By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:29 - Mar 27 by Dr_Winston
I don't doubt that there was more than one camera. I do doubt that something shifting at 300mph+, even something as large as a 757, would show up in a field of vision of about 40/50 yards for more than a millisecond.
Winston, I don't know how much you're read about the events of 911. But it is plain as day that there was no 757 that struck that building, as there was virtually no wreckage on the lawn, and the damage to the wall of the Pentagon is not consistent with that of an aircraft of that type. The engines and other parts recovered are not consistent with those of that kind of aircraft, and the stuff that was found there seems to have been "planted" anyway.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:37 - Mar 27 with 2359 views
Operation Northwoods: quotes: "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba." "We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters." "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." "We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington." "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)." "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft" "The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be purchased from US resources in about three months." "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.." "It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight." "An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone." "Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter- national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident." On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared." "The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found." The above excerpts are taken from the original 15-page US Government TOP SECRET document, "Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [including cover memoranda], March 13, 1962," available at the National Security Archive website in pdf format at the following link: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf (if you don't have it, download Adobe Acrobat Reader to view pdf formatted files). The introductory text entry point for this document is at Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962 ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/).
1
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:38 - Mar 27 with 2358 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:19 - Mar 27 by jackedup
Why do you suppose that they would have to hide anything from the general public? They explained that they were doing network upgrades. As I mentioned, it was published in national media that the security cameras were turned off for two weeks and bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. You are the one who is lacking common sense. Crashes from planes do not cause multiple explosions and people to get burnt and injured badly in the sub-basements. Carbon fires do not cause collapses of buildings that tall in 11 seconds on their own footprint while not significantly damaging surrounding buildings. Otherwise, they could save millions of dollars and demolish other buildings of that kind in like manner. Furthermore, if explosives were not used, why is it that thousands of bone fragments were found on the rooftops of surrounding buildings which were no longer than a centimeter in length? How can a fire pulverize concrete? Just because you've worked in construction doesn't mean that you can pretend that you've answered these questions.
Plonker of zero common sense! The totally inexplicable and superfluous partial demolition of paneling/floors/walls around (to be exposed!) girder emplacement(s) along large areas/various floors by hundreds of construction workers? On a relatively new building (1973)? Now that would take some explaining from World Trade Center officials, surveyors and building contractors alike whom would naturally ask "Why the f#ck are we partially demolishing parts of a perfectly sound building?".
[Post edited 27 Mar 2016 21:38]
Argus!
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:40 - Mar 27 with 2341 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:31 - Mar 27 by NeathJack
On a purely side on close up view, probably.
I'm sure there were other angles that would have shown it though, assuming it happened obviously.
The lack of plane debris was a bit peculiar as well.
Who knows what camera angles are covered? For obvious reasons I doubt the US Defence Dept are particularly keen to make that public knowledge.
Planes are mostly light aluminium. It's usually only the engines that survive as recognisable plane bits from an impact like that, and from what I've read (far from exhaustive I'll admit) they were both documented as removed from the site.
Not sure why people expect there to be recognisable plane bits on the lawn outside. As the whole thing was moving forward at a fair pace almost all of it would have ended up inside the building. That much is easily verifiable by the footage of the planes hitting the WTC.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:42 - Mar 27 with 2332 views
Anyone remember that f*cking nutter that used to post on here jackdaripper? He basically reckoned that George Bush was piloting both planes and parachuted out at the last minute.
Jeez we've had some mental cases on here over the years.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:42 - Mar 27 by Darran
Anyone remember that f*cking nutter that used to post on here jackdaripper? He basically reckoned that George Bush was piloting both planes and parachuted out at the last minute.
Jeez we've had some mental cases on here over the years.
I've laughed for the first time today ðŸ‘
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
Y'know, there are thousands of incidents of commercial planes being flown into the Pentagon, and on this occasion, things just don't look like they did in all those others....
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:38 - Mar 27 by Wingstandwood
Plonker of zero common sense! The totally inexplicable and superfluous partial demolition of paneling/floors/walls around (to be exposed!) girder emplacement(s) along large areas/various floors by hundreds of construction workers? On a relatively new building (1973)? Now that would take some explaining from World Trade Center officials, surveyors and building contractors alike whom would naturally ask "Why the f#ck are we partially demolishing parts of a perfectly sound building?".
[Post edited 27 Mar 2016 21:38]
I have seen your type many times. The people who must deny the mountains of evidence that has come out because they don't like the implications.
This "new building" you are talking about was found to contain asbestos that would have taken hundreds of millions of dollars to remove.
It is also a fact that Larry Silverstein took out a mortgage on the entire complex only one month before 911 and that despite the fact that he had a 2.7 billion dollar insurance plan, he was able to receive more than 5 billion dollars by claiming that they were 2 separate attacks.
In 2000, the Project for a New American Century published a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which said that a "new Pearl Harbor" would be "a catastrophic and catalyzing event" that would be needed in order to gain public approval for the proposed 48 billiion dollar increase in defense spending.
In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" that America needed to gain military control of Central Asia, since this is the source of the world's highest reserve of many minerals and natural gas. He also said that American public opinion would be against it, unless there was a widely perceived direct external threat.
You haven't answered to any of the evidence I referred to, much of which has been documented in the public record.
Have you heard of PROMIS, the software that intelligence agencies such as the Mossad has used since well before 911 to monitor stock markets in real time? By using such software, many intelligence agencies knew that thousands of percent greater than the normal volume of put options were purchased on American Airlines, United Airlines and the reinsurers of those airlines within days of 911.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2016 22:01]
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:57 - Mar 27 with 2275 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:40 - Mar 27 by Dr_Winston
Who knows what camera angles are covered? For obvious reasons I doubt the US Defence Dept are particularly keen to make that public knowledge.
Planes are mostly light aluminium. It's usually only the engines that survive as recognisable plane bits from an impact like that, and from what I've read (far from exhaustive I'll admit) they were both documented as removed from the site.
Not sure why people expect there to be recognisable plane bits on the lawn outside. As the whole thing was moving forward at a fair pace almost all of it would have ended up inside the building. That much is easily verifiable by the footage of the planes hitting the WTC.
The damage to the Pentagon doesn't support your notion that most of the plane ended up inside.
That side of the building was the only side reinforced not long before 911. There was only a rather small hole in the outside wall, so this makes it rather improbable that the massive wings would have made themselves inside the building.
There was never any convincing evidence of any commercial passenger jet of they type they claim either inside or outside the Pentagon.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:02 - Mar 27 with 2263 views
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:08 - Mar 27 with 2247 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 20:22 - Mar 27 by Wingstandwood
Bang on! Common sense rules! To pull off something like that would have taken hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands?) of complicit individuals. And not one spoken out or let the cat out of the bag? Holy shite how often do individual government dept's suffer from 'leaks' and 'whistle-blowers' even concerning the most minor of issues?
Perhaps they told them all it was going to be 10/11 and invited them all to a briefing on the top floor of one of the towers on the 9th?
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:23 - Mar 27 by morningstar
Do you honestly think that anyone on here is going to watch your 1hr long youtube clip that backs up your insane theory?
Yes, people who aren't as closed-minded as you who are willing to consider eyewitness testimonies of trustworthy people.
C-SPAN aired several hours of Rodriguez's testimony, and he was able to get prime-time coverage in many foreign networks.
Regardless of what you think of Rodriguez, his testimony is only one of many eyewitness accounts of explosions that had nothing to do with any aircraft impacts. Many firefighters were on New York radio within days of 911 talking about the same things.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:39 - Mar 27 with 2171 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 21:50 - Mar 27 by jackedup
I have seen your type many times. The people who must deny the mountains of evidence that has come out because they don't like the implications.
This "new building" you are talking about was found to contain asbestos that would have taken hundreds of millions of dollars to remove.
It is also a fact that Larry Silverstein took out a mortgage on the entire complex only one month before 911 and that despite the fact that he had a 2.7 billion dollar insurance plan, he was able to receive more than 5 billion dollars by claiming that they were 2 separate attacks.
In 2000, the Project for a New American Century published a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which said that a "new Pearl Harbor" would be "a catastrophic and catalyzing event" that would be needed in order to gain public approval for the proposed 48 billiion dollar increase in defense spending.
In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" that America needed to gain military control of Central Asia, since this is the source of the world's highest reserve of many minerals and natural gas. He also said that American public opinion would be against it, unless there was a widely perceived direct external threat.
You haven't answered to any of the evidence I referred to, much of which has been documented in the public record.
Have you heard of PROMIS, the software that intelligence agencies such as the Mossad has used since well before 911 to monitor stock markets in real time? By using such software, many intelligence agencies knew that thousands of percent greater than the normal volume of put options were purchased on American Airlines, United Airlines and the reinsurers of those airlines within days of 911.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2016 22:01]
Oh so I get you now! Hundreds of building contractors/asbestos removal specialists required to expose the bare steel that had to be uncovered to facilitate the 'take-down' were either fully paid up/trained 'in-on-the-act' CIA employed building (spy by day dry-liner by night?) contractors or?.........
Bizarrely contrary to mine (millions of others!) decades of construction industry experience completely unquestioning and blissfully unaware to why they were partaking in totally never seen or ever experienced before work-practices/tasks/procedures that would take some explaining? You know? Asbestos removal by the means of completely unnecessary/unrequired 'intrusive' removal of construction material(s) and structural surrounds that would have had absolutely nothing to do with asbestos removal itself? A bit like knocking down a house roof to tile the kitchen!
Argus!
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:49 - Mar 27 with 2144 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:32 - Mar 27 by jackedup
Yes, people who aren't as closed-minded as you who are willing to consider eyewitness testimonies of trustworthy people.
C-SPAN aired several hours of Rodriguez's testimony, and he was able to get prime-time coverage in many foreign networks.
Regardless of what you think of Rodriguez, his testimony is only one of many eyewitness accounts of explosions that had nothing to do with any aircraft impacts. Many firefighters were on New York radio within days of 911 talking about the same things.
I'm not closed minded at all, i just simply refuse to believe the testimony of someone who claims he was 'the last man out' when he clearly wasn't.
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:39 - Mar 27 by Wingstandwood
Oh so I get you now! Hundreds of building contractors/asbestos removal specialists required to expose the bare steel that had to be uncovered to facilitate the 'take-down' were either fully paid up/trained 'in-on-the-act' CIA employed building (spy by day dry-liner by night?) contractors or?.........
Bizarrely contrary to mine (millions of others!) decades of construction industry experience completely unquestioning and blissfully unaware to why they were partaking in totally never seen or ever experienced before work-practices/tasks/procedures that would take some explaining? You know? Asbestos removal by the means of completely unnecessary/unrequired 'intrusive' removal of construction material(s) and structural surrounds that would have had absolutely nothing to do with asbestos removal itself? A bit like knocking down a house roof to tile the kitchen!
The fact is that nanothermite was forensically proven to be present through multiple experiments that were documented in peer-reviewed articles by reputable scientists such as Dr. Steven Jones.
Besides this, you have video evidence of molten steel pouring out of one of the corners of one of the towers shortly before the collapse. This cannot be caused by any carbon fuel fires. Furthermore, you have evidence that there were thermal hotspots measuring temperatures far exceeding those of carbon fires for several days after 911:
Security at WTC complex was managed by the same firm that managed the security at the Murrah Federal Building, which was also destroyed by multiple bombs inside the building, contrary to the now sanitized story of a single lone nut named McVeigh. The local media reports that there were bomb-diffusing units inside the building diffusing other bombs was scrubbed from the national story. Again, you deny the mountains of evidence -- the many reports of multiple explosions; the fact that the fires consisted of 2 "isolated pockets" of carbon fires less than 400 degrees Centigrade incapable of producing simultaneous truss failure or near free-fall speed collapse of 110 story structures built from construction grade steel; the tiny bone fragments and pulverized concrete; the pyroclastic phenomena that caused dust clouds to travel at great speeds for several miles; and so many other facts.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:57 - Mar 27 with 2123 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:49 - Mar 27 by morningstar
I'm not closed minded at all, i just simply refuse to believe the testimony of someone who claims he was 'the last man out' when he clearly wasn't.
He didn't claim it as some undisputable fact. There were others who did, and the fact that he had to go under a fire truck as the debris were falling around him would lend a bit of credibility to such claims that at least he was one of the last people out at least. Besides, without the master key, the firefighters would not have been effective in saving so many people, and the one who had the other master key left the scene.
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:02 - Mar 27 with 2114 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:39 - Mar 27 by Wingstandwood
Oh so I get you now! Hundreds of building contractors/asbestos removal specialists required to expose the bare steel that had to be uncovered to facilitate the 'take-down' were either fully paid up/trained 'in-on-the-act' CIA employed building (spy by day dry-liner by night?) contractors or?.........
Bizarrely contrary to mine (millions of others!) decades of construction industry experience completely unquestioning and blissfully unaware to why they were partaking in totally never seen or ever experienced before work-practices/tasks/procedures that would take some explaining? You know? Asbestos removal by the means of completely unnecessary/unrequired 'intrusive' removal of construction material(s) and structural surrounds that would have had absolutely nothing to do with asbestos removal itself? A bit like knocking down a house roof to tile the kitchen!
You are either misrepresenting my arguments deliberately or misconstruing them completely.
I never stated that what the things done under the guise of "network upgrades" were done in order to remove asbestos.
Obviously demolishing a building containing asbestos obviates the need for asbestos removal, correct?
And getting over 5 billiion dollars in insurance money is better than having to spend hundreds of millions in asbestos removal, right?
0
9/11 unanswered questions on 23:04 - Mar 27 with 2105 views
9/11 unanswered questions on 22:57 - Mar 27 by jackedup
He didn't claim it as some undisputable fact. There were others who did, and the fact that he had to go under a fire truck as the debris were falling around him would lend a bit of credibility to such claims that at least he was one of the last people out at least. Besides, without the master key, the firefighters would not have been effective in saving so many people, and the one who had the other master key left the scene.
I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply a normal guy on a football messageboard in complete denial of something you are quite clearly an expert on and seemingly dedicated your life to. Good luck!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
