Thread: What really happened on 9/11

Originally Posted by Neruo

What the hell are you saying? You said in your opening post that the planes were remote controlled. I am guessing that means empty. Even then, you still ignored my point that there is no reason to hang a weird bulky thing below a 747, no matter what you are going to use it for, be it as a pimp-mobile or as a tool for a diabolical plan.

I didn't say what I said was infallible fact. Just what I thought happened.

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

So what does that make the buldge?

No idea.

Most likely object? Fuel tank. Explosive.

Originally Posted by Sybot

You post that ridiculous conspiracy theory at the beginning of the OP, then offer up those pictures as 'evidence'. I'd call that drawing a huge conclusion.



In the first frame I see what looks like a cockpit on the right side of the picture. On the second frame I see what looks like the tail of a plane, with the front obscured by the explosion.



Those look like they could have been made by the fuselage and two engines. And as other evidence (ie witness statements, physical evidence) points to planes rather than missiles...



Maybe because the buildings are completely different in design? It's a bit useless to compare skyscrapers with a much lower, flatter building.

The supposed "engine turbine" was found INSIDE the building. Did you see a Pratt and Whitney out here:



And you're exactly right about strutural differences: Skyscapers are BUILT to withstand jet impacts. A flatter building like the pentagon getting hit head-one by a 757 would show MUCH more damage. The main hole is only large enough to fit the front of the fuselage in.

And face it, eyewitness accounts are crap. Everyday people think they see Alien Space Craft^TM.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No idea.The supposed "engine turbine" was found INSIDE the building. Did you see a Pratt and Whitney out here:

I don't know enough about aircraft engine design to make a complete judgement on this. However I did find a site that discusses that image from your first post.

And you're exactly right about strutural differences: Skyscapers are BUILT to withstand jet impacts. A flatter building like the pentagon getting hit head-one by a 757 would show MUCH more damage. The main hole is only large enough to fit the front of the fuselage in.

The WTC was designed to withstand an accidental hit from a plane, where it would be travelling at low speed. It wasn't designed for a plane going at top speed slamming into it. Also, the impact point on the WTC was mostly steel beams and glass, compared with the much more solid exterior of the Pentagon. Against a solid surface, only objects with sufficient mass, such as the main fuselage and the engines are going to penetrate, with the rest breaking apart on impact.

And face it, eyewitness accounts are crap. Everyday people think they see Alien Space Craft^TM.

There's a little something called convergence of evidence. The eyewitness accounts for the most part agree with each other and the physical evidence, so they are likely to be mostly correct.

Originally Posted by Sybot

I don't know enough about aircraft engine design to make a complete judgement on this. However I did find a site that discusses that image from your first post.



The WTC was designed to withstand an accidental hit from a plane, where it would be travelling at low speed. It wasn't designed for a plane going at top speed slamming into it. Also, the impact point on the WTC was mostly steel beams and glass, compared with the much more solid exterior of the Pentagon. Against a solid surface, only objects with sufficient mass, such as the main fuselage and the engines are going to penetrate, with the rest breaking apart on impact.



There's a little something called convergence of evidence. The eyewitness accounts for the most part agree with each other and the physical evidence, so they are likely to be mostly correct.

Interesting.

But that doesn't explain the exit holes, because the engine pieces are inside the building.

As for eyewitness accounts-- Some people claimed to see A-10s around where 93 went down, others claimed the Pentagon plane was tiny, and even some said they watched WTC2 get hit, but never say a 767 at all.

So.

http://prisonplanet.tv/

RAINBOWS!

Rainbow: An effect caused by White light being refracted through water.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

RAINBOWS!

OH MY GOD! Freemasons! New world order! 9/11! Skull and Bones! UFOs! Economic Downfall! 2012! End of the World! Invasion of Mexicans!

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I didn't say what I said was infallible fact. Just what I thought happened.

I think that what you saw on the griddy picture was actually my cock, that transcends oceans by it's huge-ness.

But that's just a theory!!111 111221

At least the goffernment sux, lol! AM I RITE?!!!11!1111

The NWO Tries to bring about the most fear they can possibly create..

Just do me a favor, dreamhope, if ever a group of alien saviors come to this planet and offer you "enlightenment" or to "complete your evolution" merely by forcing a chrystalized computer chip into your brain... say no

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Just do me a favor, dreamhope, if ever a group of alien saviors come to this planet and offer you "enlightenment" or to "complete your evolution" merely by forcing a chrystalized computer chip into your brain... say no

You don't need a computer chip for enlightenment, you simply meditate and find the truth deep within yourself..

Hello

Sorry for digging this up.

But I wanted to point out a german documentary on that matter that I found a lot more convincing than all of the Alex Jones' documentaries for example. In my opinion he is far too agressive and jumps to conclusions so fast that leaves a lot of doubt in anything he says. (Also saw his show recently..)

I found a version with english subtitles (and the scenes of government representatives are of course still in english) and in my opinion it deals with the matter of the 9/11 attacks in a more "objective" way, even though I don't think there is such a thing as objectivity. And I think it leaves no doubt in why a reinvestigation is justified - without jumping to any conclusions too quickly. Still points a few fingers, though. :-)

Certainly it will give a lot of good arguments for the sceptics on the events of that day.

(part 1/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_N7h...x=0&playnext=1
(part 2/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Q2yK...48CDB2&index=1
(part 3/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Bke3Np...48CDB2&index=2
(part 4/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=4m3mIE...48CDB2&index=3
(part 5/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBLSq...48CDB2&index=4
(part 6/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=di9FwF...48CDB2&index=5
(part 7/7)
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=mFZZcC...48CDB2&index=6

I would really be interested in what either side thinks of this film.

We know this timeline. Maybe I can find some pictures from your timeline to share for others here less informed about where you have come from.

Here is Bush after the pretzel incident dead.



Here is a picture from UMs time line after the media says a plane hit the building....


And this is Mccain Trying to get new terror laws in after no 911 event.


After the failure of 911 they tried a new scam. This time the story goes a Pakistan terrorist released a boulder.


After this it got so bad in UMs timeline they had to replace Bill O'reilly


Around this time they opened George Bushes memorial to the public.

All I know is that the government's story doesn't add up

You know what's really funny.
I was actually serious about some of this conspiracy...

Then I watched that southpark episode.
It seriously makes a good point.

Originally Posted by LordSturm

It seriously makes a good point.

What point? I didn't watch it.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

What point? I didn't watch it.

The idea that it serves the government to have people thinking that they did pull off 9/11 to make them think the government is more powerful and more organized than it really is.