Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Hocus

9/11 TV fakery - No planes

432 posts in this topic

Ummm, did you read the link I was responding to?

But that is an intesting factoid on the cigarette's. Maybe I can use it in "Trivial Pusuit" or some other game.

Yes I did. But, I only read the abstract. So my apologies if required.

Yeah, the cig thing is bad. Radioactive elements ingested in any manner is potentially cancer-causing. I'm heath conscious but not health active, to my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did. But, I only read the abstract. So my apologies if required.

The part you saw me reference was only one part of ten in their conclusions. (and it was a pretty in depth look into those strange flakes found in the dust)I'm a bit confused because I was expecting to read about research "against" thermite. That's why I left flyingswan that two part question.

Yeah, the cig thing is bad. Radioactive elements ingested in any manner is potentially cancer-causing. I'm heath conscious but not health active, to my bad.

I'm bad that way too. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part you saw me reference was only one part of ten in their conclusions. (and it was a pretty in depth look into those strange flakes found in the dust)I'm a bit confused because I was expecting to read about research "against" thermite. That's why I left flyingswan that two part question.

I'm bad that way too. :D

Hugs!!!

Anyway, the 9/11 incident, as you know, is really quite simple.

With respect to Tower 1, for example, a large jetliner laden with large amounts of fuel and wrapped in an aluminum skin slammed into the tower with considerable momentum.

No problem taking-out the external infrastructure of the tower.

Entering further in, the fuel tanks in the wings rip apart, spewing thousands of gallons of now/soon to be ignited jet fuel. The fuselage slams into steel vertical support beams. That, in itself, is enough to rip through those beams. But, there is a delay to collapse. Why? Well...

The heat from the jet fuel and local "consumables" weaken the iron support beams.

Coupled with catastrophic physical damage, floors start to collapse.

Note that the towers fell top-down versus bottom-up. This FACT negates a standard inside demolition.

And thermite? Recall two things. First, there were security offices inside the towers which had counter-terrorist equipment, including explosives. Secondly, recall that the plane is essentially aluminum. This impacts rusted steel supports. That equals the ingredients of thermite.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MID, respectfully, what are you trying to say here? That corrupt men are not in powerfull positions and that if they were they wouldn't use their power as a means to an end?

No.

I think most rational people realize that absolute power and control has the potential to corrupt absolutely. We've never actually approached that level in American government, despite the fact that the current administration is taking steps to reach that level of power and control.

But that fact has nothing to do with what I'm speaking to.

I address a paper which spoke the truth about the state of miltary readiness in America at the time, and the possible implications of that state of affairs. I address a paper written by people with no government affiliation, and most importantly, I address a skewed interpretation of a single line in said report, which has been interpreted to be an indicator of U. S. government complicity in the events of 9-11-01, when all it was--was a simple statement of rational and logical fact.

The report was written for the Government, and the people, not by the government, and it was a recommendation and a warning. It was not evidence of complicity, nor was it the genesis of a huge plot by an over-the-top government to murder its own people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was NO US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN THE 9/11 EVENT.

Get over it already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugs!!!

Anyway, the 9/11 incident, as you know, is really quite simple.

With respect to Tower 1, for example, a large jetliner laden with large amounts of fuel and wrapped in an aluminum skin slammed into the tower with considerable momentum.

No problem taking-out the external infrastructure of the tower.

Entering further in, the fuel tanks in the wings rip apart, spewing thousands of gallons of now/soon to be ignited jet fuel. The fuselage slams into steel vertical support beams. That, in itself, is enough to rip through those beams. But, there is a delay to collapse. Why? Well...

The heat from the jet fuel and local "consumables" weaken the iron support beams.

Coupled with catastrophic physical damage, floors start to collapse.

Note that the towers fell top-down versus bottom-up. This FACT negates a standard inside demolition.

And thermite? Recall two things. First, there were security offices inside the towers which had counter-terrorist equipment, including explosives. Secondly, recall that the plane is essentially aluminum. This impacts rusted steel supports. That equals the ingredients of thermite.

Yep, that's the explanation. I'm looking for some meat.

Like exactly what kinda of stress an aluminum framed body could cause on 47 -4" steel columns. I'm sure the fire has a contribution to this scenario, but I wouldn't mind talking about the initial impact and the effect it had on those columns. If you have any info on aluminum against steel, I would be more than happy to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I think most rational people realize that absolute power and control has the potential to corrupt absolutely. We've never actually approached that level in American government, despite the fact that the current administration is taking steps to reach that level of power and control.

But that fact has nothing to do with what I'm speaking to.

I address a paper which spoke the truth about the state of miltary readiness in America at the time, and the possible implications of that state of affairs. I address a paper written by people with no government affiliation, and most importantly, I address a skewed interpretation of a single line in said report, which has been interpreted to be an indicator of U. S. government complicity in the events of 9-11-01, when all it was--was a simple statement of rational and logical fact.

The report was written for the Government, and the people, not by the government, and it was a recommendation and a warning. It was not evidence of complicity, nor was it the genesis of a huge plot by an over-the-top government to murder its own people.

I'm not really here nor there on this topic. But I also use the writings of General Smedly Butler "War Is A Racket" to keep me firmly based on American foreign policy. It's worth a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that's the explanation. I'm looking for some meat.

Like exactly what kinda of stress an aluminum framed body could cause on 47 -4" steel columns. I'm sure the fire has a contribution to this scenario, but I wouldn't mind talking about the initial impact and the effect it had on those columns. If you have any info on aluminum against steel, I would be more than happy to read it.

Quick answer: Shock Waves.

The columns had a fire-retarded coating. The momentum of the aircraft created a terminal air/gas shock wave during initial impact, not to mention the fuselage scraping away any such covering.

Think a tornado inside a building. The fire-retarded coating is somewhat loosely adhered.

Now you can further envision the problem, especially with jet fuel ignited and the whole physical environment seriously disturbed.

With regards to "aluminum against steel" there is much info on the web, key "thermite"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tornado is what? 120+ mph?

This plane hit at over 500.

Serious shock wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're "answer" is found in this document.

It's the answer you want to see...

It is not however, any evidence of engineering anything, and it doesn't actually answer the question you propose to answer:

...so why on earth did they need to engineer something so enormous just to reinforce what they already had?

The question was intended for you to explain the nonsensical idea of the government engineering the murder of its own people.

Actually, the question, as it is written, is posed under the assumption that 9/11 was engineered. In context, the answer sought is clearly in regard to motive for engineering (hypothetical or not) of the event. I therefore point to motive, as set out within a document sponsored by the would-be engineers themselves no less.

The question is not in the first instance requesting our personal views of whether the event was engineered… which is unfortunately all that your post provides. In other words – you did not address the specific “... why did they need to…” question at all; rather than arguing for or against, you simply avoided the issue.

A detailed discussion of the very careful transformation required to assure America's military superiority, and thus, national security, and to continue the mission of maintaining the peace included the following line:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one," (which was, and is a true statement, given the political climate in this country)...

And this, is where people like Q draw all sorts of nonsensical inferences:

"......absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

That's it.

From that true statement, what we get are inferences that some "Pearl harbor" was engineeered by the Bush administration.

There are no two ways of looking at this.

A “catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” would benefit the required “process of transformation” as endorsed by the future Bush administration officials. Whether you like it or not, and with no opinion involved, this shows motive on some level for the engineering of said event, i.e. there was a benefit to be had, end of story.

And that is the central point this particular fact demonstrates: the presence of motive.

Of course, some can't see the lunacy in publishing a publically available paper and thinking it contains some plan to kill Americans to simply put in place what America should've put in place as a matter of prudence and principal.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe those planes are fake

Edited by MC1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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 wouldnt… Im a… a person!… Im 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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: -

militaryspend.jpg

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

Mission accomplished and then some.

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.

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.