9/11 Revisited Again

Welcome to our community

Take a moment to sign up and join the discussion! It's simple and free.

BubbuClinton

Junior Member
Messages
133
9/11 Revisited Again

I know this has been hashed around a lot. However, since Popular Mechanics has finally debunked all of the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I just have a few lingering questions. I tried to bring this up on another forum but got booted out of the forum for bringing things like this up.

I sincerely do not know whether 9/11 was really a terroist plot or a conpiracy. I almost hope that it was Osama so I can sleep better at night. I am almost convinced by Zoomerz that there was a 767 that hit the Petagon. However, I have yet to see a clear picture of the planes that hit the towers. I have seen the shadowed under bellies of planes. PM says it is a 767 (after admittably doctoring the picture up with computers), others say that they may be millitary planes.

I think what would clear it up for me would be a good picture of the plane that shows the A/A logo's and windows in the plane.

Does anyone out there know where these photos might be posted?

Thanks

Bubbu
________________________________________________
"You should never doubt what nobody is really sure about." - W. Wonka
__________________________________________________
 

CaryP

Senior Member
Messages
1,438
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Ooooh. I'm gonna love this one. I got tons of "stuff" on this. Popular Mechanics was a hack attempt at best to show that the WTC could have / should have collapsed because of the plane impact and subsequent fire. LOL You got to see what real analysis says. WTC 7 is the "other thing" - as in controlled demolition. I don't have time now, but I'll find whatever pictures I can along with more info.

I know, I know. I'm the conspiracy nut. I hear it from the wife all the time.

Glad you opened this one up Bubbu. They're mostly tired of hearing my wind on this one, but I'm happy to join you. Zoomerz, you in for the ride? ZeoE and Pyro will probably want to join in the fun.

Cary
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Bubbu, I have seen that site. However, do they definitively address the isue regarding where all that wreckage went to around the pentagon? Pretty hard to hide/ vaporize all that stuff during a collision with minimal penetration........

Now, if they pony up to the Bar and state that it was a rocket that did all that damage, that would make a lot more sense imho.

Pray tell what inane forum would boot you for asking intelligent questions? It couldn't have possibly been anomalies would it?
 

Zoomerz

Member
Messages
220
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

I am almost convinced by Zoomerz that there was a 767 that hit the Petagon.

Actually, the evidence I provided says it was a 757, not 767 (as PM tries to assert), but regardless, for those interested, see:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pentahole_...ensions_est.htm

As far as whether or not Osama, Al Qaeda, or terrorism at all was behind 9-11, I think we first have to have "reason to believe" that it was other than advertised. By this, I mean, it is unreasonable to "assume" there IS a conspiracy, and then try to prove it. It is much more reasonable to "assume" there is NOT a conspiracy, and try to explain inconsistencies in that light.

It is exactly where the latter approach fails, that we would begin to suspect deception, wouldn't you agree?

My problem with "most" conspiracy theories (and theorists) is that it appears as though they are "looking for" their theories to be true, rather than using the very same logic to prove them false. In the case of 9-11, while debunking the Pentagon "hole is too small" mystery doesn't prove that 9-11 was legit, it does illustrate how "much" this evidence has been used to prop up other allegations.

Now, I'm NOT saying 9-11 WAS NOT a conspiracy. There are still MANY questions in my mind that have not been successfully answered, however, the fact remains that stories such as "911 in Plain Site" which many have seen, relies heavily on the Pentagon evidence to establish their conspiracy point of view.

Some of the more troubling questions I have concern the "pulling" of bldg 7, and, if coroborated that it truly was "demolished", it would lend me to believe that so were the 2 towers. hmmmmm.....

Concerning 9-11 and the planes....

Irrelevant (MHO). If "the boys" truly does include OBL, and/or the "terrorism" threat is a manufactured state to promote elitist agendas, and therefore 9-11 is a part of this conspiracy, then it would be illogical to intentionally use military planes, special planes, or anything OTHER THAN the exact flights reported. IF the towers were actually demolished, then no special planes would have been necessary, and the conspiritors would have been taking UNNECESSARY chances at being discovered. Besides, there WERE people on these flights, and nobody has successfully shown me where those people might have gone down if not into the towers.

Again, I'm not saying these elitists did not mastermind 9-11, in fact, being a general skeptic of government, I see the big picture in many ways the same as Cary, Bubbu, Paul, Darkwolf, and many others here do, and if we keep our eyes focused on the macro, instead of the micro, it's not hard to see the push....The future is looking rather bleak!

Anyway, Cary, I'd especially like to hear more from you on Bldg 7, whatcha got?

Z-
 

BubbuClinton

Junior Member
Messages
133
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Zoomerz,

I agree it would be smarter to just fund a group of terrorist thugs to go kill themselves by hijacking a plane with box cutters. Of course there is the challenge of teaching them to fly and to aim the building without guidance into the 2 towers. Not to mention the magic 250 degree turn to hit the Pentagon at the right place.

I guess what I am looking for is what DOES the visual evidence really say? Some say they were black planes without windows, PM says they were 767's. Well, what does the evidence really say? I would like to know if there are any real pictures of commercial planes hitting the towers.

As for the collapse of the towers and building 7, we can go there next. Yes, that is a strange one.

If the planes were AA planes then we can rule out cover-up in the media, etc ... There are still nagging questions as to how it was done by the terrorist, etc ...

However, if they were black planes or something else, it shows a deep conspiracy. I know you think that if there is no reason to disbelieve what the official story is, don?t look for conspiracies. That would be easy to do, if I felt I could trust the Gov. If they would show direct evidence that Osama, Iraq, or who ever did it, I could swallow it better. Instead we just get statements from Orin Hatch, it was ?Osama of course?, or Condi Rice ? We have proof we will show that Osama did it?, great show it. But it never came. Just lame WND statements and Osama being the slipperiest Man in the East. The after math with political agendas, erosion of civil rights, etc ? has caused me to finally ask. What really happened? I want to see proof of what they said happened, happened.

Why, would they use black planes? Pretty stupid if they did, I agree. However, if they did, maybe they were ridged with the incendiary device to cause a big explosion.

I think there are 2 reasons for using "special planes" 1) the hijackers don't have to be miracle Pilots 2) you can start a big fire at the time of impact that will be a dramatic cover-up as to why the buildings fell. Didn't you see the fire?

So, I am interested in seeing the pictures. I guess I have a prurient interest of some sort. As for the missing people, I agree it is pretty sick to believe they landed the planes somewhere, blew them up and brought the bodies to the mortuary. But it could have happened.


StarLord,

Yes it was RickD at Anomalies. I am really not a bad guy when you get to know me. I just don't take kindly to statements like "There is no conspiracy because I say so, thread locked". I guess I was a little out of line when I posted that he was doing his own 911 cover-up. My bad.

About the Pentagon. I had the same question about missing debris. His article demonstrated damage to the pentagon and the grounds that was at least consistent with a plane the size of the 757. What they said happed was when the plane hit the building the wings sheared and the fuselage was forced through the reinforced steel and concrete through 9 walls. This basically shredded everything to tiny little bits. The whole in the building before the collapse was the right size for the body of the plane. When the wings sheared, they immediately bust into fire and completely disintegrated or burn to small pieces. Of course these pieces were conveniently picked up immediately afterwards by the FBI (not wearing gloves BTW). The story is at least plausible. In the law world it passes the straight face test. That is the test where you present your theory to the judge, and if he doesn't immediately start laughing at you, you can continue your case.

Bring forth the real evidence so we can see for our selves. The PM article just summarizes and doesn't ever back up their claims. Kinda like RickD saying, I saw the secret videos and it happened. It may be true. Now where are these videos?

Bubbu
_________________________
 

StarLord

Senior Member
Messages
3,187
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Ah you mean that free thinking and the ability to use logic is grounds for having one's thread banned over there? It seems that brown noseing and the ability to be a parrot is what's important.

He better be carefull, because if he stops short suddenly, the immediate pressure build up in his nether regions could cause quite the explosion and release a inordinate amount of fecal material from the bovine species that no one will be able to handle imho.
 

Zoomerz

Member
Messages
220
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Bubbu;

I agree it would be smarter to just fund a group of terrorist thugs to go kill themselves by hijacking a plane with box cutters. Of course there is the challenge of teaching them to fly and to aim the building without guidance into the 2 towers. Not to mention the magic 250 degree turn to hit the Pentagon at the right place.

There's plenty of documentation about the flying lessons the hijackers got, not that one could become that good at it in such a short period of time, but you bring up a much more interesting point....

Seeing as the pilot "deliberately" made a 250 degree turn to hit the right spot....Why would the "right spot" be a portion of the building that was under construction, and virtually unoccupied? hmmmm If he hadn't made that turn, he would have been in position to take out Rumsfeld's office, and do us all a favor :)

Z-
 

PSY101

Junior Member
Messages
28
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Zoomerz\")</div>
Bubbu;

Seeing as the pilot \"deliberately\" made a 250 degree turn to hit the right spot....Why would the \"right spot\" be a portion of the building that was under construction, and virtually unoccupied? hmmmm If he hadn't made that turn, he would have been in position to take out Rumsfeld's office, and do us all a favor :)

Z-[/b]

I saw a show last night called "Seconds From Disaster" and it talked about 9/11 The Pentagon and what actually happened. It was mentioned on the show that the pilot did a 330 degree and not a 250 degree turn to crash into the building that was under construction and virtually unoccupied at the time of impact. They also showed the security camera outside showing the moment before, during and after impact at one second intervals. Unfortunately it just so happened to miss what impacted the Pentagon that day.

Also another interesting comment that was made was when the Pentagon was constructed. The date was....September 11, 1961 - only 40 years before the Pentagon was hit by the 757.:huh:
 

Zoomerz

Member
Messages
220
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Hi PSY;

Yes, I have seen "Seconds From Disaster". I guess whether it was a 250 or 330 degree turn is not really the point, the fact that he made the turn at all being the mystery....

As for the security camera, do you happen to know the capabilities of it? I don't myself. The only security camera pics I saw were the officially released "frames" from a parking lot camera that showed what looked like a blurry plane (I could just make out the tail a bit), then another frame that showed the impact and ball of fire. Are these the pics you're talking about? Another interesting thing on the pics I saw is the date was Sept 12, not 11 heh. Not ready to call it deliberate tho!

Also another interesting comment that was made was when the Pentagon was constructed. The date was....September 11, 1961 - only 40 years before the Pentagon was hit by the 757.

Didn't know that either!

Z-
 

XDrFirefly

Member
Messages
164
Re: 9/11 Revisited Again

Ok, Man this is such a fun topic, so much info. Is it all true. NO WAY! so, it's a personal level of what you want to believe. I can post for days, and day on this subject. So, I don't have to repost everthing I'll link to the other post related to this subject. http://timetravelforum.net/showthread.php?t=1342.

I'll add more later.

Dr FF
 

Top