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

#91    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:36 PM

View Postturbonium, on 17 April 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

So that settles it, people. Jeez, it's not like the Pentagon needed security cameras! Not like your local Wal-Mart! :w00t:

He didn't say anything resembling this. Perhaps you should read what he said a bit slower.


#92    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:36 PM

View PostBelial, on 17 April 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

Why is the "impact" photo so much brighter than the others and why is the timestamp on "impact" the same as on "plane"? ;)

...because that plane was doing 500kts and it was in frame less than a second maybe??


#93    Belial

Belial

    Devilish chappy.

  • Member
  • 4,415 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In a bag of skittles, on ocean keys beach.

  • dogs bark cats meow i fart go figure?

Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:46 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 17 April 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

...because that plane was doing 500kts and it was in frame less than a second maybe??
Four frames three times?

Where it states "For official use only" - gently rub a white wax candle over the area indicated.

Kick a habit - i never did like Tolkien...

#94    Maximillian Schneider

Maximillian Schneider

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined:03 Dec 2009

Posted 17 April 2010 - 02:20 PM

View PostTK0001, on 17 April 2010 - 12:27 AM, said:

Please provide pictoral evidence of these undamaged WTC buildings and tell us where they were/are in relation to the destroyed buildings.
I think this is what he means http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories

I know what it feels like to have a future filled with doubt. To feel overwhelmed… To think it’s all over... To want to give up on everything… But, there’s no use just thinking about it. You can’t hesitate. You need to act upon it. Since in the end, all you can do is try as hard as you can.

Posted Image

#95    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 17 April 2010 - 02:59 PM

View PostMaximillian Schneider, on 17 April 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

I think this is what he means http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories

I'm not seeing undamaged buildings in any of those pictures (and I'm guessing Cristina1 is a "she"  ;)  ).


#96    Maximillian Schneider

Maximillian Schneider

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined:03 Dec 2009

Posted 17 April 2010 - 03:02 PM

View PostTK0001, on 17 April 2010 - 02:59 PM, said:

I'm not seeing undamaged buildings in any of those pictures (and I'm guessing Cristina1 is a "she"  ;)  ).
I didn;t put the link for the pictures, but that info is what she probably meant(Sorry about the "he")

I know what it feels like to have a future filled with doubt. To feel overwhelmed… To think it’s all over... To want to give up on everything… But, there’s no use just thinking about it. You can’t hesitate. You need to act upon it. Since in the end, all you can do is try as hard as you can.

Posted Image

#97    shaka5

shaka5

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:brooklyn

  • I always call people fools for wanting to learn the hard way....When I'm really the fool for tryna teach 'em

Posted 17 April 2010 - 07:13 PM

View PostAgent X, on 16 April 2010 - 09:37 PM, said:

Nobody saw any planes hit the towers. Just prior hallucinatory gas was released into the atmosphere. That's why the people on the ground couldn't have truly seen the planes.

:alien:  :blink:  :alien:

Lmfao

I have less compassion than the average human.

#98    shaka5

shaka5

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:brooklyn

  • I always call people fools for wanting to learn the hard way....When I'm really the fool for tryna teach 'em

Posted 17 April 2010 - 07:24 PM

View PostTK0001, on 16 April 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

My point is the evidence that was confiscated may be being held due to the fact that it's still an ongoing investigation. My evidence for the investigation being ongoing is the fact that OBL is still at large.

You really think thats the reason?...almost 10yrs later and still keeping it till(if) they get him, pretty weak stuff i might say.

I have less compassion than the average human.

#99    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 April 2010 - 08:26 PM

View Postshaka5, on 17 April 2010 - 07:24 PM, said:

You really think thats the reason?...almost 10yrs later and still keeping it till(if) they get him, pretty weak stuff i might say.
It sure is weak stuff, especially when we consider that bin Laden has never even been charged in relation to 9/11.

While I’m here I’ll just point out that two no plane threads are going strong while real issues on other threads are ignored – that tells me I’m on the right trail.   ;)

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.

#100    KennyB

KennyB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005

Posted 17 April 2010 - 09:30 PM

View PostQ24, on 17 April 2010 - 08:26 PM, said:

It sure is weak stuff, especially when we consider that bin Laden has never even been charged in relation to 9/11.

While I’m here I’ll just point out that two no plane threads are going strong while real issues on other threads are ignored – that tells me I’m on the right trail.   ;)

I think you've got 3 of those planes figured out. I wish you'd put your research ability into finding out what happened to the one that flew over the Pentagon. (if that's what happened) (if not, why isn't there more wreckage?) I don't buy that disolving into dust and blowing away.    KennyB


#101    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 April 2010 - 09:04 AM

View PostKennyB, on 17 April 2010 - 09:30 PM, said:

I think you've got 3 of those planes figured out. I wish you'd put your research ability into finding out what happened to the one that flew over the Pentagon. (if that's what happened) (if not, why isn't there more wreckage?) I don't buy that disolving into dust and blowing away.    KennyB
I have researched all of the flights equally and have no interest in bias or taking sides.  The strongest conclusions are that a plane impacted each of WTC1, WTC2 and the Pentagon with another being shot down.  There were aircraft in all four cases.  There was no tv-fakery, no doctored security camera, no holograms, no flyover.

I entertained the possibility that the limited plane wreckage could have been planted at the Pentagon but there is enough physical, eyewitness and recorded evidence to oppose this (not to mention the logic involved).  I think that there is enough wreckage considering that the aircraft flew into a building reinforced to withstand bomb-blasts.

There were pieces of the fuselage (not just the big piece in the foreground but the smaller pieces scattered over the lawn in the background)…

Posted Image

There were pieces of the engine…

Posted Image

Posted Image

There were more pieces of the engine (not sure if this is another angle of the piece above) and more fuselage (to the left)…

Posted Image

There was a section of the landing gear…

Posted Image

There was a wheel…

Posted Image

There was more mangled wreckage (I guess this is what piecies of a plane looks like after crashing into a building and suffering fire damage)…

Posted Image

I really don’t think we should reasonably expect to see anymore than this.

Once the building study by the ASCE is considered and further damage on the approach path, along with the security camera footage, radar data and eyewitnesses, the conclusion that there was an aircraft impact is very strong.

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.

#102    StrayCat

StrayCat

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2009

Posted 18 April 2010 - 02:33 PM

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.

- 2001 a fake odyssey

- 9/11 taboo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU - eyewitness see's no second plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYAV5fCGiM - 9/11 amateur

I'm pretty sure that elements within the government were 100% responsible for the attacks, but honestly, it would be A LOT easier to just hijack the airplanes by remote control and steer them into the targets. Plus we already know for a fact that this is possible because of the declassified Operation Northwoods documents. Just doesn't make sense to go through all the trouble of manipulating all these live feeds and video's on top of making the real planes vanish to who-knows-where.


#103    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 18 April 2010 - 05:44 PM

View PostStrayCat, on 18 April 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that elements within the government were 100% responsible for the attacks, but honestly, it would be A LOT easier to just hijack the airplanes by remote control and steer them into the targets. Plus we already know for a fact that this is possible because of the declassified Operation Northwoods documents. Just doesn't make sense to go through all the trouble of manipulating all these live feeds and video's on top of making the real planes vanish to who-knows-where.

Commercial jetliners (or basically any large civil or military transport) are not equipped nor designed to be flown by remote control. Smaller drones yes, but large planes present a number of major issues in such an application.


#104    Agent X

Agent X

    Illustrious Potentate Of All Time Space And Matter

  • Member
  • 5,086 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male

  • Invent nonsense computer jargon in conversations, and see if people play along to avoid the appearance of ignorance.

Posted 18 April 2010 - 06:45 PM

Those photos were obviously photoshpped which only proves the government cover up.

:sleepy:

Posted Image

#105    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 April 2010 - 07:34 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 18 April 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

Commercial jetliners (or basically any large civil or military transport) are not equipped nor designed to be flown by remote control. Smaller drones yes, but large planes present a number of major issues in such an application.
What major issues, mrbusdriver?

NASA were conducting unmanned test flights of Boeing aircraft as far back as 1984.  By the time of 9/11, widely available technology in the U.S. had brought accuracy of auto-pilot positional data to within 3 meters.  All needed from there would be a link between the ground and aircraft to programme a course.  I don’t see any great issue in setting an aircraft up with such a link.

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users