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.


* * * * * 1 votes

911: Professional experts says it was staged


  • Please log in to reply
509 replies to this topic

#31    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,254 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 07:43 PM

View PostRafterman, on 10 September 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:


Not to mention, every single point they're trying to make has been debunked so many times it's pathetic.  Anomaly hunting and supposition is not proof of anything.


I guess all it took was a few guys with box cutters to bring down three builings all in the same fashion in NY. Crash a plane in PV and slam one into the pentagon. Ya 17 guys with box cutters did this.

edit: 19

Edited by The Silver Thong, 10 September 2011 - 07:54 PM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#32    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 10 September 2011 - 08:20 PM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 10 September 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

I guess all it took was a few guys with box cutters to bring down three builings all in the same fashion in NY. Crash a plane in PV and slam one into the pentagon. Ya 17 guys with box cutters did this.

edit: 19
edit: where is the evidence for boxcutters?
there is only the Ted Olsen hearsay from the Olson call which the FBI said never connected (duiration: zero seconds) at the missoui trial.
no other mention of boxcutters in the official story.


#33    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,254 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 10 September 2011 - 08:34 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 10 September 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

edit: where is the evidence for boxcutters?
there is only the Ted Olsen hearsay from the Olson call which the FBI said never connected (duiration: zero seconds) at the missoui trial.
no other mention of boxcutters in the official story.

I heard boxcutters were used. I could be wrong and I guess I am. So 19 men did this bare handed with no help. 19 men changed the world bare handed wow.  There is no doubt in my mind that 9-11 was fabricated to conform us to an agenda of self destruction.  The world has gone to schitt since then and the world economy is in the crapper. The so called Taliban seems to have served it`s purpose.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#34    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 10 September 2011 - 08:41 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 10 September 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

edit: where is the evidence for boxcutters?
there is only the Ted Olsen hearsay from the Olson call which the FBI said never connected (duiration: zero seconds) at the missoui trial.
no other mention of boxcutters in the official story.
Yes, it was from Ted Olson’s account on September 12th, 2001 that the reports of hijackers armed with box-cutters came.

That is Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who represented Bush in the 2000 election court case, which ensured Al Gore did not receive a vote recount.

It is peculiar his wife was the only passenger alleged to have made a call from Flight 77.

Uniquely amongst the four flights, I am inclined to believe this one was taken straight from Operation Northwoods.

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.

#35    psychoticmike

psychoticmike

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2011 - 09:51 PM

its amazing how people are blinded by their beliefs when there is so much contradicting them. The official 9/11 story is clearly incorrect, there needs to be a new unhindered investigation to put all claims and beliefs to rest and unveil the truth. I'm just curious, have any of you seen footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? I can't find any that shows that, just a little white enlongated object half a second before it hits the building. correct me if i'm wrong, but how come out of all the security cameras in the area, they haven't slowed any of it down clearly showing a plane?


#36    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 10 September 2011 - 10:52 PM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 10 September 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

its amazing how people are blinded by their beliefs when there is so much contradicting them. The official 9/11 story is clearly incorrect, there needs to be a new unhindered investigation to put all claims and beliefs to rest and unveil the truth. I'm just curious, have any of you seen footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? I can't find any that shows that, just a little white enlongated object half a second before it hits the building. correct me if i'm wrong, but how come out of all the security cameras in the area, they haven't slowed any of it down clearly showing a plane?
Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon.  If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.



It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems they would not show the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

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.

#37    psychoticmike

psychoticmike

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2011 - 11:05 PM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon.  If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.



It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems they would not show the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.


ok, thanks for the video. I just think that there would have been better footage, i mean they can slow down a bullet on video and see it quite clearly so why not this? theres just so many inconsistencies in the whole story.


#38    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,616 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 10 September 2011 - 11:48 PM

View Postpsychoticmike, on 10 September 2011 - 11:05 PM, said:

ok, thanks for the video. I just think that there would have been better footage, i mean they can slow down a bullet on video and see it quite clearly so why not this? theres just so many inconsistencies in the whole story.


underlined.....I know....I tried to get to the bottom of it in my thread last year.



http://www.unexplain...howtopic=191892


that video provided by Q24 of a supposed 'something' hitting the Pentagon is totally unsatisfactory

(sorry Q24  :)  but it is)


it's obvious that the whole what-ever-happened at Pentagon would have been filmed from many directions

but the public is given next to nothing. Just a crappy short CCTV of 'something'.

ridiculous, IMO, that we expected to swallow that.



as it's the 10th anniversary of that fateful day I also want to again extend deep sympathy to all the families

of those who died, and those who were injured or affected by it. This includes soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afganistan.

Posted Image


#39    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,616 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:08 AM

View PostKarlis, on 09 September 2011 - 01:36 AM, said:

What are opinions concerning the destruction of WTC 7, as presented in this video? Posters who disagree with "the facts" as described in the video, your reasons for disagreement would be welcome.

Karlis
-=-=-=-


well.....I think that Directed Energy Weapons were used to bring down WTC 1,2 + 7.

so I suppose I disagree with 'the facts' as described in the OP video.

I think the emphasis put on conventional demolition using thermite is heavily

promoted to steer away from Directed Energy Weapons.


This video presents a different angle and different evidence.

While I think that many good points are brought up I still believe that planes, actual planes,

were flown into the Twin Towers....and everything else after that was damage limitation.

I am a bit perturbed by the Alaskan Magnetometers at the end of Part Two...and the stuff about

Hurricane Erin...


If relevant, I'm not sure how this would fit into my 'theories'..... :mellow:


but anyway here's the two part video










Posted Image


#40    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:57 AM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 10 September 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

I  downloaded the PDF of that article from the link you provided. It's 130  pages long though; could you cite where it specifically states that the  damage from the WTC debris was "confirmed [to be] superficial, i.e. had  no bearing on the collapse which was induced entirely by plain old  office fire… officially"?

Take your pick: -

  • "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
  • "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."
  • "Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."
  • "The third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris impact damage was included.  The purpose of this analysis was to determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fire.

    The third LS-DYNA analysis demonstrated that the fire-induced damage led to the collapse of WTC 7, even without any structural damage from the debris impact."
  • "WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire-induced damage when a section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed."
  • "Even without the initial structural damage caused by debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."
  • "The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1."

The debris damage to WTC7 was neither here nor there to the collapse.

Other then that it (allegedly) caused the fire, got it. Thanks, saved me much time sifting through that pdf, laugh :-).

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 10 September 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:

If the  case can be shown to be ironclad, I think it would help. The information  in wikipedia certainly doesn't include this. I want to find exactly  where NIST states both that the North Tower (WTC 1) debris had a  negligible effect on the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 as well as where  they say that the actual collapse was impossible to predict.

Nothing is ironclad where human interpretation is involved.   :mellow:  

Laugh :-). Fair enough. I'll settle for ironclad amoung logical people :-p.

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

Anyhow…

The fact NIST admit their own collapse theory would be "the first known instance" and "an extraordinary event", taking them seven years to come up with and relying on the idea the building was, unlike all comparable examples, "not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse"… would all suggest the witnessed collapse was unpredictable.

http://www.nist.gov/...c_qa_082108.cfm

Wonderful. Thanks muchly Q.


#41    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:18 AM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon.  If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.



It really is terrible quality footage but the outline of a plane is there.

I like to think if the footage were faked they would have made the plane clearer.

After reading descriptions of the 85 videotapes in FBI possession, it seems they would not show the flight path or impact.  Unfortunately the Pentagon rooftop cameras and VDOT highway cameras (which may have captured something) are not included in the list.

I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven.

I responded to this point of yours in this new thread, as I think it deviates too much from original topic in this thread...


#42    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 September 2011 - 11:51 PM

View Postdarkbreed, on 08 September 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:
http://conspiraciesf...?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED


I disagree that chemical explosices were planted in the buildings. First of all, who in their right mind is going to carry thousands of pounds of explosives and thousands of feet of detonation cables hundreds of feet up those stairs without being noticed?

Listening to the CNN newscast, the first building started to buckle seconds before the collapse. There was no chemical explosion. The second building began to buckle and shake, and secords later, it collapsed and still, no chemical explosion.

The supporting structures of both buildings were seriously damaged by both aircraft, so at that point  the upper levels were being supported by weakened beams damaged by the aircraft, which were now being weakened further by the heat of the fires to it was just a matter of time before the buildings would collapse.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#43    drakonwick

drakonwick

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,198 posts
  • Joined:15 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Battlefield Earth

  • There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.

Posted 12 September 2011 - 01:17 AM

After 10 years, conspiracy still looms over the 9/11 events.

Personally, I think it's safe to say, that the twin towers were brought down after jetliners crashed into them, mainly due to intense heat and structural damage. WTC-7 collapsed not long after do to severe structural damage from WTC-1 falling. I do not believe it was a controlled demolition. If you have seen a building collapse, you will notice that the weight alone from the other floors, will cause the building to collapse in the same manner as WTC-7.

A plane did hit the pentagon, there is pictures and footage showing whats left of the plane after the impact.

What I think everyone should question, is whether or not the government knew about this event before hand and then allowed it to happen.
Was 9/11 set up and then allowed to happen? These I think are questions that should be thought about. As the official story, just does not completely add up to me.

I remember the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another." - J. Robert Oppenheimer.

#44    susieice

susieice

    December's Child

  • Member
  • 11,093 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

  • "Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice."
    .....Robert Frost

Posted 12 September 2011 - 03:20 AM

Who is crazy enough to carry demolition charges up into a burning, hot building, unless you are trying to say that the charges were preset in all the WTC buildings just in case something like this ever happened. Certainly no one would have carried them up into the impact zones.
I do believe however, that our Government had more information about the pending attacks. How much they knew will probably never be told. Did they know there was a plan to use planes in a terrorist attack and if so, did they know the date, places, times?

"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to sharpen."  Eden Phillpotts

Opponere draconem est prehendere vitam

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." Arthur C. Clarke

#45    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 12 September 2011 - 04:40 AM

View PostQ24, on 10 September 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

Yes I have.

The white object you mention is smoke from one of the engines/wings, likely due to impacting the light poles on approach and/or a generator in front of the Pentagon.  If you look to the area left of the smoke in that frame, the plane tail can be seen to appear above the tree line along with the fuselage lower down.

I am uncertain if I agree with that assessment. The "tail section" looks to me like it is likely the result of video distortion. If you notice the spot where the "tail" appears, there is an object there before and after, probably the distant tree tine. The distortion occurs at the same instance that what I assume is a trail of smoke appears underneath. I suspect the distortion is a result of the difference between light and dark illumination, triggered by the bright "smoke" below. If you notice just to the right of the highlighted area there is another distant object which seems to display a similar distortion effect, resulting in another sharp vertical edge. The same vertical edge can been seen extending downward into the smoke trail (if you draw a straight line down the back of the tail to the ground).

Also, the tail section of AA flight 77 should have been mostly white (more the like the color of the smoke trail), yet the "tail" in question is dark and is more consistent with the background treeline.

Posted Image

The sharp vertical edge seen above is the result of distortion (even if it was flight 77) as the tail section of a Boeing 757 is slanted in the rear.

Posted Image

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users