Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it. Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?
I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.
I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:
“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”
Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable. Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know? If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?
I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?
I don't think it was so much a matter of "gone to lunch" as it was the more obvious "out to lunch".
Since no one took me up on my question about where the f'n secretary of defense was during the attacks, I'll mention it now.... He was out on the lawn of the pentagon running around helping injured people instead of doing the most important job on the planet at that moment. Rummy admitted that he wasn't briefed until all of the events of that day had ended. The entire world knew more than him for the duration of the attacks. Almost like he didn't want to know, right? out to lunch indeed!
Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it. Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?
I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.
I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:
“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”
Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable. Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know? If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?
I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?
I don't think it was so much a matter of "gone to lunch" as it was the more obvious "out to lunch".
Since no one took me up on my question about where the f'n secretary of defense was during the attacks, I'll mention it now.... He was out on the lawn of the pentagon running around helping injured people instead of doing the most important job on the planet at that moment. He admitted that he wasn't briefed until all of the events of that day had ended. Almost like he didn't want to know, right? out to lunch indeed!
Really? You're going to fault a guy for trying to save lives? I think the reason it was not addressed is because that certainly isn't relevant. If you think it is, I can't argue that.
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but I'm not taking offense to your disagreement. do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.
Why do people keep inferring that I think 'the government was behind it'? I have never once said that....IF there was people in the know, or complicit, it was a handful of people on the inside, and a bunch more in the private sector who didn't know they were a part of it. Yes, there would be easier ways, but none that would sell the public on a 1.5 decade long (so far) campaign of aggression. To use a similar story - how long did people stay upset about the incubator baby fabrication prior to the Gulf War?
I don't think anyone was questioning your credibility drowned. You still ha e questions that you feel are unanswered, fine. I feel like many of the questions you're asking has been answered logically and you don't believe them. That's fine too.
I wonder if we'll ever really know the truth about all this. After 14 years, I'm not convinced we know all the facts. One of the thing that gives me some doubts about the conspiracy theories- was this statement from Gore Vidal:
“I’m not a conspiracy theorist—I’m a conspiracy analyst,” explained Vidal in 2007. “Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while all these terrible things were happening to the nation. Yeah. I believe that of them.”
Funny to read this part of the quote....going back to the doc I posted, the entire chain of command that day was either new in their post, a temp, or unavailable. Where was the secretary of defense during the attacks? the documentary covers this...does anyone else here know? If the 'gone to lunch' approach is more plausible to some here....do you think this implies foreknowledge, or is it just coincidence and incompetence?
I've said it before and will again....the 'bush admin were a bunch of idiots' is a terrible way out of this. If you think Al Qaeda could orchestrate this attack, but the US MIC or intelligence apparatus or whomever couldn't, then I don't even know what to say. The most powerful nation on earth run by people who are totally inept at what they do best - acts of war.....ok?
I don't think it was so much a matter of "gone to lunch" as it was the more obvious "out to lunch".
Since no one took me up on my question about where the f'n secretary of defense was during the attacks, I'll mention it now.... He was out on the lawn of the pentagon running around helping injured people instead of doing the most important job on the planet at that moment. He admitted that he wasn't briefed until all of the events of that day had ended. Almost like he didn't want to know, right? out to lunch indeed!
Really? You're going to fault a guy for trying to save lives? I think the reason it was not addressed is because that certainly isn't relevant. If you think it is, I can't argue that.
Right.....ol' lifesaver Rumsfeld. What was more important at that moment? Helping a few injured people or doing his job to ensure there wasn't another plane about to kill hundreds or thousands more? The photos I'm thinking of show him helping carry a stretcher with like six other people, with dozens of responders all around him. He wasn't needed there, he was needed as the defense secretary.
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.
he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.
he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.
yes, and the fact that he/you keep saying it's the reason for 9/11.....if the theories are correct, it's only one of many. Here are a few of the motives, and benefactors, off the top of my head: - Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers. - SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud. - Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse - gain control of global heroin trade - secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan - win public support for war in afghanistan - win public support for war in iraq - steal gold from WTC vaults - insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines - justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?) Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael.... Your anger is justified man, no worries.
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.
he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.
yes, and the fact that he/you keep saying it's the reason for 9/11.....if the theories are correct, it's only one of many. Here are a few of the motives, and benefactors, off the top of my head: - Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers. - SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud. - Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse - gain control of global heroin trade - secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan - win public support for war in afghanistan - win public support for war in iraq - steal gold from WTC vaults - insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines - justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?) Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael.... Your anger is justified man, no worries.
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.
he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.
yes, and the fact that he/you keep saying it's the reason for 9/11.....if the theories are correct, it's only one of many. Here are a few of the motives, and benefactors, off the top of my head: - Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers. - SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud. - Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse - gain control of global heroin trade - secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan - win public support for war in afghanistan - win public support for war in iraq - steal gold from WTC vaults - insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines - justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?) Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael.... Your anger is justified man, no worries.
my anger? what anger?
I'm just here reading, learning......
I was talking to both of you - addressing Last 12 with that comment. Glad you're observing and not jumping down my throat haha....good to see you back on the train, you're missed here.
whatever happened with this: Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse
did they ever find the trillions? speculations on how this was related to 9/11?
whatever happened with this: Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse
did they ever find the trillions? speculations on how this was related to 9/11?
I haven't followed up on that, so I'm not sure. Convenient timing is the only relation I can come up with. It could suggest foreknowledge....it was Rummy's announcement.
Aren't there photos and video of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?? I haven't read everything here, but I thought I remembered seeing footage that made it pretty clear there was a plane crash there.... But I guess I'm wrong, since if that were true this conversation wouldn't be taking place, I assume.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Aren't there photos and video of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?? I haven't read everything here, but I thought I remembered seeing footage that made it pretty clear there was a plane crash there.... But I guess I'm wrong, since if that were true this conversation wouldn't be taking place, I assume.
There are a few pics of fuselage that were small enough to be carried by hand. The photo you're likely thinking of looked like a plant, or that it was moved, simply because of the location of the piece - hundreds of feet away from any other wreckage. Looked like a photo op. If it was a drone or something else made to look like the plane, it could have been painted with UA colours. There are also photos of one engine component that theorists believe didn't match the engine in a 757. Rolls Royce and another manufacturer confirmed this. Popular mechanics claim it was a different part altogether. There wasn't anything else left of the plane. The wings folded up and went into the hole in the building apparently, as did the tale, which didnt' damage the outside of the building....same deal with the stabilizers. The whole plane disintegrated into the building. WHich doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the wall was reinforced to be blast proof....you'd think the wings or tail would have at least in some capacity sheared off and dropped outside the building, no? As mentioned....check out the analysis starting around 1:55:00 in the vid I posted. It's only a few minutes.
(the fbi - think it was the fbi - confiscated all cameras; security, handheld, and otherwise, from people and buildings around the site and they've never been released. save for the guard station video, which has it's own issues with allegedly missing/doctored frames).
Drowned, why are you taking offense to me disagreeing with you? I haven't been condescending towards you or what you believe. I've presented my points without sarcasm. Even though with most truthers, I've had a hard time discussing this because most of the people I talk about 911 with are mainly ignorant to the facts. I do not think nor have I said that you are. You've clearly researched the evidence and concluded that there is a cover up somewhere. I simply disagree with that assessment.
Sorry man....but do you not get frustrated when you have to repeat yourself? I said the same thing three times and you keep coming back with the same response that doesn't address my reply. I'll try to keep the condescension out of my posts.
I'm not repeating myself. I haven't asked you the same question. If I have, I'm sorry.
he means about asking you to address the pipeline issue.
yes, and the fact that he/you keep saying it's the reason for 9/11.....if the theories are correct, it's only one of many. Here are a few of the motives, and benefactors, off the top of my head: - Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers. - SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud. - Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse - gain control of global heroin trade - secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan - win public support for war in afghanistan - win public support for war in iraq - steal gold from WTC vaults - insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines - justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?) Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael.... Your anger is justified man, no worries.
my anger? what anger?
I'm just here reading, learning......
I was talking to both of you - addressing Last 12 with that comment. Glad you're observing and not jumping down my throat haha....good to see you back on the train, you're missed here.
there's no way I could even if I wanted to, LOL, I have no idea what most of what you are saying is about. I'm out of my league in this thread, that much is clear.
Aren't there photos and video of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?? I haven't read everything here, but I thought I remembered seeing footage that made it pretty clear there was a plane crash there.... But I guess I'm wrong, since if that were true this conversation wouldn't be taking place, I assume.
There are a few pics of fuselage that were small enough to be carried by hand. The photo you're likely thinking of looked like a plant, or that it was moved, simply because of the location of the piece - hundreds of feet away from any other wreckage. Looked like a photo op. If it was a drone or something else made to look like the plane, it could have been painted with UA colours. There are also photos of one engine component that theorists believe didn't match the engine in a 757. Rolls Royce and another manufacturer confirmed this. Popular mechanics claim it was a different part altogether. There wasn't anything else left of the plane. The wings folded up and went into the hole in the building apparently, as did the tale, which didnt' damage the outside of the building....same deal with the stabilizers. The whole plane disintegrated into the building. WHich doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering the wall was reinforced to be blast proof....you'd think the wings or tail would have at least in some capacity sheared off and dropped outside the building, no? As mentioned....check out the analysis starting around 1:55:00 in the vid I posted. It's only a few minutes.
(the fbi - think it was the fbi - confiscated all cameras; security, handheld, and otherwise, from people and buildings around the site and they've never been released. save for the guard station video, which has it's own issues with allegedly missing/doctored frames).
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
I do remember seeing some footage of what hit the pentagon, and it honestly, from the grainy security footage I saw, it looked like a missle. but that was so many years ago, and I have no idea how legit the footage was.
Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it. The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy. There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit
Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it. The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy. There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit
looks like whoever doctored that video did a shitty job.... typical of the government. almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
It's an interesting topic, that's for sure. I dunno what really happened, but the theories are intriguing. They are also confusing. It is very difficult to believe that the US government would have done that, and it's not like I trust it. If it wasn't a plane, then where did whatever it was come from?? If it wasn't a plane, I can't believe that the government would have fired a missile at it, or flown in a drone, or whatever people think. Too many holes in that conspiracy theory IMHO. Maybe it wasn't a plane - I don't know. But if it wasn't, I would be more likely to believe that the US covered up something that wasn't their doing at all, perhaps in the interests of public perception or something. Will we ever know? Probably not our lifetimes. I personally don't believe that the US had anything to do with the WTC either. I think they were just incompetent. They could have stopped it if they'd given it any thought, but didn't get that far because they were being arrogant fools. Just a guess.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it. The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy. There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit
looks like whoever doctored that video did a shitty job.... typical of the government. almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.
ya....the one in which he supposedly admitted involvement, after denying any repeatedly. The fbi never did charge him with 9/11....because they had no evidence. His 'wanted poster' mentioned only the embassy bombings.
Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it. The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy. There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit
looks like whoever doctored that video did a shitty job.... typical of the government. almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.
ya....the one in which he supposedly admitted involvement, after denying any repeatedly. The fbi never did charge him with 9/11....because they had no evidence. His 'wanted poster' mentioned only the embassy bombings.
That is the one.. I remember watching that and thinking... man, is this the best they could do? not even believable. I remember how quick that video disappeared after people started questioning it.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it. The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy. There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit
I'm going to watch this on Vudu or Netflix.Im not hangin on the IPad for 2+ hrs.Looks entertaining.
I watched the first 50 minutes of the video you posted drowned. There are 3 things that stick out to me. 1) the video spends about 10-15 minutes about the planes being tracked. I don't know why this is relevant. I haven't read or heard that the planes were ever lost. I've always been of the understanding that air traffic controllers knew where the planes were, just that they didn't know the altitudes. So I don't know why they are focusing on this. 2) they spend a lot of time asking why people were in the chain of command were gone on September 11. Have you ever worked for a large corporation or company? People take vacation or days off. The fact that people weren't available doesn't surprise me. All but one had people filling in. It isn't a big stretch. And the training excersices going on Sept 11 is a coincidence. It's great for conspiracy theorists to say that training was set up to divert military responses, but once again, it's not hard to believe that it was simply a coincidence. And 3) why is the video putting so much stock in the testimony of minetta? It really sounds like this guy just didn't have his shit straight before he went to testify. His recollection of times and what was said were just wrong. My guess is that is the reason his testimony wasn't in the final report.
All of this together makes fir a great conspiracy, but in the long run amounts to nothing more than a sstretch of coincidences that occur every day in life that happened on the worst possible day. I'll finish watching the video when I have more time.
If it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers on that flight? At least one called a family member to say they'd been hijacked.
1:37:40 to about 1:55:00 in the vid. They don’t offer much of an explanation of what happened to the passengers, they kinda let the viewer decide that for themselves. They do mention CIA plans (Operation Northwoods) to ‘swap out’ passenger planes with drones in order to frame a hijacking. (this wasn’t mentioned in the doc I posted, but….) There were reports on 9/11 from a Cinci tv station that flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, claiming this was verified by United. Those reports were removed from the station’s website right around the time of the commission report. The link to that page said that it was an erroneous AP report, but web archive shots of the report didn’t credit AP with the story. The documentary goes into detail about all of the phone calls, showing how all the initial reports said that the calls were made from cell phones. It wasn’t until people started questioning the fact that in 2001 cell phones could not be used at altitude while moving 500+mph, that people started saying the calls came from air phones. The commission report only maintains that two cell calls were made, and they were the ones that could not have been made from air phones. The doc covers why this was impossible. If you want to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, go to 1:53:55….a flight attendant calling her loved one to say goodbye and whispering into the phone at the end of the call ‘It’s a frame’. Combined with timeline discrepancies and what the people receiving the calls universally described as perfect connections, as if they weren’t in the air, I guess the speculation would be that the planes had landed and been taken to a secure location (airport hangar? Believable in the chaos of all planes being grounded that day) where the passengers made the calls under duress before they were murdered or disappeared or whatever
damnit, wish I'd seen this link in the movie earlier....there is a full index for the movie. Wouldve saved me a lot of time in this thread:
INTRODUCTION
0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11 0.14:10 - The debate: main issues
PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE
0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors? 0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" (radars, transponders) 0.22:00 - The military drills 0.29:40 - Specific warnings 0.33:08 - The chain of command 0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments 0.39:50 - The Mineta case 0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken" 0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary
PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS
0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots" 0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175) 1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93) 1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77) 1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions 1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack 1.13:10 - Someone knew? 1.16:40 - Airport security cameras 1.20.15 - The missing black boxes
PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES
1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones? 1.28:20 - Impossible speeds 1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers? 1.38:35 - The cellphone calls 1.48:30 - The debunkers' position 1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?
PART 4 - THE PENTAGON
0.02:35 - Downed light poles 0.03:30 - The missing plane 0.04:30 - The official version 0.05:24 - Problems with the official version (wing, ailerons, tail, engines) 0.13:09 - The mystery hole 0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations 0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis 0.17:00 - The missing tapes 0.18:30 - Security video analysis 0.23.40 - Pentagon summary
PART 5 - FLIGHT 93
0.24.15 - The empty hole 0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations 0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion? 0.34:50 - The debris field
0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis 0.38:50 - The small white plane 0.41:40 - "Let's roll" 0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93
PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS
0.45:10 - Introduction 0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret 0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein 0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers 0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings? 1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1 1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2 1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation 1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation 1.18:50 - Law of physics violated 1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall 1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E
(Twin Towers continued)
0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions 0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives" 0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses) 0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory 0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras" 0.30:26 - Squibs 0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage) 0.35:00 - Ejecta 0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts 0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses? 0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures 0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations 0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams 0.47:40 - Molten steel 0.51:05 - Molten concrete
0.53:50 - Pulverization 0.57:40 - Victims vaporized 1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers
PART 7 - BUILDING 7
1.05:10 - Introduction 1.06:35 - Official version by NIST 1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation 1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation 1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker" 1.14:25 - Preknowledge 1.19:00 - Symmetry 1.20:00 - Freefall
Comments
He was out on the lawn of the pentagon running around helping injured people instead of doing the most important job on the planet at that moment. Rummy admitted that he wasn't briefed until all of the events of that day had ended. The entire world knew more than him for the duration of the attacks. Almost like he didn't want to know, right? out to lunch indeed!
The photos I'm thinking of show him helping carry a stretcher with like six other people, with dozens of responders all around him. He wasn't needed there, he was needed as the defense secretary.
www.headstonesband.com
- Sivlerstein's insurance claims - billions for the towers.
- SEC destruction in WTC 7 - destroyed files for many many investigations into stock fraud.
- Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse
- gain control of global heroin trade
- secure pipeline routes thru afghanistan
- win public support for war in afghanistan
- win public support for war in iraq
- steal gold from WTC vaults
- insider trading resulting in huge payouts on airlines
- justification of sureveillance measures etc (did you know the patriot act was written well before 9/11?)
Then there are the benefits to our 'allies' in ISrael....
Your anger is justified man, no worries.
I'm just here reading, learning......
www.headstonesband.com
Obfuscate public outcries over trillions lost by the pentagon - announced the day before 9/11 and virtually dropped in public discourse
did they ever find the trillions? speculations on how this was related to 9/11?
(the fbi - think it was the fbi - confiscated all cameras; security, handheld, and otherwise, from people and buildings around the site and they've never been released. save for the guard station video, which has it's own issues with allegedly missing/doctored frames).
www.headstonesband.com
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
www.headstonesband.com
Reposting the vid on this page since I keep referencing it.
The analysis of the security gate vid starts around 2:14:00. This shit is crazy.
There are two vids, one from the guard station, and one from the concrete pillar next to the station. When synchronized, the videos are exactly the same - except for one frame...the one the plane enters the picture. The vid from the guard station shows the plane enter the cameras view, but other than the tail, it is obstructed by the concrete pillar containing the second camera. Since both cameras are synced and pointing in the same direction, that should mean that the plane is in full view in the vid from concrete pillar, right? Nope. It shows only the nose of the plane, and in the next frame the plane is in the building. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but it's only four minutes of the video. Someone please humour me and watch this shit
typical of the government.
almost as bad as that fake Osama bin Laden video.
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
It's an interesting topic, that's for sure. I dunno what really happened, but the theories are intriguing. They are also confusing. It is very difficult to believe that the US government would have done that, and it's not like I trust it. If it wasn't a plane, then where did whatever it was come from?? If it wasn't a plane, I can't believe that the government would have fired a missile at it, or flown in a drone, or whatever people think. Too many holes in that conspiracy theory IMHO. Maybe it wasn't a plane - I don't know. But if it wasn't, I would be more likely to believe that the US covered up something that wasn't their doing at all, perhaps in the interests of public perception or something.
I personally don't believe that the US had anything to do with the WTC either. I think they were just incompetent. They could have stopped it if they'd given it any thought, but didn't get that far because they were being arrogant fools. Just a guess.
not even believable. I remember how quick that video disappeared after people started questioning it.
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11
www.headstonesband.com
All of this together makes fir a great conspiracy, but in the long run amounts to nothing more than a sstretch of coincidences that occur every day in life that happened on the worst possible day. I'll finish watching the video when I have more time.
(this wasn’t mentioned in the doc I posted, but….) There were reports on 9/11 from a Cinci tv station that flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, claiming this was verified by United. Those reports were removed from the station’s website right around the time of the commission report. The link to that page said that it was an erroneous AP report, but web archive shots of the report didn’t credit AP with the story.
The documentary goes into detail about all of the phone calls, showing how all the initial reports said that the calls were made from cell phones. It wasn’t until people started questioning the fact that in 2001 cell phones could not be used at altitude while moving 500+mph, that people started saying the calls came from air phones. The commission report only maintains that two cell calls were made, and they were the ones that could not have been made from air phones. The doc covers why this was impossible. If you want to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, go to 1:53:55….a flight attendant calling her loved one to say goodbye and whispering into the phone at the end of the call ‘It’s a frame’. Combined with timeline discrepancies and what the people receiving the calls universally described as perfect connections, as if they weren’t in the air, I guess the speculation would be that the planes had landed and been taken to a secure location (airport hangar? Believable in the chaos of all planes being grounded that day) where the passengers made the calls under duress before they were murdered or disappeared or whatever
INTRODUCTION
0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl
Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues
PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE
0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory"
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary
PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS
0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes
PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES
1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?
PART 4 - THE PENTAGON
0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version
(wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary
PART 5 - FLIGHT 93
0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field
0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93
PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS
0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E
(Twin Towers continued)
0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete
0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers
PART 7 - BUILDING 7
1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 - Preknowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Freefall
EPILOGUE
1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word