See other 9/11 Articles
Title: How 9/11 Was Done
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://physics911.net/how-911-was-done/
Published: Sep 3, 2012
Author: http://physics911.net/how-911-was-done/
Post Date: 2012-09-03 14:09:24 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 14196
Comments: 674
How 9/11 Was Done For additional notes see the accompanying blog 911notes.blogspot.com. Prologue Read the following two screens of text to learn what happened at 9/11. 9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad. Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless dinosaur WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over insured against terrorist acts and hires an Israeli security firm. From that moment on the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the Israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During the weeks before 9/11 these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basements of WTC Twin Towers next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the opening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards. The detonators of these charges were radiographic controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11. Fast backward, Hamburg 54 Marienstrasse, july 2000, 22:40. Mohamed Atta, Al Shehhi and Jarrah (who were later blamed of being the pilots of flight 11, 175 and 93 respectively), who share the apartment hear the ringing of the door bell. Jarrah opens the door, 5 masked men make their way into the apartment with drawn pistols. The 3 Arabs are forced to lay on the ground. Their passports are confiscated, next the 3 men are made unconscious with some liquid and strangled to death afterwards. The bodies are carried out of the apartment into a van and driven off towards a desolate spot at the boarding of the Elbe river outside Hamburg, 1 kilometer north of Borstel and disposed of into the river with a bag filled with stones tied to their feet. The 3 passports are now in the possession of the agents of the Mossad, who carried out the raid on the apartment and 3 Arabs have vanished without anybody knowing that they are dead. Not long after the raid the 3 passports are given to 3 Israeli agents who were selected on having some resemblance with the 3 Arabs just killed. They make for America soon afterwards in the summer of 2000 and start laying a trail at flight schools, posing with the stolen identities from the 3 Arabs killed. Years earlier the israeli Michael Goff working for PTech, an Arab owned software company that develops key enterprise software for many government institutions like NORAD and FAA, using his secure channel with another israeli Amit Yoran, somehow manages to give Israeli army computer programmers access to this critical computer code. It was due to this manipulation that the hijackings on 9/11 remained unnoticed by the flight controller of NORAD. Once this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center. The hijacking of airliners by remote control had been tested as a dress rehearsal for 9/11 on the Egypt Air flight 990 that crashed into the Atlantic on October 31, 1999. Now everything was in place to commit the crime of the century. On the day of 9/11 the Israeli stand-ins for the ‘Arab hijackers’ showed up at the predestined departure airports to make sure they were captured on surveillance camera’s. The crucial point here is that the security at both the departure airports was in hands of an Israeli firm Huntleigh-USA, a subsidiary of the Dutch based but Israeli owned ICTS led by a fellow named Menahem Atzmon. And this is crucial: Atzmon used to be a colleague of Olmert in 1998. So there you have the link between the 9/11 operative level (an airport security firm) and the highest level of Israeli politics. What happened on the morning of 9/11 was that after the Israeli stand-ins were captured on camera, they left the airport via a side entrance and the show could begin. Minutes after the planes became air born somebody somehow was able to send a signal to the planes, causing the control panels to be disabled and the flight destination altered. What happened was that an anti-hijack system was activated (code word ‘home run’) and the regular pilot was put out of control. This pilot will probably have tried frantically to regain control of his aircraft. It is not very likely he will have told his passengers about the new situation since that would only cause panic. The passengers probably suspected nothing and hence had no reason to make any phone calls to their relatives (which were not possible anyway). And while the 9/11 passengers unsuspecting travel towards their immanent deaths, on the ground from a war room Israeli agents carry out phone calls to relatives of the passengers that were still in the air, using voice morphing technology and caller-ID spoofing and thus planted the Arabs-did-it-deception in the public consciousness. The sound samples necessary to carry out the fake telephone calls had been obtained via the israeli infiltration of American telephone networks by Israeli firms like Amdocs and Verint. By the time that the passengers were puzzled as they discerned the New York sky line it was already too late. Meanwhile on the other side of the Hudson river the members of the Israeli team that planted the demolition charges were waiting for things to happen. And while the rest of New York experienced in horror the events that were unfolding that day, the demolition experts were celebrating and high-fiving. The plot had worked out magnificently. *** Please save this page to your local hard drive *** This blog is the verbal expression of an adaptive learning process. Please come back regularly. Core Argument Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. I do not know for instance if Atta was killed in Germany or in America. But the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11 as there can be hardly any doubt about who was behind 9/11 if one rejects the official story. Some elements remain vague, like what happened exactly to WTC7, flight77, flight93 or Mohamed Atta. But these questions are of academic interest only. It’s clear who was behind 9/11 and what happened in detail with WTC-1/2 and the planes. That is enough. Here’s where most people got killed. The rest of the plot can be uncovered by a tribunal. In order to prevent that you get swallowed up by yet another 10 meters of screen text here is the core of the argument. The story is based on 2 broadly accepted postulates: 1) WTC was brought down by controlled demolition 2) The ‘dancing Israelis’ on the morning of 9/11 had foreknowledge of things to come These 2 premises are enough to put the Official Conspiracy Theory (Arabs did it) out of business. Premise 2 leads to the preliminary conclusion that the Israelis had foreknowledge because they organized the attacks themselves. Since Israelis are not known to commit suicide attacks we have to assume that the airplanes that crashed into their destinations were remote controlled. If one accepts this as a working hypothesis than there is a lot, I mean really a lot, of material that supports this Israeli Conspiracy Theory that replaces the official Arab Conspiracy Theory. We have the dedicated Zionist Silverstein who leases the WTC complex and over insures it against terrorism (leading to a hansom profit); we know that security at all departure airports and ‘arrival airports’ (WTC) was in Israeli hands (Huntleigh-USA and Kroll Associates, resp.); we know that the owner of Huntleigh-USA, Menachem Atzmon, a convicted criminal, had strong ties to Ehud Olmert, that is the highest level of Israeli politics; we also know that the Israeli secret service can eavesdrop on virtually everybody in the USA via Israeli owned companies like Amdocs and Verint which gave the Mossad the possibility to obtain sound samples of future 9/11 passengers to apply voice morphing to in order to make the fake phone calls on 9/11. And of course there is Dov Zakheim, the real mastermind of 9/11 who was CEO of SPC for 4 years prior to 9/11, a company that produces systems for remote control of airplanes. The same Zakheim that was a member of the Zionist dominated PNAC group, that more or less plotted for a global American empire, and suggested that a ‘New Pearl Harbor‘ (page 51) could speed things up a bit; and finally the same Zakheim that 6 months before 9/11 became supervisor of a group of Pentagon comptrollers that had to sort out what had happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars that were missing from the Pentagon books; many of these comptrollers conveniently got killed on 9/11 and much of the financial data went with them. This is the core of the story. Note: I am not claiming that 9/11 is solved. Of this however we can be certain: WTC controlled demolition, Israelis carried out the operation, no Arab hijackers, mastermind Zakheim, motive PNAC & Clean Break and remote control. I do not care about flight77 or 93, those are details to be solved by crime investigators. The most pressing question is that of remote control: how was that done? Were the original flights 11 and 175 remote controlled themselves or was there a plane swap as some have suggested, including Bollyn? Disclaimer: nobody is guilty until convicted by a court of law. This blog’s intent is to stimulate thinking about 9/11 from a different angle than the official one. From day one the blame has been put at bin Laden and his people without real evidence. Today bin Laden is no longer persecuted for 9/11 according to the FBI website. The theory proposed here might be true or false or contain some truth. In the end it must be an official investigation that determines who is guilty and who is not. This blog is dedicated to Italian ex-president Cossiga who is the highest ranking statesman to date who has openly stated that it was the Mossad who has carried out the 9/11 attacks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-176) not displayed.
.
.
.
#177. To: GreyLmist, wudidiz (#149)
No molten metal adhering to the building as it supposedly poured from windows. No significant damage to the side of the Tower that was closest to high- velocity projectiles and debris being propelled in its direction profusely from the adjacent one that went down first. Yet, we're told to believe that other buildings farther away in the WTC-complex vicinity were burned and destroyed from such. Huh? A) There were fireballs from the impact, as captured on video. Smoke is seen pouring out of the buildings afterwards. B) Molten metal was found under the debris weeks after the event. Why didn't it "stick"? Stick to what, the air it was falling through as seen on the videos of it pouring out of the building in certain areas? C) Huh? There were entrance holes and exit holes. I have no idea what you're talking about concerning your statement, "No significant damage to the side of the Tower that was closest to high- velocity projectiles and debris being propelled in its direction profusely from the adjacent one that went down first. Yet, we're told to believe that other buildings farther away in the WTC-complex vicinity were burned and destroyed from such." What are you trying to say exactly, that there was no damage to the towers? Why do you and wud insist on this unlikely and highly improbable belief that all of NY city witnessing the events lied about the 9/11 attacks, along with every single news reporter, camera crew, and fireman and policeman at the scene? The "no-planes" concept is akin to "space aliens from Venus" zapped the towers because they are in cahoots with the Jews. They are both wild stories that detract from the actual evidence available, and turn the average person away from any further thought of "what if the government didn't tell the truth" about 9/11. Yet you act as if people who question your "observations" are actually trying to do what you are in fact doing, and that is leading people AWAY from the truth, not towards it. Well excuse me I didn't see your post till you brought it to my attention. See my response above. Now if you have any PROOF, and I mean video analysis proving CGI was used to create the planes impacting the WTC, and eye witnesses who said they simply saw an explosion but NO plane flew into the WTC, it just exploded and left holes without anything hitting it, then go ahead and post that proof. Thus far you have posted ZERO evidence, just your beliefs. Also, you need to give me some sort of motive why EVERY news reporter and camera crew knowingly fabricated evidence and claimed to have witnessed what they saw when they in fact saw nothing, and produced live reports and video that was actually taped and edited earlier at a studio. I'm sure more than a few people would have said nothing at all hit the towers if that were in fact the case. There are a LOT of people who live and work in NY City, and once the 1st plane hit, there were LOTS of eyes, AND cameras, focused on those towers. Your belief requires that ALL witnesses are lying, and that ALL news crews are ALSO lying. Perhaps you should reevaluate your world view, since not EVERYONE is a liar. A hospital that had practiced for disaster shortly before 9/11 set up triage under the WTC to treat the wounded. Seems to me a bizarre and most unsafe choice of location for that but that is what is being launched into the future as the moving history of that day. I doubt many people considered the possibility that the towers might collapse. They SHOULDN'T have collapsed due to the impacts, and they didn't collapse as if they were damaged only at the top floors. They collapsed as if there was nothing holding them up to begin with, and the only way to accomplish that is with explosives throughout the buildings. Forget your idea that planes hit the wtc. Calm down and watch the videos here. killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html They're all fake. Come to terms with it and be cool. Explain to me ONE actual piece of evidence that proves no planes hit the towers. I'll be waiting...
Yes truth is important, they were seen according to eye witnesses and they were filmed. I know why you believe that there were no planes. Because the TV footage of the close up of the planes from different angles was edited to obscure the identity of the plane. The video evidence does not mean there were no planes, it just means that the videos were edited.
God is always good!
True, but as a matter of fact, there was no plane. Facts can be important. For the sake of argument if nothing else. I certainly believe facts to be important. A lot of fishy things went on before 9-11 that really do implicate the Likud Israel political faction and their operatives in the Bush administration. Do you think a significant part of the population of New York city would collectively lie about what they saw on 9/11? Yep, simple logic says if there were no planes then there would have been many, not just a few, but many people proclaiming that they saw and heard no planes. Where are these people? No planers are not thinking about the illogical points in their positions. Nuts. Even if somehow the government and media managed to pretend there were planes and keep people quite about it, I see no benefit to it to accomplish their plans. It would be much easier to just crash the planes into the buildings. God is always good!
that is what is being launched into the future as the moving history of that day from Britain: 9-11 documentary focuses on 'surfer' - Worcester Telegram & Gazette - telegram.com By Mike Hale THE NEW YORK TIMES Monday, September 10, 2012 Why in Britain? Because these TV documentaries about the most significant event in our recent history were made there. You could see this outsourcing as a dereliction of duty by American filmmakers, or as a welcome sign that we’re moving on. (It’s definitely an indicator of the astonishingly high percentage of American nonfiction television that’s made in Britain, and other European countries.) In any case, our history is in competent hands. [sic] Two of the more worthwhile of programs are the work of Testimony Films: “The 9- 11 Surfer,” debuting Tuesday on Discovery and “9-11 Emergency Room,” airing tonight on TLC. “Emergency Room” counters the popular conception of medical care on Sept. 11 — doctors waiting at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Greenwich Village for patients who never arrived — with the story of New York Downtown Hospital, which was overrun with victims from inside and outside the towers. [sic] “The 9-11 Surfer” looks for the truth behind a particular Sept. 11 legend, the story that a man on the 86th floor of the north tower when it collapsed had survived by “surfing” down with the debris. The film replays the TV news accounts that propagated the tale, then circles back to its origins in the sufficiently amazing, not widely known story of a Port Authority employee named Pasquale Buzzelli. Found by two firefighters sitting atop a seven-story pile of burning rubble, Buzzelli recalled being on the 22nd floor when the building came down. Experts disagree on the probabilities, but the soft-spoken Buzzelli is persuasive, and the videos of his late-night homecoming on Sept. 11, and his reunions in later years with the firefighters who rescued him, are irresistible. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Exactly. It's one thing to suggest the videos MAY have been manipulated, but to state unequivocally that "no plane" hit the towers, with no real evidence of such a claim, is beyond reason. It ignores the fact that EVERY camera crew had to have known that what they were capturing on video was not what was being broadcast, and the reporters had to know they were fabricating a story out of thin air so to speak. There would have been a large number of people in the vicinity of the towers, looking up, who would have stated that they didn't see a plane but only an explosion in the 2nd tower. In reality, more than a few people witnessed the plane as it approached the tower, and a good number actually saw it impact. I am not aware of ANY actual witness who claims they saw the entrance hole appear for no reason, ie. nothing hit the tower. I HAVE read that survivors in the WTC actually saw the 2nd plane approach. Again, for the "no-plane" story to have any basis in fact, ALL of the news media on the scene would had to have been in on the scheme and executed their deception flawlessly, before, during, and after the event. It is MUCH easier to take control of an aircraft remotely and fly it into a tower, than to pull off such a large scale act of deception, where the world believes jet airliners hit the towers, yet in reality they were created in a studio and broadcast to the world in unison at the exact proper time, in league with every news crew and witness in the City of New York. No molten metal adhering to the building as it supposedly poured from windows. No significant damage to the side of the Tower that was closest to high- velocity projectiles and debris being propelled in its direction profusely from the adjacent one that went down first. Yet, we're told to believe that other buildings farther away in the WTC-complex vicinity were burned and destroyed from such. Huh? A) There were fireballs from the impact, as captured on video. Smoke is seen pouring out of the buildings afterwards. B) Molten metal was found under the debris weeks after the event. Why didn't it "stick"? Stick to what, the air it was falling through as seen on the videos of it pouring out of the building in certain areas? C) Huh? There were entrance holes and exit holes. I have no idea what you're talking about concerning your statement, "No significant damage to the side of the Tower that was closest to high- velocity projectiles and debris being propelled in its direction profusely from the adjacent one that went down first. Yet, we're told to believe that other buildings farther away in the WTC-complex vicinity were burned and destroyed from such." What are you trying to say exactly, that there was no damage to the towers? Your responses have nothing to do with the observations listed. Reread them and try again. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
And I have read alleged eyewitness testimony of a plane approach at the Pentagon. You do realize, don't you, that all of your arguments against a planes hoax at the WTC can also be applied to the Pentagon and D.C.? Edited first sentence for clarity. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
It's not really easier than CGI. Your main evidence of remote control seems to be that Zakheim is involved in it but he would have benefited from drone war contracts anyway without wasting expensive planes. The fact that the technology exists isn't evidence that it was used. You need to prove first that planes were used before asserting they were remote controlled. Alleged Flt. 93 suggests that it wasn't used in that scenario or was able to be over-ridden somehow. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Their "loss rate" is near fifty percent because of what they call "latency". September 11th Conspiracies - Planes The planes were remotely controlled and thus no hijackers were even needed. One obvious problem is that Flight 93 didn't fly into its target. So if it was somehow wired up for an auto-pilot takeover, the pilots managed to override it and drive it into the ground. How or why they did this doesn't really make much sense. [sic] The military has remote controlled planes like the Predator or Global Hawk, but how well do they work? In 2005, General Ronald Keys had this to say[2]: ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You need to first prove planes were NOT involved, as that is what was reported, witnessed, and recorded on video. You would also need to prove a massive conspiracy involving the witnesses, news crews, and the networks where they prerecorded the WTC and superimposed the aircraft and the fireballs, along with the smoke, and have it match what was happening in real time on 9/11/2001. I don't think the technology exists even today to pull that off live, clean as a whistle with no signs of tampering. People report seeing an aircraft, ranging from a cruise missile with wings, to an actual 757. I'm sure some of them DID see what they think they saw. At least a couple of them WERE obviously either mistaken about what they saw or outright lying when they reported the plane hit the lawn and skidded into the Pentagon, since there was no damage to the lawn whatsoever. SOME type of aircraft hit the Pentagon. In contention is what TYPE of aircraft hit it, since not only is it unlikely that a flight school washout could fly a 757 to begin with, but it is physically impossible for a 757 to fly at a speed of over 500 mph while its engines were skimming the Pentagon lawn by a couple of feet while the nose was kept level in order to avoid crashing into the lawn, even though a nose down pitch would be the only way to prevent the aircraft from climbing. Perhaps you could rephrase your assertions, since I believe I've responded to them appropriately. FormerLurker: Er, no. The Global Hawk is a drone, and it MIGHT be what hit the Pentagon. Then again it might have been something else, such as a cruise missile painted like an AA 757. Those planes that hit the towers were more than likely converted 767's, as per the Dov Zakheim sale to the Air Force. Remote control of any of those aircraft could be and more than likely would be achieved by direct satellite link. Are you claiming that the Military couldn't or wouldn't disconnect a satelite link to over-ride a remote control hijacking from the ground? Fast forward to the second right arrow in the mp3 interview below. A satellite system is discussed there, as well as mere turbulence disconnecting autopilot. To disconnect external autopilot/remote control and keep it disconnected, simply shut off all electrical power and standby battery to the plane. Click here for audio: pilotsfor 911truth.org/p4t/RemoteControlWhistleblower.mp3 CB_Brooklyn at checktheevidence.co.uk/: [Additions after Oct 2007 by Andrew Johnson] 1. OGCT. This is known as the “Official Government Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspired with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims to hijack airplanes, outwit the USA’s entire multi- trillion dollar defense system, and cause the Twin Towers to collapse. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the truth of 9/11. 2. APCT. I call this the “Alternate Propaganda Conspiracy Theory”. This version states that, more or less, there were hijackings on 9/11, but the planes might have been taken under remote control to ensure they crashed as planned. Airplanes most likely crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville, but planes definitely did crash into the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed from conventional explosives and thermite, and molten metal was found in the rubble. This is the version pushed by the government and media as being the “wacko conspiracy theory” that the “truth movement” believes. 3. REAL. This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense: There were no hijackings, no plane crashes, the corporate media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane impacting the South Tower, and the WTC complex (not just the Towers and WTC 7) was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). The government and media steer clear of these. Edited for link title correction. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Are you saying the military/NORAD/(name the appropriate alphabet soup agency) would disconnect its own link controlling the aircraft? Name me any law of physics that backs up your allegations. That, and provide ANY evidence of what you claim. You know, witnesses, actual video proving no plane hit, etc. So you're claiming that they don't have the technology to launch a cruise missile that can actually hit its target, eh? A live dogfight between fighter jets is one thing, hitting a stationary ground target is QUITE a bit easier. You would also need to prove a massive conspiracy involving the witnesses, news crews, and the networks where they prerecorded the WTC and superimposed the aircraft and the fireballs, along with the smoke, and have it match what was happening in real time on 9/11/2001. I don't think the technology exists even today to pull that off live, clean as a whistle with no signs of tampering. The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Do you really think it's possible to fly those maneuvers by remote control? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
So you're claiming a mass Military conspiracy as if none of them would move so but a civilian, mass-media conspiracy is "a bridge too far" for you? What's your explanation for the only thing hit by alleged Flt. 93 being the ground in Pennsylvania? Edited for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Using a cruise missile, it wouldn't have to be remote control. In fact, that's how cruise missiles fly using pre-programmed coordinates. It MAY have been flown by remote control at first in order to APPEAR to be an airliner during its initial approach, but of course it could always have been switched over to auto for its terminal flight. NBC/CNN/Fox didn't plan the 9/11 wargames. NORAD (along with certain key civilian and military planners) did. As far as Flight 93, if my hypothesis that a chemical agent such as nerve gas was used to incapacitate the crews of the other "hijacked" aircraft, perhaps the gas failed to release properly and didn't reach the cabin, thus requiring some "intervention" on the part of Cheney to order a shoot down so as to hide any evidence of what had actually gone on. For starters, for your "idea" to be feasible, ALL network news stations, foreign news crews, and any bystander who happened to be looking at the towers would ALL had to have decided beforehand that they were going to hoodwink the world and produce the biggest fraudulent story of all time. You can start by telling me how these "news guys" had control of the population of New York City in order for everyone and anyone who witnessed the events to fall in line with their bogus video. You can also tell me HOW honest news reporters and camera men could be made to go along with such a lie. Incredible claims require incredibile evidence. It is not an incredible claim to state planes hit the towers, because that is what people saw, and what news cameras recorded. It IS an incredible claim to state that nothing like that actually happened, that is was all faked. Care to explain how those external fireballs were created, or were those "fake" too? How about the entrance holes, were they ALSO faked? Was the smoke faked? Were there even any explosives used, or were those fake too? Maybe the towers simply fell on their own, right? And BTW, care to post anything from Architects and Engineers for Truth which states there were no aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks? One more thing. Your little GIF file tells a lie, in that the outer shell of the WTC towers was made of ALUMINUM, NOT STEEL. From World Trade Center Construction So are you willing to admit that the person who created that GIF file is lying and misleading his audience, and that you shouldn't try to use that as "evidence" of what it is you're selling here? Name me any law of physics that backs up your allegations. That, and provide ANY evidence of what you claim. You know, witnesses, actual video proving no plane hit, etc. < crickets chirping > I'm still waiting.... You see GL, I might SUGGEST and HYPOTHESIZE that a nerve agent or some other sort of incapacitating gas was used to neutralize the crew and passengers, allowing for the actual airliners to be flown to secure locations either remotely or by an individual onboard who had a gas mask. Thing is, I don't stomp my feet and cry if people don't jump on the bandwagon and agree with me, and I don't claim to KNOW for a fact that is what actually DID happen. I simply state that it MAY have happened, and that it is quite possible that it could have been done that way. See the difference between that and what you're saying, where you have almost some sort of religious belief that it HAD to have happened the way you say, where there were no planes involved in the attacks and that it was all produced in a studio ahead of time, and that every single person who witnessed the events is in on the conspiracy. Using a cruise missile, it wouldn't have to be remote control. Are we in agreement then that the alleged plane manuevers at the Pentagon couldn't have been flown by remote control? Edited the question for clarity. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
"The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it." ~ GreyLmist wud... I have a theory that it was flying telephone poles that did it. Am looking to recruit some "experts" with PHDs to agree and take up the cause. Look for a book later.
So? The Military conducts wargames often. Red Team, Blue Team and what have you -- with or without civilian participation. The Military doesn't take their orders from Vice Presidents and alleged Flt. 93 had already nosedived into the ground in that part of the scenario, before the supposed "shootdown order" by Cheney. If you think the Military wouldn't have known at the time that alleged Flt. 93 wasn't still flying, think again. They don't really need the FAA to tell them stuff like that. Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
From World Trade Center Construction So are you willing to admit that the person who created that GIF file is lying and misleading his audience, and that you shouldn't try to use that as "evidence" of what it is you're selling here? Are you joking? The WTC buildings were made of steel by the tons. Are you insinuating that a thin, aluminum veneer means they weren't steel structures?; or that anodized aluminum would make it so an aluminum plane could possibly melt through the steely structure like the ABC "Butter Plane"? I hope not. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Thing is, I don't stomp my feet and cry if people don't jump on the bandwagon and agree with me, and I don't claim to KNOW for a fact that is what actually DID happen. I simply state that it MAY have happened, and that it is quite possible that it could have been done that way. See the difference between that and what you're saying, where you have almost some sort of religious belief that it HAD to have happened the way you say, where there were no planes involved in the attacks and that it was all produced in a studio ahead of time, and that every single person who witnessed the events is in on the conspiracy. As I'm sure you know, it is not quite possible for the alleged plane maneuvers at the Pentagon to have been flown by remote control. Your own ground effect analysis should confirm that for you. The first part of your second paragraph sounds somewhat similar to the Republican thugs' demeaning, hissy-fit projections onto Ron Paul supporters who objected at all to being belittled, berated, steamrolled, disenfranchised, and otherwise assaulted with abusive maltreatment. Some sort of religious belief? I don't know what you're talking about but you're putting way too much emphasis on alleged witnesses. You do realize, don't you, that they didn't all describe seeing or hearing planes? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
< crickets chirping > I'm still waiting.... Every law of physics backs up my allegations, afaik. The remote control theory not so much. It's not my job to provide you with a Unification Theory of 9/11 and No Planes Research because you don't want to do the homework yourself and haven't even been interested enough in topics here to be up to speed on it, although I did post an actual video gif for you from ABC which you scourged for no good reason, imo. While I'm waiting for your replies, I'll post this: Holmgren and Reynolds on No Planes on 911 - Exposing the Illusion By Ronald Bleier December 2006 In the missile-not-planes scenario, Holmgren suggests that there are two things that could go wrong. The first problem is that witnesses would say (as they did in reality) that they didn’t see a plane involved in the first strike. Holmgren suggests that this problem was easily countered in part because there was only an 18-minute window between the first hit at 8:46 and the second at 9:03 when everyone saw "a big jet live on TV." Most witnesses who said they didn’t see a plane strike the North Tower were effectively intimidated or ignored. According to Holmgren, in the brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said he saw a large jet strike the North Tower, "and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN…" Thus the problem of "contrary witnesses [turned out to be] a minor inconvenience…easily overcome with good planning." The other problem that Holmgren imagines to the missile scenario is that someone "might look at the videos and see what’s actually there. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I have a theory that it was flying telephone poles that did it. Am looking to recruit some "experts" with PHDs to agree and take up the cause. Look for a book later. So, after attempting to chastise me your offering above is what supposedly constitutes polite and reasoned debate? In the thread that I referenced in my inline link you wrote: "One has to be realistic, the government could care less and if per chance this Pandoras box should be opened again, they will provide "experts" by the dozens to refute everything." To which I replied, "So, you are saying that govt can find physicists to refute known physical laws by which all real world endeavors are bound?" And you dared to lecture me on "keeping it impersonal" ostensibly to avoid offending your Pollyanna sensibilities when in light of the above post that was so obviously not your goal at all. Pray tell, how do you reconcile that with your post to wud which was intended to ridicule him for daring to make an affirmative assertion when you have no intelligent followup question but only a silly, punitive question intended to squelch the subject at issue? And, by what logic is my question to you (which could be answered with a "Yes" or "No" by an intellectually honest person) bad form in light of your insulting post to wud? Again you've been caught trying to squelch this debate and you didn't even ask a question, instead posting only childish (as in second childhood) nonsense.
Hound... Debate????? By whom and where? I love good, intellectual, honest, civil debate.
You can start by telling me how these "news guys" had control of the population of New York City in order for everyone and anyone who witnessed the events to fall in line with their bogus video. You can also tell me HOW honest news reporters and camera men could be made to go along with such a lie. Incredible claims require incredibile evidence. It is not an incredible claim to state planes hit the towers, because that is what people saw, and what news cameras recorded. It IS an incredible claim to state that nothing like that actually happened, that is was all faked. I think I already addressed all that at Post #212. The Official 9/11 Mythology, remote control, one or more cruise missles are all more incredible claims, imo, than CGI and filtered witnesses -- which is the "Occam's Razor" with the least risk factor of something going amiss but here's a link and excerpt for you to consider: Just manufactured video All that was needed were the news directors at the top networks to do what they were told, a few actors at the scene to play at being eye witnesses, and a dime- a-dozen video editor to re-work the "live" footage so that it shows "reality" the way the conspirators wanted it to be shown. Edited for punctuation and spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Debate????? By whom and where? I love good, intellectual, honest, civil debate. More of you insults I see. You know, if I examined this place and found it so wanting as you seem to have done, I think I'd find another place that's worthy of my lofty gift. But, who are we kidding? It is YOU who is hanging on by your fingernails here. Of course there's always room for silly, one dimensional posts from a less fortunate soul. But no one will criticize them until you find your own thread derailing weapon turned on you.
How about the entrance holes, were they ALSO faked? Was the smoke faked? Were there even any explosives used, or were those fake too? Maybe the towers simply fell on their own, right? I mentioned at post #164 that the WTC was demolished by controlled demolition, whether that was by conventional explosives (ex: WTC 7), unconventional methods, or a combination of both. You mentioned (at Post #150) people jumping out of the Towers. Early on and through the years, I did extensive research on the Art Students in-residence at the Towers leading up to 9/11. There was an example that I've posted before -- maybe at this forum too -- of a fake-jumper hoax some time before 9/11. I think that was also staged in New York City but I'd have to check to be sure. In this 9/11 video at 7:16, there's an alleged jumper falling behind a building. Could be a stuntman falling onto a big cushion, for all we know, so yes, I think it's possible that could be faked Hollywood-style. Yes, I think the entrance holes and fireballs could have been rigged as well. Little to no smoke damage at the Towers is one of the issues that I listed as an anomaly and you hopscotched over, then misconstrued later. I read and listen to Architects & Engineers for their Physics and scientific analysis (except for their incorporation of Steven E. Jones' thermitic mantra, which has chain of evidence problems, imo) not their Pop-Culture opinionations about 9/11 aircraft. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Comments (218 - 674) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLittle to no smoke damage seen where much would be expected.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#178. To: GreyLmist (#176)
(Edited)
If truth is important to you, why did you hopscotch over the observations of anomolies at Post #149? Thanks for making my point, though, about plane- believers typically doing that.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#179. To: GreyLmist, tom007, , *9-11* (#175)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#180. To: FormerLurker (#173)
WTF is wrong with you?
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#181. To: wudidiz (#180)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#182. To: wudidiz (#170)
#183. To: wudidiz (#169)
(Edited)
t really dosen't matter if it was a plane, UFO or drone or what ever
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
#184. To: FormerLurker (#150)
(Edited)
Is it news to you that there are limits to what is probable and what isn't?
#185. To: All (#175)
Saw parts of a documentary on TLC called (iirc) "9/11 Emergency Room". A hospital that had practiced for disaster shortly before 9/11 set up triage under the WTC to treat the wounded. Seems to me a bizarre and most unsafe choice of location for that but that is what is being launched into the future as the moving history of that day.
A close but not exhaustive survey of prime-time schedules turned up several new specials on the attacks, all on cable. New to the United States, that is — some are leftover inventory, having been shown in Britain last year.
#186. To: RickyJ, *9-11* (#184)
(Edited)
Yep, simple logic says if there were no planes then there would have been many, not just a few, but many people proclaiming that they saw and heard no planes. Where are these people? No planers are not thinking about the illogical points in their positions.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#187. To: FormerLurker (#177)
Little to no smoke damage seen where much would be expected.
#188. To: FormerLurker (#186)
(Edited)
I HAVE read that survivors in the WTC actually saw the 2nd plane approach.
#189. To: FormerLurker (#186)
It is MUCH easier to take control of an aircraft remotely and fly it into a tower, than to pull off such a large scale act of deception, where the world believes jet airliners hit the towers, yet in reality they were created in a studio and broadcast to the world in unison at the exact proper time, in league with every news crew and witness in the City of New York.
#190. To: Cynicom, tom007, FormerLurker, BTP Holdings, RickyJ, wudidiz, All, *9-11* (#12)
The military has the most advanced "remote piloting" in the world.
General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency.
#191. To: GreyLmist (#189)
You need to prove first that planes were used before asserting they were remote controlled.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#192. To: GreyLmist (#188)
And I have read alleged eyewitness testimony of a plane approach at the Pentagon.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#193. To: GreyLmist (#187)
Your responses have nothing to do with the observations listed. Reread them and try again.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#194. To: FormerLurker, *9-11*, *No Planers* (#142)
(Edited)
BTP Holdings: A Global Hawk flew those planes into the towers.
There are three basic versions of the 9/11 events. Although differences and/or overlapping may occur, the following three versions generally describe what most people believe:
#195. To: GreyLmist (#194)
Are you claiming that the Military couldn't or wouldn't disconnect a satelite link to over-ride a remote control hijacking from the ground?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#196. To: GreyLmist (#194)
This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#197. To: GreyLmist (#190)
General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#198. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#191)
You need to first prove planes were NOT involved, as that is what was reported, witnessed, and recorded on video.
#199. To: FormerLurker (#192)
not only is it unlikely that a flight school washout could fly a 757 to begin with, but it is physically impossible for a 757 to fly at a speed of over 500 mph while its engines were skimming the Pentagon lawn by a couple of feet while the nose was kept level in order to avoid crashing into the lawn, even though a nose down pitch would be the only way to prevent the aircraft from climbing.
#200. To: FormerLurker (#195)
(Edited)
Are you saying the military/NORAD/(name the appropriate alphabet soup agency) would disconnect its own link controlling the aircraft?
#201. To: GreyLmist (#199)
Do you really think it's possible to fly those maneuvers by remote control?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#202. To: GreyLmist (#200)
(Edited)
So you're claiming a mass Military conspiracy as if none of them would move so but a civilian, mass-media conspiracy is "a bridge too far" for you? What's your explanation for the only thing hit by alleged Flt. 93 being the ground in Pennsylvania?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#203. To: GreyLmist, *9-11* (#198)
The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it.
After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#204. To: GreyLmist, All (#196)
This, simply, is the REAL version, backed by actual evidence, Laws of Physics, and common sense
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#205. To: GreyLmist (#198)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#206. To: FormerLurker (#201)
(Edited)
Do you really think it's possible to fly those maneuvers by remote control?
#207. To: FormerLurker, GreyLmist, *No Planers* (#181)
Explain to me ONE actual piece of evidence that proves no planes hit the towers. I'll be waiting...
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#208. To: wudidiz (#207)
#209. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#202)
NBC/CNN/Fox didn't plan the 9/11 wargames. NORAD (along with certain key civilian and military planners) did.
As far as Flight 93, if my hypothesis that a chemical agent such as nerve gas was used to incapacitate the crews of the other "hijacked" aircraft, perhaps the gas failed to release properly and didn't reach the cabin, thus requiring some "intervention" on the part of Cheney to order a shoot down so as to hide any evidence of what had actually gone on.
10:10 to 10:15 (approximately): Vice President Cheney, unaware that Flight 93 has crashed, authorizes fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane, reported to be 80 miles (129 km) from Washington, based not on radar (from which it has disappeared) but speed and trajectory projections.
#210. To: FormerLurker (#203)
Your little GIF file tells a lie, in that the outer shell of the WTC towers was made of ALUMINUM, NOT STEEL.
After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.
#211. To: FormerLurker (#205)
You see GL, I might SUGGEST and HYPOTHESIZE that a nerve agent or some other sort of incapacitating gas was used to neutralize the crew and passengers, allowing for the actual airliners to be flown to secure locations either remotely or by an individual onboard who had a gas mask.
#212. To: FormerLurker (#204)
Name me any law of physics that backs up your allegations. That, and provide ANY evidence of what you claim. You know, witnesses, actual video proving no plane hit, etc.
In [Gerard] Holmgren’s view, the perpetrators had to weigh the dangers inherent in their two main options: either use real passenger planes or use missiles (or some other similar method or combination of methods of creating an explosion) and convince people that the missiles were planes.
#213. To: Cynicom, wudidiz, FormerLurker, GreyLmist, christine (#208)
wud...
#214. To: HOUNDDAWG (#213)
#215. To: FormerLurker (#203)
(Edited)
For starters, for your "idea" to be feasible, ALL network news stations, foreign news crews, and any bystander who happened to be looking at the towers would ALL had to have decided beforehand that they were going to hoodwink the world and produce the biggest fraudulent story of all time.
A cast of thousands, hundreds or even dozens was not needed to to pull off this media deception.
#216. To: Cynicom (#214)
Hound...
#217. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#203)
Care to explain how those external fireballs were created, or were those "fake" too?
And BTW, care to post anything from Architects and Engineers for Truth which states there were no aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks?
.
.
.