Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

9/11 TV fakery - No planes


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#361    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,109 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 14 August 2010 - 07:35 AM

View PostQ24, on 14 August 2010 - 02:36 AM, said:


Who said there is a “plan to kill Americans” in the document?

You’re the very first person that I’ve heard make such a ridiculous suggestion.

It was simply a statement revealing how the PNAC group thought and I very much doubt the individual who actually typed the words had anything to do with 9/11.  It is though quite possible that others within the think-tank were already acting on the motive even before it was confirmed to us in writing.

Never mind MID, just keep parroting the official story and everything else will go away.
Hold on, but you always use PNAC as evidence that the neo-cons would stop at nothing to pursue their ends, but now you say that PNAC themselves don't actually talk about killing fellow Americans? Then why do you always use it as an example, if in fact, then, it's yet further evidence of how wildly disproportionate the supposed aims of the neo-cons were (even the 'need for a new pearl harbor') with their methods to carry their plot out? Why are you always so willing to accept that the neo-cons would be capable of doing anything, when even, it seems, the evidence that's the smoking gun doesn't even go that far?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#362    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,892 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 August 2010 - 01:08 PM

View PostW Tell, on 13 August 2010 - 09:20 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be thick, but the link you refered me to makes the case "for" nano-thermite.
Just in one part of their conclusions it states,

"6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron
oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains
the ingredients of thermite."

and the other nine points lean in that direction too.

If this is the article you were talking about, (sorry about the two part question) is it because they didn't try it in a vacuum, and if so, what more could be shown if it was?
I thought that was what you wanted.  If you want other views on the subject, there are plenty around.  Here's one:
http://undicisettemb...claimed-in.html
It's also been discussed on this forum and others, particularly JREF.

The elemental "ingredients of thermite" are also the elemental ingredients of rusty steelwork with aluminium cladding and plenty of other everyday substances.  As I said before, there is nothing in that paper that points to thermite and only thermite.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#363    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 August 2010 - 05:03 PM

View Post747400, on 14 August 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

Hold on, but you always use PNAC as evidence that the neo-cons would stop at nothing to pursue their ends, but now you say that PNAC themselves don't actually talk about killing fellow Americans? Then why do you always use it as an example, if in fact, then, it's yet further evidence of how wildly disproportionate the supposed aims of the neo-cons were (even the 'need for a new pearl harbor') with their methods to carry their plot out? Why are you always so willing to accept that the neo-cons would be capable of doing anything, when even, it seems, the evidence that's the smoking gun doesn't even go that far?
I have never used the PNAC specifically as evidence that, “the neo-cons would stop at nothing”.  I’m not sure where you got that from.  And no, the PNAC think-tank did not talk about killing anyone… unless you’ve seen it written down somewhere?  I haven’t.

As mentioned in my last post, the main reason the “new Pearl Harbor” example is used is because it shows motive for engineering of an event, i.e. it states the benefit that such an event would bring to the ideology.  The secondary reason for the example is to emphasize how ‘coincidental’ it was that exactly such an event occurred shortly after individuals of the PNAC came to power in the Bush administration.

When talking about the PNAC (or Neocons, Bush administration, Zionists, etc) in relation to engineering 9/11, it is really not meant to implicate the group as a whole.  As with any group there will be moderate and extremist members and it is only the latter where the finger is intended to be pointed.

For instance, Thomas Donnelly of the PNAC, who was the principal author of Rebuilding America’s Defenses – I don’t believe he had a thing to do with 9/11 and neither is there any evidence for it.  He was not stating a ‘plan’ when he referred to a “new Pearl Harbor” but, in innocence, was affirming what everyone knew and had probably discussed.  Still, in doing so, this unintentionally highlighted that motive existed for engineering of an event.

What could Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al say at this point?  “Erm… actually Thomas, could you take that line out of the document please.  You see, um… we’ve been planning to engineer a new Pearl Harbor for a couple of years now and we don’t want our motives broadcast.”  No, they had to let it go and hope that it was written off as ‘one of those things’ when the precise requirement to enact their “process of transformation” was met so shortly after they came to power.

Why do I “accept that the neo-cons would be capable of doing anything [such as 9/11]”?

As discussed, those who came to power and were in a position to engineer a “catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” believed this was necessary to ensure continued “American pre-eminence” into the future.  Without the “process of transformation” there was genuine concern that “American global leadership” would be replaced in the coming decades of the 21st century.  This is summarised to an extent in the closing words of the document: -

“It is not a choice between pre-eminence today and pre-eminence tomorrow.  Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late.  Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military pre-eminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.”


I have highlighted two words in the excerpt above.  Without a “new Pearl Harbor” the only choice was “or not” for the immediate future, i.e. there was no catalyst.  It was the occurrence of 9/11 that made the choice an instant and positive one for America.

The gains outweighed the sacrifice in this case.  I keep asking – what is a life worth compared to the well-being of the nation?  What are 3,000 lives next to continued prosperity of the United States?  I accept the motive would be acted upon because the 9/11 event was to serve a greater purpose – the future pre-eminence of America itself.

Unfortunately this is difficult to understand for the individual who is concerned only with their own comfort and who overestimates their importance in the greater scheme of things – “Sacrifice me?  They just wouldn’t… I’m a… a person!… I’m far too important.”  To understand the bigger issue, one must see what those shaping the world saw.  Future pre-eminence of the state takes absolute priority.  You are not at all essential.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#364    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 14 August 2010 - 05:58 PM

"From all the available evidence it's quite clear to an open mind what really happened on 9/11.
Here's the REAL evidence, make up your own minds. No planes where used and the proof is in the videos below."




I believe this to be counterintelligence, ... to reduce all credibility to a area that is way, way too credible.
I believe we are not getting the truth about 9-11, believe that it is clearly an inside job, that is indeed involved thermite.

But there are 9-11 stories that I do not believe, including the 9-11 Commission Report, and the above story is one I do not believe. I do not believe this story. I believe planes were involved.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#365    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 August 2010 - 09:23 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 14 August 2010 - 05:58 PM, said:

I believe this to be counterintelligence, ... to reduce all credibility to a area that is way, way too credible.
I also believe that counterintelligence is possibly the source of this theory – after all, it was Morgan Reynolds, formerly of the Bush administration, who initially did most to spread this “no plane” at the WTC theory.  And no, that does not necessarily mean that he had knowledge of the false flag operation to anyone thinking it.

If the aim here was to discredit the 9/11 truth movement then it seems to have worked.  There have been a good number of posters on this thread who appear to view the “no plane” theories as synonymous with the wider and rather more well-founded theories.

The sad thing is that the above situation exists even though the member who started this thread and has long since left the discussion is the only single one who has backed the “no plane/tv fakery” idea.  Apart from that, there have been a further 354 posts from 72 members (forming both sides of the 9/11 argument) of which not one has agreed with the opening post.

The original topic of this thread is not taken seriously by ‘truthers’ or ‘official conspiracy theorists’ alike.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#366    5laces

5laces

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2010

Posted 15 August 2010 - 01:01 PM

[quote name='Hocus' timestamp='1271270162' post='3375884']
From all the available evidence it's quite clear to an open mind what really happened on 9/11.
Here's the REAL evidence, make up your own minds. No planes where used and the proof is in the videos below.


And what about all the people that was in the road and nearby buildings


#367    NeoGenesis

NeoGenesis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

Posted 16 August 2010 - 12:42 PM

View Post5laces, on 15 August 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

View PostHocus, on 14 April 2010 - 06:36 PM, said:

From all the available evidence it's quite clear to an open mind what really happened on 9/11.
Here's the REAL evidence, make up your own minds. No planes where used and the proof is in the videos below.

And what about all the people that was in the road and nearby buildings

Greetings 5Laces and welcome to the discussion.
Regarding your post.Well that argument has been battered to bits long ago the entire discussion has moved alot deeper now.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

There comes a point when a person may no longer be focusing on the merits of the argument, and simply be arguing for the sake of arguing - aquatus1

#368    MC1245

MC1245

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 August 2010 - 01:14 PM

I believe those planes are fake

Edited by MC1245, 16 August 2010 - 02:06 PM.


#369    NeoGenesis

NeoGenesis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

Posted 16 August 2010 - 01:34 PM

MC1245 if you do not have any constructive discussion to share in this thread you will be marked as a spambot.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication

There comes a point when a person may no longer be focusing on the merits of the argument, and simply be arguing for the sake of arguing - aquatus1

#370    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 17 August 2010 - 12:22 AM

View PostQ24, on 14 August 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:


As mentioned in my last post, the main reason the “new Pearl Harbor” example is used is because it shows motive for engineering of an event, i.e. it states the benefit that such an event would bring to the ideology.  The secondary reason for the example is to emphasize how ‘coincidental’ it was that exactly such an event occurred shortly after individuals of the PNAC came to power in the Bush administration.


Why do I “accept that the neo-cons would be capable of doing anything [such as 9/11]”?

As discussed, those who came to power and were in a position to engineer a “catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” believed this was necessary to ensure continued “American pre-eminence” into the future.  Without the “process of transformation” there was genuine concern that “American global leadership” would be replaced in the coming decades of the 21st century.  This is summarised to an extent in the closing words of the document: -

“It is not a choice between pre-eminence today and pre-eminence tomorrow.  Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late.  Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military pre-eminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.”


I have highlighted two words in the excerpt above.  Without a “new Pearl Harbor” the only choice was “or not” for the immediate future, i.e. there was no catalyst.  It was the occurrence of 9/11 that made the choice an instant and positive one for America.



It shows motive... :mellow:

Well, it's shallow, because it has nothing to back it up, but it's also pretty dumb when you consider that the recommendations of PNAC were never brought to fruition.  Not in the wake of 9-11, and not to this day.

Thus, your "motive" falls a little short of having any real legs.

We still have a military that is too small, underpaid, under-supplied, ill-prepared for mutiple large theatre engagement, and is on the brink once again of having budgetary cuts thanks to left wing democratic leadership.  We are not prepared to deal with the threats that are still developing in the 2st century.


Quote

The gains outweighed thesacrifice in this case.  I keep asking – what is a life worth compared to the well-being of the nation?  What are 3,000 lives next to continued prosperity of the United States?  I accept the motive would be acted upon because the 9/11 event was to serve a greater purpose – the future pre-eminence of America itself.

Since we haven't assured the continued prosperity of the United States, by any means, since 9-11, this paragraph of yours has to fall on deaf ears.



Quote

Unfortunately this is difficult to understand for the individual who is concerned only with their own comfort and who overestimates their importance in the greater scheme of things – “Sacrifice me?  They just wouldn’t… I’m a… a person!… I’m far too important.”  To understand the bigger issue, one must see what those shaping the world saw.  Future pre-eminence of the state takes absolute priority.  You are not at all essential.

Unfortunately, what's difficult for some is to realize that your position is complete conjecture,  an untenable premise, and a weak implication of motive, from a single statement in a document that spelled out very clearly the weakness that America faced in 2000.  It is still in large part true today.

There is very little else that needs be added.

9-11-01 occurred because we were primed for it, and our enemy knew it.
It had absolutely nothing to do with anything but being ill prepared, on our part.

We are still a long way from being prepared to address the threats that face us in the world today.
We are indeed primed to revert to an even worse condition than we were in 2000.  

PNAC was warning us to get our act together, that's all.
I think you simply have this thing for conservatives...the principals that have always made this country great bother you.  You're looking for anything you can to dump blame on what you call neo-cons...or Bush, in particular* (who didn't even qualify as a true conservative), when all you're looking at was an astute warning.  It was accurate then...it's accurate today.


* This shall be one of the most examined and unusual phenomena to have emerged in the 21st century of American politics.  The hatred of Bush.  The blaming of Bush for everything.  We witnessed a candidate run for President for the Democratic party in 2008 against Bush, who wasn't even on the ticket...and people bought into it.  Now, that President is failing, and he's still blaming Bush for problems that are his...exclusively.  I think political historians will be examining this crazed phenomena for generations to come...very likely on the basis of it being an illustration in the power of the left-wing media, and the gullibility of the American public at-large.



And even our new "Pearl-Harbor" didn't get us where we need to be.  And our current administration, is preparing to take us back to even more weakness, less security, and complete unpreparedness for the defense of this nation and the execution of America's military mission in the world.


The only motive there should be, in this situation, should be to fix the mess we made of this country's stature in the 1990s and into the early 2000s.  

You simply have a problem realizing that we got caught with our pants down in 2001.  You can't accept that, so you do your dead level best to blame Bush for it, and a bunch of conservative thinkers that supposedly came into power in 2000.

You even go so far as to illustrate your very clear thinking in this matter:

Quote

The gains outweighed the sacrifice in this case. I keep asking – what is a life worth compared to the well-being of the nation? What are 3,000 lives next to continued prosperity of the United States? I accept the motive would be acted upon because the 9/11 event was to serve a greater purpose – the future pre-eminence of America itself.

That...is the thinking of a left wing radical.  A socialist.  A communist.   It is not the thinking of people such as the founders of this nation...and conservatives.


The blame for 9-11 is everyone's in this county.  It's an administration that slept and weakened our defenses.  It's a Congress that allowed this to happen.  It's the people who were fat and happy and never balked about the state of affairs.   And you want to call it some sort of plot...to implement the recommendations of PNAC, when they were never implemented!


It's gonna take another Reagan to do that Q.

We haven't had anyone close since 1988, and nothing approaching the state PNAC descibes has been in existence since the 1980s.  And Reagan didn't resort to killing American citizens to assure the protection and sovereignty of American citizens...

Ever think about what you say?



The premise is ludicrous.
The evidence is non-existent.
Your case is based upon flawed conjecture and interpetation slanted by your rather obvious bias.

Edited by MID, 17 August 2010 - 12:23 AM.


#371    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 August 2010 - 09:40 PM

View PostMID, on 17 August 2010 - 12:22 AM, said:

It shows motive... :mellow:

Well, it's shallow, because it has nothing to back it up, but it's also pretty dumb when you consider that the recommendations of PNAC were never brought to fruition.  Not in the wake of 9-11, and not to this day.

Thus, your "motive" falls a little short of having any real legs.

We still have a military that is too small, underpaid, under-supplied, ill-prepared for mutiple large theatre engagement, and is on the brink once again of having budgetary cuts thanks to left wing democratic leadership.  We are not prepared to deal with the threats that are still developing in the 2st century.
In the first place, the presence of motive is not dependent on the later outcome of events.  Whilst the PNAC believed that an attack would act as a catalyst to American benefit, the precise results of the event could not be predicted.  With this in mind, to what degree the PNAC recommendations actually turned out to be fulfilled is completely irrelevant.

Just for interest’s sake I should still mention that of course a large swathe of the roadmap has been enacted – it is in fact impossible to miss.  The most obvious place to look is the Middle East where the PNAC recommended an increased force presence to shape events in this strategically vital area.  Apart from that, another area to see the clear effect 9/11 had on the U.S. military is in spending…

At the time of writing Rebuilding America’s Defenses, military spending was at just below 3% of GDP.  This figure had been on a slow downward trend ever since the close of the Cold War near 10 years earlier.  As the PNAC put it, “Today, America spends less than 3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, less than at any time since before World War II – in other words, since before the United States established itself as the world’s leading power”.

The statement above shows the concern that America’s position as the world’s leading power could come under threat if the current situation continued.  Following this, the PNAC stated that their vision, “requires budget levels to be increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP” as a minimum.  It is after 9/11 that the downward trend was reversed and as at 2010 the military budget stands at 4.7% of GDP (back to Cold War levels).

This graph shows the same story regarding military spending from a slightly different angle: -

Posted Image

The red line indicates 9/11 - notice the trend before and after.

Mission accomplished and then some.


View PostMID, on 17 August 2010 - 12:22 AM, said:

I think you simply have this thing for conservatives...the principals that have always made this country great bother you.  You're looking for anything you can to dump blame on what you call neo-cons...or Bush, in particular* (who didn't even qualify as a true conservative), when all you're looking at was an astute warning.  It was accurate then...it's accurate today.
This is a subject of it’s own but it is war first and foremost that has made the United States great.  I know this, the PNAC knew this, history shows this and any informed person will not need this explaining to them.  If you think that ‘principles’ are more important than the ‘military’ in American global influence then you really are out of touch.

The only thing that bothers me more than the wars are the disingenuous casus belli’s they present to us.  Treat me like an intelligent adult and just admit that you want control of energy resources, admit that you won’t accept your supremacy challenged, admit that you are treading on others so that America can continue living the good life.  Just don’t try to sell me a big stinking pile of dung about going to war to hunt terrorists in caves or saving the world from WMDs – it’s stupid.

As for Bush, I don’t actually talk about him much – he acted on the 9/11 event but was not a part of the operation.


View PostMID, on 17 August 2010 - 12:22 AM, said:

You simply have a problem realizing that we got caught with our pants down in 2001.
Without addressing the question that you ignored a way back here, your speculation is unsupported.

I will repeat it below: -

The CIA agents who allowed known Al Qaeda affiliates to enter the United States…
The FBI informant in contact with the hijackers…
The individual within the Bush admin blocking investigation of bin Laden related cases…
The President himself who ignored warnings in the intelligence brief on his desk…

Did they all really screw up and how can we be certain?


View PostMID, on 17 August 2010 - 12:22 AM, said:

It's gonna take another Reagan to do that Q.
Funnily enough it was under the Reagan administration that the CIA were first sent to Afghanistan and began funding the Mujahideen with U.S. taxpayer dollars by $630m per year by 1987.  Perhaps then we could say that 9/11 began indirectly with Reagan.  It doesn’t look as though these ties to the source of Al Qaeda were ever fully cut since.  I don’t agree with this idea that they ‘unintentionally created a monster’ – not when there were known Western intelligence/Al Qaeda double-agents still running around through the 90s.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#372    wig69

wig69

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 57 posts
  • Joined:05 Oct 2010

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:35 PM

[quote name='Hocus' timestamp='1271270162' post='3375884']
From all the available evidence it's quite clear to an open mind what really happened on 9/11.
Here's the REAL evidence, make up your own minds. No planes where used and the proof is in the videos below.



You are missing out key evidence here. Tons of people reported seeing a small jet hit the towers. a few said it was a millitary plane. with a blue logo on the front. its clear from some of the videos that this plane had no sound to it. the same thing happend at shanksville. a witness said a plane flew over her car and crashed. but the plane had no sound and was small.  a plane deffo hit the twin towers. and since its obvious to anyone that bombs brought down the towers my guess is that bombs were set seconds b4 impact so the plane could be sucked into the hole. they obviously did not want this plane to crash and hit the floor like laws of motion suggests. if the plane hit the floor it would have been photographed.  some people were under the tower when the plane hit. they heard nothing so reported that it just blew up. the no planers love this. to them its proof that no planes hit. but more people reported planes hitting than no planes hitting, the videos are fake though. no doubt about it. but having a plane hit the towers by remote controll makes more sense. people see a plane hit and then on tv we see it hit. case closed they thought. but they bit off more than they can handle. only a few of the videos match. but all the explosions match. so we can establish that the video is real. just not the planes. some videos had no plane sound. some videos had loud plane sound. some videos had obvious studio sounds. and some videos were just obvious fakes. like the michael hezarkhani video. which has recently been renamed as CNN. one live shot was soo bad it was never shown again. why? what was soo bad? the nose out maybe? or the fact the plane just appears in the shot like a sega game.

there is to my knowlege 44 videos of the 2 planes hittin the towers. none of them are in high res. low res makes it harder to see that the planes are fake. why in 2001 were there bad live news feeds?

its easy to pay people 2 say they saw a large jet hit the towers. but its not possible for that jet to slice through a steel and concrete structure with the nose coming our the other side INTACT!


#373    Disbeliever

Disbeliever

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 235 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • "I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical."
    Arthur C. Clarke

Posted 06 October 2010 - 12:01 AM

In all the clips I see a planes hitting the twin towers, all the same way. I see a tragic event that people are trying to find a reason for, but there was just one, a bunch of idiots hijacked planes and crashed them into the twin towers. You are all saying you need evidence that this happened, well I see no evidence that it didn't. Different cameras, standing at different points around it will show things differently.

Edited by Disbeliever, 06 October 2010 - 12:03 AM.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" – Epicurus

#374    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 06 October 2010 - 12:18 AM

Don't know if this has been posted but here is a video newly made available showing a plane hit of the twin towers




#375    Disbeliever

Disbeliever

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 235 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • "I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical."
    Arthur C. Clarke

Posted 06 October 2010 - 12:47 AM

View Postdigitalartist, on 06 October 2010 - 12:18 AM, said:

Don't know if this has been posted but here is a video newly made available showing a plane hit of the twin towers



Very nice video, I even heard the plane as it was coming.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" – Epicurus




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users