I know rite? Hey did I ever tell you guys about the time I found wmd’s in irak lol?!?!? Search “muthanna chemical complex”
…says one who is also in this thread. Does that mean you, too, are a nutjob?
"Onebornfree would have us believe that Jeremy Glick was nothing more than a computer simulation. He didn’t exist. "
That is a gross distortion of what I actually said.
"This, however, should be easily verifiable. Is there a court document verifiying his marriage to Lyzbeth? Is there a birth certificate for Emerson? Is there a record of him enrolling at the Univ. of Rochester? I bet there were fraternity brothers who remember the guy, and coworkers at Vividence. "
Why would you automatically assume that this person is real when you have not even bothered to research his background thoroughly yourself ?
And, if you do bother to research his background thoroughly, I’ll tell you right now, if you start that research with a pre-existing bias towards the idea that he is a real person, then in my humble opinion you would be wasting your time as a researcher, as your review methodology would be fundamentally flawed right from the “git go” [i.e. compared to the only two established research/review methodologies that I am aware of].
And by the way, both online and offline public records can easily be back-dated/ fabricated, as can on line newspaper stories etc..
P.S. If you are genuinely curious about this person, you might try to find out if this person is listed in the national on line deaths data base yet, because most of the alleged victims of 9/11 are still not listed in the data bases, almost 11 years after the event. Also try looking him up in the online 9/11 memorial sites, and take a good hard look at his photo[s], then maybe compare them with any info on him in the "Vicsim Report"
Regards, onebornfree.
" Onebornfree, not trying to insult you, but some of your theories are becoming less plausible than the Mayan doomsday prophecy. You do have quite a bit of imagination though."
“You do have quite a bit of imagination though.” Thank you. My saving grace, perhaps? 
Regards, onebornfree
LOL - welcome to the club, MaikU.
Not true Daniel. Hitting a small target like WTC 1 or 2 at a precise point, while making a rapid descent and turn at allegedly 500mph, would be, as honest pilots will tell you, next to impossible, [ ignoring the fact that a sustained speed of 500mph is physically impossible for a commercial jet flying at 1000 ft above the ground- 500mph is the cruising speed for these jets at their regular cruising altitude of 35,000 ft. where the air density is 1/4 of what it is at 1000 ft.]
In order for maximum “shock and awe” to to take effect in the population, it was necessary to have perfect strikes [position wise], followed by seemingly perfect penetrations of the 2 buildings by the planes.[ Followed by likewise seemingly “picture perfect” building collapses].
As, in real life it was next to impossible to get the planes to perform the desired maneuvers, and because it is also scientifically impossible for aluminum skinned airliners to simultaneously cut through multiple steel girders embedded in 500,000 ton buildings made of steel and concrete to enter the buildings in one piece as occurs on some of the videos, [so doing defies Newton’s 3rd law of motion ] , it was necessary to fake the plane crashes on video, in their entirety .
This also ensured that the operation would happen flawlessly on camera, when, in real life, an attempt at a similar event would be fraught with countless ways to go wrong that could ruin the required psychological effect[ “shock and awe”] .
Making fake videos of planes effortlessly fully penetrating steel and concrete buildings and then testing them/running them through as many times as necessary beforehand to eliminate any obvious flaws, and then running the final versions as fake “live” broadcast transmissions on national television at the required time, ensured that the planes behaved exactly as needed to do their part in helping instill maximum “shock and awe” in the populace.
“there aren’t that many videos that have the camera actually tracking any planes” versus: “I can’t think of any” . Aren’t these 2 statements contradictory Daniel?
Regards, onebornfree
Damn you, logic!!!
Section 1 of the september clues video they show a shot of the skyline from a helicopter with the towers in the background, then zoom in twice, finally zooming in tight on the towers just before the 2nd plane hits. They then comment that the plane is not in the wider shots, while based on the timing of the video it almost surely should have been. From the video we know the timing, the trajectory of the plane,and can figure the speed of the plane, and distances at all levels of zoom based on the width of the towers, based upon the banking of the plane there may be some more complicating calculations to figure out, but I think it would be relatively easy for someone with some video skills to plot out exactly where the plane should have been in the zoomed out shots on a frame by frame basis.
Personally I’m agnostic on the whole thing, The scale of conspiracy necessary seems impossible, but theres a lot of info out there that leaves doubt in my mind. I find the “No planes theory”, the most far fetched of all, but I think that this analysis could pretty much prove it.
It really doesn’t matter how it was done. What we know for sure is that the government’s story is silly, unbelievable and false. The rest is just details.
Clayton -
The chances of twenty million New York City inhabitants make-believing what they saw in person are slim to none.
Regarding how they could maneuver the planes in such a manner is quite easy to explain. For further assurance their plan would work, they could have easily planted some sort of tracking device in one of the many service floors in the upper reaches of the World Trade Center buildings.
These “hologram planes” and other absurd theories only hinder our ability to find the truth of what happened that day.
My thoughts on 9/11 and what I think really happened (in no particular order):
1) No commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon. It was more than likely a drone that was shot down by the Pentagon’s defense system short of reaching the actual building. Perhaps they were testing their defenses. That would explain its impact in a section being remodeled to reduce casualties (aren’t they caring?).
To the believers of the official story who call those seeking the truth “nutjobs”, where’s all the video footage from the most highly secure building in the world? The only footage I’ve seen is from a security gate camera with few frames, and when the airliner supposedly comes into view, you can’t see it for a pillar is in the way. Scaling that I’ve seen done shows that a 757 would have clearly protruded visibly from behind the pillar, but a drone could have snuck behind it, so to speak.
Another question for “believers”: the second World Trade Center building was hit at 9:03am. How did the most secure air space in the world allow a 757 to fly into its most secure building 34 minutes later?
edit for forgetfulness Not only did the commercial airliner make it, it made it on some impossible path, flown by a hijacker whose flight instructor described as “not [being] able to fly at all” (probably even a Cessna, at that).*
The tough thing to ask yourself, is, “If Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon, where did it go? And with it, its passengers?” It is disturbing to think about.
2) Testimony from first responders (read: not police/fire), claims that shortly before hearing the claimed crash of flight 93, their lights flickered. Perhaps from an EMP sent from a fighter jet before then firing a missile at the airliner. These same people claim they saw no bodies; no luggage; no plane, when arriving at the scene. Similar lack of evidence is found at the “crash” site at the Pentagon. View any other plane crash in history and see for yourself there is always tons of debris and even temporary survivors who are screaming, on fire, pinned and so on.
3) World Trade Center 7 was clearly demolished. Whether they decided that before or after the attacks, I don’t know. Perhaps Silverstein figured he may as well get another new building out of the ordeal. However, it was clearly demolished. To claim otherwise is to ignore physics. The failure of one pillar on an extreme side of a building doesn’t make it collapse symmetrically. It doesn’t make it collapse at all. But this is what NIST would have you believe.
The official story claims no one died in WTC 7. Mr. Barry Jenning’s testimony would say otherwise (says he was stepping over bodies on his way out). He also says he was blown back by an explosion before either tower collapsed. Mr. Jennings is now dead. Presumably murdered.
4) Speaking of symmetrical collapses; how did the two main WTC buildings collapse this way, too? Their damage was asymmetrical as well. Not just laterally, either. ⅔ of the buildings couldn’t hold the top ⅓? The top would seemingly weigh less as well. Not to mention the supports were meant to hold much more its own weight.
Another thing that doesn’t add up about the WTC site, is the inability to find 3 of the 4 black boxes (I think that’s what I recall), but to magically happen upon one of the hijacker’s passport. Magic, indeed.
Another unspeakable crime is the cleanup of the sites way before anything could be processed for investigation. The evidence was quickly swept away, dumped into the ocean or recycled for other uses. The perpetrators of this crime should be prosecuted for obstructing evidence.
5) Mr. Silverstein owned the WTC complex for how many years? Suddenly in July of 2001 he decided to get terrorist insurance, which would later net him billions of dollars? “Insider trading” if I ever saw it.
Also in July, Bin Laden was in an American hospital (in Dubai I believe?) on dialysis. He had a disease that under proper care would have given him 2 years to live. Supposedly he ran from cave to cave and survived for another 10 years!
Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden denied being responsible for them. But, if you’re going to be the fall man for something regardless of the evidence, there are strategies to take to make the most of your unfortunate demise.
No matter what happened, there are way too many unanswered questions they refuse to even consider. Most Americans still hold on to the fallacious belief that the government is here to serve them, and protect them. We need to get people to understand the truth behind 9/11. This will shatter the facade, they hold ever so tightly, of freedom. Then, we may make progress. Which is why I think 9/11 is a pivotal topic to discuss, and why we must leave the fairy tales at the door.
By the way, I may be completely wrong, but seeking the truth through reason is no reason for being called a “nutjob”.
The plane could have been remote-controlled. And it could have been a shell of a plane, making it lighter and more easy to maneuver, like a NASCAR car, if you’re a pro.
I’m not claiming that it cut through steel girders; the plane could have deformed around them as it smashed through the facade.
No. It’s possible that I can’t think of any because none exists. Anyway, do any exist?
I just had a thought about a somewhat glaring contradiction in the official explanations; Flight 93 is supposed to have virtually “vaporized” upon hitting the ground because it was moving “so fast” that the shock of impact caused the plane to almost instantly disintegrate, leaving basically an empty debris field. There were no bodies and as I understand, very little in the way of body parts was even recovered. 44 passengers multiplied by, let’s say, a conservative average of 150 pounds per person would leave 6,600 pounds (over three tons) of human remains dispersed among the wreckage. A great deal of that may have been unrecoverable but whatever little fragments were purportedly found are clearly incommensurate with the total amount of biomass that should have been present. Read more here.
But the contradiction here is that three similar (same?) airliners went right into steel and concrete buildings at nearly the same speed, but without the same “shattering/vaporization” effect claimed for Flight 93. It’s not obvious to me exactly what “should” have happened in the case of the WTC1 and WTC2 impacts, but I think there is a serious issue with the planes making the sort of “cartoon cutouts” that the official explanation claims that they are responsible for. The September Clues video I linked above (the one by Simon Shank; I remember some time back seeing another website by the same name that was considerably more extreme and much less believable) gives a hypothesis that the cutouts were actually created by some sort of charges that were pre-planted and melted through the exterior immediately after impact. That’s a lot of moving parts but it’s at least consistent with the laws of physics, a necessary precondition to any believable hypothesis.
A simple thought-experiment shows why the cartoon-cutout theory is problematic. Imagine that the planes had been made of thin plastic, just thick enough to withstand the aerodynamic forces of flight. What would happen when such a plane struck the fairly beefy steel exterior of the twin towers? Clearly, the tower’s exterior would suffer very little damage and the majority of the plane would be simply “repelled” by the counter-acting forces of the building’s exterior. Now, consider a depleted uranium armor-penetrating round fired from a piece of howitzer artillery. What would happen? It would definitely penetrate.
A real airliner is clearly somewhere between these two extremes but you have to ask yourself whether it is closer to the howitzer round or the plastic airplane? It seems to me - as a non-expert - that it’s actually a lot closer to the plastic plane than the howitzer round. For one, it’s hollow, not solid. Part of what permits an armor-penetrating round to go through thick steel is the fact that its solid, wedge-shaped core exerts immense forces on the armor, forcing it to “part” and permit the round to penetrate. In addition, while an airplane is made of “metal”, most of that metal is aluminum which is not nearly as hard or strong as steel and the frame and skin are made as light as possible while still being able to safely sustain the aerodynamic and passenger/cargo-load forces it will endure throughout its serviceable life. This is virtually the opposite of the design of a howitzer round or missile designed to penetrate hard targets.
Clayton -
OBF,
I’m sorry, but you are dancing around the issue here using vague statements. When I asked a question earlier about building 7, Clayton was able to respond within a few minutes with a couple paragraphs that at least provided an explanation for what I was asking. You are failing to do the same, so I’ll be as blunt as possible.
Jeremy Glick was the president of a fraternity. I was in a fraternity as well. And I can assure you, I can remember each and every member of my fraternity. If you wanted to, within a few hours you could probably find a living, breathing person to verify that I was indeed in a fraternity. You could verify that I existed. Forget all the documents stuff, I admit those can easily be created after the fact. I just want to know if the creators of the “Vicsim Report” have taken the time to contact acquantences of individuals such as Jeremy Glick. If so, take just 5 minutes to explain to me the results instead of linking me to an 80 page PDF and a video of a guy weeping on 4 different occasions when remembering his son. If those creators of the “Vicsim Report” have not taken these basic steps to prove their theory than they are not serious about finding the truth.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove.
I see that multi-persona software ordered by the USAF is hard at work.
Who in this thread has suggested that? And I would exclude OBF from consideration because he/she mysteriously swoops in only at the moment a 9/11 thread is started on these forums and is otherwise absent for months at a time. Browsing his posting history from his profile to see. Clearly, he/she has a bot set up to datamine mises.org for hits on “9/11” and related terms and I find that weird.
In the case of Flight 93 and Flight 77 (Pentagon), the official story is… simply unbelievable. Try here for starters.
Who in this thread is positing hologram planes?
How could that be decided after the attacks?? There’s no way to move that kind of explosives into the building.
We can even grant for the sake of argument that it might make the entire building collapse; but it wouldn’t collapse symmetrically, it would collapse piece-wise as the falling sections are slowed by the still-standing sections which are in turned “pulled down” by the collapsing sections, kind of like dominos.
WTC1 and WTC2 fell according to plan. It is difficult to say precisely what happened and how they were brought down beyond the evidence of nano-thermite discovered in WTC-site dust by Niels Harrit.
Why should it be able to?? The issue is not that the lower section couldn’t hold the falling top section. The issue is that the top section fell through “the path of greatest resistance” and that with no evidence of being much slowed by the immense and increasing resistance that the building’s core should have offered.
I think the official explanation here is that the building is designed withstand immense static forces. The moment the building becomes dynamic (pieces flying around), all bets are off. Nevertheless, even granting the “drooping trusses” hypothesis as the trigger for the building’s collapse, the building’s core should have offered a great deal more resistance. This manner of the collapse isn’t even a fact-in-evidence in the FEMA report because it stops at the moment the building began to collapse as if it’s obvious that the buildings should have then fallen in the way that they did.
LOL - good luck with that one.
Actually, he had only purchased it from the Port Authority in January of 2001. He had owned WTC 7 since the 1980’s.
Bin Laden was never proposed by the official or conspiracy theories to have been a “fall guy”. In the official story, he’s a mastermind, in the conspiracy theories worth noting, he was a scapegoat (completely different from a fall guy). I surmise that CIA asked bin Laden to take responsibility for the attacks and he agreed that he would. Instead, he defected and issued a statement denying any reponsibility and directing Americans to look for a secret “government within the government”. He was killed shortly thereafter. I doubt he ever even made it to the mythical “fortresses” in Tora Bora.
Not really. We’ve already been through this several times before with JFK, MLK Jr, the OKC bombing, and so on. It is useless to try to “wake people up”. The conversion must come from within. Only then will they be able to receive the truth. They must first realize that the State is a corrupt, lying, parasitic, tyrannical beast. Only then will their eyes be opened and they will be able to see the truth about the horrific campaign of terror the USG has been on for at least the last century.
Clayton -
OBF’s post count is 666…
Dude you noticed too!
WTF!
I’m going to go crazy!
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Have you ever thrown an aluminum paper ball against a wall? The part of the ball that impacts the wall deforms to become flat.
If you throw it against a grate, then it deforms around the individual bars.
An airplane’s body is not composed of one piece, but of many pieces; so, it’s easier for it to come apart in comparison to a unibody aluminum projectile.
I find it completely plausible that the planes got grated as they impacted the towers.
Add some explosives to the nose of the plane to make the entry into the building more easy and voila!
Then what did this?:
Note that the damage which is supposed to have been done by the wings exterior to the engines is particularly problematic (here’s a higher res). If you look closely, you will see that the steel columns are either completely cut or bent significantly inward. I don’t know how much the wing of a plane weighs or how strong the aluminum skin and frame in the wing are, but this must be the weakest aspect of the plane-penetration hypothesis.
Clayton -