9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Have you actually seen it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've seen the first 30 minutes.

I mean really... comparing pots and pans on a stove to the WTC, lol!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not interested? Scott I have read every one of your posts and looked at everything you have presented. I have followed this thread from the beginning. Don’t accuse me of not being interested just because I’m not gullible.

I think you are confusing me with Geoff.

Dance around it all you want but it is not consistent with a controlled demolition.

So the fact that it didn’t look like a controlled demolition actually makes it look more like a controlled demolition. Brilliant. Evidence does not matter when it comes to a faith such as yours.

Rubble is pushed outwards due to the air being compressed by the pancaking.

Interestingly your theory there appears to be that it looks like an explosion so it must be one. Following your previous logic, if it didn’t look like an explosion that would make it look more like an explosion. Or it would still look like explosions just inconsistent in some ways that things usually explode.

Why on earth do you require explosions on a building that it completely collapsing? Remember the twisted steel? Explosions don’t explain soft steel.

Keep guessing. It is clear that absolutely everything is evidence for a controlled demolition with your religion, even the evidence against the controlled demolition.

You hold on to your bombs in the basement, bombs on the plane, bombs on every floor, super mega ultra thermite theory.

So why post it?

Only if you have blind faith. A neat collapse points to a controlled demolition and a messy collapse points to a controlled demolition. Amazing.

Troofers say that like it is actually compelling. Point me to the long list of incidents where large airliners have smashed into skyscrapers so we can see what happened all those times.

Scott you don’t read other people’s links. Have you read screwloosechange yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Scott,

I realize you have a lot to respond to, since you're the only advocate for the TS position still standing, but when you can, look at this.

This was actually a break through moment for me....you almost conceded a point...which is good.

There was something you said in another post that got me to thinkin'.

When I asked you why the "Lizardoid Cabal" or the "insiders" would use a missile instead of just using a plane you responded:

There's a reason they could penetrate further...Missiles use high explosive warheads.

If a missile was used...the most likely candidate would be something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk

It's speed is around that of a plane.

Let's just for second recall the short grainy video of the "object in question" hitting the pentagon...While it is impossible to tell what the object is before it strikes the pentagon, but what is clear is the impact and resulting explosion.

You will notice the massive, persistant fireball that results from the impact. You will also notice similar fireballs in the videos of the planes hitting the WTC. This fireball was created by the 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel being vaporized, thrown out into the air, and ignited.

High explosive explosions don't make huge fireballs...there's usually a small fire ball followed by clouds of billowing smoke and dust...like in this video. A tomahawk missile holds a 1000 lb warhead...here's what a 1000 lbs of HE looks like going off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GH3N4OF5e4

Notice the difference?

But you might say "Mac..I've seen 1000's of explosions on TV and movies...they always have a great big fireball" Well...that's because in the movies, they use something called a "turkey bag"...it's a plastic trash bag filled with a gallon or so of gas and tied off with a length of "prima-cord" detonation cord...the small prima-cord charge vaporizes the gas, creating a huge, impressive fireball that looks good on film....and makes people smile and clap.

 

Before the plane enters the picture:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The plane:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can quite clearly see the fuselage of the plane and its scale can be determined from the camera location as something being the size of Flight 77. Its tale fin is discernable, and its colour appears to resemble an American Airlines jet.

Then of course you have the wreckage and victims remains inside (and outside) the Pentagon which means there is absolutely no mystery.

 

Who was the numbskull that said there were 84 camers pointed and waiting for a plane? or did the plane just happen to pass directly into the narrow field of view of 84 cameras? These people are nuts.

 

All I see is a blur. Too bad the FBI is still holding on to those 84 videos. Sure, the FBI says that they don't show the event. Their original reasoning can be seen in the following CNN transcript. I'm not sure if they're still holding on to this reasoning, but they're apparently now claiming that there was 'nothing to see'. Perhaps what they're really trying to get us to believe is that there's nothing to hide. But if that's the case, why don't they let us see it?

Here's the transcript of the CNN exchange:
*************************************************
According to a CNN FOIA request however, the nearby hotel's video DID capture the impact. The following exchange is from a CNN transcript of a report on the 2002 release of the original four frames of Pentagon footage:

MCINTYRE (on camera): These pictures are the first to be made public, but they are not the only images of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Sources tell CNN that the FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. Aaron.

BROWN: Why? Do we have any idea why they won't release it?

MCINTYRE: Well, the claim - we have filed a freedom of information request for it. They claim that it might provide some intelligence to somebody else who might want to do harm to the United States. But officials I talked to here at the Pentagon say they don't see any national security or criminal value to that tape. The FBI tends to hold on to things. But the government may eventually release that tape, and if they do, we'll bring it to you.

BROWN: Jamie, thanks. I must have missed something in how, where the intelligence possibilities are there, but that happens with me sometimes. Thank you for your work today, nice job.
*************************************************
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

 

Yes, very strange indeed. The images are blurry but clearly show that the object is massive indeed - unless you think it's a missile skidding along the ground kicking up dust?

There is no evidence at all that that happened. What are you referring to?

Flying is easy. Crashing is easy. Landing is hard.

 

That does seem a bit unlikely, now that you mention it. 84??

 

All I see is a blur; you sure you're not imagining a little more then you're actually seeing?

There's atleast one short film dedicated entirely to all the evidence and the other speaks of it in fair detail (loose change). I have posted the links to these 2 videos as well as a lot more information, but you seem content to skip over virtually everything I write on it...

I don't agree that flying a 757 so close to the ground is in any way easy. But by all means, show me some videos of other commercial airliners coasting at hovercraft level.

 

Not at all. It's a massive white shape and clearly (based on the camera interval) moving quickly. I mean, it could be a whale, I suppose, but they're supposed to be far less explosive than an aircraft of almost any kind.

Weeell, we've been over this. You won't watch "Screw Loose Change". Yet, I've already seen "Loose Change" at the least (as I mentioned before), and scanned other 9/11 videos. None of them seemed particularly compelling for me. (I had to laugh at Dylan's "Are you ready for this?" question in explaining Flight 77's "actual" destination - clearly I wasn't ready.) But you have yet to see SLC. So, rather, you're the one "content to skip over" it. What is it you want me to say about this?

Perhaps you could tell me what it is you wish to avoid by refusing to watch SLC? Would it help you if I assured you that it isn't an unfair treatment of Dylan Avery's movie?

Heh. Hardly coasting, Scott, as you can see. They flew at very low level - which is not, so long as your hand doesn't waver, harder than flying at height and with the extra advantage of comparatively little wind. As for videos of other commercial airliners coasting at hovercraft level - have you ever flown on an airplane? They do it every time they land; again, crashing into something has the simplification of not even having to have the nose up.

So: having satisfied for you these points, will you now consent to informing yourself on the evidence for the other side? Please, view the film "Screw Loose Change" and if you want to discuss its elements, I would be only to happy to do so, assuming I have the time. (Busy month.)

Best regards,

Geoff

 

Your right Scott, TRYING to fly that close to the ground in a plane that large would be very hard. These guys weren't worried about crashing...they just had to kept the Pentagon centered in the windscreen. They weren't great pilots..they just got a little lucky.

 

Very apt.

 

I think based on its speed and its shape that it was a missile. You think it could be an aircraft or a whale. All of this isn't terribly scientific. Fortunately for us, there's a lot more evidence than that bad video. There's also a lot more videos, but, ofcourse, those are under FBI wraps.

I've also read a fair amount of official story stuff, but I couldn't stand more then a few minutes of ***** loose change.

Can you get me a link to that? I was checking the 'official story' "loose change guide" but I found no "are you ready for this?" in it. Anyway, I've been looking a bit at something from the 'screw loose change' guys, in text format, which is much easier to bear:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

In this format, I could look at it long enough to see there are some points that I'd like some answers on myself.

Whatever you like. Anyway, I've now tooken a look at some of your SLC stuff, so hopefully you'll look more at what I've said as well.

Aggrivation at what are essentially untruthful statements. I already made my criticisms of the first few minutes long ago in this 'mighty tangle' but I'm not going to go looking for it...

Not really, no

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. But as I said, I've been looking at their blog so hopefully that'll be enough.

Alright; I've never seen an airplane coasting over lawns, but you're right, they do indeed usually land fairly smoothly.

I too am busy. However, you can certainly point me towards a page or so of material in their blog or in the 'loose change guide'.

 

Any comment at my fireball post?

 

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Listen, I have always said that in regards to the pentagon, I do indeed believe that a missile hit it instead of a plane. And if a plane hit it, why doesn't the government want to release all those videos? However, I have always said that my knowledge of whether it was a plane or a missle is much less then my knowledge concerning the WTC building collapses.

 

but what about the explosion...how did a missile make that kind of fireball?

 

I'll bring it up in the loose change forums..

 

Thats cool...

But it would be better if you just considered the evidence yourself and came to your own conclusions. Don't let other people do your thinking for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem is I don't know enough on this. You say a lot of things and your explanation sounds plausible. But then some expert on loose change may say a lot of things that make what you say sound implausible. So I'll just wait and see what they say.