THE NOTHING-HIT-NOTHING THEORY
theoretician | 09.07.2005 16:39 | Analysis
THE NOTHING-HIT-NOTHING THEORY
originally published Friday July 01, 2005 at 02:25 AM
what hit the penta and the wtc on 911 was...nothing
much if not all of the discussion about what really happened at the penta on 911 has focused on whether it was a plane - the alleged AA77- or a missile.
i think i am able to argue it was neither.
gerald holmgren wrote:
"It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it."
source:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.html
wrong:
it actually IS disputable.
that the alleged AA77 never hit the penta has long since been shown by thierry meyssan first and then by holmgren himself.
but both seem to uncritically believe it must have been a missile.
well actually it may well have been NOTHING at all.
it may well have been another wtc-style controlled demolition.
the alleged surveillance cam video which has been circulated on the web may well be another wtc-style fabrication,a fake.
and the controlled demolition would have been the simplest and best-concealable way for bush and his thugs to do the penta job - you just need a couple of skilled crooks to plant the bombs,disguised as renovation workers.
and then remember the part of the penta that was allegedly hit had been under renovation for some time,oh coincidence,and stood empty by 911.
if bush&gang had shot a missile instead they would have had to do it from a ship or base,and shooting a precision missile requires quite a team of expert military - not that it's impossible to corrupt a number of people but it's much harder to conceal the shooting of a missile,especially since you have to do it from a distance,or from a visible plane travelling from a distance.
and even if they had wanted to use a drone,well it takes quite a team of experts i assume to remote control a drone and again it's less concealable.
well you might say at this point:
how about the witnesses who (allegedly) spoke of a small plane?
well i do not see why holmgren discards the jet witnesses as planted - rightly indeed - but then goes on to uncritically accept the small plane or missile witnesses as authentic.
no proof of that at all.
i think both were planted in the media by the bush thugs to confuse and lead minds astray.
because the regime spin machine is so powerful to be able to plant hundreds of fake jet witnesses in the media,it would have had no trouble in editing out the small plane witnesses.
or fabricating them and editing them in to bafle truth-seekers and raise false flags.
there's quite a few of them for both the wtc and the penta and even pennsylvania.
but there's more to this:
the videos of the 2 alleged wtc jets have long since been shown to be fakes:
http://thewebfairy.com/911
yet even the critics that showed them as fakes still cling to the false assumption that something must have hit the towers anyway.
why not assume nothing at all hit the towers if the videos were faked,and that it was all done by controlled demolition?
why factor in unnecessary unproven missiles?
same goes for the penta.
i possess a rare penta pic from a hard copy of the international herald tribune,september 12,2001,page12.
maybe you can obtain it too from the iht website,probably you'll have to pay but it's worth it:
i haven't seen this photo on the web since 911.
i hope to be able to scan it decently and then upload it in a future update of this essay.
anyway for now you get my description of it and conclusions:
it shows the burning penta part before the collapse,therefore if authentic this pic was taken between 9.40 am - reported approximate time of the event - and what was it,roughly 10 am - reported official collapse time,correct me if i recall wrong.
obviously there's no trace of the alleged plane,but that's a given by now ever since february/march 2002 when thierry meyssan's brilliant where's the plane website first appeared.
but the one interesting detail is the wire fence outside the penta.
it is in part collapsed,near a burning car and what may be a burning van or station wagon (a car bomb to simulate the plane exlosion?).
now the fencing has clearly collapsed OUTWARDS,AWAY FROM THE PENTA.
if the alleged plane had hit it we would instead expect it to have collapsed inwards,or to have been dragged inward,towards the building.
same if a missile had hit it.
instead it's as if it had been blown to the ground by an explosive force coming from INSIDE THE BUILDING - the same explosive force that may well have opened the hole at the concourse level.
of course one might object that it may have been an explosive-loaded missile which penetrated the building and then exploded inside - such a weapon may exist,dunno.
but now figure the stakes bush and his madmen had in a perfect outcome of 911:
zillions of dollars in war business against the alleged arabic terrorists.
try walking in the shoes of a greedy establishment glutton the likes of bush or cheney or rummy planning 911:
would you have preferred a volatile missile launching,less concealable and more prone to error,or a controlled demolition accurately prepared and traditionally known to work,under the guise of renovation works?
forget the planes of course.
forget the missile.
dark forces prefer to cloak their inside jobs...
add your comments
hey you!
by american government Friday July 01, 2005 at 04:05 AM
click to enlarge
sam.jpg, image/jpeg, 571x800
I don't think you should be revealing the conspiracy here, not now. I mean I know the pentagon attack has some questions around it, but to reveal the extent of the conspiracy about the WTC towers.... just not on dude.
Why are you telling everyone of our secret powers that enable us to edit the same image into video from independant cameras filming at different angles over which we have no control, and our secret powers which are able to edit into people's minds memories of the same planes hitting the towers?
Don't you know there is a WAR going on man? For the sake of the republican party, skull and bones, Jesus, and the elders of zion, don't talk about our military powers in the open god damn it.
*message brought to you by the global conspiracy on behalf of the american government*
add your comments
Reply to this guy
by Alpal Friday July 01, 2005 at 11:26 AM
What a load of absolute rubbish.
You need to see a psychiatrist for your paranoia.
Alpal
add your comments
War Shortages
by Rosie The Riveter Friday July 01, 2005 at 01:08 PM
The other day, the supermarket was out of tin foil -- it seems they can't keep it on the shelves since 9/11.
Too many people are buying it up to make into hats
Like the example above!
add your comments
Gullible Travels
by Somatron 4000 Friday July 01, 2005 at 05:04 PM
When doubts began to circulate about the official version of the events of 9/11 the black ops machines swung into action.
The strategy was to tar legitimate researchers with the "all 9/11 theorists are loonies" brush. We then began to see increasingly crazy thories.
It seems to have worked. Many inconsistencies and discrepencies have never been adequately accounted for and probably never will now that all research into 9/11 can be heaped in with the "tin foil hat" wearers brigade.
The Bushite/Zionist designs for the Middle East could only have been instigated with a "Pearl Harbour" scale catalyst.
Voila 9/11.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Why did so many of the alleged Islamic extremist hijackers end up alive and well after supposedly incinerating themselves in the twin towers?
How would we know if the attacks were actually orchestrated by US/Israeli agencies to bring the public on board for their planned Crusade for Oil and Zion? I suppose they would tell us?
How easy would it be for the same agencies to recruit Islamic fundamentalists via black/blind ops for the mission?
That would explain why so many "safety" systems failed on that fateful day.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
* THE 9/11 ATTACKS - WHAT WE KNOW:
o The Bush administration was comprised of a group of people who had published a radical foreign policy. Elements of this policy include what is now known as the Bush preemptive doctrine. When Paul Wolfowitz first created this policy for the George H. W Bush administration it was dismissed as insane. This group of people created an agenda and a strategy to advance it. This group openly stated ”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. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.“ The Bush administration was comprised of people who had a clear and public MOTIVE for creating or enabling the attacks of 9/11. This is a issue that should be addressed by our media, our lawmakers, our citizens and the rest of the world.
o Every procedure that was in place to deal with domestic hijackings was ignored on the day of the attacks.
o Why did the Secret Service feel that there was no need to protect George W. Bush?
o George Bush resisted an official inquiry into the worst national disaster since Pearl Harbor for 18 months. Any reasonable person would want to know what happened and they would want to make sure that there were no traitors in our mists. It was reasonable to consider the possibilities that the people who planned an attack like this had inside help. A president would want this checked out. George W. Bush wanted no investigation. He already had an official story and was quickly passed on to the press.
o Every bit of evidence at Ground Zero and the Pentagon was confiscated and destroyed, and not preserved as crime scene evidence. This in itself is a crime. No need to look further. This is not in dispute. The George W. Bush is responsible for ordering or allowing the destruction of crime scene evidence.
o There is not a shred of evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. All films from security cameras at the scene were confiscated and never seen again. The few frames of video from the Pentagon security camera were leaked to the public from an anonymous source in the Pentagon. When information is leaked from the Pentagon during a heightened state of emergency it is cause for concern. Neither the administration or the press question this breech of security. This is a clear indication of an intentional leak designed to sell the official story. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon they would have released the videos that were confiscated.
o The hole made in the Pentagon crash is far too small for a 757 to have made.
o Dozens of bin Laden family members were hurried out of the country without FBI interrogation immediately after the attacks.
o None of the alleged hijackers was on any passenger list of the hijacked planes.
o Eyewitness accounts describe a windowless, blue plane hitting the WTC.
o Someone placed ‘put’ orders on the two hijacked airlines before the attacks, and stood to net huge stock market profits.
o The Twin Towers both collapsed at free fall speed in the manner of a planned demolition, with visible explosions occurring in sequence on floors never hit by the planes.
o The owner of the WTC admitted that Tower 7 was ‘taken down’ (intentionally demolished) by the Fire Department. THIS IS A CONFESSION! DO WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE?
o Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the Kean Commission about the warning memo that stated bin Laden was targeting the US.
o Condoleezza Rice lied when she claimed that no one could have imagined an attack using airliners as weapons. NORAD had drilled for such events 2 years before the Bush White House claimed that they never could have imagined it.
o George Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit Tower One, when no photos of the crash had been shown on any television screen.
o George Bush sat silently in a classroom for seven full minutes after being informed that a second plane had hit the WTC. Why did George W. Bush react to the attacks differently than every other person in the nation? While every American jumped into emergency mode, George W. Bush did not flinch. He was not worried about his own safety or about the security of the nation. Why not?
o NORAD did not send up a single interceptor jet despite knowing that four hijackings were taking place.
o FBI agents and bomb sniffer dogs went through trash bins in both WTC Towers for weeks prior to the attacks. They were suddenly removed prior to the attack. Some people in our government were trying to do their job, others might have been trying to prevent the job from being done.
o Dick Cheney was in charge of a series of drills held on the morning of September 11th, simulating attacks by hijacked airliners on the WTC.
o No one in the US government is willing to investigate any of these and hundreds more concerns about this terrible event.
* THE WARS AGAINST AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ – WHAT WE KNOW:
o Members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) occupy or had occupied many important positions in the present Bush administration.
o PNAC explained the need for wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in papers published in the late 1990’s.
o PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but was turned down.
o PNAC member, Paul Wolfowitz, ADMITS that it was about OIL! HE ADMITTED IT! THE PRESS IGNORED THIS!!! ARE YOU LISTENING! DO YOU NEED MORE PROOF THAN A CONFESSION FROM ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE WAR??? ARE YOU LISTENING???
o The PNAC thesis “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated that Americans would not accept pre-emptive wars against Iraq or Afghanistan unless there was a ‘catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor’ inside the country. Again we establish motive for complicity in the events of 9/11.
o The Bush administration was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11. They promised the leaders of Afghanistan a ‘carpet of bombs’ should the deal fall through. The deal fell through.
o Deputy Director of the FBI, John O’Neill, quit his job in protest over this threat. O’Neill died in the attacks on the WTC on September 11th.
o The attack on Afghanistan was explained as retaliation against the Taliban for not turning Osama bin Laden over to American authorities.
o Both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powel stated prior to 9/11 that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and that he was unable to pose a threat to his neighbors or the US.
o George W. Bush came into the White House intent upon removing Saddam Hussein from power.
o Donald Rumsfeld stated that the response to 9/11 should be an attack on Iraq because that’s where the targets were.
o The UN inspectors were given unfettered access to sites Iraq, and requested more time to complete their task.
o Everyone in the Bush administration with access to the media stressed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions of Americans.
o A totally false connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was fabricated and repeated at every possible opportunity.
o In October, 2002, George W. Bush lied to the Congress of the United States about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In a brazen and impeachable act, he manipulated intelligence information in order to procure Congressional approval for his war against Iraq.
o Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld spent months assuring the American public that their lives were in great danger unless the US waged a preventive war against Iraq. There was no doubt about the accuracy of their information, they said. No doubt at all. Mushroom clouds were on the horizon.
o In January, 2003, George W. Bush lied to the nation in his SOTU speech about nuclear material obtained by Saddam. His unrelenting terror tactics and repeated references to Iraq’s WMD’s paved the way for public acceptance for a war he had planned for years.
o In February, 2003, Colin Powell lied to the UN on two separate occasions in a futile attempt to convince the Security Council of the immediate threat presented by Iraq.
o Despite UN inspectors’ statements to the contrary, George Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with the UN resolution requiring open inspections.
o In March, 2003, boasting of a bombing strategy named ‘shock and awe,’ George Bush invaded Iraq.
o More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in George Bush’s war. Nearly 1700 American troops have lost their lives. Nearly 200 coalition forces are dead. Untold thousands are maimed. The carnage continues and civil war is imminent.
o The minutes of the Downing Street meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair revealed an agreement to attack Iraq months before the invasion itself.
o George W. Bush violated international law by waging a preventive war on a non-threatening, sovereign nation. That illegal war continues to this day.
* THE ABUSE AND TORTURE OF PRISONERS – WHAT WE KNOW:
o On May 7th, 2002, the US officially withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US now has immunity from the court for US citizens suspected of atrocities. US soldiers serving overseas are immune from prosecution in the court, while politicians and US officials, including CIA operatives, can claim diplomatic immunity.
o Shortly after 9/11, WH legal counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, drafted a memo in which he virtually changed the rules of prisoner treatment. The memo declared the war on terror to be conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. Alberto Gonzales was subsequently appointed US Attorney General.
o In January, 2002, the WH legal department issued another memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.
o In February of 2002, George Bush signed a secret order authorizing the CIA. To set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness.
•The Bush administration then began to send terror suspects to other countries for interrogation, thereby absolving the US of blame for torture applied elsewhere.
o In 2003, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units for the expressed purpose of extracting information from detainees.
o As an outcome of regular inspections, the International Commission of the Red Cross broke its rule of secrecy by publicly complaining of the systemic abuse of prisoners, in Iraq and Afghanistan, detailing methods of abuse that were in clear violation of international law.
o In 2004, hundreds of photographs and video tapes were released that revealed shocking methods of abuse and torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison.
o Despite many complaints about abuse, no investigation of prisoner treatment was held until it was clear these photographs were about to be leaked to the media.
o Many civilian contractors were employed to carry out ‘interrogations’ of detainees.
o Many of the detainees had committed no crimes, but had been arrested in huge sweeps of Iraqi men intended to secure information about insurgent attacks.
o Interrogations were conducted and supervised by military intelligence operatives who ordered that prisoners be ‘softened up’ for questioning.
o Abuses often were sexual in nature, preying upon the cultural sensitivities of Moslem men regarding nudity and public sexual acts.
o Abuses were systemic throughout Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
o Hundreds of other photos and videos were kept secret by the Pentagon, and have recently been ordered released to the public.
o The Bush administration attributed the abuse to the work of a few ‘bad apple’ underlings, and denied any knowledge or approval by anyone in the administration.
o Reports of Koran desecration at Guantanamo were corroborated by the Pentagon.
o To date, civilian aircraft continue to fly terror suspects to other countries for harsh and illegal interrogation methods.
o To date, no one in the Pentagon or the White House has been held accountable for the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners. To date, only enlisted personnel have been charged with any abuses or torture. To date, further investigations have been dropped.
www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_smoking_gun_white_house_.html
add your comments
seriously
by anon Saturday July 02, 2005 at 07:16 AM
purestyle.jpg, image/jpeg, 288x294
you have some valid points but you ruin it all right at the start with:
"When doubts began to circulate about the official version of the events of 9/11 the black ops machines swung into action. "
You are jumping to conclusions that there is a conspiracy, you are doing so without evidence. Sure bush is evil, so are the PNAC guys, but black ops parodying tin foilers? If anything YOU are one of them.
add your comments
Take your Soma and shut up
by Somatron 4000 Saturday July 02, 2005 at 09:57 PM
It is easy to refute your silly denial anon, i.e. " You are jumping to conclusions that there is a conspiracy, you are doing so without evidence."
Without evidence?
The evidence as layed before you is abundant, you just refuse to see or acknowledge it. For instance, what happened to all the other footage from non-government security/surveillance cameras around the Pentagon? They confiscated it and have never released it. Why? The only thing they did release was some blurry, inconclusive footage from ONE camera at the Pentatgon. And what about all the EYE WITNESSES who saw a missile hit the Pentagon?
There is no way a 757 hit the Pentagon. The hole in the outer wall could not have have been made by one. IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY!!! A neat little round hole with no aircraft debri and you believe a 757 did it? If you believe that then you are a moron. Beyond stupid. If my dog was as determinedly stupid as you are I would have to shoot it!
Be a good droid, take your Soma and shut up.
add your comments
one wrong bit
by logique Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:01 AM
" Eyewitness accounts describe a windowless, blue plane hitting the WTC. ":
1.will you please link us to them?
2.again the main poster's point:
why do you discredit the alleged penta jet eyewitnesses - and rightly so - but credit the small plane witnesses with authenticity?
you have no proof either,and you can't rule out - and this is the poster's valid point - THAT NO FLYING THING AT ALL HIT EITHER THE WTC OR THE PENTA AND THAT IT WAS ALL FAKE VIDEOS AND FABRICATION OF EVRY KIND OF FAKE WITNESSES FOR INFOG PURPOSES.
controlled demolition is the real name of the game.
the poster has valid points abpout this that you do not address.
for the fake wtc videos:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2001.html
the rest of your comment is valid - please just quit chasing small planes...
add your comments
somatron you got
by just one thing wrong Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:05 AM
"And what about all the EYE WITNESSES who saw a missile hit the Pentagon? ":
first there's not many who declaredly speak of a missile.
secondly again:
you haven't read the main post:
why do you credit the jet witnesses with being plants - and rightly so - but then dogmatically judge the small plane or missile witnesses as authentic?
whay do you rule out they may have been planted too for infornation fog purposes?
why do you rule out it was just controlled dem + fake videos?
add your comments
walk like a droids
by droid Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:08 AM
me.jpg, image/jpeg, 200x255
hah, nice try, you avoided the question entirely.
I never said there wasn't anything dodgy about the pentagon, you are just trying to straw-man me there. I agree with that point. What I don't agree with it saying that the "black ops" people are somehow distributing propaganda on the internet to discredit your theories.
You are basically making the leap from Area51 = ???? to Area51 = Alien coverup, rather than the occam's razor inspired (and evidence supported) Area51 = top secret flight test facility. Now that isn't conclusive, we don't know, but it's MORE LIKELY. What is more likely in this case?
So, after we avoid your feeble attempt to say I don't have my own doubts and questions and frame me as some kind of oblivious pleb, how about you come up with that black op evidence? Oh what? You are just making unfounded claims? WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE REST OF YOUR RESEARCH FUCKTARD?
Seriously, you guys shoot yourselves in the foot every time. You discredit YOURSELVES. Now this is much more interesting. Even if I still have doubts and questions, supporting each point with one or more references, having humour and not making any baseless claims is a much more effective way to go about things. Even if I don't agree with that guy, his point and his doubts trasfered to me, and I do not ridicule him. Learn grasshopper, learn.
add your comments
droid quit doing
by doing ain't good for ya Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:15 AM
see fuckwit,you still haven't addressed any of the main poster's points.
but then agian,reasoning and debating ain't your thing . your thing is spamming the wire 24/7 on behalf of gwb.
poor little moley...
fuck off.
add your comments
who told you!
by moley Sunday July 03, 2005 at 03:25 AM
moley.jpg, image/jpeg, 312x485
Poor? GWB pays me at least twice your salary, what the hell do you think we are in the conspiracy for? Our convictions? ahaha, nice one.
Now wait... let's recap you are a loony who believes the planes didn't fly into the WTC towers and has created a whole conspiracy narrative pertaining to the attacks of September 11th. And I am someone who agrees there are some very dodgy bits which need more investigation but we shouldn't just blindly make up bullshit stories because then nobody will take the concerns seriously. And somehow *I* am the one in the employ of GWB to discredit the conspiracy theories and *you* are the rational debater? LOL.
If anything, you are the person spreading FUD, by saying that people with legitimate concerns should jump on your conspiracy band-wagon ("zomg teh black ops on indymedia!!!1"). There are legitimate concerns, but legitimate concerns doesn't make a huge proveable conspiracy. LACK of evidence is not evidence, it is only a warrant for further investigation.
You sir, are in need of mental help. In fact, come to the mole brain-tapping facility and we can help you with a few doses of our LSD derivative and put you in a multicolored cell and listen to some MKULTRA mixtapes, the music is really good.
P.S.
I spelled colour "color" so you'd wet your pants and go "zomg he's teh american spec ops1!!1" but in fact, I am not, I just wanted you to wet you pants.
add your comments
victims
by anon Sunday July 03, 2005 at 05:08 AM
On a more serious note from the slagging off, this is a list of 911 victims. If the pentagon plane didn't really hit (long shot) or the WTC towers planes did not hit (not likey at all to my mind) then the passengers on the planes have to be a) fabricated, b) killed elsewhere.
So rather than whing about frames of video you have captured and cry about the encoding. Why don't you track those people down. Private investigators track people down all the time. Is your conspiracy worth a couple of hundred bucks?
As it's your position, not mine, that the planes didn't hit the WTC. Go get me some links saying those people didn't exist or were found killed elsewhere. Go get me some testimony from airport workers that the plane was directed to land elsewhere and the passengers killed. Go to the families and ask them if they saw their wives/children/friends off at the airport but didn't see them again.
Looks like the easiest angle to prove a "plane did not hit WTC" story, is to prove the people on that plane weren't there. There is much more documentary evidence of a person's existence that there is of a plane.
Personally I think the video of the plane hitting the building looks very believeable. I was watching live as the second one was hit. Did "teh black ops" just splice in their video (magically) as everyone was LOOKING UP AT THE ONE TOWER SMOLDERING and POINTING CAMERAS AT IT. You can't discredit the eyewitnesses to one, and not to another. I call you as the biggest load of shit I have seen in a long time.
Go back on your fucking meds, or bring us some REAL evidence pertaining to the people on that plane. Because as far as I see, your little bullshit game just isn't adding up. Not to say there isn't a conspiracy to get the planes to hit, or explosives planted... those are very long shots with little to no evidence, but to claim there were no planes at WTC is just amazingly stupid IMO as it runs counter to eyewitness and video accounts of the day.
So loony boy get me some info on those people who disappeared. You are the one proposing this incredibly weak theory, and saying I am full of shit when I question your radical assumptions, time for you to cough up this evidence you have been holding on to.
otherwise, go back to your meds and trouble me no more.
add your comments
You cant handle the truth
by Somatron 4000 Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Are you confusing me with someone else anon?
I never said planes didn't hit the towers. I thought the idea that the US government has secret technology to put the images of planes hitting the towers onto video sounds like rubbish. The kind of rubbish a black op would spread to muddy waters and discredit all 9/11 doubters and make them look like moonbats. Then again who knows what technology the US gov has? They might be right, stranger things have happened.
My explanation on the twin towers is that the jets could have been remotely controlled - that tech. already exists and would explain how rank amateurs flew jets with ace fighter pilot skills - or that the hijackers were not who the government said they were (which could be why so many of the so-called Islamic extremists turned up alive afterwards) or that if it was ME hijackers they were really being directed, manipulated and assisted by western intel. organisations like the CIA or Mossad (the dancing Israelis) and not Al Qaeda et al.
Why did so many system failures occur to allow this to happen? E.G. the fighters that were stood down when normally they would have intercepted or shot down any plane that strayed from it's flightpath and lost radio communication?
Things like that don't indicate a conspiracy of sorts, they indicate... what? A stuff up? How many stuff ups can be made on one day before you wake up?
On the Pentagon hit - the first footage (before the building collapsed) showed a neat round hole on the outer wall of about 5 metres diameter - where was the damage from the wings? Aircraft crash sites are littered with aircraft debri but the Pentagon wasn't. How is that? Who's the dingbat now?
There are many unanswered questions. Why are Bush and co so reluctant to have full and open enquiries? Why are people who raise issues and questions denigrated as loonies? Why do relevant questions get lost in a sea of arrant nonsense? No conspiracies here, nothing to see, move along, take your Soma, shut up and shop?
add your comments
I guess they don't teach physics in juvenile detention
by Max Plank Monday July 04, 2005 at 01:00 AM
"On the Pentagon hit - the first footage (before the building collapsed) showed a neat round hole on the outer wall of about 5 metres diameter - where was the damage from the wings?"
- a plane is made out of aluminum and the Pentagon is made out of cement and structural steel. The nose of the aircraft -- with sufficient force -- will punch a hole through the wall. The wings, however, with a vastly more distributed surface will merely flatten out like a tin foil hat.
As an object lesson -- take a piece from your tin-foil hat, and form it into the shape of a bullet. Now, push it through a bar of soap. Now, take the a similar flat piece and use the same amount of force, distributed evenly along the strip and see how far it goes through the soap. Not very far.
"Aircraft crash sites are littered with aircraft debri but the Pentagon wasn't."
I have seen pictures on the major news wires -- pictures on the Internet -- showing aircraft debris, including a very large landing gear array. But, those photos are obviously faked, because they don't support your conspiracy theory
"How is that? Who's the dingbat now? "
I believe you've answered the your own question
add your comments
Spot the anomaly
by Somatron 4000 Monday July 04, 2005 at 12:39 PM
It's true, aircaft wings would be no match for reinforced concrete. BUT, even so, one would expect that these rigid flying frames (wings spanning about 41 yards) when carrying two jet engines weighing X? tons each would make some kind of mark on the outside of the building when they hit at a speed of around 500mph. (Boeing 757s cruise at 600 MPH)
Do you agree? Or do you think the wings saw the impact coming and folded back into the body of the aircraft to avoid damaging themselves? I suppose your physics teacher taught you about that sort of thing?
Also, I would like you to refer me to these photos that show aircraft debri from a Boeing 757-200 (that's the important part) at the site of the Pentagon crash. They seem to be rare as hens teeth.
If, as you point out in your eloquent analogy, the aluminium in the plane was no match for the steel and concrete walls of the Pentagon, how is it possible that the aluminium nose of the "Boeing 757" left a perfectly round hole after going through about TEN of the Pentagons reinforced steel and concrete walls? Doesn't that piece of evidence contradict what you said as to why the wings left no marks on the external wall? It sounds more like a bunker busting missile to me. They are designed to do that sort of thing.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/imagery/
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm
I'm keeping an open mind on this Max. If you are so sure what hit the Pentagon you'll probably be able to tell me who was controlling it and why they did it too. I just hope that the CNN and Fox signals aren't causing too much interference with your own particular tinfoil hat.
add your comments
fabricated plane people
by by ID theft Tuesday July 05, 2005 at 11:59 PM
requested evidence that occupants of the alleged AA11 (wtc1) and alleged UA175 (wtc2) etc were fabricated by means of ID theft :
////////////////////////////There are numerous media reports that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive.
(Some of the links from 2.1.8 through 2.1.18 are alternative sources for similar stories)
Hijack "suspects" alive and well. BBC News. Sept 23, 2001
2.1.8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks. by Dick Fojut March 4 2002
2.1.9 http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm
Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media October 2001
2.1.10 http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm
Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher J. Petherick American Free Press.
2.1.11 http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html
Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!
2.1.12 http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html
Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11.
2.1.13 http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed Adeeb.
2.1.14 http://truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html
Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune
2.1.15 http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/092001_news_trail.shtml
Revealed: The men with stolen identities. UK Telegraph news. By David Harrison. Sept 23 2001.
2.1.16 http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger
2.1.17 http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
Doubts emerge over indentities of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online Sept 20. 2001.
2.1.18 http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/21/article12.shtml
In spite of all this, the same 19 names and faces of the alleged hijackers have been consistently pushed through the mainstream media ever since the FBI first "identified" them./////////////////////////////////////////:
enough moley?
now fuck off will ya.
add your comments
Obfuscation Overdrive
by Darth Qaeda Wednesday July 06, 2005 at 09:03 PM
Changeling_au_2004@yahoo.com.au 0409 952 382
planemissileornothing seems to KNOW that nothing hit the pentagon (er...sorry....the "PENTA") and seems to KNOW that the video footage of the planes hitting the twin towers is all faked. This, in spite of the fact that at least 4 different cameras which caught the plane hitting the south tower as well as the Naudet brothers footage of the north tower strike all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts - http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm
Very strange event for them to have faked. Still, I eagerly await planemissileornothing's evidence that nothing hit anything on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath.
Anon brings up the "where are the passengers then?" red herring, instead of asking the more pertinent question "If Flight77 hit the pentagon, then WHERE IS IT?" - small bits of Human-liftable scrap metal and a tiny 3Ft. diameter "engine rotor" are not evidence of a Boeing 757 strike. A Boeing 757 weighs about 60 tons, and has 2 engines about 9Ft. in diameter. (See the documentary "Painful Deceptions").
I could go on, but there really shouldn't be a need. While there are certainly still debates about certain aspects of 9/11 it is now indisputable fact that 9/11 was an inside job. It's time for those parroting the official 9/11 conspiracy theory involving Saddama Bin Whatshisname to either provide evidence and a plausible hypothesis, or shut up.
So why this sudden blast of obfuscation now? Could it possibly be a reaction to this recent report in the very corporate Washington Times?
From http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm :
Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
A Bush insider comes out.......What next? The UN called to take over the running of the US in order to save us from GWB? "These lies and deceptions about WMDs and 9/11 can't go on, what are THEY gonna do about it?!"
The "New World Order" has a twisted sense of humour.
www.911inplanesite.com/
add your comments
reply
by changelings never change Friday July 08, 2005 at 02:29 AM
_______________________ This, in spite of the fact that at least 4 different cameras which caught the plane hitting the south tower as well as the Naudet brothers footage of the north tower strike all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts - http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm
Very strange event for them to have faked. Still, I eagerly await planemissileornothing's evidence that nothing hit anything on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath._________________________:
1.just what 4 different cameras are you ranting about?
i only know about cnn's and the alleged czech's,about whose shot scott loughrey says it's suspiciously similar to cnn's.
2.assuming for a moment you can link us to the 4 different south tower videos you mentioned without sourcing them:
how can you logically rule out they are all regime fabrications?
scott loughrey contends it's impossible for a boeing to enter a steel framed building designed to resist just such an impact as a knife would butter - without the least bit of wreckage severed and projected outwards - and without impact NOISE:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html
thus implying said alleged videos purporting to show UA175 hitting are fakes.
and if and since they are clear fakes,so are the flashes that are so irresistible to your in-the-box pseudothinking.
Still, I eagerly await the changeling's evidence that something hit something on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath...
add your comments
reply
by changelings never change Friday July 08, 2005 at 02:30 AM
_______________________ This, in spite of the fact that at least 4 different cameras which caught the plane hitting the south tower as well as the Naudet brothers footage of the north tower strike all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts - http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm
Very strange event for them to have faked. Still, I eagerly await planemissileornothing's evidence that nothing hit anything on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath._________________________:
1.just what 4 different cameras are you ranting about?
i only know about cnn's and the alleged czech's,about whose shot scott loughrey says it's suspiciously similar to cnn's.
2.assuming for a moment you can link us to the 4 different south tower videos you mentioned without sourcing them:
how can you logically rule out they are all regime fabrications?
scott loughrey contends it's impossible for a boeing to enter a steel framed building designed to resist just such an impact as a knife would butter - without the least bit of wreckage severed and projected outwards - and without impact NOISE:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html
thus implying said alleged videos purporting to show UA175 hitting are fakes.
and if and since they are clear fakes,so are the flashes that are so irresistible to your in-the-box pseudothinking.
Still, I eagerly await the changeling's evidence that something hit something on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath...
add your comments
Obfuscation Failure
by Changeling Friday July 08, 2005 at 08:28 AM
Changeling_au_2004@yahoo.com.au 0409 952 382
"1.just what 4 different cameras are you ranting about?"
Ranting? Oh OK. See the documentary "911 in plane site" - I recommend the director's cut version.
"how can you logically rule out they are all regime fabrications?"
Where have I done that? I haven't.
The http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html link raises interesting questions - will need to look at in more detail.
So - tell me (seeing you seem to KNOW that nothing hit) explain "all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts - http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm"
Strange thing to appear in multiple alleged fake videos. INFOG, as you call it?
add your comments
all you need to know
by is here Saturday July 09, 2005 at 10:38 AM
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm
add your comments
to the last
by dead link Sunday July 10, 2005 at 01:39 AM
your link is dead i'm afraid?
add your comments
changeling changes
by owning up to it Sunday July 10, 2005 at 01:44 AM
1.i challenge you to prove something hit
2.thanx for not ruling out nothing hit.
add your comments
inplanesite
by is a planted site Sunday July 10, 2005 at 01:54 AM
inplanesite utterly destroyed by scott loughrey here:
http://www.media-criticism.com/In_Plane_Site_08_2004.html
so much for changeling's blind quoting of plant sites...
add your comments
director's cut
by facelift for naudet's video Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:02 AM
here's how scott loughrey destroyed the director's cut version of the naudet first plane video on the inplanesite site:
_____________________Jules Naudet is credited with the sensational pan left which tracked Flight 11 as it struck the North Tower. The foreground object, a large building, is largely in focus as the camera rapidly pans left. The World Trade Center, seen in extreme long shot, is more or less in focus as Flight 11 strikes the North Tower. Only the plane remains out of focus. It makes absolutely no sense that Flight 11 would be out of focus as we see it collide with the North Tower.
While individual frames of this video clip can certainly be blurry Flight 11 should not be blurry as it moves on the screen. This is because it is being projected at 18 frames per second (or more). At this rate the human brain begins to be fooled into thinking that animated objects are actually in motion. Without this capacity for the brain to be fooled there could be no cinema.
Someone else appears to have noticed this discrepancy. This could be why the Power Hour has come out with a new, more optically sensible version of this video clip which tens of millions of people have seen! (It appears in their ⌠director▓s cut■ version of 911: In Plane Site.)_____________________:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911-Society_Spectacle_02_2005.html
so sorry for changeling - but then again he's supposed to change isn't he...
add your comments
link not working
by way around Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:07 AM
if in trouble reaching the link - the last i gave - go to:
http://www.media-criticism.com
then click on 2005
then go one of the 2 titles,the first "psyop operations and..."
and you'll find the quoted bit at the end of the page
add your comments
sorry
by again Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:11 AM
the title you have to click on is
911 and the society of the spectacle
add your comments
so how
by does the poster Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:30 AM
of this thread differentiate his position from the scott loughrey no-plane theory?
let's first summarize's loughrey's thesis in his own words:
___________________To cut to the chase I believe the perpetrators of 9/11 faked both plane impacts with the WTC. Bombs were planted in both the North and South Towers that were detonated to resemble the damage left from banking planes entering. After the North Tower bombs went off millions of people around the country turned their TVs on to watch the subsequent fire burn. Thirteen minutes later the perpetrators fired disguised missiles at the South Tower in broad daylight. Then the bombs went off in it._____________________:
http://www.media-criticism.com/No_Planes_Summary_2004.html
1.this thread's author extends the no planes theory to the penta
2.he maintains that it is absolutely unproven that anything hit anything on 911
3.therefore he differs from loughrey in that loughrey ,albeit right on almost all points,introduces the unfounded final allegation that missiles were fired at the south tower to fool live audiences on site into believing there was a plane
4.but loughrey does not source his alleged wtc 2 witnesses to missiles or small flying things which may have been missiles
5.i do not have said sources though i bet they exist because loughrey is a serious thinker
6.but we have similar witnesses for small planes or a missile hitting the penta and there is no reason in the world to credit these while we discredit the jet witnesses
7.that is,both witness types may have been planted by the regime to addle critics' brains
8.a third and logically more likely option is open:
that nothing hit nothing at all,it was entirely controlled demolition and tv video fiction
9.why risk shooting missiles at the south tower or penta,thus having to involve a lot more military personnel,not to mention the error odds...
in conclusion,the poster's theory is a logical correction and improvement of scott loughrey's no-plane theory.
add your comments
let's call it
by the Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:34 AM
nothing-hit-nothing theory...
originally published Friday July 01, 2005 at 02:25 AM
what hit the penta and the wtc on 911 was...nothing
much if not all of the discussion about what really happened at the penta on 911 has focused on whether it was a plane - the alleged AA77- or a missile.
i think i am able to argue it was neither.
gerald holmgren wrote:
"It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it."
source:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/index.html wrong:
it actually IS disputable.
that the alleged AA77 never hit the penta has long since been shown by thierry meyssan first and then by holmgren himself.
but both seem to uncritically believe it must have been a missile.
well actually it may well have been NOTHING at all.
it may well have been another wtc-style controlled demolition.
the alleged surveillance cam video which has been circulated on the web may well be another wtc-style fabrication,a fake.
and the controlled demolition would have been the simplest and best-concealable way for bush and his thugs to do the penta job - you just need a couple of skilled crooks to plant the bombs,disguised as renovation workers.
and then remember the part of the penta that was allegedly hit had been under renovation for some time,oh coincidence,and stood empty by 911.
if bush&gang had shot a missile instead they would have had to do it from a ship or base,and shooting a precision missile requires quite a team of expert military - not that it's impossible to corrupt a number of people but it's much harder to conceal the shooting of a missile,especially since you have to do it from a distance,or from a visible plane travelling from a distance.
and even if they had wanted to use a drone,well it takes quite a team of experts i assume to remote control a drone and again it's less concealable.
well you might say at this point:
how about the witnesses who (allegedly) spoke of a small plane?
well i do not see why holmgren discards the jet witnesses as planted - rightly indeed - but then goes on to uncritically accept the small plane or missile witnesses as authentic.
no proof of that at all.
i think both were planted in the media by the bush thugs to confuse and lead minds astray.
because the regime spin machine is so powerful to be able to plant hundreds of fake jet witnesses in the media,it would have had no trouble in editing out the small plane witnesses.
or fabricating them and editing them in to bafle truth-seekers and raise false flags.
there's quite a few of them for both the wtc and the penta and even pennsylvania.
but there's more to this:
the videos of the 2 alleged wtc jets have long since been shown to be fakes:
http://thewebfairy.com/911 yet even the critics that showed them as fakes still cling to the false assumption that something must have hit the towers anyway.
why not assume nothing at all hit the towers if the videos were faked,and that it was all done by controlled demolition?
why factor in unnecessary unproven missiles?
same goes for the penta.
i possess a rare penta pic from a hard copy of the international herald tribune,september 12,2001,page12.
maybe you can obtain it too from the iht website,probably you'll have to pay but it's worth it:
i haven't seen this photo on the web since 911.
i hope to be able to scan it decently and then upload it in a future update of this essay.
anyway for now you get my description of it and conclusions:
it shows the burning penta part before the collapse,therefore if authentic this pic was taken between 9.40 am - reported approximate time of the event - and what was it,roughly 10 am - reported official collapse time,correct me if i recall wrong.
obviously there's no trace of the alleged plane,but that's a given by now ever since february/march 2002 when thierry meyssan's brilliant where's the plane website first appeared.
but the one interesting detail is the wire fence outside the penta.
it is in part collapsed,near a burning car and what may be a burning van or station wagon (a car bomb to simulate the plane exlosion?).
now the fencing has clearly collapsed OUTWARDS,AWAY FROM THE PENTA.
if the alleged plane had hit it we would instead expect it to have collapsed inwards,or to have been dragged inward,towards the building.
same if a missile had hit it.
instead it's as if it had been blown to the ground by an explosive force coming from INSIDE THE BUILDING - the same explosive force that may well have opened the hole at the concourse level.
of course one might object that it may have been an explosive-loaded missile which penetrated the building and then exploded inside - such a weapon may exist,dunno.
but now figure the stakes bush and his madmen had in a perfect outcome of 911:
zillions of dollars in war business against the alleged arabic terrorists.
try walking in the shoes of a greedy establishment glutton the likes of bush or cheney or rummy planning 911:
would you have preferred a volatile missile launching,less concealable and more prone to error,or a controlled demolition accurately prepared and traditionally known to work,under the guise of renovation works?
forget the planes of course.
forget the missile.
dark forces prefer to cloak their inside jobs...
add your comments
hey you!
by american government Friday July 01, 2005 at 04:05 AM
click to enlarge
sam.jpg, image/jpeg, 571x800
I don't think you should be revealing the conspiracy here, not now. I mean I know the pentagon attack has some questions around it, but to reveal the extent of the conspiracy about the WTC towers.... just not on dude.
Why are you telling everyone of our secret powers that enable us to edit the same image into video from independant cameras filming at different angles over which we have no control, and our secret powers which are able to edit into people's minds memories of the same planes hitting the towers?
Don't you know there is a WAR going on man? For the sake of the republican party, skull and bones, Jesus, and the elders of zion, don't talk about our military powers in the open god damn it.
*message brought to you by the global conspiracy on behalf of the american government*
add your comments
Reply to this guy
by Alpal Friday July 01, 2005 at 11:26 AM
What a load of absolute rubbish.
You need to see a psychiatrist for your paranoia.
Alpal
add your comments
War Shortages
by Rosie The Riveter Friday July 01, 2005 at 01:08 PM
The other day, the supermarket was out of tin foil -- it seems they can't keep it on the shelves since 9/11.
Too many people are buying it up to make into hats
Like the example above!
add your comments
Gullible Travels
by Somatron 4000 Friday July 01, 2005 at 05:04 PM
When doubts began to circulate about the official version of the events of 9/11 the black ops machines swung into action.
The strategy was to tar legitimate researchers with the "all 9/11 theorists are loonies" brush. We then began to see increasingly crazy thories.
It seems to have worked. Many inconsistencies and discrepencies have never been adequately accounted for and probably never will now that all research into 9/11 can be heaped in with the "tin foil hat" wearers brigade.
The Bushite/Zionist designs for the Middle East could only have been instigated with a "Pearl Harbour" scale catalyst.
Voila 9/11.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Why did so many of the alleged Islamic extremist hijackers end up alive and well after supposedly incinerating themselves in the twin towers?
How would we know if the attacks were actually orchestrated by US/Israeli agencies to bring the public on board for their planned Crusade for Oil and Zion? I suppose they would tell us?
How easy would it be for the same agencies to recruit Islamic fundamentalists via black/blind ops for the mission?
That would explain why so many "safety" systems failed on that fateful day.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
* THE 9/11 ATTACKS - WHAT WE KNOW:
o The Bush administration was comprised of a group of people who had published a radical foreign policy. Elements of this policy include what is now known as the Bush preemptive doctrine. When Paul Wolfowitz first created this policy for the George H. W Bush administration it was dismissed as insane. This group of people created an agenda and a strategy to advance it. This group openly stated ”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. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.“ The Bush administration was comprised of people who had a clear and public MOTIVE for creating or enabling the attacks of 9/11. This is a issue that should be addressed by our media, our lawmakers, our citizens and the rest of the world.
o Every procedure that was in place to deal with domestic hijackings was ignored on the day of the attacks.
o Why did the Secret Service feel that there was no need to protect George W. Bush?
o George Bush resisted an official inquiry into the worst national disaster since Pearl Harbor for 18 months. Any reasonable person would want to know what happened and they would want to make sure that there were no traitors in our mists. It was reasonable to consider the possibilities that the people who planned an attack like this had inside help. A president would want this checked out. George W. Bush wanted no investigation. He already had an official story and was quickly passed on to the press.
o Every bit of evidence at Ground Zero and the Pentagon was confiscated and destroyed, and not preserved as crime scene evidence. This in itself is a crime. No need to look further. This is not in dispute. The George W. Bush is responsible for ordering or allowing the destruction of crime scene evidence.
o There is not a shred of evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. All films from security cameras at the scene were confiscated and never seen again. The few frames of video from the Pentagon security camera were leaked to the public from an anonymous source in the Pentagon. When information is leaked from the Pentagon during a heightened state of emergency it is cause for concern. Neither the administration or the press question this breech of security. This is a clear indication of an intentional leak designed to sell the official story. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon they would have released the videos that were confiscated.
o The hole made in the Pentagon crash is far too small for a 757 to have made.
o Dozens of bin Laden family members were hurried out of the country without FBI interrogation immediately after the attacks.
o None of the alleged hijackers was on any passenger list of the hijacked planes.
o Eyewitness accounts describe a windowless, blue plane hitting the WTC.
o Someone placed ‘put’ orders on the two hijacked airlines before the attacks, and stood to net huge stock market profits.
o The Twin Towers both collapsed at free fall speed in the manner of a planned demolition, with visible explosions occurring in sequence on floors never hit by the planes.
o The owner of the WTC admitted that Tower 7 was ‘taken down’ (intentionally demolished) by the Fire Department. THIS IS A CONFESSION! DO WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE?
o Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the Kean Commission about the warning memo that stated bin Laden was targeting the US.
o Condoleezza Rice lied when she claimed that no one could have imagined an attack using airliners as weapons. NORAD had drilled for such events 2 years before the Bush White House claimed that they never could have imagined it.
o George Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit Tower One, when no photos of the crash had been shown on any television screen.
o George Bush sat silently in a classroom for seven full minutes after being informed that a second plane had hit the WTC. Why did George W. Bush react to the attacks differently than every other person in the nation? While every American jumped into emergency mode, George W. Bush did not flinch. He was not worried about his own safety or about the security of the nation. Why not?
o NORAD did not send up a single interceptor jet despite knowing that four hijackings were taking place.
o FBI agents and bomb sniffer dogs went through trash bins in both WTC Towers for weeks prior to the attacks. They were suddenly removed prior to the attack. Some people in our government were trying to do their job, others might have been trying to prevent the job from being done.
o Dick Cheney was in charge of a series of drills held on the morning of September 11th, simulating attacks by hijacked airliners on the WTC.
o No one in the US government is willing to investigate any of these and hundreds more concerns about this terrible event.
* THE WARS AGAINST AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ – WHAT WE KNOW:
o Members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) occupy or had occupied many important positions in the present Bush administration.
o PNAC explained the need for wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in papers published in the late 1990’s.
o PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but was turned down.
o PNAC member, Paul Wolfowitz, ADMITS that it was about OIL! HE ADMITTED IT! THE PRESS IGNORED THIS!!! ARE YOU LISTENING! DO YOU NEED MORE PROOF THAN A CONFESSION FROM ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE WAR??? ARE YOU LISTENING???
o The PNAC thesis “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated that Americans would not accept pre-emptive wars against Iraq or Afghanistan unless there was a ‘catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor’ inside the country. Again we establish motive for complicity in the events of 9/11.
o The Bush administration was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11. They promised the leaders of Afghanistan a ‘carpet of bombs’ should the deal fall through. The deal fell through.
o Deputy Director of the FBI, John O’Neill, quit his job in protest over this threat. O’Neill died in the attacks on the WTC on September 11th.
o The attack on Afghanistan was explained as retaliation against the Taliban for not turning Osama bin Laden over to American authorities.
o Both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powel stated prior to 9/11 that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and that he was unable to pose a threat to his neighbors or the US.
o George W. Bush came into the White House intent upon removing Saddam Hussein from power.
o Donald Rumsfeld stated that the response to 9/11 should be an attack on Iraq because that’s where the targets were.
o The UN inspectors were given unfettered access to sites Iraq, and requested more time to complete their task.
o Everyone in the Bush administration with access to the media stressed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions of Americans.
o A totally false connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was fabricated and repeated at every possible opportunity.
o In October, 2002, George W. Bush lied to the Congress of the United States about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In a brazen and impeachable act, he manipulated intelligence information in order to procure Congressional approval for his war against Iraq.
o Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld spent months assuring the American public that their lives were in great danger unless the US waged a preventive war against Iraq. There was no doubt about the accuracy of their information, they said. No doubt at all. Mushroom clouds were on the horizon.
o In January, 2003, George W. Bush lied to the nation in his SOTU speech about nuclear material obtained by Saddam. His unrelenting terror tactics and repeated references to Iraq’s WMD’s paved the way for public acceptance for a war he had planned for years.
o In February, 2003, Colin Powell lied to the UN on two separate occasions in a futile attempt to convince the Security Council of the immediate threat presented by Iraq.
o Despite UN inspectors’ statements to the contrary, George Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with the UN resolution requiring open inspections.
o In March, 2003, boasting of a bombing strategy named ‘shock and awe,’ George Bush invaded Iraq.
o More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in George Bush’s war. Nearly 1700 American troops have lost their lives. Nearly 200 coalition forces are dead. Untold thousands are maimed. The carnage continues and civil war is imminent.
o The minutes of the Downing Street meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair revealed an agreement to attack Iraq months before the invasion itself.
o George W. Bush violated international law by waging a preventive war on a non-threatening, sovereign nation. That illegal war continues to this day.
* THE ABUSE AND TORTURE OF PRISONERS – WHAT WE KNOW:
o On May 7th, 2002, the US officially withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US now has immunity from the court for US citizens suspected of atrocities. US soldiers serving overseas are immune from prosecution in the court, while politicians and US officials, including CIA operatives, can claim diplomatic immunity.
o Shortly after 9/11, WH legal counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, drafted a memo in which he virtually changed the rules of prisoner treatment. The memo declared the war on terror to be conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. Alberto Gonzales was subsequently appointed US Attorney General.
o In January, 2002, the WH legal department issued another memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.
o In February of 2002, George Bush signed a secret order authorizing the CIA. To set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness.
•The Bush administration then began to send terror suspects to other countries for interrogation, thereby absolving the US of blame for torture applied elsewhere.
o In 2003, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units for the expressed purpose of extracting information from detainees.
o As an outcome of regular inspections, the International Commission of the Red Cross broke its rule of secrecy by publicly complaining of the systemic abuse of prisoners, in Iraq and Afghanistan, detailing methods of abuse that were in clear violation of international law.
o In 2004, hundreds of photographs and video tapes were released that revealed shocking methods of abuse and torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison.
o Despite many complaints about abuse, no investigation of prisoner treatment was held until it was clear these photographs were about to be leaked to the media.
o Many civilian contractors were employed to carry out ‘interrogations’ of detainees.
o Many of the detainees had committed no crimes, but had been arrested in huge sweeps of Iraqi men intended to secure information about insurgent attacks.
o Interrogations were conducted and supervised by military intelligence operatives who ordered that prisoners be ‘softened up’ for questioning.
o Abuses often were sexual in nature, preying upon the cultural sensitivities of Moslem men regarding nudity and public sexual acts.
o Abuses were systemic throughout Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
o Hundreds of other photos and videos were kept secret by the Pentagon, and have recently been ordered released to the public.
o The Bush administration attributed the abuse to the work of a few ‘bad apple’ underlings, and denied any knowledge or approval by anyone in the administration.
o Reports of Koran desecration at Guantanamo were corroborated by the Pentagon.
o To date, civilian aircraft continue to fly terror suspects to other countries for harsh and illegal interrogation methods.
o To date, no one in the Pentagon or the White House has been held accountable for the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners. To date, only enlisted personnel have been charged with any abuses or torture. To date, further investigations have been dropped.
www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_smoking_gun_white_house_.html
add your comments
seriously
by anon Saturday July 02, 2005 at 07:16 AM
purestyle.jpg, image/jpeg, 288x294
you have some valid points but you ruin it all right at the start with:
"When doubts began to circulate about the official version of the events of 9/11 the black ops machines swung into action. "
You are jumping to conclusions that there is a conspiracy, you are doing so without evidence. Sure bush is evil, so are the PNAC guys, but black ops parodying tin foilers? If anything YOU are one of them.
add your comments
Take your Soma and shut up
by Somatron 4000 Saturday July 02, 2005 at 09:57 PM
It is easy to refute your silly denial anon, i.e. " You are jumping to conclusions that there is a conspiracy, you are doing so without evidence."
Without evidence?
The evidence as layed before you is abundant, you just refuse to see or acknowledge it. For instance, what happened to all the other footage from non-government security/surveillance cameras around the Pentagon? They confiscated it and have never released it. Why? The only thing they did release was some blurry, inconclusive footage from ONE camera at the Pentatgon. And what about all the EYE WITNESSES who saw a missile hit the Pentagon?
There is no way a 757 hit the Pentagon. The hole in the outer wall could not have have been made by one. IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY!!! A neat little round hole with no aircraft debri and you believe a 757 did it? If you believe that then you are a moron. Beyond stupid. If my dog was as determinedly stupid as you are I would have to shoot it!
Be a good droid, take your Soma and shut up.
add your comments
one wrong bit
by logique Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:01 AM
" Eyewitness accounts describe a windowless, blue plane hitting the WTC. ":
1.will you please link us to them?
2.again the main poster's point:
why do you discredit the alleged penta jet eyewitnesses - and rightly so - but credit the small plane witnesses with authenticity?
you have no proof either,and you can't rule out - and this is the poster's valid point - THAT NO FLYING THING AT ALL HIT EITHER THE WTC OR THE PENTA AND THAT IT WAS ALL FAKE VIDEOS AND FABRICATION OF EVRY KIND OF FAKE WITNESSES FOR INFOG PURPOSES.
controlled demolition is the real name of the game.
the poster has valid points abpout this that you do not address.
for the fake wtc videos:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2001.html the rest of your comment is valid - please just quit chasing small planes...
add your comments
somatron you got
by just one thing wrong Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:05 AM
"And what about all the EYE WITNESSES who saw a missile hit the Pentagon? ":
first there's not many who declaredly speak of a missile.
secondly again:
you haven't read the main post:
why do you credit the jet witnesses with being plants - and rightly so - but then dogmatically judge the small plane or missile witnesses as authentic?
whay do you rule out they may have been planted too for infornation fog purposes?
why do you rule out it was just controlled dem + fake videos?
add your comments
walk like a droids
by droid Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:08 AM
me.jpg, image/jpeg, 200x255
hah, nice try, you avoided the question entirely.
I never said there wasn't anything dodgy about the pentagon, you are just trying to straw-man me there. I agree with that point. What I don't agree with it saying that the "black ops" people are somehow distributing propaganda on the internet to discredit your theories.
You are basically making the leap from Area51 = ???? to Area51 = Alien coverup, rather than the occam's razor inspired (and evidence supported) Area51 = top secret flight test facility. Now that isn't conclusive, we don't know, but it's MORE LIKELY. What is more likely in this case?
So, after we avoid your feeble attempt to say I don't have my own doubts and questions and frame me as some kind of oblivious pleb, how about you come up with that black op evidence? Oh what? You are just making unfounded claims? WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE REST OF YOUR RESEARCH FUCKTARD?
Seriously, you guys shoot yourselves in the foot every time. You discredit YOURSELVES. Now this is much more interesting. Even if I still have doubts and questions, supporting each point with one or more references, having humour and not making any baseless claims is a much more effective way to go about things. Even if I don't agree with that guy, his point and his doubts trasfered to me, and I do not ridicule him. Learn grasshopper, learn.
add your comments
droid quit doing
by doing ain't good for ya Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:15 AM
see fuckwit,you still haven't addressed any of the main poster's points.
but then agian,reasoning and debating ain't your thing . your thing is spamming the wire 24/7 on behalf of gwb.
poor little moley...
fuck off.
add your comments
who told you!
by moley Sunday July 03, 2005 at 03:25 AM
moley.jpg, image/jpeg, 312x485
Poor? GWB pays me at least twice your salary, what the hell do you think we are in the conspiracy for? Our convictions? ahaha, nice one.
Now wait... let's recap you are a loony who believes the planes didn't fly into the WTC towers and has created a whole conspiracy narrative pertaining to the attacks of September 11th. And I am someone who agrees there are some very dodgy bits which need more investigation but we shouldn't just blindly make up bullshit stories because then nobody will take the concerns seriously. And somehow *I* am the one in the employ of GWB to discredit the conspiracy theories and *you* are the rational debater? LOL.
If anything, you are the person spreading FUD, by saying that people with legitimate concerns should jump on your conspiracy band-wagon ("zomg teh black ops on indymedia!!!1"). There are legitimate concerns, but legitimate concerns doesn't make a huge proveable conspiracy. LACK of evidence is not evidence, it is only a warrant for further investigation.
You sir, are in need of mental help. In fact, come to the mole brain-tapping facility and we can help you with a few doses of our LSD derivative and put you in a multicolored cell and listen to some MKULTRA mixtapes, the music is really good.
P.S.
I spelled colour "color" so you'd wet your pants and go "zomg he's teh american spec ops1!!1" but in fact, I am not, I just wanted you to wet you pants.
add your comments
victims
by anon Sunday July 03, 2005 at 05:08 AM
On a more serious note from the slagging off, this is a list of 911 victims. If the pentagon plane didn't really hit (long shot) or the WTC towers planes did not hit (not likey at all to my mind) then the passengers on the planes have to be a) fabricated, b) killed elsewhere.
So rather than whing about frames of video you have captured and cry about the encoding. Why don't you track those people down. Private investigators track people down all the time. Is your conspiracy worth a couple of hundred bucks?
As it's your position, not mine, that the planes didn't hit the WTC. Go get me some links saying those people didn't exist or were found killed elsewhere. Go get me some testimony from airport workers that the plane was directed to land elsewhere and the passengers killed. Go to the families and ask them if they saw their wives/children/friends off at the airport but didn't see them again.
Looks like the easiest angle to prove a "plane did not hit WTC" story, is to prove the people on that plane weren't there. There is much more documentary evidence of a person's existence that there is of a plane.
Personally I think the video of the plane hitting the building looks very believeable. I was watching live as the second one was hit. Did "teh black ops" just splice in their video (magically) as everyone was LOOKING UP AT THE ONE TOWER SMOLDERING and POINTING CAMERAS AT IT. You can't discredit the eyewitnesses to one, and not to another. I call you as the biggest load of shit I have seen in a long time.
Go back on your fucking meds, or bring us some REAL evidence pertaining to the people on that plane. Because as far as I see, your little bullshit game just isn't adding up. Not to say there isn't a conspiracy to get the planes to hit, or explosives planted... those are very long shots with little to no evidence, but to claim there were no planes at WTC is just amazingly stupid IMO as it runs counter to eyewitness and video accounts of the day.
So loony boy get me some info on those people who disappeared. You are the one proposing this incredibly weak theory, and saying I am full of shit when I question your radical assumptions, time for you to cough up this evidence you have been holding on to.
otherwise, go back to your meds and trouble me no more.
add your comments
You cant handle the truth
by Somatron 4000 Sunday July 03, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Are you confusing me with someone else anon?
I never said planes didn't hit the towers. I thought the idea that the US government has secret technology to put the images of planes hitting the towers onto video sounds like rubbish. The kind of rubbish a black op would spread to muddy waters and discredit all 9/11 doubters and make them look like moonbats. Then again who knows what technology the US gov has? They might be right, stranger things have happened.
My explanation on the twin towers is that the jets could have been remotely controlled - that tech. already exists and would explain how rank amateurs flew jets with ace fighter pilot skills - or that the hijackers were not who the government said they were (which could be why so many of the so-called Islamic extremists turned up alive afterwards) or that if it was ME hijackers they were really being directed, manipulated and assisted by western intel. organisations like the CIA or Mossad (the dancing Israelis) and not Al Qaeda et al.
Why did so many system failures occur to allow this to happen? E.G. the fighters that were stood down when normally they would have intercepted or shot down any plane that strayed from it's flightpath and lost radio communication?
Things like that don't indicate a conspiracy of sorts, they indicate... what? A stuff up? How many stuff ups can be made on one day before you wake up?
On the Pentagon hit - the first footage (before the building collapsed) showed a neat round hole on the outer wall of about 5 metres diameter - where was the damage from the wings? Aircraft crash sites are littered with aircraft debri but the Pentagon wasn't. How is that? Who's the dingbat now?
There are many unanswered questions. Why are Bush and co so reluctant to have full and open enquiries? Why are people who raise issues and questions denigrated as loonies? Why do relevant questions get lost in a sea of arrant nonsense? No conspiracies here, nothing to see, move along, take your Soma, shut up and shop?
add your comments
I guess they don't teach physics in juvenile detention
by Max Plank Monday July 04, 2005 at 01:00 AM
"On the Pentagon hit - the first footage (before the building collapsed) showed a neat round hole on the outer wall of about 5 metres diameter - where was the damage from the wings?"
- a plane is made out of aluminum and the Pentagon is made out of cement and structural steel. The nose of the aircraft -- with sufficient force -- will punch a hole through the wall. The wings, however, with a vastly more distributed surface will merely flatten out like a tin foil hat.
As an object lesson -- take a piece from your tin-foil hat, and form it into the shape of a bullet. Now, push it through a bar of soap. Now, take the a similar flat piece and use the same amount of force, distributed evenly along the strip and see how far it goes through the soap. Not very far.
"Aircraft crash sites are littered with aircraft debri but the Pentagon wasn't."
I have seen pictures on the major news wires -- pictures on the Internet -- showing aircraft debris, including a very large landing gear array. But, those photos are obviously faked, because they don't support your conspiracy theory
"How is that? Who's the dingbat now? "
I believe you've answered the your own question
add your comments
Spot the anomaly
by Somatron 4000 Monday July 04, 2005 at 12:39 PM
It's true, aircaft wings would be no match for reinforced concrete. BUT, even so, one would expect that these rigid flying frames (wings spanning about 41 yards) when carrying two jet engines weighing X? tons each would make some kind of mark on the outside of the building when they hit at a speed of around 500mph. (Boeing 757s cruise at 600 MPH)
Do you agree? Or do you think the wings saw the impact coming and folded back into the body of the aircraft to avoid damaging themselves? I suppose your physics teacher taught you about that sort of thing?
Also, I would like you to refer me to these photos that show aircraft debri from a Boeing 757-200 (that's the important part) at the site of the Pentagon crash. They seem to be rare as hens teeth.
If, as you point out in your eloquent analogy, the aluminium in the plane was no match for the steel and concrete walls of the Pentagon, how is it possible that the aluminium nose of the "Boeing 757" left a perfectly round hole after going through about TEN of the Pentagons reinforced steel and concrete walls? Doesn't that piece of evidence contradict what you said as to why the wings left no marks on the external wall? It sounds more like a bunker busting missile to me. They are designed to do that sort of thing.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/imagery/ http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm I'm keeping an open mind on this Max. If you are so sure what hit the Pentagon you'll probably be able to tell me who was controlling it and why they did it too. I just hope that the CNN and Fox signals aren't causing too much interference with your own particular tinfoil hat.
add your comments
fabricated plane people
by by ID theft Tuesday July 05, 2005 at 11:59 PM
requested evidence that occupants of the alleged AA11 (wtc1) and alleged UA175 (wtc2) etc were fabricated by means of ID theft :
////////////////////////////There are numerous media reports that some of the alleged hijackers are still alive.
(Some of the links from 2.1.8 through 2.1.18 are alternative sources for similar stories)
Hijack "suspects" alive and well. BBC News. Sept 23, 2001
2.1.8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm 7 of 19 FBI identified hijackers located after WTC attacks. by Dick Fojut March 4 2002
2.1.9
http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan villages. Muslim Media October 2001
2.1.10
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm Still alive? FBI mixed up true identities of perpetrators. by Christopher J. Petherick American Free Press.
2.1.11
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_12_01/STILL_ALIVE__FBI_Mixed_Up_on_T/still_alive__fbi_mixed_up_on_t.html Seven of the WTC hijackers found alive!
2.1.12
http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html Tracking the 19 hijackers. What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11.
2.1.13
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ Six men identified by FBI as dead hijackers are still alive. By Syed Adeeb.
2.1.14
http://truedemocracy.net/td4/24s-c-6men.html Banks enlisted in trailing terrorists. Albuquerque Tribune
2.1.15
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/092001_news_trail.shtml Revealed: The men with stolen identities. UK Telegraph news. By David Harrison. Sept 23 2001.
2.1.16
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml Alleged hijackers alive and well. World messenger
2.1.17
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html Doubts emerge over indentities of hijackers in US attacks. Islam online Sept 20. 2001.
2.1.18
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/21/article12.shtml In spite of all this, the same 19 names and faces of the alleged hijackers have been consistently pushed through the mainstream media ever since the FBI first "identified" them./////////////////////////////////////////:
enough moley?
now fuck off will ya.
add your comments
Obfuscation Overdrive
by Darth Qaeda Wednesday July 06, 2005 at 09:03 PM
Changeling_au_2004@yahoo.com.au 0409 952 382 planemissileornothing seems to KNOW that nothing hit the pentagon (er...sorry....the "PENTA") and seems to KNOW that the video footage of the planes hitting the twin towers is all faked. This, in spite of the fact that at least 4 different cameras which caught the plane hitting the south tower as well as the Naudet brothers footage of the north tower strike all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts -
http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm Very strange event for them to have faked. Still, I eagerly await planemissileornothing's evidence that nothing hit anything on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath.
Anon brings up the "where are the passengers then?" red herring, instead of asking the more pertinent question "If Flight77 hit the pentagon, then WHERE IS IT?" - small bits of Human-liftable scrap metal and a tiny 3Ft. diameter "engine rotor" are not evidence of a Boeing 757 strike. A Boeing 757 weighs about 60 tons, and has 2 engines about 9Ft. in diameter. (See the documentary "Painful Deceptions").
I could go on, but there really shouldn't be a need. While there are certainly still debates about certain aspects of 9/11 it is now indisputable fact that 9/11 was an inside job. It's time for those parroting the official 9/11 conspiracy theory involving Saddama Bin Whatshisname to either provide evidence and a plausible hypothesis, or shut up.
So why this sudden blast of obfuscation now? Could it possibly be a reaction to this recent report in the very corporate Washington Times?
From
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm : Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
A Bush insider comes out.......What next? The UN called to take over the running of the US in order to save us from GWB? "These lies and deceptions about WMDs and 9/11 can't go on, what are THEY gonna do about it?!"
The "New World Order" has a twisted sense of humour.
www.911inplanesite.com/
add your comments
reply
by changelings never change Friday July 08, 2005 at 02:29 AM
_______________________ This, in spite of the fact that at least 4 different cameras which caught the plane hitting the south tower as well as the Naudet brothers footage of the north tower strike all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts -
http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm Very strange event for them to have faked. Still, I eagerly await planemissileornothing's evidence that nothing hit anything on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath._________________________:
1.just what 4 different cameras are you ranting about?
i only know about cnn's and the alleged czech's,about whose shot scott loughrey says it's suspiciously similar to cnn's.
2.assuming for a moment you can link us to the 4 different south tower videos you mentioned without sourcing them:
how can you logically rule out they are all regime fabrications?
scott loughrey contends it's impossible for a boeing to enter a steel framed building designed to resist just such an impact as a knife would butter - without the least bit of wreckage severed and projected outwards - and without impact NOISE:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html thus implying said alleged videos purporting to show UA175 hitting are fakes.
and if and since they are clear fakes,so are the flashes that are so irresistible to your in-the-box pseudothinking.
Still, I eagerly await the changeling's evidence that something hit something on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath...
add your comments
reply
by changelings never change Friday July 08, 2005 at 02:30 AM
_______________________ This, in spite of the fact that at least 4 different cameras which caught the plane hitting the south tower as well as the Naudet brothers footage of the north tower strike all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts -
http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm Very strange event for them to have faked. Still, I eagerly await planemissileornothing's evidence that nothing hit anything on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath._________________________:
1.just what 4 different cameras are you ranting about?
i only know about cnn's and the alleged czech's,about whose shot scott loughrey says it's suspiciously similar to cnn's.
2.assuming for a moment you can link us to the 4 different south tower videos you mentioned without sourcing them:
how can you logically rule out they are all regime fabrications?
scott loughrey contends it's impossible for a boeing to enter a steel framed building designed to resist just such an impact as a knife would butter - without the least bit of wreckage severed and projected outwards - and without impact NOISE:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html thus implying said alleged videos purporting to show UA175 hitting are fakes.
and if and since they are clear fakes,so are the flashes that are so irresistible to your in-the-box pseudothinking.
Still, I eagerly await the changeling's evidence that something hit something on 9/11, though I won't be holding my breath...
add your comments
Obfuscation Failure
by Changeling Friday July 08, 2005 at 08:28 AM
Changeling_au_2004@yahoo.com.au 0409 952 382 "1.just what 4 different cameras are you ranting about?"
Ranting? Oh OK. See the documentary "911 in plane site" - I recommend the director's cut version.
"how can you logically rule out they are all regime fabrications?"
Where have I done that? I haven't.
The
http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html link raises interesting questions - will need to look at in more detail. So - tell me (seeing you seem to KNOW that nothing hit) explain "all clearly show a flash just before the plane impacts -
http://www.911inplanesite.com/flash_article.htm" Strange thing to appear in multiple alleged fake videos. INFOG, as you call it?
add your comments
all you need to know
by is here Saturday July 09, 2005 at 10:38 AM
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm add your comments
to the last
by dead link Sunday July 10, 2005 at 01:39 AM
your link is dead i'm afraid?
add your comments
changeling changes
by owning up to it Sunday July 10, 2005 at 01:44 AM
1.i challenge you to prove something hit
2.thanx for not ruling out nothing hit.
add your comments
inplanesite
by is a planted site Sunday July 10, 2005 at 01:54 AM
inplanesite utterly destroyed by scott loughrey here:
http://www.media-criticism.com/In_Plane_Site_08_2004.html so much for changeling's blind quoting of plant sites...
add your comments
director's cut
by facelift for naudet's video Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:02 AM
here's how scott loughrey destroyed the director's cut version of the naudet first plane video on the inplanesite site:
_____________________Jules Naudet is credited with the sensational pan left which tracked Flight 11 as it struck the North Tower. The foreground object, a large building, is largely in focus as the camera rapidly pans left. The World Trade Center, seen in extreme long shot, is more or less in focus as Flight 11 strikes the North Tower. Only the plane remains out of focus. It makes absolutely no sense that Flight 11 would be out of focus as we see it collide with the North Tower.
While individual frames of this video clip can certainly be blurry Flight 11 should not be blurry as it moves on the screen. This is because it is being projected at 18 frames per second (or more). At this rate the human brain begins to be fooled into thinking that animated objects are actually in motion. Without this capacity for the brain to be fooled there could be no cinema.
Someone else appears to have noticed this discrepancy. This could be why the Power Hour has come out with a new, more optically sensible version of this video clip which tens of millions of people have seen! (It appears in their ⌠director▓s cut■ version of 911: In Plane Site.)_____________________:
http://www.media-criticism.com/911-Society_Spectacle_02_2005.html so sorry for changeling - but then again he's supposed to change isn't he...
add your comments
link not working
by way around Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:07 AM
if in trouble reaching the link - the last i gave - go to:
http://www.media-criticism.com then click on 2005
then go one of the 2 titles,the first "psyop operations and..."
and you'll find the quoted bit at the end of the page
add your comments
sorry
by again Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:11 AM
the title you have to click on is
911 and the society of the spectacle
add your comments
so how
by does the poster Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:30 AM
of this thread differentiate his position from the scott loughrey no-plane theory?
let's first summarize's loughrey's thesis in his own words:
___________________To cut to the chase I believe the perpetrators of 9/11 faked both plane impacts with the WTC. Bombs were planted in both the North and South Towers that were detonated to resemble the damage left from banking planes entering. After the North Tower bombs went off millions of people around the country turned their TVs on to watch the subsequent fire burn. Thirteen minutes later the perpetrators fired disguised missiles at the South Tower in broad daylight. Then the bombs went off in it._____________________:
http://www.media-criticism.com/No_Planes_Summary_2004.html 1.this thread's author extends the no planes theory to the penta
2.he maintains that it is absolutely unproven that anything hit anything on 911
3.therefore he differs from loughrey in that loughrey ,albeit right on almost all points,introduces the unfounded final allegation that missiles were fired at the south tower to fool live audiences on site into believing there was a plane
4.but loughrey does not source his alleged wtc 2 witnesses to missiles or small flying things which may have been missiles
5.i do not have said sources though i bet they exist because loughrey is a serious thinker
6.but we have similar witnesses for small planes or a missile hitting the penta and there is no reason in the world to credit these while we discredit the jet witnesses
7.that is,both witness types may have been planted by the regime to addle critics' brains
8.a third and logically more likely option is open:
that nothing hit nothing at all,it was entirely controlled demolition and tv video fiction
9.why risk shooting missiles at the south tower or penta,thus having to involve a lot more military personnel,not to mention the error odds...
in conclusion,the poster's theory is a logical correction and improvement of scott loughrey's no-plane theory.
add your comments
let's call it
by the Sunday July 10, 2005 at 02:34 AM
nothing-hit-nothing theory...
theoretician
Comments
Display the following 2 comments