The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Squaddy

jjbrien wrote:

Its all bery interesting I downloaded the images from the 2 CCTV cameras I did freeze one of the images If you look closly there is an object but it is two small to be a 757. I used to work at Dublin airport I know the size of these aircraft the object is not even the size of a 737. It could be a RJ which is a small reginal jet used by airlines for low capasity trips.

It definetly does not look like a 757. more like a missile or a Global Hawk - a remote contolled plane

Global Hawk

Global Hawk

This is what it should of looked like if it was a 757:-




The verticle stabilizer is 45 feet tall but the engines hang down a good 5 feet below the fuselage and they hit this trailer about 10 feet high and cleared the spools.


Use the fire engine for scale.




This is what we saw^^

jjbrien

This is an interesting photo


The image below is the hole created in the pentagon its two small to be a 757 tole where is the damange caused by the wings. Also if it where a 757 that fireman would not have been able to stand where he is as there are 3 fule tanks onboard a 757 2 in the wings and one in the belly of the plane. On impact the tanks in the wings should have have ignited and burned for days. If you noticed the fire in the world trade center burned a long time after the towers collasped.

Quote:

It seems like the hole is in line with the impact path and does support the fact that a missile may have hit the pentagon. The leading theory is that a Global Hawk painted to resemble a 757 or a Cruise missile using holographic technology slammed into the wall. If a a 60 tonne 757 hit the wall, the wall wouldn't be there. There is a strong possiblity that some kind of shape charge in the missile/Global Hawk was used to punch a hole through the Pentagon walls.



This is the website i got these photos from please check it out. I do now think it was indeed a global hawk aircraft.

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon.htm

bonkey

jjbrien wrote:

The leading theory is that a Global Hawk painted to resemble a 757 or a Cruise missile using holographic technology slammed into the wall.

You take something seriously that posits holographic technology as a leading theory??? !!! ???

I'm impressed.

So Glad

jjbrien wrote:

This is an interesting photo


The image below is the hole created in the pentagon its two small to be a 757 tole where is the damange caused by the wings. Also if it where a 757 that fireman would not have been able to stand where he is as there are 3 fule tanks onboard a 757 2 in the wings and one in the belly of the plane. On impact the tanks in the wings should have have ignited and burned for days. If you noticed the fire in the world trade center burned a long time after the towers collasped.

Quote:

It seems like the hole is in line with the impact path and does support the fact that a missile may have hit the pentagon. The leading theory is that a Global Hawk painted to resemble a 757 or a Cruise missile using holographic technology slammed into the wall. If a a 60 tonne 757 hit the wall, the wall wouldn't be there. There is a strong possiblity that some kind of shape charge in the missile/Global Hawk was used to punch a hole through the Pentagon walls.



This is the website i got these photos from please check it out. I do now think it was indeed a global hawk aircraft.

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentagon.htm

Thats just amazing. Thats worth a thread on After Hours. Don't care how pissed of they will be it deserves attention.

jjbrien

I tried posting tjis in another location but i got dumped in this catagary where not many people looks.

tunaman

jjbrien wrote:

I tried posting tjis in another location but i got dumped in this catagary where not many people looks.

It's happened to me on many forums, as people simply try to label people who present hard evidence which destroys the official theory conspiracy theorists.

Many other forums have deleted all my posts that even mentioned WTC 7.

There is no such thing as freedom of speech anymore.

Check this out...

School District to Monitor Student Blogs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_on_re_us/monitoring_myspace

LIBERTYVILLE, Ill. - High school students are going to be held accountable for what they post on blogs and on social-networking Web sites such as MySpace.com.

The board of Community High School District 128 voted unanimously on Monday to require that all students participating in extracurricular activities sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action.

The rule will take effect at the start of the next school year, officials said.

District officials won't regularly search students' sites, but will monitor them if they get a worrisome tip from another student, a parent or a community member.

Mary Greenberg of Lake Bluff, who has a son at Libertyville High School, argued the district is overstepping its bounds.

"I don't think they need to police what students are doing online," she said. "That's my job."

Associate Superintendent Prentiss Lea rebuffed that criticism.

"The concept that searching a blog site is an invasion of privacy is almost an oxymoron," he said. "It is called the World Wide Web."

The social networking Web site MySpace.com allows its nearly 80 million users to post pictures and personal information while communicating with others.

District 128, in Lake County north of Chicago, has some 3,200 students, about 80 percent of whom participate in extracurricular activities, according to school officials.

tunaman

Kersh wrote:

Now, to my questions -
1) How did a B52 hit the ESB in the late 40s when B52s didnt come into service til the very late 50s, early 60s??

Honest mistake, which sceptics jump on to try and discredit the whole video.

2) How come only one engine wreckage is seen at the Pentagon, when the alleged A3 that did hit it has 2 engines?

No definite idea what hit the pentagon, except like you said it wasn't a 757, especially piloted by somebody as incompetent as Hanjour was.

3) Why did the cellphone tests go up to 32000', when the calls were made by hijacked passengers from a much lower altitude (for example callers identifying buildings/water, so they must have been low enough), so it was pointless using 32000' as 'marker' altitude to prove that cellphones didnt work, cos calls were made from lower altitudes??

If cell phones were capable of this on 9/11 why would QualComm have to invent a way to do it years after...

http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2004/040715_aa_testflight.html

From this and other articles it looks like cell phone calls were near on impossible. However on 9/11 nearly everybody who tried, managed to make calls without any problems.

4) The archive footage of buildings being demolished shows lots of loud explosions/flashes to bring much smaller buildings down. How come only a few flashes are seen and explosions reported, yet they brought down huge towers??

There are a huge number of firefighters who were on the scene who reported many explosions and flashes going off at the lower levels of the buildings. Here are some quotes taken from the official 9/11 records...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

NEW YORK TIMES ‘ORAL HISTORIES’ - WTC TASK FORCE INTERVIEWS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GREGORY Interview Date: October 3, 2001

pgs 14-16: I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE Interview Date: November 7, 2001

pg 11: Whatever this explosion was simply sucked all the oxygen out of the air.

pg 15: Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK Interview Date: October 1, 2001

pgs 13-14: We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.

FIREFIGHTER EDWARD CACHIA Interview Date: December 6, 2001

pg 5: As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

FIREFIGHTER KENNETH ROGERS Interview Date: December 10, 2001

pgs 3-4: … then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.

FIRE MARSHAL JOHN COYLE Interview Date: December 28, 2001

pgs 15-16: While I was down at Battery Park, I finally got through on my phone to my father and said, “I’m alive. I just wanted to tell you, go to church, I’m alive. I just so narrowly escaped this thing.” He said, “where were you? You were there?” I said, “yeah, I was right there when it blew up.” He said, “you were there when the planes hit?” I said, “no, I was there when it exploded, the building exploded.” He said, “you mean, when it fell down?” I said, “no, when it exploded.” I still didn’t realized what had happened. I totally thought it had been blown up. That’s just the perspective of looking up at it, it seemed to have exploded out. But that I guess was the force of the upper stories collapsing down.

BATTALION CHIEF DOMINICK DeRUBBIO Interview Date: October 12, 2001

pg 5: It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMES DRURY Interview Date: October 16, 2001

pg 6: We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I heard a tremendous roar, explosion, and saw that the first of the two towers was starting to come down.

pg 7: That was the north tower now coming down. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building. Obviously we were later proved wrong.

pg 12: As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall.

FIREFIGHTER CHRISTOPHER FENYO Interview Date: December 11, 2001

pg 3: There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial Center.

pg 5: About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building.

pgs 6-7: At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges. We had really no concept of the damage on the east side of 2 World Trade Center at that point, and at that point many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade…

FIREFIGHTER KEVIN MURRAY: Interview Date: October 9, 2001

pg 7: We helped a lady out of there and we started walking up to the third floor. That third floor was clear. There was no damage, nothing. We got up to the fifth floor and there was severe damage. The ceilings had come down, the some walls had caved in. … Then we went to the sixth floor and did the same thing. Same sort of damage up there.

Many people have ridiculously tried to claim they were all just confused and seeing things that weren't there.

tunaman

Pongo wrote:

Alright, I swore I wouldn't get involved in one of these discussions again, we'll never see eye to eye on some matters tunaman, and I really don't think either of us will convince the other of much here, but this post below is a bit much if you don't mind me saying so. I think you're the one getting the insults in, and you have done in other threads as well.

He was putting out blatant misinformation and personally tried to attack Shayler for speaking the truth.

If you stopped coming across as being so condescending more people might listen to you.

You are probably right, but I'm just trying to get people to look at the evidence for themselves, as trying to persaude people by using the power of suggestion is a sly game the powers that be play.

Also, I've said this in another thread about allegations made regarding a Secret Service agent who died at Ground Zero on 9/11, and I'll say this again, the link to the video you posted there names and shows a photo of a 9/11 victim, Edna Cintron. The video says she was identified standing at the open hole left in one of the towers, but the video shot is far too blurry to actually identify her. Can you post a link with evidence that it actually is her, Edna Cintron in that video footage of the hole in the side of the tower? Could you please post a clear photo of Edna Cintron at the hole in the building?

You just tried to tell me to stop posting links to articles and vids, yet now you want a link, so which is it?

There are many pictures on the net of the woman peering out from the hole, there is no real way of saying for definite it was Edna Cintron RIP. I didn't make the video, but because they speculated on the identity of the woman, and also on the use of a hydrogen bomb, which is highly unlikely, does it mean that the clear evidence of numerous flashes should be ignored?

Most people have no idea any of this information is out there, so they have been forced to come to a completely uninformed and biased opinion as to what really happened on 9/11. All I am doing is presenting some of the incriminating evidence, which has been kept from the public for years now. How many people have ever seen the clip of WTC 7 collapsing on TV? I wonder why, too obvious perhaps? maybe people would start wondering if 7 was demolished, what about the WTC?

Don't mean to offend, apologies if I do, I realise we're not in After Hours anymore and I'll hold my hand up and say I may not have actually read the Conspiracy Theories charter so I hope I'm not breaking any rules by saying any of this, I'm a regular lurker here and as I've preiously posted I think there are SERIOUS questions to be answered about 9/11, but I can't agree with your logic or methods tunaman.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but my problem with you is that despite claiming to have serious doubts about the official version, all you do is try to pick holes in some of the incriminating evidence presented. I have never seen you try to do the same with the official story, which I find suspect. I showed evidence building 7 was demolished, yet you tried to claim the fire could have caused it, or the falling debris, without any evidence this is what happened. I never claimed the building wasn't on fire or didn't suffer slight structural damage. You presented quotes from firefighters who said there was a chunk taken out of the side of the building as though that explained the total collapse of the building in free-fall speed.

At the same time you seem to have ignored all the testimony from firefighters at the WTC who reported numerous explosions going off which, as they said themselves, were reminiscent of a demolition job. It looks to me like you have tried to stifle any real debate on this issue, which will never lead to finding answers to your serious questions.

homah_7ft

tunaman wrote:

Everybody saw it, we also saw how most the fuel was burnt off in the initial fireball, which exploded outside the building.

The buildings were designed to withstand an impact from a fully loaded airliner, with the official explanation that caused the collapse being fire. The official theory is so flimsy they rely on everybody to believe that the fireproofing being dislodged directly led to the complete collapse of the buildings.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

Would everyone who cares about logic and posting links please read this reply. To counter my statement that the impact of the aircraft laden with fuel caused the tower's collapse the user poster the above reply. Please read the link provided by the user. It runs counter to what s/he just stated and would be more suited to my argument.

Also the buildings were not "designed to withstand an impact from a fully loaded airliner" rather the force of a standard airliner at the time of the building's design.

tunaman

homah_7ft wrote:

Would everyone who cares about logic and posting links please read this reply. To counter my statement that the impact of the aircraft laden with fuel caused the tower's collapse the user poster the above reply. Please read the link provided by the user. It runs counter to what s/he just stated and would be more suited to my argument.

No it doesn't. The link does because it's the official version which has holes big enough to fly an airliner through. Read the part I quoted again...

The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

It clearly states that the reason the buildings supposedly collapsed, was inadequate fireproofing. Many people think it was due to the airliners combined with the fires, however if it wasn't for the fireproofing being blown off by the impact, the buildings would still be standing today. We just have to take their word that this even happened, nevermind the fact they weren't able to recreate what happened in any of their models.

So the official explanation for two 110 storey buildings collapsing is the fireproofing blew off. Can people not see how ridiculous that explanation is?

Also the buildings were not "designed to withstand an impact from a fully loaded airliner" rather the force of a standard airliner at the time of the building's design.

They were designed to withstand the largest plane at the time, a fully loaded 707, all buildings are also over designed as it happens. Here is a clip of Frank De Martini RIP, who knew more than most people did about the WTC...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

As we all saw the buildings survived the impact of the planes, so we are left with fire being the cause for the total collapse of not two, but three steel-framed buildings that day.

secret_squirrel

Oh come on!

I dont doubt that Shayler was a genuine whistleblower who made some very valid allegations that were valid Years ago. But seriously now the man is a an attention seeker nothing more nothing less just jumping on the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon coz he's sad and bitter over the way he has been treated.

homah_7ft

tunaman wrote:

So the official explanation for two 110 storey buildings collapsing is the fireproofing blew off. Can people not see how ridiculous that explanation is?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

As we all saw the buildings survived the impact of the planes, so we are left with fire being the cause for the total collapse of not two, but three steel-framed buildings that day.

A. So you don't think an aircraft crashing into a building would remove significant amounts of fireproofing?
B. Well he would say that wouldn't he.
C. Why not?

I concede that the weight of the airliner in a crash scenario design is probably not significant. The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707 320 is 336000 lbs which was the design criteria versus maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some 395,000 lbs the crashed plane (note these are more theoretical weights).

tunaman

secret_squirrel wrote:

Oh come on!

I dont doubt that Shayler was a genuine whistleblower who made some very valid allegations that were valid Years ago. But seriously now the man is a an attention seeker nothing more nothing less just jumping on the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon coz he's sad and bitter over the way he has been treated.

Did you even watch the video, and listen to what he had to say?

tunaman

homah_7ft wrote:

A. So you don't think an aircraft crashing into a building would remove significant amounts of fireproofing?

No idea, but many steel-framed buildings around the World have suffered raging fires lasting for hours, and yet they didn't suffer total collapses in near free-fall speed. Except for WTC 7.

B. Well he would say that wouldn't he.

Yeah I suppose it's rare for people speak the truth these days.

C. Why not?

The official fireproofing explanation makes sense to you?

The south tower was only on fire for 56mins.

I concede that the weight of the airliner in a crash scenario design is probably not significant. The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707 320 is 336000 lbs which was the design criteria versus maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some 395,000 lbs the crashed plane (note these are more theoretical weights).

If any buildings could handle an airliner crashing into them it was the WTC, which it did on 9/11. What do you think of the many firefighters who reported numerous explosions and flashes at the lower levels of the buildings?

Pongo

tunaman wrote:

He was putting out blatant misinformation and personally tried to attack Shayler for speaking the truth.

No need to insult him though, and Shayler isn't someone I'd exactly trust on anything, but's that's off topic.

You just tried to tell me to stop posting links to articles and vids, yet now you want a link, so which is it?

Eh, I suggested you should stop copying and pasting whole articles, and blindly posting links to videos left right and centre. My point is, if you, or anyone else can't prove that it was Edna Cintron, then you shouldn't be claiming it is. Do a search on a so called 'Jumper' on 9/11, I won't post his name, but he was one of the unfortunate people photographed jumping from the WTC. He was identified as a worker in the Windows of the World restaurant, but when his family were informed, they didn't want to know. Their choice, and the matter was laid to rest. This, I think, is something worse, you're claiming it was her, but have absolutely no idea if it was. It's just not right.

Some of the videos and links you've posted have been interesting, others are just way over the top. Actually I found the Kennedy clip fascinating, and the interview with Cheney's aide about Cheney taking control was very interesting....(it was you that posted them, right? Either way, one of your threads led to them being posted so I'm kinda right!)

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but my problem with you is that despite claiming to have serious doubts about the official version, all you do is try to pick holes in some of the incriminating evidence presented. I have never seen you try to do the same with the official story, which I find suspect.

Yes, I DO have serious doubts, specifically about what really happened Flight 93. My feeling, for the record, is that although the passengers may have attempted to take back control of the plane, it was shot down before they had a chance to do so. I'd love to search for various theories, discussions, web sites etc that deal with Flight 93, and investigate my theory further, but it's hard to see through the blatant crap out there. And that's what a lot of the 'theories' are. Crap.

At the same time you seem to have ignored all the testimony from firefighters at the WTC who reported numerous explosions going off which, as they said themselves, were reminiscent of a demolition job. It looks to me like you have tried to stifle any real debate on this issue, which will never lead to finding answers to your serious questions.

This has been done to death on other threads. They did not report explosions going off. Watch the video by the two French Brothers, the one shot inside the towers, I can't remember their names or the name of the video, but in it, later in the day, back at the Firehouse the Firefighters are discussing what happened and what they heard, and they say the collapse SOUNDED like explosions. They didn't say, they were explosions. That was a very, very stressful day, nobody really knew what was happening until it was all over, using what Firefighters said the collapse sounded like doesn't support your theory very much...

If any buildings could handle an airliner crashing into them it was the WTC, which it did on 9/11. What do you think of the many firefighters who reported numerous explosions and flashes at the lower levels of the buildings?

Now, with all the news cameras, helicopters, video cameras, photographers etc that were there on the day, isn't it just a little bit odd that there isn't one photo or video clip of one of these flashes, eh? And there should also be a fairly audible bang when the towers begin to collapse. Even one video, with an audible explosion right before the collapse would go a long way towards making me a believer, think about the demolition videos you see on the news or on Discovery channel, there alwasy a ripple of explosions a few seconds before the collapse, why didn't the same happen on 9/11, because if it did it should've been recorded by at least one camera. Anywhere, can you show me a legit video with a pre collapse explosion, or flash?

Finally, I'm not trying to stifle debate at all. Quite the opposite in fact, if you read any of my posts, I'm challenging a lot of your claims and statements, and have asked more than once for proof and evidence to back up a claim you've made. This, my friend, is debating. Hurling insults, making wild claims and accusations when challenged, that's arguing. There's a subtle difference.
Anyway, fair play to you, you have the courage of your convictions, but as I've said before I just don't agree with a lot of what you claim as gospel.

Now, like many others before me, I'll gracefully bow out of this discussion, and I'll really try and mean it this time, because it's just going around in circles to be honest.

secret_squirrel

tunaman wrote:

Did you even watch the video, and listen to what he had to say?

Seriously David Shayler suggests it was a Coup D'etat based on purely his own uninformed opinion and you believe him - how guillible are you?

Just because Shayler is an ex-spy doesnt mean any of his opinions on 9/11 are valid. He was long gone when it happened.

How does an aircraft crashing into the upper third of a very tall building compare with an IRA bomb outside at ground level? Not at all imo. Learn some physics ffs. Unless I see a qualified architect say the are comparable Im not going to believe it.

The only evidence that exists is for government incompetence. Something that occurs every single day in every single Govt. Get real ffs.

Suggested goggle search : Occams Razor.

tunaman

Pongo wrote:

No need to insult him though, and Shayler isn't someone I'd exactly trust on anything, but's that's off topic.

It was just an observation.

Eh, I suggested you should stop copying and pasting whole articles, and blindly posting links to videos left right and centre. My point is, if you, or anyone else can't prove that it was Edna Cintron, then you shouldn't be claiming it is.

I didn't claim it was, who ever made the video did.

Do a search on a so called 'Jumper' on 9/11, I won't post his name, but he was one of the unfortunate people photographed jumping from the WTC. He was identified as a worker in the Windows of the World restaurant, but when his family were informed, they didn't want to know. Their choice, and the matter was laid to rest. This, I think, is something worse, you're claiming it was her, but have absolutely no idea if it was. It's just not right.

There was a program on recently called 9/11:the falling man, which tried to find out who he was. He was wrongly identified at first, but the Canadian(not sure) reporter then went and showed the pictures to people who were working in the restaurant. He was identified by a fellow worker, and this was confirmed by his sister who seemed genuinely glad she found out exactly what happened to him.

Some of the videos and links you've posted have been interesting, others are just way over the top. Actually I found the Kennedy clip fascinating, and the interview with Cheney's aide about Cheney taking control was very interesting....(it was you that posted them, right? Either way, one of your threads led to them being posted so I'm kinda right!)

Yeah I posted those two vids. Like you said they were at the least very interesting, yet these have not been seen by the vast majority of people.

How can people form a real opinion without looking at all the evidence?

Yes, I DO have serious doubts, specifically about what really happened Flight 93. My feeling, for the record, is that although the passengers may have attempted to take back control of the plane, it was shot down before they had a chance to do so. I'd love to search for various theories, discussions, web sites etc that deal with Flight 93, and investigate my theory further, but it's hard to see through the blatant crap out there.

There was an official site on the recently released united 93 film, but they had to delete all the posts on the forums becuase there were so many people questioning the official version of events. The third time they shut down the whole site.

And that's what a lot of the 'theories' are. Crap.

No doubt many of them are, but that's just your opinion. I mean I think your theory on flight 93 is crap, but it isn't my or your job to come up with feasible theories. That was supposed to be the job of the 9/11 commission, which was a complete sham, as they avoided all the difficult questions that have never been answered.

I suggest having a look at this short video which has a look at the findings of the commission...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-398081814159578985&q=9%2F11+commission

This has been done to death on other threads. They did not report explosions going off. Watch the video by the two French Brothers, the one shot inside the towers, I can't remember their names or the name of the video, but in it, later in the day, back at the Firehouse the Firefighters are discussing what happened and what they heard, and they say the collapse SOUNDED like explosions.

I think you are referring to the Naudet brothers documentary, which I have seen. What did you think of the widespread damage to the lobby?

They didn't say, they were explosions. That was a very, very stressful day, nobody really knew what was happening until it was all over, using what Firefighters said the collapse sounded like doesn't support your theory very much...

I just quoted many of the firefighters who were interviewed weeks and months later when they still report numerous explosions.

Anywhere, can you show me a legit video with a pre collapse explosion, or flash?

Here is a link to a video called 9/11 eyewitness, in which numerous explosions can clearly be heard before the buildings came down...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603

Let me know what you think.

tunaman

secret_squirrel wrote:

Seriously David Shayler suggests it was a Coup D'etat based on purely his own uninformed opinion and you believe him - how guillible are you?

He knows much more about what goes on behind the scenes than any of us, so it's not accurate to say he is uninformed. When did I say I believed everything he said?

How does an aircraft crashing into the upper third of a very tall building compare with an IRA bomb outside at ground level? Not at all imo.

They are both terrorist attacks. He spoke out about how people were wrongly framed for these attacks in London.

Learn some physics ffs.

I have, and the official story is that the buildings pancaked, yet there was no resistance as the buildings came down. The floors above didn't collapse on to the lower floors like they claimed.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/WTCDemol.jpg

Unless I see a qualified architect say the are comparable Im not going to believe it.

People need to think for themselves. The so called experts are paid to support the official theory.

The only evidence that exists is for government incompetence. Something that occurs every single day in every single Govt. Get real ffs.

Do you really think they got where they are by being incompetent?

Suggested goggle search : Occams Razor.

How likely is it that 19 incompetent no marks got lucky and managed to hijack 4 planes, armed with just boxcutters, and then evade the most advanced air force in the World for nearly two hours?

How much of a coincidence is it that the US goverrnment were performing at least 5, and possibly as many as 15 drills that morning, which included planes being hijacked and flown into buildings?

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

If cell phones were capable of this on 9/11 why would QualComm have to invent a way to do it years after...

As you beloved Loose Change points out, at best phones would have been unreliable and prone to be cut off through signal-loss, and calls would have been hard to get through in the first place.

Let me think...what would that mean. YOu might have to dial 20, 30, even 100 times to get through (bit like sending an SMS at midnight on New Years), and even if you did get through, your calls would be prone to being dropped fairly quickly.

So lets see what LC pointed out about the sinister nature of these alleged phone-calls....it notes that that many calls were short, were dropped mid-conversation only for the caller to call back some time later.

My god. How sinister. The bahaviour matches the expectation almost identically. I can see why this is such a big deal. Its as unlikely as gravity making something fall downwards instead of upwards.

jc

DublinWriter

Pongo wrote:

Now, with all the news cameras, helicopters, video cameras, photographers etc that were there on the day, isn't it just a little bit odd that there isn't one photo or video clip of one of these flashes, eh?

Ta da...

http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm

bonkey

There isn't one photo or video-clip in that article....which is what was asked for.

Not only that, but the seismic data being referred to has since been shown to have been utterly misread.

So what, exactly, is there to ta da about?

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

So lets see what LC pointed out about the sinister nature of these alleged phone-calls....it notes that that many calls were short, were dropped mid-conversation only for the caller to call back some time later.

My god. How sinister. The bahaviour matches the expectation almost identically. I can see why this is such a big deal. Its as unlikely as gravity making something fall downwards instead of upwards.

jc

All watching loose change did was get me to try and find some answers to the questions the video posed. I have never claimed it is the truth of what happened on 9/11.

As for the cell phone calls on flight 93 here is a link to some guys who have done indepth research...

http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?321

Fortunately for us we have one passenger using his cell phone: Tom Burnett. His use of his cell phone is beyond dispute. Contrary to several phone calls at the end of the flight where we might take into consideration that the altitude was far below normal cruising altitude at least the first three calls of Burnett have been made at cruising altitude. In fact his second call must have happened at a moment when according to the Commission UA 93 reached an altitude of 40,700 feet. His second and his third calls lasted approximately 1? 30?? each. And he never got disconnected. In fact the connection was that good that Deena Burnett heard him talking to his neighbours.
How is it possible that a cell phone works so well at an altitude of 35,000 to 40,700 feet and at cruising speed of 500 mph?

Like the way you ignored all the firefighters statements, which were taken weeks and months after 9/11.

Do you and others still claim they were all just confused?

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

There isn't one photo or video-clip in that article....which is what was asked for.

Here is a short clip which shows flashes going off down the side of the building. Right click and save as.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/911_WTC2_floor_pops_out_followed_by_a_stream_of_flashes_and_smoke_puffs.wmv

So Glad

tunaman wrote:

Here is a short clip which shows flashes going off down the side of the building. Right click and save as.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/911_WTC2_floor_pops_out_followed_by_a_stream_of_flashes_and_smoke_puffs.wmv

That is a great video. Guys, the pancake theory IS a load of bollox. Look at that and try to apply the pancake theory to that.

Pongo

tunaman wrote:

Here is a short clip which shows flashes going off down the side of the building. Right click and save as.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/911_WTC2_floor_pops_out_followed_by_a_stream_of_flashes_and_smoke_puffs.wmv

Not trying to be smart here tunaman, I'm really not, but are you taking the piss?
That's it? '_floor_pops_out_followed_by_a_stream_of_flashes_and_smoke_puffs.wmv'

.....Well, of course it does! What' supposed to happen when a floor collapses 100 storeys up?

ps... Keyword here is 'followed'

Now, with all the news cameras, helicopters, video cameras, photographers etc that were there on the day, isn't it just a little bit odd that there isn't one photo or video clip of one of these flashes, eh? And there should also be a fairly audible bang when the towers begin to collapse. Even one video, with an audible explosion right before the collapse would go a long way towards making me a believer, think about the demolition videos you see on the news or on Discovery channel, there alwasy a ripple of explosions a few seconds before the collapse, why didn't the same happen on 9/11, because if it did it should've been recorded by at least one camera. Anywhere, can you show me a legit video with a pre collapse explosion, or flash?

'Anywhere, can you show me a legit video with a pre collapse explosion, or flash?'

DublinWriter

So Glad wrote:

That is a great video. Guys, the pancake theory IS a load of bollox. Look at that and try to apply the pancake theory to that.

I'm not sure if it's in the Loose Change video, but there's a video showing the towers collapsing and analysing the time they take to collapse.

The time taken for each tower to collapse was the exactly the same time at which a coin would fall if dropped from the top of the tower.

Meaning the towers 'free-falled'. If the floors pancaked then it would have taken a lot longer for them to collapse.

Yook

Video here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

Straight from the horses mouth, there ya go folks.

projectmayhem

can't tell if he slipped up or not because clip ends quickly.

what an idiot either way. not that it's news that the thing was shot down anyway

Huggles

Very old news. There was a show on the biography channel awhile back where they actually interviewed the air force pilot that pulled the trigger.

ShayHT

Sorry if this has already been posted been listen to what donald duck says right at the end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0&feature=Views&page=5&t=t&f=b