Prime: "I'm not entirely sure without more checking, but the odds are good he is an actor[ as there are so may others]." -- Onebornfree. I'm sorry but I can't just let this one go. You can't just say it's an actor and then move on. These "actors" have families, neighbors, relatives, coworkers, etc... I mean, aren't these people still walking around today? Aren't some of the wives of the men on board the planes still doing interviews? Surely some acquantance would stand up and cry foul!
"I'm not entirely sure without more checking, but the odds are good he is an actor[ as there are so may others]." -- Onebornfree.
I'm sorry but I can't just let this one go. You can't just say it's an actor and then move on. These "actors" have families, neighbors, relatives, coworkers, etc... I mean, aren't these people still walking around today? Aren't some of the wives of the men on board the planes still doing interviews? Surely some acquantance would stand up and cry foul!
I have no intention of attempting to persuade you that what I have asserted is true [it is impossible to so do, anyway].
Like anyone else, you must do your own research and reach your own conclusions and take responsibilty for them. This can take a lot of time if you choose to devote serious thought to the subject.
If you are interested in persuing that avenue of thought [i.e. fake victims] you might start with the last two links I gave in my 2nd. post in this thread.
Further food for thought might be provided by this excellent article at "Veterans Today" : " 911 “MISSING” Posters of Disembodied Souls"
Regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Please read David Ray Griffin's books on this subject. He deals only in verifiable facts and when you see how he lays it out, you realize that there is really no intelligent way to understand 9/11 as a "big accident". It just isn't.
Is there one book in particular that is a good first read on this subject? On 9/11, I've only seen a documentary by Jesse Ventura.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
@That Old Guy: Click on the link; that's the best book to start with, only keep in mind that it was written not long after 9/11 so new supporting evidence has been uncovered in the meantime. Just search "David Ray Griffin" on Amazon.com for more info.
@That Old Guy: Click on the link; that's the best book to start with,
It's at teh liburry! Thanks!
Better get mama's pryin baar.
Onebornfree,
I read the link about the fake posters on the wall. It certainly is interesting. The only problem I have is, if I'm willing to believe that someone is capable of faking airplanes flying into buildings and creating fake, vitual identities, then I must also consider the possiblity that a photo of missing posters could also be faked. It gets to the point where, unless you actually were at the WTC the day of, there is really no point in believing anything at all.
I wash mahself with a raag on a stick.
*Although, i like the idea. God, I love this forum.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
onebornfree: Cell phone cameras did not exist in 2001 as far as I am aware. True, people had regular video cameras etc. and so someone, somewhere must have genuine 9/11 footage of something or other. And yet, every piece of 9/11 footage examined, at least at this site: http://www.septemberclues.info/ , bears unmistakeable signs of being fraudulent. The only way I can see this happening is if the investigators seized or if witnesses turned in their camera rolls to the investigators. I think that their may be lost camera rolls in basements that have been forgotten about. But it seems that it would have been easier to actually fly planes into the towers and then blow up the WTC. Also bear in mind that it is virtually impossible to track, with a camera, an aircraft flying at the alleged speed of 500 mph close to the ground, ask any sports photographer who has tried to track Formula 1 race cars at 180 mph or whatever. This is a good point; however, there aren't that many videos that have the camera actually tracking any planes--I can't think of any. Most of the shots are of a wide view of the towers; so, tracking wouldn't have been necessary to show planes flying into the towers. [...]via H.E.R.F.[...] Great! Now I'm going to be on a Wikipedia tanget for hours. :D To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake." | Post Points: 20
Cell phone cameras did not exist in 2001 as far as I am aware. True, people had regular video cameras etc. and so someone, somewhere must have genuine 9/11 footage of something or other. And yet, every piece of 9/11 footage examined, at least at this site: http://www.septemberclues.info/ , bears unmistakeable signs of being fraudulent.
The only way I can see this happening is if the investigators seized or if witnesses turned in their camera rolls to the investigators. I think that their may be lost camera rolls in basements that have been forgotten about.
But it seems that it would have been easier to actually fly planes into the towers and then blow up the WTC.
Also bear in mind that it is virtually impossible to track, with a camera, an aircraft flying at the alleged speed of 500 mph close to the ground, ask any sports photographer who has tried to track Formula 1 race cars at 180 mph or whatever.
This is a good point; however, there aren't that many videos that have the camera actually tracking any planes--I can't think of any. Most of the shots are of a wide view of the towers; so, tracking wouldn't have been necessary to show planes flying into the towers.
[...]via H.E.R.F.[...]
Great! Now I'm going to be on a Wikipedia tanget for hours. :D
I'm thinking the same thing. At some point these theories become so absurd, that the logical connections no longer make any sense. Onebornfree, not trying to insult you, but some of your theories are becoming less plausible than the Mayan doomsday prophecy. You do have quite a bit of imagination though.
At some point these theories become so absurd
No doubt - one of the most absurd theories is that 19 men armed with boxcutters hijacked and crashed 4 planes, collapsing three steel buildings to the ground - all three collapsing symmetrically and directly into their own footprints - and penetrating the most heavily defended airspace in the world to actually strike the Pentagon - the nerve-center of the entire US military, a building designed to withstand nuclear blast, connected via underground tunnels to the White House and other buildings in the DC area, and which frequently has the presence of SecDef and VP and occasionally even POTUS. And, of course, no one ever dreamed that flying an airplane into any government building was a possibility because it is just so evil who could even think of such a thing. Oh wait, it actually happened back in 1994. And they were war-gaming a similar scenario less than a year before 9/11. Derp.
Don't forget that hyperbolic conspiracy theories are actually a disinfo tool. They operate by "injecting noise" into the public discourse, frustrating the attempt to communicate reasonable, skeptical theories contrary to the official orthodoxy. When you say "I think it was an inside job" the first things a person unfamiliar with the reasons for doubting the official story might think of are UFOs and anti-semitism. Why?
Clayton -
This is a really good counterpoint to the claim that they were actors. It seems that it would have been easier to actually kill 3,000 people than to use the WTC complex as one huge movie set for years and with actors and all*.
I think it may be a combination of both - my understanding is that office space in the WTC towers was woefully undersold and the towers had been a money sink for years. The first strike was actually pretty high up and the top floors are not all habitable (lots of service floors at the top). Add it all up and the body count is probably vastly exaggerated. But yeah, I'm sure people were killed.
As far as the airplanes being fabricated, didnt sheeple have testimony on the matter? Im sure tere were alot of people traveling out and about when this incident happened..
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
This is from Wikipedia about Jeremy Glick, 1 of the passengers on Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.
"Glick attended Saddle River Day School in Saddle River, New Jersey. On August 31, 1996, he married long-time girlfriend Lyzbeth. The two were prom king and queen in 1988. The couple had a daughter, Emerson, born on June 18, 2001. They named her after the author Ralph Waldo Emerson. Glick has five other siblings, all of whose names begin with the letter 'J'. He was a middle child among the six children of his family. Glick was an American National Collegiate Judo champion — while he was a student at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York,[1][2] where he was president of the Rochester chapter of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity — and later he worked as a sales and marketing executive for Vividence, an e-consulting company in San Mateo, California. Glick was a resident of West Milford, New Jersey.[3]"
Onebornfree would have us believe that Jeremy Glick was nothing more than a computer simulation. He didn't exist. This, however, should be easily verifiable. Is there a court document verifiying his marriage to Lyzbeth? Is there a birth certificate for Emerson? Is there a record of him enrolling at the Univ. of Rochester? I bet there were fraternity brothers who remember the guy, and coworkers at Vividence. Perhaps there is a fake doctor's signature on his daughter's birth certifacate. You get the point. I wonder if the so called investigators of this hoax have contacted Vividence for information?
Onebornfree would have us believe that Jeremy Glick was nothing more than a computer simulation.
An entity would have to have been virtually omniscient and omnipotent to pull off the scenario described by OBF. Nevertheless, the government's story is no more believable and there are other, much more credible hypotheses.
We can even posit for the sake of argument that the video footage is all 100% real (more or less the view I've held for the last three years or so). It doesn't change a thing regarding the believability of the government's story. WTC 7 collapsed in an inexplicably symmetrical manner and it collapsed for no good reason at all (thermal expansion? seriously NIST??). In fact, all three buildings collapsed symmetrically, at near free-fall speed and directly into their own footprint. Even if you posit that a jetliner could knock down a steel building (and there are serious problems with this assumption), the WTC 7 collapse doesn't follow at all and the manner of all three collapses remains inexplicable. This isn't a "thousand-moving parts" hypothesis, it's very basic Logic 101 stuff.
If you're looking to validate/invalidate the government's story or competing hypotheses by wondering at the impossibility of people disappearing, you're doomed to failure. People ruthless enough to brazenly endanger the lives of tens, even hundreds of thousands of people - for the express purpose of mounting a false-flag attack to scar the national psyche and prepare for a new era of increased militarization, police-state and decades of otherwise unjustifiable wars that would result in the murder of as many as a million Iraqis, tens of thousands of Aghanis and thousands of Americans in foreign lands - are certainly ruthless enough to mount a real hijacking and kill dozens of people in cold blood.
Perhaps they took the patsies by surprise on what they were told by their handlers was just another connecting flight to yet another city for more hooker- and coke-filled nights. It could have been performed by "the most dangerous people on the face of the earth" (or maybe these people who are probably more deserving of the title Murder Inc). The real hijackers could then fly the plane out over the ocean and blow it to bits after jumping out with a parachute, or land it at some remote/deserted airbase (three of the planes had enough fuel to fly at least 3000 miles from NY to LA) and simply line everyone up, shoot them in the back of the head and dispose of the bodies by a secure and convenient means. Who's talking? These guys aren't boy scouts, they're "made men" in the world's most powerful mafia, the USG.
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to suggest that you could fake the plane takeoffs so the planes were real and what goes up must come down. They may have reused destroyed pieces from the real planes to plant fake evidence at the various crash sites. I'm undecided on whether all the 9/11 plane victims are genuine. Some almost certainly are - it would make sense to at least execute the suicide hijackers wouldn't it?
In the end, the details don't really matter. What is undeniable is that the government is lying and that our rulers (only some of whom are actually in government) carried out a brazen and purposeful false-flag attack in order to dupe the country into signing up for an orgiastic expansion of Federal power both at home and abroad: Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, DHS, TSA, the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, the REAL ID Act, TARP and the multi-trillion dollar bailouts and other Fed interventions, and now the latest and creepiest installment of all: the NDAA.
The wars are what they care about. They don't care about domestic affairs in the US anymore than thry care about Indonesia. 9/11 was a message to those in the world (not necessarily the US) that "we are willing to do whatever it takes, even attack ourselves."
Russia is the main country that is being "talked to" by any of our geopolitical affairs. Russia knows we are forcing China to consider Russian oil and gas reserves and are adjusting to the scenario while trying to gain Chinese (vs USA) influence in the region. October and November will be interesting months.
They don't care about domestic affairs in the US
The neocons don't but they don't run the show, either. They're just a deluded bunch of apocalypse-obsessed, power-worshipping war fanatics, kind of like George C. Scott's depiction of Patton delivering a soliloquoy on the beauty of war... these are people who go to the movies to watch Dark Knight Rises and mistake it for a documentary... the ones that wrote and signed the Project for a New American Century.
The fact is that our rulers care very much about domestic affairs. Whence else all the cameras and the exponential increase in surveillance powers and the TSA psy-ops in the airport, softening us up to constant violation of our privacy by literally sexually assaulting us for deigning to travel by air??
And I don't believe that actual foreign policy (the policy reviewed and approved by the higher-ups, that is, the people the President answers to) resembles at all the saber-rattling nonsense promulgated for television. Even WWI and WWII - the supposed pinnacles of "all-out" war for territory and power - were not in earnest. No sane ruler would put his entire holdings at risk like that. Anyone who ever ruled in that way was quickly weeded out centuries or millenia ago and their offspring long since ceased from the Earth. No, real rulers are a conservative bunch and they have a great deal more in common with each other than they have with us, the commoners.
They (the Elites, the ruling Establishment, the Statist Quo) have been working together in an uneasy confederation for well over a century with a common aim of bringing about a world government and world taxing/banking system, motivated by their greatest fear, the Race to the Bottom. These wars may claim untold human lives but their purpose is not to gain territory, except at the margins and only in plausibly deniable ways (that is, in ways that are not blatant defections). The purpose of modern, total warfare since at least the time of the Civil War is almost exclusively propagandistic. Orwell explained this in 1984 as clearly as possible. Never-ending war is a crucial component in the construction and maintenance of their planned system of perpetual global serfdom.
The Elites simply unleash the maniacs at the American Enterprise Institute every once in a while to give the public some "Shock & Awe". It is done on cue and with an aim to dislodge apathy in the right direction and at the right moment.
http://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
No single national government pulled it off. The dancing Israeli nationals are a pretty clear indication that Mossad was involved but that's as far as that goes. Please go back and watch Carlin's segment on the real owners of this (and many other) countries. It's not the Jews/Zionists/Israel. It's not Halliburton or the neocons. All real power is private. Public power is an illusion.
Four years later in 2005 an attack with a similar MO fingerprint to 9/11 would occur in London. Madrid was hit in 2004. Bali, India, etc. were bombed. These attacks were not perpetrated by rag-tag amateurs over the best efforts of the global intelligence community to stop them. They were either directly performed by the intelligence services themselves or by duped patsies under the direction and guidance of the intelligence services.
The stargate between the world of private power (think royalty/nobility/industrial-tycoon-patriarchy) and the world of public power (ala voting, elections and all that nonsense) is the Military-Industrial Complex, that is, the intelligence and cryptographic services, surveillance services (especially satellite surveillance), black ops military groups and - the crown jewel of them all - the nuclear agencies. These organizations are inherently international and comprise an inscrutable network of revolving doors and secret passageways. They lie beyond any possibility of public scrutiny under layers and layers of legal and political protections. National security is one thing. Nuclear national security is light-years beyond that. No court, investigative service or legislative body in any developed country in the world would even dare question concerns of nuclear national security. This is the final refuge of the Elites and it is what gives them the power to operate with impunity.
Any national government is nothing more than a Wizard of Oz. It is a grand illusion designed to impart the false belief that our rulers are much more imposing and powerful than they actually are. Behind it all is a tiny number of wrinkled, little, old men with no remarkable mental or physical traits besides an inexhaustible capacity for conniving and a complete lack of empathy or concern about the consequences of their actions on anyone who isn't part of the in-group. I don't know their names but you could start by looking at chivalric orders such as the Order of the Golden Fleece to begin to get the idea.
People always look in the wrong place when performing power elite analysis. It is not the formal, transitory power networks created by government administrations that you should be looking at, it is the permanent, informal networks of private power created by blood relations, marriage, ethnicity (historical, not necessarily geographical), territorial colocation, and so on that you should be looking at if you want to understand how power really works in the world. Everything's new and different... yet nothing has really changed.
Everyone in this tread is a nutjob.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Everyone in this thread is a nutjob.
...says one who is also in this thread. Does that mean you, too, are a nutjob?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Prime:Onebornfree would have us believe that Jeremy Glick was nothing more than a computer simulation. He didn't exist. This, however, should be easily verifiable. Is there a court document verifiying his marriage to Lyzbeth? Is there a birth certificate for Emerson? Is there a record of him enrolling at the Univ. of Rochester? I bet there were fraternity brothers who remember the guy, and coworkers at Vividence. Perhaps there is a fake doctor's signature on his daughter's birth certifacate. You get the point. I wonder if the so called investigators of this hoax have contacted Vividence for information?
"Onebornfree would have us believe that Jeremy Glick was nothing more than a computer simulation. He didn't exist. "
That is a gross distortion of what I actually said.
"This, however, should be easily verifiable. Is there a court document verifiying his marriage to Lyzbeth? Is there a birth certificate for Emerson? Is there a record of him enrolling at the Univ. of Rochester? I bet there were fraternity brothers who remember the guy, and coworkers at Vividence. "
Why would you automatically assume that this person is real when you have not even bothered to research his background thoroughly yourself ?
And, if you do bother to research his background thoroughly, I'll tell you right now, if you start that research with a pre-existing bias towards the idea that he _is_ a real person, then in my humble opinion you would be wasting your time as a researcher, as your review methodology would be fundamentally flawed right from the "git go" [i.e. compared to the only two established research/review methodologies that I am aware of].
And by the way, both online and offline public records can easily be back-dated/ fabricated, as can on line newspaper stories etc..
P.S. If you are genuinely curious about this person, you might try to find out if this person is listed in the national on line deaths data base yet, because most of the alleged victims of 9/11 are still not listed in the data bases, almost 11 years after the event. Also try looking him up in the online 9/11 memorial sites, and take a good hard look at his photo[s], then maybe compare them with any info on him in the "Vicsim Report"
" Onebornfree, not trying to insult you, but some of your theories are becoming less plausible than the Mayan doomsday prophecy. You do have quite a bit of imagination though."
"You do have quite a bit of imagination though." Thank you. My saving grace, perhaps? :-)
Regards, onebornfree
LOL - welcome to the club, MaikU.
Daniel Muffinburg: But it seems that it would have been easier to actually fly planes into the towers and then blow up the WTC.
Not true Daniel. Hitting a small target like WTC 1 or 2 at a precise point, while making a rapid descent and turn at allegedly 500mph, would be, as honest pilots will tell you, next to impossible, [ ignoring the fact that a sustained speed of 500mph is physically impossible for a commercial jet flying at 1000 ft above the ground- 500mph is the cruising speed for these jets at their regular cruising altitude of 35,000 ft. where the air density is 1/4 of what it is at 1000 ft.]
In order for maximum "shock and awe" to to take effect in the population, it was necessary to have perfect strikes [position wise], followed by seemingly perfect penetrations of the 2 buildings by the planes.[ Followed by likewise seemingly "picture perfect" building collapses].
As, in real life it was next to impossible to get the planes to perform the desired maneuvers, and because it is also scientifically impossible for aluminum skinned airliners to simultaneously cut through multiple steel girders embedded in 500,000 ton buildings made of steel and concrete to enter the buildings in one piece as occurs on some of the videos, [so doing defies Newton's 3rd law of motion ] , it was necessary to fake the plane crashes on video, in their entirety .
This also ensured that the operation would happen flawlessly on camera, when, in real life, an attempt at a similar event would be fraught with countless ways to go wrong that could ruin the required psychological effect[ "shock and awe"] .
Making fake videos of planes effortlessly fully penetrating steel and concrete buildings and then testing them/running them through as many times as necessary beforehand to eliminate any obvious flaws, and then running the final versions as fake "live" broadcast transmissions on national television at the required time, ensured that the planes behaved exactly as needed to do their part in helping instill maximum "shock and awe" in the populace.
Daniel Muffinburg:This is a good point; however, there aren't that many videos that have the camera actually tracking any planes--I can't think of any.
"there aren't that many videos that have the camera actually tracking any planes" versus: "I can't think of any" . Aren't these 2 statements contradictory Daniel?
Damn you, logic!!!
Section 1 of the september clues video they show a shot of the skyline from a helicopter with the towers in the background, then zoom in twice, finally zooming in tight on the towers just before the 2nd plane hits. They then comment that the plane is not in the wider shots, while based on the timing of the video it almost surely should have been. From the video we know the timing, the trajectory of the plane,and can figure the speed of the plane, and distances at all levels of zoom based on the width of the towers, based upon the banking of the plane there may be some more complicating calculations to figure out, but I think it would be relatively easy for someone with some video skills to plot out exactly where the plane should have been in the zoomed out shots on a frame by frame basis.
Personally I'm agnostic on the whole thing, The scale of conspiracy necessary seems impossible, but theres a lot of info out there that leaves doubt in my mind. I find the "No planes theory", the most far fetched of all, but I think that this analysis could pretty much prove it.
It really doesn't matter how it was done. What we know for sure is that the government's story is silly, unbelievable and false. The rest is just details.
The chances of twenty million New York City inhabitants make-believing what they saw in person are slim to none. Regarding how they could maneuver the planes in such a manner is quite easy to explain. For further assurance their plan would work, they could have easily planted some sort of tracking device in one of the many service floors in the upper reaches of the World Trade Center buildings. These “hologram planes” and other absurd theories only hinder our ability to find the truth of what happened that day. My thoughts on 9/11 and what I think really happened (in no particular order): 1) No commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon. It was more than likely a drone that was shot down by the Pentagon’s defense system short of reaching the actual building. Perhaps they were testing their defenses. That would explain its impact in a section being remodeled to reduce casualties (aren’t they caring?). To the believers of the official story who call those seeking the truth “nutjobs”, where’s all the video footage from the most highly secure building in the world? The only footage I’ve seen is from a security gate camera with few frames, and when the airliner supposedly comes into view, you can’t see it for a pillar is in the way. Scaling that I’ve seen done shows that a 757 would have clearly protruded visibly from behind the pillar, but a drone could have snuck behind it, so to speak. Another question for “believers”: the second World Trade Center building was hit at 9:03am. How did the most secure air space in the world allow a 757 to fly into its most secure building 34 minutes later?
*edit for forgetfulness* Not only did the commercial airliner make it, it made it on some impossible path, flown by a hijacker whose flight instructor described as "not [being] able to fly at all" (probably even a Cessna, at that).* The tough thing to ask yourself, is, “If Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon, where did it go? And with it, its passengers?” It is disturbing to think about. 2) Testimony from first responders (read: not police/fire), claims that shortly before hearing the claimed crash of flight 93, their lights flickered. Perhaps from an EMP sent from a fighter jet before then firing a missile at the airliner. These same people claim they saw no bodies; no luggage; no plane, when arriving at the scene. Similar lack of evidence is found at the “crash” site at the Pentagon. View any other plane crash in history and see for yourself there is always tons of debris and even temporary survivors who are screaming, on fire, pinned and so on. 3) World Trade Center 7 was clearly demolished. Whether they decided that before or after the attacks, I don’t know. Perhaps Silverstein figured he may as well get another new building out of the ordeal. However, it was clearly demolished. To claim otherwise is to ignore physics. The failure of one pillar on an extreme side of a building doesn’t make it collapse symmetrically. It doesn’t make it collapse at all. But this is what NIST would have you believe. The official story claims no one died in WTC 7. Mr. Barry Jenning’s testimony would say otherwise (says he was stepping over bodies on his way out). He also says he was blown back by an explosion before either tower collapsed. Mr. Jennings is now dead. Presumably murdered. 4) Speaking of symmetrical collapses; how did the two main WTC buildings collapse this way, too? Their damage was asymmetrical as well. Not just laterally, either. ⅔ of the buildings couldn’t hold the top ⅓? The top would seemingly weigh less as well. Not to mention the supports were meant to hold much more its own weight. Another thing that doesn’t add up about the WTC site, is the inability to find 3 of the 4 black boxes (I think that’s what I recall), but to magically happen upon one of the hijacker’s passport. Magic, indeed. Another unspeakable crime is the cleanup of the sites way before anything could be processed for investigation. The evidence was quickly swept away, dumped into the ocean or recycled for other uses. The perpetrators of this crime should be prosecuted for obstructing evidence. 5) Mr. Silverstein owned the WTC complex for how many years? Suddenly in July of 2001 he decided to get terrorist insurance, which would later net him billions of dollars? “Insider trading” if I ever saw it. Also in July, Bin Laden was in an American hospital (in Dubai I believe?) on dialysis. He had a disease that under proper care would have given him 2 years to live. Supposedly he ran from cave to cave and survived for another 10 years! Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden denied being responsible for them. But, if you’re going to be the fall man for something regardless of the evidence, there are strategies to take to make the most of your unfortunate demise. No matter what happened, there are way too many unanswered questions they refuse to even consider. Most Americans still hold on to the fallacious belief that the government is here to serve them, and protect them. We need to get people to understand the truth behind 9/11. This will shatter the facade, they hold ever so tightly, of freedom. Then, we may make progress. Which is why I think 9/11 is a pivotal topic to discuss, and why we must leave the fairy tales at the door. By the way, I may be completely wrong, but seeking the truth through reason is no reason for being called a “nutjob”.
onebornfree:Not true Daniel. Hitting a small target like WTC 1 or 2 at a precise point, while making a rapid descent and turn at allegedly 500mph, would be, as honest pilots will tell you, next to impossible, [ ignoring the fact that a sustained speed of 500mph is physically impossible for a commercial jet flying at 1000 ft above the ground- 500mph is the cruising speed for these jets at their regular cruising altitude of 35,000 ft. where the air density is 1/4 of what it is at 1000 ft.] In order for maximum "shock and awe" to to take effect in the population, it was necessary to have perfect strikes [position wise], followed by seemingly perfect penetrations of the 2 buildings by the planes.[ Followed by likewise seemingly "picture perfect" building collapses].
The plane could have been remote-controlled. And it could have been a shell of a plane, making it lighter and more easy to maneuver, like a NASCAR car, if you're a pro.
I'm not claiming that it cut through steel girders; the plane could have deformed around them as it smashed through the facade.
No. It's possible that I can't think of any because none exists. Anyway, do any exist?
I just had a thought about a somewhat glaring contradiction in the official explanations; Flight 93 is supposed to have virtually "vaporized" upon hitting the ground because it was moving "so fast" that the shock of impact caused the plane to almost instantly disintegrate, leaving basically an empty debris field. There were no bodies and as I understand, very little in the way of body parts was even recovered. 44 passengers multiplied by, let's say, a conservative average of 150 pounds per person would leave 6,600 pounds (over three tons) of human remains dispersed among the wreckage. A great deal of that may have been unrecoverable but whatever little fragments were purportedly found are clearly incommensurate with the total amount of biomass that should have been present. Read more here.
But the contradiction here is that three similar (same?) airliners went right into steel and concrete buildings at nearly the same speed, but without the same "shattering/vaporization" effect claimed for Flight 93. It's not obvious to me exactly what "should" have happened in the case of the WTC1 and WTC2 impacts, but I think there is a serious issue with the planes making the sort of "cartoon cutouts" that the official explanation claims that they are responsible for. The September Clues video I linked above (the one by Simon Shank; I remember some time back seeing another website by the same name that was considerably more extreme and much less believable) gives a hypothesis that the cutouts were actually created by some sort of charges that were pre-planted and melted through the exterior immediately after impact. That's a lot of moving parts but it's at least consistent with the laws of physics, a necessary precondition to any believable hypothesis.
A simple thought-experiment shows why the cartoon-cutout theory is problematic. Imagine that the planes had been made of thin plastic, just thick enough to withstand the aerodynamic forces of flight. What would happen when such a plane struck the fairly beefy steel exterior of the twin towers? Clearly, the tower's exterior would suffer very little damage and the majority of the plane would be simply "repelled" by the counter-acting forces of the building's exterior. Now, consider a depleted uranium armor-penetrating round fired from a piece of howitzer artillery. What would happen? It would definitely penetrate.
A real airliner is clearly somewhere between these two extremes but you have to ask yourself whether it is closer to the howitzer round or the plastic airplane? It seems to me - as a non-expert - that it's actually a lot closer to the plastic plane than the howitzer round. For one, it's hollow, not solid. Part of what permits an armor-penetrating round to go through thick steel is the fact that its solid, wedge-shaped core exerts immense forces on the armor, forcing it to "part" and permit the round to penetrate. In addition, while an airplane is made of "metal", most of that metal is aluminum which is not nearly as hard or strong as steel and the frame and skin are made as light as possible while still being able to safely sustain the aerodynamic and passenger/cargo-load forces it will endure throughout its serviceable life. This is virtually the opposite of the design of a howitzer round or missile designed to penetrate hard targets.
OBF,
I'm sorry, but you are dancing around the issue here using vague statements. When I asked a question earlier about building 7, Clayton was able to respond within a few minutes with a couple paragraphs that at least provided an explanation for what I was asking. You are failing to do the same, so I'll be as blunt as possible.
Jeremy Glick was the president of a fraternity. I was in a fraternity as well. And I can assure you, I can remember each and every member of my fraternity. If you wanted to, within a few hours you could probably find a living, breathing person to verify that I was indeed in a fraternity. You could verify that I existed. Forget all the documents stuff, I admit those can easily be created after the fact. I just want to know if the creators of the "Vicsim Report" have taken the time to contact acquantences of individuals such as Jeremy Glick. If so, take just 5 minutes to explain to me the results instead of linking me to an 80 page PDF and a video of a guy weeping on 4 different occasions when remembering his son. If those creators of the "Vicsim Report" have not taken these basic steps to prove their theory than they are not serious about finding the truth.
Prime:I was in a fraternity as well. And I can assure you, I can remember each and every member of my fraternity.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove.
I see that multi-persona software ordered by the USAF is hard at work.
The chances of twenty million New York City inhabitants make-believing what they saw in person are slim to none.
Who in this thread has suggested that? And I would exclude OBF from consideration because he/she mysteriously swoops in only at the moment a 9/11 thread is started on these forums and is otherwise absent for months at a time. Browsing his posting history from his profile to see. Clearly, he/she has a bot set up to datamine mises.org for hits on "9/11" and related terms and I find that weird.
Regarding how they could maneuver the planes in such a manner is quite easy to explain.
In the case of Flight 93 and Flight 77 (Pentagon), the official story is... simply unbelievable. Try here for starters.
These “hologram planes” and other absurd theories only hinder our ability to find the truth of what happened that day.
Who in this thread is positing hologram planes?
Whether they decided that before or after the attacks, I don’t know.
How could that be decided after the attacks?? There's no way to move that kind of explosives into the building.
The failure of one pillar on an extreme side of a building doesn’t make it collapse symmetrically. It doesn’t make it collapse at all. But this is what NIST would have you believe.
We can even grant for the sake of argument that it might make the entire building collapse; but it wouldn't collapse symmetrically, it would collapse piece-wise as the falling sections are slowed by the still-standing sections which are in turned "pulled down" by the collapsing sections, kind of like dominos.
4) Speaking of symmetrical collapses; how did the two main WTC buildings collapse this way, too? Their damage was asymmetrical as well.
WTC1 and WTC2 fell according to plan. It is difficult to say precisely what happened and how they were brought down beyond the evidence of nano-thermite discovered in WTC-site dust by Niels Harrit.
⅔ of the buildings couldn’t hold the top ⅓?
Why should it be able to?? The issue is not that the lower section couldn't hold the falling top section. The issue is that the top section fell through "the path of greatest resistance" and that with no evidence of being much slowed by the immense and increasing resistance that the building's core should have offered.
The top would seemingly weigh less as well. Not to mention the supports were meant to hold much more its own weight.
I think the official explanation here is that the building is designed withstand immense static forces. The moment the building becomes dynamic (pieces flying around), all bets are off. Nevertheless, even granting the "drooping trusses" hypothesis as the trigger for the building's collapse, the building's core should have offered a great deal more resistance. This manner of the collapse isn't even a fact-in-evidence in the FEMA report because it stops at the moment the building began to collapse as if it's obvious that the buildings should have then fallen in the way that they did.
Another unspeakable crime is the cleanup of the sites way before anything could be processed for investigation. The evidence was quickly swept away, dumped into the ocean or recycled for other uses. The perpetrators of this crime should be prosecuted for obstructing evidence.
LOL - good luck with that one.
5) Mr. Silverstein owned the WTC complex for how many years?
Actually, he had only purchased it from the Port Authority in January of 2001. He had owned WTC 7 since the 1980's.
Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden denied being responsible for them. But, if you’re going to be the fall man for something regardless of the evidence, there are strategies to take to make the most of your unfortunate demise.
Bin Laden was never proposed by the official or conspiracy theories to have been a "fall guy". In the official story, he's a mastermind, in the conspiracy theories worth noting, he was a scapegoat (completely different from a fall guy). I surmise that CIA asked bin Laden to take responsibility for the attacks and he agreed that he would. Instead, he defected and issued a statement denying any reponsibility and directing Americans to look for a secret "government within the government". He was killed shortly thereafter. I doubt he ever even made it to the mythical "fortresses" in Tora Bora.
We need to get people to understand the truth behind 9/11. This will shatter the facade,
Not really. We've already been through this several times before with JFK, MLK Jr, the OKC bombing, and so on. It is useless to try to "wake people up". The conversion must come from within. Only then will they be able to receive the truth. They must first realize that the State is a corrupt, lying, parasitic, tyrannical beast. Only then will their eyes be opened and they will be able to see the truth about the horrific campaign of terror the USG has been on for at least the last century.
OBF's post count is 666...
Dude you noticed too!
WTF!
I'm going to go crazy!
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Have you ever thrown an aluminum paper ball against a wall? The part of the ball that impacts the wall deforms to become flat.
If you throw it against a grate, then it deforms around the individual bars.
An airplane's body is not composed of one piece, but of many pieces; so, it's easier for it to come apart in comparison to a unibody aluminum projectile.
I find it completely plausible that the planes got grated as they impacted the towers.
Add some explosives to the nose of the plane to make the entry into the building more easy and voila!
An airplane's body is not composed of one piece, but of many pieces; so, it's easier for it to come apart in comparison to a unibody aluminum projectile. I find it completely plausible that the planes got grated as they impacted the towers.
Then what did this?:
Note that the damage which is supposed to have been done by the wings exterior to the engines is particularly problematic (here's a higher res). If you look closely, you will see that the steel columns are either completely cut or bent significantly inward. I don't know how much the wing of a plane weighs or how strong the aluminum skin and frame in the wing are, but this must be the weakest aspect of the plane-penetration hypothesis.