9/11 was an inside job

[TK0001 19]

And what do you think you would gain by going to the press? Every media outlet in the country is owned by Jews. The 9-11 operation was carried out by the Mossad (Jews). The towers were leased by Silverman (Jew). You could go to any media outlet in the country and tell your story and it would never be broadcast to the public. In fact, if you got to talking to people too much, you might have an accident. KennyB

Oh goody, the anti-semetism starts.

Are you trying to imply the government never gets exposed by the "Jew controlled" media? Have you ever seen Fox News, CNN, or any of the major news outlets, for that matter?

Nice job, once again "deftly" avoiding yet another topic by trying to steer it in another direction. Very truthy.

[Cosmored 0]

You pro-official version people maintain that the pointed object on the right of this picture is smoke from an engine of a 757 that's in the middle of the picture.

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

In this picture there is smoke from the craft that is hidden behind the box.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Can you explain the difference in appearance? Why does the smoke in the above picture look so different from the "Smoke" in the first picture?

[Cosmored 0]

I don't know if it's really Jews who control the media but KennyB is right about this.

You could go to any media outlet in the country and tell your story and it would never be broadcast to the public. In fact, if you got to talking to people too much, you might have an accident. KennyB

I posted some stuff about the Amercian media in post #7.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=179829&view=findpost&p=3369398

[TK0001 19]

I don't know if it's really Jews who control the media but KennyB is right about this.

No, he's not. The American media is a pack of wild dogs just waiting for our leaders to do something wrong so they can pounce upon them and take them down. The examples of this are never-ending, but if you want to find examples I suggest you start with Woodward and Bernstein and work your way up to today. CNN has the reputation for being liberal. They would've done anything to get this scoop, if it ever existed.

Only when you guys want to explain away massive flaws in logic like the thousands of actual eyewitnesses seeing actual planes do you try to pull this completely nonsensical card.

Think about it - in order for this to be true, every media outlet in the country would also have to be in on the conspiracy. How many thousands of people did you just add to the ever-growing pile?

[frenat 872]

You pro-official version people maintain that the pointed object on the right of this picture is smoke from an engine of a 757 that's in the middle of the picture.

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

In this picture there is smoke from the craft that is hidden behind the box.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Can you explain the difference in appearance? Why does the smoke in the above picture look so different from the "Smoke" in the first picture?

Do pictures of smoke taken at different times (even slightly different) from different cameras from slightly different angle ALWAYS look the same? Why do YOU think it should?

[TK0001 19]

You pro-official version people maintain that the pointed object on the right of this picture is smoke from an engine of a 757 that's in the middle of the picture.

I maintain a 757 hit the building because of the eyewitnesses and all other evidence points to that happening. I don't need to stare at a few grainy pixels on a tiny picture to confirm that. My thought is this - since it's so difficult to see exactly what that is, why not disregard it and examine other evidence that is not so sketchy?

[Cosmored 0]

I maintain a 757 hit the building because of the eyewitnesses and all other evidence points to that happening. I don't need to stare at a few grainy pixels on a tiny picture to confirm that. My thought is this - since it's so difficult to see exactly what that is, why not disregard it and examine other evidence that is not so sketchy?

Witnesses can be planted and the real witnesses witnesses can be ignored. Look at the links about the press in post #7.

There ain't no 757 in the middle of this picture...

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

...and the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon on the right of the picture ain't the nose of a 757.

The craft behind the box in this picture is too short to be a 757.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Visual proof trumps testimony as people can lie.

[Cosmored 0]

Do pictures of smoke taken at different times (even slightly different) from different cameras from slightly different angle ALWAYS look the same? Why do YOU think it should?

This is obviously a solid pointed object.

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

The shadow line shows that it's pointed. The shadow line is consistent with the shadow line of the Pentagon.

I don't see much point in going back and forth like this. The evidence is here where people can see it. People can judge for themselves. People can ask someone with a background in photography if they have any doubts.

[Cosmored 0]

Think about it - in order for this to be true, every media outlet in the country would also have to be in on the conspiracy. How many thousands of people did you just add to the ever-growing pile?

Look at what the US does in third world countries.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=179834

If the media are so objective, why don't they report on this?

[frenat 872]

This is obviously a solid pointed object.

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

No, it is not "obviously" a solid pointed object. If it was there wouldn't be many people saying it was smoke. YOU are confusing opinion with fact again.

I don't see much point in going back and forth like this. The evidence is here where people can see it. People can judge for themselves.

No, there is not much point. YOU refuse to see any point of view other than your own. It is YOUR arrogance that causes YOU to be received badly at every forum YOU show up on. People here ARE looking at the evidence and many are saying it is smoke.

People can ask someone with a background in photography if they have any doubts.

Presumably they'd do a better job than YOU did and not ask about the obvious lens flare that NOBODY was talking about.

[postbaguk 114]

The craft behind the box in this picture is too short to be a 757.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

Proof please.

[TK0001 19]

Witnesses can be planted

So every person on the highway in the vicinity of the Pentagon that day was a government plant, right?

Look at the links about the press in post #7.

Is there a point in the 20 or so links you posted that would address this issue? Or are you trying to avoid the matter by pointing to a pile of links and saying "The answer's in there somewhere"? Incidentally, I did click on one link. It looked like the typical cherry picking of quotes over a cartoonish lavender background.

There ain't no 757 in the middle of this picture...

http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

There "ain't no" missile in that picture either. There also "ain't no" Santa Claus, '57 Chevy, or Sears Tower in that picture. Point is, it's nearly impossible to make out anything in that picture, so why not move on and look at some other evidence?

[TK0001 19]

Look at what the US does in third world countries.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=179834

If the media are so objective, why don't they report on this?

Please address my point and stop trying to divert. Do you believe every media outlet in the country is suppressing the truth from coming out and are therefore in on the conspiracy as well?

[Cosmored 0]

Presumably they'd do a better job than YOU did and not ask about the obvious lens flare that NOBODY was talking about.

Asking if that pointed object was smoke was such a silly question that I was embarrassed to ask but I'll do it now and see what happens.

http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?p=418141#post418141

I don't usually get much objectivity from questions about conspiracy theories on physics and science forums. They seem to be under some kind of pressure to go with the official version of things. That's why I suggested that people ask friends and acquaintances.

On this forum my picture with Apollo anomalies got deleted.

http://forum.digitalcamerareview.com/showthread.php?p=45344#post45344

The moderator said they had nothing to do with photography.

On this one the the pictures didn't get deleted but the administrator said it wasn't worth the time.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion/168968-i-need-expert-opinion.html#post1077809

[frenat 872]

Asking if that pointed object was smoke was such a silly question that I was embarrassed to ask but I'll do it now and see what happens.

http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?p=418141#post418141

I'll take "missing the point repeatedly" for $100 Alex.

Are you TRYING to be deliberately obtuse? Why would you expect a photography forum to know anything about smoke in the picture? Are they experts on smoke? Is that what I was suggesting? NO to both. The POINT is that asking about an OBVIOUS lens flare when NOBODY else was talking about it was stupid in the extreme on your part. You still have not explained why you somehow thought it was relevant.

I don't usually get much objectivity from questions about conspiracy theories on physics and science forums. They seem to be under some kind of pressure to go with the official version of things. That's why I suggested that people ask friends and acquaintances.

On this forum my picture with Apollo anomalies got deleted.

http://forum.digitalcamerareview.com/showthread.php?p=45344#post45344

The moderator said they had nothing to do with photography.

On this one the the pictures didn't get deleted but the administrator said it wasn't worth the time.

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion/168968-i-need-expert-opinion.html#post1077809

AGAIN, I'd be willing to bet that the reason you don't get received well on ANY forum is NOT because they are under some kind of pressure to go with some official version but rather because of YOUR attitude. I'm sure many here would agree with that.

[Cosmored 0]

I just found this video.

I've only watched the first ten minutes of it but it looks promising. I'm going to check out for a while and watch it.

[TK0001 19]

I just found this video.

I've only watched the first ten minutes of it but it looks promising. I'm going to check out for a while and watch it.

Thanks for the update. But before you do that, do you want to actually answer a few questions that you've been avoiding?

Like:

Do you believe every media outlet in the country is suppressing the truth from coming out and are therefore in on the conspiracy as well?

[Cosmored 0]

Okay-I'll take a break between part 1 and part 2.

(part 2)

Please address my point and stop trying to divert. Do you believe every media outlet in the country is suppressing the truth from coming out and are therefore in on the conspiracy as well?

In that post my point was that if there is something as serious as 9/11 on which none of the media outlets are reporting, someone has control over all of them.

As long as the editors are chosen by the people in control, it won't matter what the journalists think. Most of them weren't there anyway; they're just like anyone else who wasn't there.

So every person on the highway in the vicinity of the Pentagon that day was a government plant, right?

You seem to be playing games here. I said that there were lots of plants and the real witnesses could be ignored.

The theory is that a 757 really did fly in low and fly over the Pentagon and the killer plane came in from another angle. Most of the people who said they'd seen a 757 were probably being sincere. The ones who said they'd seen it hit the Pentagon were the plants.

Is there a point in the 20 or so links you posted that would address this issue? Or are you trying to avoid the matter by pointing to a pile of links and saying "The answer's in there somewhere"? Incidentally, I did click on one link. It looked like the typical cherry picking of quotes over a cartoonish lavender background.

The point is that we are lied to about the role of the US government in the world. We aren't the good guys. We're the bad guys. We are taught in school that we're the good guys. The press tells us that we're the good guys. If we're really the bad guys, why doesn't the press say so? Is the press under control of the government?

There "ain't no" missile in that picture either.

I didn't say "Missile". I said nose of a plane that's too short to be that of a 757.

[mrbusdriver 383]

You seem to be playing games here. I said that there were lots of plants and the real witnesses could be ignored.

The theory is that a 757 really did fly in low and fly over the Pentagon and the killer plane came in from another angle. Most of the people who said they'd seen a 757 were probably being sincere. The ones who said they'd seen it hit the Pentagon were the plants.

How many witnesses actually reported seeing two jetliners fly over or into the Pentagon? ...well one into and the other over, almost simultaneously...I'm not aware of any. You'd think there would be very many.

And the idea of "plants" is just an excuse to run from your lack of evidence...do you have any indication that ANY of the impact witnesses are "plants"?

[mrbusdriver 383]

OK, watched the whole damn thing...

I see that they interview NO witnesses who saw an even slightly different approach, only those who reported the northside approach. And even some of those memories do not coincide. Some report banking, some have the path further north than others...and in Lloyd's case, seems they're badgering some old guy who is somewhat confused with the attention.

I'd be interested in reading the original testimony from the witnesses, not just these interviews....which also wasn't included. Was Lloyd the only one on the road that morning that "they" could set this up?

Why did they not show the lady's whole page of comments about hitting the "other side of the building" (whatever that has to do with anything) vs zooming in on just that comment.

Show us all the evidence, not just "your" side....surely it would corroborate your findings, or else be blamed on some dark forces...

Edited April 17, 2010 by mrbusdriver

[Q24 434]

OK, watched the whole damn thing...

I see that they interview NO witnesses who saw an even slightly different approach, only those who reported the northside approach. And even some of those memories do not coincide. Some report banking, some have the path further north than others...and in Lloyd's case, seems they're badgering some old guy who is somewhat confused with the attention.

It’s actually even worse than you state, mrbusdriver – the video is one of the most deliberately slanted efforts I have ever had the misfortune to see. It is not the case that eyewitnesses to the official flight path were not interviewed; it is a fact that all such eyewitnesses were simply left out of the final presentation. I have challenged the video-makers on this… i.e. I asked, how many eyewitnesses who support the official flight path are you aware of/did you talk with? They would not give a direct answer to that straight question.

Through my own bit of research I know that there are at least 10 eyewitnesses the video-makers contacted who confirm the official flight path and around another 30 I’m sure they are aware of. One of them, Keith Wheelhouse, even sketched out the official flight path that he witnessed right there in front of them. I summarised the accounts here.

The treatment of the taxi driver, Lloyd England, was also disgusting and I have made my opinion known to the video-makers.