Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: 'no hijacked planes' for Dummies
I done it in pictures so it's easier for the Dummies to understand.
Quote:
Here is further proof that the "airplane" attack footage on 9/11 is faked. The "airplane" is arriving from the "east", smoke is blowing to the "west".
In this screenshot from my previous post, the "plane" is arriving from the "east" and the smoke is blowing to the "east".
What exactly is the expected scenario when an airliner hits a building constructed like the WTC?
We have to be guided by precedent here, and in every single incident of this type, a million websites have sprung up. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
We have to be guided by precedent here, and in every single incident of this type, a million websites have sprung up.
coming from u who believes the planes were hijacked by coke snorting, strip club loving, pork chopping eating 'Islamofascists' I expect nothing less. _________________
Last edited by Ally on Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: 'no-planes' for Dummies
Ally wrote:
I done it in pictures so it's easier for the Dummies to understand.
That's a 747. If you're going to be sarcastic, you have to not make stupid mistakes.
And you have no concept of physics. According to you armour piercing bullets don't work, asteroids pose no threat to the Earth, and if I punch you in the face, then it'll hurt us both the same amount. _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
like the google video counter resets. if it was a glitch why don't they fix it and restore the counter.
i posted a 911 item on IM a few years ago. it never appeared. maybe it was another glitch. _________________ Have No Fear! Peace, Love & Hemp is here!
Remember Tank Man (Tiananmen Sq)
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: 'no-planes' for Dummies
Johnny Pixels wrote:
That's a 747. If you're going to be sarcastic, you have to not make stupid mistakes.
And you have no concept of physics. According to you armour piercing bullets don't work, asteroids pose no threat to the Earth, and if I punch you in the face, then it'll hurt us both the same amount.
According to witnesses at the scene it was either a small commuter jet, a 737, a Cesna or a missile, I just can't decide which to believe so am left looking at what the networks broadcast and it all appears rather fraudulent.
If a jet did slam into the WTC, why they show us those fakes?
A Cessna looks quite different but I don't think it has titanium reinforced wings.
Could have been this bunker busting missile, maybe they make their noses of stronger stuff that could penetrate right the way thru the WTC and emerge on the other side?
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: 'no-planes' for Dummies
Ally wrote:
According to witnesses at the scene it was either a small commuter jet, a 737, a Cesna or a missile, I just can't decide which to believe so am left looking at what the networks broadcast and it all appears rather fraudulent.
Then why the huge fuel fireball? Why the 767 parts? Why the missing 767 airliners? Why the missing people from a flight on a 767?
And how many people do you know that can tell the difference between a 737 and a 767?
And why would they use a missile that has been consigned to a musuem?
You problem is again, that you have a poor understanding of physics, and where you don't understand something, you want to believe that something is up.
You've never seen an airliner hit a skyscraper before, so how do you know what it should and shouldn't look like? _________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: 'no-planes' for Dummies
Johnny Pixels wrote:
Ally wrote:
According to witnesses at the scene it was either a small commuter jet, a 737, a Cesna or a missile, I just can't decide which to believe so am left looking at what the networks broadcast and it all appears rather fraudulent.
Then why the huge fuel fireball? Why the 767 parts? Why the missing 767 airliners? Why the missing people from a flight on a 767?
And how many people do you know that can tell the difference between a 737 and a 767?
And why would they use a missile that has been consigned to a musuem?
You problem is again, that you have a poor understanding of physics, and where you don't understand something, you want to believe that something is up.
You've never seen an airliner hit a skyscraper before, so how do you know what it should and shouldn't look like?
gosh, you're real desperate to shill for the real perps. If that's the kind of bunker missile consigned to a museum then fuk knows what they have developed since that could have performed those mickey mouse tricks on the WTC. As for the missing planes...
Quote:
A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" is not clarified as to whether it includes hijacking and/or crashing, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.
A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA
that day was 0181 at 11.00
A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.
Here's a different search method. One can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period of time, by specifying the Airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.
If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 returns "no data found".
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers.
Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.
This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights. (See update below) In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any passengers who booked for AA 11 that day, and went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, may have been told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.
The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.
It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.
_________________
Last edited by Ally on Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
You've never seen an airliner hit a skyscraper before, so how do you know what it should and shouldn't look like?
Quote:
The plane's wings tore from the fuselage when it struck the skyscraper near its 23rd and 24th floors, said a Federal Aviation Administration spokesman.
The plane's tail was hanging from the side of building, located at 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., and windows on at least two stories had shattered, according to reports. Despite fuel leaks, no fire erupted and the structure remained in tact and safe, city fire and police officials said.
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: Re: 'no-planes' for Dummies
Ally wrote:
Quote:
A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" is not clarified as to whether it includes hijacking and/or crashing, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.
A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA
that day was 0181 at 11.00
A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15.
Here's a different search method. One can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period of time, by specifying the Airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.
If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 returns "no data found".
If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their numbers.
Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.
This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non existent flights. (See update below) In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any passengers who booked for AA 11 that day, and went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, may have been told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.
The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.
It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.
This really is one of the silliest possible arguments about the planes. The BoT information is for the purpose of providing statistics about the timekeeping of airlines. For this purpose hijacked aircraft are irrelevant, so AA obviously did not file their times. UA took a different viewpoint and filed them as shown. The presence or absence of flights in that database certainly proves nothing about whether the flights existed. Like the ludicrous no-planes theory itself, all it shows is that for some people what they can see on their monitor has become their version of reality, and their sad disconnection from the real world. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
and it's just a coincidence the 'planes' managed to hit such quite specific targets at the WTC?
Quote:
In the year 2000 his software company is hired by Marsh/Mclennon to write a program that allows for paperless transactions between Marsh/McLennon
and AIG insurance.
Marsh/McLennen is the biggest insurance broker and AIG is the biggest insurance company
The goal of the project is to make transactions between these two firms paperless and unreadable by anyone not on the sytems mainframe using this new software. This involved actually building a mainframe in the towers in the offices of Marsh.
The completion date set for this project was Sept 2001.
At this point there are some facts that should be pointed out to give some context...
#1 The first plane to hit the towers was Flight 11 and it hit EXACTLY where the Marsh offices were located.
#2 Paul Bremer (aka Mr. "well, we got him") was a CEO in Marsh/Mclennon before being picked as Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq. He went on to anounce the capture of Saddam.
#3 After quitting the FBI disgusted with the constant roadblocks into his investigations of Osama Bin Laden
by the Bush administration, John O'Neill takes a job as head of security in the World Trade Center. This job was offered to him by Jerome Hauer of Kroll.
Think about that...the man whon knew the most about Osama is offered a job in a building that is demolished by his arch-nemisis...( comic book stuff imho)
Keep these things in mind as they are important to tying this all together.
Now back to Groves story...
He realizes his company is overbilling Marsh to the tune of millions of dollars. He reports this to his superviser and it is ignored. He then reports this to the Marsh superviser and is in turn fired.
Realizing there is either shady accounting going on, or him and his fellow employees are being robbed out of millions in commisions, he decides to tell his team
everything he knows and confront the supervisers with the entire team.
He calls people on the team and learns of a meeting called by the Marsh supervisor and makes arrangements to crash the meeting and confront management with what he knows of the overbilling.
The date of this meeting was Sept 11th 2001. And instead of the superviser showing up for the meeting he called, he decides to attend the meeting from the safety of his Manhattan apartment, over a videophone.
It is during this meeting, Marsh offices are destroyed by Flight 11.
Grove sat beneath the tower, stuck in traffic as the plane hit the building.
Now, on the morning of Sept 11th, massive amounts of insider trading took place between Marsh and AIG.
Only problem is, there is no paper trace of the transaction as it is all done on the new system that Groves software company built. No paper, destroy the mainframes and the transaction becomes untrackable.
During the recovery, hard drives are recovered and sent to germany to have the lost data recovered by a company named Convar.
Convar goes public, and tell it has evidence on 40 hard drives of insider trading. Some even going on as the buildings were burning.
The following year, Convar is purchased (along with the hard drives and evidence of insider trading) by none other than Kroll.
The year following that, Kroll is in turn purchased (along with the hard drives and evidence of insider trading) by none other than.....Marsh/McLennen.
So now the very people accused of insider trading
(i.e. robbing people blind) own the only evidence known to exhist that incriminates it.
Think about who these companys are, how these companys interact with each other and who the people are in the companys.
Who is AIG?.....Maurice Greenberg...aka Greenberg/Bush family crime syndicate.
Who is Kroll?....Basicly a CIA front that specializes in "security"
Who is Marsh?...Maurice Greenbergs son Jeffrey Greenberg.
It has long been my opinion that it is no coincidence
Flight 11 hit the Marsh offices. I think, though its only speculation, this was done to ensure the mainframes
and digital data regarding the insider trading were destroyed.
And Im pretty sure no inexperienced pilot could pick out specific floors and offices to ram his plane into.
So either, Marsh was very fortunate to have its offices destroyed on the same day it was doing millions worth of illegal trading, or it blew up its own offices and people involved with building the computer system designed to hide the evidence millions of dolars in illegal trading.
check out the multiple views, multiple flight paths and multiple use of voice overs on this variety of hits.
And you honestly think all these different videos were faked? You really are out of your tree. Multiple flight paths, what bs. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: Good info
[quote="Ally"]and it's just a coincidence the 'planes' managed to hit such quite specific targets at the WTC?
Good info Ally.
Just a few of questions.
Have any private detectives traced where the alleged burial sites of the passengers on these four flights were or are?
In other words did these people actually exist with names in real locations or could have they been manufactured?
No planes doesn't mean no flying objects as rockets may have been used or rockets disguised as planes, I presume?
On 7/7
Do you think trains were involved on the tube bombings? In other words could the disputed carriage that blew up have been somewhere else other than where they claimed it was?
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: Good info
[quote="conspirator"]
Ally wrote:
and it's just a coincidence the 'planes' managed to hit such quite specific targets at the WTC?
Good info Ally.
Just a few of questions.
Have any private detectives traced where the alleged burial sites of the passengers on these four flights were or are?
In other words did these people actually exist with names in real locations or could have they been manufactured?
No planes doesn't mean no flying objects as rockets may have been used or rockets disguised as planes, I presume?
On 7/7
Do you think trains were involved on the tube bombings? In other words could the disputed carriage that blew up have been somewhere else other than where they claimed it was?
They recently tried to claim one of the flight attendents remains were found in a sewer near ground zero five years on, i posted it recently. Thousands of the WTC victims were left unidentified and buried in a massive land fill site. There were initial claims that flight attendents were found bound and gagged amonst the remains but I'd put those in the same box as the indestructable hijacker's passport also found at ground zero.
It's hard to dispute something hit the WTC with those massive gashes but what were shown has been proved fake time again.
My only opinion based on the information available on 7/7 is there were no 'suicide bombers' from Leeds. _________________
i still reckon the wings would have been sheared off even if travelling a zillion miles an hour woody
You reckon... but you don't know for sure? No one does... because they have never seen a Jet of this size hit the WTC or similar structured building before. True?
Ehm, because the outer walls of the Pentagon are giant slabs of concrete, and those on the WTC clearly were not?
ehm dr watson, the WTC had this steel reinforced grate to protect if from strong winds and planes. The plane should have been left looking like a Thalidomide child on striking it.
Ehm, because the outer walls of the Pentagon are giant slabs of concrete, and those on the WTC clearly were not?
ehm dr watson, the WTC had this steel reinforced grate to protect if from strong winds and planes. The plane should have been left looking like a Thalidomide child on striking it.
If you're going to display your ignorance of basic physics, you should do it slowly and quietly.
The planes left roughly plane-shaped holes in the sides of WTC1+2. This was to be expected, given their mass and speed (the same way that a soft lead bullet can pass through steel - for example the exterior of a car)
If your missile theory were true, how do you explain the size and shape of the holes? Or - why should a non-767 leave a 767-sized hole, but a 767 fail to do so? How do you explain the presence of a 767 in many films and photos? All available evidence points squarely at a 767. You decide not to believe it.
Why ?? _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
If you're going to display your ignorance of basic physics, you should do it slowly and quietly.
From a boy who continually touts that smouldering office furniture caused the WTC to turn to dust! bwaaaaaa
So where's the plane shaped hole at teh Pentagram?
No, you are just shouting your ignorance again. Do a little research on the temperatures reached by office fires, and the differances between steel box sections and massive blocks of masonry. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
No, you are just shouting your ignorance again. Do a little research on the temperatures reached by office fires, and the differances between steel box sections and massive blocks of masonry.
try not go off topic or start your own thred about plastic cups and burning carpets melting steel. _________________
The subject of the planes being able to penetrate the exterior of the WTC Towers has long generated all kinds of debate. The usual thing about the cartoon image of the coyote being splattered on the outside being very common. In fact ally's;
Quote:
The plane should have been left looking like a Thalidomide child on striking it.
...was something new.
However, the WTC picture of the mesh like construction of the towers clearly shows that the open area between the steel beams compared to that which would restrict free-passage, is in fact much greater. In other words, given the inertia/weight of the aircraft and the space available compared to the area to stop it travelling forward, it is more than half again. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for the majority/bulk of the aircraft not to enter the building.
Obviously this does not mean in one complete piece - but the easiest way to illustrate this is with simple images that you do not need a degree in physics to understand (like some of the stuff we get shown).
I have put together two images, the first is the usual construction picture, but you can easily compare the red to the blue area. The six sections of the open red area compared to the same number of solid steel uprights.
The 'open' area is much greater - this is undeniable.
The other image is that of a french fry cutter (we call them chips in the UK). As you can see, with simple pressure on the lever, the bulk of the potato is forced through the mesh (see the comparison with the WTC image?), and out the other side.
This is not complicated, nor open to debate - it is clearly demonstrated and given the forces generated by a 100ton (or thereabouts), airliner, there is absolutely no possibility of it 'splatting' on the outside wall of the WTC.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
