9-11 in Plane Site

MrBrian

Saturnal wrote:

so what if the government "allowed it to happen"? Would it really change your view of it? It wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. I already know the government is shitty, and I don't need one more atrocious story to convince me. Nothing that's been brought up in this discussion changes what we have to do now to ensure we won't be attacked again.

So what? we know the government is shitty, we know how the system works, most americans don't, unless they should be kept in the dark?

If america allowed this to happen so they could expand it's empire, this is not a good thing and justice needs to be done.

So it does matter.

If israel knew and allowed it to happen (mossad aganest caught on 9/11) something should be done.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

MrBrian wrote:

So what? we know the government is shitty, we know how the system works, most americans don't, unless they should be kept in the dark?

If america allowed this to happen so they could expand it's empire, this is not a good thing and justice needs to be done.

So it does matter.

If israel knew and allowed it to happen (mossad aganest caught on 9/11) something should be done.

Ok, I guess in the sense of justice, you're right there. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence, that I can say is even close to being credible, that they knew enough to stop it. I really think the evidence that points to incompetence with air traffic control is just overwhelming.

That being the case, I think it's a waste of time looking at flashes of light and pods until we see something that's credible. It's always good to question, but the more critical question is why were we attacked, and what can we do to prevent it in the future?

MrBrian

Saturnal wrote:

Ok, I guess in the sense of justice, you're right there. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence, that I can say is even close to being credible, that they knew enough to stop it. I really think the evidence is just overwhelming and points to incompetence with air traffic control.

That being the case, I think it's a waste of time looking at flashes of light and pods until we see something that's credible. It's always good to question, but the more critical question is why were we attacked, and what can we do to prevent it in the future?

I know right, I don't really concern myself with bombs and such in the towers and things like that, not that I don't believe it could've been the case, it's just that I know of other issues going on right now that know one can argue, like the israeli occupation of palestine, settlements, america in iraq, these are right now going on, live. we see these problems and that's what I like to focus on.

even flow?

Now I may be a bit off kilter, but...............Wouldn't some real damage to the way America lives been done by blowing up about five major pieces of a few different oil pipelines in the world. I mean easier to hit by far then the plan to land a plane in some buildings and would have done far more harm to the economy. Probably have been easier to get to aswell. But that is for another day.

GoldenWords

Saturnal wrote:

Ok, I guess in the sense of justice, you're right there. I'm just saying I haven't seen any evidence, that I can say is even close to being credible, that they knew enough to stop it. .

That being the case, I think it's a waste of time looking at flashes of light and pods until we see something that's credible. It's always good to question, but the more critical question is why were we attacked, and what can we do to prevent it in the future?

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/10_15_w1.htm
Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir offered Sunday to surrender bin Laden for trial in an unspecified third country if Washington stopped the bombing and provided the Taliban with evidence of the Saudi dissident's guilt. Bush said no.

``We know he's guilty. Turn him over,'' the president said in Washington.

Bush rejected a similar offer aired by a lower-ranking Taliban official before he began the military strikes, now in its ninth day.

*********************************************************


We????

America -- the land where a man is inocent until proven guilty -- refuses to offer a man a fair and impartal open and public trial based on solid evidence?

That is what scares me.

I haven't seen the evidence to convict one man - or any group for the attacks. I think it would have been fair to hand him over to a neutral country and get a fair trial. Then I would have been convinced of the evidence presented.

I don't think a man should be tried in the newspapers.

Then again -- that almost happened to me once.

You all know that George Bush Jr. was the District Attorney for the city of Abilene in 1980.

He almost got me convicted in the newspapers --- KNOWING that I was totally inocent. Lucky for me - there was a couple of homicide detectives who had a conscious and wouldn't go through with the scheme. Then again - he was only a DA in a small city. What the hell would he have done to me if he or his Dad would have been President back in 1980?

You know what he told me afterwards?

"People believe what they want to believe. I just try and help them see things my way."

I don't think 21 years has changed his thinking much.

Where is the evidence either way?

Sincerley,
DKing

lalalalaaaaaaaa

GoldenWords wrote:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/10_15_w1.htm
Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir offered Sunday to surrender bin Laden for trial in an unspecified third country if Washington stopped the bombing and provided the Taliban with evidence of the Saudi dissident's guilt. Bush said no.

``We know he's guilty. Turn him over,'' the president said in Washington.

Bush rejected a similar offer aired by a lower-ranking Taliban official before he began the military strikes, now in its ninth day.

*********************************************************


We????

America -- the land where a man is inocent until proven guilty -- refuses to offer a man a fair and impartal open and public trial based on solid evidence?

That is what scares me.

I haven't seen the evidence to convict one man - or any group for the attacks. I think it would have been fair to hand him over to a neutral country and get a fair trial. Then I would have been convinced of the evidence presented.

I don't think a man should be tried in the newspapers.

Then again -- that almost happened to me once.

You all know that George Bush Jr. was the District Attorney for the city of Abilene in 1980.

He almost got me convicted in the newspapers --- KNOWING that I was totally inocent. Lucky for me - there was a couple of homicide detectives who had a conscious and wouldn't go through with the scheme. Then again - he was only a DA in a small city. What the hell would he have done to me if he or his Dad would have been President back in 1980?

You know what he told me afterwards?

"People believe what they want to believe. I just try and help them see things my way."

I don't think 21 years has changed his thinking much.

Where is the evidence either way?

Sincerley,
DKing

Yes, Bush turned down the offers from the Taliban. And there's a very simple explanation for that, and it's not because there was no evidence against Bin Laden to provide. It's because there IS plenty of evidence against people from his group (Atta and company being seen at the airports and getting on those flights, and all kinds of stuff), and there was a good chance that the Taliban would've turned Bin Laden over to us. In fact, there's a good chance they would've turned him over regardless of the evidence. However, Bush did not want Bin Laden turned over, and he doesn't want him now. Bin Laden is no good to the U.S. if he's not at large. The Bush administration didn't want to take a chance that the Taliban would turn him over, because then we would have no reason to invade Afghanistan and Iraq later on.

If you really don't see any evidence against al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, read the 9/11 Commision's report. I'm not going to go through all the evidence in a web forum, but it's been extremely well-documented. Bin Laden's group has attacked before 9/11, on 9/11, and they'll do it again unless we change our policies in the Middle East.

kenny olav

http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

"In Plane Site" and "Loose Change"

films pretending to expose 9/11 that promote a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) using phony evidence (pods, dust clouds, flashes, no planes, no windows and other hoaxes)

parts of these film are true, but that also discredits by association

related pages:
Loose Change: a second edition of In Plane Site
Hoaxes Hidden In Plain Sight
A list of films with best evidence of 9/11 complicity is at http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html

"there's a lot of 9/11 speculation that’s out there that is based on video footage - in some cases altered photographs - we have no way of knowing what the chain of custody was of that evidence to prove that it has not been tampered with"
- Michael Ruppert, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, “The Party’s Over”

In Plane Site, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a compilation of most of the red herrings surrounding the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes hoaxes, misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly fraudulent.

The video clips that can be proven to be authentic are plagiarized from other films, such as the WTC 7 collapse, the firefighter sequence, and the footage from Oklahoma City.

In Plane Site only promotes the "Letsroll911" website (the loudest promoter of the "pod" claim), which means that "In Plane Site" is probably a "Webfairy" production (the video operation still churning out "new" video footage of 9/11 years after the fact).

The most revealing aspect of this fake film is that the cover graphic shows the same photo of a Boeing 757 that was posted to the "911truthalliance" list in May 2004 pointing out that the "pod" was merely an illusion. In other words, the manufacturers of "Plane Site" put a photo showing the "pod" is a fake claim on the cover of the DVD -- a bad joke "hidden in plain sight."

kenny olav

It seems like everyone comes into the 9/11 truth movement either thru In Plane Site/Loose Change or by http://www.Infowars.com. for myself it was discovering Alex Jones in Nov of 2001. a few years later I found http://www.oilempire.us, david ray griffin and michael ruppert - all of whom i find very sensible, and i agree with their point that 9/11 truth is being discredited by either phony theorists or nutcases whose stupid views are being exploited to make all 9/11 truth people look bad.

to sum up.... fuck In plane site. fuck loose change. fuck http://www.prisonplanet.com. fuck all the stupid shit. and most of all, fuck the entire bush administration.



"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event." -- Howard Zinn

GoldenWords

Kenny Olav wrote:

It seems like everyone comes into the 9/11 truth movement either thru In Plane Site/Loose Change or by http://www.Infowars.com. for myself it was discovering Alex Jones in Nov of 2001. a few years later I found http://www.oilempire.us, david ray griffin and michael ruppert - all of whom i find very sensible, and i agree with their point that 9/11 truth is being discredited by either phony theorists or nutcases whose stupid views are being exploited to make all 9/11 truth people look bad.

Hey,
Actually, -- it was through Wikipedia pointing toward a news release by the US Goverment that got me to question the verifable proof of Osama Bin Laden's guilt or innocense. US urged to detail origin of tape.

So -- in actuality -- it wasn't the nuts or crackpot conspirarcy theorist that got me interested in the subject. It was our own US OFFICIAL release of a confession tape -- that I started questioning a conspiracy theory.

Sincerely,
DKing

GoldenWords

Kenny Olav wrote:

related pages:
Loose Change: a second edition of In Plane Site
Hoaxes Hidden In Plain Sight
A list of films with best evidence of 9/11 complicity is at http://www.oilempire.us/movies.html

Hey Kenny,
Apreciate this the link with the movies. I will check them out as I have time. I just finished watching 9/11 Eyewitness and liked it best of the ones I have watched. I agree -- some of them go over board in their presentation and there seems to be some misinformation destorted out of proportion. I liked 9/11 Eyewitness because it records the sounds of the explosions.

I do recall watching all the news coverage on 9/11/01 and everyone was talking about all the explosions. A year later on the anniversary when the French Film of NYFD was presented as a tribute to the fallen Firefighters -- I do recall you could hear the various explosions going off in the building, as well as the many firefighters commenting about all the explosions.

Too many unanswered questions for me.

I don't think we are going to get an honest look at the evidence -- until the war in Iraq is solved -- or maybe when a Democrat takes the House.

Thanks again for the link.

Sincerley,
DKing

Collin

Kenny Olav wrote:

It seems like everyone comes into the 9/11 truth movement either thru In Plane Site/Loose Change or by http://www.Infowars.com. for myself it was discovering Alex Jones in Nov of 2001. a few years later I found http://www.oilempire.us, david ray griffin and michael ruppert - all of whom i find very sensible, and i agree with their point that 9/11 truth is being discredited by either phony theorists or nutcases whose stupid views are being exploited to make all 9/11 truth people look bad.

to sum up.... fuck In plane site. fuck loose change. fuck http://www.prisonplanet.com. fuck all the stupid shit. and most of all, fuck the entire bush administration.



"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event." -- Howard Zinn

I've read a few fragments of David Ray Griffin's new book, it certainly raises a few questions...

Definitely worth reading imo, even the people who think the official version is true.

WindNoSail

Whatever....there are other threads dealing with the crackpots on 911 so I won't go back over it all.

The entire video, which I saw on TV one night while trying to sell me something like a membership to their club really goes off the deep end. This guy is an idiot.

The flash? Who cares. Probably glass breaking, or electrical equipment in the cockpit exloding, or some other thing caused by impact. I don't care because it is just too unrealistic to go there with all the other actual facts out there. Exactly what additional damage did that little flash cause anyway that would be so devastating? Wasn't what happened bad enough?

This guy also believes there was no plane at the Pentagon. If there was no WTC video to prove otherwise, he would think the same there too. No passengers killed I guess either huh.

He probably believes the Penn plane also was shot down because the passengers took over the plane and the govt couldn't let that happen.

WMA

There is a newer video here:

9/11 Press For Truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083

It is all about the events, news coverage, 911 commission etc.

El_Kabong

WindNoSail wrote:

This guy also believes there was no plane at the Pentagon. If there was no WTC video to prove otherwise, he would think the same there too. No passengers killed I guess either huh.

there are a few videos of the pentagon being hit, they just refuse to release them...yet they let us watch the towers get hit repeatedly...but let's see what rummy has to say:

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

WindNoSail wrote:

He probably believes the Penn plane also was shot down because the passengers took over the plane and the govt couldn't let that happen.

didn't rummy say it was shot down?

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041223-secdef1921.html

Danan

El_Kabong wrote:

...but let's see what rummy has to say:

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html



didn't rummy say it was shot down?
quote]


Well That post sure as hell shut all of you up!

spiral out

monkey spanker wrote:

i saw a poll the other day...11% of the american population believe the gov't MAY have something to do with the twin towers coming down. any idea which side of the aisle that 11% is from?? also 11% also believe elvis is still alive...probably the same people.

Quite a lot of people in the cabinet in the houses of parliament don't believe the offical version, do they all believe elvis is alive too?

bug

spiral out wrote:

Quite a lot of people in the cabinet in the houses of parliament don't believe the offical version, do they all believe elvis is alive too?

Do you really think that the goverment didn't had anything to do with it? Do you really believe the official version? How is that possible?

BinFrog

Collin wrote:

Mike Snyder, spokesman of NORAD told The Boston Globe that when planes get hijacked, it is taken seriously and they send fighter planes to guide the hijacked planes back. When the hijackers disobey, the fighters should take it down with a rocket (if nothing else seems to work)
The question is why didn’t this happen with flight 11? Not even an attempt, which is a routine action, that happens more than a hundred times a year.
Even though no one knew it was going to hit the tower, at least an attempt should have been made.
But what about flight UA175, which left Boston at 8.14 am, right about when FAA started to realize flight 11 was hijacked (at 8.21 the stewards confirmed that the plane was hijacked)? At 8.42 all radio contact was lost and the plane left its course (same as what happen with flight 11). NORAD was supposedly informed around 8.43 am. Flight 11 hit the tower at 8.46.
Nothing happened, 9.03 am flight 175 was going in direction of the WTC.

But even more strange is how 35 minutes later a hijacked plane was able to hit the pentagon...

No precedence for such action in the US. That's all I'm saying. You don't just up and scramble fighter jets to blow up civilian airliners you think/know are hijacked. If anything, NORAD probably thought they were just going to make demands for prisoners to be freed and they'd land in Syria or something. Not in a million years did they think they'd use the planes as self-propelled bombs.

Gimme a break.

THC

I actually watched this dvd just a few days ago.

Crazy shit. What's interesting is all the post 9/11 interviews and witness statements on film that were quickly swept under the rug. Like the Fox reporter saying he saw the second plane...and it was not a commercial flight. And the Firefighters who were saying bombs were going off...like a demolition of a building.

And of course there is the Pentagon and all the photo's w/o a trace of a plane in sight...and a building that collapsed 10 min. after the 'crash'.

Bush saying..."I watched on TV as the first plane hit the towers". Umm...you were in a school room...reading to kids...and there was never EVER any footage of the first plane hitting the towers on tv.