question for mynameis re: 9/11 planes

[graflok]

per request of mynameis here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=382117#post382117) I am starting a new thread to ask 2 simple questions which he/she has promised to answer.

- Do you believe the Pentagon witnesses lied about a plane hitting the Pantagon?

- Do you believe the WTC witnesses lied about the plane(s) hitting the WTC?

[mynameis]

per request of mynameis here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=382117#post382117) I am starting a new thread to ask 2 simple questions which he/she has promised to answer.

- Do you believe the Pentagon witnesses lied about a plane hitting the Pantagon?

- Do you believe the WTC witnesses lied about the plane(s) hitting the WTC?

Witnesses statements are irrelevant only the FDR matters and that showed it was off by large margins. So I don't think witnesses couldn't lie, but might either be mistaken or towing a government line.

Too many witnesses saw the second passenger plane hit the WTC. It is irrelevant to say witnesses lied about the second WTC plane hit.

[graflok]

OK, so you believe witness statements are irrelevant but you also believe
too many witnesses saw the second plane hit the WTC. Correct? I presume
you mean too many witnesses saw it to not believe what they were saying.

So, could you clarify, please: If witness statements are irrelevant to you what
difference does it make to you what the WTC witnesses said about a plane?

[mynameis]

OK, so you believe witness statements are irrelevant but you also believe
too many witnesses saw the second plane hit the WTC. Correct? I presume
you mean too many witnesses saw it to not believe what they were saying.

So, could you clarify, please: If witness statements are irrelevant to you what
difference does it make to you what the WTC witnesses said about a plane?

Incorrect the WTC and Pentagon are two separate incidents having no bearing on one another. Stop going off topic again.

[graflok]

But, this question is the topic.

I don't understand why you don't want to answer it. I'm only trying to
understand your viewpoint.

So, you will only answer questions about WTC? Is that the idea?

[graflok]

OK. Anybody else wanna try?

[montag]

Incorrect the WTC and Pentagon are two separate incidents having no bearing on one another.
You're joking right?:confused:?

[montag]

OK. Anybody else wanna try?
Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially after media saturation of the event, played over again and again(psychic driving).

I myself wouldn't rely on witness testimony alone to prove planes hit the towers.

[dave52]

I posted this to another thread, but I think it's worth re-iterating.

If you were looking at the tower that was on fire, watching in horror and shock as people threw themselves to their deaths rather than burn... Would you be able to tell if this were a plane or not...?

Remember you're looking at the tower that's on fire and you only caught this out of the corner of your eye. Then, you had to endure endless "see the plane" mind control from the News Networks following the attacks.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/missiles/tomahawk.jpg

[dave52]

As this is a Pentagon / WTC thread, I think this image is important. Here is an ariel view of the Pentagon strike trajectory. Notice the location of the punch-out hole, through three rings of the Pentagon.

No plane could do this.

http://911review.org/images/aerial16.jpg

Incidently, the WTC and Pentagon events are intrinsictly linked. The three towers at the WTC (1,2 and 7) are the trinity, the Pentagon, is er... well, it's the Pentagon isn't it...!

They love their rituals almost as much as they love ther numerology.

[musti]

I posted this to another thread, but I think it's worth re-iterating.

If you were looking at the tower that was on fire, watching in horror and shock as people threw themselves to their deaths rather than burn... Would you be able to tell if this were a plane or not...?

Remember you're looking at the tower that's on fire and you only caught this out of the corner of your eye. Then, you had to endure endless "see the plane" mind control from the News Networks following the attacks.


good point!

just to clarify: you are saying that a missile similar to this hit the towers and the plane image on the live tv was superimposed on the missile?

[dave52]

good point!

just to clarify: you are saying that a missile similar to this hit the towers and the plane image on the live tv was superimposed on the missile?

I'm saying that it could've been missiles at the WTC - we can't tell for sure, but I think it's a good fit. The footage on TV was completely faked. There were only a couple of "live" shots of the second impact and none of these convince me that there was a plane (the only one that actually showed a plane was the Fox Chopper shot with the infamous nose-out, and that footage has all sorts of problems imho). All the really cool footage came out later throughout the day. Plenty of time to sort out some good fakes.

Missile at the Pentagon - no question imho.

[montag]

I'm saying that it could've been missiles at the WTC - we can't tell for sure, but I think it's a good fit. The footage on TV was completely faked. There were only a couple of "live" shots of the second impact and none of these convince me that there was a plane (the only one that actually showed a plane was the Fox Chopper shot with the infamous nose-out, and that footage has all sorts of problems imho). All the really cool footage came out later throughout the day. Plenty of time to sort out some good fakes.

Missile at the Pentagon - no question imho.
Do you know my only problem with this is what if someone happened to catch some actual real footage of either a missile or the buildings exploding without the aircraft? I agree the footage we saw could've been fiddled with, but what if someone got actual real footage of the explosion, which would be likely, what of it?

[kingmonkey]

Do you know my only problem with this is what if someone happened to catch some actual real footage of either a missile or the buildings exploding without the aircraft? I agree the footage we saw could've been fiddled with, but what if someone got actual real footage of the explosion, which would be likely, what of it?

Even if it saw the light of day it'd be denied as fake or manipulated by people on all sides of the 9/11 issue, nobody, after all the bullshit and propoganda around 911 would trust its validity.

[dave52]

Do you know my only problem with this is what if someone happened to catch some actual real footage of either a missile or the buildings exploding without the aircraft? I agree the footage we saw could've been fiddled with, but what if someone got actual real footage of the explosion, which would be likely, what of it?

An excellent point, and I will be honest enough to admit - I just don't know.

It is possible that this happened, but was somehow hushed up. It could be that there is someone, somewhere with a tape hidden under his bed wondering what the hell to do with it. After all, I think I would be scared of the consequences judging by the way the last 7 years have gone.

There could be footage that just shows the explosion that will be fobbed off as just video that missed the plane. If you look at the Bob and Bri "what we saw" footage and the Naudet second strike shot, they both have frames cut out at the precise point of impact.

I've been told that the preasure wave of such an impact would mess up your average video recorder - but I think it more likely that someone was trying to hide something.

[musti]

I'm saying that it could've been missiles at the WTC - we can't tell for sure, but I think it's a good fit. The footage on TV was completely faked. There were only a couple of "live" shots of the second impact and none of these convince me that there was a plane (the only one that actually showed a plane was the Fox Chopper shot with the infamous nose-out, and that footage has all sorts of problems imho). All the really cool footage came out later throughout the day. Plenty of time to sort out some good fakes.

Missile at the Pentagon - no question imho.

thanks for the answer, i remember reading and watching only 3 tv channels broadcasting this live and all changed angles as the plane (or whatever) hit...

[mynameis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEAxh5r5y0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEAxh5r5y0

[musti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEAxh5r5y0


wow, great video!

[3stepsahead]

well the single fact that the lightpoles were struck is a giveaway.
The plane would smash to the ground on the first one.. And ofcourse the tapes showing no planes / denial of releasing all tapes, is another one.
Nothing of the evidence coincide with what the govn says about pentagons.

Now the problem is rather that this makes people who give a crap into conspiracy nuts, wich bush has already stated are delusional.
Imo it would divide the people. so much i almost cant see how the poor "job" could be unintetionally poor. To make tention between people perhaps or to label and weed out those who actually care and are awake.

I have to agree that the live feeds as far as ive seen are vague some even reporting no plane LIVE. some haveing a plane or similar thing in wiev.
its a mess.

Like ive said before there are a huge amount of witnesses reporting about bombs in 1,2,7. but they are NOT taken into account when investigating. However those who witness the planes are force fed over and over again.

Hope this makes any sence at all.
Remember to not forget. :)

[dave52]

Imo it would divide the people. so much i almost cant see how the poor "job" could be unintetionally poor. To make tention between people perhaps or to label and weed out those who actually care and are awake.

Good post - and this is a good point that moves us to another one of my pet subjects. I believe 9/11 was meant to be exposed (along with the patsies - Bush, Silverstien etc). It would just be another step towards the required public outrage (along with financial hardship, oil prices, lack of employment etc etc).

Imagine the outrage if 9/11 was proven to be an inside job. There would be riots on the streets, a complete breakdown of social structure and normality. And what would happen then...? Marshall law, bring in the UN - they're the only ones that can restore order right?

Then, world government.

[3stepsahead]

Good post - and this is a good point that moves us to another one of my pet subjects. I believe 9/11 was meant to be exposed (along with the patsies - Bush, Silverstien etc). It would just be another step towards the required public outrage (along with financial hardship, oil prices, lack of employment etc etc).

Imagine the outrage if 9/11 was proven to be an inside job. There would be riots on the streets, a complete breakdown of social structure and normality. And what would happen then...? Marshall law, bring in the UN - they're the only ones that can restore order right?

Then, world government.

Well its an possibility but what would it take to "expose" them? The good ol trusty media. So i guess it would never happen in that fashion. (until they are ready anyway)
The outrages are already fired up and have been for many years. Not only with a 911 topic but with general dismay towards Bush or other important issues big and small. Lots of people are doing a heroic job of arranging and particapating in protests, rallys and festivals, wich all wakes up anotehr soul or two. I guess many are just apathetic supporters aswell.
The thing with icke fora is that people should get a kickstart into doing something worthwhile, and many are, with the info presented.
Its not all lost, thats just what they want us to thinnk.

[narcolepticwatchman]

Do you know my only problem with this is what if someone happened to catch some actual real footage of either a missile or the buildings exploding without the aircraft? I agree the footage we saw could've been fiddled with, but what if someone got actual real footage of the explosion, which would be likely, what of it?

What like Bob and Bri? Well they just cut out the impact but not the sound then pass it off as unedited. Anyone with the footage caught on camcorder would more than likely chase the $ and send it in to the news networks who could deal with it then. Youtube wasn't about in those days.

btw i think the quote on that vid i just mentioned was, 'that was a military plane' .....that photo of the missile posted earlier could easily pass for a military type plane.

Oh and my sig is back! wonders never cease....:D

[graflok]

I posted this to another thread, but I think it's worth re-iterating.

If you were looking at the tower that was on fire, watching in horror and shock as people threw themselves to their deaths rather than burn... Would you be able to tell if this were a plane or not...?

Remember you're looking at the tower that's on fire and you only caught this out of the corner of your eye. Then, you had to endure endless "see the plane" mind control from the News Networks following the attacks.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/missiles/tomahawk.jpg

Since I don't believe that a plane or missile hit the Pentagon or the WTC, the
question is moot in my mind.

So, you think a Royal Navy missile hit the WTC? That's a new one on me!

[dave52]

No, it's just a picture of a missile. Did I say this was the type of missile? The exact missile? No, I said - look at this missile, it could look like a plane if you only saw it for a split second.

[graflok]

No, it's just a picture of a missile. Did I say this was the type of missile? The exact missile? No, I said - look at this missile, it could look like a plane if you only saw it for a split second.

Well, that's not really true. What you said is in plain view above, quoted in my last post. You said:

"Remember you're looking at the tower that's on fire and you only caught this out of the corner of your eye."

It wouldn't have mattered except now you're trying to say I'm being inaccurate when I'm not. There's been
all sorts of ideas posted about strange things hitting the WTC. How is someone to know that you meant something
other than what you said? I simply took you at your word.

[dave52]

Ok...

[mr_self_destruct]

Maybe the Queen launched it...

[killtown]

Too many witnesses saw the second passenger plane hit the WTC.
Please present a number with evidence to support your number so we don't think you just pulled a number out of your you know what.

[mynameis]

Please present a number with evidence to support your number so we don't think you just pulled a number out of your you know what.

Half the people who work in Manhattan near the NYSE.

[killtown]

Half the people who work in Manhattan near the NYSE.
Source? Link?

[mynameis]

Source? Link?

Paul Fusco,
Thomas Hoepker,
Steve McCurry,
Susan Meiselas,
Gilles Peress,
Larry Towell,
Alex Webb,
Linda Gormley,
Tonya Young,
Karim Arraki,
Clyde Ebanks,
Luigi Ribaudo,
Peter Collins,
Martin Amis,
Kenneth Escofferey,
George Kozlowski,
Rob Marchesano,
Jeff Benjamin,
Ezra Aviles,
George Sleigh,
Nicholas Scinicariello,
Corky Adams
Members of Ladder 7,
Joseph Pfeifer Batallion Chief FDNY,
Ken Siebert,
Lisa Lee,
Ileana Negron,
Richard Polatchek,

And many many more.....
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai
http://www.11-sept.org/survivors.html