9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

As this is not the conspiracy board I won't be expanding on any conspiracy theories here.

I previously cited a reference that mentioned the figure of 200 deaths which is just as believable as the reported figure of 2.700 based on close inspection of all the available evidence.

Anyone who believes everything the media vomits out is completely naive. For example the BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed at 5pm. In the report you can see said building standing in the background. Building 7 subsequently collapsed 20 minutes later without having been hit by a plane.



These facts speak for themselves. In order to logically prove that commercial planes hit the towers all the anomalies I previously mentioned need to be addressed and convincingly proven to be false.

You specifically said there were no planes and they were computer generated in the tv footage. You showed videos and claimed the nose of the plane came out the far side of the building and this was an error by the person that doctored the footage.


Was it not you that also said that a device was used to block private cameras from working in Mahatten and any footage is fake?


I do love how the media are feeding us loads of crap but lads posting on youtube is "evidence"

fepper

On the other thread about 9/11 being explained to teenagers at school,cianmcliam post is saying that the buildings collapsed from top down like a domino effect due to plane crash damage,another good theory as well

Rudiger Glique

fepper wrote: »

On the other thread about 9/11 being explained to teenagers at school,cianmcliam post is saying that the buildings collapsed from top down like a domino effect due to plane crash damage,another good theory as well

Hi fepper, again, I ask you to look at the collapse of building seven again online with your own eyes. Then look at any of the multiple examples of other steel framed buildings on fire (ignore the twin towers), next look online at any number of controlled demolitions, then just answer me this question, which does buildings sevens collapse resemble? Does it resemble the multiple examples of burning steel framed buildings that have at best asymmetric collapse of a couple of floors at most, or does it resemble the total simultaneous structural failure into its own footprint that can only be done by taking out the entire support structure of the building.

If your answer is that it resembles the multiple examples of burning buildings, then I am afraid there is nothing else that can be said. I could literally show you a video of a guy lighting a fuse and it would make no difference.

Rudiger Glique

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You specifically said there were no planes and they were computer generated in the tv footage.

I might have missed this, but where did he say that?

Anyway, there is a lot of disinfo regarding 911. So lets deal with the facts.

Guy:Incognito, I will trust your intentions more if you answer this simple question. How did the hijackers passport land on the street?

I can give you three possible scenarios:

a: the hijacker managed to throw it out the planes window just before impact

b: the passport somehow after impact traveled through the plane, through the building, out of an open window in the building (yes, I know it had no open windows) and flew onto the street undamaged

c: the hijacker survived the impact, ran out of the building and dropped it as he made his get away.

Feel free to pick one of those scenarios, or explain a better one. If you can't give a scenario or choose not to, I will from here on have to assume you are actually not interested in getting to the truth.

Streetwalker

I lived and worked in NY from 1995 to 2003. I watched the second plane hit the south tower from the street with my own eyes along with about 30 of my work colleagues. The actual noise from the crash nearly lifted me off my feet and piss my pants. Anyone claiming it wasn't a plane or it was a controlled explosion etc.. is a conspiracy nut. I'm actually surprised to this day the tower didn't topple right over given the violence involved in the collision.

Rudiger Glique

Streetwalker wrote: »

I lived and worked in NY from 1995 to 2003. I watched the second plane hit the south tower from the street with my own eyes along with about 30 of my work colleagues. The actual noise from the crash nearly lifted me off my feet and piss my pants. Anyone claiming it wasn't a plane or it was a controlled explosion etc.. is a conspiracy nut. I'm actually surprised to this day the tower didn't topple right over given the violence involved in the collision.

Streetwalke, that must have been terrifying all right. Do you mind me asking where you worked?

Also, did you witness the collapse of building seven and what do you think brought it down?

omnithanos

Streetwalker wrote: »

I lived and worked in NY from 1995 to 2003. I watched the second plane hit the south tower from the street with my own eyes along with about 30 of my work colleagues. The actual noise from the crash nearly lifted me off my feet and piss my pants. Anyone claiming it wasn't a plane or it was a controlled explosion etc.. is a conspiracy nut. I'm actually surprised to this day the tower didn't topple right over given the violence involved in the collision.

I'm not saying there was no plane, I'm saying there was no commercial plane. It's rare to get a genuine witness to this tragic event who actually saw the plane. Many of the eyewitnesses said that it looked like a military plane. Can you confirm whether it was a military plane or a drone? It's obvious from the evidence put forward that it wasn't a commercial plane as reported by the mainstream media.

It's also obvious that the impact shots of the plane going into the building were digitally altered because aluminium wings cannot physically slice through concrete and steel.

Streetwalker

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Streetwalke, that must have been terrifying all right. Do you mind me asking where you worked?

Also, did you witness the collapse of building seven and what do you think brought it down?

Removals company about 15 blocks north of the trade centre although when the second plane hit we where starting a job on 14th street. Terrifying yes it was. I was more taken a back at the site of grown men just standing around in tears don't think people realise how upsetting it was for NY'ers tbh. Watched a woman in her I'd say 30's collapse no more than 5 feet from me out of pure shock

Didn't see building seven fall I left after the North tower fell had enough by then and wanted to get back to my girlfriend in our apartment in Williamsburg and phone my family.

Is surreal looking back to this day watching the programmes because in reality even tough I witnessed it I still find it hard to believe it happened. The plane was real and it's a testament to the construction of those towers that "only" 3000 people died that day.

omnithanos

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But when you make claims that only 200 died and cartoon planes were used then why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?

I didn't make such a claim although digital fakery was obviously used in the impact shots as the aluminium wings of a plane cannot physically slice through concrete and steel.

Opinions on whether or not any planes were actually used is irrelevant to the debate as to whether or not it is possible that the towers were struck by the two commercial planes in question, AA11, which has no record of having taken off that day, and UA175, which Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System data confirms landed at Cleveland after the South Tower exploded.

Rather then attempting to discredit me it would far more productive for you to offer rational explanations to the multiple anomalies I have listed.

fepper

Wasn't they an Irish women and her daughter on the second plane cos her brother was speaking bout her on tv so doubt and hope not that it was staged by government,as regards the plane wings maybe the impact by the nose of plane on concrete cracked on impact and wings sliced thru it

Streetwalker

omnithanos wrote: »

I'm not saying there was no plane, I'm saying there was no commercial plane. It's rare to get a genuine witness to this tragic event who actually saw the plane. Many of the eyewitnesses said that it looked like a military plane. Can you confirm whether it was a military plane or a drone? It's obvious from the evidence put forward that it wasn't a commercial plane as reported by the mainstream media.

It's also obvious that the impact shots of the plane going into the building were digitally altered because aluminium wings cannot physically slice through concrete and steel.

Maybe it's rare in Ireland sure but thousands of people including the ones I worked with watched an airplane hit the building. For me I personally think it's insulting to the dead to even consider the possibility it was a drone or military plane but then if people want to believe that then so be it.

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

I'm not saying there was no plane,.

Well you've changed your tune from the CT forum so. You were so sure there wasnt, and all your "evidence" backed you up.

omnithanos

fepper wrote: »

Wasn't they an Irish women and her daughter on the second plane cos her brother was speaking bout her on tv so doubt and hope not that it was staged by government,as regards the plane wings maybe the impact by the nose of plane on concrete cracked on impact and wings sliced thru it

Here is the best view of the fake shot of the plane entering the south tower. As you can see the right wing momentarily goes behind the smoke which is actually behind the south tower and the same wing then momentarily goes behind the left side of the tower itself which again is impossible. The plane then slices through the building, wings and all, and no debris falls outside the tower. Anyone who thinks this shot is real should watch some Wild E Coyote cartoons. What the plane does here is physically impossible.

omnithanos

Streetwalker wrote: »

Maybe it's rare in Ireland sure but thousands of people including the ones I worked with watched an airplane hit the building. For me I personally think it's insulting to the dead to even consider the possibility it was a drone or military plane but then if people want to believe that then so be it.

Far more insulting to refuse to consider the evidence and to deny the bereaved the opportunity to learn the truth. If I lost someone in this tragedy I would not accept the lies and say sure what's done is done. That would be an insult to the dead.

Streetwalker

omnithanos wrote: »

Far more insulting to refuse to consider the evidence and to deny the bereaved the opportunity to learn the truth. If I lost someone in this tragedy I would not accept the lies and say sure what's done is done. That would be an insult to the dead.

I'll leave you to it.

omnithanos

Streetwalker wrote: »

I'll leave you to it.

Thanks Michael Jackson.

If you actually believe it was United Airlines 175 that hit the South Tower then maybe you can explain why the ACARS data suggests it landed at Cleveland.

cerastes

omnithanos wrote: »

If you read my first reply to this topic you will see that I have cited overwhelming evidence that commercial planes could not have been involved. If this point is accepted then one must naturally look to who could have possibly contrived such an amount of evidence to manipulate the mass populous into believing that commercial planes hit the towers. Certainly not a man in a cave in Afghanistan.

How did the planes fly into the towers without the wings coming off like they did when a bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945 killing 13 people?

How come those two hijackers left a deliberate trail buying pizza with credit cards, wandering around the shops to be filmed by cctv the evening before the attacks and abandoning a car with a list of the names of all 19 hijackers inside.

How did a passport survive the crash in new york and two other passports survived the crash in Shanksville?

I also mentioned how Marvin Bush headed a company who were working on building upgrades prior to the event. These would be the primary suspects for any rigging of explosives.

How come the wings didnt come off/fold up like the other inidence of a plane hitting a building that day? as that was the reason behind a plane dissappearing into a small hole, even though there is no actual footage of it happening?

fepper wrote: »

Wasn't they an Irish women and her daughter on the second plane cos her brother was speaking bout her on tv so doubt and hope not that it was staged by government,as regards the plane wings maybe the impact by the nose of plane on concrete cracked on impact and wings sliced thru it

Whatever of the wings being aluminium and the building structure being steel and concrete and any suggestion they sliced through the building like a hot knife through butter, I can see that there is a lot of kinetic and potential energy, how the hell does anyone think the nose cone radome made it through anything?? the nose cone is made of essentially a lamination of foam, plastics, resin and fiberglass like material?
It seems to defy physics?

IT-Guy

omnithanos wrote: »

Here is the best view of the fake shot of the plane entering the south tower. As you can see the right wing momentarily goes behind the smoke which is actually behind the south tower and the same wing then momentarily goes behind the left side of the tower itself which again is impossible. The plane then slices through the building, wings and all, and no debris falls outside the tower. Anyone who thinks this shot is real should watch some Wild E Coyote cartoons. What the plane does here is physically impossible.

Ah come on, that video has been thoroughly debunked:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-9-11-impact-footage-was-faked-shows-layering-error.t2415/

Strongbow10

Very stupid question and I'm missing the obvious but if these outlandish theories are to be entertained then where are the passengers from those planes?

What was their fate in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists ?

Ipso

Strongbow10 wrote: »

Very stupid question and I'm missing the obvious but if these outlandish theories are to be entertained then where are the passengers from those planes?

What was their fate in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists ?

Once you realise that the troofers are looking for attention and like to think of themselves as special as they think they have access to information the sheeple don't, it makes "sense".
Go to the conspiracy theory section and you'll see a slew of false flag predictions that didn't materialise.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ipso wrote: »

Once you realise that the troofers are looking for attention and like to think of themselves as special as they think they have access to information the sheeple don't, it makes "sense".
Go to the conspiracy theory section and you'll see a slew of false flag predictions that didn't materialise.

A very large %of those made by omni. According to him most major incidents over the last few decades have been fake.

fepper

cerastes wrote: »

How come the wings didnt come off/fold up like the other inidence of a plane hitting a building that day? as that was the reason behind a plane dissappearing into a small hole, even though there is no actual footage of it happening?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Whatever of the wings being aluminium and the building structure being steel and concrete and any suggestion they sliced through the building like a hot knife through butter, I can see that there is a lot of kinetic and potential energy, how the hell does anyone think the nose cone radome made it through anything?? the nose cone is made of essentially a lamination of foam, plastics, resin and fiberglass like material?<br />
It seems to defy physics?

<br />
Well that put my idea that the plane nose did damage to mass concrete and steel to bed for sure,its getting more baffling now and people in Manhattan actually saw planes hitting into these buildings?

cerastes

fepper wrote: »

<br />
Well that put my idea that the plane nose did damage to mass concrete and steel to bed for sure,its getting more baffling now and people in Manhattan actually saw planes hitting into these buildings?

Im not saying planes didnt hit buildings, I think the footage where the plane dissapeared in parts was explained as the handheld cameras capacity to deal with contrasting colours and how it recorded the images,

Im not completely opposed to the idea that the planes could plough into and cut through the buildings as there would be an awful lot of kinetic energy, but I wonder why the planes didnt fold up as per the explanation for the other building struck, but I can see its possible that, that building was lower, probably stiffer and stronger or that mass at the height of that building wasn't any issue, whereas at the height of the TT's it would be.
Taat said, why is there no real footage of that other building? why not discount any dispute? That said, surely it could be calculated if the energy was sufficient to slice through the structure?

And what of the parts found that didnt seem to match? was there even any reports of those items being witnessed as landing/hitting the ground?

The planes being reported as landing at other airports seems odd though, but maybe its explainable.
I was sure there showed an image of the nose coming through, kinetic energy or not, that item would be destroyed and I cant see it having any effect on the structure of a building.
ie if you hit a fiberglass item with a steel (maybe even covered in concrete if you could swing it) bar, do you think it would magically impress its self into the steel/concrete bar or disintegrate and be flattened?

On top of that, the structure was claimed to be superheated, yet people were pictured standing right where the planes impacted, how come the tops of the building didnt just suffer structural failure/collapse/topple off or fall to the side?

fepper

Excellent other theories being put out here!

omnithanos

IT-Guy wrote: »

Ah come on, that video has been thoroughly debunked:

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-9-11-impact-footage-was-faked-shows-layering-error.t2415/

That link doesn't deal with Any of the points I made in my post. I made no reference to the building in front of the building and I was talking about the right side wing going behind the smoke and the side of the tower not the left side wing.

Hyzepher

omnithanos wrote: »

That link doesn't deal with Any of the points I made in my post. I made no reference to the building in front of the building and I was talking about the right side wing going behind the smoke and the side of the tower not the left side wing.

if the video was staged then to produce the effect of the wing going behind the smoke and tower would require the faker to introduce additional layers into the composition. Something you wouldn't do if you wanted the video to appear genuine.

Also, it is undeniable that something hit the towers. it is much harder to remove something and replace it with something else. The effects you see on the video can be more easily explained if you understand how photography works and how artifacts can be introduced naturally when trying to produce a slow-mo version of an already compressed video.

Also, your passport theory - read this

Your ACARS data theory is ridiculous.

Rudiger Glique

fepper wrote: »

Excellent other theories being put out here!

Guy:Incognito, your noticeable silence on the question of the passport speaks volumes to me. I am assuming lots of people simply switch off when they have to engage their brains with that fact, as it is an obvious pointer to at least a conspiracy at some level.

Streetwalker, it sounds like you were a couple of block from the event at the time. I would suggest you watch footage of building sevens collapse and then try and explain it knowing that no planes hit the building. Certainly the theory put forward in the program this post is referring too requires a plane to have buried itself in the building.

Fepper, you seem open to looking at the facts, although I wonder if you have examined the collapse of building seven in any great detail. I think there are some things that hold most people back from actually looking at the event objectively, and they are both perfectly natural. To begin with, many conspiracies are nonsense, so it is good to be skeptical. Now here are tow possible reasons people tend to be biased when looking at 'big' conspiracies.

1: people ten to assume other people are like them, they have the same moral code for example. At least people who look like them and live in the same country (Muslim terrorists on the other hand are irrational monsters capable of anything So when you ask them to believe that people in power could ever rationalize such an attack, they think 'no, how could they possibly justify it?'

2: The conspiracy requires too many people to be involved in the lie. Surely, someone would leak the truth, surely the media would be doing its job and inform us, there is no way so many people could be in on this lie without us finding out?

Both of these are dangerous assumptions to make. Lance Armstrong was involved in a conspiracy. He was able to bully and manipulate people into taking part in his lie. He rationalized the lie and must have believe what he was doing was 'right'. Where were the media? Surely they should have informed us about the lie? Now if Lance Armstrong can pull it off, think about how much power the CIA has for example to silence people? That doesn't mean all conspiracies are true, but it does mean you have to be open to the possibility that some are true, even when they seem beyond belief.

So what was the rational for such an attack? Well, American hegemony is seen by many as the only way to maintain world peace. It is the end that justifies the means. Now look at what the neocons did after the event? Did they immediately go after and catch Osama? Or did they wage wars on nation states that they had been eyeing up well before 911 (often justifying those attacks on lies, WMD anyone?). They could have been just very opportunistic, but perhaps there is more to it.

There are many examples of false flags in history to justify war and other outrages. The gulf of tolkin incident for Vietnam, the burning of the Reichstag by the nazis. Churchill also knowingly let the nazis bomb Coventary, because to warn the people might jeopardize the war effort.

There are also many Germans who claimed they did not know the Nazis were gassing Jews. With hindsight we think, impossible. But perhaps the mainstream media wasn't advertising the extermination camps, in fact, maybe they were covering them up? Perhaps there were even Jews who refused to believe that German people would be gassing them right until the very moment they were standing naked in showers, and Zyclon b was dropped in. Never underestimate the power of denial

So, I just bring these things up so that you can look at the events with eyes wide open, look at them objectively. And if you want an insight into how people in power think (and remember the kinds of people power attract) here is a quote from Hermann Göring in a moment of honesty at the Nuremberg trials -

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

I know what some people will say to this comment. They will say it is a lot of hot air, they will make ad hominen attacks, they will try and discredit me and paint me as an extremist, a crazy person (troofer etc.). But I have nothing to gain from my beliefs other than the ability to say to myself 'I honestly looked at the facts'.

Now, forget everything anyone tells you and ask yourself again, did that passport land on the street and if so, how did it get there? and who was it who was attacking us again?

Rudiger Glique

Hyzepher wrote: »

Also, your passport theory -

Passport theory? The passport is a FACT. And to quote the site you link to 'Our first reaction is why would they bother? What does it add to the story? There was no need to “plant passports”. We’ve never seen anyone say “they must have been on the planes because look, the NYPD found that passport”. It’s completely unnecessary, and is only ever used as evidence of an “inside job”.'

Well firstly, it is one of the only pieces of evidence linking the hijackers to the event. And is the site seriously suggesting we stop asking about how it got there, because if you think about it, it was so highly improbable (to the point of ludicrous) that that means it is less likely to have been planted. Talk about a twisted inversion of the burden of proof. It begins by suggesting that the fact it is such a ridiculous story is proof it has to have happened the way it was described. Hilarious!

Then it refers to an emotive story about the remains of a body. The passport landed completely intact and undamaged, it was not found in the rubble. The same rubble we were led to believe in the tv program this post is about turned into a furnace, melted aluminum, mixed with water and exploded leading to the first ever cases of total collapse of steel framed buildings!

Finally, it slips this in 'The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2' The guy who found the passport identifying the terrorist just quietly slipped away never to be seen again? How convenient!

Even if they drag this guy out of the wood work, you have to seriously doubt the reliability of this piece of evidence. Remember, we are supposed to believe the black boxes were completely destroyed during the crash. Yes, the same black boxes which if found and analysed would silence me completely about any conspiracy.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

'raging' fires apparently melted aluminium and completely (for the first time in history) destroyed the black boxes.

You do know black boxes have been destroyed many times before and are not indestructible right?

Rudiger Glique

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You do know black boxes have been destroyed many times before and are not indestructible right?

Damaged yes, completely vaporized no. Again, that is a first, just like so many firsts on 911. And the point is that the same forces that completely vaporized the black boxes left the passport totally undamaged.