9/11 : Ten Years?!

[drew]

Can you please provide links to the camera angles from the other locations.

Since when do competing networks all share the same feeds for a live event.

The "fade to black" occured after the mistake regarding the 'nose out' was made. It's ludricous that the nose cone of an airplane can penetrate through 2 walls with reinforced steel columns, and reappear the other side. unscathed.
It has since been removed from the Fox archives.

Watch the video again, then watch these 2 videos which compares archived footage to the original footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k3kTDR4FyY&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA94445E7D97533EB

There you go Colinz pixelate that lot!

 

[ArcticBlue]

To believe the official line without checking the facts is simply naive. Equally to believe all the alternative theories is no different. Check the facts and make your own decision. Most people i know don't really care. X Factor anyone?

 

[brunswick]

for those that have called me a conspiracy theorist on this issue on here, i ask you to watch this:

 

[colinz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k3kTDR4FyY&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA94445E7D97533EB

There you go Colinz pixelate that lot!

You'll have to provide a source & camera/ video location for each one, otherwise how can you analyse the camera angle.
Some of that footage looked as though the back drop was a digitalised landscape.
Anyhow I recognise the Naudet footage. But how about we start with the Hezakhani footage which CNN first screened in the early hours the following day, & has bombarded our TV screens with ever since.. At least we know it was taken from the ferry docked at Battery park, & a still photo from within that footage was used for the Garmen Taylor shot.

I don't agree with everything in this video, but the guy does a good job at illustrating how the plane seemlessly enters the building without any deceleration.

 

[beorhthelm]

for those that have called me a conspiracy theorist on this issue on here, i ask you to watch this:

a video by a group specifically created to promote the conspiracy is hardly going to settle the issue. as pointed out before, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth claims ~1500 members, a tiny fraction of the total number of Architects and Engineers. why do so many tens of thousands of qualified professionals not support the conspiracy? do they not count if they arent on youtube?

 

[brunswick]

a video by a group specifically created to promote the conspiracy is hardly going to settle the issue. as pointed out before, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth claims ~1500 members, a tiny fraction of the total number of Architects and Engineers. why do so many tens of thousands of qualified professionals not support the conspiracy? do they not count if they arent on youtube?

this is a good debate, 1500 "experts" coming out and standing united on much of the "strangeness" of the official story cannot be overlooked just because there are many other experts out there. if it was 10 or 20 then yes, we could write it off as void information.

yes, there are more "experts" out there, who where either:

a) not asked.
b) too busy to spare the time. (too obsessed with the self).
c) totally went with the official story from the PTB and the MSM and would not have wanted to get involved with "conspiracy theories."

i go with c) as being the main reason, because most professional american's very much toe the party and media lines.

 

[brunswick]

[MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION]

i do not think a plane even went into the buildings.

this image of CNN footage shows the building rebuild itself....

 

[beorhthelm]

or d) use their own expertise and judgment to conclude there in nothing further to enquire.

why is this option not even considered, before deciding it must be c)?

1500 is less than 1% of the number of US based (not to mention the world) architects and engineers. shirley their protest have to be weighted accordingly? a similar number (about a typical away end) might claim player Y was brought down in the area while everyone else in the ground doesnt and the population atr large accept the reported account that it wasnt. do insist upon accepting that small group are right and demand further invetigation, or do we accept vast majority are probably right (even accounting for those that didnt see, not asked, too busy to consider the question or took their information second hand)?

i do not think a plane even went into the buildings.
this image of CNN footage shows the building rebuild itself....

so based on that one frame, what did go into the buliding? what was it we all saw? the thousands of eye witness in NY at the time imagined the plane? or are we into the hologramic projection theory now?

(its a compression artifact by the way, the gap between the engine and the fuselage blurs out. at face value the wing isnt attached at all, and there is a missing tail win gif you wanted to not see it.)


and... on the AE911 group, i have to question their integrity from some of the points they support. the molten metal tells us more abou the thermo-insulation qualities of concreate than it does about the origins of the explosion. they say that the collapse was along the path of most resistance, even a basic understanding of physics tell us that with no horizontal force applied, verticaly with gravity to aid is the least resistive path. they also promote the explosion theory based on testmony of "explosions" (but then some described the sound as thunder, others described it like a train...) and a few windows being blown out, while simultaneously claiming thermite was used which does not explode. back to my central point against the main conspiracy (i dont reject the possibility of one being behind it), the demolition theory doesnt stack up.

 

[thejackal]

Oh well then, I now completely concur that it must have been a conspiracy in order to go off and invade Iraq (because Saddam was arranging to be an oil nation basing his economy on the EURO, which *might* explain why Germany and France didn't exactly enthuse over the US invasions).

But no, the Bush regime really didn't need to bring down the TTTs and attack the Pentagon to excuse any operations.

Now I believe your nurse is waiting for you to step away from the computer so she can make out her reports for the day.

Well thanks for your well thought out contribution.

It must've taken you hours to come up with that.

Trying to have a reasoned debate with you is a bit like showing a dog a card trick.

 

[thejackal]

The more i read on this thread the more I believe that this issue will never be resolved.

There are those who believe that the U.S colluded with terrorists for their own gains.
There are those who believe the U.S was subject to a terror attack and were found to be lacking in all areas, caught with their pants down if you will.
There are even some who believe the U.S actually carried out the attacks themselves.

I'll tell you what i believe, I believe that today, of all days, a bit of respect should be shown to the innocents who perished, wether by terrorists or Government collusion.

RIP.

Amen.

 

[Rookie]

You'll have to provide a source & camera/ video location for each one, otherwise how can you analyse the camera angle.
Some of that footage looked as though the back drop was a digitalised landscape.
Anyhow I recognise the Naudet footage. But how about we start with the Hezakhani footage which CNN first screened in the early hours the following day, & has bombarded our TV screens with ever since.. At least we know it was taken from the ferry docked at Battery park, & a still photo from within that footage was used for the Garmen Taylor shot.

I don't agree with everything in this video, but the guy does a good job at illustrating how the plane seemlessly enters the building without any deceleration.

So if going along with what you believe what happened to the planes and their passengers?

 

[drew]

You'll have to provide a source & camera/ video location for each one, otherwise how can you analyse the camera angle.
Some of that footage looked as though the back drop was a digitalised landscape.
Anyhow I recognise the Naudet footage. But how about we start with the Hezakhani footage which CNN first screened in the early hours the following day, & has bombarded our TV screens with ever since.. At least we know it was taken from the ferry docked at Battery park, & a still photo from within that footage was used for the Garmen Taylor shot.

I don't agree with everything in this video, but the guy does a good job at illustrating how the plane seemlessly enters the building without any deceleration.

You are clearly one sad f***. I bet you have trouble walking down the street without checking for government agencies following you. The guy on the tape is no better. He claims at the end that if you have enough people traumatised they will believe anything. Is he including all the people on the ground that saw a plane fly into the towers. Are but I suspect you are going to claim some form of mass hypnosis.

 

[dingodan]

You are clearly one sad f***. I bet you have trouble walking down the street without checking for government agencies following you. The guy on the tape is no better. He claims at the end that if you have enough people traumatised they will believe anything. Is he including all the people on the ground that saw a plane fly into the towers. Are but I suspect you are going to claim some form of mass hypnosis.

Im not saying that this is what happened, I don't know. But in terms of what is possible, you would probably be surprised.

 

[NMH]

Well thanks for your well thought out contribution.

It must've taken you hours to come up with that.

Trying to have a reasoned debate with you is a bit like showing a dog a card trick.

Shut up you freak space cadet.
You are rabbiting on about some 'theory' for the sake of being a pretend intellectual - when the most likely theory around here is that your type are on 'recreational' drugs and your outlooks are warped.
Go to your Star Trek meetings and peddle your spackfest of 'theories'

 

[drew]

Im not saying that this is what happened, I don't know. But in terms of what is possible, you would probably be surprised.

It get's funnier and funnier!!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

Im not saying that this is what happened, I don't know. But in terms of what is possible, you would probably be surprised.

i know you like to use youtube as a source for all knowledge, but do you ever rationalise if they apply to the matter in hand? the holographic technology, even if it could scale outside and to the size involved, has a basic requirment that isnt present in the sky around the twin towers: something to project onto. you cant project on to nothing, light doesnt work like that.

 

[thejackal]

Shut up you freak space cadet.
You are rabbiting on about some 'theory' for the sake of being a pretend intellectual - when the most likely theory around here is that your type are on 'recreational' drugs and your outlooks are warped.
Go to your Star Trek meetings and peddle your spackfest of 'theories'

Oh dear, you're just not gonna let this lie, are you?

Exactly as I said before: you have nothing of substance to add, so you throw insults.

We can all throw insults mate, but I'll try to be a little more constructive:

You're a troll. You're in the top 5 NSC trolls. You waste unfathomable amounts of time on this site - 27,267 posts to date - throwing your bigoted views around on just about everything: religion, race, politics.. even football sometimes.. but you are an expert on NONE of these things, are you? A 'Jack-of-all', that knows virtually jack-shit about anything.

So when someone comes along with relatively detailed knowledge of a topic but you don't agree with them, you and your fellow trolls attempt to fish, bait and insult those people into silence.

Well not with me, pal.

Just because you may be too thick to follow the logic, too lazy to care about the facts or simply too angry to have a reasonable conversation doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong.

P.S. I really would prefer to save this until after 9/11. It's not appropriate today. Surely even you can see that?

 

[dingodan]

i know you like to use youtube as a source for all knowledge, but do you ever rationalise if they apply to the matter in hand? the holographic technology, even if it could scale outside and to the size involved, has a basic requirment that isnt present in the sky around the twin towers: something to project onto. you cant project on to nothing, light doesnt work like that.

No you misunderstand. The holographic projections talked about in that clip are 3d projections in space. Not on a whiteboard. The military was interested in military applications obviously, specifically in the potential for using these techniques to be used to create "mirages" of objects in the sky to frighten the enemy etc.

But I'm not saying this took place on 9/11, the poster I was replying to had just drawn the lines of possibility too short - could people see a plane in the sky that was not there? in theory yes. Is the technology required to achieve this in the possession of the U.S. military intelligence community (who Imo are the prime suspects), apparently yes.

This does not mean that it is what they did. It just means that this area of discussion cannot be dismissed as unequivocally as was suggested by the previous poster.

 

[NMH]

Oh dear, you're just not gonna let this lie, are you?

Exactly as I said before: you have nothing of substance to add, so you throw insults.

We can all throw insults mate, but I'll try to be a little more constructive:

You're a troll. You're in the top 5 NSC trolls. You waste unfathomable amounts of time on this site - 27,267 posts to date - throwing your bigoted views around on just about everything: religion, race, politics.. even football sometimes.. but you are an expert on NONE of these things, are you? A 'Jack-of-all', that knows virtually jack-shit about anything.

So when someone comes along with relatively detailed knowledge of a topic but you don't agree with them, you and your fellow trolls attempt to fish, bait and insult those people into silence.

Well not with me, pal.

Just because you may be too thick to follow the logic, too lazy to care about the facts or simply too angry to have a reasonable conversation doesn't make you right and everyone else wrong.

P.S. I really would prefer to save this until after 9/11. It's not appropriate today. Surely even you can see that?

It was not 'appropriate' to lug out this well-worn conspiracy thing before 9/11, and since you are also gabbing on today about it - you just made yourself a self-imposed hypocrite then I guess.
Glad I pissed you off, a worthwhile 'trolling' in your case.

 

[thejackal]

It was not 'appropriate' to lug out this well-worn conspiracy thing before 9/11, and since you are also gabbing on today about it - you just made yourself a self-imposed hypocrite then I guess.
Glad I pissed you off, a worthwhile 'trolling' in your case.

Oh do me a favour! Really, don't make me laugh.

I took a look at your profile page mate, and - to my utter amazement - it states that you're 55 years old!?!?

55 years old?!?!

At least this gives me an insight into why you write like an angry teenager - because you're just an angry old man.

You do know what a troll is don't you? A bully. You're a 55-year-old, angry, bigoted bully. In-fuckin-credible!

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Bet your mum would be well proud of you. Pathetic.