»911 was staged - PROOF«
|
|||
 Yeah, I appreciate the effects of high speed impact, I was (in the first part of the post) genuinely querying the link as it seemed to be a response to seraphim's statement that there were no pictures of the plane. I found it strange to respond with a link to more "no pictures of a plane" 
The second part (of the post) was what I found following the link for pictures of a plane and just thought it ironic, given my presumption of the nature of the reason for the first part. If you follow my meaning. 
I have my own reasons for doubting the accuracy of official reports on the incident and don't need the attention seeking rants of some Backwater (what was she, Junk Yard Tea Lady or something?).  MindSlavery Florida: What if CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. have mind control rays They have Religion, does that count? 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesConspiracy theories911 was staged - PROOF |
|
|||
 Marl64: Yeah, I appreciate the effects of high speed impact, I was (in the first part of the post) genuinely querying the link as it seemed to be a response to seraphim's statement that there were no pictures of the plane.
I found it strange to respond with a link to more "no pictures of a plane" oh, well he said, " No pictures of flight 93 after it supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania, people working at Cleveland Hopkins airport saying that flight 93 landed there and therefore did not crash. " there are pictures of flight 93 after the crash...and that google image search showed them, you just will not see an intact plane...because it wasnt intact. the plane IS in those pictures...just not all of the plane. what is in those pictures that is left of the plane is in small pieces...that probably don't resemble an airplane except to people who know what to look for. its pretty much the same thing about the plane that crashed into the pentagon..."there was no pictures of a plane there, so it must not have happened" Marl64: ... and don't need the attention seeking rants of some Backwater (what was she, Junk Yard Tea Lady or something?). haha, yup...didn't you know that scrap yard sandwich makers are trained to investigate airplane wrecks?
posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marl64: MindSlavery Florida: What if CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. have mind control rays They have Religion, does that count? Did you read what the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote about 9/11? He made a similar point about religion and mind control:  posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlavery Florida: Did you read what the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote about 9/11? He made a similar point about religion and mind control:
That's kinda where it came from 
I'd just finished watching his 2 part documentary when I made the post If you've not seen it, it's worth a look, it's on the Net See IMO → A PROPOSED ISLAMIC TERROR SOLUTION-#50175 posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
out of curiosity i just did a google image search for ›flight 93 hopkins airport‹ (with quotes even, try it)...there are no photos of flight 93 at hopkins airport...so (using the same logic) there are no pictures, it must have never been there...right? so if it didn't crash and it didn't land...where is it? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 allone: did anyone care to read that popular mechanics article that was posted in this thread at all? or since it didn't deal with adding to any conspiracies didn't waste time on it? That Popular Mechanics article has been demolished lol.  Listen to this: charlesgoyette.com… [MP3] James Fetzer on the Charles Goyette show. "You don't have to melt the steel though, you have to just weaken it, right?" "Oh it wouldn't even significantly weaken under these conditions Charles, believe me, this is a completely phoney story, it can not have happened the way the government has described..." posted by seraphim |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
seraphim: allone: did anyone care to read that popular mechanics article that was posted in this thread at all? or since it didn't deal with adding to any conspiracies didn't waste time on it? That Popular Mechanics article has been demolished lol. im sorry, but the guy that wrote that...(who is he again, an expert at anything related to anything that happened on 9/11?) just doesnt really hold ground...maybe if he offered some type of proof to go along with his claims (repsonses) against the poular mechanics article i might give it some more time. it seems that he instead takes the article from popular mechanics and says that it is false and simply repeats the theories as proof that it is false. or he says things like, "I believe Col. Donn de Grand-Pre deliberately lied in order to try and hurt the 9/11 Truth movement." ...i mean...come on, that is his proof? he thinks that he lied? well...prove it! and, "I wouldn't imagine that anyone ever would waste their time inviting over 300 "experts" in order to investigate a "conspiracy theory"!" (and how many experts did the author contact?) sorry, but that's not proof or dis-proof of anything (proof would be contacting the experts that PM contacted, checking to see if they are experts, checking to see if PM contacted them at all, talking with them yourself and so on)...maybe the author cant imagine someone else doing that because the author cant imagine him/herself contacting soo many experts to verify anything at all? but on second thought, yeah, it makes sense...why waste your time in contacting an expert when you can go to conspiracies-r-us.com and become an expert yourself? anyway, about flight 93, which conspiracy is the true one? was it shot down? or did it land safely? because we all know it didn't crash into a field since so many people heard a loud boom...and crahsing planes don't sound like that. but honsetly, there is no way to convince a conspiracy theorist that there never was one to start off with. its just impossible. there are just as many webpages out there that support the conspiracy as there are that do not...both sides can give links all day long...it doesnt matter. anyway, right now i have to call a friend to find out why she cheated on her boyfriend...someone said that someone saw her talking to another guy last night...ive heard that a lot of people saw her with this guy. ive consulted an expert in relationship problems and he told me that since she was talking to someone in a social environment she was cheating on him- no questions about it. posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11  (1) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission (2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building (3) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (4) A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said: "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!" (5) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba (6) The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack (7) The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run (8) The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon (9) On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers (10) The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11 (11) While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (12) A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone (13) USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down (14) MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area" (15) The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building" (17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition" (18) Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit (19) A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed (20) Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars posted by seraphim |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
like i said: allone: but honsetly, there is no way to convince a conspiracy theorist that there never was one to start off with. its just impossible. there are just as many webpages out there that support the conspiracy as there are that do not...both sides can give links all day long...it doesnt matter. posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
allone: anyway, right now i have to call a friend to find out why she cheated on her boyfriend...someone said that someone saw her talking to another guy last night...ive heard that a lot of people saw her with this guy. ive consulted an expert in relationship problems and he told me that since she was talking to someone in a social environment she was cheating on him- no questions about it. just to clear things up...her brother came in from out of town and was visiting her, this was verified by her brother himself who was in the same room with her at the time i called her...(or maybe just an actor pretending to be her brother?) i still think she was cheating because she was seen with him, and i think the guy lied to keep the truth from everyone...even though when i talked to her boyfriend he told me that it was her brother also...hmm...things just don't add up...too many credible retired friends of theirs and eyewitnesses have said otherwise 
posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
seraphim: James Fetzer on the Charles Goyette show.
"You don't have to melt the steel though, you have to just weaken it, right?" "Oh it wouldn't even significantly weaken under these conditions Charles, believe me, this is a completely phoney story, it can not have happened the way the government has described..." im sorry, but who exactly is James Fetzer? is it this guy?:  a philosophy professor at University of Minnesota Duluth who likes conspiracies? and what does he have to do with 9/11? how is a philosophy professor expert at steel conditions or anything else releated to 9/11? (other than conspiracies that is, i can believe him to be expert in conspiracy studies or something) and about the comment about the weakening steel...that was discussed in this thread already: knn: I just rewatched a TV documetary on that topic that I have recorded. No, the steal itself did NOT melt. But the horizontal "aligners" (I think this is meant by "perimeter columns" in your post) collapsed, which held the vertical steel columns in place and which were much thinner than the massive vertical steel. Thus the building did not collapse because the molten steel, but because of instability of the softened horizontal alingers.
Actually the destabilized part was only small (approx where the planes hit), but once it started to collapse and hit on the lower WTC levels you couldn't stop it. posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well there where pools of molten steel found in the basements of the WTC several weeks after 9/11. The official story is so full of holes it's insane and it has been torn apart so many times. And the official story is the wildest conspiracy theory of them all. Peace and never let lemonade panthers eat snow.  *Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from September 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers — just as the buildings began to collapse. In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, however, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.* And the 9/11 Ommission report even denied the existance of the 47 central support columns. posted by seraphim |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, what's with all the insistence that the US government was behind 9/11? Wouldn't there be many other governments that would benefit from a spectacular act of Islamic terrorism in a western country, e.g. all of Europe, since this would give European governments an excuse to "crack down" on Islamic extremism while America took the lead and the heat in the military operations of the crackdown? I say if there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, the US government was more likely the victim of such a conspiracy than its perpetrator! I mean, let's face it, the US government and its covert branches (CIA and the like) have never been particularly good at doing things in secret, while European countries are riddled with thousands of years of history of plots, intrigue, dictators, and secret societies! I always find it funny that, whenever something bad happens in America, people blame the CIA or some shit like that. The US intelligence agencies are charged with preventing national disasters; everytime something like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor happens, it means they totally failed and it does nothing for their prestige or power. So I find it personally insulting as an American to hear about how the US government was supposedly behind 9/11. If there was any conspiracy to perpetrate 9/11, it did not come from within, because America had nothing to gain from our current state of hostility to the Islamic world. Europe, on the other hand, had everything to gain from forcing American soldiers to fight major wars against traditional enemies of the west (for the, what? third time?) And you haven't seen any acts of terror in Europe on the scale of 9/11, have you? No. Why not? They sent their violent legacy of colonialism and empire to the Americans to deal with, once again. And, mark my words, just like now, half a century after America won World War II, there are Europeans who hate America and believe that the American intervention in that war was unnecessary for Europe's survival, you will find Europeans fifty years from now who say that the real terrorists in these times were the Americans. That's the way it works: save the day and you eventually take the blame. Blame yourself, Europe! Everyone else in the world does. posted by MindSlavery Florida |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
seraphim: *Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from September 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers — just as the buildings began to collapse. just like a lot of conspiracy theories, this has some truth to it, but once you get all the data instead of just what the conspiracy theorists want you to see (pretty much what supports the conspiracies) it doesnt seem like that big of a deal: CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion." FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span. On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. the graphs are there also, but i will attach them here...the first one showing a 30 minute timespan in which shows a compressed "shock" at the time the towers fell. then the second graph shows a close up of the fall...(again watch the wording) its not "just as the buildings begin to collapse" (implying that it happend right before the fall) but AS the buildings collapse (meaning the shock was caused by the fall) seraphim: In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. of course it could explain it (otherwise it wouldnt be a theory , you have to remember that's what these conspiracy theories are...they try to explain how it COULD have happened based on a small sample of fact), but we already know how the structure lost support and came down. did you see the footage of it coming down? did they collapse from the bottom floor? did the building just fall straight down with every floor staying intact until it hit the ground? no, they didn't. they collapsed at the point of impact, and went down from there, level by level (pancaking). so thinking about that, what exactly does "molton steel" in the basement have to do with the collapse? how would "molton steel" 7 levels down in the basement cause a building to collapse at a large number of levels above that? the underground "literaly molten steel" didn't have anything to do with it...and its safe to say that the "steel"(or whatever metal was down there, yes there is more than just steel in a building) became that way after the collapse...the fire was never put out, it kept burning...there was nobody able to get to it to put it out with all the debri...in a fire that is not put out it will continue to burn until there is nothing left to burn real quick though...how do you know that the "molton steel" was in fact molton steel? was the material taken anywhere to be tested to see if it was steel or something else? (no, it wasnt...why? because people probably didn't think at the time that soo many conspiracies would come out. they were probably mainly concerned with cleaning the place up as fast as possible to get over the tragedy) how strong was the wind blowing that day? maybe the secret hurricane machine that was created by the government was being tested out there first to see how strong they could get the winds to blow? [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
seraphim: That Larry Silverstein bought the entire WTC complex and took out a special insurance against terrorist attacks a few weeks before 9/11. again, sort of a fuzzy truth actually he (backed by investors) signed a 99 year lease on the complex (and who doesnt take out an insurance policy? especially among wealthy businessmen on a very large investment like that? and even if it was a "special terrorist attack" insurance policy, that probably wouldnt be unheard of, the WTC had been attacked before...the WTC is a worldwide symbol of the US' strong economy) he had already owned WTC7 at the time...that was 7 weeks before they were destroyed. he received a 3.5 billion dollar settlement. now to a conspiracy theorist this sounds perfect for a reason behind the destruction...he gained so much money! OMG! but this is just another example of something trying to be passed off as something greater than it really is...yes, this is true, but if you want the WHOLE truth, this seems like just another weak attempt... so lets just stop and think about this...yes, he did gain 3.5 billion dollars, and that seems like a ton of money to the average person. BUT wait...lets add some other facts in the equation... it will cost Silverstein and investors an estimated 8 BILLION to rebuild the structures (3.5 doesnt seem so much now does it?), on top of that mounting court fees with a required annual lease payment of 120 million dollars (over the course of 99 years that's $11,880,000,000, 3.5 billion now seems very very small) Silverstein Properties has payed out enormous amounts of money to continue holding the property. so why exactly is Silverstein brought into the conspiracy? posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 1 December 2008, 23:26 php B.B. |