1211 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

In context, it is extremely recent – history goes a long way back.

Especially when we consider that the 1962 Northwoods document was not discovered until 1998.

There is no difference in political motivations between then and now.

the difference, though, is that (for instance) Gleiwitz was the excuse that Hitler used to invade Poland and preciptate WWII; it's hard to find something bigger that it could be a provocation for, but gleiwitz was a very small and transparently faked incident; even Hitler never attenmpted to fabricate something like blowing up a major public building in Berlin and blaming it on the Poles; similarly, the whole idea behind project Northwoods was that all the incidents would be faked; they never envisaged actually hijacking a plane or any of the rest of it. So even the pretext for WWII was nowhere near on the kind of scale that 9/11 was. Does this mean that the neo-cons were so much more ruthless than even Hitler?

[JayMark]

Ok. Just went throught the thing.

Now wait on a minute? How could someone not see anything suspicious with the WTC collapse to begin with?

Let's look at the "official" story related by most anti-conspiracy follows.

1) Initial impact caused a great deal of damage and heat that weakened the building's structure;

2) Resulting fires from all the furniture generated enough heat to weaken the structure to the point of rupture;

3) Top part of the building crashed down on it's own weight which resulted in the infamous pancake-style collapse. Plain and simple. Case closed.

I hardly see how can anybody, expert or not, with a minumum of common sense, blindly beleive in that if they think about it well. Let's look at in more in detail without necessarly going too deeply into the physics of it for a minute. Just to see how it looks like from a wider perspective.

Now the initial collision surely made a considerable amount of damage. That's a fact. But as for heat, as seen in the footage, most of the jet fuel burned upon impact. Now even considering an ideal air/fuel ratio, how could have this generated nearly enough heat to weaken the still-standing steel structure in mere couple seconds? I don't think it could have. Not even close.

Now the secondary fires. Seems to the "officials" that the burning furniture was the source of heat that weakened the steel structure to the point of collapse. But how? When looking at the footage, again, you can very clearly see very dark smoke coming out of the buildings. That, to begin with, is an evident sing that the fires are lacking oxygen, thus generating a lot aerosols. This is what happens when the temperature is not high enough. It results in incomplete combustion. Now where is the steel-weakening heat? Not only were the fires poor on oxygen but they burned for under one hour thus again, no chance in letting steel absorb nearly as enough heat as required to flex.

Now how about the actual collapse. Considering the previous, how could the top of the building suddenly break off and bring down the entire structure; concrete, steel strucute, completely down in a very straight collapse at near free-fall speed? Not only that it looks like a controlled demolition but it surely is a very well-done one. Concrete was pulverized, structures showed little to no resistance, all the steel beams were somehow easily broken off and all that made a quite spectacular sight and pile of debris that was quickly disposed of.

Let's now think about engeneers that created these buildings. Are you implying that they didn't consider the possibility of a plane crash, internal fires or both at the same time? I don't think so. It has been brought to my attention by engeneers that when building such tall structures, especially of such importance, they inevitably considered all the risks and took dispositions to avoid such a catastrophe. Not only did they say the buildings could have easily resisted such a collision but also that the steel structure was strong enough to resist such fire/heat. Buildings have been burning for hours in the past with greater intensity without even flinching. Even considering the initial damage, fires couldn't have provided the coup-de-grâce.

Conclusion: it was a controlled demolition, no matter who did it, how and whoever was aware and/or involved in/of it. Period. You can argue on a lot of details but not on the overall fact.

There are so many footage on the web where you clearly hear secondary explosions, policemen, firemen all talking about them and about the way it went down, just like it does in the case of a controlled demolition. Now I don't think they are dellusional and stupid. Some of these fottage came from media but strangely enough, seems like anything considering secondary explosions have been take off the air, dismissed or justified in a way or another. Not to mention all the coincidences like insurrance, transactions, bomb-sniffing dogs taken away two weeks before the eleventh, already discussed Afghanistan invasion and what not. It is so obvious now that it's getting rediculous.

Not to mention the WT7 incident which is very laughable. Seeing it collapse while thinking "minor fires" is nothing more than a joke. Seriously, the thing just suddenly went down and everyone went like: wtf? The "prior damages due to debris combined with minor fires" is also as rediculous. I don't think that falling debris have weakened the base structure the building like so and resulted as another near-free-fall collapse. Seems like you guys just built cardboard building after all, no?

Now the pentagon. Now you go on, and tell me, that those pictures showing damage (the two holes) clearly show the impact of 747? Do we even need to go on and debate this? That is beyond absurdity. It just somehow hit the building, created a near-perfect hole side-to-side and left virtually no mark of wing and engine impact.

Sadly, seems like only very few people here realise that something deepely wrong is going on.

Thanks to MisterX, Q24 and others that are on the same line.

Peace.

[bee]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

The video is not itself aimed at people who were under 15 but that is the audience MysteryX believes are most important, and I agree; it is the youth who can and are making a difference in America (if Ron Paul’s voting base is anything to go by).  If younger generations are informed, the lessons will not be forgotten.

And like me... Ron Paul thinks there's a cover up but that it's not an inside job...

although he (in this video) is talking more about the intelligence side of things







JayMark...

Quote

Seems like you guys just built cardboard building after all, no?

.

Edited by bee, 20 April 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bee, on 20 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

And like me... Ron Paul thinks there's a cover up but that it's not an inside job...

although he (in this video) is talking more about the intelligence side of things

Yes, obviously he's saying that as far as he's concenred (or as far as he was concerned then, of course, being the Great man that he is, he may have got to the truth by now*), he didn't doubt that there were highjackers of some form or another, but the Intellignce services were either negligent or unwilling to act on the information they gleaned. Which I think is pretty much how I see it. There all all sorts of questions, of course, about why they may have done this, if indeed they did decide to do this, or not to do this.

(* this is tongue in cheek)

[bee]

from a previous reply to Babe Ruth...

bee, on 20 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

If these three things were made highly classified.... I would know (if I were president) that an investigation was

going to be tricky, to say the least. The special interest groups would also know how tricky it could

get....

and tricky it was.....from the first 9/11 Commission


http://www.history.c...9-11-commission

Quote

Kean and Hamilton have claimed that the commission was hamstrung by the time and budgetary constraints it was under, and that its effectiveness was hampered by misinformation given by organizations like the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Kean and Hamilton headed the Commission





@ 747.....lol...and this is a tongue sticking out  


.

Edited by bee, 20 April 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[TK0001]

Wow. It never ends. Same arguments going on and on since at least 2006 (when the 9/11 truth movement pretty much began). 6 solid years of the exact same arguments. Just, wow.

[skyeagle409]

TK0001, on 20 April 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Wow. It never ends. Same arguments going on and on since at least 2006 (when the 9/11 truth movement pretty much began). 6 solid years of the exact same arguments. Just, wow.

There are those who are demanding new 9/11 investigations, but check these links out.

My link

My link


I already knew that American Airlines lost one B-757 and one B-767 on 9/11/2001, and I received additonal information on the B-757 and B-767 fleet histories of American Airlines.

American Airlines Fleet History

And I recognized the vertical stabilizer of a B-757:





The B-757 is one of my favorite airplanes and I have been flying a downloaded version of the B-757 simulation for years, complete with the flight dynamics and flight manual,and yes, the gauge, aircraft and navigation systems, swtiches and juat about everything else are functional as in the real B-757. Check out the screen shots from each of the following two links near the bottom of their pages.

My link

My link

















B-757 Flight manual

• Part I - User's Manual

• Part II - Aircraft and Systems

• Part III - Normal Procedures

• Part IV - Flight Characteristics and Performance Data

• Part V - Flight Management System

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 April 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[Flibbertigibbet]

I think the most worrying thing about all this is that these conspiracy theories are being propagated and believed by the ignorant. Ask yourself, who are they benefiting by pushing all this stuff? Who is calling their shots? Who is paying for all these lies?

[socrates.junior]

JayMark, on 20 April 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Ok. Just went throught the thing.

Now wait on a minute? How could someone not see anything suspicious with the WTC collapse to begin with?

Sadly, seems like only very few people here realise that something deepely wrong is going on.

Thanks to MisterX, Q24 and others that are on the same line.

Peace.

I'll just leave this here. It answers your questions better than I could.

http://www.debunking911.com/

[Sky Scanner]

quillius, on 19 April 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

I just logged on to see if anyone had seen it..as I too just watched it, some very interesting things didnt you think Sky?.

I will try and make some notes as I have it recorded, and post here.

Quick couple of things had anyone previosuly heard of the fighter jets setting off in the wrong direction? sent that way by 'giantkiller'???

also the pilots discussing the code word...when one pilot says '****k the code word its now perishable anyway'

This programme seemed to confirm that the order from the vice president to shoot any craft came 10 minutes after the 93 crashed.

anyway back tomorrow.

Sorry quillius, I missed this post.

I started watching it but got sidetracked with something else, i'll have a look at it over the weekend.

[Obviousman]

Just to bring a little reality into this.

How many people here have exerience in aviation?

(raises hand) Over 25 years in both civil and military aviation. Private pilot, military navigator and radar operator, and air traffic controller. Also airworthiness auditor. Currently a military aviation standards auditor.

How many people have spoken to aviation professionals about 9-11?

(raises hand) Yes. Fighter pilots (F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and F-22). Airline pilots (B747, B717, A300, A380).

The result? Unanimous acceptance of the "official" story.

[bee]

skyeagle409, on 20 April 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

And I recognized the vertical stabilizer of a B-757:

Sky...I'm baffled that you can recognise anything of real value in this picture?

I've made it bigger...can you be a bit more specific about what the arrow is pointing to...

and how this would fit into where the rest of the plane is (should be) cheers

all I can see is an undefined blob.








edit...well I did make it bigger but now it has mysteriously shrunk....



.

Edited by bee, 21 April 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[bee]

Obviousman, on 21 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Just to bring a little reality into this.

How many people here have exerience in aviation?

(raises hand) Over 25 years in both civil and military aviation. Private pilot, military navigator and radar operator, and air traffic controller. Also airworthiness auditor. Currently a military aviation standards auditor.

How many people have spoken to aviation professionals about 9-11?

(raises hand) Yes. Fighter pilots (F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and F-22). Airline pilots (B747, B717, A300, A380).

The result? Unanimous acceptance of the "official" story.

But Major Gen. Albert Stubblebine isn't convinced...and he has experience in these matters







.

[Q24]

747400, on 20 April 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

the difference, though, is that (for instance) Gleiwitz was the excuse that Hitler used to invade Poland and preciptate WWII; it's hard to find something bigger that it could be a provocation for, but gleiwitz was a very small and transparently faked incident;

And 9/11 was the excuse the Neocons and Zionists in Washington used to invade the Middle East - no great difference in the cause and effect there.  

You say the Gleiwitz incident was “very small” yet that was only one part of the wider Operation Himmler involving 21 border incidents; altogether an elaborate false flag involving faked attacks, setup of Polish saboteurs and fabricated radio communications, all heavily propagated before and after through the Nazi leader and media machine.  It appears that more SS agents were required to be in the know and implement the attacks than would have been required on 9/11 – from that perspective Operation Himmler was ‘bigger’.

You also say it was “transparently faked”, yet it was not until after the Nazi defeat and the Nuremberg trials that the operation and details were brought to light.  The international community was skeptical of the event (as a large part of the public are of 9/11), yet it provided the pretext Hitler required and the German people certainly followed.

The other area some point out is different is in complexity of the operation, with theories of remote aircraft and thermite charges, etc, used on 9/11, but this is only a result of the requirement and obvious advance in technology between 1939 – 2001.

747400, on 20 April 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

even Hitler never attenmpted to fabricate something like blowing up a major public building in Berlin and blaming it on the Poles;

There is certainly suggestion that Hitler burnt down his own Reichstag building in Berlin and blamed the Communists.

747400, on 20 April 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

Does this mean that the neo-cons were so much more ruthless than even Hitler?

The father of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, served in the German army with Hitler during WWI and later conversed on philosophical issues with the chief jurist of Nazi Germany.  Does that tell you anything?  Paul Wolfowitz, the 2001 deputy Secretary of Defence even attended Strauss’ lectures.  The Neocon philosophy is inescapably of Nazi influence in its origin.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

bee, on 21 April 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

But Major Gen. Albert Stubblebine isn't convinced...and he has experience in these matters







.

Ol' Gen. Stubblebine? The original for 'The Men Who Stare At Goats'? I'm not sure how much credibility he holds.