Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cap on February 17, 2007, 07:58:52 PM
-
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355
25 October 2006
The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories
Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most prevalent myths are:
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
* Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
* Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
* Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.
* Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
* Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
* For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article on the WTC collapses, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5.
2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”
Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:
* The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
* The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
* Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
* Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel. See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
* For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.
3) The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.
* Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they can only be controlled from the flight deck of the aircraft.
* Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls. All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
* For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?”
4) United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.
* The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane. The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact. See full transcript.
* The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed, as recently released tapes demonstrate.
* The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93. See article on tapes.
* Listen to the 45-second message left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine. Click on the “Lyles” file or the phone icon in the bottom left corner of the flight 93 page.
* For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,”pages 13-14.
5) World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
* This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters. For more details, see 9/11 Revealed?
* Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery – not using explosives.
* Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives.
* For more information, see ImplosionWorld article, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, part 5.
6) Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.
* The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
* For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
* For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.
7) Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.
* It appears from media reports that some 10-15% of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
* The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred. This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
* For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”
8) Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.
* Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
* In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids ….”
* In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed …. I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
* For more information, see “Al Qaeda and September 11th.”
-
Let me see...
1. I'll skip the tower part as that's always the most "shaky" conspiracy theory and go from there.
2. The manufacturer of the engines that would have been aboard that American Airlines flight have adamently denied that their engine parts were retrieved from the wreckage... Also, the hole as was left in the pentagon does not even remotely seem to be the correct size for an airplane of that size as there is absolutely no visible aircraft yet also no point where we see wing impressions in the Pentagon either.
3. I don't know about remote controls... whether or not they were used, isn't of great importance.
4. I do not know what shot down Flight 93... however it has been stated by the Coroner of the county in question that he stopped being coroner as of 15 minutes on the scene as there were absolutely NO bodies to be found. There is also interest as to why there were two flights which landed in cleveland (maybe chicago I can't remember) that day, but for some reason only 1 was ever talked about although eyewitness accounts state that a second flight (which followed the path of flight 93) landed there was no mention of it.
5. We all know that many people use the same terms when the eventual outcome is the same... pulling it in either nomenclature would equate to the building coming down.
6. I don't buy the faxed "options" line... That's just convenient... sorry.
7. I don't have a clue what being "jew" has to do with this at all.
8. Many people (including members of the government) are saying that Osama has been dead for quite some time... It's also quite apparent to video tape footage that many of the scenes in videos where Osama has been stating, "we did it", are NOT Osama Bin Laden. It looks nothing like the guy.
-
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355
25 October 2006
The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories
Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most prevalent myths are:
240's going to up all night now! ;)
thanks cap ;D
-
Yawn.
If there was nothing to hide, they would have done the most extensive investigation in human history on this - the biggest attack in American history.
Instead, they had the f'king gall to FIGHT AN INVESTIGATION.
This speaks volumes. And no offense cap, but if people will have the audacity to knock down towers full of people, they'll probably have the audacity to put up websites with misleading information to try to slow the turn of say, the whole world realizing it was an inside job.
-
the audacity to put up websites with misleading information
do you actually read what you type?
ohh brother ::)
-
no, but some people take what they read on a website as gospel becuase it quells their fears.
look at the videos, look at the evidence. If this was really the most incredible physics day of all time - as it would have had to have been for all 3 to fall as they didn - it's very odd Bush fought an investigation.
Wouldn't you agree?
-
no, but some people take what they read on a website as gospel becuase it quells their fears.
look at the videos, look at the evidence. If this was really the most incredible physics day of all time - as it would have had to have been for all 3 to fall as they didn - it's very odd Bush fought an investigation.
Wouldn't you agree?
Please direct yourself to the bold statements.
-
evidence = video, statements, actions. Bush told congress there would be no investigation. He fought it for 441 days until the 911 widows marched on the white house lawn. You know this, right?
-
evidence = video, statements, actions. Bush told congress there would be no investigation. He fought it for 441 days until the 911 widows marched on the white house lawn. You know this, right?
Well when you have scientists on both sides saying the opposite thing it really provides for more of a stalemate than a win for you. (insert 240 comment/response about propoganda) Things like "pulling" when kh3000 defined that term and my post backed up it doesn't mean to blow up the building. The exact opposite of a controlled demo in terms of bottom to top, whereas the buildings went top to bottm.
-
Just looking at wtc7 there, how in hell does this debunk controlled demo... I'm all for a real debunking, where is it?
Let's getterdone!!!!!!!!!!! :-\ This ain't it and the popular mechanics work by Michael Chirtoff's cousin insn't going to be seen without seeing the bias behind where it came from....
5) World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.
* This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters. For more details, see 9/11 Revealed?
* Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery – not using explosives.
* Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives.
* For more information, see ImplosionWorld article, the National Institute of Science and Technology’s “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” and Popular Mechanics, part 5.
-
Well when you have scientists on both sides saying the opposite thing it really provides for more of a stalemate than a win for you. (insert 240 comment/response about propoganda) Things like "pulling" when kh3000 defined that term and my post backed up it doesn't mean to blow up the building. The exact opposite of a controlled demo in terms of bottom to top, whereas the buildings went top to bottm.
cap - I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to show the need for a second investigation. An independent investigation. Four of the ten members of the 911 Commission want one. So do I. They were pretty crippled in that investigation, if you've looked into it.
I just want a real investigation where this time, the firefighters CAN testify about bombs in the basement. Where the metal from the towers IS tested for explosives. I don't want anyone convicted based on our lame internet arguments - I just want a real investigation, like they would do with any crime.
-
cap - I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to show the need for a second investigation. An independent investigation. Four of the ten members of the 911 Commission want one. So do I. They were pretty crippled in that investigation, if you've looked into it.
I just want a real investigation where this time, the firefighters CAN testify about bombs in the basement. Where the metal from the towers IS tested for explosives. I don't want anyone convicted based on our lame internet arguments - I just want a real investigation, like they would do with any crime.
I'm gonna punch you right in the baby maker. :o ;D
At least I know you and I can always debate. ;D
You are helping me improve my argumentation skills, thanks Rob.
-
controlled demolition companies are con-men!!!... who knew, all this time they only needed a cleanup crew ;D In light of new evidence of how large buildings come down, I propose the requirements for bringing down large structures be simplified to setting a fire 3/4 of the way up or damaging one side of the building with a wrenching ball and wait a few hours for imminent collapse...
ahahhahaha :-X No need to go through the expensive process to make sure the building comes straight down. ::)
-
no prob.
so what's your take on a second 911 investigation?
background: crippled with only $13mil and a year to investigate. Only 2 of the members saw most of the documents. All saudi and paki connections were forbidden, as was the CIA connection to inside trading based upon foreknowledge. 9 of 10 members had worked for Bush1 in oil field and STILL were not happy with the investigation. They never looked at WTC7.
currently: polls show 84% of Americans doubt the official story. That's a HUGE national division on the biggest event of our lifetimes and the catalyst for numerous wars. An investigation which answers these growing questions would either 1) show some assistance here, and expose the traitors, or 2) settle down the conspiracy folks and show that the official story was true.
Do you support a second investigation? Why or why not?
-
no prob.
so what's your take on a second 911 investigation?
background: crippled with only $13mil and a year to investigate. Only 2 of the members saw most of the documents. All saudi and paki connections were forbidden, as was the CIA connection to inside trading based upon foreknowledge. 9 of 10 members had worked for Bush1 in oil field and STILL were not happy with the investigation. They never looked at WTC7.
currently: polls show 84% of Americans doubt the official story. That's a HUGE national division on the biggest event of our lifetimes and the catalyst for numerous wars. An investigation which answers these growing questions would either 1) show some assistance here, and expose the traitors, or 2) settle down the conspiracy folks and show that the official story was true.
Do you support a second investigation? Why or why not?
wow, 13 million a year is a crippled investigation >:( Shit there are people making way more than they should... You should be able to have one hell of a team of people looking into shit for that unless... there's a lawyer somewhere involved :-X
-
If there is a legitimate need for it I guess it wouldn't hurt but I wouldn't base the reopening off a small unrepresentative sample of the population and conspiracy theories. That's where we disagree. Let's just leave it at that between you and for now.
-
controlled demolition companies are con-men!!!... who knew, all this time they only needed a cleanup crew ;D In light of new evidence of how large buildings come down, I propose the requirements for bringing down large structures be simplified to setting a fire 3/4 of the way up or damaging one side of the building with a wrenching ball and wait a few hours for imminent collapse... ahahhahaha :-X No need to go through the expensive process to make sure the building comes straight down. ::)
The company that did 9/11, "controlled demolition, inc", also did WACO (where they bulldozed and BURIED the building immediately without any investigation) and Oklahoma City (which if you have researched, is very clearly the shadiest f'king thing ever).
-
wow, 13 million a year is a crippled investigation >:( Shit there are people making way more than they should... You should be able to have one hell of a team of people looking into shit for that unless... there's a lawyer somewhere involved :-X
they spent $60 million on Bush's inauguration parade ;D
-
they spent $60 million on Bush's inauguration parade ;D
good point...
-
Looking at that list, I just grabbed one item out of that list to see if I could find out just how true it is. I don't have all day to go through the list so I grabbed something important:
* Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
First, were they looking for that? probably not, but here's what I found on this:
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=19417_Image10.jpg)
Not exactly what I would call, "no signs"
-
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]
-
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]
1- So they didn't strip the copper or glass from the buildings. Yes, it's recommended. But they didn't do it.
2- Yes, that is how they do it - drill and fill then wire.
I don't understand the point you're making here. It does take weeks. And the 6 weeks before 9/11 there were a great deal of oddities at the towers, including teams of men in jumpsuits and cable spools, when the power was down the weekend before 9/11.
cap, i'll paypal ya $ to watch 911 mysteries, man. They show all this.
-
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]
exactly a point made by many CTers... yea so?
-
cap,
the building was wired for demolition in the 6 weeks before 9/11.
-
1- So they didn't strip the copper or glass from the buildings. Yes, it's recommended. But they didn't do it.
2- Yes, that is how they do it - drill and fill then wire.
I don't understand the point you're making here. It does take weeks. And the 6 weeks before 9/11 there were a great deal of oddities at the towers, including teams of men in jumpsuits and cable spools, when the power was down the weekend before 9/11.
cap, i'll paypal ya $ to watch 911 mysteries, man. They show all this.
exactly...
-
It takes several weeks or months to prepare a building for implosion. All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area. Non-load bearing partitions and drywall are removed.[2] Selected columns on floors where explosives will be set are drilled and nitroglycerin and TNT are placed in the holes. Smaller columns and walls are wrapped in detonating cord. The goal is to use as little explosive as possible; only a few floors are rigged with explosives. The areas with explosive are covered in thick geotextile fabric and fencing to absorb flying debris.[2]
I think everyone saw that the explosion produced deadly projectiles from the glass, insulation, and drywall being kept in. The goal was to use as much explosives as possible, I doubt they had a budget limit to get this job done.
-
and there were reports of strange construction like activies happening and an extraordinary amount of dust in the buldings prior to 9/11... what's up with that...
-
1- So they didn't strip the copper or glass from the buildings. Yes, it's recommended. But they didn't do it.
2- Yes, that is how they do it - drill and fill then wire.
I don't understand the point you're making here. It does take weeks. And the 6 weeks before 9/11 there were a great deal of oddities at the towers, including teams of men in jumpsuits and cable spools, when the power was down the weekend before 9/11.
cap, i'll paypal ya $ to watch 911 mysteries, man. They show all this.
I'm not making a point. Just adding to the discussion. Hence why I didn't put any of my opinion in it.
why didn't the buildings blow bottom to top like normal? Why wouldn't they contain debris more? Are you sure you can make the definite statement it was wired? That's a bold statement to make. My work had the power down recently, is it gonna blow soon? Ya'll make it seem as if there was nothign flammable in that building.
-
My work had the power down recently, is it gonna blow soon?
You should look into that. :P
-
I'm not making a point. Just adding to the discussion. Hence why I didn't put any of my opinion in it.
why didn't the buildings blow bottom to top like normal? Why wouldn't they contain debris more? Are you sure you can make the definite statement it was wired? That's a bold statement to make. My work had the power down recently, is it gonna blow soon? Ya'll make it seem as if there was nothign flammable in that building.
WTC 7 did and where is it written that it wouldn't work blowing the building in reverse? It would have looked kind of funny if the collaps of the towers didn't start top down but there would have been no need to have the same happen with wtc 7. My guess is that they intended WTC 7 to fall when the towers fell and there was a failure. The failure was fixed and demolition proceeded hours later.
-
why didn't the buildings blow bottom to top like normal? Why wouldn't they contain debris more? Are you sure you can make the definite statement it was wired? That's a bold statement to make. My work had the power down recently, is it gonna blow soon? Ya'll make it seem as if there was nothign flammable in that building.
because it would have been awful hard to sell the "planes caused the organized collapses" story if they fell from the bottom.
and the power down allowed access. if your building implodes tomorrow, they yes, they should DEFINITELY look at it, if there were odd power downs and teams of cable men in there the weekend before.
-
you know there is only one possible reason they didn't show the photos to the public of the damage to WTC7 before collapse... Becuase eveyone would have looked at the photos and said, oh hell no, that building didn't fall on it's own...
-
South tower collapsed at 9:59:04 AM North WTC tower did as well, at 10:28:31 AM. And then WTC7 did the very same thing, at about 5:20 PM.
In less than eight hours time, three separate highrise office buildings allegedly did what no buildings in history have done before: spontaneously collapsed into their own footprints.
-
you know there is only one possible reason they didn't show the photos to the public of the damage to WTC7 before collapse... Becuase eveyone would have looked at the photos and said, oh hell no, that building didn't fall on it's own...
CNN has a BAN on ever showing WTC7 collapse. Ever.
And with the historical nature of the building collapses, you would expect the largest investigation ever.
Yet they didn't want ANY investigation.
-
CNN has a BAN on ever showing WTC7 collapse. Ever.
And with the historical nature of the building collapses, you would expect the largest investigation ever.
Yet they didn't want ANY investigation.
I have a question, we all remember seeing firefighters go in and out of the lobby/front entrance of WTC7. There was debree around and broken glass but nothing like a major distruction to the front of the building. Is this front entrance area the area that was facing the towers or is this the opposite side because there was like news crews there filming. I can't fathom that if there was a large damage area to this part of the building nobody from the news pointed a camera at what is reported by the government to be a massive destruction area of the building... You know they would have. See where it starts to stink rotten... Unless I have the layout wrong, I assumed the front where they were coming in the big lobby area was facing the towers? anybody know for sure?
-
because it would have been awful hard to sell the "planes caused the organized collapses" story if they fell from the bottom.
and the power down allowed access. if your building implodes tomorrow, they yes, they should DEFINITELY look at it, if there were odd power downs and teams of cable men in there the weekend before.
So are teams of cable men working on power issues on any huge building automatically suspect? Do realize how much of a slippery slope this is? It would require a team for a building that size.
To claim that everyone is lying but you and conspiracy theorists is bold.
-
So are teams of cable men working on power issues on any huge building automatically suspect? Do realize how much of a slippery slope this is? It would require a team for a building that size.
To claim that everyone is lying but you and conspiracy theorists is bold.
cap86,
When a building collapses after complete failure of the central columns, and teams were running cables thru the elevators duringa power outage the weekend before, then yes, any investigator would want to know more.
The power was down in half the building. One of the elevators was closed that weekend and never reopened. My guess is that it was chock full of something that went bang.
Remember - no one wants to convict based upon these events. But an investigation in which these questions are addressed is definitely justified.
-
So are teams of cable men working on power issues on any huge building automatically suspect? Do realize how much of a slippery slope this is? It would require a team for a building that size.
To claim that everyone is lying but you and conspiracy theorists is bold.
yup,... I think we realize exactly what we're saying.
-
yup,... I think we realize exactly what we're saying.
I don't even think it's so much you're lying... It's what are you trying to hide?
I mean, let's say that there was no conspiracy... none of that... why then would you try to hinder investigations? If you or I did something like that, it would be obstruction of justice and we'd go to prison for it...
Why not let outside people do a real investigation, try to come up with real EVIDENCE to promote the fact that it really was a bunch of outside terrorists? If it were me, and I knew I didn't do it, I'd be like... sure, go ahead... search all you want... see if I care.
Wouldn't you?
-
I don't even think it's so much you're lying... It's what are you trying to hide?
I mean, let's say that there was no conspiracy... none of that... why then would you try to hinder investigations? If you or I did something like that, it would be obstruction of justice and we'd go to prison for it...
Why not let outside people do a real investigation, try to come up with real EVIDENCE to promote the fact that it really was a bunch of outside terrorists? If it were me, and I knew I didn't do it, I'd be like... sure, go ahead... search all you want... see if I care.
Wouldn't you?
absolutely, I couldn't agree any more.
-
An FAA supervisor admitted on the stand that he destroyed the recordings of interviews with FAA employees who were communicating with the planes and other data. he slashed them up and threw them away in various trash cans around the building after the worst attack in US history.
This would have shown a great deal about what happened, what failed, and IF the air traffic crew was ordered to assist in any way.
It is completely unexplaininable that the man would destroy these recordings. If this isn't a cover up, or assisting the bad guys, then what is it? And why didn't anyone prosecute or even rebuke him for it?
-
An FAA supervisor admitted on the stand that he destroyed the recordings of interviews with FAA employees who were communicating with the planes and other data. he slashed them up and threw them away in various trash cans around the building after the worst attack in US history.
This would have shown a great deal about what happened, what failed, and IF the air traffic crew was ordered to assist in any way.
It is completely unexplaininable that the man would destroy these recordings. If this isn't a cover up, or assisting the bad guys, then what is it? And why didn't anyone prosecute or even rebuke him for it?
Hmmm but but don't people go to jail for that?
-
my first year with the pd i had a beat where an old apartment building had to be demoed.. i remember watching the whole preparation for the demo. over 3 month's it took crews to complete the job. i never saw any of the actual work because i was on the midnight shift. but, i had to check the building everynight to make sure nobody was in there. first thing i saw was that they took all of the windows out, then they striped all of the walls out. then all of the beams were exposed. then as they began the placing the explosives i was no longer allowed in so im not sure exactly how they were placed, but from what i know they had to be drilled into the support beams. that process went on for a few weeks. when they finally brought it down i was over 10 blocks away at a deli when i herd the explosions. it was like a fireworks show x10. this building was maybee 30-40 stories.
now how the fuck could they organize to do that with 3 wtc's without being caught is beyond me,, on top of that the noise and decibels that would have been created to bring all those floors down would have been herd in south jersey. yet the only thing 240 can show us is a video of 2 unknown explosions.
they show video after video of wtc7 falling- but where are the explsoions?
-
Hmmm but but don't people go to jail for that?
Usually.
Also NORAD officials got on the stand and denied they knew anything about the hijackings until after 9 am - even though FAA showed phone records establishing that at 8:21 am they were communicating with NORAD about the response.
NORAD just kinda lost 45 minutes that day - and they would have been able to shoot down 3 and possibly 4 of those planes if they had responded when notified.
Lou Dobbs - CNN anchor - got into trouble and suddenly took a 3 week vacation - after he demanded a second 911 investigation when it came out that yes, NORAD lied. He was outraged that they would lie, and that they just did nothing for 45 minutes.
No one was held accountable for 9/11. Most involved got promotions.
-
my first year with the pd i had a beat where an old apartment building had to be demoed.. i remember watching the whole preparation for the demo. over 3 month's it took crews to complete the job. i never saw any of the actual work because i was on the midnight shift. but, i had to check the building everynight to make sure nobody was in there. first thing i saw was that they took all of the windows out, then they striped all of the walls out. then all of the beams were exposed. then as they began the placing the explosives i was no longer allowed in so im not sure exactly how they were placed, but from what i know they had to be drilled into the support beams. that process went on for a few weeks. when they finally brought it down i was over 10 blocks away at a deli when i herd the explosions. it was like a fireworks show x10. this building was maybee 30-40 stories.
now how the f**k could they organize to do that with 3 wtc's without being caught is beyond me,, on top of that the noise and decibels that would have been created to bring all those floors down would have been herd in south jersey. yet the only thing 240 can show us is a video of 2 unknown explosions.
they show video after video of wtc7 falling- but where are the explsoions?
dammit man, WATCH 911 MYSTERIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fuck, kid. There was heavy machinery on two of the floors, working around for clock for 6 weeks. The floor was listed as vacant. Workers worked evenings, they found concrete powder all over the building (from the drilling).
They had full access to the building, 6 weeks, badges, unlimited budget, and the ability to turn off power, evacuate (which they did the weekend before!!!!!!!!!) and anything else they wanted.
kh, quit talking about things you haven't researched. 911 Mysteries video has numerous interviews with employees who detail these things. you piss me off puttint out BAD info when you haven't looked it up. YOU are helping the terrorists at this point, bro.
-
dammit man, WATCH 911 MYSTERIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
f**k, kid. There was heavy machinery on two of the floors, working around for clock for 6 weeks. The floor was listed as vacant. Workers worked evenings, they found concrete powder all over the building (from the drilling).
They had full access to the building, 6 weeks, badges, unlimited budget, and the ability to turn off power, evacuate (which they did the weekend before!!!!!!!!!) and anything else they wanted.
kh, quit talking about things you haven't researched. 911 Mysteries video has numerous interviews with employees who detail these things. you piss me off puttint out BAD info when you haven't looked it up. YOU are helping the terrorists at this point, bro.
you get your info where? 911 mysteries- your a joke. youll believe anything you see. yet you continue to tell others the same.
-
you get your info where? 911 mysteries- your a joke. youll believe anything you see. yet you continue to tell others the same.
911 Mysteries is a documentary which interviews employees, examines the schedule of power downs, evacuations, and other oddities in the week before 9/11. These events show what many consider to be the final stages of explosives and wiring preparation.
"believe anything I see"? Dude, you're the one who swallows the official story from Bush - whose administration coincidentally benefitted more than anyone else on the PLANET from 9/11.
Sit down.
-
no, you look at a 'documentary' and automatically say the officially storie is false,, because you want it to be false.
if there was a shred of real evidence to say our government had any part in 911 i would personally want them executed. if i knew that some of my friends were killed by the government i would like to be in the fireing squad.
but they didnt. you have allowed this to take over your life because you want it so bad out of hate.
i would like you to take all of your 'research' and do something constructive with it. loggin on to get big with your thumb up your ass isnt going to do shit. take your info and get it published. if you have anything real the ny times would LOVE it.
so can you explain to me why you waste your life trying to convice a few get biggers?
-
So are you really a NYPD cop, dude?
-
if you have anything real the ny times would LOVE it.
In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze a variety of major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on the Times, and conclude a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but rather aligned towards the interests of corporate conglomerates, such as those that now own most of these media.
Do you feel Herman and Chomsky are wrong, and if so, please support your belief.
-
In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze a variety of major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on the Times, and conclude a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but rather aligned towards the interests of corporate conglomerates, such as those that now own most of these media.
Do you feel Herman and Chomsky are wrong, and if so, please support your belief.
yet another conspericy
no im not with the pd anymore
-
you get your info where? 911 mysteries- your a joke. youll believe anything you see. yet you continue to tell others the same.
He's got a valid point with the information posted. There was reported construction and dust just as he said. But instead you attack the source because it works against your notion that there was nothing going on prior to 9/11. Well the fact is, you would attack every source when that source rose up pointing out discrepancies... What's that say about you?
-
yet another conspericy
no im not with the pd anymore
You know where I can get some good dope :P
-
yet another conspericy
no im not with the pd anymore
You know... there is a difference between conspiracy theorists and conspiracy realists.
Many people think the idea of sending all black people back to Africa was a conspiracy theory, however, there is a country named "Liberia" which would interest those who think it's all a conspiracy.
There's lots of things that can be labeled "conspiracy", but that doesn't make them any less true.
The term conspiracy has taken a context of "lunacy" and it's not even remotely close to that in many instances.
-
yet another conspericy
no im not with the pd anymore
Please explain how this is a conspiracy.
I"m beginning to think some people use the "It's a conspiracy!" to deny the validity of anyone's argument, anywhere. Chomsky actually doesn't believe 911 was an inside job, but he does believe the mainstream media is majorly controlled by their corporate interests, which are guided by political policy.
-
People here use conspiracy wrong all the time.
Definition: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Guess what? 9/11 was a conspiracy between at least 19 people. By the govt's own story. So for the folks that just yell "CT" everytime you get owned by real info which you cannot debate, realize that George Bush admits 911 was a conspiracy.
All we're trying to do is find out who else was involved ;)
-
He's got a valid point with the information posted. There was reported construction and dust just as he said. But instead you attack the source because it works against your notion that there was nothing going on prior to 9/11. Well the fact is, you would attack every source when that source rose up pointing out discrepancies... What's that say about you?
So then if any building is under construction then it must be suspect. 3 months for the 30 story building he mentioned as opposed to two what 100 story buildings and another 43 story building all in 6 weeks? Its grasping at straws man. To say that building construction or maintenance is suspect is a def slippery slope. So what if there was dust. It is construction.
-
So then if any building is under construction then it must be suspect. 3 months for the 30 story building he mentioned as opposed to two what 100 story buildings and another 43 story building all in 6 weeks? Its grasping at straws man. To say that building construction or maintenance is suspect is a def slippery slope. So what if there was dust. It is construction.
What were the contructing? Usually construction has some purpose... what was the purpose of this construction? Was it repair? Of what?
-
What were the contructing? Usually construction has some purpose... what was the purpose of this construction? Was it repair? Of what?
That's my point. They are saying because they had badges to go in the building and were working on it that it is suspect. Remind me never to have additions to my house or call in sick if they are doing repairs. If the elevators are shut down then I am quitting on the spot.
-
That's my point. They are saying because they had badges to go in the building and were working on it that it is suspect. Remind me never to have additions to my house or call in sick if they are doing repairs. If the elevators are shut down then I am quitting on the spot.
Well, I know in my building if contruction is going on, I know why... so if they tell me the purpose, I'd probably be more inclined to not worry about it... if it's just random contruction for the sake of construction, well... maybe I will worry.
Where you work has to have just as much importance as the building too... there are high risk targets and there are not... I don't know where you work of course, but if it's high risk, I would worry... I used to work next door to a Federal Reserve building, very high risk... Everything that was done in that area was noted and you could walk up and ask anyone what it was about and they could tell you.
-
If the place implodes, and the only difference in those 80 stories' structural failure was the presence of new men running cables, you'd be insane not to look at them.
-
That's my point. They are saying because they had badges to go in the building and were working on it that it is suspect. Remind me never to have additions to my house or call in sick if they are doing repairs. If the elevators are shut down then I am quitting on the spot.
NO!!!!!! They're saying there were signs that could indicate work being done on controlled demo. Nothing more, nothing less... Remember the accusation is that it wasn't possible because it takes weeks or even longer to arrange a controlled demo. This is just saying, it's not impossible and infact there are signs that this is exactly what could have happened... It is most certainly not saying every building that has this happen is suspect... that's silly... It is a note that goes hand in hand with considering posts like KH's Don't blow it into more than what it was intended.
-
You're extrapolating work on a building out into a gov't conspiracy of wiring 3 buildings. Why not just wire the buildings and say terorists did it? Be alot easier wouldn't it?
-
You're extrapolating work on a building out into a gov't conspiracy of wiring 3 buildings. Why not just wire the buildings and say terorists did it? Be alot easier wouldn't it?
Are you serious? Easier to say teams of terrorist worked around all security without being noticed.
"Hey charlie, there's that crew of Arabs again"
"Yea what do you spose they're up do?"
"beats me"
"Do they have clearance"
"Na, who cares, what are they going to do, bring down the buildings... ahahahaha"
"yea, ahahahahaha"
::)
-
Are you serious? Easier to say teams of terrorist worked around all security without being noticed.
"Hey charlie, there's that crew of Arabs again"
"Yea what do you spose they're up do?"
"beats me"
"Do they have clearance"
"Na, who cares, what are they going to do, bring down the buildings... ahahahaha"
"yea, ahahahahaha"
::)
Hmmmm 1993? Obviously our security was lax before 9/11. Hmm and didn't you mention that the dudes working in the building were Paki or Arab? Or was that 240? You guys are taking something not even close to loose speculation and saying that a team of (insert number here) went into all 3 buildings totaling 300+ stories in 6 weeks? Not to mention the fact the bottom levels would def be wired to be blown. If your posts about severed beams at the bottom are correct then people on the low low levels would have seen everything.
-
Hmmmm 1993? Obviously our security was lax before 9/11. Hmm and didn't you mention that the dudes working in the building were Paki or Arab? Or was that 240? You guys are taking something not even close to loose speculation and saying that a team of (insert number here) went into all 3 buildings totaling 300+ stories in 6 weeks? Not to mention the fact the bottom levels would def be wired to be blown. If your posts about severed beams at the bottom are correct then people on the low low levels would have seen everything.
1993 didn't involve wiring the building to come down did it? After 1993 security was increased wasn't it???
-
1993 didn't involve wiring the building to come down did it? After 1993 security was increased wasn't it???
It was going to sever one tower and tip it into the other if I'm not mistaken.
-
yes the wtc's had extra security after 93,, thats why it would be impossible to spend months loading the buildings with bombs.
the whole process of conducting everything on 911 would have been too risky.
what if the planes didnt hit the buildings?
what if someone saw a bomb
what if the 'explosions' didnt go off
what if someone became a whistle blower?
what if the terrorists got caught at the airport
what if the 'bombs' didnt all go off or some of the building didnt go down
what if they discovered some of the bombs
what if people saw explosions(and no,not flashes)
what if they herd the explosions
what if they got caught getting the bombs in
what if,like in pa- the terrorists wernt successfull in flying the planes
i could go on and on,, but with so many variables that had to go right in order for a controlled demo- being caught would mean they would be executed
can someone answer me why nobody herd any explosions?
maybee its just because im trained in law. i dont believe someone is guilty until proven. questions are not answers
-
yes the wtc's had extra security after 93,, thats why it would be impossible to spend months loading the buildings with bombs.
the whole process of conducting everything on 911 would have been too risky.
what if the planes didnt hit the buildings?
what if someone saw a bomb
what if the 'explosions' didnt go off
what if someone became a whistle blower?
what if the terrorists got caught at the airport
what if the 'bombs' didnt all go off or some of the building didnt go down
what if they discovered some of the bombs
what if people saw explosions(and no,not flashes)
what if they herd the explosions
what if they got caught getting the bombs in
what if,like in pa- the terrorists wernt successfull in flying the planes
i could go on and on,, but with so many variables that had to go right in order for a controlled demo- being caught would mean they would be executed
can someone answer me why nobody herd any explosions?
maybee its just because im trained in law. i dont believe someone is guilty until proven. questions are not answers
I thought you were a cop at one time... that does not make you trained in "law" in makes you trained in "upholding the law", there is a difference.
If you are a lawyer now, then you are trained in "law" and I rescind my previous statement.
I do agree that they are questions, my point is that I would like someone to answer a lot of questions that have gone unanswered in my, and others, minds... That's all... no more, no less.
I'm not pointing a finger, but I do not believe that the fingers that HAVE been pointed are at all accurate... That's all I'm saying.
-
I thought you were a cop at one time... that does not make you trained in "law" in makes you trained in "upholding the law", there is a difference.
If you are a lawyer now, then you are trained in "law" and I rescind my previous statement.
I do agree that they are questions, my point is that I would like someone to answer a lot of questions that have gone unanswered in my, and others, minds... That's all... no more, no less.
I'm not pointing a finger, but I do not believe that the fingers that HAVE been pointed are at all accurate... That's all I'm saying.
ok sorry,, i have a criminal justice degree, so im not a lawyer but 90% of my training/schooling was in studying law. your not gonna find to many cops that dont know almost everything about the laws they enforce,, and ive had hundreds of hours in court experiance- every one of my arrests/investigations requires court time.
you dont seem too bad, but 240 and others have already convcted the government of controlling all of 911
for every question you guys have there is a valid answer,, but you dont like the answers so you make up your own
-
ok sorry,, i have a criminal justice degree, so im not a lawyer but 90% of my training/schooling was in studying law. your not gonna find to many cops that dont know almost everything about the laws they enforce,, and ive had hundreds of hours in court experiance- every one of my arrests/investigations requires court time.
you dont seem too bad, but 240 and others have already convcted the government of controlling all of 911
for every question you guys have there is a valid answer,, but you dont like the answers so you make up your own
I'm not trying to make up anything... I simply would like rational answers explained about some of the questions I have.
-
It was going to sever one tower and tip it into the other if I'm not mistaken.
and this applies how? It was also going to release cyanide gas to kill everyone in vacinity.... and ??? Was security increased after that happened? yes or no?
-
yes the wtc's had extra security after 93,, thats why it would be impossible to spend months loading the buildings with bombs.
Here's your answer Berserker.
It applies because you said nobody would notice Arabs around the building. Also, 240 said that there were Paki men in jumps suits as the workers sooooooo................ ...make your own conclusions about your past statements and what you said recently
-
funny thing about that security:
Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."
Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards.
The Dulles Internation contract is another matter. Dulles is regarded as "absolutely a sensitive airport," according to security consultant Wayne Black, head of a Florida-based security firm, due to its location, size, and the number of international carriers it serves.
Black has not heard of Stratesec, but responds that for one company to handle security for both airports and airlines is somewhat unusual. It is also delicate for a security firm serving international facilities to be so interlinked with a foreign-owned company: "Somebody knew somebody," he suggested, or the contract would have been more closely scrutinized.
As Black points out, "when you [a company] have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." And if another company is linked with the security company, then "What's on your computer is on their computer." [American Reporter]
-
I'm not trying to make up anything... I simply would like rational answers explained about some of the questions I have.
every question that has been asked has been given an answer by me and several others. but when you want something to happen, you close your eyes to the real answers.
in all the 'research' guys like 240 have done, im willing to bet 90% of it has been on conspericy sites. while he dismisses any of the real research that has been done. 240 thinks that anyone in the government or who did investigations is apart of the scheme, and any of us who dont believe in his 911 theories are idiot sheep who will believe anything.
like ive said before, if i saw one bit of evidence that our government conducted 911 i would be the first one to want these people executed.
-
every question that has been asked has been given an answer by me and several others. but when you want something to happen, you close your eyes to the real answers.
I dunno man... I mean, I would like an answer as to why there's no whole in the pentagon that would have been made by a plane... no wing impressions even though it got into the 2nd ring... The wings should have made impact.
Like, why did mercedes benz say that there was no way that the pieces found at the pentagon were their's.
Why were there no bodies found on Flight 93 at the crash site... The coroner said so.
Basic things like this are what I'm talking about... I'm not focusing on the towers falling or whatever... I've got much more solid things that I'm inquiring about.
-
marvin was out of the company before 911, and that company only provided security for part of the towers. there were several other companys there, as well as the nypd and fbi that controlled the majority of the buildings.
now are you suggesting that some 10 dollar an hour security guard is in on the plot too?
-
I dunno man... I mean, I would like an answer as to why there's no whole in the pentagon that would have been made by a plane... no wing impressions even though it got into the 2nd ring... The wings should have made impact.
Like, why did mercedes benz say that there was no way that the pieces found at the pentagon were their's.
Why were there no bodies found on Flight 93 at the crash site... The coroner said so.
Basic things like this are what I'm talking about... I'm not focusing on the towers falling or whatever... I've got much more solid things that I'm inquiring about.
the hole in the pentegan wasnt the size of the plane because the wings broke off,, they wernt strong enough to penetrate the building- which was basically a bomb shelter. planes are designed to be as light as possible, they're not made of solid steel
-
tu,
at the pentagon, the *object* actually punched a perfectly round hole thru THREE of the outer rings of the building.
A plane with a 25-foot diameter punched a 18-foot diameter hole thru THREE reinforced military grade buildings. Then, it vaporized.
So get that straight - it had enough strength to punch the same perfect hole thru all 3 buildings, but then it decided to vaporize.
Or, was it a missile - in particular a concrete nosed jdam designed to punch tight holes in buildings? The men carried soemthing out under a blue tarp.
-
the holes thru 3 outer rings of building, slicing perfect identical holes thru SIX walls.
-
This pic speaks volumes.
Can any sensible person see the holes and not think missile?
-
so 240,, the eye witnesses in that video are in on the plot too? how many more people can we add onto this
-
the hole in the pentegan wasnt the size of the plane because the wings broke off,, they wernt strong enough to penetrate the building- which was basically a bomb shelter. planes are designed to be as light as possible, they're not made of solid steel
No, they were aluminum, this is true, but even then, the wings moving at the same speed as the aircraft should have, in my opinion at least made an impression on the building... I didn'tsee a scratch where teh wings should be... that's a big deal to me.
The laws of physics would dictate that there would be much more aluminum debris than was left... "Energy is neither created, nor destroyed, it is simply transferred".
By that law, the aluminum would have been ALL over the place... I saw no rear section sticking out, no wing impressions, nothing.
We've seen planes hit the ground going much faster, and there is still debris from wings and the fuselage... Just doesn't seem physically possible for all that aluminum which "didn't" puncture the Pentagon to disappear... do you not agree?
-
so 240,, the eye witnesses in that video are in on the plot too? how many more people can we add onto this
There area lot of eye witnesses who say that they did not see a plane... They saw somethinging moving through the sky, but they did not see a plane. You used to be a cop... tell me that eye witness accounts do not often differ a great deal.
I too have some experience in the Criminal Justice system, and I know when I have spoken to witnesses... they often disagree on what they saw.
-
No, they were aluminum, this is true, but even then, the wings moving at the same speed as the aircraft should have, in my opinion at least made an impression on the building... I didn'tsee a scratch where teh wings should be... that's a big deal to me.
The laws of physics would dictate that there would be much more aluminum debris than was left... "Energy is neither created, nor destroyed, it is simply transferred".
By that law, the aluminum would have been ALL over the place... I saw no rear section sticking out, no wing impressions, nothing.
We've seen planes hit the ground going much faster, and there is still debris from wings and the fuselage... Just doesn't seem physically possible for all that aluminum which "didn't" puncture the Pentagon to disappear... do you not agree?
watch the whole thing,, the wings left burn marks and an impression on the building
-
so 240,, the eye witnesses in that video are in on the plot too? how many more people can we add onto this
Well, it's kinda reasonable to say that the people who had the power to put a missile into the Pentagon probably have the ability to put a few witnesses there who would say anything they please.
At 9:32 there was a massive explosion in the pentagon. Dozens of clocks stopped. FIVE MINUTES LATER at 9:37 an AWAC B2 flew over the pentagon and there was another blast. The plane quickly ascended but was filmed by news agencies as it got out of there. This plane was moving at 400 to 520 mph and never went below 180 feet, as the FlightDataRecorder shows when they punched in the data.
People in traffic saw a plane moving 500 mph then a big blast. They had no viewpoint to see if it kept going or not. And did you see some of your *expert* witnesses? They said the plane hit the lawn and tumbled into the building. Completely wrong.
Of course, the govt could show us one of the 85 videotapes the FBI admitted it had, but...
-
marvin was out of the company before 911, and that company only provided security for part of the towers. there were several other companys there, as well as the nypd and fbi that controlled the majority of the buildings.
now are you suggesting that some 10 dollar an hour security guard is in on the plot too?
So if they were a company with unhonorable intentions, they're going to higher joe off the street for 10 bucks and hour? Or are they going to put together a company capable of doing the bidding intended?
-
There area lot of eye witnesses who say that they did not see a plane... They saw somethinging moving through the sky, but they did not see a plane. You used to be a cop... tell me that eye witness accounts do not often differ a great deal.
I too have some experience in the Criminal Justice system, and I know when I have spoken to witnesses... they often disagree on what they saw.
The first witnesses said a chopper ascended, fired something, then landed. This was likely the 9:32 blast that killed everyone in pentagon accounting dept who happened to be in one room.
Do you want the CNN screenshots kh300? Witnesses all said chopper. Then the first reporters on the scene actually walked up to the f'king hole in the Pentagon and reported no plane.
I thought we dropped the argument because everyone already knew there was no plane impact. It's pretty obvious. the physical evidence says no plane, witnesses all over the place on what happened, they hid all the tapes.
-
No, they were aluminum, this is true, but even then, the wings moving at the same speed as the aircraft should have, in my opinion at least made an impression on the building... I didn'tsee a scratch where teh wings should be... that's a big deal to me.
The laws of physics would dictate that there would be much more aluminum debris than was left... "Energy is neither created, nor destroyed, it is simply transferred".
By that law, the aluminum would have been ALL over the place... I saw no rear section sticking out, no wing impressions, nothing.
We've seen planes hit the ground going much faster, and there is still debris from wings and the fuselage... Just doesn't seem physically possible for all that aluminum which "didn't" puncture the Pentagon to disappear... do you not agree?
The amount of debris on that lawn could have fit in the back of a truck. They said 125 TONS of plane was converted to 400 pounds of debris.
I'd love to see that one explained.
-
There area lot of eye witnesses who say that they did not see a plane... They saw somethinging moving through the sky, but they did not see a plane. You used to be a cop... tell me that eye witness accounts do not often differ a great deal.
I too have some experience in the Criminal Justice system, and I know when I have spoken to witnesses... they often disagree on what they saw.
yep,, i had a case with a murder that was caught on a street camera.. everything was as clear as day. the majority of the witnesses had saw the same thing, but there were a few assholes that had a different story. there storys dint make it to court because they were not credible. these witnesses in that video were about as credible as it gets
now who are these eye witnesses that saw a missile hitting the pentegon.. like the guy said n that video, a lot of stuff on the internet, especially conspiracy's site are lying
-
watch the whole thing,, the wings left burn marks and an impression on the building
I will look at it... I have seen a lot of video and none of the video I've seen has shown it...
It's funny you mention that video... That engine housing that is shown has been stated to not be the Mercedez Benz engine that was in use by that American Airlines airplane.
I still don't see where there's any wing damage... It looks like a lot of "burn", but I don't see impressions...
I will concede that the pieces of debris they did pick up, did resemble the paint scheme of an american airlines passenger jet.
-
For those who enjoy visuals...
(http://flashrob.com/p.gif)
-
yep,, i had a case with a murder that was caught on a street camera.. everything was as clear as day. the majority of the witnesses had saw the same thing, but there were a few assholes that had a different story. there storys dint make it to court because they were not credible. these witnesses in that video were about as credible as it gets
now who are these eye witnesses that saw a missile hitting the pentegon.. like the guy said n that video, a lot of stuff on the internet, especially conspiracy's site are lying
If any are lying, which is possible... how are any of us to know who's telling the truth... That's always a point of contention for me.
I still think there should be more aluminum lying about... the laws of physics are finite to me.
-
IMO the only thing that would have sliced 3 perfect holes thru a recently reinforced military grade building would be something like this:
-
So what you mean to say is that someone or something you read said or told you that that type of hole could be made by that. I really doubt you know much of anything regarding the military Rob.
-
The first witnesses said a chopper ascended, fired something, then landed. This was likely the 9:32 blast that killed everyone in pentagon accounting dept who happened to be in one room.
Do you want the CNN screenshots kh300? Witnesses all said chopper. Then the first reporters on the scene actually walked up to the f'king hole in the Pentagon and reported no plane.
I thought we dropped the argument because everyone already knew there was no plane impact. It's pretty obvious. the physical evidence says no plane, witnesses all over the place on what happened, they hid all the tapes.
where are the witnesses.. if this was true they would be on the front page of the news. o wait, there were people that saw a missile hit the pentegon- but they are being blackmailed, i forgot.
bottom line- 911 would have been too risky. secrets are very hard to keep, especially ones this elaborate. our government is by no means a finely tuned machine. they dont do much right let alone construct the most amazing coverup in history
-
you want to know how big a boeing is? compared to a cessna.
We are to believe this entire plane converted itself into that pile of debris on the lawn. Look at how big it really is.
-
So what you mean to say is that someone or something you read said or told you that that type of hole could be made by that. I really doubt you know much of anything regarding the military Rob.
Are you going to just criticize my thoughts, then present none of your own?
Please explain to the class what caused a perfectly round 16-foot hole to cut thru all 3 of these buildings.
-
IMO the only thing that would have sliced 3 perfect holes thru a recently reinforced military grade building would be something like this:
or this
-
minutes after the pentagon was hit, we got this gem
-
or this
YOU JUST MADE MY POINT!
an F16 flying 500 mph disintegrates when it hits a similar wall. Thousands of pieces of shit everywhere.
AND - there are no perfectly round holes piercing thru the walls like we see at the pentagon
-
Are you going to just criticize my thoughts, then present none of your own?
Please explain to the class what caused a perfectly round 16-foot hole to cut thru all 3 of these buildings.
That's your MO so I'll try it for this round.
You said in your opinion, what in your opinion/knowledge led you to that fact? Do tell.
I like this approach. ;D
16 ft in terms of what? Diameter? Circumference?
-
or this
That is an interesting video, but an F4 is a bit smaller than a 757 don't you think?
And the 757 would not be going that fast due to having to maneuver itself to be in alignment with the pentagon, there would certainly be some degredation in speed.
It does give some validity that it is "possible" that a plane can "vaporize", but , I'll still be a bit skeptical of it due to the size differnce.
-
That's your MO so I'll try it for this round.
You said in your opinion, what in your opinion/knowledge led you to that fact? Do tell.
I like this approach. ;D
16 ft in terms of what? Diameter? Circumference?
Sure thing. I believe a missile was used to penetrate the pentagon. The hole is perfectly sliced thru three newly reinforced buildings. The hole was measured to be 16 to 18 feet, identical from first entry to third exit. There aren't too many objects on earth that can make that hole. I believe it was a missile.
Your turn. Tell us what is more likely than a missile. KH300's clip shows exactly what happens to planes when they hit thick walls - they turn into a million pieces of scrap on the lawn.
SOMETHING penetrated that building. I am calling you our now cap86 - TELL US WHAT MADE THOSE HOLES.
-
That is an interesting video, but an F4 is a bit smaller than a 757 don't you think?
And the 757 would not be going that fast due to having to maneuver itself to be in alignment with the pentagon, there would certainly be some degredation in speed.
It does give some validity that it is "possible" that a plane can "vaporize", but , I'll still be a bit skeptical of it due to the size differnce.
exactly, so that answers 240's questions of why some debree was found. plus the pentegon wasnt exactly the same structure
-
exactly, so that answers 240's questions of why some debree was found. plus the pentegon wasnt exactly the same structure
This is true, but now your video presents me with another question... Let's say that the Pentagon, being as ruggedly built (more so than the wall in your video) as we know it is... gets hit by a plane which in turn vaporizes upon impact of the outer wall... How did the hole get into the third ring?
-
SOMETHING penetrated that building. I am calling you our now cap86 - TELL US WHAT MADE THOSE HOLES.
I'll field this one - a hijacked plane.
-
240 you completely discount what all of the government and researchers have show- you think they are all liers
but you think everything from you ct sites is the answer like they are perfect angles that would never photoshop a picture or edit some video to prove there point. your a great judge
-
How did the hole get into the third ring?
answer the question kh300.
i can deliver all the pics you guys want of the Pentagon pics, or you can google them yourselves.
None of them are photoshopped, sir.
Now, what did punch a hole thru all 3 buildings, kh?
-
answer the question kh300.
i can deliver all the pics you guys want of the Pentagon pics, or you can google them yourselves.
None of them are photoshopped, sir.
Now, what did punch a hole thru all 3 buildings, kh?
answe my questions ive been asking since the start of this thread
-
answe my questions ive been asking since the start of this thread
you are owned, mate.
i hope everyone reading this realizes this. These holes were made in the THIRD building.
-
And here is the hole from the INSIDE.
Do you believe this was made by a plane, or by a missile?
-
Well depending on what hole was the entrance hole and exit I would say it is legit that the last hole was made by whatever was left of the plane. The initial impact and hole in general was too big to be a missile. If a missile exited that small hole at the end it would have gone further than that IMO.
-
Well depending on what hole was the entrance hole and exit I would say it is legit that the last hole was made by whatever was left of the plane. The initial impact and hole in general was too big to be a missile. If a missile exited that small hole at the end it would have gone further than that IMO.
actually - what you're seeing there is the entrace hole after the roof collapsed.
here is what it looked like for 30 minutes BEFORE it collapsed.
-
owned-your a fucking dork. and you wont answer my question about no explosions or noise from the wtc's- which you know is the most damaging lack of evidence
when were these pics taken? were they withing minutes of the crash or were they days- weeks later. possibly crews had started to repair them by that time, who took the photos and why are there other photos that show different?
its the same thing as when you post photos of the towers weeks after 911,after the remains were already taken down and the area cleared
so you have completely disregarded the fact that it was a plane, because a plane couldnt have penetrated that far. but somehow a tiny missile is able to do that? you must not know to much about missiles
-
If a missile exited that small hole at the end it would have gone further than that IMO.
Those were three strong fcking buildings.
the fact the object penetrated 6 walls (i forget the thickness, but they're thick and they are reinforced) means it had to be something with some serious mass and density. Plus, the last hole being so perfectly round... that plan nose would have shredded, ya know? It's made of carbon.
-
Those were three strong fcking buildings.
the fact the object penetrated 6 walls (i forget the thickness, but they're thick and they are reinforced) means it had to be something with some serious mass and density. Plus, the last hole being so perfectly round... that plan nose would have shredded, ya know? It's made of carbon.
so missle penetrate now? i could have sworn they are designed to explode on impact
-
owned-your a fucking dork. and you wont answer my question about no explosions or noise from the wtc's- which you know is the most damaging lack of evidence
when were these pics taken? were they withing minutes of the crash or were they days- weeks later. possibly crews had started to repair them by that time, who took the photos and why are there other photos that show different?
its the same thing as when you post photos of the towers weeks after 911,after the remains were already taken down and the area cleared
so you have completely disregarded the fact that it was a plane, because a plane couldnt have penetrated that far. but somehow a tiny missile is able to do that? you must not know to much about missiles
Some missiles are designed for just this purpose though. A plane just is not.
-
kh, the blue media recording from across the river shows very clearly -
NINE explosions before South tower fell, and THREE explosions before the north tower fell.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563604978641682920&q=blue+media+911&hl=en
-
actually - what you're seeing there is the entrace hole after the roof collapsed.
here is what it looked like for 30 minutes BEFORE it collapsed.
Post a clear pic please.
It doesn't make sense how a bomb that would fit in or on a plane would be guided into hole that would be made from a shot from 200+ ft. If it was going down to destroy the building, sure but it would have to be guided down and stay a foot off the ground. You mean to tell me nobody would notice that? Next you are going to tell me is that there were repeated RPGs fired successively into the same hole.
-
so missle penetrate now? i could have sworn they are designed to explode on impact
Remember those bombs we dropped on baghdad for precision targeting? concrete heads, designed to inflict a small amount of damage in an are as small as a few feet without blowing up. Minimize casualties around the strike, and panatrate bunkers at the same time.
you look kinda silly on this one bro.
-
Post a clear pic please.
It doesn't make sense how a bomb that would fit in or on a plane would be guided into hole that would be made from a shot from 200+ ft. If it was going down to destroy the building, sure but it would have to be guided down and stay a foot off the ground. You mean to tell me nobody would notice that? Next you are going to tell me is that there were repeated RPGs fired successively into the same hole.
http://www.werboom.de/vt/assets/images/autogen/a_pentagon_impact_nah_von_links.jpg
just google "pentagon impact" and you can see many pics of before it collapsed and after.
Google video also has the film of the roof collapse.
-
Post a clear pic please.
It doesn't make sense how a bomb that would fit in or on a plane would be guided into hole that would be made from a shot from 200+ ft. If it was going down to destroy the building, sure but it would have to be guided down and stay a foot off the ground. You mean to tell me nobody would notice that? Next you are going to tell me is that there were repeated RPGs fired successively into the same hole.
not a bomb - a missile. could have been fired from the chopper the witnesses saw, could have been fired form the plane which flew over, or independently.
-
If it was going down to destroy the building, sure but it would have to be guided down and stay a foot off the ground. You mean to tell me nobody would notice that? Next you are going to tell me is that there were repeated RPGs fired successively into the same hole.
The plane flew in at between 400 and 520 mph.
most people wouldn't have seen anything but a blur. And the goal wasn't to "destroy" the building. The goal, IMO, was to make it look like a plane while taking out the pentagon accounting dept. (you know, the same group who would have had to explain the missing 2.3 trillion from the day before).
It should make sense. If you take out the "our govt wouldn't do bad stuff" emotion and look at facts.
-
so missle penetrate now? i could have sworn they are designed to explode on impact
WIKI: Bunker Buster
The extra speed provided by a rocket motor enables greater penetration of a missile-mounted bunker buster warhead. To reach maximum penetration (Impact depth), the warhead may consist of a high density projectile only. Such a warhead carries more energy than a warhead with chemical explosives (kinetic energy of a projectile at hypervelocity).
-
not a bomb - a missile. could have been fired from the chopper the witnesses saw, could have been fired form the plane which flew over, or independently.
a chopper projectile, to my knowledge, would not penetrate that much material and honestly, you could distinguish between a missile and a plane. If not then you need LASIK.
WIKI: Bunker Buster
The extra speed provided by a rocket motor enables greater penetration of a missile-mounted bunker buster warhead. To reach maximum penetration (Impact depth), the warhead may consist of a high density projectile only. Such a warhead carries more energy than a warhead with chemical explosives (kinetic energy of a projectile at hypervelocity).
Is that guided to drop down or be guided in? I'm pretty sure they were bombing caves and being dropped fairly straight down.
-
a chopper projectile, to my knowledge, would not penetrate that much material and honestly, you could distinguish between a missile and a plane. If not then you need LASIK.
Is that guided to drop down or be guided in? I'm pretty sure they were bombing caves and being dropped fairly straight down.
WIKI it - there are bunker busting missiles too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster#Missiles
and it might have been launched by the chopper witnesses saw at 9:32, it might have come in right before or after the plane, I do not know.
But when I look at those 3 crisp holes, I do not understand how a plane with a carbon nose which shredded upon impact would punch such perfect holes thru 6 reinforced walls.
-
I th ought the plane that hit the pentagon hit the ground first right before the pentagon
-
Based on the wiki post, the bunker buster would have either not penetrated enough or too much. To my knowledge, choppers do not fire these types of projectiles. Jets drop bunker busters.
-
I th ought the plane that hit the pentagon hit the ground first right before the pentagon
No.
The lawn was perfect.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html
-
Based on the wiki post, the bunker buster would have either not penetrated enough or too much. To my knowledge, choppers do not fire these types of projectiles. Jets drop bunker busters.
Would have penetrated either 2 buildings, or 4 buildings, but not 3?
Also, they can fire them from silos or anything else.
-
? Didn't it say like 20 feet max?
Depth of Penetration War head designation Weapon Systems
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 1.8 m (6 ft) BLU-109 Penetrator GBU-10, GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-118/B Thermobaric Warhead GBU-15, GBU-24, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: more than 6 m (20 ft) BLU-113 Super Penetrator GBU-28, GBU-37
How many feet was it from hole to hole? ;D
Another source:
When the bomb hits the earth, it is like a massive nail shot from a nail gun. In tests, the GBU-28 has penetrated 100 feet (30.5 meters) of earth or 20 feet (6 meters) of concrete.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster.htm
-
cap,
if the only thing in your mind preventing this from being a self attack is missile penetration depth, we're in good shape.
Can soe of our military folks speak on various missile capabilities? I know we fired cruise missiles at saddam which destroyed bunkers several hundred feet under the earth
-
cap,
if the only thing in your mind preventing this from being a self attack is missile penetration depth, we're in good shape.
Can soe of our military folks speak on various missile capabilities? I know we fired cruise missiles at saddam which destroyed bunkers several hundred feet under the earth
They fire tomohawks from carriers. A missle that high off the deck would not go unnocticed. To go straight through under ground it would start from low off the ground and someone would have seen it.
-
They fire tomohawks from carriers. A missle that high off the deck would not go unnocticed. To go straight through under ground it would start from low off the ground and someone would have seen it.
okay.
What do the holes look like to you?
-
I answered that sir. I think that it is a long shaft exiting the vast regions of the Pentagon loins and coming out. Basically a plane going through and the smaller condensed material punching out the other end. A bunker buster is not fired from a chopper and would have done much more damage to the earth around there.
-
I answered that sir. I think that it is a long shaft exiting the vast regions of the Pentagon loins and coming out. Basically a plane going through and the smaller condensed material punching out the other end. A bunker buster is not fired from a chopper and would have done much more damage to the earth around there.
neither you nor I have any idea of the missile abilities our country has. If there's a need fo a missile to go thru 100 feet of concrete, we both know they have something in the arsenal for that.
have you seen those WTC6 video clips in the other thread? Some crazy stuff when they slow the video down.
-
I answered that sir. I think that it is a long shaft exiting the vast regions of the Pentagon loins and coming out. Basically a plane going through and the smaller condensed material punching out the other end. A bunker buster is not fired from a chopper and would have done much more damage to the earth around there.
Whatever it was, it was much bigger than a bunker buster... The size of the hole is much larger.
This is a passenger jet and hail... HAIL... I don't think hail is much tougher than 6 reinforced cinderblock walls...
http://www.strangedangers.com/content/item/10136.html
I've seen this also come from birds and the like.
I find it difficult to believe a nose cone and in essence a plane could go through that much cement... and create such nice round holes seeing as how hail does this kind of damage to a nose cone.
-
The pictures I posted show a bigger blast and a missile would not keep going and would have done much much more destruction
As I said, I don't think it was a bunker buster by any stretch... It's too big a hole.
I also don't think it was an airplane... I just can't get my mind around that.
-
this is why i don't normally start topics on pentagon. the hole looks nothing like an airplane, but peolpe go apeshit when it's suggested it might have been a missile.
i'd love to hear theories on it. how did a plane do that?
-
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
-
i think you're getting the diameter and the circumference mixed up. but anyway, it's pointless to debate it. we've been on this shit all night and we're all a little older and none richer.
-
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Interesting stuff on that site... I will have to ponder what it presents.