| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What brought down the twin towers |
| The Jet fuel from the planes melted/weakened the steel and caused a pancake collapse |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| The buildings were rigged up with explosives of some sort to enable a controlled demolition |
|
72% |
[ 16 ] |
| The buildings were brought down by a Direct Energy Weapon which reduced the building to very fine particles of dust |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| The visual photography is very similar to that of a nuclear explosion |
|
9% |
[ 2 ] |
| Don't know but know it wasn't Jet Fuel or a controlled demolition |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Easy Rider
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 94
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: What brought down the Twin Towers |
 |
|
| Haven't seen a poll on this yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Loaded Dice missing a face. Cannot answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
So if we choose any of the last three options, do we get a free pointy cap in the mail?
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whoop45
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: two of above |
|
|
| It was a combination of 2 and 3.Thermate charges plus exoteric weaponry that converted 70% of the mass of each tower into microscopic dust .Only fragments of one desk was found. Only ½ of one keypad was found.Definately no pancake collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
(rant below-don't read if you don't likely want to get pissed off, I'm blowing off steam here)
God dammit, there WEREN'T any Star Wars lasers, microwave beam weapons, space alien technology, holograms, or ANY of this other stupid bulls**t that keeps getting forwarded! The passengers of Flight 93 and 77 weren't flown elsewhere and killed! Dammit! I am soooo freaking sick of seeing this nonsense! Do any of you pushing this stuff ever stop and think about how dumb it sounds??? Every critic to the truth of a conspiracy out there seizes on this crazy s**t and uses it to discredit the whole movement! QUIT IT! We need to concentrate on things that we can PROVE, not late-night sci-fi * nonsense!
(rant over)
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louise
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had to import your rant into Microsoft Word TmcMistress and blow it up in order to read it  .
I agree completely with what you said in the first part of your rant, but i'm not so sure about what you said later on, i don't know for sure of course what happened to those flights but if they didn't crash or hit the pentagon what happend to them??????????.
What do you think happened to them TmcMistress?.
Do you go along with the offical story of what happened to those flights or not?.
_________________
One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I believe Flight 93 crashed, alright. I just don't believe it crashed on its own. At least not without the aid of a missle up the tailpipe from that unmarked jet or an explosive on one of the 'terrorists' that turned out to be not-so-fake. Hence, the reason why you've got engines and plane bits ending up miles and miles away.
As for Flight 77, yeah, I do believe it was crashed into the Pentagon. I think they're not releasing the videos of this in their entirety so that they can get people pushing NPT and then say "look at how foolish those people are, they think that no plane hit the Pentagon!" And then the public at large gets in on the laugh, because they're already predisposed to believe that their own government would never be capable of anything as despicable as 9/11.
I mean, really. Interior photos of the Pentagon show identifiable plane bits wrapped around pillars. The famous identifiable wheel well that so many NPT'ers have tried to say doesn't fit with the wheel wells of a 757 in fact, does.
As for evidence provided in videos like Loose Change... look, I give those guys a lot of credit for getting this stuff out there and getting people thinking. But the problem is, they either ignored or missed a lot of stuff that contradicts the 'evidence' of NPT at the Pentagon. When you look at pictures that aren't obscured by smoke, you can see wing damage to the building. The reason that there's no damage to the grass, despite quite possibly flawed reports that the plane bounced off the lawn first is because there is a sizabable span of ground between the building and where the grass even starts. You can't tell this from their photos because they're taken at such a low angle.
Etc. etc. etc.
Overall, a lot of my ideas as regards 9/11 rest on KISS, as I've mentioned a few times before. Keep It Simple, Stupid. A conspiracy of this magnitude simply would not have been able to be carried out successfully if they made it any more complex than it already was. I mean, why fake the passenger lists? Why fly the planes elsewhere and kill the passengers there, when you can kill them just fine flying them into a building? Why bribe so many newscasters? Why create so many fake 'witnesses' on the ground when really, it would just be soooo much easier to do all this stuff for real and let the story build itself?
9/11 = Three planes into buildings, one into the ground. 3,000 people dead. A shell-shocked populace willing to do anything. And I do mean anything. I'm sure you saw the bloodthirstiness that was practically dripping from every red-blooded American's pores in the days / weeks after 9/11.
"Hey look, we found a passport already! It's those dastardly Al Qaeda people! Let's get 'em! Nevermind that the majority of the 'hijackers' were from Saudi Arabia, we're going to Afghanistan! Site of a recently FUBAR'ed oil pipeline deal! *wink wink nudge nudge*"
American Public: "YEAH WOOOOO! GRRRRRR!"
"Well, while we're here, we may as well take out Saddam Hussein! Huzzah for resource-grabbing colonialism and good ol' fashioned war profiteering!"
American Public: "YEAH WOO GR.... hey, wait a second..."
"Ha! Too late, we're already there!"
"Boy, that Iran sure is pesky. Also, they support terrorism. Unlike our buddies in Saudi Arabia, after all."
American Public "Hey, wait a seco.... ah, f**k it."
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Louise wrote: | I had to import your rant into Microsoft Word TmcMistress and blow it up in order to read it .
|
Heh, that's why I did it that way. I figured I'd give people the option of whether or not to pay attention to me up on the soapbox.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: |
As for Flight 77, yeah, I do believe it was crashed into the Pentagon. I think they're not releasing the videos of this in their entirety so that they can get people pushing NPT and then say "look at how foolish those people are, they think that no plane hit the Pentagon!" And then the public at large gets in on the laugh, because they're already predisposed to believe that their own government would never be capable of anything as despicable as 9/11.
You really think that's the reason for withholding the videos?! So why has it not happened six years after 9/11? Seems to me it's far more likely the US government has never released all the Pentagon videos because they show something that was NOT a Boeing 757! Plus Calum Douglas and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth have proved that the flight data said to have been from the black box recorder of Flight 77 reveal a plane that was flying too high to have been able to descend in time to hit the Pentagon.
I mean, really. Interior photos of the Pentagon show identifiable plane bits wrapped around pillars. The famous identifiable wheel well that so many NPT'ers have tried to say doesn't fit with the wheel wells of a 757 in fact, does.
Yes, but where's the 124ft 10in wings? They did not get sucked through a 16ft wide hole - or at least I hope you don't imagine that is possible. Offering a dodgy interpretation of few plane parts that could have come from a number of other types of planes painted and fitted to look like an American Airlines Boeing 757 does not cut it as proof that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon. Especially when there is now so much evidence that contradicts this, including the testimonies of several Pentagon police officers who say that they saw a large jet fly to the north of the Citgo gas station, not to the south, as required by the direction of both the "debris field" inside the Pentagon and the line of knocked-over light poles. But I guess you find a few, ambiguous photos of plane debris more convincing than the reports of policemen 
As for evidence provided in videos like Loose Change... look, I give those guys a lot of credit for getting this stuff out there and getting people thinking. But the problem is, they either ignored or missed a lot of stuff that contradicts the 'evidence' of NPT at the Pentagon. When you look at pictures that aren't obscured by smoke, you can see wing damage to the building.
The Loose Change guys never denied that a plane hit the Pentagon. They merely argued that the observed degree of damage and debris was inconsistent with that expected from a large Boeing commercial jet.
The reason that there's no damage to the grass, despite quite possibly flawed reports that the plane bounced off the lawn first is because there is a sizabable span of ground between the building and where the grass even starts. You can't tell this from their photos because they're taken at such a low angle.
Sorry. No large commercial jet can fly at hundreds of miles an hour a few feet above the ground. It is aerodynamically impossible. Whatever flew into the Pentagon came down at an angle. That's why the lawn was not damaged. Another reason for believing the Pentagon video is faked, because the lawn would have showed signs of damage if the plane has being horizontally a few feet above the ground at ground level, as the video frames suggest . With no gouge in the grass from the engines, the wings should have hit above the bottom of the second floor. The wings could not have hit the bottom floor causing the observed damage. If they would have, the engines would be buried in the mud. There is not a scratch on the grass to indicate this, not to mention one engine supposedly being found in the next ring of the Pentagon.
Overall, a lot of my ideas as regards 9/11 rest on KISS, as I've mentioned a few times before. Keep It Simple, Stupid. A conspiracy of this magnitude simply would not have been able to be carried out successfully if they made it any more complex than it already was. I mean, why fake the passenger lists?
Um, because the passengers never flew on the commercial flights? You assume commercial planes could have been flown precisely by hijackers who could not even fly Cessnas. LOL! The perps could not guarantee that commercial planes could do the job. So they had to be substituted by planes built for the job (packed with plenty of extra fuel to create a big bang) and remote-controlled. No one has ever proved Flights 77, 175, or 17 ever existed.
Why fly the planes elsewhere and kill the passengers there, when you can kill them just fine flying them into a building?
Ah, but you have to get them there first! Again, you assume flying commercial planes remotely into buildings was possible then. If the technology was not available, then specially designed planes made to look like commercial jets had to be used, which means the passengers never got on the planes that actually crashed. Even if air-based, remote-control technology was available then, the argument can be made that ordinary commercial jets would not have carried enough fuel to create the kinds of explosions that would convince people that they damaged the towers seriously enough to make them fall. So planes loaded with extra tanks of fuel had to be used to create the psy-op.
Why bribe so many newscasters? Why create so many fake 'witnesses' on the ground when really, it would just be soooo much easier to do all this stuff for real and let the story build itself?
Why indeed? But don't think NPT is the only alternative to the official view of 9/11. There is a far more realistic alternative to NPT - substitute planes.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ewing2001
New Poster
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oregon Truth Alliance dedicates Site for Noble Resolve Terror Drill,
ignoring FCS and DEW
http://www.911bloglines.com
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=3892
August 20, 2007
"...Noble Resolve, a series of experiments...is a follow-on to the Urban Resolve experiments JFCOM ran in 2006....
...Noble Resolve will examine how to deter, prevent and respond to a nuclear attack on the United States.... ...UR2015 brought together dozens of military simulations in a federated architecture. The Army’s Omni Fusion simulation, which models their Future Combat System, was part of UR2015..."
(Photo: Air Forces experiments with directed energy weapons at the Pentagon during USJFCOM's Urban Resolve 2015)
...
see also http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=331&st=15
ff.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nico - I was just thinking of you, because I posted an embed of Geo Karras' and Zeph Daniel's "Syriana" video, and gave you a credit for introducing him on your site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: |
You really think that's the reason for withholding the videos?! So why has it not happened six years after 9/11? Seems to me it's far more likely the US government has never released all the Pentagon videos because they show something that was NOT a Boeing 757! Plus Calum Douglas and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth have proved that the flight data said to have been from the black box recorder of Flight 77 reveal a plane that was flying too high to have been able to descend in time to hit the Pentagon.
|
The first part of that is completely irrelevant. I gave you the reason for the non-release of the videos, it's so people like you can have sufficient rope to hang us all.
As for Pilots for 9/11 Truth... ugh. They've got Alex Jones' producer as one of their members. That alone would normally be enough of a strike against their credibility. But there have been analysis done of the data that show the plane hitting the Pentagon just fine. I urge you to look at this page:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
| Quote: | | Yes, but where's the 124ft 10in wings? They did not get sucked through a 16ft wide hole - or at least I hope you don't imagine that is possible. |
Did you even read my post in its entirety? There ARE pics of wing damage to the building. They ARE, in fact, pretty clear.
| Quote: | | Offering a dodgy interpretation of few plane parts that could have come from a number of other types of planes painted and fitted to look like an American Airlines Boeing 757 does not cut it as proof that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon. |
A "dodgy interpretation"? They weren't 'painted and fitted', they were wrapped around poles and scorched all to hell! I mean, are you seriously suggesting that in the minutes between the explosion and the arrival of emergency crews (all of whom were apparently 'in on it' as well), that specially crafted pieces of twisted and scorched metal were tossed about the blazing hot hole? LOL!
| Quote: | | Especially when there is now so much evidence that contradicts this, including the testimonies of several Pentagon police officers who say that they saw a large jet fly to the north of the Citgo gas station, not to the south, as required by the direction of both the "debris field" inside the Pentagon and the line of knocked-over light poles. But I guess you find a few, ambiguous photos of plane debris more convincing than the reports of policemen |
Considering the speed at which the plane zipped over, yeah, I do find reason to doubt the "testimony" of these Pentagon security officers. (Where is this testimony of yours, by the way?) So yes, I find actual photos of identifiable debris more reliable than likely ambiguous and almost certainly unreliable quotes from a couple of security guards. Silly me.
| Quote: | | Sorry. No large commercial jet can fly at hundreds of miles an hour a few feet above the ground. It is aerodynamically impossible. |
So you're an aerodynamics expert, then? Stop exaggerating to make a point. Not I, or anyone else that doesn't believe in this flawed idea of NPT, has ever claimed that the plane was flying at a "few feet" off the ground for any significant length before impact. When a guy ducks because he thinks a plane is going to hit him, that doesn't mean it's actually GOING to.
| Quote: | | Another reason for believing the Pentagon video is faked, because the lawn would have showed signs of damage if the plane has being horizontally a few feet above the ground at ground level, as the video frames suggest. |
They "suggest" no such thing. 20 feet above the ground, at least, is what the frames "suggest". Stop trying to say a few feet and imply this thing was scraping off someone's toupee.
| Quote: | | Um, because the passengers never flew on the commercial flights? You assume commercial planes could have been flown precisely by hijackers who could not even fly Cessnas. LOL! The perps could not guarantee that commercial planes could do the job. So they had to be substituted by planes built for the job (packed with plenty of extra fuel to create a big bang) and remote-controlled. No one has ever proved Flights 77, 175, or 17 ever existed. |
You have no proof for any of this. You're making flawed assumptions about the flight path and the difficulty when you have no authority on either beyond one group of people telling you different. You're also assuming that I believe the hijackers were the ones named.
| Quote: | | ]Ah, but you have to get them there first! Again, you assume flying commercial planes remotely into buildings was possible then. If the technology was not available, then specially designed planes made to look like commercial jets had to be used, which means the passengers never got on the planes that actually crashed. Even if air-based, remote-control technology was available then, the argument can be made that ordinary commercial jets would not have carried enough fuel to create the kinds of explosions that would convince people that they damaged the towers seriously enough to make them fall. So planes loaded with extra tanks of fuel had to be used to create the psy-op. |
What in the hell are you talking about? From what I was able to pull out of this grammatically dubious paragraph, you seem very much to be fitting evidence to already presumed conclusions, rather than the other way around.
| Quote: | | Why indeed? But don't think NPT is the only alternative to the official view of 9/11. There is a far more realistic alternative to NPT - substitute planes. |
Once again, you refuse to answer the question: Why would they use substitute planes when they can just use the originals? And you seem perfectly content to ignore the most obvious logical flaw in your arguement. If the original planes couldn't fly a "few feet" above the ground, how were your 'substitute planes' able to perform this feat? Which they would have had to do, considering the damage to the building.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | | There ARE pics of wing damage to the building. They ARE, in fact, pretty clear. |
AFAIK the plane is said to have crashed into the ground floor of the building while leaning slightly to the left. but I've never seen a pre-collapse photograph of the damaged area that looks like such an impact actually occured. it's difficult to assess the evidence on this because so little has been made available, but if you have some clear pictures I'd like to see them.
another thing that I don't understand is how the pentagon strike fits into the "tv fakery" scenario.
if you believe that the perps planned all along not to use planes and to sell the story of 9/11 to the world using "tv fakery" instead - then why would they go to the trouble of creating over 40 fake videos and hundreds of fake images of planes approaching and hitting the wtc towers but not a single one of a plane approaching or hitting the pentagon?
why not just put a plane in one of the 5 frames that they originally released of the pentagon strike and the full video from the security camera that was released later on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | if you believe that the perps planned all along not to use planes and to sell the story of 9/11 to the world using "tv fakery" instead - then why would they go to the trouble of creating over 40 fake videos and hundreds of fake images of planes approaching and hitting the wtc towers but not a single one of a plane approaching or hitting the pentagon?
why not just put a plane in one of the 5 frames that they originally released of the pentagon strike and the full video from the security camera that was released later on? |
Answer: becuase their not insane enough to risk a fake ever being exposed, and have no need to when they can mesmerise people with repeated real images, and let the social conditioning do the rest
Once the War started, they knew that fear and chaos would drive the public along...
Creating fakes to feed to certain areas fo the 9/11 truth movement though, thats another story and entirely to "their" benefit
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | Oh, I believe Flight 93 crashed, alright. I just don't believe it crashed on its own. At least not without the aid of a missle up the tailpipe from that unmarked jet or an explosive on one of the 'terrorists' that turned out to be not-so-fake. Hence, the reason why you've got engines and plane bits ending up miles and miles away.
As for Flight 77, yeah, I do believe it was crashed into the Pentagon. I think they're not releasing the videos of this in their entirety so that they can get people pushing NPT and then say "look at how foolish those people are, they think that no plane hit the Pentagon!" And then the public at large gets in on the laugh, because they're already predisposed to believe that their own government would never be capable of anything as despicable as 9/11.
I mean, really. Interior photos of the Pentagon show identifiable plane bits wrapped around pillars. The famous identifiable wheel well that so many NPT'ers have tried to say doesn't fit with the wheel wells of a 757 in fact, does.
As for evidence provided in videos like Loose Change... look, I give those guys a lot of credit for getting this stuff out there and getting people thinking. But the problem is, they either ignored or missed a lot of stuff that contradicts the 'evidence' of NPT at the Pentagon. When you look at pictures that aren't obscured by smoke, you can see wing damage to the building. The reason that there's no damage to the grass, despite quite possibly flawed reports that the plane bounced off the lawn first is because there is a sizabable span of ground between the building and where the grass even starts. You can't tell this from their photos because they're taken at such a low angle.
Etc. etc. etc.
Overall, a lot of my ideas as regards 9/11 rest on KISS, as I've mentioned a few times before. Keep It Simple, Stupid. A conspiracy of this magnitude simply would not have been able to be carried out successfully if they made it any more complex than it already was. I mean, why fake the passenger lists? Why fly the planes elsewhere and kill the passengers there, when you can kill them just fine flying them into a building? Why bribe so many newscasters? Why create so many fake 'witnesses' on the ground when really, it would just be soooo much easier to do all this stuff for real and let the story build itself?
9/11 = Three planes into buildings, one into the ground. 3,000 people dead. A shell-shocked populace willing to do anything. And I do mean anything. I'm sure you saw the bloodthirstiness that was practically dripping from every red-blooded American's pores in the days / weeks after 9/11.
"Hey look, we found a passport already! It's those dastardly Al Qaeda people! Let's get 'em! Nevermind that the majority of the 'hijackers' were from Saudi Arabia, we're going to Afghanistan! Site of a recently FUBAR'ed oil pipeline deal! *wink wink nudge nudge*"
American Public: "YEAH WOOOOO! GRRRRRR!"
"Well, while we're here, we may as well take out Saddam Hussein! Huzzah for resource-grabbing colonialism and good ol' fashioned war profiteering!"
American Public: "YEAH WOO GR.... hey, wait a second..."
"Ha! Too late, we're already there!"
"Boy, that Iran sure is pesky. Also, they support terrorism. Unlike our buddies in Saudi Arabia, after all."
American Public "Hey, wait a seco.... ah, f**k it." |
to me flight 93' may show that somebody knew what was planned and did not agree with it at all. i hear people say flight 93' may of been intended to hit the whitehouse and if it had marshall law could of been introduced, dunno how true it is though.
but if flight 93' was shot down, was it because of a mistake in the plan or to prevent marshall law?
easy rider..... i find you poll very biased, if i don't know how they towers were bought down how would i know it was not CD?
if i did suspect one of the theorys were impossible, but did'nt know what actually bought the towers down then why is only CD an option for being the theory i think is impossible.
the fact you cannot do a fair poll shows your own doubts over your own theory as you have to do it in a dishonest way to get more to agree.
Last edited by marky 54 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:03 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Creating fakes to feed to certain areas fo the 9/11 truth movement though, thats another story and entirely to "their" benefit |
agreed.
from http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html#update2
"....the impossibility of controlling all the media in New York on 9/11 and overlaying fake video. Not only were the major broadcast and cable networks present, but also the local network affiliates which have their own news gathering capabilities and are often locally owned (they will sometimes change network affiliation). In addition were the local independent stations, also commonly possessing news gathering capability, including helicopters. The TV fakery requires that technical employees (engineers, camera operators, switchers, directors, etc.) were all agents who actively participated in the crime of 9/11. This is asinine. There are thousands of such persons for whom this is simply a career and are constantly cycling through employment with the networks. While there are certainly plenty of government (and shadow government) moles in the media, no serious researchers have ever concluded that they are controlled outright, to the extent of participating in something like the 9/11 attack. That's bug-eyed crackpot territory: "THEY control the media!" For the most part, the control of the media is accomplished through more subtle means, including policy directives from management, reliance on government and foundation reports, self-censorship from fear of losing one's job, peer pressure, and the same mental conditioning to which most of the rest of society has been subjected. Even if you had a core group of agents in technical positions the probability of their activities being detected by non-agent employees would be extremely high and this security risk would be duplicated at every network and local station. Factor in all the independent professionals and amateurs with cameras in the streets and it's obvious that the TV fakery is a complete joke, especially when one considers that there were no obstacles to flying the original 767s into the towers and avoiding all this insane risk. However, it must be said that it would be quite easy for the perps of 9/11 to sneak into circulation some faked pieces of footage in order to encourage no-plane theories. After all, given the irrational mind-state of the no-planers, it would only take one fake to convince them that all were faked." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | | "If you do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll call. Everything you say is suspect, and every word out of your mouth is like a turd, falling into my drink." - Bill Hicks |
btw - that's a great signature you've got there TMC. make sure you don't miss the dark poet on radio 2 tonight....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/musicclub/doc_bhick.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks. Hicks would be one of the very, very few people I consider a personal hero. I was introduced to him thanks to Garth Ennis' Vertigo comic book series Preacher several years ago.
Thanks for the link as well; I am on the US side of the Atlantic divide, and would've missed that entirely otherwise.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | TmcMistress wrote: | | There ARE pics of wing damage to the building. They ARE, in fact, pretty clear. |
AFAIK the plane is said to have crashed into the ground floor of the building while leaning slightly to the left. but I've never seen a pre-collapse photograph of the damaged area that looks like such an impact actually occured. it's difficult to assess the evidence on this because so little has been made available, but if you have some clear pictures I'd like to see them.
|
Sorry gruts, I completely forgot about this.
http://www.pehi.eu/disinformation/911/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm
A really good pic can be seen about a third of the way down the page with the label "Picture 5 - Possibly the best photograph for observing the damage the left wing has done."
In fact, that whole page does a pretty damnably good job of ripping Pentagon NPT to pieces.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Genghis has produced a thirty minute video rant overnight which seems to be arguing that the towers weren't brought down by explosives - but by large numbers of very smart missiles fired into them and set to explode at different floors!
This is sad.
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
speaking as somebody who has a job and a life, I always wonder how the likes of genghis, fred, killtown et al manage to find so much time to spend on researching, blogging, making videos, posting ad nauseam on any number of forums and generally focusing on 9/11 for 24/7.
how on earth do they do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | Sorry gruts, I completely forgot about this.
http://www.pehi.eu/disinformation/911/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm
A really good pic can be seen about a third of the way down the page with the label "Picture 5 - Possibly the best photograph for observing the damage the left wing has done."
In fact, that whole page does a pretty damnably good job of ripping Pentagon NPT to pieces. |
thanks for the info - I'm not familiar with that website so I'll take a look....
hope you enjoyed the bill hicks piece. it's such a shame he's no longer with us - it would have been great to hear what he had to say about 9/11 for a start.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
as for the rather loaded poll....
I reckon that the towers were brought down by a huge invisible holographic banana - can we have an option for that so I can vote too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rowan Berkeley
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 05 Aug 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | speaking as somebody who has a job and a life, I always wonder how the likes of genghis, fred, killtown et al manage to find so much time to spend on researching, blogging, making videos, posting ad nauseam on any number of forums and generally focusing on 9/11 for 24/7.
how on earth do they do it? |
at some point in these new vids, genghis (who now you mention it, does look a little hollow-cheeked) says you shouldn't worry too much when the researchers appear to go slightly insane, it's healthy:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=genghis6199
_________________
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
