Not even a mention of 9/11 !

rgambs

lolobugg said:

Drowned Out said:

PJ_Soul said:

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).

Yeah. that was no plane that hit the pentagon.

Yeah, that is the piece of the puzzle that really sticks in my craw...it just doesn't add up very well.

Who Princess said:

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.

It's scary to think of what the answer could be, IF in fact it wasn't that flight that hit the Pentagon.

JUST A GIRL

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

If we had these types of discussions about other things I mentioned, you may start to believe some of that too. The world isn't out to protect you, everyone's out for them selves ultimately. Remember this before thinking someone wouldn't hurt you or your family for their own gain. It happens every day.

Still it is nice to see some learning. A lot of truth to the 9-11 inside job claim and that's why it's debated so feverishly. Once you feel it's clearly a planned event (how could it not be? Do some googling of the flying circus from Florida to see how the cia trained some of these guys. Or even how some of the alleged terrorists are still alive and well today despite being claimed to have died on 9-11. They are standing there with a newspaper from 2005. I kid you not about these things) it's hard not to debate it with emotion, wanting the other side to see what you see.

Again, no plane hit building seven. Yet it fell exactly like 1-2. And again, no other steel building has ever fallen due to fire only, like seven with no air plane hitting it, in history. There are some buildings literally burned to their metal frame and still stand.

Carry on. It's refreshing.

JUST A GIRL

Another interesting story is people claiming to have received cell phone calls from people on the planes (it's in the official report) and some family members said their own son would call and say "this is George smith" - now why would they say their first and last name? Have you ever called you mom and said "this is George smith?" Of course not your mom knows who you are. So why did this happen?

Have you ever tried to make a phone call today while flying? It doesn't work at all. So how were people using cell phones in 2001 and leaving messages saying "hello mom, this is George smith"?

This never added up to me. Any thoughts?

Gern Blansten

JUST A GIRL said:

Another interesting story is people claiming to have received cell phone calls from people on the planes (it's in the official report) and some family members said their own son would call and say "this is George smith" - now why would they say their first and last name? Have you ever called you mom and said "this is George smith?" Of course not your mom knows who you are. So why did this happen?

Have you ever tried to make a phone call today while flying? It doesn't work at all. So how were people using cell phones in 2001 and leaving messages saying "hello mom, this is George smith"?

This never added up to me. Any thoughts?

Source please....a link to a reputable news organization would be great.

callen

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

The world isn't out to protect you, everyone's out for them selves ultimately. Remember this before thinking someone wouldn't hurt you or your family for their own gain. It happens every day.

it's hard not to debate it with emotion, wanting the other side to see what you see. g.

Christianity. Yep agree.

rr165892

JUST A GIRL said:

Another interesting story is people claiming to have received cell phone calls from people on the planes (it's in the official report) and some family members said their own son would call and say "this is George smith" - now why would they say their first and last name? Have you ever called you mom and said "this is George smith?" Of course not your mom knows who you are. So why did this happen?

Have you ever tried to make a phone call today while flying? It doesn't work at all. So how were people using cell phones in 2001 and leaving messages saying "hello mom, this is George smith"?

This never added up to me. Any thoughts?

In the early 2000s many planes had credit card swipe phones on seatbacks.They were all the rage.

mcgruff10

rr165892 said:

JUST A GIRL said:

Another interesting story is people claiming to have received cell phone calls from people on the planes (it's in the official report) and some family members said their own son would call and say "this is George smith" - now why would they say their first and last name? Have you ever called you mom and said "this is George smith?" Of course not your mom knows who you are. So why did this happen?

Have you ever tried to make a phone call today while flying? It doesn't work at all. So how were people using cell phones in 2001 and leaving messages saying "hello mom, this is George smith"?

This never added up to me. Any thoughts?

In the early 2000s many planes had credit card swipe phones on seatbacks.They were all the rage.

yeah that's exactly what I was thinking of.

JUST A GIRL

callen said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

The world isn't out to protect you, everyone's out for them selves ultimately. Remember this before thinking someone wouldn't hurt you or your family for their own gain. It happens every day.

it's hard not to debate it with emotion, wanting the other side to see what you see. g.

Christianity. Yep agree.

Wtf does that have to do with what I wrote? Please stop bashing my religion for no reason. Just because I am of Christian faith doesn't mean the world isn't full of people looking to screw your over. I thought we were on the same side here.

And yes I knew of plane phones but these were specifically cell phones.

http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/07/shockingly-calm-phone-calls-from-planes.html?m=1

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8754395/911-Voices-from-the-doomed-planes.html

http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-4/

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls

I always found this rather odd. And what happened to the people on that flight it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon?

callen

Reread your post about not trusting anyone and people are out for their own gain. ..... Thought yeah like religion. If your secure about your belief system my comment shouldn't bother you.

HughFreakingDillon

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

Drowned Out

HughFreakingDillon said:

and as far as motive for doctoring the recording.....who knows. people who are anti-government do all kinds of crazy things to try to bring light to truths; a means to an end. I just think there can be motive on both sides of the discussion, political or otherwise.

Sure, I don't disagree with that. Except to wonder who would do that as they would have had to do so before the recording was distributed to anyone...which would mean it was someone at the phone company or within the government/fbi or whatever...which would indicate that there was still some kind of conspiracy going on. And thats the thing...I don't believe that every supposition in this film is accurate or has to be, but if even just a few of them are, that means the investigation didn't do it's job and there are unanswered questions.

JUST A GIRL

HughFreakingDillon said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

Did I not? My comments sparked a very long thread with many people discovering things for the first time.

I don't even know why I try. I guess because I know Jesus would want me. Why do you have to pick on what I say, but no one else? My Theory's aren't made up from thin Air. Just because they aren't on your local 5pm news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As a result of this thread, I was happy to see I got though to a few. But then I'm shot down instantly. Ever thought you just may be wrong about a few things? I know I've had to accept that a few times. My faith has left me where I can do that and not feel bad about it

Drowned Out

rr165892 said:

In the early 2000s many planes had credit card swipe phones on seatbacks.They were all the rage.

Except the stories changed – the initial reports were all saying cell phones….and the commission report still maintains that two people who made calls from cells while the planes travelling at high altitudes, at 500mph…which from my understanding, is impossible. Also, the movie points out that one call’s line stayed open long after the crash, which wouldn’t be possible given the power supply and every square inch of all four planes was obliterated upon impact.

Last-12-Exit said:

I have not heard any credible evidence that supports this claim. With all of the confusion, it's not hard to think that something was an exploding especially after the second plane hit and when the south tower fell.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that there were explosions in the buildings after the planes hit them. When the plane hit the north tower, fire shot down the elevator shafts and exploded on 3 different floors. Who knows what was on fire and what was burning.

I was mistaken that it was firefighters….it was maintenance workers and other WTC employees. There are over 20 of them who claim to have seen, felt, or heard explosions in the basement of the tower prior to it being struck. Some were injured.
The official response to this did indeed point to jet fuel in the elevator shafts, which would make some degree of sense if they were talking a few floors below the impact, but the claims were that the explosions were in the basement. The film does a good job explaining why that is impossible. There are only two service elevators that went from top to bottom in the towers – they were on the opposite side of the building from the impact. The majority of the jet fuel burned up in the intial explosion, and the NIST report claims that the rest burned within minutes of impact. If you do some deductive math (which the film does, I don’t recall the numbers), there was only (I believe) about 25 cubic yards of jet fuel to spill across the building and down 70-80 stories of elevator shaft. The film compares this to pouring an inflatable backyard pool down an 80 story shaft….how much fuel would be left at the bottom? Virtually none, and not enough to cause the explosions….which were witnessed BEFORE the crash. Even if we believe the debunkers who find flimsy excuses to dismiss these witnesses (yes, like the way I flimsily dismissed pentagon witnesses ), it doesn’t explain the lobby explosion that was widely corroborated by firefighters. That was a massive explosion that couldn’t’ have been caused by jet fuel from 80 stories up.

Drowned Out

PJ_Soul said:

The thing my mind keeps landing on, especially here, where there is a suggestion of surviving passengers, is the thing that others have brought up... How could that many people be kept quiet? I don't think it's possible. And then it gets really weird when thinking about it being a "frame", because as far as I know, those passengers are still missing. So what? The US government hid the plane and executed the people? That is just getting way too far-fetched for me.

Again, calling it ‘the US government’ is way too broad.
The same thing I mentioned earlier about people keeping quiet applies. If people that had anything to do with the plan, even inadvertently and without their knowledge, they could be indicted for their actions, so they’d have incentive to keep quiet. Not to mention – it’s likely people wouldn’t even believe them – they’d be called looney truthers and die for it anyway. If they only knew of one suspicious or pernicious act, they would likely think it not worth the risk to their lives and family’s lives to come forward, when it only proves the one small act. If they knew the whole plan, they were obviously in on it and were doing it for whatever reason, so they are not going to speak up. And anyone else could be either killed, disappeared, or threatened into silence. Not to mention that with all the deaths that day, people playing small roles could have been victims themselves. Say there was a spook involved with setting up explosives without knowing all the details…how hard would it be for them to be told it would go down in October…then told to board a certain flight on Sept 11 for some other reason. The movie mentions that Larry Silverstein had a breakfast meeting scheduled for the morning of Sept 11 at the top of the North tower, but didn’t show because of a dr appt his wife made for him. My first thought was ‘ I wonder who he was meeting and if they still showed up’, because everyone in that restaurant died. See what I’m getting at? As far as it being far-fetched that the planes were hidden and the people executed….yes it seems far-fetched…but so does so much of the official story, and much of the conspiracy theories. Not sure why killing people one way vs another would be less believable, except because of the added difficulties invovled. I can think of (really fucking morbid) ways that the murders could have been pulled off with relative ease and without witnesses….getting rid of the bodies would be another challenge altogether, tho. I don’t know what to believe about where this rabbit hole leads, but it’s just one aspect of the story. A lot of the theories could still work without going down the ‘planes were switched’ road. Even if the issues with the hijacker’s identities, the lack of airport security footage, the piloting skills etc all come together and turned out to be true, and the planes did crash into the buildings with all of the innocents aboard, it still leaves enough questions to fill about four hours of video. Trying to shoehorn every anomaly into one over-arching theory is as bad as trying to wrap your head around the official story. Not every supposition in the movie or theory on the internet needs to be true for there to still be a cover up of other aspects of the attacks. Still, I think it’s tough to believe that a plane crashed into the pentagon, so where is it? The Shanksville crash either wasn’t an airplane, or is being covered up in another way (shot down?). If it wasn’t a plane, where is it?

Drowned Out

I watched part 5 and most of part 6 of the movie last night – Shanksville and the Twin Towers, and was blown away by a few facts I hadn’t heard before.

The NIST used their own data to prove that fires were burning hot enough to weaken the steel and cause the collapse – they claim their model showed temps over 1000C / 1800F. Their own report claims that the jet fuel burned up within moments of the crash, so the only fuel for the fire would be office supplies. The temperature required for steel to weaken is 1100F / 600C. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have requested the data used to determine where, when, and for how long the fires burned at this temperature and above, but they were denied – NIST has never provided this data to the public. Their report does say that they have no hard evidence to prove temps above 250C / 480F: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C / 480F…..Only two core columns specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis and the temperatures did not reach 250C / 480F….No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure”…..so….zero proof supporting their own theory, except for a model they made themselves, which they won’t allow independent analysis of…so much for the scientific method. There were also thermographs done from street level prior to the collapse, and none showed temps above 212C.

I didn’t realize that the NIST report didn’t’ address the building’s collapse beyond the initial failure! What…the…fuck!? All they said was that once the top floors collapsed, total failure was inevitable. Really? Again, A&E9/11Truth has requested the data used to explain ‘the potential energy released during the downwards movement of the upper stories and the absortive capacity of the intact structure below the collapsed zone’. The film does a good job of using basic fundamental physics to destroy the pancake theory that explains the catastrophic failure of the remaining, undamaged 80 or so floors. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Does it not make sense that the top stories would have destroyed an equal number of stories below, before the energy and downward momentum dissipated? Even if, in response, you mention something about ‘kinetic energy’ and heat caused by friction or whatever, how can the building actually continue to accelerate to near free fall speeds, suggesting virtually zero resistance? Even if it was kinetic energy that set some kind of chain reaction in motion, wouldn’t there still be at least SOME resistance that would slow the fall? Or did these collapses re-write the most basic laws of physics?

Last-12-Exit

To weaken steel under load you do not need 1800 degrees. It can take 1000 for any length of time. You only need 1 failure for the rest of the structure to fail. How do you expect the floors below the impact zones to with stand the force of the floors falling on them?

HughFreakingDillon

JUST A GIRL said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

Did I not? My comments sparked a very long thread with many people discovering things for the first time.

I don't even know why I try. I guess because I know Jesus would want me. Why do you have to pick on what I say, but no one else? My Theory's aren't made up from thin Air. Just because they aren't on your local 5pm news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As a result of this thread, I was happy to see I got though to a few. But then I'm shot down instantly. Ever thought you just may be wrong about a few things? I know I've had to accept that a few times. My faith has left me where I can do that and not feel bad about it

it's just quite odd to post "I've opened people's eyes" just because you started a thread. these threads have been around as long as this message board has been. it's a discussion, not a contest. And I'm not "picking on" you. I have questioned everyone else in this thread.

I've stated in this very thread I'm out of my league in this discussion. I've never heard most of what Drowned is talking about. He is talking in hypotheticals and theories, not in facts. His points make me want to research it.

you said long ago you were done with this discussion because no one took you at your word with zero to back it up.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

Yeah, wtf.

JUST A GIRL

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

Yeah, wtf.

^^^^^

AND THIS IS NOT TROLLING??

PJ_Soul

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I'm glad to see I opened a few eyes here.

Yeah, wtf.

^^^^^

AND THIS IS NOT TROLLING??

No, it's not. It's a reaction to something you said.