PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: LARAGORN on March 01, 2007, 01:53:31 pm
-
I dont know if people here are aware of the discovery of errors in the live video broadcast from the BBC.
BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell (http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell).
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
The footage keeps disappearing, and the BBC has deleted it from its achives.
Try these links, I dont know how long they will stay there.
part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1qOe_j3aSo)
part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slgClRSJos0)
part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2yJAEMsyyc)
With all the contraversy around 'Building 7" in the past, this really makes me question everything a lot more. You can read the responces in the first link to see how different the opinions are, but watch the footage and decide for yourself.
-
Maybe this will finally shut up the blind critics who are quick to label anyone a "conspiracy theorist", if they mention a government (or other party) cover-up or pre-engineered crime.
I'm not gonna hold my breath for any apologies from "debunkers". They'd probably "debunk" a bomb out of their backyard, even if it blew up their house.
-
What was the IPO probe again?
@Vulcas: Reason and facts rarely affect people who have a religious fervour for their beliefs, and there are such individuals on both sides of the argument.
-
If you theorise about conspiracys you are a conspiracy theorist Vulcas.
-
If you theorise about conspiracys you are a conspiracy theorist Vulcas.
True, but I think Laragorn is simply trying to point out "factual inconsistencies" of the "public conciousness".
I have no doubt that there was more happening on 9/11 then what we're told about. From what I've read, it seems likely that there were bombs placed in the towers - it would then make sense that there were bombs in the smaller building as well. Crews at the scene smelt explosives, and the science behind the collapse of the buildings suggests explosives as well.
Does that mean the government was behind it? Not necessarily.
Does it mean that the terrorists were working with the government? Not necessarily.
Does it mean that the terrorists infiltrated parts of the government? Not necessarily.
There are a lot of different possibilities and I don't know enough myself to say which one is true.
-
If you read some of the comments in the first link, you see some people think that the Truth seekers made the video LOL I thought that was funny. Some ask how do we know that is building 7 in the background, and it isnt just some other building. All we need is a New Yorker to go to the exact window and take a picture, if the building is still there, then it is a hoax, if it is not..... well there needs to be a lot of explaining.
It is a shame that some people atomaticly think lunatic when they here the words Conspiracy and theory put together. A simple look in the dictionary shows absolutly no reference to tin foil hats or UFOs or the Illuminate and so on. I have no issues at all being called a Conspiracy theorist, If in fact there is a conspiracy, you have to be a theorist to discuss it otherwise it would not be a conspiracy. Without the intent of secrecy it is not a conspiracy.
Edited to add:
If you theorise about conspiracys you are a conspiracy theorist Vulcas.
True, but I think Laragorn is simply trying to point out "factual inconsistencies" of the "public conciousness".
I have no doubt that there was more happening on 9/11 then what we're told about. From what I've read, it seems likely that there were bombs placed in the towers - it would then make sense that there were bombs in the smaller building as well. Crews at the scene smelt explosives, and the science behind the collapse of the buildings suggests explosives as well.
Does that mean the government was behind it? Not necessarily.
Does it mean that the terrorists were working with the government? Not necessarily.
Does it mean that the terrorists infiltrated parts of the government? Not necessarily.
There are a lot of different possibilities and I don't know enough myself to say which one is true.
I agree with you Zanzi that the explosive do not confirm a direct link to government involvment, but... if you look at OPERATION NORTHWOODS (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=operation+northwoods&btnG=Search&meta=) it sheds a different light on the matter.
-
For those of us who have worked in the aviation industry, there are a great many things about 911 that simply don't add up.
-
If you are going to make such claims, please elaborate on them.
-
I personally dont see what difference that news clip from the BBC makes. Remember that we are talking about one of the (possibly THE) biggest media story in the history of TV media. Also, add to that that the extract is taken from a rolling news channel (it may say BBC World but all footage and information is take directly from BBC News24), now I love the BBC, and actually sat and watched this story unfold on BBC News24, but they do make errors on occassion (I often watch this channel for several hours on end anyway ???). The BBC is fantastic, but it is not infallible.
As for the main point of the original post, ive always had certain suspicions about this subject.
-
Meh, I think I'll just choke down the corporate lies and keep the wool over my eyes. It's warm and fuzzy under there... :P
-
Idoru: A prophesy is more than a mistake. We're talking about an extremely unlikely event, but they "predicted" the specific building, and they did so less than half an hour before it happened.
-
Im sure that I heard that one of the buildings was actually demolished due to 'instability', the one that had the CIA offices in it and the DOD offices. Maybe it was confusion about a building due to be demolished and one actually collapsing.
-
Im sure that I heard that one of the buildings was actually demolished due to 'instability', the one that had the CIA offices in it and the DOD offices. Maybe it was confusion about a building due to be demolished and one actually collapsing.
Are you actually thinking about what you are saying ?
Do you know how long it takes to set up a building of that size for demolition ? Weeks
What building was due to be demolished ? I have heard nothing about a scheduled demolition.
Maybe I am confused and missed the new construction standards that make builders install explosives so the building can be demolished at the drop of a hat.
-
For those of us who have worked in the aviation industry, there are a great many things about 911 that simply don't add up.
If you are going to make such claims, please elaborate on them.
Haha wow, no kidding. Nothing quite like creating a sentence to pique peoples' curiosity and then just dropping it. :P
Plus I'm awfully curious to hear what you have to say.
But this is realli quite interesting... because just a while back I was reading a Wikipedia article about Richard Linklater (writer/director of Waking Life, Slacker, Dazed and Confused, A Scanner Darkly, etc) and it said that he was a supporter of Alex Jones' conspiracy theories, his 9/11 theory being that the U.S. allowed (or orchestrated; I can't recall which) the event to happen in order to establish a police state and have an excuse to transcend ordinary rights. And it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that if the U.S. knew in advance and allowed the event, then Europe knew as well. So really, this fits right in with that theory, and even makes it more palatable and believable as a real possibility.
And maybe I'm just stretching it a whole lot with what I'm about to say next, so forgive me if I am, but does anyone else recall that the original projections of the number of fatalities from 9/11 were around llike 6000, and it in fact came out to about 3000? The fact that they were THAT far off sort of seems a bit suspicious... But that's probably a stretch.
-
And maybe I'm just stretching it a whole lot with what I'm about to say next, so forgive me if I am, but does anyone else recall that the original projections of the number of fatalities from 9/11 were around llike 6000, and it in fact came out to about 3000? The fact that they were THAT far off sort of seems a bit suspicious... But that's probably a stretch.
The original projections were in excess of 50,000.... not 6,000.....
-
I never heard those projections, but cripes! That's even worse!
See?! That's just how many they were hoping to kill. For a projection to be that far off, it seems like it must've been made far ahead of time, before the actual specifics of the situation as it occurred were known.
-
no, what it was, was worst case scenario. those buildings held _alot_ of people even with teens and single digit percents you are still alot of people. the 50k was the approximate upper limit, as the survvioirs were tallyed the numbers came done.
but you have a fair idea of the number of people in the buildings or can get those number reasonably quick.
-
Well perhaps the 50,00 was just that, but still... I don't know, I know you could justify it more easily that way, it still just feels weird to me.
Plus after they've already seen the extent of the attack, then the "worst-case scenario" would automatically be nullified because they've SEEN that the worst case did not, in fact, happen, nor anywhere even near, so that the 50,000 would not make sense as a projection AFTER the fact. See what I mean?
Edit: I edited this bad-boy three different times cause I couldn't seem to get the wording right, plus this fourth time to say this. :P
-
What's worse is that people were being sent back into the towers for fear that they'd be injured by falling debris.
-
It's possible that it was just a reporting error. The reporter could have been told in error that the building had been destroyed.
One thing that bugged me.. I don't see the time listed anywhere :) The only thing that's telling me the time is the text added over it. So the text is basically using itself as evidence? This might just be bad video making really, rather than the person who released this trying to fool us. As for the trade centre building collapse.. you can see the top crumbles first. It's pretty elementary that if part of the top of the building collapses, it's going to damage other bits which add to the weight of the collapse and a chain reaction of collapsing occurs.
There's lots of dodgy stuff that I've seen, so I'm keeping my mind open. But I'm not jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon just yet. I'm slowly being dragged over there however.
-
actually as i've been thinking about it. there was a conspiracy to destroy the towers...
but it wasn't by any american agency or the like.
for that matter it wasn't aliens either, though they may have been watching.
it was a conspiracy by islamic extremists.
-
it was a conspiracy by islamic extremists.
That is far from conclusive.
Why are at least 5 of the terrorists that were on the plane still alive ?
How is it possible that a passport in the pocket of a terrorist, inside the plane, that exploded as it entered the building, that was reduced to powder, managed to escape everything and be found intact a block away ?
Why is Operation Northwood a cookie cutter example of 9/11 ?
There are dozens of other questions to be asked, and most of the answers have little to do with offshore terrorists but do hint at domestic.
-
Well, they seem to enjoy taking the credit for it :P
-
It's possible that it was just a reporting error. The reporter could have been told in error that the building had been destroyed.
But how could a mistake like that have happened, given how unlikely it was for that building to collapse?
Well, they seem to enjoy taking the credit for it :P
Do we know this for a fact?
-
But how could a mistake like that have happened, given how unlikely it was for that building to collapse?
A reporter in the area got confused and reported the wrong thing? News channels compete to get information out the fastest, so it's possible they just didn't check. It does seem strange to me that such a mistake could have been made as well, but it's possible under the circumstances I think.
Do we know this for a fact?
No. It's possible that Bin Ladin was paid out by the US gov to make such claims. It's also possible that the US gov is controlled by space-monkeys, or that we're actually all in a matrix-simulation and the world is just a computer program. We can't be 100% about anything really. However, I suppose that if all this was staged by the US gov it would make sense to pay someone out to make those claims. So who knows.
-
News channels compete to get information out the fastest, so it's possible they just didn't check.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_wFJYjuhaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwt1iEUBYls
"blooper" in the second vid at 1 minute 20 seconds in. :whistling:
-
CNN and BBC both reported the collapse early (http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html)
-
actually as i've been thinking about it. there was a conspiracy to destroy the towers...
but it wasn't by any american agency or the like.
for that matter it wasn't aliens either, though they may have been watching.
it was a conspiracy by islamic extremists.
Hey come on, now. No one likes a smart-aleck. ;)
The fact that both CNN and BBC reported the collapse early sort of dampens the reek of conspiracy a little bit... but regardless I still am starting to believe more and more that it was a set up thing. I mean, look how quickly we fat americans dropped the fight in Afghanistan. And the fact that we pulled out before finding Osama doesn't realli prove that it was all just a show, but it DOES, at least, fit in with the whole idea.
And look at the nature of the attack itself. Osama realli didn't express all that much of an interest in the U.S. before (not that I know of, anyway; maybe a few attacks here and there, but nothing majour). And all of a sudden, as if overnight, he decides he's going to hit us up, does so, makes a few more tapes threatening us, and. . .
he slips into the shadows. I mean, that's got to be the most ADD terrorist I'VE ever seen. Just takes a brief break from his usual fight to kill a bunch of Americans, only to forget about it shortly thereafter... It just seems weird to me.
-
Just because something fits with a theory doesn't make it true. Have you seen a pink elephant? No? That means that my theory that they are invisable is true.
-
Just because something fits with a theory doesn't make it true. Have you seen a pink elephant? No? That means that my theory that they are invisable is true.
So you believe the 'official' story ?
-
I haven't come to a conclusion yet. I have yet to gather enough facts.
-
You had me worried there, for a second ;)
I dont know who did it either, all I know is that the "official" story is a pack of blaitant lies.
-
/me cruises by with a broom, waves it down the aisles a few times, sprays an off-topic disinfectant on the thread, then strolls back out.
-
Now correct me if I am wrong, but there are also inconsistancies in the prison planet screenshots. This is the kind of crap that really gets me ticked off, some of my family could have been victim to this horrendously cruel crime but fortunately they were grounded. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm If you look at the picture right below the youtube video they point at a building and mark it "5:12 pm EST still there" when actually that is not one of the trade tower buildings. It is a building that was near the trade towers. When in actuallity the trade towers were bigger! than that building and even the pointy building that was way across from that phony trade tower. Another thing the smoke from the collapse wouldve covered a much larger area than in that photo. Heres a video from the news, as you can see the same tower that is being labled in prison planet is actually in front of the trade towers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDh_pvv1tUM I love the BBC, but they probably got a bad point of view on the attacks when that news feed was created. The video looks to me like it was taken a very long time after the attacks, not before. Osama wasnt exactly a poor cave rat, he had more cash and more extremists in the palm of his hands than others give him credit for. I do wonder if this is a government conspiracy, how would they get explosives to the top of that level of the trade tower without the employees knowing? I do not think the government would try anything that sadistic against us because we have the right to give them the boot anytime we well want. Also, how do you brainwash a whole city full of citizens to believe that an airplane didnt fly into the trade towers and it was just "explosives?" I am not trying to start a flame war or anything im just trying to point out something about this prison planet's claims that I think are awry and what I have gathered about 9/11 itself. (I dislike the government alot, and I do believe they lie to us about many things because of their agendas. But I think that this prison planet thing is like the study group that is trying to deny the Holocaust of World War II
-
(I dislike the government alot, and I do believe they lie to us about many things because of their agendas. But I think that this prison planet thing is like the study group that is trying to deny the Holocaust of World War II
Hey hey hey, an unwilling american after my own taste. How ya doing?
I don't think anyone is trying to deny that those planes did hit, but the only reason there is mention of explosives is because there are a lot of feelings that the plane crash alone wouldn't be detrimental enough to the building structure to make it collapse. I, not having any sort of education in demolitions or structural engineering, have no clue about it, but as a common layman I can testify that the collapses do look a bit fishy, but then, like I just said, I don't know anything... But you bring up a good point about the explosives and how anyone could possibly get them up there in the building. Mind you, it realli wouldn't be necessary (or, indeed, very effective) for the explosives to be high-up in the building, but more likely, if they were involved, they would be placed lower in the structure (thank you Metal Gear Solid: Sons of Liberty for the crash-course in bomb placement strategy :D). Yet even still, it would be quite near impossible for the explosives to have been placed there in advance (and with the chaos of a quaking, evacuating building, it would indeed have to be in advance) without anyone seeing them during installation, or for the period of time afterward. Therefore, if explosives were indeed used (and I think someone said earlier in the thread that many people testified to having smelt explosives), then they were likely allowed to be installed, which further points to some kind of deeper premeditation than what we were all told. (Mind you I's not even CLOSE to stating that as fact, Parallo, just speculatin' :P).
But all in all (and I got a lot of crap for making this claim before, but so be it; I'm gonna say it again), I think that the way little tidbits of information and inconsistencies keep showing up points pretty constantly to a real POSSIBILITY and even likeliness that there is definitely more to this incident than what we were all told, but the depth of that deception is probably somewhere slightly deeper than a mistaken news reporter and slightly shallower than a deep, dark, secret political move from the Illuminati. Do I think we're all safe sleeping in bed tonight? Sure, sleep away, weary soul. But am I still going to keep reading other posts and other sources to try to learn the truth behind all of this, simply to assuage some base, primordial lust for understanding? You bet I am.
-
WOW, Where to begin ???
Now correct me if I am wrong, but there are also inconsistancies in the prison planet screenshots. This is the kind of crap that really gets me ticked off, some of my family could have been victim to this horrendously cruel crime but fortunately they were grounded. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm If you look at the picture right below the youtube video they point at a building and mark it "5:12 pm EST still there" when actually that is not one of the trade tower buildings.
I will take your advice and correct you. Actually, yes it IS one of the WTC buildings, it is WTC building 7. Take a close look at other pictures of the WTC layout, like this one (http://www.wtc-trauer.de/pics/wtc_layout.jpg) and this one (http://911review.org/Wget/wtc7.batcave.net/7.html) and others. They clearly show the difference in sizes of the WTC buildings from different viewpoints. To say the building in that video is not part of the World Trade Centre buildings and that it is not building 7 makes me question your ability to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.
It is a building that was near the trade towers. When in actuallity the trade towers were bigger! than that building and even the pointy building that was way across from that phony trade tower.
This really isn’t helping you at all here. From your comments I can only assume you think all of the WTC buildings were tall skyscrapers? (lol, pointy building ;D )
Another thing the smoke from the collapse wouldve covered a much larger area than in that photo. Heres a video from the news, as you can see the same tower that is being labled in prison planet is actually in front of the trade towers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDh_pvv1tUM I love the BBC, but they probably got a bad point of view on the attacks when that news feed was created. The video looks to me like it was taken a very long time after the attacks, not before.
You do realize the subject at hand takes place many hours after the planes hit the two towers, don’t you ?
I do wonder if this is a government conspiracy, how would they get explosives to the top of that level of the trade tower without the employees knowing? I do not think the government would try anything that sadistic against us because we have the right to give them the boot anytime we well want. Also, how do you brainwash a whole city full of citizens to believe that an airplane didnt fly into the trade towers and it was just "explosives?"
Clearly you are not aware of the theories of what happened. I would suggest doing a little more research on some of the theories. Most do not dispute the fact of planes hitting the towers (some do ), they do dispute the fact that the planes were enough to bring them down, and then for building 7 to come down hours later with no plane having hit it.
As far as explosives go, one of the theories behind that is that weeks before 911 security was ‘upgrading’ the system. During this time, floors were closed and people were given days off, systematically section by section was cut off from the rest of the building for short periods of time. There were dozens of ‘security’ personnel in and out for weeks, this would have given them the appropriate time to install the explosives. The bomb sniffing dogs were not brought in for a few weeks before as well.
I am not trying to start a flame war or anything im just trying to point out something about this prison planet's claims that I think are awry and what I have gathered about 9/11 itself. (I dislike the government alot, and I do believe they lie to us about many things because of their agendas. But I think that this prison planet thing is like the study group that is trying to deny the Holocaust of World War II
A flame war is something I don’t want either. I do think your views are based on limited knowledge of what information is available. Prison Planet is but one site that is sharing this information, there are many others that IMHO are doing a far better job.
Your last comment doesn’t even warrant a response.
‘All great truths begin as blasphemies’ – Shaw
Laragorn
-
Mind you I's not even CLOSE to stating that as fact, Parallo, just speculatin' :P
You think you insulted my use of English! Hah! "I's"!
-
an easy to watch informative video on the topic is called "loose change no.2", it's easy to understand and worth checking out. Also easy to get hold of. :-X
-
:offtopic:
Mind you I's not even CLOSE to stating that as fact, Parallo, just speculatin' :P
You think you insulted my use of English! Hah! "I's"!
You caught me... :-[
Impressive close-reading, by the way.
-
In this article (http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=6013) it names members of government and other agencies who have voiced there concerns of 911.
The media, in general, tries to scoff at the idea that the events of 9/11 have not been properly investigated, but numerous present and former US government officials are not scoffing.
Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 "I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover [9/11] up."
Senator Mark Dayton - Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence"
There are more like these in the article. When people in positions such as mentioned in the article, voice thier outrage at the known lies and cover ups, it makes me wonder how anyone can still believe the 'official' story and not question anything they are told.
Edited to add: In this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&eurl=) you hear the firefighters saying "theres a building about to blow up". Shouldnt they have said collapse ?
-
Well there are inconsistencies I will admit, but the problem is the "conspiracy theorists" are making movies that contain simple lies. Like one of the most famous that was even shown on TV here gave examples of the pentagon and how that shape couldn't have been made by a plane and how the rotor that was lying there wasn't even of that plane. Now you don't have to be an expert to then look up how the rotor of that plane looks like and see they are simply lying about that part and in the show after that an expert was allowed to show a computer program to calculate how a hole would look like if it did chrash and it happned just as the hole was on the pentagon.
Also the WTC buildings were said to have had explosives what wasn't the case either. When something like that happens a structure looses it's own structure and to much weight iis put on junctions and then bolts start shooting and then it falls down. Again a computer analyzes shows if you asume this happened that it looks identical to what happened. Now if a TVshow in Holland can get that info from some experts in less then a weeks time I am really wondering how people can make such a movie if you don't have the intention to convince people without caring if it's true or not and it makes the few things that are left really just straws.
-
@ Laragorn: yes sarcasm noted, you knew where to begin. :thumbdown: Also there are actually people who are trying to cover up for themselves by trying to debunk the Holocaust, insane i know. >> It was necessary for my post because i believe that conspiracy theorists, also have just as much the ability to lie and construe the evidence as the government does.
@ Laragorn: Yes I did have limited knowledge on the layout, the link cleared things up. Also BTW pointy building was for a lack of better words. I have not been there, so the name escapes me. yes I will admit that my points are from limited research, thank you for the further insight on the real layout and what the conspiracy theories are actually saying.(maybe the "revealers of the truth" should be more organized as a group with their information) I am glad that you pointed out where i was wrong, but I am still not picturing the words "government conspiracy" stamped on the falling of the towers and the deaths of many innocents.
actually as i've been thinking about it. there was a conspiracy to destroy the towers...
but it wasn't by any american agency or the like.
for that matter it wasn't aliens either, though they may have been watching.
it was a conspiracy by islamic extremists.
Hey come on, now. No one likes a smart-aleck. ;)
The fact that both CNN and BBC reported the collapse early sort of dampens the reek of conspiracy a little bit... but regardless I still am starting to believe more and more that it was a set up thing. I mean, look how quickly we fat americans dropped the fight in Afghanistan. And the fact that we pulled out before finding Osama doesn't realli prove that it was all just a show, but it DOES, at least, fit in with the whole idea.
And look at the nature of the attack itself. Osama realli didn't express all that much of an interest in the U.S. before (not that I know of, anyway; maybe a few attacks here and there, but nothing majour). And all of a sudden, as if overnight, he decides he's going to hit us up, does so, makes a few more tapes threatening us, and. . .
he slips into the shadows. I mean, that's got to be the most ADD terrorist I'VE ever seen. Just takes a brief break from his usual fight to kill a bunch of Americans, only to forget about it shortly thereafter... It just seems weird to me.
I can see that these claims really dont fit the real bill (i made the mistake of not gathering enough information so i have no room to point fingers. I am trying to say that you are not giving Osama and his terrorist lackeys the actual credit.)
Just because something fits with a theory doesn't make it true. Have you seen a pink elephant? No? That means that my theory that they are invisable is true.
Ill second that :thumbup: :-X
Just because something fits with a theory doesn't make it true. Have you seen a pink elephant? No? That means that my theory that they are invisable is true.
So you believe the 'official' story ?
I haven't come to a conclusion yet. I have yet to gather enough facts.
You had me worried there, for a second ;)
I dont know who did it either, all I know is that the "official" story is a pack of blaitant lies.
Was there an actual point in trying to intimidate the guy by asking him if he believes the "official" story and expecting him to say no? What if he does? What if he doesnt? Does that really matter in this case? This is why i love mythbusters so much, they try to take a myth and either prove it right or "bust" it without too much personal sentiments. When a conspiracy theory arises there are always going to be ones who try to prove the theory and those who try to debunk the theory. People who don't think that the conspiracy theories dont exactly add up either are not exactly brainwashed citizens who "believe what theyre told."
Well there are inconsistencies I will admit, but the problem is the "conspiracy theorists" are making movies that contain simple lies. Like one of the most famous that was even shown on TV here gave examples of the pentagon and how that shape couldn't have been made by a plane and how the rotor that was lying there wasn't even of that plane. Now you don't have to be an expert to then look up how the rotor of that plane looks like and see they are simply lying about that part and in the show after that an expert was allowed to show a computer program to calculate how a hole would look like if it did chrash and it happned just as the hole was on the pentagon.
Also the WTC buildings were said to have had explosives what wasn't the case either. When something like that happens a structure looses it's own structure and to much weight iis put on junctions and then bolts start shooting and then it falls down. Again a computer analyzes shows if you asume this happened that it looks identical to what happened. Now if a TVshow in Holland can get that info from some experts in less then a weeks time I am really wondering how people can make such a movie if you don't have the intention to convince people without caring if it's true or not and it makes the few things that are left really just straws.
I dont know maybe theyre in the public hysteria business >>. :thumbdown:
(I dislike the government alot, and I do believe they lie to us about many things because of their agendas. But I think that this prison planet thing is like the study group that is trying to deny the Holocaust of World War II
Hey hey hey, an unwilling american after my own taste. How ya doing?
I don't think anyone is trying to deny that those planes did hit, but the only reason there is mention of explosives is because there are a lot of feelings that the plane crash alone wouldn't be detrimental enough to the building structure to make it collapse. I, not having any sort of education in demolitions or structural engineering, have no clue about it, but as a common layman I can testify that the collapses do look a bit fishy, but then, like I just said, I don't know anything... But you bring up a good point about the explosives and how anyone could possibly get them up there in the building. Mind you, it realli wouldn't be necessary (or, indeed, very effective) for the explosives to be high-up in the building, but more likely, if they were involved, they would be placed lower in the structure (thank you Metal Gear Solid: Sons of Liberty for the crash-course in bomb placement strategy :D). Yet even still, it would be quite near impossible for the explosives to have been placed there in advance (and with the chaos of a quaking, evacuating building, it would indeed have to be in advance) without anyone seeing them during installation, or for the period of time afterward. Therefore, if explosives were indeed used (and I think someone said earlier in the thread that many people testified to having smelt explosives), then they were likely allowed to be installed, which further points to some kind of deeper premeditation than what we were all told. (Mind you I's not even CLOSE to stating that as fact, Parallo, just speculatin' :P).
But all in all (and I got a lot of crap for making this claim before, but so be it; I'm gonna say it again), I think that the way little tidbits of information and inconsistencies keep showing up points pretty constantly to a real POSSIBILITY and even likeliness that there is definitely more to this incident than what we were all told, but the depth of that deception is probably somewhere slightly deeper than a mistaken news reporter and slightly shallower than a deep, dark, secret political move from the Illuminati. Do I think we're all safe sleeping in bed tonight? Sure, sleep away, weary soul. But am I still going to keep reading other posts and other sources to try to learn the truth behind all of this, simply to assuage some base, primordial lust for understanding? You bet I am.
Theres no where else to go :'(. The news has never told us exactly everything that goes on, half the time they put on THE WORLD IS DYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on and expect us to watch it. Explosives being planted and detonated inside the two towers that were hit by airplanes would have taken much more preplanned knowledge of the attacks than just simple demolition work. They would have had to have known the precise day, the precise time, the precise location of the airplane crashes, and that there were going to be plane crashes in the first place. So, if this actually is a government conspiracy then we have the right to take up arms and take down the government! ( which i think Osama would be really happy about)
In this article (http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=6013) it names members of government and other agencies who have voiced there concerns of 911.
The media, in general, tries to scoff at the idea that the events of 9/11 have not been properly investigated, but numerous present and former US government officials are not scoffing.
Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 "I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover [9/11] up."
Senator Mark Dayton - Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence"
There are more like these in the article. When people in positions such as mentioned in the article, voice thier outrage at the known lies and cover ups, it makes me wonder how anyone can still believe the 'official' story and not question anything they are told.
Edited to add: In this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&eurl=) you hear the firefighters saying "theres a building about to blow up". Shouldnt they have said collapse ?
Building 7 is really a slap in the face to me. X-/ I dont know why the government would really want it to be demolished. If they did well that would be the biggest mistake in the history of the US.
-
@ Garile: I have seen the show you are talking about, but do not believe they are correct. It is easy to make a computer simulation do anything you want. There are to many things about the pentagon that don’t add up, like the lack of debris and the perfect undisturbed lawn in front, the marked areas on interior walls and some eye witnesses description of the plane. The pentagon has one of the best security systems in the world with still and video cameras everywhere, but they have no clear pictures of the plane.
/sarcasm off
So, if this actually is a government conspiracy then we have the right to take up arms and take down the government! ( which i think Osama would be really happy about)
If the government lies about anything and withholds the truth, that is by definition ‘government conspiracy’ and YES you should ‘take down’ those in government that are a part of the conspiracy.
Here is a little info about Osama; the US and the Brits trained him and gave him the financial backing to get started. Do a little searching; you will be shocked at the backdoor deals that have taken place.
Money is still being given to AL QAEDA,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd5_2xXK_Zc p1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHIvGr6ZytU p2
Building 7 is really a slap in the face to me. I dont know why the government would really want it to be demolished. If they did well that would be the biggest mistake in the history of the US.
There was a lot of very important information in WTC 7, it is believed that the information would have ended the careers of some high positioned politicians, even the highest, and could have meant jail time for many. Now we will never know what was in WTC 7.
-
Building 7 is really a slap in the face to me. X-/ I dont know why the government would really want it to be demolished. If they did well that would be the biggest mistake in the history of the US.
It was storing documents for a high profile investigation. Something to do with government fraud or bank fraud or something. Anyway, it was an extremely important investigation for some reason and when the building was lost all the documents were destroyed so they were forced to start the investigation all over again.
-
There was a lot of very important information in WTC 7, it is believed that the information would have ended the careers of some high positioned politicians, even the highest, and could have meant jail time for many. Now we will never know what was in WTC 7.
Another potential reason for doing it. See "Operation Northwoods. Making-up terrorist attacks to justify invasions is an old history.
I have a closed-mind regarding to this: I am sure that the official "truths" about what was behind 09/11 are nothing but a big coverup for the tip of the iceberg.
There's much more behind it, who knows? The invasion against Pearl Harbor was known but still nothing was done to stop it as a pretext was needed for US to enter in full-fledged war with Japan as their spheres of influence were in competition.
09/11 became a base for the pretexts for:
- Patriot Acts
- Invasions Liberations of Afhganistan, Iraq and following human rights abuses improvement of their people's lives
- Guantanamo concentration camp prison
- Arbitrary prisons against certain ethnical groups terrorists
What's next for the greatest neofascist empire democratic government of the world...
Martial Law ?
REX-84 ?
The mask of democracy is falling slowly since 09/11 and one more "terrorist" strike on the same scale probably would be a sufficient pretext for Martial Law.
-
There's much more behind it, who knows? The invasion against Pearl Harbor was known but still nothing was done to stop it as a pretext was needed for US to enter in full-fledged war with Japan as their spheres of influence were in competition.
There's a theory that Pearl Harbour was allowed to take place by the US government at the time because they knew they needed something to gain public support to join WW2. If that's the case, then it's probably the best decision in US history :)
-
T
There's much more behind it, who knows? The invasion against Pearl Harbor was known but still nothing was done to stop it as a pretext was needed for US to enter in full-fledged war with Japan as their spheres of influence were in competition.
There's a theory that Pearl Harbour was allowed to take place by the US government at the time because they knew they needed something to gain public support to join WW2. If that's the case, then it's probably the best decision in US history :)
The 2,335 military and 68 civilians killed on the attack agree fully with that.
-
TThere's much more behind it, who knows? The invasion against Pearl Harbor was known but still nothing was done to stop it as a pretext was needed for US to enter in full-fledged war with Japan as their spheres of influence were in competition.
There's a theory that Pearl Harbour was allowed to take place by the US government at the time because they knew they needed something to gain public support to join WW2. If that's the case, then it's probably the best decision in US history :)
The 2,335 military and 68 civilians killed on the attack agree fully with that.
The millions that weren't killed because the Nazi's were stopped do ;)
-
US saved the day and all the other forces were insignificant for the victory in WW2?
Tell me other one.
The Europeans eat the lead and the Americans become the heroes?
People should not base their conclusions about WW2 on cheap biased Hollywood Movies and other materials that glorify US Army.
-
US saved the day and all the other forces were insignificant for the victory in WW2?
Tell me other one.
The Europeans eat the lead and the Americans become the heroes?
People should not base their conclusions about WW2 on cheap biased Hollywood Movies and other materials that glorify US Army.
It is more or less true though. The Nazis might not have won the war, but they would have undoubtably conquered Europe if it weren't for the US joining the war. They would still be left with Russia and China to contend with though.
Now, if the USA had joined the war in 1939 instead of early 1942 (December of 1941)...
-
Two words: Marshall Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan)
Now, if the USA had joined the war in 1939 instead of early 1942 (December of 1941)...
It wouldn't be very profitable for the war industry(among other industries) and for the interests of the U.S. on world hegemony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM#IBM.27s_role_in_WWII_and_the_Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM#IBM.27s_role_in_WWII_and_the_Holocaust)
-
US saved the day and all the other forces were insignificant for the victory in WW2?
Tell me other one.
The Europeans eat the lead and the Americans become the heroes?
People should not base their conclusions about WW2 on cheap biased Hollywood Movies and other materials that glorify US Army.
I don't think I said that, or even inferred it. It's pretty much fact that if the USA hadn't joined in when it did, Europe would have been completely conquered. Once Britain would have fallen (which it would have given another year) there would have been nowhere for the USA to land to help out if it had wanted to, leaving Asia and Africa to have been taken too. After which the attention would have turned to the Americas, which would have been completely overpowered.
Anyway, I suppose it is possible that the same thing (if it did happen for PH) happened at 9/11... the gov just let it happen, and maybe helped it along a bit too. It's hard to do much except speculate without anything really solid to go on. Things that might give it away could be 'disappearances' of people looking into it ;) or accidents.
-
Uh huh. America won World War II... ::)
The things they get away with teaching people over there... :P
-
Things that might give it away could be 'disappearances' of people looking into it ;) or accidents.
This isnt exactly what you are looking for but it is kinda fishy O'neal (http://www.hereinreality.com/johnoneill.html)
I need to look but I know there are people who have vanished.
-
This isnt exactly what you are looking for but it is kinda fishy O'neal (http://www.hereinreality.com/johnoneill.html)
I need to look but I know there are people who have vanished.
What's that suggesting, the US government whacked O'Neill over the head and dragged him into the WTC so it would look like the terrorists got him?
And why is everyone's main defence always "Oh, I'm an upstanding, accomplished member of society. I would never make this up..."?
-
hey ...
you guys should all calm down immediately ...
all these theories ... bullcrap
if I want I can make a coherence to the illuminati at once ....
11 + 9 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 23
so what ?
open your eyes and take it as what it was ...
Terrorism !
[ Edited for language. --Karyuu ]
-
I think Maddox is a sarcastic prick (right up your alleys :P), but I'm reminded of this article (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)...
His tone annoys me, but his sense of humour always makes me laugh... (The $100 dollar bill thing is funny)
-
If you are going to make such claims, please elaborate on them.
I worked on a US Airforce base for about three years as a flight instructor (civilian contractor), so I know a bit about the ins and outs of the air transportation system in the US -- both military and civilian ops. I have also flown as a mission pilot with the US Civil Air Patrol. It's very easy to mis-lead the general populataion regards aviation, how planes fly, and what pilots do. After all, a good chunk of the population actually believes that an aircraft's engine has failed when the aircraft stalls.
It would be difficult for me to go into detail about every single incident that doesn't quite make sense, because there are lots, and this would become a very long post if I picked every aspect of the 9-11 flights apart. Since I don't really like making long posts, I'm going to generalise.
The complete failure of the ATC system that day puzzles me and most other pilots I've spoken to about the incident. For 9-11 to have happened the way we are told it happened means that every controller involved with the flights in question failed to follow the most basic normal and emergency operating procedures that have been set in place. It amounts to a collective tossing of the rules right out the window and saying, "Let's just.. do everything different today."
There is no way that student pilots, especially students with the rather questionable skills the supposed 9-11 perpetrators were reported to have had, could have manuevered those planes, and flown them with such precision into the towers the way they were presented as having done. I've flown with students, lots of them. Every once in a while every flight instructor comes across a mediocre student. Every flight student in the US must eventually pass an flight test with an FAA inspector, and the reputation of the flight school rests on the quality of the students it graduates. Flight schools don't like to give up on a student, and instructors will work very diligently to get a mediocre student through the training that, frankly, most students pay alot of money for. For one of the flight schools to have let one of these men go because he just couldn't handle the tasks being set before him tells me alot. It tell me that the guy, to put it bluntly, majorly sucked as a pilot. It's impossible for me to believe that those men manuevered those planes the way they did, and flew them into the towers. Could they have programmed the on board auto-pilot to fly the planes into the towers? Maybe. But considering their rather dubious talent, and the relatively short amount of time the planes were in the air, I don't think they did.
The flight that bothers me the most is the one crashed into the pentagon building. I've seen a couple of crash sites, and frankly, the physical crash site at the pentagon did not jive with what we are told happened.
~ edited for typos
-
That reminds me that indeed that was a point aswell, thhe major impossibility of planes chrashing into the buildings like that becuase of impossible angles and such. Also taken from the dutch analyzes afterwards I saw them put simple students from a university who knew little of flying in a flight simulator and see how close they would come with the training that we know for a fact the terrorists had. They didn't manage to hit the buildings everytime, but that claims that it's impossible are simply not true.
I mean look at how big the buildings are compared to a landingstrip. Why would it be that hard to hit those buildings in the first place when they are already trained to land on a landingstrip?
Also that one of the terrorists wasn't exelling at training proves what? That he wasn't the one flying most likely. It wasn't one terrorist per plane mind you only one needs to be good enough to steer the plane.
Personally I can see something in the "They didn't stop it" theory, but the "They did it" theory in my eyes has lost it's credibility completely becuase of people claiming things a simple simulator can proof false.
-
I don't know all the answers. The thing is, all of these theories and ideas don't count for much in the end. There are more immediate and more humane questions that should be asked.
But those questions have obvious answers. It's the difference between love and suffering. It's the difference between right and wrong.
What makes today so heartbreaking is the fact that given the choice, many people have chosen violence, suffering, exploitation, and murder. And humanity suffers as a result.
-
But those questions have obvious answers. It's the difference between love and suffering. It's the difference between right and wrong.
What makes today so heartbreaking is the fact that given the choice, many people have chosen violence, suffering, exploitation, and murder. And humanity suffers as a result.
/me dabs at his wettened eyes with a hankerchief.
You're a beautiful man, Zanzibar. A beautiful man.
Addressing Garile's post, though, I, too, don't see any real validity in the argument that pilots that untrained could not crash into the buildings. Seems easy enough; you just fly straight. And I know everyone is going to hop on my back, beat my bum with switches and say "It's not THAT easy!" and confessedly I do exaggerate... there is a LOT more to flying an ariplane than just "flying straight," but remember that these were terrorists that were clearly devoted, as they proved by being willing to die for their beliefs in the first place, so learning and practicing enough to have that sort of skill is no particularly large feat.
Plus, I imagine that, at the very least on other flights, there were a lot of testimonies as to the ethnicity of the culprits, and it's not like american pilots would be behind some of the hi-jackings and middle-eastern people behind others, so it's pretty incontrovertible that they were indeed middle-eastern terrorists hi-jacking the planes.
But where does this get us? Nowhere, really. For every argument, there is usually an equally compelling counter-argument, such as that the U.S. Government hired the Taliban to perform the attack. Regardless of whether or not that is even remotely near the truth, it is at least a valid possibility, and it didn't take too much imagination to come up with, so that essentially we're no nearer to discovering what really happened.
This is exactly why the White House needs Hillary Clinton in office! Men seem to be much too comfortable with not telling the truth. A woman probably wouldn't stand for it, all the lies, the deception...
P.S. A tad bit unrelated... but Zanzibar, is your name in reference to Metal Gear Sold???
-
I know there are a lot of people that when they go to the doctor with a pain that bothers them when doing a specific task, the doctor will tell them 'well, dont do that' and that will be fine for them. They wont question what the cause was, they just wont do it any more. For all of you who are like that, good for you, if you are content with following the doctors orders, more power to ya. If other people do not accept the doctors methods and questions what started it, or is causing the pain, why are they told to relax and just do what their told. We all have the right to ask questions, we have to. Without asking questions, things go unchecked and chaos is sure to follow.
We want truthful answers to questions such as:
Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?
(questions above taken from 911truth.org)
Why were there fires burning out of control for over 100 days under the footprints of the 2 towers and building 7 ?
Why is it that several names on that alleged hijackers list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?
-
But those questions have obvious answers. It's the difference between love and suffering. It's the difference between right and wrong.
What makes today so heartbreaking is the fact that given the choice, many people have chosen violence, suffering, exploitation, and murder. And humanity suffers as a result.
/me dabs at his wettened eyes with a hankerchief.
You're a beautiful man, Zanzibar. A beautiful man.
Addressing Garile's post, though, I, too, don't see any real validity in the argument that pilots that untrained could not crash into the buildings. Seems easy enough; you just fly straight. And I know everyone is going to hop on my back, beat my bum with switches and say "It's not THAT easy!" and confessedly I do exaggerate... there is a LOT more to flying an ariplane than just "flying straight," but remember that these were terrorists that were clearly devoted, as they proved by being willing to die for their beliefs in the first place, so learning and practicing enough to have that sort of skill is no particularly large feat.
Plus, I imagine that, at the very least on other flights, there were a lot of testimonies as to the ethnicity of the culprits, and it's not like american pilots would be behind some of the hi-jackings and middle-eastern people behind others, so it's pretty incontrovertible that they were indeed middle-eastern terrorists hi-jacking the planes.
But where does this get us? Nowhere, really. For every argument, there is usually an equally compelling counter-argument, such as that the U.S. Government hired the Taliban to perform the attack. Regardless of whether or not that is even remotely near the truth, it is at least a valid possibility, and it didn't take too much imagination to come up with, so that essentially we're no nearer to discovering what really happened.
This is exactly why the White House needs Hillary Clinton in office! Men seem to be much too comfortable with not telling the truth. A woman probably wouldn't stand for it, all the lies, the deception...
P.S. A tad bit unrelated... but Zanzibar, is your name in reference to Metal Gear Sold???
@ Zanzibar: I wish right meant something again too! The sad thing is that power corrupts the mind. The taliban regimes have never cared about really any life. They strap bombs to men, women, children, and even animals. Life really means nothing to these people, only their selfish goals. I am always just baffled at what many people always do to one another. Dictators, the war pigs, always want a fight, even if it means the sacrificing of many lives. The people suffer, oh yes and their leaders spend more money on bombs and massively destructive weapons than they will ever spend on trying to even raise their coundtry out of the pit it is in. The reasons why these people do these things, well could be disputed for days. Yes your right its what is more important to the person given those choices. I wonder when the RACE! got taken out of the human race equation and many of us have become a species that doesnt focus on the survival and well being of OUR OWN KIND!!! >>. (I'm going on a tangent here so thats all i have on this)
@ Xus: With enough dedication and training yes people can pull off any feats. Just look at what the Nazis did with their propaganda, they snuffed out the lights of several Jews who were only trying to live and let be. Not all Nazis agreed with the sadistic nature of Adolf Hitler, but Hitler successfully brainwashed several germans into comitting crimes that many of them wouldn't have even imagined in the first place. The SS troops of Nazi germany went through the most sadistic training of all the Nazis. They were trained to loose their hearts and respond to every command the fuhrer issued without any questioning of the morality of it. So, It is a possibility that this was indeed a terrorist attack, because propaganda is a very powerful weapon that can influence the weak of mind to do terrible things. But this thread seems to be about questions that have arisen and well it would be great if we could get answers to them.
@ LARAGORN: Your analogy makes sense :). I am going to play with it further, If a doctor tells you something that doesnt sound right you should ask for a second opinion. I think it is a good thing to question, it brings often brings about change. I think much of the reason why countries ran by dictators are in their situation because if you question a dictator you get shot on sight. I also believe that the truth is there for the understanding. I really dont think its a bad thing to question what we are told (I do that alot of the time) It is also a possibility that we could be asking a a dentist his take on a problem with diabetes (analogy again).
@ Xus: *shakes head and rubs eyes* O_o o_O. Can I get an overgeneralization stamp here? So your saying that all men are blatant liers? We have no moral backing? I will have to argue that point in very much detail.... but I will not do that here.
-
@ Xus: *shakes head and rubs eyes* O_o o_O. Can I get an overgeneralization stamp here? So your saying that all men are blatant liers? We have no moral backing? I will have to argue that point in very much detail.... but I will not do that here.
No no, I'm not saying that at all... NOT!
No, it's just that, well... that seems to be the trend thus far. I mean, even the presidents that were honest were liars just in that they maintained the lies that their predecessors started. They can't totally be blamed, because the lies weren't their own, but even still that doesn't help us get any more of that sweet sweet truth.
Looking at it from another angle, I'm really not even talking about all men, but just any men that have a shot at becoming president. To have made it that far in politics, men are, as a rule, sneaky backstabbers. It's a stereotype, but nonetheless its one that's proved true time and time again. Are the exceptions? Absolutely. But so far, those exceptions have all primarily fallen under the "maintainers of their predecessors lies" category.
I wouldn't think Hillary would stand for that so much, but then thinking about it again... she already knows stuff, more than likely. She's the former president's wife, for goodness sakes, and surely they talk sometimes before they go to bed! But she hasn't, evidently, outted with any of it yet... I still stand by what I said, though, that she should be our next president, because I think she's a strong woman who demands respect and actually has some sort of dignity, but when it comes down to it, presidents are all, invariably, going to keep lying to us out of "necessity".
And I talk solely about the U.S., but it's probably true just about everywhere. If there is something more to 9/11, then the U.S. isn't the only country to know, but no other countries have spilled any beans either, or else we would know it all by now.
But as much as I hate men for the most part, I hate women just as much. :P No, you'll find no bias here!
-
For me to buy into the whole "911 Truth" I have to believe...
The government conspired to kill thousands of people and destroy billions of property.
ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, BBC were bought off or just incapable on discovering what 911truth.org was able to plainly see.
Ilsamic Terrorist who publicly denounce the USA are secretly doing the bidding of the US Government.
Planes should make a nice plane shaped hole when crashing into buildings.
Putting the word "truth" in your www address means your just trying to tell people the truth.
Thierry Meyssan is my friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Meyssan
Now doesn't it seem more reasonable to believe that a bunch of war monging extremists found a way of destroying buildings that they almost succeeded in doing in 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing (I believe the term war monging to be accurate though you can use peace seeking rebels if you feel more comfortable with it)
-
@ derwoodly Thats an interesting list of things that must be true for you to believe. It is also interesting that over 70 million americans and who knows how many world wide, want a new 911 investigation. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506Zogby.htm) I wonder if their list is the same as yours, somehow I doubt it is.
@ LoneDragon; The Doctor is in :P
I am going to share some facts and opinions with you following up with our doctor analogies. Fact: Anyone who is a doctor that recieved their diploma before Jan. 2002, no matter what area of study, yes even your dentist, can hang a shingle out front of their office and offer cosmetic surgery.
Private plastic and cosmetic surgery has historically been inadequately regulated in regard to surgeon's specialist qualifications and experience. Many private clinics employ doctors who have dropped out of specialist training and advertise as being ‘Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons’ but this is no guarantee that they have any specialist training. Doctors from any medical speciality can perform surgery however the purpose of the 'The Care Standards Act' is to improve the regulation of healthcare providers. The Act, which came into force in 2002, will mean that clinics and surgeons in private practice will now be regulated by law.
Until now there has been no guarantee that a private surgeon had any specialist training or any surgical qualifications at all and many patients have based their choice of surgeon or clinic on the quality of their adverts. The training and qualification requirement applies only to doctors registering after 2002, and therefore allows a medical practitioner who was in practice prior to that date to continue without either being assessed or showing any evidence of having received any formally recognised specialist surgical training.
So when they give you their professional opinion on your nose job or tummy tuck, would you think their advice is sound? The scary thing is that most do. 'Hey, he has a diploma on the wall, who am I to question a doctor' is the mentality. The majority of people are too self absorbed to give it a second thought, they want to look better and they want it now.
The same can be said of the 911 comission, they knew nothing in the areas needed to do a indepth investigation. The report was full of errors and inacurate statistics, most independant experts would find it laughable if it werent for the thousands killed. The NORAD story changed every time it was discussed. The FAA officials couldnt even agree on the times of events. These 'dentists' were asked to do the worlds largest 'boob job' (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478) and failed miserably.
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
115 obvious lies
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers’ claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner’s account of Abu Zubaydah’s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission’s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission’s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley’s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright’s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission’s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner’s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be “coming down” (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as “opportunities” (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld’s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
-
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD’s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175’s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission’s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI’s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke’s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference---although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke’s account of Rumsfeld’s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld’s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from “Phantom Flight 11,” were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93’s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report “without dissent,” to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of “looking at information only partially,” had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call “the Kean-Zelikow Report” by writing that it, “far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?” (291)
A site reporting errors;
Television 3 New Zealand (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061221&articleId=4228)