9/11 was surely an inside job. Would you like proof that large secrets can be kept by thousands of people for a long long time? Here are two proofs:
Name the accomplishments of the NSA. The NSA is a secret spy agency employing at least 30,000 full time workers with a top secret budget. Whatever they do, they’ve been doing it since maybe the 1960’s. Or earlier. Nobody even really knows when they came into existence. But were talking millions of man-hours of labor. They must be doing something. What? What have the NSA accomplished? Seems to me it’s a big secret.
Show me the schematic diagrams for a nuclear weapon. Nukes have been operational since the 1940s. Thousands of sceintists and engineers have designed and built them. There must be manufacturing diagrams. Got a link for me? Didn’t think so. Seems to me it’s a big secret.
no-planers are a minority precisely because their imputation is that the msm played and plays active part in the plot, not just that of a passive lapdog. it’s one thing to attack george bush and co., quite another to attack the real holders of power.
witnesses’ statements about the planes are mixed and sketchy. the only ones who categorically maintain to have seen large airplanes hit are msm employees or actors. skeptics like myself demand to see logged parts, not some circus of perjurors and actors.
Any supposed “logged parts”, produced 10 years after the fact, no less, still cannot overcome the elephant in the room , i.e. the blatant falsity of videos depicting aircraft melting into/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete structures without slowing by even one frame per sec. , and without any parts being lost at impact.
Those videos are pure Hollywood, the planes, the buildings, the background, the foreground, the fireball; everything in those movies is nothing more than pre-fabricated computer generated imagery, in my opinion.
There were no planes flying into those buildings that day, therefor no authentic wreckage/parts can ever be produced.
of course i’m being facetious pretending that the authorities give up any shred of concrete evidence of the ghost planes. (apart from those risible props shown on tv straight after the attacks, thereafter whisked away).
the planes are so visibly wrong, even the “amateur” happy-snappers state they look like special effects from some hollywood b-grader (best to be honest on at least one point).
but i’m not convinced that all the visuals are fake. that sounds like a violation of ockham’s razor. the smallest amount of technical trickery is the safest, and the rest of the narrative is filled in by witness accounts, disinformation, and marginalization of non-believers. that seems much less risky to me.
It is an interesting fact that a 747 cannot fly at 540 mph that close to sea level. Something that is talked about at pilotsfor911truth.com
However, you guys need to let go of the no plane theory, it’s patently false and spreads misinformation, please focus on the important evidence and issues.
You guys keep saying that these videos were edited or made beforehand. When video’s are edited they leave behind evidence such as:
Added or removed frames
Incorrect motion tracking
Audio fade ins/outs
Audio silence
Incorrect motion blur
Incorrect color
incorrect focus
Blurred edges on added objects
This is not an exaustive list and I don’t pretend to be an expert on the issue. However, if the videos were edited I would expect a professional in the field to point out one or more of the aforementioned in a film clip.
To this day I have never seen such evidence, please post if you have it, otherwise the no plane theory is FALSE.
here’s where the live-editing went awry, and the no-planers have it all over the planers. on principle, many refuse to believe that the major tv networks (a few key anchors, journalists, technicians, and all the network owners) could be actively involved.
even those who don’t espouse the no-planes-hypothesis would do well to read about the naudet brothers, and their unbelievable lucky in capturing both plane impacts. “embedded” gets a new, and more sinister meaning.
Dear Seraiah,first of all, just because you have not seen any evidence does not mean that it is not out there [or does it?]. In fact ,there is plenty.
As bbnet rightly points out “September Clues” is an exhaustive study of many of the items/features on your list.
Simon Shack, the author of September Clues, is a former professional Formula 1 race car photographer/videographer.
And in actual fact , I would contend that highly detailed frame by frame video analysis of the type undertaken in September Clues is not really even necessary for most.
All that a seriously interested, open-minded reviewer needs to do is to take a close look at Killtowns excellent “Air Versus Skyscraper”, a very short [2.47 min.] analysis of the famous Evan Fairbanks purported live video of flight 175’s collision with the south tower .
Simply put, Killtown’s video review clearly demonstrates that the Evan Fairbanks Flight 175 video is a complete fabrication from start to finish, as it depicts events that are clearly direct violations of fundamental laws of physics.
This would be a great thing for a physicist to look into. On the onset it seems to me that the rear of the plane would not noticably slow down when hitting a building at 540 miles per hour. I did not notice any of the planes slow down in any of the other videos either, and I’ve still not seen any evidence of video trickery in any of them.
I was looking around for an airplane crashing into the ground until I got sick of watching people die, which incidentally didn’t take long. I couldn’t find the perfect shot, but suffice it to say airplanes do not offer alot of resistance when hitting the ground at even relatively slow speeds, at maximum speed you can imagine that the resistance is fairly negligable. I do not see the “air versus skyscraper” video as “defying physics”.
i don’t understand how an airplane could not suffer extremely brusque deacceleration on hitting any massive, solid object. as you mentioned, 500mph at sea-level is impossible with these airplanes, but that’s just one of many unsatisfactory aspects to the official version.
even those who believe that the live tv shots are indeed what they purport to be, concede that live-editing from a stationary helicopter with a black, moving object against a high-contrast, light background is doable.
if it is possible to simulate the planes’ crashes, then it’s up to the authorities to put an end to skeptics’ doubts by coming up with the parts, and their serial numbers, with service-logs for same. i’m not holding my breath.
Seraiah: “Careful that you don’t become what you hate. You’re implying that anyone that disagrees with you is either not seriously interested or open minded.”
Hate is not the right word- wonder, bewilderment, or amusement are closer, but yes, I do imply that, for what its worth.
Seraiah: “I did not notice any of the planes slow down in any of the other videos either, and I’ve still not seen any evidence of video trickery in any of them”.
That’s because they’re all fakes. [!]
Do you propose that a 140 ton airplane traveling at around 250-300 mph max possible [at close to sea level], speed, in real life would not slow down by even 1 frame per second when met by a stationary, 500,000 ton steel/concrete tower, but would in real life continue onward [post strike] at exactly the same speed as before it hit that stationary, completely inert object 500.000 ton steel and concrete object, as shown in the link I posted previously ?
That the forces generated at impact would not cause the wings and tail-section to shear off/ forwards, before they could pass through steel and concrete? To answer my questions,yes, you do, because you see it on film.
To be clear I would definitely imply that you have not really sat down and thought about the real world physics of such an event.[Specifically Newton’s 3rd law of motion].
You would have to investigate what always happens to thin [3mm] aluminum-skinned airplanes when struck by birds in flight., or other stationary objects on the ground such as airport hangers or lighting fixtures [ all still much less solid than 500,000 tons of steel/concrete rooted to the ground and with foundations that reach deep into the earth, as with the towers] There are plenty of pictures of those sort of events on line if you look.
As it is, both yourself and the posted video [and most persons] propose that in real life, upon impact, the building would offer no more resistance to the plane than it was already meeting from the atmosphere around it as it flew- a [scientifically ] ridiculous proposal - steel= air. This is simply “Roadrunner” cartoon physics- it only takes place in cartoons, Hollywood movies and, of course 9/11 “plane into building” videos.
Seraiah: “I was looking around for an airplane crashing into the ground until I got sick of watching people die, which incidentally didn’t take long. I couldn’t find the perfect shot, but suffice it to say airplanes do not offer alot of resistance when hitting the ground at even relatively slow speeds, at maximum speed you can imagine that the resistance is fairly negligable.”
Exactly. So an airplane hitting the ground [an inert object, say, like a mountainside?] , as you say does not/cannot offer “alot of resistance” to that ground,[i.e it is smashed to pieces], but when that object is made of 500,000 tons of steel and concrete it somehow would achieve maximum resistance to the point that it will fly right through the tower,no problemo ? Are you sure about that?
Seraiah “I do not see the “air versus skyscraper” video as “defying physics”.”
Well duh!, obviously!
P.S. To be clear, do not take any of what I say personally [assuming you were]. We just have different beliefs [opposite , actually] on this matter - yourself and most others choose to believe that aircraft can/will fly into/through steel and concrete without even slowing down and that the various 911 videos prove this, while I prefer to choose to believe in the simple, time-tested, “immutable” laws of physics [specifically, in this instance, Newton’s 3rd law of motion], just as with economics I choose to believe in the “immutable laws” of human action outlined by LVM as opposed to the impossible fantasies of Keynes et al.
It’s a choice we all must make, and which we must each take responsibility for.
Hayek and Mises would be dissapointed in this thread. Obviously economics is thrown out of the window when it comes to government action…Oh hey Keynes!
the success of the 9/11 psy-op evidently emboldened those planning the london bombing some four years later. like wtc, the real attacks follow the mock anti-terror training exercise. blair shored up popular support for his unpopular war. the muslim as patsy, yet again.
I think you underestimate the sheer mass involved in the WTC towers collapsing. Conspiracy or not, it’s a much simpler explanation, from a logistics standpoint, for the planes to be used as the means to bring down the towers than to employ controlled demolition. The logistics are far more involved in the latter case.
However, I admit that I can’t directly address the issue of micronized building materials without getting into some heavy physics calculations.
I didn’t say that 9/11 was a distraction - I said that the controlled-demolition theory is a distraction. Furthermore, it’s not even necessary for proposing that 9/11 was an “inside job”. All one has to do is ask “Cui bono?” - “Who benefits?”
Strictly speaking, I don’t. But neither do you know that it was rigged. It seems we’re on an equal footing here.
This might be a nitpick, but Mr. Holmgren can’t even spell “keros__e__ne” right. Such a misspelling certainly doesn’t help his credibility, IMHO.
From the start, he’s implicitly arguing a false dilemma - either the official story or controlled demolition. Why do this?
First off, where is it claimed that the airliner was vaporized into nothing?
Second, the “pancake theory” doesn’t involve the structural steel melting. It “merely” involves it weakening past structural failure. There’s a world of difference between those two things.
