Disturbing 9/11 Tapes Played at Moussaoui Trial

Tellox

TheGooner wrote:

That flash before the plane hits is completly added in, you can tell, if you watch it back there is no way something real would be that clear.

For the guy who questioned the plane hitting the Pentagon. It did happen, of course it happened. I ws in DC at the time on holiday at the end of my J1, I went down a couple of days later and it was completely cordoned off by teh military. The reason there is no wreckage is because most of it landed inside the walls of the Pentagon and I am sure the amount of fuel burning would assist in the wreckage disintegrating. You don't need to be an expert to know that you cannot film within a certain range of the Pentagon, there is no footage of impact released for this very same reason.

So how come that same flash appeared on every video availible - including the CNN footage? Even download the original CNN vid of it, freezeframe it and you can see it. The video I posted show 4 comparisons, taped by home cameras, and the media.

And the supposed pilot that hit the pentagon - deemed near impossible, considering the plane didnt even bounce off the lawn - took his first few flying lessons about a month before that, and had trouble landing and controlling the plane. Also, once again, people stating from their cars, seeing the plane 25-75ft above them on the motorway - all these cars would be blown far far far away by a plane going that speed that close to them.

whiskeyman

So Glad wrote:

It was NOT a AA 757 aircraft.

Ok, so what's the theory on what actually happened to Flight 77 and the 64 people on board, if it didn't hit the Pentagon?



I never delved into the whole 9/11 conspirary much...

So Glad

Tellox wrote:

The black boxes have already been claimed to be destroyed, because of the blast.

but the paper passport they found of a supposed highjacker was in mint condition. So paper is stronger than metal. k.

Oh,and continuing on that - some of the claimed highjackers of the planes are still alive today. So human flesh is also stronger than metal.

..Who writes this stuff?

Not the black boxes of the Pensylvania crash. They were "found". The interesting thing about the pensylvania crash is that, AGAIN, there is NO debris! A plane only crashed on a side of a mountain in Greece a few weeks back and ALL of the plane was found allong with a bloody big tale section, passenger seats and burning bodies but we are meant to believe a 757 smashed into dust particals and destroyed everything including human bones and teeth? Not ONE passenger was found in the debris of Pensylvania and the Pentagon. That is TRUE. Wakey wakey world!!!

Huggles

Tellox wrote:

So how come that same flash appeared on every video availible - including the CNN footage? Even download the original CNN vid of it, freezeframe it and you can see it. The video I posted show 4 comparisons, taped by home cameras, and the media.

And the supposed pilot that hit the pentagon - deemed near impossible, considering the plane didnt even bounce off the lawn - took his first few flying lessons about a month before that, and had trouble landing and controlling the plane. Also, once again, people stating from their cars, seeing the plane 25-75ft above them on the motorway - all these cars would be blown far far far away by a plane going that speed that close to them.

Ok i concede to the cnn vid and other news agencies. Fair enough. I am not really following what you are meaning by the witnesses on the motorway. While I agree that yes they would have been blown away but why would so many witneses lie? Maybe dig out a map of the surrounding area. I remember walking at the back of the whitehouse the day before and commenting on how low the planes landing in Dulles where coming in. I don't buy any conspiracys about this. sorry.

So Glad

whiskeyman wrote:

Ok, so what's the theory on what actually happened to Flight 77 and the 64 people on board, if it didn't hit the Pentagon?



I never delved into the whole 9/11 conspirary much...

Here is where it gets very interesting...

Flight 77 flies to Ohio. Radar looses track of it and looses radio contact. The whole of the American airforce cannot find this plane. Half an hour latter, the plane allegedly flys into the Pentagon. How could flight 77 be at the Pentagon when it was record having being landed at an airport in Ohio? Documents report passengers being removed from flight 77 and being brought to a separate building. Reports also say the airport was exacuated because the FBI said a "hijacked" plane was landing in the area (i.e. flight 77). Very odd? Never heard of this? Of course you haven't. No news station has shown it. You can search on Google for this info or you can watch it on one of the videos. But flight 77 is recorded as having landed at and airport when it was suppose to be at the Pentagon...

So Glad

Here is the info on how flight 93 landed:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html#WCPO

Tellox

TheGooner wrote:

Ok i concede to the cnn vid and other news agencies. Fair enough. I am not really following what you are meaning by the witnesses on the motorway. While I agree that yes they would have been blown away but why would so many witneses lie? Maybe dig out a map of the surrounding area. I remember walking at the back of the whitehouse the day before and commenting on how low the planes landing in Dulles where coming in. I don't buy any conspiracys about this. sorry.

That post is a big bag of contradictions.
Witnesses at the area WOULD have been blown away.

Some people like to lie. Infact, I read 3 seperate accounts of this - one person, claiming the plane was 25ft over his car (...obviously lying from the start, as he's alive), pointed out that it was a commercial jet - that he could almost see people in the windows. Funny how the commerical jet that hit the WTC left notable marks from the wings, tail etc. At the point of impact, there's just an enterance hole.

The second claimed "small, 10-person jet", 75ft above his car. Not possible to do enough damage.

The third claimed "It looked and sounded more like a missile than a plane".

Also, the debris recovered from the site cannot be attributed to any plane known, at least not to the public. Even boeing's parts suppliers, i.e; rolls royce, claimed they have never seen some of the debris that has been related to their company, citing evidence of it being a commerical jet.

So Glad

Tellox wrote:

That post is a big bag of contradictions.
Witnesses at the area WOULD have been blown away.

Some people like to lie. Infact, I read 3 seperate accounts of this - one person, claiming the plane was 25ft over his car (...obviously lying from the start, as he's alive), pointed out that it was a commercial jet - that he could almost see people in the windows. Funny how the commerical jet that hit the WTC left notable marks from the wings, tail etc. At the point of impact, there's just an enterance hole.

The second claimed "small, 10-person jet", 75ft above his car. Not possible to do enough damage.

The third claimed "It looked and sounded more like a missile than a plane".

Also, the debris recovered from the site cannot be attributed to any plane known, at least not to the public. Even boeing's parts suppliers, i.e; rolls royce, claimed they have never seen some of the debris that has been related to their company, citing evidence of it being a commerical jet.

Actually, it has been connected with ONE plane. One that would fit the 10 seater, missile like description so many people gave.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

......................

Tellox

Doesnt explain the debris recovered and it being impossible to link them to any company which manufacture(sp?) parts for the supposed airlines. And its already been cited by the american govt. as being a 757-200.

Also, satellite images of the pentagon, a few days before the attack, very oddly show a white trail going along the ground towards one of the walls - in an almost EXCACT pattern of how the "plane" travelled towards, and hurtled into the pentagon.

EDIT: Oh,and the huge wings/tail of that plane would DEFINTLY had contributed to the visual damage on the wall.

And, funnily enough,the "plane" hit the one part of the pentagon that was recently enough reinforced to sustain the damage of a bomb! Also, why was Rumsfield at the excact opposite section of the pentagon, to where was attacked?

All sources are contained within the google video I posted earlier.

So Glad

Tellox wrote:

Doesnt explain the debris recovered and it being impossible to link them to any company which manufacture(sp?) parts for the supposed airlines.

All about the Pentagon and relations to the Global Hawk (scroll down alot):

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

ronbyrne2005

Look there was/is no conspiracy,such a conspricay would involve thousands of people and someone would talk/leak evidence.

**Timbuk2**

Have a look at this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3087939444512218808

It is 24mins long so view it if you have time

It is an interesting video that is trying to prove that the US Government planted explosions in the World Trade Towers (something like that anyway)

Huggles

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Look there was/is no conspiracy,such a conspricay would involve thousands of people and someone would talk/leak evidence.

Thank you. You guys are really over analyzing his whole thing.

So Glad

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Look there was/is no conspiracy,such a conspricay would involve thousands of people and someone would talk/leak evidence.

No. It wouldn't take thousands of people. Not at all. Look at the evidence.

So Glad

TheGooner wrote:

Thank you. You guys are really over analyzing his whole thing.

What are you talking about? Really. Please. Tell me. I NEED to know. If you KNOW and are completely satified with the official conclusion then you show me the evidence. Come on. Prove us wrong.

Tellox

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Look there was/is no conspiracy,such a conspricay would involve thousands of people and someone would talk/leak evidence.

Plenty of people have talked, plenty of evidence has leaked. Infact, most of this thread is excactly that.

And gooner, In order to make a decent argument about something, sometimes overanalysis is required.

Huggles

So Glad wrote:

What are you talking about? Really. Please. Tell me. I NEED to know. If you KNOW and are completely satified with the official conclusion then you show me the evidence. Come on. Prove us wrong.

I never said I knew anything other than what has been presented in the news and going on my own understanding of what happened. I don't have the NEED to know as much as you do and have no desire to prove you wrong or right at all, it happened and life goes on. I guess I really don't understand what could be achieved/gained from a conspiracy of this magnitude. Sorry if that offends you.

ronbyrne2005

Tellox wrote:

Plenty of people have talked, plenty of evidence has leaked. Infact, most of this thread is excactly that.

And gooner, In order to make a decent argument about something, sometimes overanalysis is required.

yes it was the illuminati then???
:rolleyes:

Tellox

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

yes it was the illuminati then???
:rolleyes:

Yeah,it was Az

Huggles

Tellox wrote:

Plenty of people have talked, plenty of evidence has leaked. Infact, most of this thread is excactly that.

And gooner, In order to make a decent argument about something, sometimes overanalysis is required.

Thats fair enough Tellox a valid point but for me this over analysis is a little extreme. The whole affair was very black and white for me, it happened, no one saw it coming, it was tragic.

So Glad

Tellox wrote:

Plenty of people have talked, plenty of evidence has leaked. Infact, most of this thread is excactly that.

And gooner, In order to make a decent argument about something, sometimes overanalysis is required.

Yes. And allot of people have been fired for talking so theres the rub...

So Glad

TheGooner wrote:

Thats fair enough Tellox a valid point but for me this over analysis is a little extreme. The whole affair was very black and white for me, it happened, no one saw it coming, it was tragic.

I suppose you think it is plausable to take over a whole plane with either tiny knifes, spoons, stanley blades or fists and have no resistance and fly with no air traffic assistance (which very skilled pilots find extreamly hard to do) or maps and not to mention not being able to see through clouds and miraculously fly into the twin towers and the pentagon even though they were crap pilots? The ends do not meet.

Tellox

TheGooner wrote:

Thats fair enough Tellox a valid point but for me this over analysis is a little extreme. The whole affair was very black and white for me, it happened, no one saw it coming, it was tragic.

Obviously I respect your opinion on it all, but I believe that this tradgedy was at the hands of the US government, and that its a pure example of the lack of free speech and public knowledge in this day and age. If you find the time, have a look at the video I earlier posted.

Huggles

Tellox wrote:

Obviously I respect your opinion on it all, but I believe that this tradgedy was at the hands of the US government, and that its a pure example of the lack of free speech and public knowledge in this day and age. If you find the time, have a look at the video I earlier posted.

Tellox, i certainly will and I will PM you my thoughts.

So Glad, I dunno if this helps but you have obviously done your research and formed a good arguement, however, it may be hindered by the fact that you seem to take opinions different to yours as a personal insult. Conspiracies certainly interest me just on this occasion I can't see something that huge being pulled off without massive flaws.

Maybe this would be worth starting a new board. 'Conspiracies'?

ronbyrne2005

theres so many flaws in that video i dont know where to start,no point in dealing with flaws though as people will beleive what they want to beleive.goodnight.

So Glad

TheGooner wrote:

Tellox, i certainly will and I will PM you my thoughts.

So Glad, I dunno if this helps but you have obviously done your research and formed a good arguement, however, it may be hindered by the fact that you seem to take opinions different to yours as a personal insult. Conspiracies certainly interest me just on this occasion I can't see something that huge being pulled off without massive flaws.

Maybe this would be worth starting a new board. 'Conspiracies'?

I just get frustrated. There is a forum but it's not as good as discussions you get on after hours. You should watch those videos. They are very well documented. Better that anything we can say.

The forum is in hosted/public/conspiracy theories. It sucks.

So Glad

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

theres so many flaws in that video i dont know where to start,no point in dealing with flaws though as people will beleive what they want to beleive.goodnight.

Ok. Show me the evidence when you wake up. Prove the experts all wrong.

tunaman

TheGooner wrote:

Thats fair enough Tellox a valid point but for me this over analysis is a little extreme. The whole affair was very black and white for me, it happened, no one saw it coming, it was tragic.

The US received dozens of very specific warnings from foreign intelligence agencies in the months before the attacks.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence

People need to wake up as it has been proved the official conspiracy story is an impossiblility and the kindest thing you can say is they let it happen. However we should ask the people who were in and around the WTC that day what they saw...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

I don't understand the genuine resoning behind playing the tapes.

The US courts can hand out the death sentence for killing one person in their sleep so why do they need to replay the happenings of 2,000 people dying from the crash or falling or heart attacks or in the fire ?

It doesn't matter if he was complicit in killing one person or three thousand. He is entitled to the exact same treatment from the courts, which also means that the Prosecution has to play by the exact same rules. One of which is, in the sentencing phase, to convince the jurors to hand down an appropriate sentence. If they do not make their case convincingly, the jurors may decide not to hand out sufficient sentence.

The collapse shouldve got slower as the building collapsed

Granted, it's been a while since I was in secondary school, but I definitely seem to recall that gravity is a downward acceleration, not a constant. (or worse, a deceleration).

The building should start to fall at about 9.8m/s ('g'). Not including the fact that every story that collapsed should slow down the general process (as the falling rubble would literally be somewhat cushioned by the story below it, obviously not to great extends), and we take each story to be, lets say 10m high,that would ask for 122s for the building to collapse, according to the laws of gravity. It happened over 10 times quicker

This is one of the most egregious examples of fundamental mathematics failures I've ever seen. It gives me hope that the American education system might not be one of the worst in the Western world after all... Not to mention, ten meters a floor would make the towers well over a kilometer high. And two minutes to fall a kilometer? The speed limit is twice that fast.

Allow me to take the strain from your weak mathematical mind, and do a little calculation, that says that for an item to fall under gravity from 415 meters (The very top floor) would take exactly 9.2 seconds. (Not counting any resistance).

Numbers aside, however, I'm curious to know how you think anything can come down quicker than gravity, unless there are really big ropes, elastics or strings pulling downwards.

At any rate, please pay attention to this thirty second video (I'm nice, I don't link to 30-minute ones), which happends to have a close-up of the impact site when the first tower collapsed. You will note that there is a noticeable 'lean' to the camera's left before the collapse, and the actual collapse itself starts from the left. Note also how the top part of the building falls into the bottom half, there is no indication (As would be the case with a basement explosion) that the bottom of the building started moving before the top impacted into it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7531394871094916669&q=911+news+footage&pl=true

If a massive AA 757 plane crashed head on into the Pentagon why is there not an equally massive hole as there was in the twin towers?

There was a lot of glass and non-load-bearing steel on the outside of WTC. The Pentagon is made of slightly more solid stuff. Stone and concrete, mainly.

Re: Oklahoma. Yes, the sentencing phase took about two weeks, with the prosecution calling 38 witnesses, plus other evidence.

What was bush's response? Invade Iraq...Iraq?

I strongly seem to recall that the response was invading Afghanistan, a move which was no objected to by pretty much anyone except the Taliban.

all these cars would be blown far far far away by a plane going that speed that close to them.

Why would they fly level over a motorway? Why not just do a shallow dive into the building? It is a hell of a lot easier.

Actually, it has been connected with ONE plane. One that would fit the 10 seater, missile like description so many people gave.

Didn't I go over why it couldn't have been a Global Hawk in some detail in the last thread?

I suppose you think it is plausable to take over a whole plane with either tiny knifes, spoons, stanley blades or fists and have no resistance

Yes. For decades, standing advice from the authorities to people as a whole has been 'shut up, sit down, co-operate, and let the authorities handle things.'

fly with no air traffic assistance (which very skilled pilots find extreamly hard to do)

You're kidding, right? Hop over to Pprune (The British Professional Pilots Website) and try to tell them that they can't navigate without ATC.

So Glad

That is an excellent video of the tower buckling and proove a solid fact but I still believe it was due to pre-place explosive charges and here is why (Hi-Res video):

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-demolition-4.avi

You can see the camera shake 12 seconds before the collapse. If there were sound on this video you would hear an explosion but I cannot find a video of it at the moment although it is on one of the really long videos. That is why I believe the tower buckled because of an explosion.

Yook

So Glad wrote:

That is an excellent video of the tower buckling and proove a solid fact but I still believe it was due to pre-place explosive charges and here is why (Hi-Res video):

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-demolition-4.avi

You can see the camera shake 12 seconds before the collapse. If there were sound on this video you would hear an explosion but I cannot find a video of it at the moment although it is on one of the really long videos. That is why I believe the tower buckled because of an explosion.

Not to mention that a piece of the tower falls off when the camera shakes.

tunaman

Manic Moran wrote:

It doesn't matter if he was complicit in killing one person or three thousand. He is entitled to the exact same treatment from the courts, which also means that the Prosecution has to play by the exact same rules. One of which is, in the sentencing phase, to convince the jurors to hand down an appropriate sentence. If they do not make their case convincingly, the jurors may decide not to hand out sufficient sentence.

I disagree. This case is all about reinforcing the official conspiracy story in people's minds just in case they were having any doubts and the emotional propaganda being used is extremely pathetic and devious.

How many people will even remember the incriminating testimony of the FBI agent Harry Samit?

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,91591,00.html

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia - An FBI agent testified Monday his superiors repeatedly ignored his warnings before 9/11 that Zacarias Moussaoui might be a terrorist intent on hijacking an airliner.

Agent Harry Samit, questioned by defense attorney Edward MacMahon in Moussaoui's death penalty trial, said he referred to Moussaoui in the context of terrorism some 70 times in communications with superiors after arresting him Aug. 16, 2001, but failed to get the FBI to conduct an all-out investigation.

Moussaoui pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al-Qaida to hijack aircraft and commit other crimes. The sentencing trial will determine his punishment: death or life in prison.

MacMahon walked Samit through a lengthy report that he filed to his bosses and other FBI investigative units on Aug. 18, 2001. The memo listed all the reasons Samit was suspicious of Moussaoui as a terrorist who might be trying to hijack airplanes.

Every time MacMahon read an example of Samit's suspicions, the agent acknowledged that FBI headquarters never called him back to discuss his concerns.

"You needed people in Washington to help you out," MacMahon suggested at one point.

"Yes," Samit said.

"They didn't do that, did they?"

Samit said no.

He confirmed under questioning that he had attributed FBI inaction to "obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism" in an earlier report.

So if Moussaoui is facing the death penalty for having foreknowledge then everybody who had the same information and failed to act should also be tried to the same standard.

At any rate, please pay attention to this thirty second video (I'm nice, I don't link to 30-minute ones), which happends to have a close-up of the impact site when the first tower collapsed. You will note that there is a noticeable 'lean' to the camera's left before the collapse, and the actual collapse itself starts from the left. Note also how the top part of the building falls into the bottom half, there is no indication (As would be the case with a basement explosion) that the bottom of the building started moving before the top impacted into it.

So how do you explain the following picture?

http://www.nuclearboot.com/Tower1.jpg

What happened to the top part of the tower next was a complete contradiction of Newton's laws of motion. The top portion of building broke off, so it should continue all the way down. It should fall somewhat freely and hit the ground fairly intact, but it would not be part of the "pancaking" of the rest of the floors.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html

So how did the top floors breaking off contribute to what we all saw, which was the symetrical collapse of the rest of the building?

metrovelvet

tunaman and so glad -

what the hell are you guys smoking? Can I have some?

Manic Moran

[Deleted. Dreaded Double post.]

Manic Moran

tunaman wrote:

I disagree. This case is all about reinforcing the official conspiracy story in people's minds just in case they were having any doubts and the emotional propaganda being used is extremely pathetic and devious.

Are you implying that in this particular case then, the normal rules of legal process should not be applied?

So how do you explain the following picture?

http://www.nuclearboot.com/Tower1.jpg

What happened to the top part of the tower next was a complete contradiction of Newton's laws of motion. The top portion of building broke off, so it should continue all the way down. It should fall somewhat freely and hit the ground fairly intact, but it would not be part of the "pancaking" of the rest of the floors.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton.html

So how did the top floors breaking off contribute to what we all saw, which was the symetrical collapse of the rest of the building?

As you have doubtless gathered by my various bouts of mathematics in these threads so far, I am quite familiar with Newton's laws, though thank you for the link. Back in my day, that was secondary school stuff; I am disturbed that education in Ireland has devolved to such an extent that I am either correcting atrocious attempts at basic physics (see earlier post) or that people think it is required to post a link to Newton's laws when brought up so that people know what they are. (I of course am making an assumption that all posters here are Irish-educated)

Now, as to the picture, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. However, analysing the collapse using the aforementioned basic Newtonian principles...

One of Newton's basic principles (nay, even the first law) is the concept that "An object at rest will remain at rest until a force acts upon it" In the instance of the tower, we have three sources of force. Gravity, the ground/structure, and the wind. Of these, the wind is as near to negligible as can be discounted: Due to inertia, the the mass of the building isn't going to be greatly affected by the wind. You're probably talking only a couple inches over the course of the descent. With the wind in effect discounted, this leaves us only with gravity pulling down, and the structure pushing up. You will note that these two forces are vectored purely in a vertical plane, there is no horizontal component. As a result, when the structure failed to provide equal upward force to the gravity pulling downwards and we have a net negative (downward) vector, the top of the building had no direction to go other than straight down: Into the floors beneath. There is absolutely no physical way it could have done anything else.

I suggest you read and apply your own link.

NTM

MrSinn

I dont care if i sound insensitive but that was almost 5 years ago and i think people should move on,over 100,000 people have died in Iraq and its still going on lets talk about that,America is not the world.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Tellox

I've seen stills from a camera pointed at the wall. Of course you'll just say that's faked, which is why it's impossible to win with you people.

Would these be the ones the government released, the 5 stills which actually dont show any plane? If not, please provide them.

That's rubbish, complete and utter rubbish. I can't believe you actually believe that. I drive under planes every single day and nothing happens, I've been on my bike (push bike) and you don't feel a thing, I've stood outside and you don't even feel a breeze. Where did you get this information? Here's Cork Airport - http://maps.google.com/?ll=51.84466,-8.487067&spn=0.018506,0.045404&t=k - loads of roads all around it and in a shock people aren't being killed every day.

Here's a challenge for you Tellox, go through the popular mechanics artile I linked to and debunk it. I bet you can't. Of course you'll claim that the pages after pages of experts at the end were all paid off.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=Loose+Change+2nd+Edition&pl=true
Watch that, it gets into the pentagon around 40mins iirc, and clearly shows what actually happens when a plane gets too close to a car.

To be quite honest, you shouldnt need to be shown what happens. The laws of conservation of motion should tell you that something shooting at say, 600mph straight past you should blow you back with a proportional force. But anyway, go and take a look if your skeptical. And I'll thank you to not insult my personal opinions and beliefs.

EDIT; There's also the fact that Donald Rumsfield also mentions that the pentagon was hit by a missile in a slip of the tongue interview with parade magazine.

So Glad

metrovelvet wrote:

tunaman and so glad -

what the hell are you guys smoking? Can I have some?

I don't do drugs...Anymore.

So Glad

MrSinn wrote:

I dont care if i sound insensitive but that was almost 5 years ago and i think people should move on,over 100,000 people have died in Iraq and its still going on lets talk about that,America is not the world.

How dare you say such a thing. You are a fool. Really. I don't care how abusive that sounds.

If it was "a long time ago", why can't we forget about jesus, ww2 or ANYTHING regarding human history? You sicken me.

So Glad

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Also. Planes that are landing decelarate as much as they can before landing. That is pretty obvious. A massive 757 roaring full speed after preforming a near nose dive would no doubt send you flying if is was so close above your head. Think about it.

Squaddy

So Glad wrote:

How dare you say such a thing. You are a fool. Really. I don't care how abusive that sounds.

If it was "a long time ago", why can't we forget about jesus, ww2 or ANYTHING regarding human history? You sicken me.

Oh so we should just forget about the incident people that where killed in Iraq war and wars before 911 by the Americans?? Are you saying that we should just remember the pep killed in the towers??

So Glad

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I am really interested in seeing these pictures. Since the only pictures that were released were only stills (5 of them) and NONE of them showed a boeing 757 so this would be vital in proving us wrong. Please post soon. Also, the frames that were released were dated september 12th. Correct me if I am wrong. But did the Pentagon not get attacked on the 11th? The government has given no explanation for this.

In the meantime. Here are the 5 frame that were kindly distributed...

Most pictures do not include the dates but this site has them (Sroll down):

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

So Glad

Squaddy wrote:

Oh so we should just forget about the incident people that where killed in Iraq war and wars before 911 by the Americans?? Are you saying that we should just remember the pep killed in the towers??

No, not at all...

I was talking about the world as a whole.

Squaddy

So Glad wrote:

No, not at all...

I was talking about the world as a whole.

Oh ok sorry ... il take that back then

So Glad

Squaddy wrote:

Oh so we should just forget about the incident people that where killed in Iraq war and wars before 911 by the Americans?? Are you saying that we should just remember the pep killed in the towers??

I was refering to his/her opinion as being selfish and arrogant. Why should we only care about things that happen now? Sure wont they be irrelavent in time also? Pain does not exsist in a moment only, it lasts forever, and to ignore that is terrible. All moments should be remembered equally.

Squaddy

So Glad wrote:

I was refering to his/her opinion as being selfish and arrogant. Why should we only care about things that happen now? Sure wont they be irrelavent in time also? Pain does not exsist in a moment only, it lasts forever, and to ignore that is terrible. All moments should be remembered equally.

Exactly, we are being brainwashed by all this propaganda... News feeds talk about the victims of 911 and they dont talk about the victims of the Iraq etc... Bush and Americans are racist, all of them, Bush hates Muslims and Blacks, bush was raised up in a town where they slaughtered and murdered Blacks..

So Glad

Squaddy wrote:

Exactly, we are being brainwashed by all this propaganda... News feeds talk about the victims of 911 and they dont talk about the victims of the Iraq etc... Bush and Americans are racist, all of them, Bush hates Muslims and Blacks, bush was raised up in a town where they slaughtered and murdered Blacks..

News stations, with respect to different countries, definetly have agendas. No doubt about that. Nobody really has a news station that criticises their own governments because they are most likely finacially supported by them. It is a shame because no news stations dare talk about these theories and edge away from them. The tagging "conspiracy theory" also put people on edge. It gives alot of people an image of UFO hunting, fat, single tin-foil hat wearing people who are dieing to believe something. I also despise this image and wish never to end up that way but the evidence I have read regarding this event has convinced me and countless other people to think otherwise. Nobody should ever be afraid to change their preconcieved notions about society and governments because they ARE scum, and they ARE sly.

The American government is the only government to have EVER used an atomic bomb on humans. That is disgusting and inhumane. So don't anyone ever say "forget about it, it was a long time ago". You wouldn't forget about it if you had your own family vaporised to dust and your town flattened. If you had your skin peeling off your back from radiation and your mouth black from black rain and soot. Don't forget what that government has done to people. I'm not trying to be negative. These things have happened and should not be forgotten or be given a stupid bronze memorial as a satifying apology. Rant over.

Squaddy

So Glad wrote:

News stations, with respect to different countries, definetly have agendas. No doubt about that. Nobody really has a news station that criticises their own governments because they are most likely finacially supported by them. It is a shame because no news stations dare talk about these theories and edge away from them. The tagging "conspiracy theory" also but people on edge. Give alot of people and image of UFO hunting, fat, single tin-foil hat wearing people who are dieing to believe something. I also despise this image and wish never to end up that way but the evidence I have read regarding this event has convinced me and countless other people to think other wise. Nobody should ever be afraid to change their preconcieved notions about society and governments because they are scum, and they are sly.

The American government is the only government to have EVER used an atomic bomb on humans. That is disgusting and inhumane. So don't anyone ever say "forget about it, it was a long time ago". You wouldn't forget about it if you had your own family vaporised to dust and your town flattened. If you had your skin peeling off your back from radiation and your mouth black from black rain and soot. Don't forget what that government has done to people. I'm not trying to be negative. These things have happened and should not be forgotten or be given a stupid bronze memorial as a satifying apology. Rant over.

I know I would pick up a gun if my family was killed or vaporised by Americans, thats why i respect Iraq people, some of them respect Bush for taking out Sadam but they are getting tired of occupation and I wouldnt blame them. It would of only taking 4 special forces troops to take out Sadam succesfully.. That country going to be another "N. Ireland" because of the Americans. Even if Sadam wasnt taken out of the country they would of been better off then than now, now there is war, civil war, growing poverty, when Sadam was there (right so what he had gassed people or whatever so what!) he had peace between the religions, no war, iraqis loved him. We where fed to believe that Iraqis hated Sadam because a parade of them where shown on the news but what about the other 67.999999 million that wanted Sadam!?!?

Well from what I can see Sadam is winning his trial because everytime a witness comes to the stand sadams defense just stands up and says "was Sadam there" or "is this illegal" and the witnesses go silent!

So Glad

Squaddy wrote:

I know I would pick up a gun if my family was killed or vaporised by Americans, thats why i respect Iraq people, some of them respect Bush for taking out Sadam but they are getting tired of occupation and I wouldnt blame them. It would of only taking 4 special forces troops to take out Sadam succesfully.. That country going to be another "N. Ireland" because of the Americans. Even if Sadam wasnt taken out of the country they would of been better off then than now, now there is war, civil war, growing poverty, when Sadam was there (right so what he had gassed people or whatever so what!) he had peace between the religions, no war, iraqis loved him. We where fed to believe that Iraqis hated Sadam because a parade of them where shown on the news but what about the other 67.999999 million that wanted Sadam!?!?

Well from what I can see Sadam is winning his trial because everytime a witness comes to the stand sadams defense just stands up and says "was Sadam there" or "is this illegal" and the witnesses go silent!

Yeah. Saddam is talking the piss big time. He is completely right.