Request to no planers only [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : Request to no planers only

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

secondsun

27-03-2009, 06:24 AM

secondsun

27-03-2009, 07:03 AM

...what!?!... no one!.... come on guy`s!... i thought i would have least had one numskull claiming the gashes are faked by now!

dave52

27-03-2009, 08:05 AM

It's a good question, and one that does pose problems to the NPT. I think that it's almost impossible to answer without getting to the bottom of how NPT was done.

If NPT consists mainly of missiles covered by tv fakery, it could have been caused by the impact of the missile. Alternatively if you're in the "no projectile at all" camp, then you have to look at what sort of explosives were used, or was there some sort of future combat DEW weapon involved (or a combination of some or all of these methods).

I honestly don't know, I don't have all the answers - but it doesn't change my mind on NPT.

Just to flip it around, if that was caused by the impact of a plane wing, why do we see the wings slice through the facade and disappear into the building in the footage when clearly, that shot suggests the wings didn't make it through...

guntherznads

27-03-2009, 09:25 AM

The scaring on the towers are mystifying weather you believe in planes or no planes. I have problems believing that the fragile wings of a 767 would be capable of #1..staying intact from tip to tip, and #2..being strong enough to leave that kind of a mark.
Personally I don't feel the need to have every single question answered, I know the media showed us fakes, whatever it was that hit the towers and left the holes and the scaring, for me, doesn't really matter. But I could see how some people would need these questions answered.

bryan

27-03-2009, 12:03 PM

...if no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9-11 and the kinda plane shaped holes were produce by some explosives placed in the building... please explain the two gashes arrowed in the image below!... thanks!

Imagine you've served 10 years of a life sentence for murder, and new DNA evidence proves you couldn't have been the murderer.

You go to the prison warder and say:

"Well, can I go home now?"

And the prison warder says:

"No. You can't go home till we've found the real murderer".

You'd be a bit pissed off, wouldn't you?

You see, once it's proved that a plane couldn't have made the hole in the South Tower, the plane can go home.

Then the investigation will have to be reopened to find out what DID make the hole.

In THAT order.

slartibartfast

27-03-2009, 01:57 PM

Imagine you've served 10 years of a life sentence for murder, and new DNA evidence proves you couldn't have been the murderer.

You go to the prison warder and say:

"Well, can I go home now?"

And the prison warder says:

"No. You can't go home till we've found the real murderer".

You'd be a bit pissed off, wouldn't you?

You see, once it's proved that a plane couldn't have made the hole in the South Tower, the plane can go home.

Then the investigation will have to be reopened to find out what DID make the hole.

In THAT order.

The more serious question is why does bryan want no planes? What purpose does it serve. If you want people to think a plane crashed into a sky scrapper, fly a plane into a sky scrapper. Why go to the danger and expense of faking it?

guntherznads

27-03-2009, 02:41 PM

The more serious question is why does bryan want no planes? What purpose does it serve. If you want people to think a plane crashed into a sky scrapper, fly a plane into a sky scrapper. Why go to the danger and expense of faking it?

Damn... good point. I never thought of that. But maybe, just maybe, crashing real planes into the WTC might leave behind actual evidence...passengers (or lack thereof), plane parts that would identify the aircraft...that is if you think a 767 could actually be piloted into those buildings.....what if they missed?

If you were going to use planes you would have to use the actual flight 175 and flight 11 with actual passengers on board. If the planes missed and wreckage minus people ended up on the streets what would your story be then?

slartibartfast

27-03-2009, 02:48 PM

Damn... good point. I never thought of that. But maybe, just maybe, crashing real planes into the WTC might leave behind actual evidence...passengers (or lack thereof), plane parts that would identify the aircraft...that is if you think a 767 could actually be piloted into those buildings.....what if they missed?

If you were going to use planes you would have to use the actual flight 175 and flight 11 with actual passengers on board. If the planes missed and wreckage minus people ended up on the streets what would your story be then?

On the assumption that you are of the opinion that a lot of people died in 911, then anyone who will to do that would have no compunction in flying the real aircraft with passengers into buildings. If they had missed they would have hit another building and still caused mayhem. The probability that the planes ended up where they did is 1.

guntherznads

27-03-2009, 03:04 PM

On the assumption that you are of the opinion that a lot of people died in 911, then anyone who will to do that would have no compunction in flying the real aircraft with passengers into buildings. If they had missed they would have hit another building and still caused mayhem. The probability that the planes ended up where they did is 1.

So you think that the people that planned 9-11 would be content with just completely missing their desired target? They would have been happy with the complete destruction of 2 of the world most iconic landmarks, resulting in the death of thousands , viewed by millions worldwide......or just crashing 2 767's somewhere in NYC resulting in Maybe a few hundred dead?

You really think the people that did 9-11 would play it that loose? 9-11 was designed to be used as a platform for changing the world, and you really think that when it was being drawn up the perps said " lets just hurl some planes into manhattan and let's see what happens"

slartibartfast

27-03-2009, 03:16 PM

So you think that the people that planned 9-11 would be content with just completely missing their desired target? They would have been happy with the complete destruction of 2 of the world most iconic landmarks, resulting in the death of thousands , viewed by millions worldwide......or just crashing 2 767's somewhere in NYC resulting in Maybe a few hundred dead?

You really think the people that did 9-11 would play it that loose? 9-11 was designed to be used as a platform for changing the world, and you really think that when it was being drawn up the perps said " lets just hurl some planes into manhattan and let's see what happens"

The planes ended up where they ended up. They didn't miss. The no plane theory appears to rely on the difficulty of hitting the WTC.

guntherznads

27-03-2009, 03:26 PM

The planes ended up where they ended up. They didn't miss. The no plane theory appears to rely on the difficulty of hitting the WTC.

Your logic is fucking scary. I know that they didn't used planes because every single 2nd hit video that exists is provably fake, not because I think the planes would miss!

Do you believe in highjackers too?

gribz

27-03-2009, 03:31 PM

...if no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9-11 and the kinda plane shaped holes were produce by some explosives placed in the building... please explain the two gashes arrowed in the image below!... thanks!

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

...plane huggers!... please feel free to bump this up from time to time due to the expected lack of response!

Photoshop!!! :p

EDIT - Actually, looking back on the drawing, look at the 6 strips (or whatever) next to the ones you marked in red. Why is the gap that cup out of them about 5ft and the gap suddenly increase as you move towards main impact???? Surely the wing is all the same size throughout.

Personally I do think a plane hit WTC 1 but not a commerical plane.

As for WTC 2 i cant decide but once again it was not a commerical plane IMO.

There was no way commerical planes at Pentagon and Shanksville.

gamolon

27-03-2009, 04:03 PM

Why is the gap that cup out of them about 5ft and the gap suddenly increase as you move towards main impact???? Surely the wing is all the same size throughout.

The wing, from tip to where it meets the body increases in width horizontally.

bryan

27-03-2009, 04:10 PM

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

Does anybody know how they managed to get a good quality zoomed in part off a grainy photo like that?

dave52

27-03-2009, 04:45 PM

If they had missed they would have hit another building and still caused mayhem.

Er... and the twin towers would've collapsed because....?

oiram

27-03-2009, 06:00 PM

OK I try to answer this!

Now for starters ignore that there are explosives in side the building!

Because if you would have explosives inside the building all Structural columns should be bend out word right! They don't.

So I say they setup up Termite charges which have a smaller and smaller charges out word.

One more fact if this would have been a imprint from a wing it did not enter the building as you can clearly see and this section should be on the bottom of the building or splatter marks onto the building leaving indentations all over the Sheeting. But nothing again. where are the parts of the plain wing stuck et between the columns. Nothing again!

Now look at all the Columns in the center are the pushed inward? No they don't!
Also look at the ends of most of the columns they are straight up and all have discoloration like after a cut. Termite does exactly this burns and cuts the Columns & leaves a stain and dark slack all over.

All they did is set up termite charges in the shape of a plain.
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/911.jpg
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/912.jpg

I am working with metal; so please one boilermaker explains to me how this one was cut also you can see backing bars on near top corner & why is the slack outward? No No my boys it's not cut by oxy torch & why 45 degrees? You see the section which has no discoloration & it's sheared off section!
Look at the cutting marks what tip size would you use? Also how would you got your hands into the Box column to cut? NO NO don't tell me shit! This looks like 45 to 50 mm plate

The same system was used on the Buildings entry hole!
Columns straight up no bending at all.
Also a plain made from aluminum will not cut Box column high grade steal of 20 to 40 mm thickness. "Trust me!"

http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/911cut.gif

Why would I cut so high up? If I can cut low and straight which is much less work also they did not start removal yet!
http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

Where are the Fucking wings ...... Hah??
Where is the entire Plain .. Hollywood movie Right!
http://911review.org/_webimages/graphics/Untitled-8%20copy.jpg
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagongraphics.html
http://911review.org/images/snopes/car-whitep.JPG
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagongraphics.html

911 was a Inside Job!

Pentagon always was my favored you seen this one yet!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=796509&postcount=43
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1193/alcmcruisemissilefc2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzh-EyxKwc
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/pentagon50.gif

This is another classic line that gets overlooked.
Donald Rumsfeld mentions 2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the pentagon budget. When did he mention this, september 10th. Who releases bad news on a Monday, when the media public have all week of exposure to this loss.
Unless you know something is going to happen the day after.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7904516028875682825

fanoftruth

27-03-2009, 06:27 PM

oiram,

The capture you posted near the bottom of your post from youtube showing the supposed secret footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon is a very, very poorly produced fake

oiram

27-03-2009, 07:56 PM

oiram,

The capture you posted near the bottom of your post from youtube showing the supposed secret footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon is a very, very poorly produced fakeYes like everything else is fake in this crazy world!

Except of cause your trusted Governments looking after you're interest at all times!

Is the 45 degree cut Box Column also fake on the ground floor; passport flying out of an inferno; telephone calls from in-flight plains entire plains disappearing; all 8 flight recorders disappearing...... etc.. etc? a final report made for the brain dead!

No point to argue one item if there are hundreds of different items!

.

bryan

27-03-2009, 08:44 PM

No point to argue one item if there are hundreds of different items!

But there's no point in handing the debunkers straw men on a plate. :)

Is the 45 degree cut Box Column also fake on the ground floor

They were probably cut during the clean-up.

The straight ends on the perimeter columns are where they were joined to each other and the bolts either broke or were removed beforehand. The columns were the length of three floors and the joins were half way between the floor and the ceiling. Some of them were definitely fractured though.

oiram

27-03-2009, 09:26 PM

Filmmaker Calls 911 Attacks "a Hoax"

May 29, 2008

http://www.henrymakow.com/severe.jpg

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

On Sept. 11 2001, filmmaker Paul Cross was doing post-production work in Washington DC when he heard about the "terrorist" attack. He visited the crash-site just five hours after impact and could plainly see the official story was a lie.

"There was no passenger jet wreckage; the lawn wasn't scorched; lamp posts, fences and construction materials in the path of the jet were untouched." Cross told me. "If this was a hoax, then the attack on the World Trade Centre was also a hoax."

Cross, 45, characterizes his pre-9-11 self as a "flag- waving patriot" who "voted Republican all my life."

He was crushed. "I love my country. I was in mourning for weeks, literally in tears for what has become of this country."

He decided to alert his fellow citizens by making the feature film "Severe Visibility" about a Pentagon accountant, Major Stanley Kruter, who is slightly injured in the attack. He "has his head buried in the sand" but questions the official story when approached by a British investigative reporter.

Cross opted to make a feature instead of a documentary because he felt documentaries preach to the converted. He wanted to reach ordinary Americans who could identify with the cognitive dissonance his hero experienced as he tried to comprehend the implications of the hoax and its mass acceptance.

Cross raised over $500,000 from friends and family. Many actors etc. wanted to participate and worked for less.

Cross wrote, directed and starred in the 90-min. feature. The film describes his own coming to terms with political reality.

Cross insists he identifies with the investigative reporter, not Kruter. But in an uncanny way, his own life now resembles the accountant who refused to pretend he saw a passenger plane.

Cross can't find a distributor for the movie. He can't get it shown at film festivals in the US.
They say their corporate owners or sponsors would not permit it.

"I feel like I am in Nazi Germany the way some people in Hollywood are reacting to it. What is everyone so afraid of? Everyone seems to like the film but... most of the distribution companies I have approached... don't want to release a film with so strong a statement."

He can't get interviews or reviews in the mainstream press. This is tangible proof of how art and information are controlled in our supposedly "free" society.

(Many politically sensitive movies never see the light of day. For eg. director Henry Bean had to show his wonderful movie, "The Believer" about a Jewish neo-Nazi, to a rabbi and some matrons at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA. They didn't like it and it never reached theaters.)

Paul Cross has received hate mail, and death threats. "The truth hurts," Cross says. "People can't face it."

But the film has been embraced abroad. "The media tells people the truth in other countries," he said.

Cross has joined the select minority of Americans who awoke on 9-11. We are the child who says the Emperor has no clothes surrounded by conformists who won't believe their own common sense and eyes.

The other 9-11 movies like "Flight 93" and "World Trade Centre" are propaganda. They perpetuate the myths that 9-11 shattered. Oliver Stone is a shadow of the man who made "Platoon" and "JFK."

THE FILM

"Severe Visibility" is hard to watch. Cross said he meant it so. He wanted viewers to confront what happened on Sept 11, 2001. He wanted them to mourn the innocent victims and the demise of freedom.

The main character has a childish faith in his country. He addresses his diary to Thomas Jefferson as if the founding fathers were pristine. The dialogue and action are stilted. There isn't much of a plot and Cross is pretty long-winded. Incongruously, Kruter doesn't change the blood-stained bandage on his forehead.

I have passed the "cognitive dissonance" phase. I wished Kruter had been less naive and had told his interrogators, "Hey, I wasn't looking out the window."

Christ said: "See, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves." (Mathew 10:16)

In spite of all this, the film is for some undefinable reason quite gripping. Kruter becomes a symbol of the much-lied-to and-abused American people.

The film is a dirge for 9-11. Paul Cross has a unique ability to feel the breadth and depth of the tragedy when most of us have become desensitized and brutalized. The victims of 9-11, whether on the planes or in the WTC, have not been mourned. How can you mourn if you don't admit the truth of why they were killed and by whom?

"Severe Visibility" contains a lot of information about the Pentagon attack. For example, the 9-11 scenario had been rehearsed as a "terror exercise" numerous times. This is why the military allowed it to take place. (As if the "terrorists" would have been privy to this information.)

CONCLUSION

We have been colonized by an alien financial power, the London-based central banking cartel and their instruments, the colonial elite: corporations, intelligence agencies, government, the two political parties, universities, Freemasons, the churches, organized Jewry, Marxist Jews; Neo Cons; feminists, foundations; think tanks, and of course the mass media.

The "truth will set you free" so they suppress it.. That's why we must honor and support courageous if flawed works like "Severe Visibility." The only deterrent against another false flag terrorist attack, possibly leading to martial law, is for everyone to know the truth about 9-11.
--------
Paul Cross will be interviewed Sunday 10 PM CT June 1 on my Internet radio show at www.republicbroadcasting.org (http://www.republicbroadcasting.org)

source (http://www.henrymakow.com/filmmaker_was_at_pentagon_on_9.html)

bryan

27-03-2009, 10:29 PM

[CENTER]BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job

Steven Jones is a shill. His job is to bury the research that had been done before he turned up on the scene. He does that by presenting 'evidence' which can be easily debunked.

There are photos showing that after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the core columns of at least one of the towers were still standing several floors high. The photo you posted is most likely showing the same columns after they've been trimmed off by the clean-up workers.

h2pogo

27-03-2009, 10:50 PM

oiram

27-03-2009, 10:54 PM

Steven Jones is a shill. His job is to bury the research that had been done before he turned up on the scene. He does that by presenting 'evidence' which can be easily debunked.

There are photos showing that after the destruction of the Twin Towers, the core columns of at least one of the towers were still standing several floors high. The photo you posted is most likely showing the same columns after they've been trimmed off by the clean-up workers.
Talking about Shills .... How much they Pay you? Permanent Job I guess! Mostly same subject.
Expose you just love the subject or is it a agenda?
All I know is that normal members get involved in many topics!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1884601&pp=25&page=4
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
Kindergarten Physics Lesson ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
bryan 27-03-2009 11:27 PM
by bryan 212 4,254 9/11
Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
bryan 24-03-2009 08:03 PM
by bryan 36 1,061 9/11
Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
bryan 09-03-2009 06:41 AM
by bryan 0 79 9/11
Why Plan a Reverse Sequence Demolition? ( 1 2)
bryan 20-02-2009 09:41 AM
by tannah 52 1,091 9/11

British Bishop says gas chambers lies, lies, lies! ( 1 2 3)
bryan 01-02-2009 06:36 AM
by zarah 82 2,834 Today's News
‘Nonsense’ talked over fluoride plan
bryan 31-01-2009 04:55 AM
by bryan 0 118 Today's News
Where was this explosion?
bryan 28-01-2009 07:34 AM
by darryl84 7 179 9/11
Huge anomalies in photograph
bryan 15-01-2009 04:30 AM
by christophera 25 859 9/11
What were the flashes?
bryan 12-01-2009 05:02 AM
by bryan 12 346 9/11
BBC were at Battery Park on 9/11 ( 1 2)
bryan 08-10-2008 10:51 PM
by bryan 42 2,008 9/11
Showing results 1 to 10 of 10
Take the Boeing 757 Challenge (Rant Version)
Views: 1,023
Posted By bryan
As a freeman of the land, do you accept the...

As a freeman of the land, do you accept the concept of legality?
Forum: 9/11
25-03-2009, 09:07 AM
Replies: 145
Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
Views: 1,590
Posted By bryan
You came here a couple of months ago with expert...

You came here a couple of months ago with expert knowledge of the Twin Tower steel cores, yet you don't see anything fishy about the way they collapsed at near freefall speed. :confused:

You're right, he's not a retard. He just acts like one. He's actually a clever fraud.
Forum: 9/11
25-03-2009, 05:04 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
Incorrect. What Mackey has shown is that...

Incorrect. What Mackey has shown is that (theoretically) a 'slug of fuel' travelling at around 500mph would fracture a single perimeter column. He hasn't shown that the front section of fuselage...
Forum: Rant Room
25-03-2009, 04:26 AM
Replies: 88
Take the Boeing 757 Challenge (Rant Version)
Views: 1,023
Posted By bryan
He picked up the research, took it down a dead...

He picked up the research, took it down a dead end, and the thermite-sniffers followed him.
Forum: 9/11
25-03-2009, 03:20 AM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
I think tannah was using irony, Mr Spock.

I think tannah was using irony, Mr Spock.
Forum: Rant Room
24-03-2009, 10:59 PM
Replies: 88
Take the Boeing 757 Challenge (Rant Version)
Views: 1,023
Posted By bryan
Steven Jones has spent the last three and a half...

Steven Jones has spent the last three and a half years 'refining' the controlled demolition hypothesis that other researchers had formulated before him. His task is to present the theory in such a...
Forum: 9/11
24-03-2009, 09:22 PM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
Last year he created an account under his own...

Last year he created an account under his own name just to disrupt a thread on Ace Baker's 'Theory of Ghostplane' video, which is still the best evidence to wake people up to the fact that plane in...

Why would the pilot of Flight 175 risk damaging the aircraft by taking it into a 20,000ft power dive, levelling off at 700ft before flying into the South Tower?

Alternative 1: The...
Forum: 9/11
24-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Replies: 145
Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
Views: 1,590
Posted By bryan
This is a red herring. The question should be: ...

This is a red herring. The question should be:

If a large commercial jet airliner penetrated the outer wall of a large office building, would we expect to see parts break off the aircraft, would...
Forum: Rant Room
24-03-2009, 06:23 AM
Replies: 88
Take the Boeing 757 Challenge (Rant Version)
Views: 1,023
Posted By bryan
More like a real 9/11 Politician. The truth...

More like a real 9/11 Politician.

The truth doesn't care about whether the public can handle it, or whether the mainstream media will ridicule it, or even whether party unity will be threatened by...
Forum: 9/11
24-03-2009, 05:02 AM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Sorry, I copied and pasted from the displayed...

Sorry, I copied and pasted from the displayed version in another thread. These should work:

...
Forum: 9/11
24-03-2009, 04:05 AM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Here's the big deal: Phil Jayhan dreams up...

Here's the big deal:

Phil Jayhan dreams up the pod theory and promotes it on his forum, where you're a mod. Years later the very same pod theory is an embarrassment to the truth movement and few...
Forum: Rant Room
23-03-2009, 08:51 PM
Replies: 88
Take the Boeing 757 Challenge (Rant Version)
Views: 1,023
Posted By bryan
Using RPT logic, a plane MUST HAVE buried itself...

Using RPT logic, a plane MUST HAVE buried itself under the ground at Shanksville.

Why would they fake a plane crash when they could just fly a real plane into a field?
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 07:41 PM
Replies: 36
Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
Views: 1,061
Posted By bryan
The other thread would be better for this...

The other thread would be better for this particular subject but people wouldn't be able to trace the quotes back.

The problem here is that your idea of 'destruction' is so vague that...
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Replies: 1
Filmmaker Urges International Tribunal to...
Views: 77
Posted By bryan
Think about it.

Think about it.
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 06:51 PM
Replies: 145
Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
Views: 1,590
Posted By bryan
You think tabea blumenschein was suggesting there...

You think tabea blumenschein was suggesting there were explosives in the buildings?

Maybe the person in question can clarify the situation.

If it's true, I certainly got the wrong end of the...
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 08:20 AM
Replies: 36
Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
Views: 1,061
Posted By bryan
So the undercarriage blasts a 17ft diameter hole...

So the undercarriage blasts a 17ft diameter hole in the wall for the fuselage to pass through?

I don't think so.

You say "shortly after", but before the wings reach the building, around a...
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 07:49 AM
Replies: 145
Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
Views: 1,590
Posted By bryan
The nose of the plane might be flattened by the...

The nose of the plane might be flattened by the impact against the wall, but being mounted at the front, it could be pushed into the building by the rest of the aircraft and in theory we might never...
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 05:58 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
Goldengoose IS Wieck!!

Goldengoose IS Wieck!!
Forum: 9/11
23-03-2009, 01:21 AM
Replies: 145
Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
Views: 1,590
Posted By bryan
It's one thing to cause 'serious devastation'....

It's one thing to cause 'serious devastation'. It's another thing for an entire passenger plane to glide through the wall of a steel-framed building with no crumpling of the fuselage and no parts...
Forum: 9/11
22-03-2009, 07:25 PM
Replies: 145
Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)
Views: 1,590
Posted By bryan
I seem to remember that you didn't have a lot to...

I seem to remember that you didn't have a lot to say when tabea blumenschein was trying to debunk the controlled demolition theory, whereas I taught myself physics, read papers by Bazant and...
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
Watch your temper, Ron. We don't want to see you...

Watch your temper, Ron. We don't want to see you get banned again.
Forum: 9/11
22-03-2009, 08:24 AM
Replies: 36
Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
Views: 1,061
Posted By bryan
Why was there little or no deceleration of Flight...

Why was there little or no deceleration of Flight 175 as it passed through the wall of the South Tower from nose to tail? Can any of the competing theories answer this question?

Alternative 1:...
Forum: 9/11
22-03-2009, 08:08 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
Now I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I...

Now I've seen Ryan Mackey's presentation, I recognize it as the source of the disinformation peddled by tabea blumenschein and stannrodd on this forum. The deception lies in generalizing about the...
Forum: 9/11
22-03-2009, 12:18 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
Looking forward to the final segment when Ryan...

Looking forward to the final segment when Ryan Mackey takes us through the impact videos frame by frame to demonstrate that his theoretical physics are verified by the images that were filmed on the...
Forum: 9/11
21-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
It's only fair to point out to newcomers who the...

It's only fair to point out to newcomers who the timewasters are. If he thought your question was genuine, he might have put a lot of wasted effort into providing you with a detailed reply.

...
Forum: 9/11
21-03-2009, 07:11 PM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Why is it that the Pod Theory was tolerated at...

Why is it that the Pod Theory was tolerated at LetsRoll?

Is it because the theory was invented by the site's owner, Phil Jayhan?

Below is an example of the open discussion and excellent...
Forum: 9/11
21-03-2009, 07:40 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
I think we can take that as meaning: 'No, I don't...

I think we can take that as meaning: 'No, I don't have anything to say about the information in the video'.
Forum: 9/11
21-03-2009, 07:15 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
I agree with you on this one. It's nothing to do...

I agree with you on this one. It's nothing to do with intelligence. Even an idiot should know a plane can't disappear into a building.
Forum: 9/11
21-03-2009, 01:08 AM
Replies: 2
911 Lies & US Government Cover-Up
Views: 90
Posted By bryan
Appropriate name for a limited hangout.

Appropriate name for a limited hangout.
Forum: 9/11
20-03-2009, 07:59 PM
Replies: 1
Lets Not Forget
Views: 81
Posted By bryan
Do you realize the same argument can be used, and...

Do you realize the same argument can be used, and IS used, to try to stop people arguing over whether terrorists or the government carried out 9/11?
Forum: 9/11
20-03-2009, 07:53 PM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
There are plenty threads to discuss the physics...

There are plenty threads to discuss the physics and logic of whether the planes could have flown into the buildings or not.

From what I've seen, the only contribution you make to those threads is...
Forum: 9/11
20-03-2009, 07:39 PM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Deceleration on its own is not the issue. ...

Deceleration on its own is not the issue.

The issue is why the videos don't show the destruction of the plane taking place "progressively from the front to the rear of the aircraft in a very short...
Forum: 9/11
20-03-2009, 08:21 AM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
no deceleration = no resistance steel +...

no deceleration = no resistance

steel + concrete = resistance

building resists + no deceleration = plane destroyed on outside of building

plane goes inside of building = video faked
Forum: 9/11
20-03-2009, 04:33 AM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Genuine plane-believers should read the above...

Genuine plane-believers should read the above quotes carefully and ask themselves whether they're happy to support a theory that relies on so many illogicalities and circular arguments. Bear in mind...
Forum: 9/11
19-03-2009, 08:48 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
I just assumed it had been faked, or we'd have...

I just assumed it had been faked, or we'd have heard more about it.

It's confusing with all the different names, but I think the maker of the film started this thread. :)
Forum: 9/11
19-03-2009, 06:32 AM
Replies: 183
Continuos Pieces - 9/11 (Watch online or download)
Views: 2,876
Posted By bryan
The intro is more irritating than offensive. It's...

The intro is more irritating than offensive. It's hard to concentrate on Ronald's propaganda because of the marching songs in the background. The same thing happens later when the 'Tell me lies' song...
Forum: 9/11
18-03-2009, 06:31 PM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Don't get carried away, Stann. Its not saying...

Don't get carried away, Stann. Its not saying aluminium can slice through steel like a hot knife cuts through butter.

The effect seems to come into play with projectiles like nails or bullets,...
Forum: 9/11
17-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Well, it does sound a bit like the effect...

Well, it does sound a bit like the effect described in this science article.

The trouble is, there are so many dishonest scientists around, it's...
Forum: 9/11
17-03-2009, 05:23 AM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
Hi N. Are you another JREFer promoting the...

Hi N. Are you another JREFer promoting the pancake collapse theory?
Forum: 9/11
16-03-2009, 08:09 PM
Replies: 364
How Easily Are You Deceived and Mislead?
Views: 12,955
Posted By bryan
But no red flag when the total destruction of a...

But no red flag when the total destruction of a steel-framed building at near freefall speed is attributed for the first time in the history of structural engineering to a 'progressive gravitational...
Forum: 9/11
15-03-2009, 07:10 PM
Replies: 12
Crash Video Benchmark
Views: 245
Posted By bryan
How much potential energy is there in 'empty...

How much potential energy is there in 'empty space' or 'almost thin air'?

A fall of 12ft has to convert that potential energy into enough kinetic energy to fracture 47 steel core columns six times...
Forum: 9/11
14-03-2009, 06:20 PM
Replies: 12
Crash Video Benchmark
Views: 245
Posted By bryan
It wasn't just weight. It was . . . KINETIC...

It wasn't just weight. It was . . . KINETIC ENERGY!
Forum: 9/11
13-03-2009, 10:15 PM
Replies: 36
Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory
Views: 1,061
Posted By bryan
Is this the same Port Authority that sold the...

Is this the same Port Authority that sold the Twin Towers to Larry Silverstein six weeks earlier? It's a pity Larry was at the dentist's at the time of the attacks, or we could have asked the man...
Forum: 9/11
13-03-2009, 07:32 PM
Replies: 91
CNN Replay of Chopper 5
Views: 1,842
Posted By bryan
There were two different blackouts - one on FOX,...

There were two different blackouts - one on FOX, the other on WABC. CNN were relaying the WABC broadcast at the time, so the same blackout was seen on CNN as well.

To complicate matters, the WABC...
Forum: 9/11
13-03-2009, 07:16 PM
Replies: 434
The Infiltration Of The Truth Movement
Views: 13,031
Posted By bryan
Could anything be more senseless than trying to...

Could anything be more senseless than trying to promote a pancake-like collapse of a building supported by 47 massive steel columns? The experts who defend the theory (Bazant, Greening etc) say the...

If planes hit the WTC, then...
Views: 1,451
Posted By bryan
Eyewitnesses

More eyewitnesses who could do with changing their optician. :rolleyes:

http://www.paralegalgateway.com/NYTerror.html

Photos she took from the rooftop are on the webpage and they show that...
Forum: 9/11
24-01-2009, 09:21 PM
Replies: 31
Ph.D In Physics Opinion on DEW Development
Views: 1,083
Posted By bryan
Spot the difference

One's a nuclear explosion,

the other's a pancake collapse!

It was probably the Finnish Military Expert, where the...
Forum: 9/11
24-01-2009, 08:34 PM
Replies: 97
My Take on the Planes - No Planes Debate Here
Views: 2,685
Posted By bryan
I think onourwayto2012 knows the answer to this...

I think onourwayto2012 knows the answer to this question already, but I'll spell it out for the benefit of people who may not have worked it out for themselves yet.

John White and his crew at UK...
Forum: 9/11
24-01-2009, 05:17 AM
Replies: 31
Ph.D In Physics Opinion on DEW Development
Views: 1,083
Posted By bryan
It's true that William Tahil put forward the...

What a surprise! The link goes to the JREF forum!
Forum: 9/11
23-01-2009, 07:26 AM
Replies: 31
Ph.D In Physics Opinion on DEW Development
Views: 1,083
Posted By bryan
That may seem obvious to somebody who's only aim...

That may seem obvious to somebody who's only aim is to justify a predetermined conlusion, but to anybody who wants to know what happened it doesn't seem even remotely possible. In the following...
Forum: 9/11
23-01-2009, 04:48 AM
Replies: 31
Ph.D In Physics Opinion on DEW Development
Views: 1,083
Posted By bryan
How do you account for the hot spots in the pile...

How do you account for the hot spots in the pile burning for about 6 months?
Forum: 9/11
23-01-2009, 03:35 AM
Replies: 31
Ph.D In Physics Opinion on DEW Development
Views: 1,083
Posted By bryan
A Brief Summary: WTC Destruction & High...

A Brief Summary: WTC Destruction & High Temperature Aftermath: ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence

NOTE: PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS DEFINITIVE SUMMARY ON THE NUKING OF THE...
Forum: 9/11
22-01-2009, 09:01 PM
Replies: 97
My Take on the Planes - No Planes Debate Here
Views: 2,685
Posted By bryan
Call me paranoid, but the only person I know who...

Call me paranoid, but the only person I know who writes in this style is John White.

Problem-Reaction-Solution.
Forum: 9/11
22-01-2009, 08:34 PM
Replies: 212
Kindergarten Physics Lesson
Views: 4,254
Posted By bryan
Not sure what your edit means, but the video is...

Not sure what your edit means, but the video is relevant to the thread. Somebody did try to debunk it a while back by saying the puffball is under the left wing in the Evan Fairbanks video. I'm...
Forum: 9/11
22-01-2009, 07:30 AM
Replies: 7
9/11 should be the start of your journey!!
Views: 270
Posted By bryan
Great stuff! I think they'll do anything to...

Great stuff!

I think they'll do anything to re-build the temple for 2012. Have you read Peter Meyer's site? That's a good place to learn about Zionism.

http://mailstar.net/index.html (index)
...
Forum: 9/11
22-01-2009, 06:40 AM
Replies: 212
Kindergarten Physics Lesson
Views: 4,254
Posted By bryan
Merlincove, it's great to get some meaningful...

Merlincove, it's great to get some meaningful criticism rather than the usual diversions, and thanks for being the first to say my physics are ok. I was getting a bit worried, seeing I don't even...
Forum: 9/11
22-01-2009, 04:38 AM
Replies: 212
Kindergarten Physics Lesson
Views: 4,254
Posted By bryan
You can't trust anything NASA say anyway. If they...

You can't trust anything NASA say anyway. If they can fake a moon-landing, they won't mind lying about how a tile fell off.

I think the theory goes something like this: the front half of the...
Forum: 9/11
21-01-2009, 09:12 PM
Replies: 212
Kindergarten Physics Lesson
Views: 4,254
Posted By bryan
I do agree there are other factors involved, but...

I do agree there are other factors involved, but I don't think they're relevant in the case of a nose-cone and fuselage crashing into steel girders. We've seen countless pictures showing how they...
Forum: 9/11
21-01-2009, 08:24 PM
Replies: 97
My Take on the Planes - No Planes Debate Here
Views: 2,685
Posted By bryan
It was obvious from the OP that it was meant to...

It was obvious from the OP that it was meant to be a meta-discussion of the planes vs no planes debate, not a place to post evidence for one side or the other.

Post No 5, to be exact:
Forum: 9/11
21-01-2009, 04:51 AM
Replies: 41
If planes hit the WTC, then...
Views: 1,451
Posted By bryan
John, I've just realized there's a gap in my...

John, I've just realized there's a gap in my research. Do planehuggers believe the landing gear was down or up at the time of impact?

I use the term "leaders" for want of a better word for the people who are the public face of what's been described as a "loose network of campaigners". I'm talking about people like Alex Jones, David...
Forum: 9/11
20-01-2009, 08:51 PM
Replies: 41
If planes hit the WTC, then...
Views: 1,451
Posted By bryan
Both new members who just posted are on YOUR...

Both new members who just posted are on YOUR side. Are you trying to pre-empt suspicion by accusing the other side of your own tricks?
Forum: 9/11
20-01-2009, 07:43 AM
Replies: 8
Would you fall for it again!!!!watch this
Views: 299
Posted By bryan
Only the approach of the plane was broadcast...

Only the approach of the plane was broadcast live. The videos of the impact emerged a few hours later. It's an important detail.

Do you need a wooden spoon, or have you already got one? :)
Forum: 9/11
20-01-2009, 07:31 AM
Replies: 212
Kindergarten Physics Lesson
Views: 4,254
Posted By bryan
A very interesting article on aircraft design and...

A very interesting article on aircraft design and safety. It seems that planes could be a lot safer but for the aircraft manufacturers bribing the politicians over the years. Some good pictures too,...

You're sure Planes hit the WTC?
Views: 3,157
Posted By bryan
Nice satire, but the worrying thing is that these...

Nice satire, but the worrying thing is that these arguments are actually used by planehuggers!
Forum: 9/11
12-01-2009, 08:03 PM
Replies: 202
You're sure Planes hit the WTC?
Views: 3,157
Posted By bryan
No. The the south tower is the floor, the plane...

Like your lack of genuine respect for Ace Baker, John? Has mynameis gone to bed? Does he exist?
Forum: 9/11
12-01-2009, 11:23 AM
Replies: 202
You're sure Planes hit the WTC?
Views: 3,157
Posted By bryan
All to do with inertia, as demonstrated in the...

All to do with inertia, as demonstrated in the video below, which mynamis linked to a while ago, believing it proved him right. As it turns out, what it proves is that he either hadn't watched it or...

oiram

28-03-2009, 12:10 AM

But there's no point in handing the debunkers straw men on a plate.
They were probably cut during the clean-up.

The straight ends on the perimeter columns are where they were joined to each other and the bolts either broke or were removed beforehand. The columns were the length of three floors and the joins were half way between the floor and the ceiling. Some of them were definitely fractured though.

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job
author: Jacob Hamblin Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp279/pilotgaruda/I-Beam-ShapeCharges.jpg (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml?discuss)http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k93/rosepetal1408/september11/buildingdemo.gif (http://www.darkstarlings.com/articles/index.php?topic=Life&page=10)
http://www.darkstarlings.com/articles/index.php?topic=Life&page=10
wtc steel with diagonal cut, thermate residue
Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.

Dr. Jones is a co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth.

Dr. Jones in earlier work pointed to thermate as the likely explosive that brought down the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 skyscrapers. But only recently was physical material analysed in the lab and the presense of thermate announced. The samples were provided Dr. Jones team from redundant sourses.

Both BYU and Prof. Jones have been offered additional grants if he would "change the direction" of his research. In addition, there have been threats made by an individual who "is taking action" to stop Steven Jones' research, specifically his experiment with thermites (aluminothermics), on the grounds his work may be helpful to "terrorists". Jones notes that much more detailed information on both thermite and thermate is readily available on the internet.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml?discuss

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/9-11%20-%20Evidence%20of%20thermite-cut%20columns-d-indicated.jpg (http://www.european911citizensjury.com/)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dm2SYlwd8nY
http://www.european911citizensjury.com/

The original photos below, taken in the 1960's and 70's, illustrate the enormously massive central steel core of each of the WTC Towers.
http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC%20-%20construction%20framework.jpg

http://www.net4truthusa.com/Graphics/C4Explodes.JPGhttp://www.net4truthusa.com/Graphics/ThermateIgnition.JPG
http://www.net4truthusa.com/Photos/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpghttp://www.net4truthusa.com/Photos/thermite-thermate-wtc-CloseUp.jpg
The photos above are ABSOLUTE PROOF that Thermate was used to cut the core support columns. The rescue operations shown here are PRIOR to the cleanup. People who REFUSE to believe what their eyes tell them will no doubt argue that this support column was cut by a welder during the cleanup operation. However, a PROFESSIONAL welder who is cutting steel for scrap removal would NOT make more work for himself by cutting the steel at a perfect 45-degree angle as shown in the photo above - it is "the long-way around" to make such a cut. In addition, a cutting torch operates by heat AND pressure of the gas. If you've ever watched a welder cut an I-beam with a torch, you NEVER see melted steel dripping off the cut as you do in this photo - a cutting torch ejects the metal away from the flame and thereby cuts a "slot" in the metal. Note that the 45-degree angle cut on this box column is completely consistent with the demolition sequence described above, and the presence of molten steel "slag" on the edges on the OUTSIDE of the box-beam is IMPOSSIBLE to do with a cutting torch unless you were cutting it from the INSIDE. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the steel dripping along the edges of this beam was cut with high-temperature cutting charges such as Thermate or Thermite as is consistent with standard operating practice of professional demolition teams. Since these charges would have taken a considerable time to plan, and WEEKS - if not MONTHS - to put in place, is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the World Trade Center was INTENTIONALLY DEMOLISHED, there was PREMEDITATION and COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE, and the planes that hit the towers were a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC as alleged.

Use of explosives on steel causes an effect known to metallurgists as "twinning" - and is easily detectable with a laboratory test. Unfortunately, these tests can never be done (unless someone has a piece of steel from the towers - or a bit of the "slag") because all the steel was hauled away to Asia to be recycled into - whatever. This removal of forensic evidence from WTC was said to have been done to clear the way for rescue operations, but forensics were NEVER done on the WTC steel. In legal circles, removing evidence from a crime scene is called "obstruction of justice" and is, in itself a felony. Whatever excuse was used to remove steel from the WTC site, there were no casualties in WTC-7, which had been evacuated that morning. Why did the insurance companies that paid Mr. Silverstein BILLIONS of dollars, not DEMAND that a forensic investigation of the crime scene be done. For that matter, what the HELL happened with the NYS Attorney General, the Arson Ispector, and the Manhattan District Attorney? I'll tell you what I think - I think they were all either paid off by the CIA "Men-In-Black" - or threatened with death - Shades of Operation Phoenix.

The implications of this are unimaginable; that complicity if not complete culpability for the MURDER of THOUSANDS of people rests NOT with Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein, but with officials within our own government who HAD to have the tacit consent of WTC Security and Mr. Larry Silverstein who profited in the BILLIONS on insurance money collected for the "attacks". The fact that the insurance company did not act to stop the removal of forensic evidence from the crime scene, and paid Mr. Silverstein after a feigned court battle over whether there were one or two "attacks", is a STINK that has failed to get the "nose" of even the New York State Attorney General - or the Manhattan District Attorney who has jurisdiction over crimes committed in New York City. All I can say is that they are ALL corrupt, and the LOT of them should be ARRESTED and INTERROGATED. Anyone found lying or withholding evidence should be held under the USA Patriot Act (a fitting bit of irony for them), charged with TREASON and 3,000 (or so) counts of CAPITAL MURDER. If they are found guilty, they should be PUBLICLY EXECUTED in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

http://www.net4truthusa.com/wtcdemolition.htm

How 9/11 was done
http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/
Motive behind 9/11

Realization of the goals as formulated in the policy paper Clean Break, as well as the realization of the goals of the Project of the New American Century. It all comes down to the strengthening of the American global supremacy by creating an excuse for obtaining a larger military presence in the Middle East where some 60 percent of the global oil reserves are located (PNAC-goal), as well as improvement of the geostrategic position of Israel by eliminating its most important enemies (Iraq, Iran, Syria –> Clean Break-goal). The link with oil explains why people like Dick Cheney were on-board, somebody who made his career in the oil business and perfectly understood that oil was becoming scarce in the near future ('peak-oil'). For the rest it would be a mistake to perceive a too-big-a-difference between the American and Jewish/Israeli interests, since the Jews constitute without competition the dominant class in the US, who hold all the levers to power: the visual and written media, the FED, Wallstreet, think tanks (AEI for instance), Hollywood, plus a large amount of organizations that cement the power of the Jews (AIPAC and ADL as important examples). The circumstance that de facto American politics (Dems plus Reps) is controlled by the Jews was until recently only said aloud by the extreme Right, now this insight starts to be realized by the Left as well, mainly because of the work of Mearsheimer and Walt (in the Netherlands brought under the attention by the leftwing broadcasting organization VPRO, see the English spoken 'Tegenlicht' documentary 'The Israel Lobby'). That the Iraq-war was initiated by the (Jewish dominated) Neocon-movement, is so obvious that almost nobody denies that anymore.

How 9/11 was done
According to Bollyn 9/11 was concipated in a small network of conspirators in New York, Washington, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The central figures in that conspiracy were Silverstein, Olmert, Netanyahu, Atzmon, Dov Zakheim (my addition, via Dick Eastman) and many others and was carried out by the Mossad (responsible for the technical realization of the 9/11 operation, consisting in software-manipulation and placing of explosives in the 9/11 target buildings).

For a better understanding of all the links between people and organizations of the 9/11 Israeli crime network in the story that follows right click on the diagram below and open it in a different tab of your browser. Again, the diagram is based on the content of this story by Christopher Bollyn.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qhtLksupqDs/SQlwo9U4zuI/AAAAAAAAABA/Cqp3_WOI3TM/s400/911-solution.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qhtLksupqDs/SQlwo9U4zuI/AAAAAAAAABA/Cqp3_WOI3TM/s1600-h/911-solution.jpg)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qhtLksupqDs/SQlwo9U4zuI/AAAAAAAAABA/Cqp3_WOI3TM/s1600-h/911-solution.jpg
I will give a short summary of what Bollyn says about 9/11 and its perpetrators in that article, mixed with some speculations of my own and observations of others. The story by Bollyn is a very interesting read (some 40 page's if printed out)

The 9/11-plan originated in a handful of Israeli brains: Isser Harel with his fixation on the WTC-towers, Dov Zakheim with his knowledge of remote control and the motive to stop the Pentagon-audit regarding the missing 2 trillion dollar (this idea I have from Dick Eastman, see further below), and Netanyahu and Olmert with their Clean-Break-fixation.

Directly after 9/11 it was the dual passport holder Michael Chertoff, who from his position as Asst. Attorney General within the ministry of Justice could quietly get rid of several suspects of 9/11 and get them out of the country without prosecution. More specifically the Israelis that got arrested near the Holland Tunnel.

The early indications of Israeli involvement followed from the story of the 5 dancing Israelis as well as the Odigo warning messages, addressed at the Jewish WTC-employees.
http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

shure

28-03-2009, 12:18 AM

http://www.pumpitout.com/images/steven_jones.jpg

Steven Jones Is a Fraud He is helping to coverup 9/11 just as he covered up cold fusion!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vOeKNN2UI

Watch Heavy Watergate.

mr_pixie

28-03-2009, 12:34 AM

The photos above are ABSOLUTE PROOF that Thermate was used to cut the core support columns.

Photoshop mate. :) not real.

abababba

28-03-2009, 12:38 AM

People are making a lot of accusations here without much proof. Can you link to or provide more details about why you know Jones is a shill instead of just saying he is?

I don't see the connection between Jeff's cold fusion point and 911 research, it seems like Jones was rushing to get his own work out on cold fusion, which seems like what most scientists would do.

The claim of photo-shopping the cut columns could be true, but remains just a conjecture until someone provides evidence.

Also, Bryan, what arguments does he make that are easy to refute?

bryan

28-03-2009, 12:45 AM

it would be intresting to know if those photos were taken before or after the cleanup operation.

Some of the cuts are horizontal, and the diagonal ones don't all face the same way, which doesn't make any sense because they'd want the columns to slide over together in the same direction. At least that's what I understand from watching 9/11 Mysteries (which may or may not be disinfo).

can you clarifiy what evedence prof jones has presented that can easily be debunked.

It might be more accurate to say he hasn't presented any evidence at all. Is he any closer to proving controlled demolition after three and a half years of focusing on thermite? What if he does prove thermite was used? How will we know who planted it? It's a dead end.

Talking about Shills .... How much they Pay you? Permanent Job I guess! Mostly same subject.
Expose you just love the subject or is it a agenda?
All I know is that normal members get involved in many topics!

Maybe if you concentrated on fewer topics you'd be more clued up on the ones you contribute to. :p

I was having a go at Steven Jones, not you.

shure

28-03-2009, 12:50 AM

abababba

28-03-2009, 12:51 AM

It might be more accurate to say he hasn't presented any evidence at all. Is he any closer to proving controlled demolition after three and a half years of focusing on thermite? What if he does prove thermite was used? How will we know who planted it? It's a dead end.

Bryan, I'm sure you know that painstaking careful research can take a lot of time so this is a red herring. Plus, isn't this argument true with any form of bomb? It would actually be easier for a foreign terrorist to plant a nuke in the building than all the thermite necessary to bring the building down, you would have to penetrate security all over the building to plant the thermite.

I don't necessarily agree with him, but you have to provide more than speculation for me to conclude that he is a shill.

abababba

28-03-2009, 12:55 AM

Jones, in working with the Department of Defense came out with bunk information about cold fusion which made Ponds and Fleishman have to go public with their research before they were ready.

Steven Jones effectivly destroyed the research of cold fusion by knowingly going public with garbage information.

Thats what hes doing with his garbage information of thermite and 9/11.

How do you know he wasn't just "jumping the gun" with incomplete information to try to take some of the spotlight? In addition, do you know for sure that cold fusion itself wasn't a hoax?

Would you say that thermite is garbage information even if it was true that thermite was present in the dust or are you simply saying that he is lying about the thermite? Why have others like Richard Gage and ae911truth been convinced of the thermite evidence?

bryan

28-03-2009, 01:05 AM

The claim of photo-shopping the cut columns could be true, but remains just a conjecture until someone provides evidence.

Also, Bryan, what arguments does he make that are easy to refute?

There's some duplication in these pages, but they're all worth a read.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=53&MMN_position=98:98

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=50&MMN_position=79:79

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=32&MMN_position=187:187

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=49&MMN_position=80:80

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=42&MMN_position=160:160

People are making a lot of accusations here without much proof. Can you link to or provide more details about why you know Jones is a shill instead of just saying he is?

I don't see the connection between Jeff's cold fusion point and 911 research, it seems like Jones was rushing to get his own work out on cold fusion, which seems like what most scientists would do.

What are the chances he could be involved in two areas of research that threatened the Establishment and lead them both down the garden path?

abababba

28-03-2009, 01:19 AM

What are the chances he could be involved in two areas of research that threatened the Establishment and lead them both down the garden path?

I don't agree that he is leading people down the garden path in terms of controlled demolition. He has probably turned many thousands of people into 911 truthers, people that would not believe in any 911 truth theories if he never presented his evidence. It seems like a bad idea for the government to put this person out to turn people on to their corruption. So many people first learn about the NWO through 911 truth. Why does the government want to wake so many people up?

bryan

28-03-2009, 01:20 AM

Bryan, I'm sure you know that painstaking careful research can take a lot of time so this is a red herring. Plus, isn't this argument true with any form of bomb? It would actually be easier for a foreign terrorist to plant a nuke in the building than all the thermite necessary to bring the building down, you would have to penetrate security all over the building to plant the thermite.

I think nukes made the molten metal in the pile and he's covering that up by claiming it could have been thermite, which goes out after five minutes. It's only a best guess though, I admit.

You're right that the argument is the same for any bomb. That's why what he's doing is a waste of time. We've got dozens of names who could be prosecuted for being involved in TV fakery, but Jones refuses to look at it.

shure

28-03-2009, 02:12 AM

How do you know he wasn't just "jumping the gun" with incomplete information to try to take some of the spotlight? In addition, do you know for sure that cold fusion itself wasn't a hoax?

All the information I have looked at points to him sabotaging cold fusion. I can't say for sure cold fusion wasn't a hoax, but I don't believe it was.

Also Steven Jones Worked at Los Alamos. He was involved in Directed Energy developement and denies the existence. To me thats a big red flag.

Would you say that thermite is garbage information even if it was true that thermite was present in the dust or are you simply saying that he is lying about the thermite?

Thermite wasn't present in the dust, Jones said the sample he supposedly got from some lady contained sulpher which is present in thermite.

Why have others like Richard Gage and ae911truth been convinced of the thermite evidence?

I think Richard Gage is a fake too.

abababba

28-03-2009, 02:29 AM

There's some duplication in these pages, but they're all worth a read.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=53&MMN_position=98:98

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=50&MMN_position=79:79

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=32&MMN_position=187:187

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=49&MMN_position=80:80

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=42&MMN_position=160:160

The fourth and fifth links definitely raise some questions that I will have to think about.

It would be great if they were supported with some of the statements Jones made in response to criticism about the angled column picture appearing in the journal. If that evidence exists as the author says it does, then he would really be on to something.

I didn't fully understand the evidence for why the molten metal picture is photo-shopped, but it seems like molten metal proponents rely more on the satellite pictures to prove the molten metal case than on that single picture. Is there any evidence the satellite images are fake?

goldengoose

28-03-2009, 02:29 AM

OK I try to answer this!

Now for starters ignore that there are explosives in side the building!

Because if you would have explosives inside the building all Structural columns should be bend out word right! They don't.

So I say they setup up Termite charges which have a smaller and smaller charges out word.

One more fact if this would have been a imprint from a wing it did not enter the building as you can clearly see and this section should be on the bottom of the building or splatter marks onto the building leaving indentations all over the Sheeting. But nothing again. where are the parts of the plain wing stuck et between the columns. Nothing again!

Now look at all the Columns in the center are the pushed inward? No they don't!
Also look at the ends of most of the columns they are straight up and all have discoloration like after a cut. Termite does exactly this burns and cuts the Columns & leaves a stain and dark slack all over.

All they did is set up termite charges in the shape of a plain.
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/911.jpg
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/912.jpg

I am working with metal; so please one boilermaker explains to me how this one was cut also you can see backing bars on near top corner & why is the slack outward? No No my boys it's not cut by oxy torch & why 45 degrees? You see the section which has no discoloration & it's sheared off section!
Look at the cutting marks what tip size would you use? Also how would you got your hands into the Box column to cut? NO NO don't tell me shit! This looks like 45 to 50 mm plate

The same system was used on the Buildings entry hole!
Columns straight up no bending at all.
Also a plain made from aluminum will not cut Box column high grade steal of 20 to 40 mm thickness. "Trust me!"

http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/911cut.gif

Why would I cut so high up? If I can cut low and straight which is much less work also they did not start removal yet!
http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

Where are the Fucking wings ...... Hah??
Where is the entire Plain .. Hollywood movie Right!
http://911review.org/_webimages/graphics/Untitled-8%20copy.jpg
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagongraphics.html
http://911review.org/images/snopes/car-whitep.JPG
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagongraphics.html

911 was a Inside Job!

Pentagon always was my favored you seen this one yet!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=796509&postcount=43
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1193/alcmcruisemissilefc2.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnzh-EyxKwc
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/pentagon50.gif

It's 2009 and someone is still peddling the Rumsfeld fantasy? Most twoofers abandoned this silly canard years ago.

What happens when people actually read Rumsfeld's speech? He didn't admit that $ 2.3 trillion was "missing" from the Pentagon's budget (which was $289 billion); he COMPLAINED that the Pentagon's antiquated data storage systems made it almost impossible to track $2.3 trillion in transactions over the years. He was talking about money that was SPENT--get it?

It is an extremely silly lie that can be exposed simply by reading the man's actual words.

You rave about imaginary "termite [sic] charges" and show photos of columns cut by oxyacetylene torches. Thermite, incidentally, is not used in demolition.

Great research!

secondsun

28-03-2009, 05:58 AM

37 posts and not one no planer has offered a reasonable explanation of how the two gashes might have occurred!!!

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

..no planers!... your thoughts!... how would two gashes appear in the columns marked seeing as they would obviously have had to have been inflicted from the exterior of the building!

...if it was`nt a wing... and could not possibly have been explosions from the interior!... what could possibly have caused them?

...thanks!

secondsun

28-03-2009, 06:51 AM

oiram,

The capture you posted near the bottom of your post from youtube showing the supposed secret footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon is a very, very poorly produced fake

....ahhh!... you fell for the psychology!

....what if the footage was real.... and deliberately degraded ( very easy to do ) to make you think just that and steer you away from the possibility!?!

...remember!... rule number one!... if you want to hide something put it in plain sight!!!

http://i42.tinypic.com/rif1b7.jpg

...people should take the time to look into that mound of dirt slap BANG!... IN FRONT OF THE PENTAGON!

...imo`!

fanoftruth

28-03-2009, 09:14 AM

"....ahhh!... you fell for the psychology!

....what if the footage was real.... and deliberately degraded ( very easy to do ) to make you think just that and steer you away from the possibility!?!

...remember!... rule number one!... if you want to hide something put it in plain sight!!!" - secondsun

Well the footage itself is almost certainly real. It looks like somebody taking a tour past the area in a helicopter judging by the speed. Somebody has added a very crude streak of light into the shot (to represent a missile) then added a basic explosion and has released it on youtube to try and stir up controversy. It looks like a simple graphic done on 'Adobe' and nothing more. So to answer your question no I do not think that clip was intentionally downgrounded to look like a home movie thus throwing us off the scent.

What is the relevance of the mound of dirt you pointed us toward?

dave52

28-03-2009, 10:54 AM

37 posts and not one no planer has offered a reasonable explanation of how the two gashes might have occurred!!!

I was honest enough to admit that I didn't know, but there are different possibilities. But before you get too pleased with yourself, you haven't explained how the wings didn't break off while creating the damage. There are parts of that picture where the facade is damaged, yet not sliced all the way through. Yet the tv footage shows the wings passing all the way into the tower (with no reaction to the building).

How many posts have we trawled through and still not seen an explanation...? I'm guessing more than 37.

secondsun

29-03-2009, 07:48 AM

...almost two days now and the no planers silence is almost deafening... but why am i not surprised!

Well the footage itself is almost certainly real. It looks like somebody taking a tour past the area in a helicopter judging by the speed. Somebody has added a very crude streak of light into the shot (to represent a missile) then added a basic explosion and has released it on youtube to try and stir up controversy. It looks like a simple graphic done on 'Adobe' and nothing more. So to answer your question no I do not think that clip was intentionally downgrounded to look like a home movie thus throwing us off the scent.

What is the relevance of the mound of dirt you pointed us toward?

...can you prove the `streak` has been `added`?

...has the streak in frames 2 and 3 been added or is it real!?

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/pentagon-animation.gif

...the plume in frame 1 is easy to prove as fake but you see,or probably not, its the same psychology!?

...take note of angle of trajectory by the way!!.. helicopter footage is in keeping with "Official" footage!!

What is the relevance of the mound of dirt you pointed us toward?

...if a missile did hit the Pentagon... there is more evidence to possibly suggest... that it was fired out of that pile of dirt and ballast!... if you are prepared to look for it?

I was honest enough to admit that I didn't know, but there are different possibilities. But before you get too pleased with yourself, you haven't explained how the wings didn't break off while creating the damage. There are parts of that picture where the facade is damaged, yet not sliced all the way through. Yet the tv footage shows the wings passing all the way into the tower (with no reaction to the building).

How many posts have we trawled through and still not seen an explanation...? I'm guessing more than 37.

...Dave... you are not on my top 10 list of Professional Disinfo` Agents or SSTW`s!.... and was not particularly aiming at you at all!... if anything you`d be on my still a bit confused list if you dont mind me saying!?... ;)

But before you get too pleased with yourself

...i was`nt and sorry if i came across that way!... but imo`... anything anyone can post to shut the SSTW`s up is going in the right direction!

you haven't explained how the wings didn't break off while creating the damage. There are parts of that picture where the facade is damaged, yet not sliced all the way through. Yet the tv footage shows the wings passing all the way into the tower

...Dave.. if you hav`nt worked it out after all this time i really don't know what to say to you!?

...but i will try and help you along!

...does this?

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/purdueaa11sim10mf0.gif

..and remember its a simulation!... but kinda in keeping with the poor video we have to work from which gives the impression that the wings slid through the building.

...using you logic!... tally up with this reasonably detailed photo below?

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/2wing-tip.jpg

...no it does`nt does it!... but which one gives the best representation of what might have really happened!?

dave52

29-03-2009, 04:03 PM

guntherznads

29-03-2009, 08:51 PM

Is it normal to get really really horny when researching 9-11? Is anyone else going through this?

redman

29-03-2009, 09:32 PM

Not another NPT vs RPT thread. Fucking hell, don't you twats get bored.

I don't know if they used planes or not and simply don't give a fuck, reason being, was there a plane at Shankville, hmmm didn't look like a jumbo jet had crashed there, was there a plane at the Pentagon, same as.. Didn't fucking look like.

So would it be totally surprising that the fuckers didn't use planes on WTC 1 and 2. Well it does seem very far fetched but I truthfully wouldn't rule fuck all out these days cos I know how sick the bastards are.

So weres the fucking argument ?? it was a inside job. Now lets go and get the bastards who done it.

bryan

29-03-2009, 09:58 PM

Is it normal to get really really horny when researching 9-11? Is anyone else going through this?

It's through watching videos of planes penetrating buildings.

secondsun

30-03-2009, 04:05 AM

But I don't believe the wings could slice through like that...

...well to me!...its obvious that,lets say, the more substatial parts did!

...if you still cant see that and continue to base your opinions on some poor quality video that might or might not have been faked!?... i dont know what to say that has`nt been said a thousand times already!

Not another NPT vs RPT thread. Fucking hell, don't you twats get bored.

...this thread is asking for no planers opinions on how the two gashes might have been inflicted!

...but its 3 days now and no no planer has got a clue it seems!?

...in the meantime we are having a little, some what derailed, chat as we sit waiting in great expectation!

...:)

dave52

30-03-2009, 07:19 AM

...well to me!...its obvious that,lets say, the more substatial parts did!

...if you still cant see that and continue to base your opinions on some poor quality video that might or might not have been faked!?...

Can you not see the problems with your above statements...?

If only the "substantial" parts of the plane made it into the tower, then the video is faked. If the video is faked then the perps are attempting to hide something. What are they hiding? If a large passenger jet behaved exactly as you say, why hide that fact with fake video...?

thelyran

30-03-2009, 08:13 AM

I was honest enough to admit that I didn't know, but there are different possibilities. But before you get too pleased with yourself, you haven't explained how the wings didn't break off while creating the damage. There are parts of that picture where the facade is damaged, yet not sliced all the way through. Yet the tv footage shows the wings passing all the way into the tower (with no reaction to the building).

How many posts have we trawled through and still not seen an explanation...? I'm guessing more than 37.

...would leave you alone usually Dave,think you're a good respectful bloke.
I did tape that live,the second impact,and collected even better footage there after.I have seen the wing-tips buckle and crumple,broke apart as aluminium dross,falling to the ground.In fact,planes,due to decompression
incidents,the panelling is designed to break into 30x30cm squares when the hull breaches at extreme heights,similar to a pressure cooker valve.They designed this,with the British Comet disasters of the 1950s,when first using
Jet propelled airliners.Metal fatigue would rip apart the fuselage,resulting in total loss of life.After the second impact,I could see the planes panelling break apart,many of it's outer panelling did'nt make it through,including the wing tips.Just a thought and theory,but after viewing many high resolution films and photos,being a fan of Aircrash Investigations,that's exactly what it looks like.regards J.

dave52

30-03-2009, 08:21 AM

I have seen the wing-tips buckle and crumple,broke apart as aluminium dross,falling to the ground....

...After the second impact,I could see the planes panelling break apart,many of it's outer panelling did'nt make it through,including the wing tips.Just a thought and theory,but after viewing many high resolution films and photos,being a fan of Aircrash Investigations,that's exactly what it looks like.regards J.

This is cool - is there anywhere I can see this footage..?

Thanks.

thelyran

30-03-2009, 08:35 AM

This is cool - is there anywhere I can see this footage..?

Thanks.

Dave,you're on 888 post,wish you were local,I'd give you 20 hours worth,but I'm pal and not NTSC playback like you guys,I think torrents should be put here.You heard of the tail arguement before,the tail,is one of the strongest parts of the plane...,it would've gone through,but I seen it slightly dip at the end,tucking under and going through the hole,just before the fuel ignited,creating a very low heat orange fire ball.If it was a missile or explosive,they combine Oxygen with a rubber like material,and of course another RDX,but can't think of it from memory.The fireball should've been white,like you see in the Pentagon explosion.

Would anybody,be so kind,to post torrents here,if you like dave,d/l and install
1) Soulseek 157c,,,,then d/l
2) Soulseek NS (Newserver)

share some films or music,about 100 files,because you get abused and banned by people.Do this by the change of the month and let me know.Put my user name in the user list,right hand column...then you can access to my files to keep for yourself...I'm out of bandwidth at the moment,but two days
from now,I'll be back,hope this helps mate,take care,regards Jason.

dave52

30-03-2009, 10:30 AM

Hi again,

I am local - I'm in the UK, but I can download Torrents if that's easier (to an extent, I don't have unlimited downloads on my broadband). I didn't understand your instructions - sorry.

thelyran

30-03-2009, 10:52 AM

Hi again,

I am local - I'm in the UK, but I can download Torrents if that's easier (to an extent, I don't have unlimited downloads on my broadband). I didn't understand your instructions - sorry.

...that's cool Dave52,I'll have a dig around,give me 24hrs,still quite sick.I also
wrote one thing down incorrect,with the 757/767/E10 tail,I seen it crinkle down,slightly tip under before being swallowed by the fire ball,not go into the
building,then proceeds the fireball.Sorry about that.I prefer P2P than torrents
only,because I'm well known and gain access at the top of the list with certain users.
.....Getting back to the tail,the angle,velocity and momentum tells me it followed the whole quite easily.So,what maybe conclusive proof for me,may well fall short for you.Go back over my instructions first...
Soulseek 157c or later d/l install.You can use it,I don't.

Soulseek Ns d/l install....open her up.do your file sharing configuration...
then click (right mouse) on user list column,found on the right hand side of the screen...click button add user...print

thelyran
when you do,please message me here and I will help you.I won't be there
until April 1st,but will be there from 2am tonight.As I still got 15 gig of off-peak left.Also,Soulseek has chatrooms and you can message me direct...by
clicking my name and opening up options...you can ban and ignore users who
are rude to.Takes a while,but you get used to it....just share files,movies,documentaries and music...ebooks are big there too.There's that
much 911,Icke,Jones,Crowley stuff floating around...blow your mind.Regards
Jason.

secondsun

31-03-2009, 05:14 AM

...would leave you alone usually Dave,think you're a good respectful bloke.

...i think he is too!... just wish i could get him to see beyond that dubious or poor quality video hang up!

....4 days now and the no planers are posting every where but here!

....not so strange when you think about it!

thelyran

31-03-2009, 05:41 AM

...i think he is too!... just wish i could get him to see beyond that dubious or poor quality video hang up!

....4 days now and the no planers are posting every where but here!

....not so strange when you think about it!

...Dave is good and has admitted the short comings of the NPT and it's strengths.What is missing,funny enough,for the most televised event,since Vietnam,is good footage,it's all disappeared.I was fortunate,to tape the first
10 hours,where more was revealed than any other time.Check the last pages
of Killtown's ranted thread...I let it out there.Took,me a year after the event
to accept explosives were used,silly me,when I look back.It was David Icke
that I first heard that through,when he visited Australia,a couple of months after the event.A Jones,cemented it.
....What I won't do,is be disrespectful of others beliefs.I will try and open others,to different possibilities,but not hurt them.Where,at times,I have been viciously attacked in the 911 sub-forum,as all have.Dave,gives off the air,of,
"open to other possibilities".He is'nt stubborn or rigid,so he really has the advantage.If he was local,I'd dub a video today for him...the first 10 hours of the event...on Pal VHS of course,still have'nt figured this new combo-burner yet...regards Jason.

noewhan

31-03-2009, 06:00 AM

thelyran

31-03-2009, 06:24 AM

Just a quick question...

How long does it take for Thermite/thermate to cool down? By all means the clean up crew could have used water to cool it down after cutting...

But, then again, why would they cut half a pylon, instead of just using a machine to pull it down?

Why would people believe the air was safe to breathe? Even if they were told it was safe. I think it's because all of the innocent people panicked, survival instincts kicked in and... Now I'm just ranting.

By the pools of molten slag,I'd say weeks,under the conditions.When we used it in the railways,to join rail,15 minutes,before you could put a train across.
We had to make rails one piece,because the copper links used to keep one circuit,were stolen.But the basement explosions,now that's interesting to see what was used,because I have'nt heard of radioactive readings YET.Give it time though....regards Jason.

thelyran

31-03-2009, 06:25 AM

bryan

31-03-2009, 01:49 PM

Just a quick question...

How long does it take for Thermite/thermate to cool down? By all means the clean up crew could have used water to cool it down after cutting...

By the pools of molten slag,I'd say weeks,under the conditions.

Thermite cools down in about five minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=3lnqeodIIUw

The pools of molten metal were not caused by thermite.

....4 days now and the no planers are posting every where but here!

....not so strange when you think about it!

It's already been pointed out to you that, owing to the rules of logic, it's possible to prove that someone or something DIDN'T perform an action, even though we might not know who or what DID perform the action.

Think of it as a court case.

Flight 175 is in the dock, accused of criminal damage against the South Tower.

The real-planers are the prosecution and the no-planers are the defence team.

If the defence team can prove that the damage to the South Tower could not have been caused by ANY plane, Flight 175 must be found not guilty.

If the police then decide to reopen the investigation, ALL planes will have to be ruled out from the start of the new investigation.

Take note of the sequence. The accused is cleared even though the real perpetrator is not known.

No-planers don't have to know what made the holes.

Using your logic, before we can claim that Bin Laden didn't organise the 9/11 attacks, we need to know who DID organise them.

slartibartfast

31-03-2009, 02:36 PM

Think of it as a court case.

Flight 175 is in the dock, accused of criminal damage against the South Tower.

The real-planers are the prosecution and the no-planers are the defence team.

If the defence team can prove that the damage to the South Tower could not have been caused by ANY plane, Flight 175 must be found not guilty.

I assume the defence is a very junior lawyer looking to make a name for himself. Trouble is, as a court case, the prosecution are holding all the cards, witnesses to the crash, expert witnesses and lack of any other realistic alternative.

bryan

31-03-2009, 03:02 PM

I assume the defence is a very junior lawyer looking to make a name for himself. Trouble is, as a court case, the prosecution are holding all the cards, witnesses to the crash, expert witnesses and lack of any other realistic alternative.

You're missing the point. The defence doesn't need to prove what caused the damage, which means the importance of the question asked in this thread has been overblown.

guntherznads

31-03-2009, 03:03 PM

I assume the defence is a very junior lawyer looking to make a name for himself. Trouble is, as a court case, the prosecution are holding all the cards, witnesses to the crash, expert witnesses and lack of any other realistic alternative.

I believe that physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony %100 of the time, eyewitness testimony is used to support the actual physical evidence.

But they idea of a new investigation or some sort of justice coming from the courts in this matter is fucking retarded.

I say the only way to know if the planes really hit WTC we're gonna have to build at least on tower exactly the same and fly a 767 into it. I'm going to start a petition, with enough signatures we might be able to make this happen. The project would generate well needed jobs....it could be broadcasted live on pay per view....people could bet on the outcome. Shit this is a great idea. Those mythbuster guys are pussies.

gamolon

31-03-2009, 06:08 PM

The original photos below, taken in the 1960's and 70's, illustrate the enormously massive central steel core of each of the WTC Towers.
http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC%20-%20construction%20framework.jpg[/CENTER]

Sorry, but the above is NOT a photo of the massive steel core. Those are the perimeter columns.

stannrodd

31-03-2009, 10:42 PM

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/im958lguq5.jpg

These are the core columns .. compare to the man on the mezzanine floor.

Massive indeed.

Stann

secondsun

01-04-2009, 07:44 AM

These are the core columns .. compare to the man on the mezzanine floor.

...and not a spot of concrete in sight!!!!

...back too the gashes!... any ideas anyone!?!... apart from being made by the wing tip of a plane i mean!

stannrodd

02-04-2009, 09:41 AM

...and not a spot of concrete in sight!!!!

...back too the gashes!... any ideas anyone!?!... apart from being made by the wing tip of a plane i mean!

Hoo Hoooooo !!

Stann :eek:

secondsun

05-04-2009, 09:02 AM

...seeing as after all this time...not one no planer has offered any possible explanation of how the gashes might have been caused... is it fair to conclude that they were made by a plane that struck the Tower!?

bryan

05-04-2009, 10:31 AM

is it fair to conclude that they were made by a plane that struck the Tower!?

That would only be a fair conclusion if it was possible that a plane could have caused the damage.

So better try again.

secondsun

05-04-2009, 12:09 PM

That would only be a fair conclusion if it was possible that a plane could have caused the damage.

So better try again.

...i knew you would chime in now Bryan!.. you had to!

...so i am specifically asking you!... if no planes hit the towers what would you logically suggest could possibly have caused the gashes?

noewhan

05-04-2009, 12:17 PM

Was the no plane theory invented by Zionists?

secondsun

05-04-2009, 01:08 PM

Was the no plane theory invented by Zionists?

....:confused:

...its a sad world!... and a sad 9-11 forum!

bryan

05-04-2009, 03:42 PM

Was the no plane theory invented by Zionists?

Real plane theory = Zionist-controlled media not guilty

john white

05-04-2009, 07:59 PM

white horse

05-04-2009, 09:31 PM

By the way, have I mentioned that Killtown Shack Fetzer wood etc are frauds who are wilfully compounding treason?

Can you justify that?

john white

05-04-2009, 09:36 PM

Can you justify that?

Yep

oiram

05-04-2009, 11:12 PM

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/editor/createlink.gif[/IMG] (http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=7872)"]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Global Research, April 3, 2009

Editor's Note

Below is the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusuions of this important article. The complete article can be downloaded (pdf)

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Complete Article http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5abdffc4b883965cef51f14a5836b35d
Abstract:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Excerpts

INTRODUCTION

The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave importance.

A great deal of effort has been put forth by various government-sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large part, to the reports released by FEMA [1] and NIST [2]. Other studies of the destruction have been less well publicized but are no less important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day [3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused attention on the remaining physical material, and on available photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three skyscrapers.

CONCLUSIONS

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.

2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.

3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.

4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.

5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.

6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron

oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.

7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].

10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca) contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright , Global Research, 2009

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=13049 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=13049)

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=7872

oiram

05-04-2009, 11:17 PM

Remember that NIST report? NIST officials involved with nano-thermites
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/editor/createlink.gif[/IMG] (http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=7872)"]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=221654

Remember that NIST report? NIST officials involved with nano-thermites (Dial-up Warning)

Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 10:45 PM by Texas Explorer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM#noexternalembed

I know this will probably be thrown in the dungeon but it is VERY FUCKING IMPORTANT!!! Those of you who see this, whether you believe it or not, should send this far and wide. Keep in mind that all the steel was barged and floated to China before any independent forensics tests could be conducted as per NFPA 921 (http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=921&cookie%5Ftest=1) of the National Fire Protection Association's guide for professional fire/arson and explosion investigations. Also keep in mind that, according to NIST, because there was no "BOOM!" in the audio of recordings of the WTC collapses, there was no reason to consider the possibility that explosives or thermate were the cause. In fact, to hear them tell it, they can't even imagine how thermates or nano-thermates or quiet explosives would have been used to bring the buidings down.

But some NIST officials are intimately familiar with reactive shape charges and nano-thermites and are part of the research into the weaponization of themite/thermate.

And, there are even PNAC connections.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and one other thing. The development of thermites and nano-thermites has been conducted in part by the labs at Ft. Dietrich, MD, and Lawrence Livermore Labs. That's right. THAT Ft. Dietrich, MD, where the anthax originated from.

Thermite Experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM#noexternalembed

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

By Kevin R. Ryan

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is
at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for
fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other
pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.

Microscopic iron spheres found in the dust of WTC that are
formed in the presence of extreme heat and pressure.

http://www.gaeagraphica.com/images/wtc-thermite-sample.jpg

http://www.gaeagraphica.com/images/thermite-Jones-sample2.jpg

One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives.
The extensive evidence that explosives were used at the WTC includes witness testimony
(MacQueen 2006), overwhelming physical evidence (Griffin 2005, Hoffman et al 2005,
Jones and Legge et al 2008) and simple common sense (Legge 2007). There is also
substantial evidence that aluminothermic (thermite) materials were present at the WTC
(Jones 2007), and the presence of such materials can explain the existence of intense fire
where it would not otherwise have existed. Additionally, despite agreement from all
parties that the assumed availability of fuel allowed for the fires in any given location of
each of the WTC buildings to last only twenty minutes (NIST 2007), the fires lasted
much longer and produced extreme temperatures (Jones and Farrer et al 2008).

These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.

The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites,
are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular
composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often
used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite
the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --

“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).

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

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests
that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of
the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have
been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port
Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the
fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such
alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent
paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that
this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST
has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the
WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is,
many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were not
only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and in
some cases expertise in, this exact technology.

Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should
have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.

1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nanothermites,
at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).

2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most
prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the
deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic
materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and
Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally,
Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where
nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other
colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are
also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).

3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security
contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators
to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites,
developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and
other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance
Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers
(Howard et al 2005).

In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC
bombing, boasting that -- “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast
analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC
2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was
responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC
2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the
Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former
employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.

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

4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was
nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001,
was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of
materials science, and former executive at TRW.

Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nanothermites
(Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor
TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of
energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled
explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof
composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with
NASA to make energetic aerogels.

Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving
program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for
Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy
debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows,
and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in
nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval
warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as
early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle
(where the anthrax was made) is an organization of “experts in fundamental
technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the
US DOE.” Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings
(Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military
applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and
NASA on “advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional
materials” (Army 1999).

5. Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted
to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC
investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is
closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world’s
most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian
and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica,
ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense
University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking
research effort for nano-thermites.

6. NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new
nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael
Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).

7. In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of
Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of
understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003).
Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM2
2008).

8. NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008).
Additionally, NIST’s Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured
materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).

9. Richard Gann, who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a
project called “Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program”, both
before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the world’s leading experts
on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of “Defense Applications of
Nanomaterials”, and also worked on Richard Gann’s fire suppression project
(Gann 2002). Gann’s project was sponsored by DOD’s Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a
number of LLNL’s nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).

10. As part of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, NIST
partners with the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head (NSWC-IH) on
Chemical Science and Technology (FLCTT 2008). NSWC-IH is probably the
most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology (NSWC 2008). In 1999,
Jan Puszynski, a scientist working for the DURINT program, helped NSWC-IH
design a pilot plant to produce nano-size aluminum powder. It was reported that
“At that time, this was only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the
United States” (SDSMT 2001), however, private companies like Argonide and
Technanogy were also known to have such capabilities.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg

Among an interesting group of contractors that NSWC-IH hired in 1999 were
SAIC, Applied Ordnance, Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, Mantech, Titan, Pacific
Scientific Energetic (see below), and R Stresau Laboratories for “demolition
materials” (NSWC 2000).

A tragic coincidence left William Caswell, an employee of NSWC-IH, dead on
the plane said to have hit the Pentagon (Flight 77). He had for many years
worked on “deep-black” projects at NSWC-IH (Leaf 2007).
The presence of Pacific Scientific Energetics (PSE) in this list of 1999 NSWC-IH
contractors is interesting because PSE was the parent company of Special Devices, Inc
(SDI). SDI specializes in explosives for defense, aerospace and mining applications, and
was acquired in 1998 by John Lehman, 9/11 Commissioner, member of the Project for a
New American Century, and former Secretary of the Navy (SDI 2008). Lehman divested
in 2001.

With this in mind, it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very
likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played
only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who
had access to nano-thermite materials at the time. Like SDI, several other organizations
with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science)
have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce
pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those
who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former
NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what
organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the
deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links
between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings,
and those who produced the clearly false official reports.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites,
both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did
not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long
afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those
managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.

REFERENCES AT LINK - 12 Page PDF Document from The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=7872

.

white horse

06-04-2009, 09:18 PM

Yep

Well that just about settles it then lol! :eek:

white horse

06-04-2009, 10:56 PM

awesome post Oiram... will read the rest of it later when more time lol!

guntherznads

07-04-2009, 10:04 AM

Steven Jones is a buttfucker.

thelyran

08-04-2009, 04:22 PM

That'll be a Plane impact

By the way, have I mentioned that Killtown Shack Fetzer wood etc are frauds who are wilfully compounding treason?

...To quote you John White,"it is that glaringly obvious"...I call that smoking gun evidence,of a plane impact.

...If the government,is going to use Holograms,it will be for a fake ET invasion,or some similar other worldly event.Where,fear of the unknown,plays a major part,in distracting witnesses,from viewing an event,objectively...

here,911,was to impact on your consciousness,like the president Kennedys head,on that fateful day in Dallas.Planes crashing,assaults the senses on all
five tactile levels,let alone,the sub-conscious.Simple as that.take care sir,regards Jason.

secondsun

13-04-2009, 05:06 AM

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

...20 days now!... and the no planers, that always seem to have an answer for everything, still fail to provide a plausible explanation for two small gashes!

...the no planer Achilles Heel!?!... two small gashes!?!

...:rolleyes:

stannrodd

13-04-2009, 05:27 AM

It must be difficult to counter such evidence when reliance is placed in conjecture rather than fact.

The physics of the collision .. predicted the evidence.

The evidence (now being displayed) confirms the prediction.

The evidence is a matter of record.

The physics is irrefutable.

Stann

djeminy

14-04-2009, 08:02 AM

takhisis

14-04-2009, 08:22 AM

But I don't believe the wings could slice through like that. I would expect them to sheer off. I would also expect the tail to snap forward as it's momentum is interrupted by the front of the plane decelerating as it came into contact with the big tower.

I don't see these effects which suggests, at the very least, that the footage is fake.

Which then leads me to the question - why fake the footage...? What could possibly need to be hidden, surely the shock and awe of an airliner smashing into a sky scraper would be enough...?

why fake the tv footage...?

those Wings you called fragile are quite strong , to YOU might think there fragile and if they were as fragile as you beleive then planes wouldnt exactly fly that great , extreme weather , plus the weight of a couple tons of wieght from the 2 to 4 jet engines might just snap off those fragile wings in midflight lol , or prehaps the snow in winter and ice building up on the wings could snap them off, not to mention the momentium and velocy of the planes when they hit the towers helped snap the steel griders in the buildings stuctures

dave52

14-04-2009, 10:06 AM

those Wings you called fragile are quite strong

But that's the confusion. According to that photo, they were strong, they created gashes and dents, but, again looking at that photo, they did not pass all the way through.

Yet according to this footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbPkzg8C4M0

they glided into the tower unaffected. So which is correct, the picture or the video...? I'm not saying I know the ins and outs of crash physics or structural dynamics. But I know inconsistency when I see it, and that's what we have here between the photo and the video...

I'm hoping to get hold of some "as it happened" video of that morning pretty soon - I am trying to stay out of these sorts of discussions until I've studied it.

white horse

14-04-2009, 10:28 PM

secondsun

15-04-2009, 03:19 AM

What is your explanation?

...errr!... Flight 175!

Which tower is this from?

...South Tower!

they glided into the tower unaffected. So which is correct, the picture or the video...?

...the picture!

secondsun

15-04-2009, 04:42 AM

...out of personal interest!

...can anyone link to the original video of flight 175 seen in the first 12 to 14 seconds of this video...

here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOarakcXf9M)

...its just that i cant remember, off the top of my head, seeing this one before!

stannrodd

15-04-2009, 05:35 AM

...out of personal interest!

...can anyone link to the original video of flight 175 seen in the first 12 to 14 seconds of this video...

here

...its just that i cant remember, off the top of my head, seeing this one before!

I have some similar video which is in a compilation from Camera Planet. Same type of shaky footage but the plane passes behind some foreground buildings and the impact fireball rises behind them. When I saw the vid you posted I thought ah ha I have that one .. but no it's not the same it's from a slightly different angle. The one I have shows the plane more head on.

This one seems to be a screen shot from that video you posted.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/m02.jpg

Looks strangely familiar SS :) in a back to front sort of way.

You could contact Reuters !!

Stann

secondsun

15-04-2009, 05:39 AM

You could contact Reuters !!

...lol!... who controls Reuters Stann?... dont think so somehow!...;)

stannrodd

15-04-2009, 06:39 AM

bryan

15-04-2009, 10:26 AM

Just been looking at that video again .. it's not the same at all and I have to agree with you .. it's a new one for me too.

Ok where did it come from?

Bloody good question!

Start a new thread about it .. !

I'll throw it around over at LetsRoll forums and see what comes up.

Stann

The Reuters photo looks like a still from CBS footage.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_CBS_1st_reports.html

AT [5:05] in the 09:34 - 09:43 clip.

bryan

15-04-2009, 11:14 AM

stannrodd

15-04-2009, 12:26 PM

If that was just a case of bad luck, you'd expect them to rewind the film of the wide shot right away and show an action replay of the plane approaching. But they wait nearly 8 minutes before they show the clip with the plane in [08:28]. In the meantime, they show a plane from a totally different camera angle [02:40]. Did they use that time to insert a cgi into the film? If not, why would they wait so long before they broadcast the replays?

You might expect anything bryan .... as long as your fantasy allows you that ..

..they then wait .. according to your fantasy .. and you expect them .. har gherkin har ! and used that time .. gherkin har ferking har instead of showing it straight back !!

Like you would know how to Run a TV studio doing a major TV event bryan..

DID YOU WRITE THE SCRIPT BRYAN !! Sounds really funny !!

Get off your soapbox ... your angle is so obtuse you fail at the triangle !!

Stann

bryan

15-04-2009, 12:49 PM

You might expect anything bryan .... as long as your fantasy allows you that ..

..they then wait .. according to your fantasy .. and you expect them .. har gherkin har ! and used that time .. gherkin har ferking har instead of showing it straight back !!

Like you would know how to Run a TV studio doing a major TV event bryan..

DID YOU WRITE THE SCRIPT BRYAN !! Sounds really funny !!

Get off your soapbox ... your angle is so obtuse you fail at the triangle !!

Stann

You forgot to say 'thanks' for helping to find the source of your picture!

bryan

15-04-2009, 01:53 PM

Like you would know how to Run a TV studio doing a major TV event bryan..

If I had any doubts about what action to take, I'd consult my bible:

Stann's Guide to Running a TV Studio

Rule #1: If one of your cameras film the most dramatic event in the history of television broadcasting, be sure to sit on the footage for a few minutes while the competition are broadcasting their own coverage of the event.

kenny_bubb

15-04-2009, 09:28 PM

In the 09:02 - 09:22 segment, at around [00:30], they're broadcasting images from the same camera that seems to be the source of the Reuters photo. A few seconds before the plane comes in, they switch to footage from a different camera which is zoomed in on the top of the towers and all you see is part of the explosion. Then they switch back to the wide shot to show the whole fireball.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_CBS_1st_reports.html

If that was just a case of bad luck, you'd expect them to rewind the film of the wide shot right away and show an action replay of the plane approaching. But they wait nearly 8 minutes before they show the clip with the plane in [08:28]. In the meantime, they show a plane from a totally different camera angle [02:40]. Did they use that time to insert a cgi into the film? If not, why would they wait so long before they broadcast the replays?

Bryan, do you ever get the feeling your missing the point? Your like a tedious game of Cluedo, obsessing about whether it was Professor Bush in the dining room with the lead piping, rather than looking at the big picture - murders have been committed and why?

You and your ilk simply play into the hands of the PTB. Why not do something constructive and worthwhile with your time, rather than perpetuating redundant theories which, and for the hard of thinking like yourself, REALLY DON'T MATTER.

Bottom line. Our Governments lied to us. What do you plan to do about it?

bryan

15-04-2009, 10:14 PM

Bryan, do you ever get the feeling your missing the point? Your like a tedious game of Cluedo, obsessing about whether it was Professor Bush in the dining room with the lead piping, rather than looking at the big picture - murders have been committed and why?

It's a long time since I played Cluedo, but from what I can remember, the whole point of the game is to identify the murderer. We already know that murders were committed on 9/11 and we have a good idea why they were committed.

You and your ilk simply play into the hands of the PTB. Why not do something constructive and worthwhile with your time, rather than perpetuating redundant theories which, and for the hard of thinking like yourself, REALLY DON'T MATTER.

If you look down the first page of thread titles in this section of the forum, you'll see that only one thread was started by the username 'bryan'. The aim of that thread is to prove that the WTC towers couldn't have collapsed without the use of explosives. Most 9/11 truthers would consider that to be constructive and worthwhile.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread and three similar ones on the subject of NPT that are currently on the first page were started by people of your own ilk. What's even more remarkable is that the same person who started three threads on the subject of NPT has allied himself with the debunkers in my controlled demolition thread. Would you call that constructive and worthwile, or would you say it plays into the hands of the PTB?

Bottom line. Our Governments lied to us. What do you plan to do about it?

I plan to find out who were accessories to murder on 9/11.

secondsun

16-04-2009, 07:14 AM

Bryan!.... can you link to the video featured in the first 10 to 14 seconds of this video?

...here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOarakcXf9M)

...not Stann`s photo!

secondsun

24-04-2009, 05:47 AM

...nearly a month now!... and no possible explanations!... its just two small gashes!... come on no planers!... what caused them if it was`nt a plane!?!

secondsun

02-05-2009, 07:10 AM

...tap!...tap!...tap!

stannrodd

04-05-2009, 12:35 PM

dave52

04-05-2009, 11:01 PM

...tap!...tap!...tap!

Er... I'm still waiting for you to come up with a reason for the inconsistencies between the image and the video I highlighted in an earlier post...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=928216&postcount=86

I have admitted that the image you provide is tricky, but I don't think it's necessarily impossible to create that damage without a plane. You are getting quite excited about the picture, but have failed to tell me why the video shows how the wings could glide right in AND leave the damage in the picture...

deem

05-05-2009, 03:28 AM

The wing, from tip to where it meets the body increases in width horizontally.
Thats right, and dont forget the engines are mounted on the underside of both wings, situated roughly halfway between wingtip and fusalage.thats what would have caused the hole to be bigger there. Also if you look at the edges of the impact area, most of the edges bend inward. An explosion from inside the building would have bent the metal outwards had high explosives been used. When the plane exploded after entering the building, the explosion would mainly be like a great fireball when the plane fuel ignited. The concusive force would be a very different type of explosion compared to a bomb of some kind.

gribz

05-05-2009, 04:13 AM

...nearly a month now!... and no possible explanations!... its just two small gashes!... come on no planers!... what caused them if it was`nt a plane!?!

Im not sure what your actually hoping for. Maybe for everyone to say 'oh yeah, must be Flight 11"???

Your picture can conclude absolutely nothing at all. If a car drives into my garden wall then a crack can easily stretch more than the width of the car - you wouldnt see a jigsaw gap in the wall with the exact shape of the car.

Interestingly, looking at the beams where the supposed wing has smacked the final 2 beams that you have marked with red arrows, the metal on the beams still seem intact with only small horizontal cracks while the rest all have vertical sections missing. Yet the 2 beams next to the ones you have marked actually have larger sections of removed metal from the remaining beams to the right - explain this when wings get thicker from outside first? So your argument is flawed and proves nothing.

When i look at the actual picture you have put up i see a very bizarre sized 737 plane with wings at least 15m shorter than they should be.

By the way, im not an actual 'no planer'. Im a 'no commercial planer' or a 'no flight 11er'.

matrix911

05-05-2009, 04:35 AM

...nearly a month now!... and no possible explanations!... its just two small gashes!... come on no planers!... what caused them if it was`nt a plane!?!

how many tiimes do "we" need to repeat it before your brain comprehends it?

If anything hit the towers it was a either a remote uaf/missle or.........

http://davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=385&pictureid=3591

in conjuction with pre-placed cutter charges

what don't you get?

stannrodd

05-05-2009, 05:12 AM

Interestingly, looking at the beams where the supposed wing has smacked the final 2 beams that you have marked with red arrows, the metal on the beams still seem intact with only small horizontal cracks while the rest all have vertical sections missing. Yet the 2 beams next to the ones you have marked actually have larger sections of removed metal from the remaining beams to the right - explain this when wings get thicker from outside first? So your argument is flawed and proves nothing.

Gribz,

Lets use the correct terms.

The upright metal things are called columns. Beams are horizontal supports.

The upright columns have an anodized aluminium cladding, that's the silver coloured stuff.

The steel metal of the upright columns are painted a rust reddish colour, probably a red lead based paint to stop corrosion.

The arrowed columns have the aluminium still intact but they are dented inward. The next five have varying degrees of damage but generally increasing in damage as you move to the right, some with aluminium and some without. The left is the wing tip and the right is toward the fuselage. The wing is thickest where it joins the fuselage, and thinnest where the wing tip is. The damage is consistent with that description.

The image shows a bit more than half of the gash which is why it may look a bit odd to you.

The plane was alleged to be a 767, a very different aircraft to a 737 which is much smaller.

I hope that helps. I am not a no planer nor am I a Flight 11'er.

Stann

matrix911

05-05-2009, 06:02 AM

By the way, im not an actual 'no planer'. Im a 'no commercial planer' or a 'no flight 11er'.

but for some reason, real planers still can't seem to grasp that basic concept of NRPT.

fanoftruth

05-05-2009, 07:21 AM

but for some reason, real planers still can't seem to grasp that basic concept of NRPT.

I think that might be because it is difficult to keep up with the different niches of no-planers.

Some believe Flight 11 didn't hit, but instead a drone or UAV

Some believe a missile struck

Some believe in a holographic image

Some actually believe nothing at all struck the towers

I may have even forgotten one or two off the top of my head but there are 4 that sprang imediately to mind. So as your above statement suggests, yes perhaps a lot of people can't quite grasp the basic concept of the NPT - becuase with respect there doesn't actually seem to be one.

stannrodd

05-05-2009, 07:50 AM

but for some reason, real planers still can't seem to grasp that basic concept of NRPT.

fanoftruth,

This is because the basic concept of NRPT (whatever that is) is based in a no fact belief system, rather than based in .. facts = truth.

The NPT'ers are constantly scratching at the bottom of the barrel of facts, and what's at the bottom .. just rotten apples.

It is important for them to put labels on things like NPT or RPT or NRPT to try to legitimize their agenda.

They simply push their dogma as if it were based in fact. It must drive them nutz.

Anyway ... ??

Stann

secondsun

05-05-2009, 09:00 AM

Er... I'm still waiting for you to come up with a reason for the inconsistencies between the image and the video I highlighted in an earlier post...

..Dave!...sorry!.... i gave up with you!

Im not sure what your actually hoping for. Maybe for everyone to say 'oh yeah, must be Flight 11"???

...175 would be more accurate!

gribz

05-05-2009, 09:20 AM

..

...175 would be more accurate!

Then you should have stated which tower this was.

dave52

05-05-2009, 10:02 AM

..Dave!...sorry!.... i gave up with you!

And I with you... ;)

bryan

05-05-2009, 12:21 PM

I think that might be because it is difficult to keep up with the different niches of no-planers.

Some believe Flight 11 didn't hit, but instead a drone or UAV

Some believe a missile struck

Some believe in a holographic image

Some actually believe nothing at all struck the towers

I may have even forgotten one or two off the top of my head but there are 4 that sprang imediately to mind. So as your above statement suggests, yes perhaps a lot of people can't quite grasp the basic concept of the NPT - becuase with respect there doesn't actually seem to be one.

What about the different niches of 9/11 truth in general?

Some believe that Islamic terrorists planned the attacks and the US authorities stood by and watched.

Some believe the US authorities planned the attacks and used Muslims as patsies.

Some believe there were no Islamic terrorists and the planes were hijacked by remote control.

Some believe the passenger planes were hijacked then replaced by military planes.

These are just four of the more 'responsible' niches of 9/11 conspiracy theory. How can the general public be expected to grasp the basic concept of 9/11 truth when there doesn't appear to be one?

nightwalker

05-05-2009, 03:22 PM

I believe something hit the tower but whether it was a genuine, stock commercial B767 is another matter. The wing tips and fences would not be strong enough to gouge through the building and be engulfed in the way your picture would suggest, parts of them would have failed to penetrate the building and fall to the ground surely?

And no, I am not an expert, but I have worked around airliners all my life and I dont believe that it was a normal aircraft.

fanoftruth

05-05-2009, 03:28 PM

What about the different niches of 9/11 truth in general?

Some believe that Islamic terrorists planned the attacks and the US authorities stood by and watched.

Some believe the US authorities planned the attacks and used Muslims as patsies.

Some believe there were no Islamic terrorists and the planes were hijacked by remote control.

Some believe the passenger planes were hijacked then replaced by military planes.

These are just four of the more 'responsible' niches of 9/11 conspiracy theory. How can the general public be expected to grasp the basic concept of 9/11 truth when there doesn't appear to be one?

I completely agree. One thing the debunkers always like to pick up on is that within the truth movement there are now so many different 'camps' of thought and in-fighting in regards to the specifics of the conspiracy. I was merely pointing out that to be reason why planers cannot grasp the basic concept of NPT...because there isn't one. You essentially agree with my point though it seems.

matrix911

05-05-2009, 04:02 PM

fanoftruth,
This is because the basic concept of NRPT (whatever that is) is based in a no fact belief system, rather than based in .. facts = truth.

by your own admission, if you HAVE NO CLUE what the basic concept/belief of NRPT is about, how can you possibly criticize what you know nothing about nor claim its based in a "no fact" belief system?

If you can't handle or accept the facts and evidence that exist which have proven beyond about there's fakery occurring throughout many areas of the 911 hoax, then either you're in denial, haven't done enough research, or don't have even the most basic common sense and intelligence to recognize and understand it.

Its a FACT the OCT that claims FLIGHT 11 & 175 hit the towers, has NEVER ONCE been able to show any CONCLUSIVE proof of those flights NOR have they ever shown any CONCLUSIVE PROOF of REAL PLANES. So without this PROOF, claiming NO REAL PLANES, is far more a rational, logical and reasonable conclusion/theory/hypothesis than those who claim the opposite.

Its a FACT that the alleged footage of "planes" that the govt/media use as proof 11 and 175 hit the towers, shows evidence of tampering and fakery. NRP means NO REAL PLANES. But those with an agenda like yourself, want to limit the definition and ignore the CONTEXT of the term either out of ignorance, denial or to confuse and spread disinfo.

Any objective, critical thinking, logical and reasonable person who does indepth research will admit NRPT doesn't necessarily only mean (as you'd like it to) there were NO "PLANES" since its been explained by supporters of NRPT that a UAV or DRONE are TYPES OF PLANES.

You IGNORE that FACT, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

The NPT'ers are constantly scratching at the bottom of the barrel of facts, and what's at the bottom .. just rotten apples.

whatever part of the barrel you claim "we're" scratching at, is still far higher up than where you're scratchin stannly.

It is important for them to put labels on things like NPT or RPT or NRPT to try to legitimize their agenda.

Actually thats not true at all.

Closed minded people like yourself have actually put those labels on "us" to de-legitimize what doesn't conform to *your* agenda.

slartibartfast

06-05-2009, 09:15 AM

Its a FACT the OCT that claims FLIGHT 11 & 175 hit the towers, has NEVER ONCE been able to show any CONCLUSIVE proof of those flights NOR have they ever shown any CONCLUSIVE PROOF of REAL PLANES.

To follow your reasoning, New York doesn't exist based on the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population hasn't been there and has only seen it on TV. :rolleyes:

secondsun

06-05-2009, 09:42 AM

Its a FACT the OCT that claims FLIGHT 11 & 175 hit the towers, has NEVER ONCE been able to show any CONCLUSIVE proof of those flights NOR have they ever shown any CONCLUSIVE PROOF of REAL PLANES.

....hence the NPT vicious circle!... any proof offered is rejected!... just like that concrete core!... you point to a picture of a steel core column and someone says it is`nt... and we keep going around in circles!... thats the main principle behind NPT!... circles!

bryan

06-05-2009, 11:11 AM

I completely agree. One thing the debunkers always like to pick up on is that within the truth movement there are now so many different 'camps' of thought and in-fighting in regards to the specifics of the conspiracy. I was merely pointing out that to be reason why planers cannot grasp the basic concept of NPT...because there isn't one. You essentially agree with my point though it seems.

No, I don't agree with your point. You're advocating censorship, which is incompatible with my idea of a 'truth movement'.

fanoftruth

06-05-2009, 01:09 PM

No, I don't agree with your point. You're advocating censorship, which is incompatible with my idea of a 'truth movement'.

Don't be silly, I'm not advocating censorship and nothing in my post even remotely hinted toward that. The statement made by Matrix911 was that people do not seem to comprehend the general premise of the NPT and all I did was point out that there doesn't seem to be one, that is all.

bryan

06-05-2009, 04:30 PM

Don't be silly, I'm not advocating censorship and nothing in my post even remotely hinted toward that. The statement made by Matrix911 was that people do not seem to comprehend the general premise of the NPT and all I did was point out that there doesn't seem to be one, that is all.

The basic premise of 9/11 Truth is that the attacks were a false-flag operation designed as an excuse to start a global war against Islam.

The basic premise of NPT is that the planes you saw on TV were cartoons.

Could it be more simple?

Problems of understanding arise when the debunkers try to cloud the issue by stressing minor differences between people who support the same broad concept. The conspiracy theory debunkers use the technique against the 9/11 truth movement in general and the NPT debunkers use it against the no-planers.

I was pointing out how much truthers like you have in common with the JREF and Popular Mechanics crowd.

fanoftruth

06-05-2009, 05:05 PM

The basic premise of 9/11 Truth is that the attacks were a false-flag operation designed as an excuse to start a global war against Islam.

The basic premise of NPT is that the planes you saw on TV were cartoons.

Could it be more simple?

Problems of understanding arise when the debunkers try to cloud the issue by stressing minor differences between people who support the same broad concept. The conspiracy theory debunkers use the technique against the 9/11 truth movement in general and the NPT debunkers use it against the no-planers.

I was pointing out how much truthers like you have in common with the JREF and Popular Mechanics crowd.

I have nothing in common with the JREF crowd at all.

And yes, it could be more simple as not every no-planer believes the exact same theory. I have NO problem with that though as everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want so please try not to wade in and tar everyone who disagrees with what you believe in with the same brush.

fanoftruth

06-05-2009, 05:13 PM

matrix911

07-05-2009, 12:26 AM

"The basic premise of NPT is that the planes you saw on TV were cartoons" - bryan

In fact to highlight how I believe this to be an inaccuracy I can reiterate my own take on the subject ;

My belief is that for the large part the videos we have on offer are fake. However, I still believe planes (probably 767s) struck each of the twin towers. I think the production of the 2nd hit videos were tampered with so as to allow the rise of the 'no plane' theory by the very people who orchestrated the attacks. I think the psychology behind this, if true, is very clever.

So, I agree with you in that the planes in each video are more than likely fake but I am not a no-planer per se.

you actually believe the 2nd hit video evidence used by the OCT was tampered with to create a NO PLANE THEORY? :eek:

wow. That has to be one of the most bizarre theories i've seen on 911 yet.

so you have no comment on why the "767" in the naudet doesn't remotely fit a 767 profile or its characteristics? You don't see anything unusual with that "plane"?

no comment on the shanksville or pentagon "crashes" and data or lack of?

if you believe 767's hit the towers, what do you base that belief on? the OCT or so called witnesses who claim to have seen "planes"?

matrix911

07-05-2009, 12:38 AM

To follow your reasoning, New York doesn't exist based on the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population hasn't been there and has only seen it on TV. :rolleyes:

Not even remotely similar to the point i've made and its rather a waste for me to even attempt to show how absurd your assertion is.

if you actually want to try to equate/compare the BILLIONS of videos and footage of NYC to the select footage available of the 911 footage of "planes" hitting towers which show nothing but BLOBS, flaws, anomalies and inconsistencies, you're either delusional or lack any common sense and reason. :rolleyes:

matrix911

07-05-2009, 12:44 AM

.... hence the NPT vicious circle!... any proof offered is rejected!... just like that concrete core!... you point to a picture of a steel core column and someone says it is`nt... and we keep going around in circles!... thats the main principle behind NPT!... circles!

those who say there's no steel core column are as unreasonable and deluded as those who refuse to consider the obvious and clear evidence of fakery and NRPT.

so you need to rethink your categorizing and stop comparing oranges to onions.

secondsun

07-05-2009, 06:42 AM

those who say there's no steel core column are as unreasonable and deluded as those who refuse to consider the obvious and clear evidence of fakery and NRPT.

...just because some imagery is faked...it does not prove all of it is!

so you need to rethink your categorizing and stop comparing oranges to onions

...and you need to spend less time in your vegetable garden!

fanoftruth

07-05-2009, 08:57 AM

you actually believe the 2nd hit video evidence used by the OCT was tampered with to create a NO PLANE THEORY? :eek:

wow. That has to be one of the most bizarre theories i've seen on 911 yet.

so you have no comment on why the "767" in the naudet doesn't remotely fit a 767 profile or its characteristics? You don't see anything unusual with that "plane"?

no comment on the shanksville or pentagon "crashes" and data or lack of?

if you believe 767's hit the towers, what do you base that belief on? the OCT or so called witnesses who claim to have seen "planes"?

Yes that's what I believe. I myself don't find it bizarre but quite ingenius if I am correct. If I was part of the planning stages of 9/11 I would have a psychologist onboard to look at ways to win the long term battle against conspiracy theories in regards to the upcoming attack. The best way to hold back any sort of truth movement would be to inject a perfectly coordinated piece of counter intelligence. If the PTB could somehow manipulate a decent section of a truth movement to directly deny the reality of what happened that day you would have the perfect co-intel-pro in place. I don't claim you or any other no-planers are agents, I just think you've been seduced into a coordinated plan. I'll briefly comment on your points/questions ;

I can't really comment on the plane in the Naudet footage because the truth is I cannot tell what it is. It is too far away to tell, of too low a video resolution to pick up any visual markings, and whilst no it doesn't look particularly like a 767 I can't really claim it looks like anything else. Everyone looks up at whatever it is, it's just that we cannot determin in that shot what it is or isn't.

Shanksville ; for me there is no way the official story is true. Evidence I've seen over the past 3 or 4 years points to the plane (wether that be 93 or not) being shot in mid-air.

Pentagon ; I think being asked to believe 77 piloted by Hanjour pulled off that maneuver and smacked into the building insults our intelligence. There's enough evidence that I could believe a plane hit, possibly even a 757 going on eye witnesses and wreckage, but not as the official story states of course.

I base my belief that 767s hit the twin towers on eye witness accounts and logic. The former of course speaks for itself, the latter is driven by this train of thought ; after the first tower is struck you have every single television around the world reporting on the even live. Perhaps more relevantly you have potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers. You are trying to sell millions upon millions of people the story that a Boeing 767 hits the south tower. By doing anything else than flying a 767 into that tower you are running the risk, quite blatently, of having the entire attack exposed as what it is. Thousands of people are pointing their cameras up at the towers and it only takes 1 to capture a missile, UAV, or unmarked plane and the entire conspiracy falls down like a house of cards.

stannrodd

07-05-2009, 10:26 AM

I don't claim you or any other no-planers are agents, I just think you've been seduced into a coordinated plan.

I totally agree .. and would like to add that I think Matrix911 .. and others who will remain nameless ... are running that show.

Stann

matrix911

07-05-2009, 02:21 PM

I totally agree .. and would like to add that I think Matrix911 .. and others who will remain nameless ... are running that show.
Stann

Rotflmfao

abababba

07-05-2009, 03:28 PM

Yes that's what I believe. I myself don't find it bizarre but quite ingenius if I am correct. If I was part of the planning stages of 9/11 I would have a psychologist onboard to look at ways to win the long term battle against conspiracy theories in regards to the upcoming attack. The best way to hold back any sort of truth movement would be to inject a perfectly coordinated piece of counter intelligence. If the PTB could somehow manipulate a decent section of a truth movement to directly deny the reality of what happened that day you would have the perfect co-intel-pro in place. I don't claim you or any other no-planers are agents, I just think you've been seduced into a coordinated plan. I'll briefly comment on your points/questions ;

I can't really comment on the plane in the Naudet footage because the truth is I cannot tell what it is. It is too far away to tell, of too low a video resolution to pick up any visual markings, and whilst no it doesn't look particularly like a 767 I can't really claim it looks like anything else. Everyone looks up at whatever it is, it's just that we cannot determin in that shot what it is or isn't.

Shanksville ; for me there is no way the official story is true. Evidence I've seen over the past 3 or 4 years points to the plane (wether that be 93 or not) being shot in mid-air.

Pentagon ; I think being asked to believe 77 piloted by Hanjour pulled off that maneuver and smacked into the building insults our intelligence. There's enough evidence that I could believe a plane hit, possibly even a 757 going on eye witnesses and wreckage, but not as the official story states of course.

I base my belief that 767s hit the twin towers on eye witness accounts and logic. The former of course speaks for itself, the latter is driven by this train of thought ; after the first tower is struck you have every single television around the world reporting on the even live. Perhaps more relevantly you have potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers. You are trying to sell millions upon millions of people the story that a Boeing 767 hits the south tower. By doing anything else than flying a 767 into that tower you are running the risk, quite blatently, of having the entire attack exposed as what it is. Thousands of people are pointing their cameras up at the towers and it only takes 1 to capture a missile, UAV, or unmarked plane and the entire conspiracy falls down like a house of cards.

Two thoughts.

If there were so many people that would have taken shots of a missile, UAV or nothing as it hit the tower, then those same people would have taken clear as day pictures of the actual 767 that hit the towers. You can't argue that these people exist to refute an alternative theory when they in fact would also refute your proposed theory.

Second, I believe that the conspirators wouldn't have anticipated as robust of a truth movement. The reason is Youtube. It did not exist before 2005 and there was virtually no substantial truth movement before then. If there was no anticipation of Youtube, then authorities wouldn't have anticipated such a large truth movement. They saw that JFK conspiracy theories hadn't progressed that far after 40 years and thought a similar thing might happen with 911. Youtube changed all of this.

matrix911

07-05-2009, 04:58 PM

I don't claim you or any other no-planers are agents, I just think you've been seduced into a coordinated plan.

if thats the case, as its been pointed out, such a plan would have been responsible for attracting the attention of millions more to 911 being a conspiracy that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Which I hardly believe would be something the perps would have wanted to do. So this so called "coordinated plan" doesn't seem all that coordinated or useful and ended up back-firing into a logistical nightmare. With all the mistakes the perps made, you have to wonder who was in charge of planning this coordinated counter-intelligence... elmer fudd?

second, I find this statement of yours even more bizarre since you contradict yourself by saying:

I still believe planes (probably 767s) struck each of the twin towers.

then you say:

I agree with you in that the planes in each video are more than likely fake but I am not a no-planer per se.

are you hearing what you're saying? You can't have it BOTH WAYS and expect to be taken as a reasonable person.

until you can get your facts and "belief" COORDINATED and in agreement, I don't see how your "theories" and opinions can be taken or even considered seriously. The only way your theory makes any logical sense, is if one were to ignore all the actual evidence.

I can't really comment on the plane in the Naudet footage because the truth is I cannot tell what it is.
It is too far away to tell, of too low a video resolution to pick up any visual markings,

Wrong. Its not too far away or too low video resolution to tell its BASIC outline and features do not REMOTELY RESEMBLE A BOEING 767.

Thats the point.

There's plenty of other objects in that video at the same distance which *are* distinctive. If that was a real boeing, the BASIC features would be easily made out. Res and compression have no bearing on these certain basic features if other objects basic features are unaffected by the res and compression.

and whilst no it doesn't look particularly like a 767 I can't really claim it looks like anything else.

and that distinction is important... it does NOT PARTICULARLY look like a 767.

So whatever flying object it is, it CANNOT BE what it doesn't PARTICULARLY LOOK LIKE... and anyone with basic common sense should be able to understand that.

Everyone looks up at whatever it is, it's just that we cannot determin in that shot what it is or isn't.

if it doesn't resemble a 767, we can RULE THAT OUT whether or not we know what ELSE it could be. What it cannot be is a 767. Eos.

Shanksville ; for me there is no way the official story is true. Evidence I've seen over the past 3 or 4 years points to the plane (wether that be 93 or not) being shot in mid-air.

what "evidence" that it was "shot down" are you referring to? hearsay?

Pentagon ; I think being asked to believe 77 piloted by Hanjour pulled off that maneuver and smacked into the building insults our intelligence. There's enough evidence that I could believe a plane hit, possibly even a 757 going on eye witnesses and wreckage, but not as the official story states of course.

If you know anything about the FACTS of the NOC, there's not even the remote possibility a "plane" could have hit the pentagon. The NOC path PROVES beyond any doubt that no plane could have hit the pent.

I base my belief that 767s hit the twin towers on eye witness accounts and logic.

just as many if not more EW's contradict EW's that claim they saw 767s hit.

and you mean false logic.

The former of course speaks for itself, the latter is driven by this train of thought ; after the first tower is struck you have every single television around the world reporting on the even live.

so what? Every single one of these televsion stations were reporting AND SHOWING what the governement controlled media propoganda was pumping out. Your comment IMPLIES that every single television was uniquely and independently reporting/covering/showing different accounts or footage of planes hitting the towers, when its A FACT they were using the SAME LIMITED DUPLICATED FAKE FOOTAGE from a few sources which of course originated from ONE control room that was controlled by the perps :rolleyes:

Perhaps more relevantly you have potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers.

You can't use that as being RELEVANT unless you can show where all these THOUSANDS of people around manhatten are and were. If there's thousands of these people, there should be thousands of videos and photos showing various independent footage etc. The FACT is, not even 1% of what should be expected exists.

So you're basing your theory on faulty logic that one thing being true based on that thing not existing to begin with. You're in essence trying to prove a negative and use that as a rationale/basis for your argument in the face of so much overwhelming evidence it more likely that you like most, are the real ones that have been seduced by a coordinated deception.

Oh btw, you need to do some research on your claim about phone camera tech in 2001... it wasn't remotely in commerical use.

You are trying to sell millions upon millions of people the story that a Boeing 767 hits the south tower. By doing anything else than flying a 767 into that tower you are running the risk, quite blatently, of having the entire attack exposed as what it is. Thousands of people are pointing their cameras up at the towers and it only takes 1 to capture a missile, UAV, or unmarked plane and the entire conspiracy falls down like a house of cards.

If that were true, you could show even 1% of these "thousands" that were allegedly pointing their cameras up and taking pics.

why can't you show JUST ONE REAL VERIFIABLE UN-TAMPERED amateur PIC showing clear proof of a boeing?

Funny though, the video and pics that ARE out there, do show what looks like a missle, UAV's, Drones, unmarked "planes" etc.

no wonder the entire OCT continues to fall down like a house of cards :rolleyes:

white horse

07-05-2009, 11:10 PM

I base my belief that 767s hit the twin towers on eye witness accounts and logic.

Which are extremely inconsistent, for multiple reasons.

The former of course speaks for itself, the latter is driven by this train of thought ; after the first tower is struck you have every single television around the world reporting on the even live. Perhaps more relevantly you have potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers. You are trying to sell millions upon millions of people the story that a Boeing 767 hits the south tower. By doing anything else than flying a 767 into that tower you are running the risk, quite blatently, of having the entire attack exposed as what it is. Thousands of people are pointing their cameras up at the towers and it only takes 1 to capture a missile, UAV, or unmarked plane and the entire conspiracy falls down like a house of cards.

Why do people insist on peddling this approach? I can understand your thinking on this, with Manhattan being such a large population. But there are a number of points;

- no one is expecting a second attack (except perps and their agents) to hit the other tower, so noone is camera ready waiting for the plane (except the perps and their agents)

- There were not thousands of witnesses to the second strike. If you only did a little bit of research you would find that there are less than 30 reasonable recorded eye witness swtatments that claim to have seen the second strike; and they can't agree on what it was.

- millions upon millions? This was designed to have maximum impact at the time; it was not designed to be held up to scrutiny, it was a smash and grab job. The millions and millions were convinced right away; and it has taken massive effort to move the opinions of a minute number of those people. Remember away from fringe boards a) most people have never given 911 a second thought; b) they could not even countenance that it was an inside job. (this is at last changing; the truth will out this year... will it be too late?)

The 'thousands of witnesses' is a card that they banked on being used to good effect. It was an awesome conjuring trick!

matrix911

07-05-2009, 11:28 PM

will it be too late?)

It was too late the day US invaded Iraq and had the majority of Americans blindly support their Government/military for that invasion before they had concrete PROOF and not consider the consequences of what a war on terror would entail and lead to.

bryan

07-05-2009, 11:44 PM

Perhaps more relevantly you have potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers.

Thousands of people are pointing their cameras up at the towers and it only takes 1 to capture a missile, UAV, or unmarked plane and the entire conspiracy falls down like a house of cards.

Ace Baker is offering $100,000 for any original video of a plane crashing into the South Tower. Do the thousands of people who were pointing their cameras at the towers know about this?

$100,000 Amateur Video Challenge

Did you or someone you know shoot amateur video of an airplane crash on 9/11? If so, it could net you a hundred grand.

As readers of my work already know, I don't believe any airplanes crashed anywhere on 9/11. All of the airplane crash videos are video composites, says me. Prove me wrong, and make a quick $100,000 U.S.

The problem is none of the 9/11 airplane videos are available in their original quality. I highly suspect that this is due to the fact that reducing quality on a composite image is the best way to hide the messy fingerprints of the compositing process.

To sort it out, I offer this next in what has become a series of $100,000 challenges. To meet the challenge:

The video must show "UA175" hitting the south tower.
You must allow me to inspect the original tape on which the event was recorded. It must be originally recorded video on "mini DV", or other DV format.
The airplane video must match in quality the other videos present on the tape. Any attempt to copy onto the DV tape video that has been further compressed, or reduced in dimensions, or subjected to any unnecessary quality loss is grounds for disqualification.
You must allow me to create a high-quality, uncompressed digitization of the video, directly from the original tape.
You will grant to me a non-exclusive license to publish the footage.

Jennifer Spell? Evan Fairbanks? Luc Courchesne? Michael Hezarkhani? Any takers?

I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.

Applicants may contact me via the email link, top right.

-Ace Baker

http://www.acebaker.blogspot.com/

fanoftruth

07-05-2009, 11:51 PM

fanoftruth

07-05-2009, 11:56 PM

matrix911

08-05-2009, 12:30 AM

"Ace Baker is offering $100,000 for any original video of a plane crashing into the South Tower. Do the thousands of people who were pointing their cameras at the towers know about this?" - bryan

Almost certainly not. Unless you're a fairly diehard researcher on 9/11 you have next to no reason to know who the heck Ace Baker is or know anything about his challenge.

Good on him though - if there is a high resolution video of a 767 hitting the south tower then lets see it.

Maybe I should offer a 1 MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE or BET that NO ONE will ever come forward to take his challenge!

why?

BECAUSE NO REAL PLANES IE 11,175, 93, or 77 HIT THE WTC, PENTAGON OR CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE.

secondsun

08-05-2009, 06:27 AM

I totally agree .. and would like to add that I think Matrix911 .. and others who will remain nameless ... are running that show.

Stann

...no point trying to be amiable and nice!... your smiling at crocodiles!... period!

bryan

08-05-2009, 09:06 AM

I'd also like to add that I'm not trying to play the 'thousands of eye witnesses card' per se, I'm just trying to point out that there would have likely been thousands of people within eye-shot of the twin towers. Each one of those people could potentially catch the missile/UAV/nothing thus busting the entire plan.

Many eyewitnesses DID catch 'nothing' fly into the towers.

I'm not claiming there are anywhere near that number of witnesses on record.

When you're arguing that the perps wouldn't dare fake the planes, you stress the "potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers".

Yet when you comment on the fact that nearly eight years later nobody, including the TV companies, has come forward with a decent quality video of the crash, you seem unconcerned that a potentiality of thousands didn't materialize into one actual example.

stannrodd

08-05-2009, 10:39 AM

...no point trying to be amiable and nice!... your smiling at crocodiles!... period!

... I laugh with crocodile tears running down my ears ..

... my eyes are very far apart .. (.. Carmen)

Stann :)

fanoftruth

08-05-2009, 10:58 AM

"When you're arguing that the perps wouldn't dare fake the planes, you stress the "potentially thousands of people in and around Manhatten with their video cameras, stills cameras, and phone cameras trained on the twin towers".

Yet when you comment on the fact that nearly eight years later nobody, including the TV companies, has come forward with a decent quality video of the crash, you seem unconcerned that a potentiality of thousands didn't materialize into one actual example." - bryan

You're right that was somewhat silly of me as there are a handful of videos of what clearly look like a 767 hitting the south tower ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJig1wj7oLI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=fvw

the second of those two videos which I believe is amateur videography shows a perfectly clear large airliner. The quality is good and the surface of the plane seems to react perfectly to the light conditions within the shot. There is nothing that strikes me as disengenuine about either of those clips, especially the latter.

secondsun

08-05-2009, 11:25 AM

Re.. fanoftruth second video link!

...your first did`nt work for me but the second i had`nt seen before!... so thanks!

...interesting to note how those cgi experts managed to put the the shadow of the engine exiting the south tower on the face of the north tower even though you cant see the engine`s smoke trail itself!... amazing how they thought to do that don't you think!?...;)

supersmell

08-05-2009, 06:41 PM

Can you ever see contrails at that low altitude?

stannrodd

09-05-2009, 07:25 AM

Can you ever see contrails at that low altitude?

Contrails ?? Sorry supersmell what are you referring to. The videos ??

The engine trail perhaps is simply a flame out .. trailing unburnt fuel .. ?

I live next to an airport at sea level, and often see jet aircraft landing, ... there is a phenomena which emanates from the wingtips, and creates small white trails. They do not last long but are very visible. I suspect it's wake turbulence causing that condensation effect.

Stann

secondsun

09-05-2009, 08:33 AM

Can you ever see contrails at that low altitude?

...only the dust trails made from fleeing no planers after posting their con`s!

bryan

09-05-2009, 11:08 AM

They do not last long but are very visible. I suspect it's wake turbulence causing that condensation effect.

When the fireballs from the exploding jet fuel came out out of the buildings through the plane-shaped holes, why do we not see the smoke and flames get caught up in the wake turbulence that the plane had just left behind?

stannrodd

09-05-2009, 11:22 AM

..... why do we not see the smoke and flames get caught up in the wake turbulence that the plane had just left behind?

.. should we ??

In one frame ?

Stann

secondsun

09-05-2009, 12:44 PM

When the fireballs from the exploding jet fuel came out out of the buildings through the plane-shaped holes, why do we not see the smoke and flames get caught up in the wake turbulence that the plane had just left behind?

...in the first 5 seconds after impact... 99% of the flames go sideways and forward!... no flames are seen exiting the hole made by the plane untill about 5 seconds after impact!... dust and debries yes!... but no flames!

a video link used for an example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwqeKHiZ39Q&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideosearch %3Fclient%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial%26channel%3Ds%26hl%3Den%26q&feature=player_embedded)

...maybe `wake turbulence ` caused those two gashes though!?!...:D

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

...narghh!... definitely wing tips from a plane!!!

ringwind

13-05-2009, 06:17 PM

The FBI polygraphers will clean-up this mess.

Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"

bryan

13-05-2009, 08:52 PM

The FBI polygraphers will clean-up this mess.

Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"

I googled "The FBI polygraphers will clean-up this mess" and it turns out that somebody called David Howard has been posting the same thing all over the internet.

ringwind

14-05-2009, 01:34 AM

Google "9/11 Cancer"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-11-21/news/death-by-dust/

bryan

14-05-2009, 11:31 AM

Google "9/11 Cancer"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-11-21/news/death-by-dust/

I agree with what you're saying, but you should post it in a relevant thread or start one of your own. Spamming will only put people off looking into the subject.

kidsarocker

14-05-2009, 03:20 PM

ringwind

14-05-2009, 05:59 PM

Anonymous Physicist has said that no-planes is true but a distraction from the nuking of the WTC.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/

devolinctus

17-05-2009, 11:31 PM

Imagine you've served 10 years of a life sentence for murder, and new DNA evidence proves you couldn't have been the murderer.

You go to the prison warder and say:

"Well, can I go home now?"

And the prison warder says:

"No. You can't go home till we've found the real murderer".

You'd be a bit pissed off, wouldn't you?

You see, once it's proved that a plane couldn't have made the hole in the South Tower, the plane can go home.

Then the investigation will have to be reopened to find out what DID make the hole.

In THAT order.

hmmm,, i watched both planes hit the towers, live, maybe david blaine was involved

thirdwave

18-05-2009, 01:07 AM

I'd also like to add that I'm not trying to play the 'thousands of eye witnesses card' per se, I'm just trying to point out that there would have likely been thousands of people within eye-shot of the twin towers. Each one of those people could potentially catch the missile/UAV/nothing thus busting the entire plan.

I'm not claiming there are anywhere near that number of witnesses on record.

there was not anywhere near thousands of eye whitness's .. we only know of the ones the News releases told us about...

As for people spotting a plane or no plane.. the first hit would have been practically impossible other than people spotting a low jet through out its arrival... this does not prove anything as that could have been any jet.

you need to remember that the attacks had the element of surprise... both hits.. no one saw the first coming and did not even see the other coming either... a missile crashing quickly into a building can easily be passed off as a plane if all the gossip said so... if people saw it they would have simply looked up and caught a fast object hit the building and bang... and we know that people have said they thought it was a missile... and sounded like one.

dave52

18-05-2009, 07:21 AM

hmmm,, i watched both planes hit the towers, live, maybe david blaine was involved

Were you in New York and actually saw the planes for yourself, or did you watch it live on TV...?

stannrodd

19-05-2009, 11:51 AM

I saw it on TV in NZ Dave !!

Stann :):)

dave52

19-05-2009, 12:35 PM

I saw it on TV in NZ Dave !!

Stann :):)

And I saw it live on tv in England...

devolinctus

20-05-2009, 12:12 AM

Were you in New York and actually saw the planes for yourself, or did you watch it live on TV...?

i watched on tv, and from a million angles saw no missiles, if your an expert, post some footage of a missile, type of missile and wherte they were fired from, seems a fantatic display , if you can hit a building just at the time a hijacked plane hits it???

devolinctus

20-05-2009, 12:13 AM

Were you in New York and actually saw the planes for yourself, or did you watch it live on TV...?

i'd try a milkshake they dont like, creation flavour perhaps?

dave52

20-05-2009, 07:53 AM

i watched on tv, and from a million angles saw no missiles, if your an expert, post some footage of a missile, type of missile and wherte they were fired from, seems a fantatic display , if you can hit a building just at the time a hijacked plane hits it???

No, you watched on tv from only a handful of angles.

bryan

20-05-2009, 08:45 AM

No, you watched on tv from only a handful of angles.

Approximately 180 degrees. You'd think the 15+ TV cameras would have spread out a bit more!

secondsun

22-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Approximately 180 degrees. You'd think the 15+ TV cameras would have spread out a bit more!

...errr!... Photographers!... professional ones especially... will always try and work with the sun behind them!..that would limit the angles some what!

bryan

22-05-2009, 11:44 AM

...errr!... Photographers!... professional ones especially... will always try and work with the sun behind them!..that would limit the angles some what!

Even though several laws of physics were suspended on 9/11, I don't think anybody has claimed that the sun didn't rise in the east that morning. By 9am it would have been working its way over towards the south.

The sides of the towers weren't aligned exactly with the points of the compass, but for convenience it's normally assumed that the south side of each tower was facing due south. To discuss the camera angles in comparison with the position of the sun, I think it would be more useful to assume that the south side of the towers was facing south west, which would mean that the ABC shot where the South Tower is hidden behind the North Tower is from due north.

There were no TV cameras filming from the west or the south west, and there were none filiming from the south, where the sun would have been shining from behind the right shoulder, or from the south east, where the sun would have been directly behind. Most of the cameras were positioned roughly to the north east, because that's where the TV studios were, but Chopper 7 was filming from the north, roughly facing the sun, and Chopper 5 from the north west, directly facing the sun.

We already knew that the position of the two choppers that captured live images of the approaching plane doesn't make any sense from the point of view of professional coverage of an unfolding news story. Thanks for pointing out that the chopper crews were also breaking an important rule of professional photography. It's another example of an explanation that sounds reasonable in theory but contradicts the basic facts.

ringwind

22-05-2009, 10:08 PM

Wapedia - Wiki: Steven Rosenbaum (producer)

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Steven_Rosenbaum

clint web

26-05-2009, 05:03 PM

So if no planes were used, where's the footage of the buildings exploading without the planes?

That would have leaked out by now.

abababba

26-05-2009, 05:42 PM

So if no planes were used, where's the footage of the buildings exploading without the planes?

That would have leaked out by now.

Some of the videos may be authentic if holograms were used.

This would explain why so many people said they saw a plane but only a few say anything about hearing a plane, a sound which should have been deafening. It would also explain why the plane just glides into the building and why the nose of the plane seems to come out the other side intact.

thelyran

26-05-2009, 06:21 PM

And I saw it live on tv in England...

...I've been avoiding you for six weeks now.As I promised to deliver all the footage,from the live coverage I had,which started with only one tower smoking...well,I found 2 of 3 tapes...still looking,but got through 500+ of approx 800+ VHS videos.

...my partner and I nearly had a divorce...over this.She wiped,two tapes and put "Charmed" on it.So rather indignant and "uncharming" so entered a 3 hour fight,with the most colourful,chauvenistic,foul tempered tirade of abuse...

...So,just avoiding a Domestic Violence Order...and sleeping in the car at night
cooled down,munched her carpet,and alles gute.But the emotional scarring,for becoming the forum fuckwit...I now wish to observe the chance to say sorry,but "IF"...I find the first tape,hallelujah,you still might get it.

...I hope you feel slightly compensated by my candour and truth,but if it comes off,I won't forget...I am most deeply apologetic.No need for a reply Dave,just wanted you to know,without some limp wristed PM...take care man,regards Jase:)

gamolon

26-05-2009, 07:06 PM

This would explain why so many people said they saw a plane but only a few say anything about hearing a plane, a sound which should have been deafening.

So you have quotes or interviews of people saying that they saw the jet pass overhead, but didn't hear it?

Would you please post these? I'd like to see/read them.

abababba

26-05-2009, 07:29 PM

Here are a few examples. All people near or in the tower, which should have heard a deafening sound several times the magnitude of being in the front row of a rock concert.

Brian Smith, 24, FDNY Battalion 31: "I am stationed in Brooklyn...maybe a mile or so from the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges...my partner and I, Brian Gordon, and I were heading out to my car in the parking lot to go home, when we heard some kind of muffled explosion. We just disregarded it as vehicular noise up on the BQE...just at that point we saw the beginning of that plume of cloud from the plane driving into the North Tower. So we ran back inside...they dispatched us right away...We went down to the 10-10 House [Liberty Street fire station, across from WTC on the south side], backed the ambulance into the one of the engine bays, and asked the captain what he needed. He said there were a lot of injuries. At this point, things were just starting to happen. The South Tower was struck right then, and we got a whole bunch of new injuries...And as we were filling up the second milk crate, it sounded like another plane was coming in [during destruction of South Tower]. The firefighter and I just looked at each other and we dropped what we had and started to make our way back toward the firehouse, running down Liberty Street. The sound was deafening. I really thought that it was another plane coming. I thought it was a 747 looking to make a landing on Liberty Street...I started to hear that sound again. It sounded like another plane coming in. At this point it just seemed like all these planes forgot where La Guardia Airport was. Everybody was looking to make a landing. I had no idea what had really happened. I just thought they were planes. I didn't know until after I left Manhattan that the towers even came down. I just thought that 747s were landing all over the place. I honestly thought that a plane landed on Liberty Street in front of the firehouse, and that by some miracle I survived it."

Gary Smiley, 38, FDNY paramedic, was carrying an injured woman across Church Street who kept yelling "plane" and Smiley recalled, "I looked up at that point, and that's when the second plane hit the South Tower. The explosion was unbelievable. It was right over my head. You didn't hear anything. People ask me sometimes, 'What did you hear?' I heard nothing."

Ada Rosario Dolch, 46, Principal of the High School for Leadership and Public Service, was at her high school at 90 Trinity Place a few blocks from the WTC when the first hit occurred: "All of a sudden the lights went out...Then, maybe five seconds later, we heard this tremendous boom. I immediately thought it was a bomb...One of my students came in, and she said, 'Mrs. Dolch, a plane just hit the World Trade Center,'" yet Mrs. Dolch saw and heard no plane. "And then there was another horrendous bang, and the building shook. This time we felt the impact. That's when we found out that another plane had just hit the South Tower."

David Kravette, 41, a broker for Cantor Fitzgerald, was in the lobby of the North Tower when something hit it and he said, "...you hear this really loud screeching sound. I turn around and it's kind of coming from the elevators. So I run away from it, like ten steps...a huge fireball explodes in the lobby...We went down to where the marina is, where the yachts are. And that's when we found out what happened, that a plane had hit the building." Kravette saw and heard no plane hit the North Tower. "Meanwhile, I'm trying to call my wife and none of the cell phones seemed to work. I didn't see the second plane hit. I just heard a noise and people yell. I saw the aftermath. We started heading uptown."

Michael Jacobs, 34, investment banker with May Davis, was in a elevator around floor 4-5 in the North Tower: "We had no clue a plane had hit the building because we were at its base...You don't hear a boom. You hear a noise, but you don't hear a plane crashing."

Christopher Wiener, 32, bond trader for Garban Intercapital, was in the South Tower on the 55th floor: "When the first plane hit tower 1, I didn't know what it was...I thought it was the generator or some sort of explosion...a man came out with a transistor radio...and he started giving us a blow-by-blow...a plane had hit tower 1...as I came out of the [south] tower, the second plane hit my tower. I had just opened the door to go outside and there was an explosion that I'll never forget. It haunts my dreams to this day, and it was the most bloodcurdling sound I've ever heard...I tried to get back into the building so I wouldn't get crushed by anything."

Ralph Blasi, 52, director of security for Brookfield Properties: "I was in my office at the World Financial Center which faces the Trade Center, when the first plane hit. I looked out the window, saw the fireball, and said to my property manager, Mike Bosso, 'Mike, they just bombed.' That was my initial reaction: 'Mike, they just bombed the Trade Center'...We were very reactive that day. The first plane hit. You run, you do what you have to do. The second plane hit and you know this is not a situation where you can sit around the table and discuss what you're going to do."

Hector Santiago, 41, NYPD detective: "We're standing on the north side of the building [WTC 1], on the corner of Vesey...All of a sudden there's a secondary explosion: Boom! And you see the fire coming out of the building...What was that? The boss thinks it might have been a bomb. Now you think terrorist, and now he's getting into the groove. We had no idea that it was the second plane because we're on the north side of the building."

Bernard B. Kerik, 47, NYPD Police Commissioner: "I turned around to say something to Hector [Santiago] when there was this enormous explosion. I looked up and the other building, building 2, was sort of exploding and igniting above. And I thought, Now what's happened? How did that building ignite this other building?"

Joe Esposito, 52, NYPD Chief of Police: "I was pulling up to police headquarters...the officer on post was very excited...I heard him say, 'A plane just hit the Twin Towers.' I looked over my shoulder and I saw the building exploding...So I'm saying, 'Tell me exactly what you saw.' And he actually gave the number of the plane. It turns out what he saw was accurate, naturally [!?]...We drove there. It's only two blocks from 1 Police Plaza...We make a right turn on Vesey, which is right adjacent to the North Tower. As we're on that block, the recorder who's in the passenger seat of the emergency service truck starts yelling, 'Another plane, another plane.' And at that point, we hear the explosion. I was on the running board, so I didn't see it immediately. I said, 'What happened?'...The closer you were, the less you knew."

John Abruzzo, 43, staff accountant, Port Authority, and C5-C6 quadriplegic: "I worked on the 69th floor of the North Tower...My desk faces north. I can see over my partition out the north windows. I don't remember hearing any sound, or an explosion. But I do remember that the building suddenly swayed, and that it swayed in one direction only. I thought the building was going to collapse right then and there. We've been in storms, you know, where the building sways back and forth, but that's nothing...it took an hour and a half to get from the 69th floor down to the street level, and another ten to fifteen minutes to get to Stuyvesant High School."

Steve Greenberg, 43, Senior Client Specialist, Aon: "I started at Aon on September 4...I was in a training class...held on the 92nd floor of tower 2. All of sudden we felt a low boom and the building shook a little bit. We didn't think anything of it...We asked what happened, and somebody said a small private plane hit the first building...I would say we got down to approximately the 70s when we heard an announcement saying the building was secure, that we could go back up, everything came loose. The second plane must've hit, and the walls starting cracking. We all fell to the floor and everyone was grabbing onto each other, holding onto each other. We were right under where the second plane hit. The ceiling practically down on us. You saw the walls starting to crack and split."

Gloria Novesl, 55, insurance broker, Aon, was with Steve Greenberg: "When we were told that tower 1 was on fire, we proceeded to go down the stairwell...We kept going down to, I don't know, 74, 75, when there was another crash. Our building, tower 2, started to crack open. We just like looked at each other again and said we needed to get the hell out of there...and as we're going down, people started to come down with glass in their arms, bleeding, with burns, and just looked at each other and said, 'What happened?' They told us that another plane had hit, and we said, 'Another plane?' So we just had to get out."

Lori Guarnera, 39, insurance broker, Aon: "...I went upstairs to the 102nd floor of tower 2...I was sitting there drinking my big Starbucks coffee and typing up some e-mails when I heard this enormous explosion. I believe it was this girl, Tammy Lasiter, who worked across the hall from me a couple of doors down, who screamed, 'Oh, my God, it's a bomb.' I went back into my office...I could see papers flying around outside. I knew something was desperately wrong...I start going down the stairs from the 102nd floor...I'm on the backside of the block across from the Trade Center on Broadway when I hear another explosion. This is when the plane hits tower 2."

Mark DeMarco of the NYPD Emergency Services Unit said he was at the northeast corner of the WTC (Church and Vesey streets): "I was getting some tools out of our truck when I heard a massive explosion behind me. I turned around to see what it was, and it was the second plane hitting the South Tower."

William Allee, 60, NYPD Chief of Detectives: "I was in my office at 1 Police Plaza...and I heard what initially sounded like a missile. And then seconds later I heard an extraordinary explosion. I looked out the window and saw what looked like a mushroom cloud without the top, without the cap, and the remainder of the World Trade Center above it...We ran over to Vesey Street, and naturally there were sirens and everybody was coming. There were hundreds of people on Vesey Street, between Church and Broadway, so I told a bunch of uniformed officers to clear the spot...I heard a second explosion and looked up and saw the second tower with the same configuration of smoke and fire. I hadn't heard or seen a plane, but people were yelling that that's what it was. There were things spiraling down out of this dark cloud. I was like a deer caught in the headlights, staring up, and my sergeant said to me, 'Boss, you better get out of here. We better get out of here.'"

Let me know if you need more, there are plenty of them.

gamolon

26-05-2009, 10:36 PM

Here are people who HEARD the planes:

Rob Marchesano, a construction foreman, was working at a site at La Guardia Street and West Third. He heard a roar overhead, and saw a plane flying by, low and fast and at an angle that at first made him fear that it would hit his crane. He and his co-workers watched in astonishment and then horror as the plane approached the North Tower of the World Trade Center. He noticed that the plane seemed to tilt at the last second, as though someone wanted the wings to take out as many floors as possible

My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared.

I heard the loud roar of airplane engines outside. I turned in my chair so that I could see out the window. About three or four plane lengths away, I saw a huge jetliner coming at the building. I said, "That guy is low!" I spoke loud enough that my colleague sitting in the cubicle next to mine heard me. I saw the nose of the plane and then the smooth underbelly and one of the wings. It was just above me, a little bit to the right, and slightly bent so the wing over me was higher than the other wing. I couldn't see any windows or recognise any markings but I noticed the landing gear was up. It had just registered that this was no small plane when it entered our building two floors above me. –George Sleigh

I just came on that day during a 24. I relieved the chauffeur probably about 8:20 or so. We got a box on Church and Leonard of an odor of gas. So Engine 7 and Ladder 1, Battalion 1, responds. It turned out to be a false alarm. As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one. With that, everybody got on the rig. We started driving. FDNY firefighter Thomas Spinard

At 8:45, David Blackford was walking toward work in a downtown building. He heard a jet engine and glanced up. "I saw this plane screaming overhead," he said. "I thought it was too low. I thought it wasn't going to clear the tower."

On the morning of September 11th we were operating a box up on Church Street Near Canal. There was an odor of gas in the area. While we were out operating, we heard the first plane coming in. I turned around and I watched the plane crash into the north tower. FDNY firefighter Joseph Casaliggi

Victor Rao had just stepped off the elevator on the 11th floor of a building a block away at the corner of Murray and Church streets, humming a "silly Beatles song," when he heard a sound like a low-flying plane.

At roughly 8:45 AM, I heard the very loud sound of a plane approaching. The sound reminded me of the diving noise made by planes in old war films - a high pitched, mechanical whine. I knew immediately that a plane was about to crash. I the mini-blinds of my bedroom window in time to see a plane heading in my general direction. All I could think of was, "Oh my God, this plane is going to hit my building." The whining noise of the plane became defeaning as it sped by. I arrived at my dining room window just in time to see the plane smash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. I cannot explain my horror in seeing the fireball, in hearing the explosion, in feeling the ground shake and my building sway beneath my feet. Trina

About 9:03 a.m., as I was still looking north toward the Trade Center, I heard the very loud sound of a jet passenger plane flying very low behind me. I spun around and saw the plane directly above the Statue of Liberty and about to fly over our heads. Then, the plane avoided a high-rise just north of us and flew into the south side of the South Tower at about the 70th floor level. The huge plane disappeared into the even larger building, and a huge ball of flame and smoke erupted. –Mike Penzer

At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building. FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro

Upon that time I heard a plane roar. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low come right across us and with a loud, you know, the engines revved up, and I had mentioned to him, I had no idea that it was heading towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame, of fire coming up, and it was like disbelief, and he had gotten on the radio and notified the dispatcher another plane had struck the World Trade Center. FDNY firefighter Stephen Zasa

"While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned heard the sound of jet engines and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTC Tower #2. Following the impact an enormous explosion occurred causing debris to begin to fall down all around the WTC complex." PAPD PO James Hall

"We were standing with the chief and we heard somebody yell, 'There's another plane!'" Mosiello recalled. "Then it came into the range of my hearing. And it sounded louder and louder and louder and there it was ... it went right into the building, into (the south tower). Now we have a real problem on our hands. We have two buildings hit by planes. Thousands and thousands of people trapped." –FDNY Chief's assistant Steve Mosiello

There are many more where those came form. The problem with your quotes is that sound may have been blocked off from surrounding buildings. Some people in your quotes didn't even hear the explosion when the planes smashed into the building. So I guess that means that there wasn't any explosions either? Were those just holograms of explosions too?

abababba

26-05-2009, 11:23 PM

There are many more where those came form.

I'll call your bluff. Not because I'm sure you're wrong, but because I want to see more. Thanks.

And sources would be great, mine were all from "Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001"

gamolon

26-05-2009, 11:40 PM

I'll call your bluff. Not because I'm sure you're wrong, but because I want to see more. Thanks.

And sources would be great, mine were all from "Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001"

No problem. I will get more and will give you the source.

On a side note, do you understand that sound levels drop over distance? Or lessen when the source goes behind a wall/building/object? What about when someone is inside a building?

You also didn't answer my question. Does the fact that some of your sourced quotes from people mention that they didn't hear an explosion when the planes hit mean that there wasn't an explosion and that what people saw was hologram?

abababba

26-05-2009, 11:47 PM

You also didn't answer my question. Does the fact that some of your sourced quotes from people mention that they didn't hear an explosion when the planes hit mean that there wasn't an explosion and that what people saw was hologram?

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, that is correct.

And the hologram theory is only one possibility, I'm not sure if I support it above other ones, but people that only talk about witnesses should be aware of the possibility.

It would be interesting to consider whether witnesses could tell the difference between the sound of a missile and an approaching plane. Well, at least nobody said the explosion sounded like the closing of a file cabinet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X_VmeFXG80

abababba

26-05-2009, 11:52 PM

On a side note, do you understand that sound levels drop over distance? Or lessen when the source goes behind a wall/building/object? What about when someone is inside a building?

Yes, but a plane take off at 200 feet is supposed to be 140 decibels (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/620). What would that imply about a plane at 1000 feet?

120, is supposed to be something like the front row of a rock concert and 10 points on the scale is equivalent to about a doubling of loudness.

bryan

27-05-2009, 12:33 AM

Yes, but a plane take off at 200 feet is supposed to be 140 decibels (http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/620). What would that imply about a plane at 1000 feet?

120, is supposed to be something like the front row of a rock concert and 10 points on the scale is equivalent to about a doubling of loudness.

According to campaigners opposed to the expansion of Stansted Airport, life will be made intolerable for people across four counties. This is not just next to the airport, when the planes are landing and taking off.

Another thing to bear in mind is that regulations will force pilots to make as little noise as possible while they are flying low. Even so, teachers in schools have to pause while jets fly overhead.

DESTROYING QUALITY OF LIFE ACROSS THE REGION
Under both expansion scenarios, the expansion being proposed for Stansted would make life intolerable for many local residents across East Anglia, particularly Essex, Herts, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. This is because:

Noise from more and more aircraft flying overhead would affect vast swathes of the region.
Night flights would inevitably increase.
Children at school would suffer even more interruption to their learning, with ever more frequent interruptions - 'jet pauses' - as planes passed overhead.
Even those who are currently unaffected by noise could soon find they are suffering as a result of new flight paths which are at present being developed just to cope with the existing aircraft using Stansted - never mind any expansion if it were to be allowed.

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/images/photos/noise/Noise_Leaflet_Cover_210x157.jpg

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/index.html

bryan

27-05-2009, 12:59 AM

Here are people who HEARD the planes:

There are many more where those came form.

In the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, allegedly based on CCTV camera footage and eyewitness statements, the following paragraph describes the suicide bombers on their way to London:

07.40: The London King’s Cross train leaves Luton station. There are conflicting accounts of their behaviour on the train. Some witnesses report noisy conversations, another believes he saw 2 of them standing silently by a set of train doors. The 4 stood out a bit from usual commuters due to their luggage and casual clothes, but not enough to cause suspicion. This was the beginning of the summer tourist period and Luton Station serves Luton Airport.

It was later confirmed by the rail company that on the morning of the bombings this train had been cancelled. In other words, the police managed to find witnesses who had travelled on the same non-existent train as the bombers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_06_narrative.pdf

dave52

27-05-2009, 01:01 AM

I am most deeply apologetic.

Jase, Nothing is worth jeapardising a relationship over mate - absolutely nothing. I appreciated the offer, if things don't work out - that is absolutely cool. Really - it's no problem whatsoever, please keep yourself and your loved ones happy - I am not important.

Take care Jase...!

ringwind

27-05-2009, 03:16 AM

http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/01/excellent-article-on-nukes-at-wtc.html

thelyran

27-05-2009, 06:40 AM

Jase, Nothing is worth jeapardising a relationship over mate - absolutely nothing. I appreciated the offer, if things don't work out - that is absolutely cool. Really - it's no problem whatsoever, please keep yourself and your loved ones happy - I am not important.

Take care Jase...!

...hahahaha...she's here reading with me now,going by her smile,you made a new friend,and I'm not as quite interesting...Hmmm,I'll keep an eye on my PM system,just in cae;):D...thankyou for being so kind and your usual cool self,regards,your mate Jase:)

secondsun

27-05-2009, 08:14 AM

Jase, Nothing is worth jeapardising a relationship over mate

...Dave!... cant you keep in touch with your mates by PM?... there is enough off topic trashing in this thread already!... cheers!

...and to put it back on track!

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

...this thread is about what caused the two gashes if no planes struck the Towers?

bryan

27-05-2009, 11:51 AM

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

...this thread is about what caused the two gashes if no planes struck the Towers?

There's an anomaly with this picture that I brought up once before. The quality of the image in the zoomed-in box is far better than it is in the main part of the photo. If you zoom in yourself on the same area, you can see how grainy it is.

Where is the original hi-res version that was used for the zoom-in?

secondsun

27-05-2009, 11:55 AM

Where is the original hi-res version that was used for the zoom-in?

..on my hard drive!

...there is no anomaly!... the insert is actual pixels!.. levels corrected and sharpened slightly!... thats all!... no further conspiracy Bryan!

...edit!.. a copy is on my hard drive!

bryan

27-05-2009, 12:12 PM

..on my hard drive!

...there is no anomaly!... the insert is actual pixels!.. levels corrected and sharpened slightly!... thats all!... no further conspiracy Bryan!

...edit!.. a copy is on my hard drive!

So can you post an image of the rest of the gash in the same quality as the insert?

secondsun

27-05-2009, 12:17 PM

So can you post an image of the rest of the gash in the same quality as the insert?

...are you serious!?!... actual pixels is exactly what it says!.... actual pixels!... it would be just the same as already posted!... why are acting thick!?!

bryan

27-05-2009, 01:58 PM

...are you serious!?!... actual pixels is exactly what it says!.... actual pixels!... it would be just the same as already posted!... why are acting thick!?!

Did you put together this composite image or did you find it with the insert already inserted?

At first glance, the insert appears to be a x2 magnification of part of the main image. But if you try to recreate it, there's no way you can get the same quality. I don't see how the insert could have been taken from the background picture.

gamolon

27-05-2009, 04:02 PM

gamolon

27-05-2009, 04:14 PM

gamolon

27-05-2009, 04:23 PM

In the Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, allegedly based on CCTV camera footage and eyewitness statements, the following paragraph describes the suicide bombers on their way to London:

It was later confirmed by the rail company that on the morning of the bombings this train had been cancelled. In other words, the police managed to find witnesses who had travelled on the same non-existent train as the bombers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_06_narrative.pdf

Wow, you are VERY clever!

:rolleyes:

By posting this little excerpt you have indirectly tried to refute the evidence I posted of eyewitness accounts of people hearing a jet by implying that they may have been mistaken?

The fact remains that people heard the planes whether you like it or not.

gamolon

27-05-2009, 04:26 PM

There's an anomaly with this picture that I brought up once before. The quality of the image in the zoomed-in box is far better than it is in the main part of the photo. If you zoom in yourself on the same area, you can see how grainy it is.

Where is the original hi-res version that was used for the zoom-in?

Have you or anyone else ever explained how the aluminum cladding on the perimeter columns was dented INWARD where the two red arrows are pointing? How did they do that? Men hanging from the window washer cables and baseball bats?

abababba

27-05-2009, 04:52 PM

Have you or anyone else ever explained how the aluminum cladding on the perimeter columns was dented INWARD where the two red arrows are pointing? How did they do that? Men hanging from the window washer cables and baseball bats?

drone, missile etc.

abababba

27-05-2009, 04:58 PM

This is wrong from what I can see.

I just looked this up. Take of of a 767 is between 81 and 92 decibels at 450m or 1476ft. At 200 ft, 767s would be between 98 and 109 decibels. Below are the links for a distance/decibel formula and the PDF/Excel documents for noise level studys of US planes/helicopters.

Keep in mind the garbage disposals and dishwashers run around 80 decibels and a bsy urban street or food blender runs at about 90 decibels.

http://www.mcsquared.com/dbframe.htm
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/0C7E20B642C8F8FC86256E3700761828

The first calculator just shows there is a 14 decibel drop when going from 200 feet to 1000 feet away from the source.

I need a key or legend to read the second one because its just a bunch of short acronyms with numbers.

We also need to know the difference in sound between a 500+ MPH jet and the actual speed of takeoff.

gamolon

27-05-2009, 05:08 PM

The first calculator just shows there is a 14 decibel drop when going from 200 feet to 1000 feet away from the source.

I need a key or legend to read the second one because its just a bunch of short acronyms with numbers.

We also need to know the difference in sound between a 500+ MPH jet and the actual speed of takeoff.

The second link has other links to Excel spreadsheets that contain the data.

gamolon

27-05-2009, 05:09 PM

drone, missile etc.

So a drone or missile can produce that, but a plane wing cannot?

gamolon

27-05-2009, 05:12 PM

The first calculator just shows there is a 14 decibel drop when going from 200 feet to 1000 feet away from the source.

I need a key or legend to read the second one because its just a bunch of short acronyms with numbers.

We also need to know the difference in sound between a 500+ MPH jet and the actual speed of takeoff.

Here's the link to the page where you can get the spreadsheets.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/noise_levels/

mister x

27-05-2009, 05:26 PM

I'm not sure if these vids have already been posted as I haven't the time to check properly, so I'll pop them up here in case they haven't because they're worth the watch.

911 solved in 42seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWhQfwph7-M

Impossible speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yScyFj6EYH8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgLr9rysGJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeXvMblFwO0

False witnesses to 911 - Actor witnesses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxczPkwd1Dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azURaXAe2mY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

11th angle camera of the pentagon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls

The moving bridge of 911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0nY5n8cL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoaxSLJTdeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQnDAOoRNg

FOX admits no planes were used in 911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIOSHh7bSzM&feature=related

The question now is not if 911 was an inside job, but rather when the perpertrators of this 'heiness act against their own people' will be prosecute?

abababba

27-05-2009, 05:29 PM

So a drone or missile can produce that, but a plane wing cannot?

No, they all can.

gamolon

27-05-2009, 05:31 PM

I'll call your bluff. Not because I'm sure you're wrong, but because I want to see more. Thanks.

And sources would be great, mine were all from "Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001"

Here is the link to more of the eyewitness accounts.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

Many of them have their source linked after the account.

abababba

27-05-2009, 05:34 PM

Here's the link to the page where you can get the spreadsheets.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/noise_levels/

I was just asking for a translation that says what the different data is rather than more data. All I see is letters and number with no key or legend saying what is what. Can you point me to an explanation?

gamolon

27-05-2009, 05:39 PM

No, they all can.

They can?

Can you please show me the evidence you have to make this assumption? Can you provide me the dimensions of said missile and drone that would match the hole shape and size? Can you please provide me your evidence that you are using to show me the wingspan of your missile that which shows the wing could have reached the aluminum facade and create those dents?

I'm calling your bluff now. You're not assuming these things are you?

gamolon

27-05-2009, 05:43 PM

I was just asking for a translation that says what the different data is rather than more data. All I see is letters and number with no key or legend saying what is what. Can you point me to an explanation?

In the PDF document ac36-1h, which can be downloaded from here...
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/0C7E20B642C8F8FC86256E3700761828

...there is Appendix 12 which gives the meaning of all the abbreviations. It also gives the formula used to derive the numbers.

Is that what you are looking for?

abababba

27-05-2009, 06:57 PM

They can?

Can you please show me the evidence you have to make this assumption? Can you provide me the dimensions of said missile and drone that would match the hole shape and size? Can you please provide me your evidence that you are using to show me the wingspan of your missile that which shows the wing could have reached the aluminum facade and create those dents?

I'm calling your bluff now. You're not assuming these things are you?

You are talking about two cut columns, which can be made by a variety of external objects, missile or drone large enough to cut two columns. The large whole would be made by objects plus additional explosions from inside the tower.

gamolon

27-05-2009, 08:29 PM

You are talking about two cut columns, which can be made by a variety of external objects, missile or drone large enough to cut two columns. The large whole would be made by objects plus additional explosions from inside the tower.

Come on abababba. The term "variety of external objects" doesn't cut it. You know that and I know that. If I used the term "variety of external objects" in my evidence and descriptions, you guys would be all over me like ugly on an ape.

Also, 'missile or drone large enough" doesn't cut it either. If that's all the information that you can provide me then you are obviously making very large assumptions and have no evidence to back your claims whatsoever.

I find it funny that you can scrutinize the piss out the official story, but find it exceptable to use general terms and assumptions when providing your own information.

So again. Please provide me the the information you have regarding the type of missile or drones, number of drones or missiles used, the type, amount, and location of explosives used to generate that damage pattern. I would like to see how the last two columns in the photo (which, by the way, are not cut) have the aluminum cladding dented inward, and have an increasing amount of damage towards the center of the impact.

Please provide the information you have that supports your claim or admit that you are just speculating at this point.

It's the same old story. I try and get down to the details of your theories and claims and when I do you guys leave much to be desired as far as proof/evidence is concerned.

I swear it's like you guys read the stuff you want to read and if it supports your view/beliefs, you go no further to try and see if there is an alternate explanation. Or, you get asked the tough questions and just ignore them. Examples below:

Bryan: Claims that the planes could not have penetrated the perimeter columns. I asked that he provide the calculations to prove that the columns would resist a 767 smashing intop them. I have yet to see those calculations. Wouldn't that be a great way to prove the official story wrong or right?

Christophera: I have asked him to provide the basis for his claims which is his documentary. All you get are wild stories about how the video was intercepted en route to him. I have asked him to provide me a scaled floor plan of the lobby showing that everything would fit inside as he claims. I have yet to see that.

Kevin82: Starts a thread about William Rodriguez hearing an explosion before a plane hit the towers. People also said in that thread that it was not jet fuel fireball. I provided evidence to the contrary and the thread dies.

Abababba: I ask you for your evidence that supports your claims that a missile or drone could have created that hole in the tower and all I get back is "a variety of external objects, missile, or drone". What type of missile or drone? How many? What external objects? Very vague, like you're not sure. Are you?

abababba

27-05-2009, 09:01 PM

Abababba: I ask you for your evidence that supports your claims that a missile or drone could have created that hole in the tower and all I get back is "a variety of external objects, missile, or drone". What type of missile or drone? How many? What external objects? Very vague, like you're not sure. Are you?

I don't know what hit the tower, I do not have enough evidence.

I know it was not two boeing 767s. Do you understand?

gamolon

27-05-2009, 10:03 PM

I don't know what hit the tower, I do not have enough evidence.

I know it was not two boeing 767s. Do you understand?

Yup. I understand completely now. You have no evidence for any alternative theory and just come in here to throw crap on the wall and see what ends up sticking as long as it doesn't agree with the official story.

All this evidence of planes hitting the towers and all you can do is try and find little details to try and exploit, but it never works out for you does it.

Why is it that I have never changed my story or evidence, but you guys go from holograms to faked videos to thermite to thermate to thermite fuses to explosives to concrete cores to drones to missiles, etc. Your theories are always changing because you always hit dead ends.

And you KNOW it wasn't two 767s because of what? No claims of no sound from the jets? I found accounts that say there was sound. I fireball could not have gone down the elevator shafts and ignited at the bottom? Not only is there math that proves this possible, but testimony about the smell of fuel/kerosene all the was doen the tower. Funny how that thread died.

abababba

27-05-2009, 11:51 PM

And you KNOW it wasn't two 767s because of what? .

Nose out, a hollow largely aluminum nose making it through 2 steel and glass walls and the interior of the building and coming out the other side intact
No deceleration on impact, no turning or slowing down as there should be in a crash scenario.
Plane just melds into building without noticeable debris falling off on the impact side
Not the right paint job on the plane and different colors in different videos
No United logo and No word "United Airlines" on the side of the plane, even though satellite pictures let us "see" inside the cockpit.
Most of the live videos just show black/gray blobs
no wake vortex in the dust
Flight path reported by the government contradicts video and eye witness evidence, the government says power dive from radar data and eye witnesses say straight horizontal approach.
NBC video that shows not a plane but some sort of object only visible because it blocks out the background, with black object clearly added in for the evening news.
Fade to black implies a high probability of foreknowledge of fake planes
The engine found was identified as that of a 737 not a 767
The plane doesn't explode on impact as in other crashes but goes almost entirely in the building before the large explosion.
Live TV reporting includes many eye witnesses of a small plane or a missile from people at or near the scene
The plane in the Hezarkhani shot appears to be both in front and behind the foreground building
Many of the network shots line up in the exact position so that their cameras will not see the surface of the building that the plane impacts
The Luc Courchesne shot shows a plane with extremely short wings even though the camera man is right below the towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxBopxCBUzs&feature=related

Those are some basic ones off the top of my head.

I think the evidence for TV and video fakery is even stronger, but that only indirectly supports the argument for no 767's.

gamolon,

I have tried to never insult you or question your motives. Try to keep the arguments to the facts instead of personal attacks. Thanks.

abababba

27-05-2009, 11:56 PM

Trying to post Luc Courchesne shot again, I'll break the link in case its only an issue with the forum.

http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=wxBopxCBUzs&feature=related

secondsun

28-05-2009, 04:53 AM

Did you put together this composite image or did you find it with the insert already inserted?

At first glance, the insert appears to be a x2 magnification of part of the main image. But if you try to recreate it, there's no way you can get the same quality. I don't see how the insert could have been taken from the background picture.

...yes!... i put it together in PS`!

...THE INSERT IS ACTUAL PIXELS!!!...not magnified in any way!

...this crop has been layered over a reduced image resolution of the main image!

...its a bit like!?.... taking your sofa out through the window then putting a smaller window in the wall...the sofa wont go back in through the window!

...probably not the bast analogy but i know your just pretending!

ringwind

28-05-2009, 04:46 PM

http://straightouttadenver.com/?p=583

gamolon

29-05-2009, 02:45 PM

gamolon,

I have tried to never insult you or question your motives. Try to keep the arguments to the facts instead of personal attacks. Thanks.

You know what abababba? You are correct. My apologies. Let's stick to the facts. Let's take two of your claims and discuss them. Please provide your links/photos/information that you are basing your two following claims on. I would like to be on the same page as you when we discuss.

Nose out, a hollow largely aluminum nose making it through 2 steel and glass walls and the interior of the building and coming out the other side intact

The engine found was identified as that of a 737 not a 767

matrix911

29-05-2009, 04:46 PM

[QUOTE=abababba;1014836]The Luc Courchesne shot shows a plane with extremely short wings even though the camera man is right below the towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxBopxCBUzs&feature=relatedYou know what abababba? You are correct. My apologies. Let's stick to the facts. Let's take two of your claims and discuss them. Please provide your links/photos/information that you are basing your two following claims on. I would like to be on the same page as you when we discuss.

any comments on the above clip galamon? :cool:

here, I'll put it in more perspective for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTiDldD1gmM

This little clip is one reason why more and more are beginning to wake up to what the NRPT is really about.

Of course the only real argument Real planers have against this is that these cannot be from the original amateur vids and are faked etc.

IF THEY AREN'T "FAKED", THEN THIS IS JUST MORE DAMNING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING NRPT AND A HUGE SMOKING GUN.

so the important question to ponder is which of these vids which PLANERS use to support PLANES and NRPrs use to support NO PLANES, is fake.

but then there's a paradox to that question isn't there?

the problem/paradox I see is that whether the above clip has been faked or not doesn't negate and disprove what other "versions" of the Luc Courchesne vid show... or iow, find a version that you believe/claim is ORIGINAL (or that PLANERS and/or the MEDIA have shown,, which I contend is one of the 3 shots in the above clip) and tell me why you think you there's nothing suspect in regards to fakery or how any being faked even matters since it none show what any reasonable person knows is a REAL boeing 767.

I submit it doesn't matter which of the Luc Courchesne shots are shown... elements of fakery are undeniable which means whatever version or clip we examine, those with one shred of intelligence can see FAKERY and what is most likely a MISSLE.

so where is the so-called original or where did it come from?

have you investigated/researched this Luc Courchesne video and where it came from? Or whether it was said to have ever been confiscated by the feds and then released as has been the case OVER AND OVER from so-called AMATEUR VIDS?

Can you honestly say this video (not to mention all others that have been debated) clearly shows anything remotely similar to a REAL commerical boeing let alone a REAL BOEING 767?

gamolon

29-05-2009, 05:37 PM

[QUOTE=gamolon;1017651]

any comments on the above clip galamon? :cool:

here, I'll put it in more perspective for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTiDldD1gmM

This little clip is one reason why more and more are beginning to wake up to what the NRPT is really about.

Of course the only real argument Real planers have against this is that these cannot be from the original amateur vids and are faked etc.

IF THEY AREN'T "FAKED", THEN THIS IS JUST MORE DAMNING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING NRPT AND A HUGE SMOKING GUN.

so the important question to ponder is which of these vids which PLANERS use to support PLANES and NRPrs use to support NO PLANES, is fake.

but then there's a paradox to that question isn't there?

the problem/paradox I see is that whether the above clip has been faked or not doesn't negate and disprove what other "versions" of the Luc Courchesne vid show... or iow, find a version that you believe/claim is ORIGINAL (or that PLANERS and/or the MEDIA have shown,, which I contend is one of the 3 shots in the above clip) and tell me why you think you there's nothing suspect in regards to fakery or how any being faked even matters since it none show what any reasonable person knows is a boeing 767.

I submit it doesn't matter which of the Luc Courchesne shots are shown... elements of fakery are undeniable which means whatever version or clip we examine, those with one shred of intelligence can see FAKERY and what is most likely a MISSLE.

so where is the so-called original or where did it come from?

have you investigated/researched this Luc Courchesne video and where it came from? Or whether it was said to have ever been confiscated by the feds and then released as has been the case OVER AND OVER from so-called AMATEUR VIDS?

Can you honestly say this video (not to mention all others that have been debated) clearly shows anything remotely similar to a commerical boeing let alone a BOEING 767?

Why don't you think it's a 767? What aspects in the video prove to you that it cannot possibly be a 767?

gamolon

29-05-2009, 05:55 PM

[QUOTE=gamolon;1017651]

any comments on the above clip galamon? :cool:

here, I'll put it in more perspective for you:

I did an experiment for you. I took a screenshot of the video you linked to:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtcplane5.jpg
I then took that screenshot into paint and made it 50% smaller horizontally:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtcplane6.jpg
Looks alot like the screenshot I took of abababba's linked video:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtcplane2.jpg

Looks like someone took a clip of the original video and squeezed it horizontally. So what? It still shows the same thing. As I asked you above, what aspects of the video make you believe it's NOT a 767?

gamolon

29-05-2009, 06:13 PM

The Luc Courchesne shot shows a plane with extremely short wings even though the camera man is right below the towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxBopxCBUzs&feature=related

This is also wrong. The cameraman was not "right below the towers". The cameraman was south on West Street about .23 miles.

gamolon

29-05-2009, 07:03 PM

The Luc Courchesne shot shows a plane with extremely short wings

Short wings? How about the wings are foreshortened because the plane was tilted?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtc2plane.jpg

If you were on the ground, looking at a 767 from the side, would the wings look long as if you were looking from beneath the plane?

matrix911

29-05-2009, 07:13 PM

[QUOTE=matrix911;1017784]
Looks like someone took a clip of the original video and squeezed it horizontally. So what? It still shows the same thing. As I asked you above, what aspects of the video make you believe it's NOT a 767?

Ahhh,, so now its the "someone took a clip of the original video and *squeezed* it horizontally" logic... :rolleyes: mmmmkay

and to answer your final point, i've re-edited my post and inserted the word "REAL" in bold underline which I realize now I should have done to begin with.

so now, how about a more thorough analysis and response to the rest of the points i made?

or are we going to go through the screen-shot battle again?

gamolon

29-05-2009, 07:16 PM

[QUOTE=gamolon;1017856]

Ahhh,, so now its the "someone took a clip of the original video and *squeezed* it horizontally" logic... :rolleyes: mmmmkay

and to answer your final point, i've re-edited my post and inserted the word "REAL" in bold underline which I realize now I should have done to begin with.

so now, how about a more thorough analysis and response to the rest of the points i made?

or are we going to go through the screen-shot battle again?

And I asked you what in those videos leads you to believe that there were no 767s so that we can discuss further.

gamolon

29-05-2009, 07:23 PM

[QUOTE=gamolon;1017856]Ahhh,, so now its the "someone took a clip of the original video and *squeezed* it horizontally" logic... :rolleyes: mmmmkay

You mean to tell me that someone couldn't have extracted that video and made a clip out of it foro their own purpose of explaining their point of view?

My point being, you think that one video is fake and the other isn't based on what? The persepective difference?

I just did it with paint in about a minute. You act as though it's not possible.

matrix911

29-05-2009, 07:44 PM

[QUOTE=matrix911;1017995]

You mean to tell me that someone couldn't have extracted that video and made a clip out of it foro their own purpose of explaining their point of view?

My point being, you think that one video is fake and the other isn't based on what? The persepective difference?

I just did it with paint in about a minute. You act as though it's not possible.

What I like most about your reply is the fact it actually supports the fakery argument and how you point out how "easy" it is to do... so why is it such a problem for most to consider the media fakery and nrpt arguments?

Also you don't seem to understand what i'm saying about the fakery in the luc vid... the overall point I was making was it doesn't matter which clips are examined since all have serious anomalies which go beyond mere pixelation and compression issues or even "distance" which have little relevance to the anomalies occurring which are clear in the same way its clear in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaX21jt683w

and that defies newtons law of motion.

Now, again, you haven't addressed my other points. Feel free anytime.

gamolon

29-05-2009, 07:53 PM

What I like most about your reply is the fact it actually supports the fakery argument.

Wow. Do you twist crap around to try and support your claims. My reply in no way supports fakery. Why? Because I didn't add, adjust, or alter anything in the video to make something appear in it that wasn't in the original.

Do you even know what fakery means?

Also you don't seem to understand what i'm saying about the fakery... the overall point I was making was it doesn't matter which clips are examined since all have serious anomalies which go beyond mere pixelation and compression issues or even "distance" which have little relevance to the anomalies occurring which are clear in the same way its clear in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl99456.swf&video_id=RaX21jt683w&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread465572/pg1&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/RaX21jt683w/hqdefault.jpg&sk=Kt3B_qO1qcKyr-9cvduHhyZtYb6Ubyn6C&fexp=903301&cr=US

and that defies newtons law of motion.

What "anomolies" in the previously linked Luc videos are you talking about? I have asked you three times already.

matrix911

29-05-2009, 09:40 PM

[QUOTE=matrix911;1017995]
And I asked you what in those videos leads you to believe that there were no 767s so that we can discuss further.

Wow. Do you twist crap around to try and support your claims. My reply in no way supports fakery. Why? Because I didn't add, adjust, or alter anything in the video to make something appear in it that wasn't in the original. Do you even know what fakery means?

What "anomolies" in the previously linked Luc videos are you talking about? I have asked you three times already.

first, where did i say anything about fakery not being possible? Where did i say one is fake and the other isn't? You obviously still don't seem to understand the basic issue and point i was making.
so oh well.

and aside from tons of threads i and others have posted addressing your question?

for starters...

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/cheney/

and then theres the rest of 911researches investigation...

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/nunez/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/gedeon/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/spell/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/nosedive/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/structural/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/speed/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/witness/

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/afterward/

ringwind

02-06-2009, 05:44 AM

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

secondsun

02-06-2009, 07:38 AM

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

...in regards to your link ringwind!

Thursday, May 21, 2009
111 Reasons Why I Am a No-Planer...

4) No wing tips breaking off in 2nd hit videos
5) No broken off wing tip sections photographed or reported being recovered

...what do you think caused the gashes previously high lighted if it was not a plane?

ringwind

02-06-2009, 01:50 PM

Anonymous Physicist has said that no-planes is true but a distraction from the nuking of the WTC.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/

9/11 Cancer

There are extremely high rates of rare cancers among first responders, only explained by radiation poisoning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

secondsun

03-06-2009, 07:40 AM

^^^.... another no planer with selective hearing!

slartibartfast

03-06-2009, 10:21 AM

9/11 Cancer

There are extremely high rates of rare cancers among first responders, only explained by radiation poisoning.

Note to self, must remember. Cancer only caused by radiation.

ringwind

03-06-2009, 07:58 PM

Watch this video ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

matrix911

03-06-2009, 08:33 PM

Watch this video ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

As I've said, Judy Woods research is ahead of its time.

DEW and MICRO NUKES were involved in the demolition of the WTC towers.

In the future, this truth will be recognized and embraced as science advances and more people wake up, do real research and are not afraid to educate themselves on all the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o2Sdi1O1_Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_H3XzLUijA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxRpYpVL9bE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxoi31dwhBU

clint web

03-06-2009, 08:59 PM

Some of the videos may be authentic if holograms were used.

Ermmmm, holograms?

A little Twilight zone don't you think?

It might have been easier just to use real planes.

That would be akin to you or I building a robot for the sole purpose of it going to the shop to buy bread just once rather than going ourselves.

ringwind

03-06-2009, 09:43 PM

Focus on "9/11 Cancers"

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

secondsun

08-06-2009, 05:13 AM

...a bump for any new lurkers!

...did this?

http://i39.tinypic.com/x3bjtj.jpg http://i42.tinypic.com/2z7fsqb.jpg

...cause this?

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

...and more specifically!...what could have caused the two gashes if it was`nt the wing tip of that plane?

dave52

08-06-2009, 08:32 AM

An opposing bump...

It couldn't have done as the tv footage shows the wings passing through the facade, undamaged, without slowing, buckling or showing any resistance what-so-ever.

stannrodd

08-06-2009, 10:14 AM

As I've said, Judy Woods research is ahead of its time.

Good place for it .. totally irrelevant to the present .. and out of step with it ..

Stann :D

matrix911

09-06-2009, 01:49 AM

totally irrelevant to the present ..
and out of step with it ..

an assertion which totally ignores facts and evidence that not only prove
otherwise, but originates from someone with a less advanced state of consciousness and mindset not much different from those who for several years laughed at the idea 911 was an inside job.

The incredible irony is how MOST of those who laughed at or called truthers irrelevant etc, are the very ones who now support and agree 911 was an inside job.

So as new evidence is exposed, scrutinized or examined and more begin to do real research and wake up, the global consciousness surrounding the truth about NPT and JW will only become more clear and validated, But These ideas only appear to be out of step and irrelevant to those in a time period that hasn't been properly educated on or advanced far enough intellectually yet to understand more complex theories, evidence and how deep the rabbit hole really goes.

You must be one of those who would have chosen the blue pill eh stann?

secondsun

09-06-2009, 01:30 PM

...Judy Woods mental state and integrity is questionable!... as is the mental state and integrity of the people who follow her!

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Sherlock Holmes

ringwind

16-06-2009, 04:32 PM

Watch this video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

secondsun

16-06-2009, 04:38 PM

Watch this video ...
...no!...not until you tell me what you think caused the two gashes if it was`nt a plane!

ringwind

16-06-2009, 09:04 PM

http://911overview.blogspot.com/

dave52

17-06-2009, 12:41 AM

...no!...not until you tell me what you think caused the two gashes if it was`nt a plane!

Honest answer is, I do not know. But, it wasn't the plane in the video or pictures as they are fake.

Some clever explosives or some future tech.

ringwind

17-06-2009, 04:39 AM

radiation-induced cancers.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/06/30-reasons-for-many-small-fission-nukes.html

stannrodd

17-06-2009, 04:59 AM

Honest answer is, I do not know. But, it wasn't the plane in the video or pictures as they are fake.

Some clever explosives or some future tech.

Your "honest" answer ...

I do not know. .... cannot then exclude .. the plane in the video or pictures .... by simply stating they are fake ... and then offering some irrelevant speculation about clever explosives or some future (not present) tech.

It's not an honest answer at all .. it's simply bullshit avoidance of the obvious facts.

Stann

ringwind

17-06-2009, 05:09 AM

Watch this video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

secondsun

17-06-2009, 06:22 AM

Watch this video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

...this thread is as titled!!!... please stop littering this thread with your nuke links!.. start your own thread!

stannrodd

17-06-2009, 07:23 AM

Watch this video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

Ringworm,

The only thing that this video does is distort the reality of a building collapse.

It might look like something else ... but it doesn't mean it is a relevant argument.

Lots of things look like mushrooms (especially mushrooms and toad stools) .. .. but it doesn't mean they are atomic bombs.

Get a grip and stop pushing your wheel barrow of radioactive manure thru this thread. Open your own thread and see how far you get.

Stann
ps it's almost called spamming isn't it SS ??

dave52

17-06-2009, 10:18 AM

It's not an honest answer at all .. it's simply bullshit avoidance of the obvious facts.

Says you.... ;)

Stann, really - it is my honest answer. I honestly believe that the plane photos and videos are fake, therefore I don't believe that a plane caused the damage to the side of the WTC.

I honestly don't know how it was done, but I don't believe it was a plane.

ringwind

17-06-2009, 02:45 PM

Google "Quadri-Track ZCT"