911 revisited

meglome

moviesrme wrote: »

To meglome:

1) The clean fall of Wtc7. The link you gave seems to corroborate this. This really is the single most prized evidence of conspiracy. I know officially this girder dislodged that one and this girder was exposed and was key to the whole building and whatever. But, you know what, i'm not buying it. My gut and my eyes tell me "too perfect" (a fall).

As King Mob said the official reports says the building suffered a catastrophic internal collapse, which is why the penthouse falls into the building right before the whole lot goes. This causes the building to fall in on itself initially, then the whole building basically falls over. Go watch videos of controlled demolitions on the internet, there are literally hundreds. ALL of them are very distinctive but only look superficially like WTC7 and don't sound like it at all.

One other thing which I have brought up before is we all have our own views about how this collapse looks. However we should be asking ourselves how many buildings with this exact design have been left to burn and didn't collapse so we can make a more informed decision. The simple answer is there are no buildings with this exact (flawed) design so we have no way to make a like for like comparison. And let's not forget other steel framed buildings have collapsed from just fire.

moviesrme wrote: »

2) I hadn't seen the photographs of the pentagon debris. Yeah, there seems to be some doubt here alright. You've moved me somewhat on this one. I'm still a bit suspicious though. In support of your position is the "melting" of the 2nd plane into the wtc tower. I know we're talking of the pentagon but it shows how a plane can appear to just completely "melt" into a vertical surface with little debris at that surface. You or someone else posted another video of just this phenomenon I think. It's non intuitive but you cant deny the eyeball.

The main problem with accepting that no plane hit the pentagon is we have to ignore the 150 eye witnesses who saw the plane. Once we ignore them we have to ignore the lampposts being knocked over, on a busy highway, in rush-hour, in the exact size and shape of a 757. Then we need to ignore the wreckage, the passengers remains and the passengers belongings. How is it that all or any of this could be planted right in front of a busy highway in broad daylight?

moviesrme wrote: »

3) I tried to find this video and couldn't. Any I saw that seemed to corroborate what I was talking about actually did not when I re ran them again and again. My key thing was up and out of the centre defying gravity and then falling which is not really seen in the videos. The still photos show the "dreadlock" appearance alright and seem to support my view but the videos tell all and don't so I retract this.

Take a look at the videos I post above, might be interesting to you.

moviesrme wrote: »

On 3 though I find the amount of dust (& pyroclastic flow) during collapse and the complete non existence of substantial floor concrete slabs very suspicious.

Those huge buildings collapsing are releasing some serious forces so material being pulped by those forces wouldn't seem strange to me. There would be huge quantities of dry-wall (plaster boards etc), office furniture, concrete all of which would be destroyed and pushed out.

Captain Furball

Lol funny clip haha thats good

moviesrme

To meglome & King mob:

1) I'll do as you suggest and check out other controlled demolition videos and pay particular attention to the sounds etc.

2) The point of the eyewitnesses is a good one and is another nail in the coffin on the pentagon conspiracy for me.

3) But all the concrete pulverising to dust? I know I have no experience to compare it to but it does seem incredible.

meglome

moviesrme wrote: »

3) But all the concrete pulverising to dust? I know I have no experience to compare it to but it does seem incredible.

The building would have been full of dry-wall (all the dividing walls, partitions, and ceiling tiles etc) so the dust would be made up of tons of that.

moviesrme

To meglome:

On the concrete pulverising (all or next to all) I think we'll just have to differ on this for the moment. I probably need to bone up a bit on my 911 reading over the next while.

Genrerally speaking though I am moved more to dead centre on is it or isn't it a conspiracy. All of the back and forth over the last few days does not for me invalidate Gages approach but it does offer an alternative version of events and as such offers me a dilemma hence the centre position.

squod

Anyone know if there is still a way to find the Sunday Tribunes coverage of events after 9/11.

Their articles were interesting at the time. Don't get me wrong I have no real interst in this but I feel as though people here haven't read the papers in the weeks following 9/11.

The particular article talked about the five Isrealis filming as the first plane crashed into the towers. They're journey through the American legal system and their interviews on Isreali T.V.

meglome

squod wrote: »

The particular article talked about the five Isrealis filming as the first plane crashed into the towers. They're journey through the American legal system and their interviews on Isreali T.V.

Take any big news story then after a month has passed or six or twelve take the knowledge you have then and compare it to what you knew in the days or weeks following the event. There will almost always be big differences in the first stories compared to the later ones as more information becomes available. So let's not start blaming the Israelis again when there's no evidence of this, other than some Israeli kids taking some pictures after the event and having a neighbour who thought they were speaking Arabic.

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

uprising

squod wrote: »

Anyone know if there is still a way to find the Sunday Tribunes coverage of events after 9/11.

Their articles were interesting at the time. Don't get me wrong I have no real interst in this but I feel as though people here haven't read the papers in the weeks following 9/11.

The particular article talked about the five Isrealis filming as the first plane crashed into the towers. They're journey through the American legal system and their interviews on Isreali T.V.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4

meglome

uprising wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4

You have just proved my point above. Seeing as there were no truck bombs of any kind.

uprising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cvjBViV7g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVunju6Z4Xo

uprising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs

squod

meglome wrote: »

Take any big news story then after a month has passed or six or twelve take the knowledge you have then and compare it to what you knew in the days or weeks following the event. There will almost always be big differences in the first stories compared to the later ones as more information becomes available. So let's not start blaming the Israelis again when there's no evidence of this, other than some Israeli kids taking some pictures after the event and having a neighbour who thought they were speaking Arabic.

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

Sorry Meglome, but this doesn't relate to my post. As I've no real interest in this subject I reckon you could have a point. However, the 'fore knowledge' the report speaks of is verified by the people themselves, not by news reporters. BTW a bomb in a van as I recall was never mentioned.

Perhaps if you showed youtube footage of the Isrealis appearing on TV talking about their experiences on the morning of 9/11 you'd get a more rounded outlook on this story.

If anyone has the original newspaper article I'd love to read it again.

uprising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0Ms7mId34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxYO21wE38

uprising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY

meglome

Uprising not to state the obvious but this is a discussion forum so while videos can be useful to the discussion, you haven't posted any discussion whatsoever just videos.

Do you have an actual point?

meglome

squod wrote: »

Sorry Meglome, but this doesn't relate to my post. As I've no real interest in this subject I reckon you could have a point. However, the 'fore knowledge' the report speaks of is verified by the people themselves, not by news reporters. BTW a bomb in a van as I recall was never mentioned.

Perhaps if you showed youtube footage of the Isrealis appearing on TV talking about their experiences on the morning of 9/11 you'd get a more rounded outlook on this story.

If anyone has the original newspaper article I'd love to read it again.

I provided a link with sources, which has the original source story of the conspiracy. When exactly do they admit to foreknowledge? wouldn't they be in prison? Were those Israelis convicted of something?

uprising

meglome wrote: »

Uprising not to state the obvious but this is a discussion forum so while videos can be useful to the discussion, you haven't posted any discussion whatsoever just videos.

Do you have an actual point?

Of course I have a point, actually a few points, same points the video's bring up.........

9/11 is a lie, it's a cover-up, an inside job. Watch the video's, actually I may find myself in eastern europe somewhere.......getting tazered.

uprising

meglome wrote: »

I provided a link with sources, which has the original source story of the conspiracy. When exactly do they admit to foreknowledge? wouldn't they be in prison? Were those Israelis convicted of something?

At 5:14 the mossad agent says "our purpose was to document the event", they weren't in prison saying it, they were in a studio in Israel, they weren't convicted of anything, strange that don't you think, and the fact just after the attacks the only flights allowed to leave the ground had the Bin Laden's on board and that all the binladen group websites expired on 911 also. Lots of strange things happened that day, that have never been answered, probably never will, that's kinda what make's it a conspiracy.

meglome

uprising wrote: »

Of course I have a point, actually a few points, same points the video's bring up.........

9/11 is a lie, it's a cover-up, an inside job. Watch the video's, actually I may find myself in eastern europe somewhere.......getting tazered.

But you're posting the videos so it's up to you to tell us what your point is.

meglome

uprising wrote: »

At 5:14 the mossad agent says "our purpose was to document the event", they weren't in prison saying it, they were in a studio in Israel, they weren't convicted of anything, strange that don't you think, and the fact just after the attacks the only flights allowed to leave the ground had the Bin Laden's on board and that all the binladen group websites expired on 911 also. Lots of strange things happened that day, that have never been answered, probably never will, that's kinda what make's it a conspiracy.

What video?

And I suppose you can back up these claims?

johnwillnot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

squod

meglome wrote: »

I provided a link with sources, which has the original source story of the conspiracy. When exactly do they admit to foreknowledge? wouldn't they be in prison? Were those Israelis convicted of something?

No idea what you mean by this, your 'original source' is web page telling me something which, to my recollection, is incorrect .

The isrealis' admit to fore knowledge on Isreali TV some weeks after their return home. And as for them being imprisoned, they were, before they were extradited. Their group leader was due to be arrested also before his disappearence.

So if this article from the Sunday Tribune turns up please read it, denying what happened is shamefull IMO.

squod

Well looks like I found it myself.

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2003/nov/09/the-real-911-cover-up/?q=september%2011%20mossad


''Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show''

''Our purpose was to document the event." But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?''

''simply that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen, but effectively did nothing to help stop them.''

squod

squod wrote: »

''Our purpose was to document the event." But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?''

If you take those words out of context.

I think they were referring to why they went to the site after the attacks, not to New York.

But why would these "secret agents" say their plan on television?

I like how the article says:

In the car was $4,700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters ? the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who'd flown jetliners into the world trade centre and Pentagon just hours before.

Wow foreigners who work for a moving company having foreign passports and box cutters.
That's suspicious alright.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

If you take those words out of context.

I think they were referring to why they went to the site after the attacks, not to New York.

But why would these "secret agents" say their plan on television?

I like how the article says:

Wow foreigners who work for a moving company having foreign passports and box cutters.
That's suspicious alright.

You may have misread the article or articles at the time.

So, as the eyewitness 'Maria' said she reported the van and the people filming and cheering on top of it as the first plane went in, not after the attacks as you say.

The Isreali men did indeed appear on Isreali TV, I don't think any 'secrets' existed after a full account was already given to authorities by them in the US.
Isreal is a U.S. ally.

BTW King Mob what do you believe happened?

meglome

squod wrote: »

You may have misread the article or articles at the time.

So, as the eyewitness 'Maria' said she reported the van and the people filming and cheering on top of it as the first plane went in, not after the attacks as you say.

The Isreali men did indeed appear on Isreali TV, I don't think any 'secrets' existed after a full account was already given to authorities by them in the US.
Isreal is a U.S. ally.

BTW King Mob what do you believe happened?

Is this the eyewitness that said the men were cheering and speaking what she thought was Arabic? Which is what made this a big deal, if they were Americans then I doubt the cops would have even been called.

squod

squod wrote: »

So, as the eyewitness 'Maria' said she reported the van and the people filming and cheering on top of it as the first plane went in, not after the attacks as you say.

That's not what the article says.

She's insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the twin towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold.

As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot.

So that's after the first plane hit.

I'd also love to know exactly what they were cheering.
I'm sure an American can distinguish shouts of astonishment for cheers for joy in Arabic or Hebrew.

It's also possible that these guys were just dicks.

And again it seems unlikely that secret agents would blow their cover like that.

squod wrote: »

The Isreali men did indeed appear on Isreali TV, I don't think any 'secrets' existed after a full account was already given to authorities by them in the US.
Isreal is a U.S. ally.

So then why would they implicate themselves and their "employers" by speaking about there involvement on TV?

Is it not possible (and makes more sense) that they were referring to why they were filming at the site?

squod

Honestly king mob, I dunno how you can make such comments on the
article.

As I said, The Isreali men appeared on TV in Isreal and gave statements at the time to the authorities in the US. They were sent by the Isreali authorities to document the event.

I'm so suprised people who weren't reading newspapers at the time or following coverage on the internet are now so interested in the events of 9/11.

I don't believe you are interested at all.

squod

squod wrote: »

Honestly king mob, I dunno how you can make such comments on the article.

Is anything I've said wrong?
Cause you're the one who said the article says something it doesn't/

squod wrote: »

As I said, The Isreali men appeared on TV in Isreal and gave statements at the time to the authorities in the US. They were sent by the Isreali authorities to document the event.

Is this the same authorities who said?:

"The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for Mossad and operatives employed by it." He added that "the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs", but the men were released because they "did not know anything about 9/11".

There is no evidence they had any foreknowledge at all.

squod wrote: »

I don't believe you are interested at all.

And what gives you that impression?
That I don't buy into conspiracy theories?

squod

Of course you're correct King Mob.

Obviously the first thing I'd do i f I wanted someone to film the events of 9/11 is call a moving agency, not a film crew.

These guys appear on TV to talk about their experiences and again you say
they're probably just a couple of dicks.

The artilce and the others like it published at the time gave me an interest
in the events of 9/11. So far I haven't heard anything concrete from any side.

I expect that you just don't have an interest. That's the impression that I get.