2 and how quickly everything leaked. Even the very most sensitive things like the A-bomb research and construction leaked long before it was even completed. And that was a military operation that was top secret! And this was even before you had all the high tech opportunities of today to spy on people or even go out "anonymous" and rat out a conspiracy. Major conspiracies just doesn't work. The 9/11 one is borderline impossible to pull off. And even if some retard thought out a plan like that there are a million better ways to accomplish whatever goal it had

What is amusing to me is that all of the conspiracy theories rely on hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut, and as we have seen in the U.S., hardly anyone is capable of silence. There’s always somebody ready and eager to talk.

MaxPower
11-21-2011, 06:47 PM
What is amusing to me is that all of the conspiracy theories rely on hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut, and as we have seen in the U.S., hardly anyone is capable of silence. There’s always somebody ready and eager to talk.

Exactly my point. Can post all kinds of "evidence" including witnesses, experts, motives etc and it doesn't mean jack shit if the nr1 question can't be answered:

How in the world would you keep a conspiracy of that scale in the dark?

with the follow-up question:

If you can't keep the conspiracy in the dark, what would the consequences be if it leaked out?

All the conspiracy people and the "truth" people should ask themselves: If the organizers (mister x, the president, some evil illuminati leader, santa claus or whichever fits your theory) woke up one morning and decided to get a thing like this in motion how could it be done? They got an entire organization of loyal drones breed in some underground facility willing to die for them? How do they contain a "leak"? And most importantly if this so called "truth" had any truth in it how the hell can all the people showing this truth still be alive?

Stensland
11-21-2011, 07:06 PM
and all the truth people should ask themselves this:

can a bunch of hapless amateurs, described as such by everyone they've come across - most of all their flight instructors, with hardly no knowledge or experience whatsoever, fly not one, but three jumbojets (on which they'd never sat a foot before) so perfectly into the towers and the pentagon? i just don't believe it, sorry. and it is about belief.

i consider myself a 9/11-atheist. no idea what happened, no idea what's behind it, but the current story seems way more like a conspiracy theory than all the actual ones.

the thing is that most of the conspiracy theorists are really pushing it. some theories are just too far out, which makes it easy to instantly discredit all of them.

buddyholly
11-21-2011, 08:04 PM
can a bunch of hapless amateurs, described as such by everyone they've come across - most of all their flight instructors, with hardly no knowledge or experience whatsoever, fly not one, but three jumbojets (on which they'd never sat a foot before) so perfectly into the towers and the pentagon? i just don't believe it, sorry. and it is about belief.



If they had successfully landed the jets somewhere, your scepticism would be more warranted. But it probably does not take too much experience to just point a plane at something. Landing and taking off probably occupies 95% of pilot training.
BTW, they were not jumbos.

And the events on board the plane that crashed in a field would probably not have been as reported on phone calls, if it was an inside job.

And of course there is the problem of who actually did it. Apart from Muslim terrorists, I can't think of anyone else who is willing to commit suicide and kill thousands of innocents for their cause and slight chance of being give a few virgins for their troubles.

Stensland
11-21-2011, 09:59 PM
actually it's much harder to "hit" some spot while in the air than a regular landing. most cockpit software installations offer landing instructions for virtually every airport as an auto-pilot setting. the twin towers needed to be handled manually though. unless, of course, in addition to unbelievable flying skills out of nowhere that bunch of arab dimwits had secretly completed online classes for software re-configuration as well. who knows.

i don't find the whodunnit question in my scenario as intriguing as you do. all you need to do is follow the money. lots of researchers have done just that over the last couple of years. people have made billions around 9/11, some by selling short airline stocks, some by cashing in on insurance deals, some by real estate speculation and so on.

you could've easily used drones to fly the planes into the building.

even the "leak" containment argument by mjau doesn't cut it for me. the pentagon came up with operation northwoods and all kinds of similar stuff ages ago. obviously they had thought it through, investigated how it would play out behind the scenes and considered that kind of false flag operation as a viable option.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 10:41 PM
so you believe the actual victims will just stand idly by and refrain from retaliation? puh-lease. :rolleyes:

Guilty heads would roll. That doesn't mean there'd be new wars or anything like the loss of lives we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would create a strong anti-war sentiment.

Are you kidding? If bombs go off there are traces.

"NIST did not test for the presence of explosives residue."
- Catherine S. Fletcher

Even if they had, the chances of finding traces of a few bombs in what was the basement would have been very slim, which was their excuse for not testing ("such tests would not necessarily be conclusive").

If you blow something up with C4/Semtex (or what other explosives that would be suitable) its clearly visible.

A bomb underground would not be "clearly visible" :stupid:.

Several witnesses - including a reporter - reported seeing explosions inside the tower.

You don't have to on some "eye witness" that was in a state of panic anyway.

That's your excuse? They had the same hallucination? :worship:

Things just don't evaporate. It would be easy to clearly prove even what kind of explosives that was used in this "mysterious explosion" at the base of the tower. And if that BS is true there was truckloads of explosives used.

See above not easy at all when you have 100 000 tons of steel and God knows how much concrete and fires raging for months underneath the rubble. Certainly not easy when the material was shipped of and recycled. Very little of it was tested.

Why did the FBI tell the media they think there was a truck bomb in the basement of both towers? Why did multiple witnesses tell reporters they heard, felt, saw the effects of and were injured by an explosion from below, right before the planes hit? Why did the MSM report underground explosions before the towers collapsed? Why did first responders report explosions and finding "suspicious devices". Why did people close to the towers feel an underground explosion that caused them to flee in panic, before the buildings started coming down?

Why did the NYPD tell the MSM they caught 2 suspects with a "truck full of explosives", "tons of explosives" on the GW-bridge? Why were they detained for 71 days? Why is the report on their arrests 90% censored? Why was their buddies filming the impacts, having set up cameras prior to the attacks according to eye witnesses? Why were they cheering the attacks (confirmed by photographs)? Why did their van have traces of explosives? Why were they military intelligence agents and explosives experts? Why did they lie to the police and fail lie detector tests? Why did the company shut down after the attacks? What were they doing in the towers before 9/11? Why is their CEO an unofficial 9/11 suspect?

So you say that all investigators also conveniently didn't find any proof? Or are all the thousands of people that have worked many months going through the rubble and documenting everything in reports spanning many thousands of pages bribed?

Like I said, the evidence was mostly destroyed. The investigations were not independent. Who do you think put them together? :rolleyes:
The 9/11 commission has been slaughtered by many people who participated in the investigation, which you'd know if you actually bothered to look at 9/11 with an open mind.

You also refuse to look at the evidence uncovered by independent scientists (AE911Truth).

Makes about as much sense as the moon-landing conspiracy. Or scratch that. Makes even less sense. Because for the moon-landing there was mostly one organization involved that at least had a small small chance of keeping things in the dark. Here it was so many organizations and people involved that someone would have talked. It just doesn't work that way that you can keep things in the dark with so many people involved.

Case in point: Look at World War 2 and how quickly everything leaked. Even the very most sensitive things like the A-bomb research and construction leaked long before it was even completed.

And that was a military operation that was top secret! And this was even before you had all the high tech opportunities of today to spy on people or even go out "anonymous" and rat out a conspiracy. Major conspiracies just doesn't work. The 9/11 one is borderline impossible to pull off.

This is a total fallacy so you wont have to go where the evidence leads.

Other major conspiracies survived for many years.

Some whistleblowers have come forward.

The Manhattan Project was kept secret for several years despite 130 000 people working on it.

And even if some retard thought out a plan like that there are a million better ways to accomplish whatever goal it had

These people disagreed:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
- Rebuilding America's Defenses, Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force

What about the video by the French brothers where the one brother was inside the first tower when the second collapsed, and later standing just outside the first one as it fell? I don't recall hearing or seeing

There's also the audio of that guy on the phone in the second tower where you can hear the rumbling in the background as the tower collapses and the call ends abruptly.

I'm sure someone would've reported explosions at the base of the towers considering how many people, law enforcement, firemen and civilians, were standing in the near area when the second tower fell :cuckoo:

Someone did! Many did! You don't get to claim "someone would've reported explosions if there were any" and then reject every single explosive testimony by first responders, reporters and other witnesses. :stupid:

2003
11-21-2011, 11:08 PM
And the events on board the plane that crashed in a field would probably not have been as reported on phone calls, if it was an inside job.

Mmm, the same phone calls where someone called up his mom and said his first and last name? Oh yeah, those calls.

Mate, they were fake as anything.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 11:13 PM
and all the truth people should ask themselves this:

can a bunch of hapless amateurs, described as such by everyone they've come across - most of all their flight instructors, with hardly no knowledge or experience whatsoever, fly not one, but three jumbojets (on which they'd never sat a foot before) so perfectly into the towers and the pentagon? i just don't believe it, sorry. and it is about belief.

i consider myself a 9/11-atheist. no idea what happened, no idea what's behind it, but the current story seems way more like a conspiracy theory than all the actual ones.

the thing is that most of the conspiracy theorists are really pushing it. some theories are just too far out, which makes it easy to instantly discredit all of them.

"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_mystery.wmv

[Flight Academy] Staff members considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A11FD35550C778CDDAC0894DA4044 82

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said

http://www.newsday.com/ny-usflight232380680sep23.story

"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/hanjour.wmv

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030225101622/http:/www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.

Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11&notFound=true

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051031064402/http:/www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623

On 27 November 2009 PilotsFor911Truth.org published a simple fact about the flight of Flight 77 which makes a conventional hijacking scenario impossible - according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. The status of the door was polled every 5 seconds from 12:18:05 GMT to 13:37:09 GMT, and each poll logged the door as closed.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FLIGHT_DECK_DOOR_GMT.zip

"Aeroplane hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers, but the attempt would be risky.

"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

If a hijacking were detected in progress, being able to control a plane from the ground would be crucial, says Gosling

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1280

"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack. The problem with this, says Mr Taylor, is that remote-control systems might themselves open aircraft up to hijacking by malicious computer hackers."

http://www.economist.com/node/787987?Story_ID=787987

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. The group's Statement of Principles published September 2000 stated that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies.

Dov Zakheim is a co-author of the Statement of Principles and an ex-CEO of System Planning Corporation which manufactures equipment to remotely pilot aircraft. Zakheim was appointed as Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon by President Bush on May 4, 2001.

http://www.sysplan.com/

Flight 77 hit the financial wing of the Pentagon that was investigating the 2.3 trillion $ that had gone "missing", as reported by Rumsfeld september 10th 2001.

Mjau!
11-21-2011, 11:23 PM
"And what troubles investigators most, particularly in New York, in the counter terrorism investigation of the World Trade Center attack, is that on a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place."

That should teach you not to underestimate 19 arabs with boxcutters. :rolleyes:

Stensland
11-21-2011, 11:45 PM
i think you quoted me because i misquoted you. it was maxpower's post i actually wanted to answer, sorry. classic mix-up, you're both swedish. i'm mostly on your side here, just in case you haven't noticed.

buddyholly
11-21-2011, 11:58 PM
i don't find the whodunnit question in my scenario as intriguing as you do.

Maybe it is a language misunderstanding but I don't find the whodunnit question intriguing at all.

What I find intriguing is how people can watch the video of each tower collapsing exactly at the floor where the planes hit, and then suggest the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

Discussing who flew the planes is one thing, but most conspiracy theorists go with the controlled demolition theory and for me that does not even get out of the starting gate.

Stensland
11-22-2011, 12:09 AM
it is indeed a language misunderstanding. turns out i didn't know what intriguing means. :D there's a similar word in german that kinda misled me.

well, i guess if you buy the drone theory, it would be fairly easy to electronically navigate the planes into the towers. you know the perfect angle, adjust the plane accordingly and to make sure the towers are gonna collapse you plant explosives on the floors the planes will hit.

i take it you are second-guessing at least some of the official explanations?

Stensland
11-22-2011, 12:14 AM
Guilty heads would roll. That doesn't mean there'd be new wars or anything like the loss of lives we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would create a strong anti-war sentiment.

yes, in the west. why is it so hard for you to get what i'm saying here? about a billion muslims would be outraged like they've never been before, that's who's gonna wage war in one way or the other.

Mountaindewslave
11-22-2011, 12:15 AM
seriously the only excuse for all the conspiracy theories is if you are unemployed and have far too much time on your hands!

buddyholly
11-22-2011, 12:22 AM
well, i guess if you buy the drone theory, it would be fairly easy to electronically navigate the planes into the towers. you know the perfect angle, adjust the plane accordingly and to make sure the towers are gonna collapse you plant explosives on the floors the planes will hit.

i take it you are second-guessing at least some of the official explanations?

Second-guessing would just seem to lead you further and further into 'ifs''.

If your suggestion above could be carried out, then why not navigate the planes into much lower floors and up the casualty count by thousands. It would also have been much easier to plant the explosives on lower floors than carry them all the way up. No, those kinds of scenarios for me just fail from the start. I mean , if they had set them off when the planes hit they could have killed everybody in the buildings. So maybe you will argue that the perpetrators weren't so cruel as to kill everybody.........................

buddyholly
11-22-2011, 12:25 AM
Mmm, the same phone calls where someone called up his mom and said his first and last name? Oh yeah, those calls.

Mate, they were fake as anything.

Yes indeed! People in a plane where throats had been cut and was about to crash should really have been much more calm and rational in their phone calls. Obvious fakes.

Stensland
11-22-2011, 12:28 AM
again, i just don't know. all i know is there are way too many questionmarks around to let this one go.

buddyholly
11-22-2011, 12:29 AM
seriously the only excuse for all the conspiracy theories is if you are unemployed and have far too much time on your hands!

A Toronto university had a conspiracy theory conference on 9/11 of this year! Students need to learn stuff to prepare for their careers, I guess.

MaxPower
11-22-2011, 01:07 AM
Like I said, the evidence was mostly destroyed. The investigations were not independent. Who do you think put them together? :rolleyes:
The 9/11 commission has been slaughtered by many people who participated in the investigation, which you'd know if you actually bothered to look at 9/11 with an open mind.

You also refuse to look at the evidence uncovered by independent scientists (AE911Truth).


This is a total fallacy so you wont have to go where the evidence leads.

Other major conspiracies survived for many years.

Some whistleblowers have come forward.

The Manhattan Project was kept secret for several years despite 130 000 people working on it.



That's kinda funny as I haven't seen any major conspiracy working. EVERYTHING LEAKS. Even the most super secret stuff has leaked.

More funny WW2 examples is the german top secret enigma crypto. That had leaked to polish resistance even before the invasion of poland! then they in turn gave their work to Britain and in the end even more leaked from fuckups by germans in Norway and so on. Even things you have sworn on your life to protect, that is punishable by death to reveal and you are under strict orders to destroy every piece of evidence in case of capture leaks if enough people and lose ends are involved

Same with the Manhattan project. Russian spies where aware of the project on a very early stage. Simply because they did their homework and noticed a lot of scientists where missing and then went investigating. Then they infiltrated the project too and had all the information needed. Told by the very persons working in it and having sworn to keep it secret. That's how it works for you. Major projects can never be kept secret. Enough people involved and someone talk. Doesn't matter if he only slips up to his wife, best friend or what not. If it leaks it leaks. Someone ALWAYS TALKS if you involve enough people.




These people disagreed:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."
- Rebuilding America's Defenses, Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force

So who are these rocket scientists? They think you need to blow up 2 skyscrapers and 3k of your own people for US to act the way they did? It would be enough to just hijack and kill all the passengers in 3 airliners for that effect. Would probably even be enough for 3 separate squads of terrorists to go berserk with AK47s and grenades in a few US cities for US to act the way they did, even if that only killed a few hundred.

And what does a military attack against a military base like Pearl Harbour have in common with an atrocious and completely insane act of terrorism of killing 3000 absolutely innocent civilians for no military gain at all? I'm not following.





But in the end nothing in your post answers the first major point anyway. How do you keep all the people involved from talking, not even anonymously? Who are these mysterious humans that can live with the blood of that many people on their hands and sleep at night? Do they have families? How do they look themselves in the mirror on the morning? What gain can be so big that you are willing to make all these sacrifices? Money? Random hunger for power? But.........if these people gained the power positions they must have they can't be stupid. Agree? Not to mention that people in power positions change all the time. Has the CIA had the same director for how long? FBI? Executives move all the time between positions. That makes things infintely more complex as a conspiracy of this scale would involve years.

And major point nr2: why would the do the most retarded plan ever of doing an explosion to pancake a building (but for fun they somehow tried to pancake it from blowing bombs in the basement despite that going against common demolition knowledge) but at the same time to mask it fly planes into it and despite all the lose ends that plan leaves. What if the hijackings failed? What if someone discovered the explosives that had been planted ahead of time and the building was evacuated? What if the detonation failed or was activated at the wrong time? About a gazillion things could go wrong.

I mean it makes perfect sense that terrorists can fly planes into buildings to collapse them instead of just blowing them up with explosives in the first place? Or wait couldn't they just let these "fake terrorists" blow up a building with explosives and save all the hijacking hassle in the first place. They had even tried to level WTC before with explosives so hello? Just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Then you say: Oh but people would understand that terrorists aren't clever enough to actually demolish WTF with explosives. Why o why not pick another target then? Why pick WTC? US has plenty of important landmarks where you can kill drows of people in spectacular acts of terror using explosives or as I said why not just use AK47s and grenades in a city or even some small towns simultaneously. That would achieve the same effect, be cheaper, leave absolutely no doubts, involve less people and on top of that be way easier to keep in the dark.

In the end this conspiracy kinda implies that the masterminds behind it are mentally retarded. And how could they be in that power position then anyway? In fact I wouldn't mind one bit if it was true because then we got nothing to fear from these secret masterminds and it would be so interesting when the conspiracy eventually leaks for real then from one of the real persons behind it and we could hear all the motivations. And the trials will be the most intense thing ever. Just imagine the level of betrayal against the country and it's citizens

Pirata.
11-22-2011, 01:49 AM
Mmm, the same phone calls where someone called up his mom and said his first and last name? Oh yeah, those calls.

Mate, they were fake as anything.

Mark Bingham?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mom,_this_is_Mark_Bingham

Seems like it would be pretty careless to fake the calls by having someone call his mom using his full name.

can a bunch of hapless amateurs, described as such by everyone they've come across - most of all their flight instructors, with hardly no knowledge or experience whatsoever, fly not one, but three jumbojets (on which they'd never sat a foot before) so perfectly into the towers and the pentagon?

Not true, they'd done several dry runs before on similar flights or probably the same flight. Quite a few people reported seeing suspicious looking Middle Eastern men in first class in the months before 9/11

l0lzZvCNkJw

buddyholly
11-22-2011, 03:24 AM
Mark Bingham?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mom,_this_is_Mark_Bingham

Seems like it would be pretty careless to fake the calls by having someone call his mom using his full name.





Supports what I said above, before I ever heard of Mark Bingham, about people not being in a normal state of mind.

And the link even provides another explanation: his surname is different from his mother's. By using his full name, as he had apparently done before, this particular mother would know for sure it was her son.

But 2003 would no doubt prefer to believe the more exciting, though implausible, possibilities.

fast_clay
11-22-2011, 03:37 AM
If it leaks it leaks. Someone ALWAYS TALKS if you involve enough people.


yes i do believe it is as straight forward as this...

shiaben
11-22-2011, 03:44 AM
There's nothing surprising about these situations at all. Both the American and Russian govts. have used such false flag situations to invade other countries for oil or other valuable resources. For Russia it was Chechnya, for America it was Iraq and they also blatantly created this crappy terrorist concept to have excuses to invade other countries like Afghanistan, Libya, and many others. Today's concept of terrorism is similar to the past's concept of communism. They brain wash people to believing that the "terrorists" are out there to get them. Just like during the 30ies-60ies there was the whole "red scare".

Kissinger and Brzezinski are two selfish idiots that are involved in these types of plots. The former destroyed democracy in Latin America, and the latter created the Taliban and Al Qaida and really destroyed Afghanistan and many parts of the Middle East.

It's sickening what these rich hidden powerful men behind the scenes (Rockefellers, Rothchilds, etc. of the world) will do to steal billions of $$$ from innocent nations and wire them to their accounts. Hopefully people around the world are wary of these blood thirsty wars and their intentions.

Blood money makes the world go round.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 05:45 AM
*Block of text*

Your argument is a joke. It boils down to this; "I'm not gonna look at the evidence, I don't care about the evidence, please don't bother me with any more evidence! Because I know they wouldn't do that and I know they couldn't keep it a secret :secret: (they haven't kept it a secret. those of us who don't cover our ears and go "I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING, NOT LISTENING" know they did it), so whatever the evidence and an open-minded investigation might show is irrelevant".

:stupid:

2003
11-22-2011, 05:57 AM
Supports what I said above, before I ever heard of Mark Bingham, about people not being in a normal state of mind.

And the link even provides another explanation: his surname is different from his mother's. By using his full name, as he had apparently done before, this particular mother would know for sure it was her son.

But 2003 would no doubt prefer to believe the more exciting, though implausible, possibilities.

There werent any planes on 9/11 mate.

Why would they use real planes, too many risks involved.

Slow down many of the videos available of the flight 175 strike and you can see they are fake. In these ones, the plane is 1/2 - 3/4 of the way or even more into the tower and theres no entry hole. That doesnt happen in the real world.

OspVC3_A6cY
NMkukzq3ypY
fL_x9NsxJlg

The second video shows the engine and cockpit enter the tower and no entry hole in the building. All show a dissapearing wing, or no wing at all.

These videos have not been doctored. In these ones you can see a clear discrepancy between the flight altitude, this video shows the plane coming in on a horizontal plane;

DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video shows clear discrepancies from the altitude of the planes to the dive bombing in some and flat horizontal plane in others.

This one shows it dive bombing.

iF1zlguWMRY

This cant be ignored. Many or all of these videos are fake. Dont fart on about passengers and planes, where are any home videos of people filming the take off, or family members saying goodbye at the airports? There were no planes as far as I can see. The whole thing was faked, and that proves right there it was an inside job. As for the Pentagon and Shanksville, well I rest my case.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 06:05 AM
even the "leak" containment argument by mjau doesn't cut it for me. the pentagon came up with operation northwoods and all kinds of similar stuff ages ago. obviously they had thought it through, investigated how it would play out behind the scenes and considered that kind of false flag operation as a viable option.

Operation Northwoods was signed by all the members of the joint chiefs of staff.

IygchZRJVXM

The neo-cons falsified intelligence to go to war with Iraq and shamelessly used 9/11 to get the american people's support. Al Qaeda supposedly received anthrax from iraqis in Prague. They claimed MOSSAD witnessed it! Except neither AQ, nor Iraq had anthrax, there's no evidence that the meeting ever took place and the anthrax came from a U.S. defence lab. The FBI went out of their way to destroy evidence and went after the wrong people. Agents who screwed up the investigation were promoted. :rolleyes:

http://theintelhub.com/2011/10/10/world-authority-on-anthrax-disputes-government-explanation-of-2001-attack/

The letters were sent from where the hijackers had lived before it became public knowledge. White House workers, including President Bush, began taking the drug nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 06:08 AM
They are definitely sociopathic enough.

"Advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes [i.e. race] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
- Rebuilding America's Defenses

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 06:16 AM
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1723/oblfake.png

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce/img/190207fatnose.jpg

:facepalm:

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 06:17 AM
There werent any planes on 9/11 mate.

Why would they use real planes, too many risks involved.

Slow down many of the videos available of the flight 175 strike and you can see they are fake. In these ones, the plane is 1/2 - 3/4 of the way or even more into the tower and theres no entry hole. That doesnt happen in the real world.

OspVC3_A6cY
NMkukzq3ypY
fL_x9NsxJlg

The second video shows the engine and cockpit enter the tower and no entry hole in the building. All show a dissapearing wing, or no wing at all.

These videos have not been doctored. In these ones you can see a clear discrepancy between the flight altitude, this video shows the plane coming in on a horizontal plane;

DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video shows clear discrepancies from the altitude of the planes to the dive bombing in some and flat horizontal plane in others.

This one shows it dive bombing.

iF1zlguWMRY

This cant be ignored. Many or all of these videos are fake. Dont fart on about passengers and planes, where are any home videos of people filming the take off, or family members saying goodbye at the airports? There were no planes as far as I can see. The whole thing was faked, and that proves right there it was an inside job. As for the Pentagon and Shanksville, well I rest my case.

Please don't poison the well...

Pirata.
11-22-2011, 06:35 AM
2003 is losing it, folks.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 06:47 AM
These links are good.

AE911Truth.org's - Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Toronto Hearings 9/11 - David Chandler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErOy9lwfhc

Architects & Engineers For 9 11 Truth - Tony Szamboti Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MsMxhIuP4M

Architects & Engineers For 9 11 Truth - Erik Lawyer - Firefighter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk7f0QJauK0

Architects & Engineers For 9 11 Truth - Dr Steven Jones Interveiw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CzkBl3FIU0

Dr Steven Jones Discusses WTC Dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaNQKqQpKYU

Architects & Engineers - Mark Basile Chemical Engineer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

Architects & Engineers - Tom Sullivan Explosives Technician
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

Architects & Engineers - Jeff Farrer Physicist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ

Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

9/11 Experiments: Eliminate the Impossible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0

9/11 Experiments: Newton vs. NIST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6i6WBHM3U

Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VJGILSOr2k

Why The NIST Report is False
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvztHBMVfWw

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY

Gary Warner: P.E. Mechanical Engineer - 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ClwGXDRVs

R.J. Lee Report on WTC Dust:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40444981

FEMA Report Appendix C Metallurgical study on WTC 7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Why the NIST report on WTC7 is unscientific and false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg

The NIST WTC Investigation - How Real Was The Simulation? by Eric Douglas, Architect
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

Gagsquet
11-22-2011, 07:53 AM
No plane theory is quite sensible :yeah: :lol:
Inside job theory makes no sense.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 07:57 AM
One of the silliest debunker lies is that the thermite found (by independent researchers) is actually paint. This claim has some major issues.

1. It doesn't have the chemical composition of the WTC-paint.
2. It has a differnt nano-structure.
3. It reacts like thermite and the reaction produces thermitic residue (microspheres of previously molten iron that perfectly match those seen in known thermite samples). The WTC-paint on the other hand, is thermally stable up to at least 800 degrees centigrade.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/570/thermite1.png

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5999/thermite2.png

Some paint.

Jaz
11-22-2011, 08:11 AM
Please fucking stop..

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 08:50 AM
* NIST claimed they knew of no eyewitness reports of molten steel, which is a ridiculous lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU

'Blueprint for truth' goes further in exposing the silliness of NIST's assertion.

* NIST ignored the documented physical evidence of molten steel from examinations of the steel beams that weren't shipped of to China, as well as the iron microspheres in the dust samples.

* NIST claimed that the molten steel seen (and filmed) pouring out of one of the towers was in fact molten aluminum. Here we face a problem - molten aluminum is silvery. But not to worry, NIST asserted that molten aluminum mixed with office supplies can look like molten steel. They just made that up! It was never based on any actual experiments and has been thoroughly debunked by experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQkQ8LqLWu8

* NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for the first 8 stories. Probably because it means all structural support must have been removed since a body in free fall can do no work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

* NIST refuses to release the data for their WTC 7 collapse model because it would "threaten national security". This is a ludicrous excuse! If you're not willing to share your data, you're not doing science, you're just making unsupported claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MsMxhIuP4M

* NIST did not test for explosives residue or thermite, even though this is standard operating procedure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk7f0QJauK0

This is an excellent summary of the issues with the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvztHBMVfWw

I guess it takes quite a bit of creative modeling to even initiate a collapse in a steel structure.

This one burned for 17 hours without an adequate fire extinguishing system.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/venezuela_fire.jpg

20 hour inferno:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire6.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire22a.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire17.jpg

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/spain_fire7.jpg

NIST did not even attempt to explain the actual collapses of the twin towers. They just said "global collapse became inevitable", when collapse was initiated, but this is not true. If you botch a controlled demolition, the building might tip over or you might have a partial collapse. But I suppose they weren't too keen on attempting to explain how a small part of the building managed to crush 100k tons of undamaged structural steel (and concrete) below it, all the way down to the ground at 90% of free fall speed.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 08:55 AM
"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

Audio of 9 of those explosions:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_explosions.wmv

A point to note about the above video is the sounds of the explosions consist of low frequencies only. The absence of high frequencies indicates the sounds were not transmitted through the air to the camera's microphone but through the ground - they reached the microphone via the tripod. This in turn indicates that the explosions occurred below ground level (note where the smoke originates in the video).

"Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions... We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse."

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 08:59 AM
If you remember the OP...

"...the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.truck.bombs.fbi.jack.kelley_2.ram

"I spoke with some police officials ... and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center ... may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.police.found.explosives.wmv

2003
11-22-2011, 09:46 AM
Please don't poison the well...

Its you im afraid along with everyone who needs to wake up and smell the coffee on this a bit.

Do you really think they would let guys like Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Dave Vonkleist, Willie Rodreguz etc on CNN, FOX if they really thought they were going to reveal anything damning about 9/11? Dont kid yourself. They would never let it happen. You need to understand those guys are paid disinfo agents. Willie Rodreguiz storys collapses in 5 mintues. I doubt he even ever went to the WTC before let alone worked there.

9/11 was defo an inside job, but do you really think they would let Jessie Ventura have his own show on NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC if he really was gonna expose anything? I mean really.

These guys and those sham websites are just there to send you down a million rabit trails and drip feed you 60% of the truth you gonna find anyway, whilst suppressing the real truth of 9/11. Theres a reson you get attacked and cut off instantly if you ring up the loose change boys and start talking about no planes, fake victims etc. Theres a reason for that.

The guys on this thread are actually right. No one would go along with a plan to murder 3000 people. And they wouldnt have to. They could just fake the deaths that day. That way people dont talk out about it. And if they do get discovered, they can just reveal the truth and cant prove anything against them.

9/11 conspiracy = no chance of real planes being used. 0%. They wouldnt take the risk. Wouldnt need to. Too many things could/would go wrong. Easier to just fake it. Listen to the WTC witnesses. Half them describe a 767, half them describe no plane, half them describe just an explosion. Its pretty obvious with all the tall buildings, you could fake it. And thats exactly what they did.

MaxPower
11-22-2011, 11:50 AM
Your argument is a joke. It boils down to this; "I'm not gonna look at the evidence, I don't care about the evidence, please don't bother me with any more evidence! Because I know they wouldn't do that and I know they couldn't keep it a secret :secret: (they haven't kept it a secret. those of us who don't cover our ears and go "I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING, NOT LISTENING" know they did it), so whatever the evidence and an open-minded investigation might show is irrelevant".

:stupid:

Seems like you so desperately wants this to be true it's stupid. It's all debunked. It makes no sense. Nothing you have posted even remotely answers the questions i posed and you don't want to listen to that.


Lets give you a fictive example. A plane explodes in air and crashes on a field. Investigators work with that case 24/7 for a long time. The methodically go through every detail. They find a defective part in a motor that caused an engine explosion. Somehow the fire and the explosion caused the wing to fall off. The plane turned into a violent spin and the pilots had no chance. They long report and all findings are compiled in a report spanning many thousands of pages.


Long time later some retards thought up that the plane was shot down by a missile. They found that the son of a VIP was aboard and they thought it was a conspiracy to assassinate him by the government. They found a farmer that saw something in the air approaching the plane. They also find other people that thought they heard an explosion (from something being launched) shortly before the planes caught fire. They know contact the investigators.

-Hey the plane was shot down by a missile!

-???????????????? We found the reason. Yes we are aware that planes usually can survive a thing like this but it was a very violent malfunction that caused a chain reaction and it's plausible it happened according to our report.

No it didn't. Did you look for parts of a missile?

-No we honestly didn't. There was nothing that warranted search for parts of a missile. We even have the blackbox recordings and the pilots didn't notice anything. We didn't find anything that supports that. We got many witnesses on the ground that didn't notice some kind of anti-air missile.

But we are sure it was shot down. We got witnesses too that did notice.

-Ok. Interesting.

There was a very important person aboard that died. He was assassinated. The plane thing was a coverup to kill him making it look like an accident.

-Maybe it was just a coincidence? Even important people do die in accidents?

-It wasn't.

-Ok. Listen d-bags. I got other work to do to. Can you just post your stuff on the internet? Some people can pick up on it and spread it around. Now leave us alone.


Who would you believe? Oddly enough some people always jump on the conspiracy because it's more exciting. Usually they also got some preconceived thing they want to be true. (Lets say that the government are evil fascists)

Just like in the 9/11 case there is no reason to assume that a more implausible theory would be true when everything points at the official theory being true. But if you work hard enough trying to discredit the official theory maybe you can get some followers and then spin it from there. It's fun and exciting and people like to spend time with it

Stensland
11-22-2011, 02:36 PM
Not true, they'd done several dry runs before on similar flights or probably the same flight.
Quite a few people reported seeing suspicious looking Middle Eastern men in first class in the months before 9/11

l0lzZvCNkJw

quite a few people report stuff like that on a daily basis. it doesn't get any more vague. what exactly do you mean by "dry run"? taking over the plane or de facto controlling it? they had never actually seen the kind of cockpit they needed to deal with on 9/11.

2003
11-22-2011, 10:04 PM
I resent the serious deception when people say things like "oh they didnt have to land the plane all they had to do was point it at a target".

Thats simply a lie.

In the case of the Pentagon supposedly, they had to do everything but deploy the landing gear and touch the wheels on the ground. The plane flew in 3 - 6 feet above the ground. Also do a 330 degree turn whilst descending several thousand feet in a matter of minutes. And fly a plane parallel to the ground for 1/4 a mile 3 - 6 feet above the turf at 400MPH +. Thats far more than simply point the plane and hit a target.

Similarly, for the WTC they had to turn plane around, navigate to NYC, descend down to rougly 1000 feet, and as seen in SOME videos, do a dramatic dive bomb and last minute hard banking left hand turn, which some pilots have said is beyond what the 767 computer is programmed to let you do. Others videos of course show a horrizontal approach.

But whatever. A far cry from just pointing a plane to a target at 30 000 feet!

Even more reason no planes were really used IMO. How would they fake that?

Saying that all they had to do was point the plane and hit a target is a bold faced lie. They had to essentially complete the vast bulk of the landing process, and in a very dramatic, high speed way. What they supposedly did is probably harder than a conventional landing to be honest.

Mjau!
11-22-2011, 11:11 PM
Block of :bs:

*sigh* This is just more of the same. You suffer from a severe mental block. Anything that challenges your beliefs, no matter how damning, bounces off of you like a rubber ball off a brick wall. It's meaningless to you, because you know it cannot possibly have happened and therefore it didn't happen, period. Your preconcieved views cannot be swayed by evidence, facts, logic - only the highest authority and that makes you utterly irrational.

Pirata.
11-23-2011, 12:26 AM
quite a few people report stuff like that on a daily basis. it doesn't get any more vague. what exactly do you mean by "dry run"? taking over the plane or de facto controlling it? they had never actually seen the kind of cockpit they needed to deal with on 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_run_(terrorism)

Hope this helps.

Pirata.
11-23-2011, 12:38 AM
Why not just use bombs from the beginning and blame it on the terrorists again? Seems kind of stupid to go to the trouble of faking planes and complicating things. Surely it would be in the government's best interests, if it were a conspiracy, to use actual bombs since it would be more believable, right?

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 01:34 AM
Why not just use bombs from the beginning and blame it on the terrorists again? Seems kind of stupid to go to the trouble of faking planes and complicating things. Surely it would be in the government's best interests, if it were a conspiracy, to use actual bombs since it would be more believable, right?

I don't know. Perhaps the hijackings were in fact planned by islamist terror cells, but allowed to happen. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43zl4fzDQg

Explosions had to be denied because non-muslims were caught with traces of explosives and tons of explosives. Those reports would have been harder to quench with an admission of bombs in the buildings.

Or perhaps it would've been less believable for terrorists to rig the buildings for demolition without help from the inside? Perhaps such an attack could not plausibly have been much worse than a repeat of the -93 scenario?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2vpcABWJiY

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 01:41 AM
yes i do believe it is as straight forward as this...

How often are covert operations exposed? :shrug:

How often are black projects exposed? (Never!)

Mae
11-23-2011, 01:44 AM
What is amusing to me is that all of the conspiracy theories rely on hundreds of people keeping their mouths shut, and as we have seen in the U.S., hardly anyone is capable of silence. There’s always somebody ready and eager to talk.

You have that right :sad: I always say that CDs are sealed and kept better than the U.S.'s state secrets :rolleyes:

Seingeist
11-23-2011, 01:45 AM
Mjau, be honest now.

Are you campaigning?

Mae
11-23-2011, 01:46 AM
Mjau, be honest now.

Are you campaigning?

:superlol:

MaxPower
11-23-2011, 02:12 AM
*sigh* This is just more of the same. You suffer from a severe mental block. Anything that challenges your beliefs, no matter how damning, bounces off of you like a rubber ball off a brick wall. It's meaningless to you, because you know it cannot possibly have happened and therefore it didn't happen, period. Your preconcieved views cannot be swayed by evidence, facts, logic - only the highest authority and that makes you utterly irrational.

Yeah right it's me that have a mental block :haha:

Think about this: Can you ever call something a "scientific investigation" if you just take a theory like you did and then post bits and pieces to support your theory. You can't reverse engineer the truth.

You have to look at ALL THE EVIDENCE. Not just the parts that fits what you want to say

For example if there was 100 people on a ground floor that didn't hear an explosion where are they in your "evidence"? Everything must be reported.

If you don't even understand that why do you even bother. The official investigation interviewed thousands of people. It investigated using scientific methods and with experts (real experts with university degrees) and it had resources (millions of dollars)

And you question why me and others believe the official investigation and not some stuff that a bunch of random people have cooked up?

buddyholly
11-23-2011, 02:21 AM
And you question why me and others believe the official investigation and not some stuff that a bunch of random people have cooked up?

Conspiracy theorists live by the ''prove I'm wrong'' argument.

They can make up anything and say ''prove I'm wrong.'' Isn't there even a claim somewhere in this thread that ''there were no planes.'' So 1,000,000 Manhattanites didn't see real planes, or something like that. Nutcases.

Pirata.
11-23-2011, 02:30 AM
Isn't there even a claim somewhere in this thread that ''there were no planes.'' So 1,000,000 Manhattanites didn't see real planes, or something like that. Nutcases.

Clearly they were all bribed and the only people we should take into consideration are the ones who said they didn't see any planes.

fast_clay badrepping me for making sense :sad:

buddyholly
11-23-2011, 02:33 AM
There werent any planes on 9/11 mate.



There were no planes as far as I can see. The whole thing was faked, and that proves right there it was an inside job. As for the Pentagon and Shanksville, well I rest my case.

How can one argue in the face of evidence like this? By which I mean the evidence is clear that you would be arguing with an idiot.

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 03:10 AM
Conspiracy theorists live by the ''prove I'm wrong'' argument.

They can make up anything and say ''prove I'm wrong.'' Isn't there even a claim somewhere in this thread that ''there were no planes.'' So 1,000,000 Manhattanites didn't see real planes, or something like that. Nutcases.

I am NOT making anything up, you :stupid:! I have only posted information from MSM reports, first responders, other witnesses, FBI reports, NYPD reports, clips of audible explosions, professional pilots, scientific research and critique from Architects & Engineers for 911 truth, peer-reviewed scientific papers, air-traffic controllers, flight schools that the hijackers attended, world authorities on anthrax, etc.

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 03:18 AM
*ignore*

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 04:24 AM
[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible."

http://web.archive.org/web/20060209043954/http:/arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/26STOWER.html?ex=1086494400&en=574bed645c6a41dc&ei=5070&pagewanted=print&position=bottom

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/firefighters_bomb_in_building.wmv

"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SecondaryDevices.wma

Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. “We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”

As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”

Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/080807_b_explosions.htm

Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ... "Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.

"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'

http://web.archive.org/web/20060209043954/http:/arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

"...then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower down and I don't know what caused that."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bbc_evans.wmv

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc2_explosions.wmv

A point to note about the above video is the sounds of the explosions consist of low frequencies only.
The absence of high frequencies indicates the sounds were not transmitted through the air to the camera's microphone but through the ground - they reached the microphone via the tripod.

This in turn indicates that the explosions occurred below ground level (note where the smoke originates in the video).

'Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors ...We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm

Firefighters shocked by a loud explosion.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_firefighters_explosion.wmv

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.msnbc.2.wmv

"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FDNY-explosions.mov

"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv

"We really never even got that close to the building. The explosion blew and it knocked everybody over"

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.the.explosion.blew.wmv

"I spoke with some police officials ... and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center ... may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.police.found.explosives.wmv

"But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.11.html

"...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..."

"We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..."

"We've got another explosion at the tower..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_firefighters.wma

"It's now the base of the World Trade Center, there seems to be now a second area there of smoke, so perhaps indicating that some sort of fire or explosion there..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.explosion.wmv

"They won't let me go any closer. No-one can go in and get the people out. There's small explosions still going on."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_cnn_explosions.wmv

"We've just heard another explosion ... the consensus is it's too unsafe to go in there."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.heard.another.explosion.mark.heath.wmv

"We started walking down to the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.eight.floor.big.explosion..wmv

"...but in the third blast I couldn't even breathe, so I had to get out..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_third_blast.wmv

"We made it all the way down the stairs [of WTC 1], and then when we were just about to come out of the building there was another blast ... I don't know what happened to the people behind me when the blast occurred."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/witness_blast.wmv

"It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off, and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs, and then when we finally got to the bottom we were coming out ... and another explosion came...sent everyone flying..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.another.explosion.wmv

"We're stuck on the stairs for a while. We finally got down to the lobby, and then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.lobby.big.explosion.wmv

"All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ...
I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame..."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.carol.marin.wmv

"...the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.truck.bombs.fbi.jack.kelley_2.ram

"The streets of the financial district covered with debris, in some cases ankle deep. Cars on fire, cars just turned by the force of the explosions."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv

When the rescue team reached an area directly in front of Tower Two, Antonio said he'd take over the equipment cart Will had pushed from Building 5. [...] The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street.

http://www.bowhunter.com/feature_articles/BN_FromTheRubble/

As he left the building, [Ronald DiFrancesco] saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face. He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive -- the last person out of the south tower.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/12/19/usat-escape.htm

David Handschuh: "Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away". "Handschuh was thrown under a vehicle, which probably saved him from the falling debris, he said," according to the PDNonline story.

Don Halasy: "As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building. By the time I regained my footing, a hailstorm of debris was falling from the sky."

http://fotophile.com/news0009.html

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html

CBS News Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in the WTC

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/Tower2Pulled.mp3

A huge explosion has occurred at the second of the two twin towers hit by planes in New York

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/11/story23301.asp

"I was almost out. I got down to the lobby, right near the Border’s book store. And then there was this explosion. I don’t know, I just got thrown to the ground and all this stuff fell on top of me."

http://www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/sec9/theashenguy

One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html

"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too." [Stephen Gregory - Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

"Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. ... By the time the debris settled from the first collapse, we started to walk back east, toward West Street, and a few minutes later ... we basically had the same thing: The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down." [EMS Lieutenant Bradley Mann]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

McMillan heard a rumble. "A big explosion," she now calls it. "The wall I was facing just opened up, and it threw me on the other side," she says. McMillan looked for Gonzalez. "I was still holding Rosa's hand," McMillan says. "But she pulled away." McMillan remembers Gonzalez trying to climb the stairs. "I got up," McMillan says. "And I tried to go behind her. That's when the rubble just kept coming down."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_mcmillan.html

I lost track of time. You start to hear this rumble. You hear this rumble. Everything is shaking. Now I'm like, what the hell could that be. I'm thinking we're going to get bombed. This is an air raid. You hear this thunder, this rumbling. Then you see the building start to come down. Everybody's like, "Run for your lives! The building is coming down!" [Jody Bell, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

"We felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway and then it just came down and I never looked back once I started running." [Lonnie Penn, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

"...all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. ... The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

"At around 9:50 AM, Michael and his colleague were only a block and a half a way from the WTC, when there was an ominous rumbling that grew into a roar, shaking the ground "like a thousand trains." It took them a moment to realize that the South Tower was starting to fall."

http://backroadsofvermont.freeservers.com/stranded.html

"Shortly before the first tower came down I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running...." [Bradley Mann, Lieutenant (E.M.S.)]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

"As I turned the corner on the third floor landing the stairwell erupted into a hurricane. This huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came up the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.debris.up.the.stairs.wmv

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 04:28 AM
FirefightersFor911TRUTH.org - Erik Lawyer - Press Conference

The 9/11 investigation did not follow the most basic guidelines of national standards.

TULmLtqRXZ4

Mjau!
11-23-2011, 04:48 AM
Criticism of the 9/11 commission

FAA and NORAD

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that US air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington, D.C..

The Commission reported a year later that audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft—American Airlines Flight 11—long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.[10] For example, Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not even hijacked until 12 minutes later. According to later testimony, the military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the FAA and NORAD to release evidence such as audiotapes. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes—along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence—led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," said John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, in an August 2006 interview.[10]

In April 2002, Bush said that the investigation into 9/11 should be confined to Congress because it deals with sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of intelligence.[11] But by September, the White House came under intense fire concerning the commission from many victims' families,[12] and thus President Bush finally agreed to the creation of an "independent" 9/11 commission. But many 9/11 victims' families believed that the scope of the investigation by the commission did not go far enough in investigating the US government's failures because the commission was not to investigate intelligence failures.[13]

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, consisting of former FBI, NSA and other federal intelligence experts, claim the 9/11 Commission report was fundamentally flawed because the Commission refused to hear, ignored, or censored testimony about the many pre–September 11 warnings given to the FBI and US intelligence agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11 regarding the 9/11 plot.[14]

Able Danger

In August 2005, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer claimed he had informed 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow about a highly classified data-mining project called Able Danger that had identified two of the three terrorist cells responsible for 9/11. Shaffer said Zelikow was initially very interested and gave Shaffer his card to contact him again. However, Shaffer claims when he contacted Zelikow, he was no longer interested in information about Able Danger.[15] The commission later issued a response saying they found Shaffer "not sufficiently reliable" and the information was "lacking historical significance" and did not warrant further investigation.[16] Subsequently, four additional "credible witnesses" have come forward to support Shaffer's account of Able Danger.[17]

U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) claimed Commission staff had received two briefings on Able Danger, one in October 2003 and another in July 2004.[18] Former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the Commission, said: "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us." A search for documents on Able Danger has not been very productive, leading Curt Weldon to express extreme disappointment and to speculate that a coverup may have occurred.

The Pentagon investigated the matter and has not been able to find any documentary evidence confirming the allegations.[18] Pentagon spokesman Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz said: "We've interviewed 80 people involved with Able Danger, combed through hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of e-mails and have still found no documentation of Mohamed Atta." Weldon claims that the Pentagon ordered the destruction of a large volume of documents related to Able Danger.[19] The Pentagon stated that due to regulations regarding the collection of data on foreign visitors in the United States that the records had been destroyed.[19]

FBI director's critique

Former FBI director Louis Freeh criticized the 9/11 Commission for ignoring key evidence from Able Danger, which he alleged resulted in false statements being made in the final 9/11 Commission report. For example, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks," which Mr. Freeh stated appears to be false. He stated that Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta, the alleged ring-leader of the 19 hijackers, as an Al Qaeda man active in the United States and was tracking him for many months.

Further, Director Freeh criticized the Commission for allowing the Pentagon to withhold key evidence about the facts found by Able Danger and concluded that these inadequacies raised serious questions about the credibility of the 9/11 Commission.[20]

"Set up" to fail

The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

Short (~13min) clip on the 9/11 commission
OXO_IS6IiUs

Press for Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ap-ZiqkNM

buddyholly
11-23-2011, 02:36 PM
I am NOT making anything up, you :stupid:! I have only posted information from MSM reports, first responders, other witnesses, FBI reports, NYPD reports, clips of audible explosions, professional pilots, scientific research and critique from Architects & Engineers for 911 truth, peer-reviewed scientific papers, air-traffic controllers, flight schools that the hijackers attended, world authorities on anthrax, etc.

But all that is after the fact. Of course there was confusion, rumblings in weakened buildings etc. Firestorms shooting down elevator shafts etc.
But what I saw was two planes hitting the towers and shortly afterwards the towers collapsed at the floors of impact.

That leaves the ridiculous theory of 2003 that it was all done by mirrors, or the almost equally implausible theory of rrainer that the planes were drones and the explosives were already planted on the floors that the planes were programmed to hit.

Nobody has given me a plausible reason as to why the buildings collapsed where the planes hit. Until I get past that starting point I won't give much thought to the Jews being responsible.

buddyholly
11-26-2011, 11:20 PM
There werent any planes on 9/11 mate.

Why would they use real planes, too many risks involved.

Slow down many of the videos available of the flight 175 strike and you can see they are fake. In these ones, the plane is 1/2 - 3/4 of the way or even more into the tower and theres no entry hole. That doesnt happen in the real world.

OspVC3_A6cY
NMkukzq3ypY
fL_x9NsxJlg

The second video shows the engine and cockpit enter the tower and no entry hole in the building. All show a dissapearing wing, or no wing at all.

These videos have not been doctored. In these ones you can see a clear discrepancy between the flight altitude, this video shows the plane coming in on a horizontal plane;

DoE8Uz2ia3M

This video shows clear discrepancies from the altitude of the planes to the dive bombing in some and flat horizontal plane in others.

This one shows it dive bombing.

iF1zlguWMRY

This cant be ignored. Many or all of these videos are fake. Dont fart on about passengers and planes, where are any home videos of people filming the take off, or family members saying goodbye at the airports? There were no planes as far as I can see. The whole thing was faked, and that proves right there it was an inside job. As for the Pentagon and Shanksville, well I rest my case.

Ridiculous. Simple light and shade and perspective.

You have convinced yourself that the entire population of Lower Manhattan somehow saw things that weren't there. We call this throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Surely you can't be serious.

BodyServe
11-27-2011, 12:33 PM
Maybe i shouldn't post this but do some research about holographic planes, scary stuff.
You don't believe it untill you saw some videos of them.

Gagsquet
11-27-2011, 12:40 PM
Maybe i shouldn't post this but do some research about holographic planes, scary stuff.
You don't believe it untill you saw some videos of them.


We have a winner, a 'no-plane' theory believer. BINGO :lol:

BodyServe
11-27-2011, 12:45 PM
We have a winner, a 'no-plane' theory believer. BINGO :lol:

No, i haven't made my mind about it to be honest, but there is just too many suspicions to be how the media told us.

buddyholly
11-27-2011, 01:10 PM
What did the media ''tell'' you? Didn't you read about the suspicions in the media? Maybe you live somewhere, where the media is not free to publish what they want.

Like some other posters on this site, you probably didn't bother to think about the huge numbers of people necessary to do this - and the impossibility of keeping all those people quiet.

Can you imagine the headlines if, say, the NY Times or the Guardian, got this story?

Gagsquet
11-27-2011, 01:18 PM
What did the media ''tell'' you? Didn't you read about the suspicions in the media? Maybe you live somewhere, where the media is not free to publish what they want.

Like some other posters on this site, you probably didn't bother to think about the huge numbers of people necessary to do this - and the impossibility of keeping all those people quiet.

Can you imagine the headlines if, say, the NY Times or the Guardian, got this story?

Buddyholly is making sense.
Listen everybody, this doesn't happen a lot :)

BodyServe
11-27-2011, 01:25 PM
I meant the official story told by the media.
I'm aware of all the people involded needed if this was staged but i'm also aware of those suspicions (no they arent coming from the media) and i'm open minded enough to not take the media story for granted.
I'm analysing arguments from each sides to make my mind which i haven't...

2003
11-27-2011, 10:00 PM
Ridiculous. Simple light and shade and perspective.

You have convinced yourself that the entire population of Lower Manhattan somehow saw things that weren't there. We call this throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Surely you can't be serious.

Have you ever been to Manhattan?

There are so many tall buildings around that you actually couldnt see all of most of the WTC from many locations. There are many people that didnt see exactly what happened.

All I know is those videos a fake. A plane cant go 3/4 of the way into a building and not leave a hole.

I will video myself punching a wall and slow it down and see if my fist can go in without making a hole.

Watch that first video, and then watch the slowdown of the low angle of the plane coming in, that second video. Watch it frame by frame. You can clearly see that fuelage dissapear into the building, and that engine just vanish without making a hole. Its a CGI image.

BodyServe
11-27-2011, 11:26 PM
Have you ever been to Manhattan?

There are so many tall buildings around that you actually couldnt see all of most of the WTC from many locations. There are many people that didnt see exactly what happened.

All I know is those videos a fake. A plane cant go 3/4 of the way into a building and not leave a hole.

I will video myself punching a wall and slow it down and see if my fist can go in without making a hole.

Watch that first video, and then watch the slowdown of the low angle of the plane coming in, that second video. Watch it frame by frame. You can clearly see that fuelage dissapear into the building, and that engine just vanish without making a hole. Its a CGI image.

What about the nose of the "plane" pointing out on the other side of the building?!?!!!
This simply doesn't happend in the real world.
I think it's more an hologram than CGI but it's definetly not real.

Pirata.
11-28-2011, 01:53 AM
Of all the 9/11 theories, the plane hologram ones are the stupidest. I could maybe consider some of the others, but holographic/CGI planes is just pure idiocy.

Seingeist
11-28-2011, 01:59 AM
Of all the 9/11 theories, the plane hologram ones are the stupidest. I could maybe consider some of the others, but holographic/CGI planes is just pure idiocy.

Bush hired Pixar and swore them to secrecy.

Tom Hanks and Billy Crystal were originally slated to voice the two airplanes, but the team decided against it due to concerns that it would put too friendly a face on the terrorists.

buddyholly
11-28-2011, 02:26 AM
Have you ever been to Manhattan?

There are so many tall buildings around that you actually couldnt see all of most of the WTC from many locations. There are many people that didnt see exactly what happened.

All I know is those videos a fake. A plane cant go 3/4 of the way into a building and not leave a hole.

I will video myself punching a wall and slow it down and see if my fist can go in without making a hole.

Watch that first video, and then watch the slowdown of the low angle of the plane coming in, that second video. Watch it frame by frame. You can clearly see that fuelage dissapear into the building, and that engine just vanish without making a hole. Its a CGI image.

Many times. And you?
I have a good friend who actually saw it all from his office in Citibank and later blogged about it.

A plane won't leave a hole until it has gone all the way into a building. When you video your fist make sure you stop when your fist is just part way into the wall, then look for the hole. Better still, use your head. It's suitably dense.

The third video is particularly dumb. It stops and asks where did the wing go? The wing is still clearly there, but the plane has slightly changed angle.

2003
11-28-2011, 09:46 PM
Then how do you explain the differing altitude in the various videos? Its irrefutable some vidoes show the plane on a relatively flat plane, others show it diving down.

Also, you have to consider the construction of the WTC. Steel curtain wall, then concrete on every floor, from one side, all the way to the other, on every floor, 4 inches thick. The impact zones were about 5-6 floors wide. I doubt an aluminium plane and wings could slice through that steel then through all that concrete without semingly breaking apart at all until it was all the way into the building.

wee
11-29-2011, 09:26 AM
very interesting. hadn't heard of this before. let's hope the truth will never come out - for the sake of world peace.
well said. But let's be clear, it's the truth, not the conspiracy theories.

MaxPower
11-29-2011, 06:05 PM
Also, you have to consider the construction of the WTC. Steel curtain wall, then concrete on every floor, from one side, all the way to the other, on every floor, 4 inches thick. The impact zones were about 5-6 floors wide. I doubt an aluminium plane and wings could slice through that steel then through all that concrete without semingly breaking apart at all until it was all the way into the building.

It's just elementary physics. A wall/side isn't strong against a massive hit from a perpendicular angle. The speed and mass combined with the small surface area of the front of the plane and it's wings would pass through a wall of steel and concrete like nothing. To stop the plane/break it apart before entering you would've needed something massive. Like a few meters of solid material.

The hollow space of the tower worked against it as it gives the material a way to expand/deform. This allowed the plane to pass through and also those hollow spaces like the elevator shafts etc allowed the burning jet fuel and burning material to slowly weaken the steel of the entire construction. Doesn't have to melt it, it's enough to weaken it as it carriers so much weight that if it loses a critical % of it's strength it all falls apart like a house of cards.

If it wasn't a hollow building but the solid side of a mountain then it would be like some conspiracy theorists seem to believe that the plane would shatter/not do massive damage.

But hey some people also think you can take protection behind a car door vs a lead bullets because the steel is harder. Doesn't matter. The bullet will surely deform but it will go through that sheet of steel like nothing. To stop the bullet you would have needed something more solid. Like a real thick piece of material. In fact a bag of sand is gonna be way way better than a sheet of steel. The WTC situation is similar but in a much larger scale.

Yes it was built of hard materials but it wasn't solid enough to stop the plane from penetrating into the building. IF the plane had come in at a more extreme angle or at lower speed the situation could have been radically different. But it didn't. And we all witnessed the result

buddyholly
11-29-2011, 08:03 PM
Yes it was built of hard materials but it wasn't solid enough to stop the plane from penetrating into the building. IF the plane had come in at a more extreme angle or at lower speed the situation could have been radically different. But it didn't. And we all witnessed the result

People like 2003 probably imagine a solid mass hitting another solid mass. It was actually mostly air and jet fuel hitting a glass and steel lattice.

2003
11-30-2011, 02:52 AM
But hey some people also think you can take protection behind a car door vs a lead bullets because the steel is harder. Doesn't matter. The bullet will surely deform but it will go through that sheet of steel like nothing. To stop the bullet you would have needed something more solid. Like a real thick piece of material. In fact a bag of sand is gonna be way way better than a sheet of steel. The WTC situation is similar but in a much larger scale.


Your massively simplifying it.

Yes, the office space was largely hollow.

BUT, at the angle, the wingspan of the plane took out 5-6 floors at least.

You gotta understand, its not done once the plane goes through the steel curtain wall. Not even close.

Behind that is 5-6 floors. On each of those floors is 4 inches thick of concrete. FROM ONE SIDE, ALL THE WAY TO THE OTHER. Below that is a steel deck on each floor. Below that is a web of strong but lightweight steel trusses holding it up.

You have 5-6 times of that solid mass for the wings/engines/fuselage/tail etc to go through.

Thats a very solid mass. The job is only 3% done once the plane enters the curtain wall.

Say it does that, its still got shitloads of mass to go through. I drew this simply diargam to point it out.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/21/wtcdiagram.jpg/

Consider that hopeless diagram haha. Your making it sound like between the two walls there is nothing. But there is 5-6 floors (consideirng the wingspan) for the plane to go through. And it goes clean through most of it.

So in many ways parts of it were like a mountain. Half of it was hollow, but half of it was 4 inches of very thick concrete/steel decking/trusses and the like.

So it wasnt neally as simple as your making it out to be.

The plane would be shot once it went through the steel. Then the wings and tail etc all gotta stay intact whilst it slices through all that concrete and decking/trusses, many many many metres worth from one side of the other.

Comparing it to a car door is useless. Your talking about a large plane that goes through not only the steel curtain wall, but behind it, partially 5-6 floors of concrete/steel decking and steel trusses, and you gotta remember, rows and rows and rows of trusses, not just one or two rows.

Its a fair fair bit more complicated than you are making it out to be.

And the plane stays in tact the whole way and then doesnt even explode. The explosion is very delayed if you watch closely.

2003
11-30-2011, 03:01 AM
It's just elementary physics. A wall/side isn't strong against a massive hit from a perpendicular angle. The speed and mass combined with the small surface area of the front of the plane and it's wings would pass through a wall of steel and concrete like nothing. To stop the plane/break it apart before entering you would've needed something massive. Like a few meters of solid material.

The hollow space of the tower worked against it as it gives the material a way to expand/deform.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/assembly.jpg

Look at that picture.

You have to appreciate whats there once the plane clears the curtain wall. Some of it is hollow office space. Well with things like desks and filing cabinits in the way.

But look at the angle, the plane takes out 5-6 floors.

Behind the curtain wall is 5-6 floors, 4 inches thick of concrete, ontop of that, a steel deck, below both webs and webs of steel trusses.

So you say you would need metres of solid material.

Dude, theres close to 80 metres or more maybe of solid material. The initial steel wall, then all that concrete and steel from the floors, and not just one floor, but 5-6 of them or more. And not just one row of steel floor trusses, but many, many rows. And it just obliterates them all all whilst staying seemlessly intact, the tail fin doesnt even fall off.

There is a video of an f4 hitting a reinforced concrete wall at pace, and the wall largely obliterates the plane.

Now its a radically different scenario at the WTC, but how does the plane stay intact all that way?

2003
11-30-2011, 03:11 AM
Another picture of the floor assembly and from the same site, a description of each floor;

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/truss-assembly.jpg

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

Diagram (above): Structural system for typical floor

13 Load-bearing external wall
14 Bar joist 900mm deep
15 Secondary joist
16 Horizontal bracing
17 Core box column

21 Floor covering
22 In-situ concrete
23 Trough decking
24 Bar joist
25 Electrical services duct
26 Air-conditioning duct


Look at this picture of "flight 175"

http://kleber09.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/288_flight175_hits2050081722-90611.jpg

Look at that wingspan.

The planes gotta take out 8 or so floors. So youve got 8 of those assemblies, from 1 side to the other, to drill through. Not hollow space from one side to the other like you keep saying. Plus 8 floors fill of desks, chairs, filing cabinits, computer mainframes and god knows what else.

How strong are those floors? They gotta hold all that stuff up. And the wings and tail fin just drilled through it all like a knife through butter.

You gotta visualise it propperly. Not just a steel curtain wall, and nothing of note to the other side. And even an engine supposedly came out the other side.

Now, maybe you can say the fuselage part got lucky and mostly went through the glass or a hollow floor or two.

But those wings are LONG. They gotta be drilling through all those floors at that angle.

BodyServe
11-30-2011, 11:44 AM
This is the biggest proof it is not a commercial airplane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PZxGsYNnY

Good luck debunking this :wavey:

MaxPower
11-30-2011, 04:10 PM
2003:

What have you gotten that thing about the planes being "intact" from? Of course they ripped apart. Why do you keep doing BS like it would be like a freaking cartoon that wings and everything would tear through and leave a hole of a plane in the building? The plane WAS NOT INTACT. No one is claiming that.

Think of it as a soft projectile. Once it goes into the building it will act almost like a liquid going for the path of least resistance. It did deform into very small parts as it teared through.

Also we do you keep bringing up the integrity of individual floors like some argument why it would withstand a plane like it was the planes that collapsed the building?

Make no mistake: The planes did not collapse the building. The building and the steel construction survived the plane crash

It was the fire and the weakening of the steel with the increased temperature that eventually collapsed the building. That the plane knocked away fire insulation and helped start the furnace with jet fuel was a major contributing factor.

I'm starting to think that most conspiracy theorists haven't even bothered reading even a small summary of the official investigation. Just settled on "they are lying" and then do scattered evidence of why it couldn't have happened often using something that no-one is even claiming.


I haven't seen anything here that hasn't been debunked 1000 times. And not by internet theorists but by professors, civil engineers and structural engineers

MaxPower
11-30-2011, 04:20 PM
This is the biggest proof it is not a commercial airplane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5PZxGsYNnY

Good luck debunking this :wavey:

lol

BodyServe
11-30-2011, 06:18 PM
lol

This is not funny at all, to me it's clearer by the day what happenned there and the worst thing is that most people believed the media story.

When there is evidences, they aren't even looking at them because they were brainwashed for more than 10 years, it's better late than never to open your eyes.

Here, we have a clear case of a plasmatic weapon in a plane hologram, that would also explain the "absence of wing" and the number of censored witnesses that said they never saw a plane like that, not to mention the flash right before the impact.

Mjau!
11-30-2011, 08:50 PM
The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks

Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

...

India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.

In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.

India in anti-Taliban military plan

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.

By Our Correspondent

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.

Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.

...

BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US 'planned attack on Taleban'

The wider objective was to oust the Taliban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.

...

MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

...

9/11 radio broadcast: "The Director of the CIA warned that there could be an attack—an imminent attack—on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected."

9/11 CBS9 broadcast: "There are contigency plans set to go, and the plans have been set to go for several weeks now on what to do if Osama bin Laden were to plan a very large attack, and they've selected targets in Afghanistan, and you can be sure that if it is Osama bin Laden that the US will probably retaliate, and retaliate massively."

"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002

How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html

Pirata.
11-30-2011, 09:02 PM
Truthers are so cute :hug:

What am I supposed to be looking at in the video? Is that supposed to be the nose of the plane emerging from the other side of the building? More like the outward burst of debris from the impact. :cuckoo:

buddyholly
11-30-2011, 09:18 PM
Another picture of the floor assembly and from the same site, a description of each floor;

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/truss-assembly.jpg

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

Diagram (above): Structural system for typical floor

13 Load-bearing external wall
14 Bar joist 900mm deep
15 Secondary joist
16 Horizontal bracing
17 Core box column

21 Floor covering
22 In-situ concrete
23 Trough decking
24 Bar joist
25 Electrical services duct
26 Air-conditioning duct


Look at this picture of "flight 175"

http://kleber09.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/288_flight175_hits2050081722-90611.jpg

Look at that wingspan.

The planes gotta take out 8 or so floors. So youve got 8 of those assemblies, from 1 side to the other, to drill through. Not hollow space from one side to the other like you keep saying. Plus 8 floors fill of desks, chairs, filing cabinits, computer mainframes and god knows what else.

How strong are those floors? They gotta hold all that stuff up. And the wings and tail fin just drilled through it all like a knife through butter.

You gotta visualise it propperly. Not just a steel curtain wall, and nothing of note to the other side. And even an engine supposedly came out the other side.

Now, maybe you can say the fuselage part got lucky and mostly went through the glass or a hollow floor or two.

But those wings are LONG. They gotta be drilling through all those floors at that angle.

See the sun on one wing and the other wing in shadow? I think this is the video you used earlier to ''prove'' there were no planes, just holograms.

buddyholly
11-30-2011, 09:19 PM
Truthers are so cute :hug:

What am I supposed to be looking at in the video? Is that supposed to be the nose of the plane emerging from the other side of the building? More like the outward burst of debris from the impact. :cuckoo:

Of course, or an engine.

BodyServe
11-30-2011, 09:24 PM
Truthers are so cute :hug:

What am I supposed to be looking at in the video? Is that supposed to be the nose of the plane emerging from the other side of the building? More like the outward burst of debris from the impact. :cuckoo:

It certainly is more complicated than that, it's probably remaining pieces of their plasma weapon before it gets destroyed by the flames.
And i have never seen debris like that before moreso on the exact opposite side, and if it was debris it would fall.

Seingeist
11-30-2011, 10:07 PM
:lol:

Good stuff.

MaxPower
11-30-2011, 10:08 PM
http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

And for an accurate simulation

cddIgb1nGJ8

It did shoot out on the other side. Nothing sci-fi about that

Of course, or an engine.

seems to be an engine yes. 2:00-> in the simulation above illustrates this and how it goes out on the other side. Makes sense as they would be very heavy and not easily destroyed. They are often big parts when planes crash the "natural" way too into the ground/forests or what not

2003
12-02-2011, 09:00 PM
2003:

What have you gotten that thing about the planes being "intact" from? Of course they ripped apart. Why do you keep doing BS like it would be like a freaking cartoon that wings and everything would tear through and leave a hole of a plane in the building? The plane WAS NOT INTACT. No one is claiming that.

Think of it as a soft projectile. Once it goes into the building it will act almost like a liquid going for the path of least resistance. It did deform into very small parts as it teared through.

Also we do you keep bringing up the integrity of individual floors like some argument why it would withstand a plane like it was the planes that collapsed the building?

Make no mistake: The planes did not collapse the building. The building and the steel construction survived the plane crash

It was the fire and the weakening of the steel with the increased temperature that eventually collapsed the building. That the plane knocked away fire insulation and helped start the furnace with jet fuel was a major contributing factor.

I'm starting to think that most conspiracy theorists haven't even bothered reading even a small summary of the official investigation. Just settled on "they are lying" and then do scattered evidence of why it couldn't have happened often using something that no-one is even claiming.


I haven't seen anything here that hasn't been debunked 1000 times. And not by internet theorists but by professors, civil engineers and structural engineers

Umm, because thats exactly what happened. The plane did go through like a cartoon and leave an outline of a plane.

This arguements got nothing to do with what caused the collapse of the building.

There is zero proof the plane knocked away most of the fire insulation. Thats something the investigation teams basically made up because it made their arguement more plausible.

Whatever, that made up animation is just conjecture. No one could see what happened once the tail entered the tower.

What I do know is the videos are fake, at least some and probably all. How do I know that? Because many show different altitudes. Thats the crux of the arguement. No one has debunked that because they cant. The rest is just a supplimentary arguement.

Pirata.
12-02-2011, 10:56 PM
zMelmLspMP0

Scary stuff.

buddyholly
12-03-2011, 02:15 AM
What I do know is the videos are fake, at least some and probably all. How do I know that? Because many show different altitudes. Thats the crux of the arguement. No one has debunked that because they cant. The rest is just a supplimentary arguement.

I'm not sure where you have the proof of that. Probably they were just seen from different perspectives.

So you don't even think the conspirators were smart enough to fake good videos?

You seem to have gotten so careless with your posts that you no longer bother to differentiate between a video and a hologram.

2003
12-03-2011, 02:42 AM
zMelmLspMP0

Scary stuff.

You really believe that testimony?

BodyServe
12-12-2011, 11:55 PM
Stunning (and scary) video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8oXH9TdDuc

Pirata.
12-13-2011, 01:28 AM
You really believe that testimony?

Well, his office was on that floor and he was on the phone at the time, I don't see why not :lol:

2003
12-13-2011, 09:08 AM
Well, his office was on that floor and he was on the phone at the time, I don't see why not :lol:

vwaYC9Ju0n8

He is an actor and a blatant liar. In another version he tells;


http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/survivor1.htm


"As Stanley was talking, he looked up and saw American Airlines Flight 11 heading straight for him. "All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. "But this thing is happening in slow motion. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, I said 'Lord, you take control, I can't help myself here.' " Stanley then dove under his desk."

The article got the flight number wrong, but you get the idea.

He wouldnt have time to do all that. To focus on the plane, see all that detail, realise it, then turn and dive and duck under his desk, the plane would have already hit! It would be like you glimpse it and then its in the building, thats how fast it "was going".

They used lots of these actors. Heres the most obvious one.

A0wHeekgPqk

No one knew any story of fires collapsing the building at that point. Listen to what he says. Hes a blantant actor. Who talks like that?

Of course, he wasnt the only one by far.

The official story was spread on the street :wavey: