-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Baloo said:
I clearly remember seeing footage of the second plane impact, a reporter was reporting on the first, people were scared but confused, thinking it might just as likely be a planecrash, then the second one hits and total pandemonium breaks out. People went from thinking its a plane crash to thinking they are under attack. It was chilling.
Challenger was a hoax too:
http://illuminati-theater.blogspot.com.au/2007/06/shuttle-challenger-in-1986-versus.html?m=1
As was Katrina!
http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/Katrina1.htm
Stolen generation too: http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=1123
What's next? Bali bombings was perpetrated by the Australian government?
http://illuminati-theater.blogspot.com.au/2007/06/shuttle-challenger-in-1986-versus.html?m=1
As was Katrina!
http://www.hoaxofthecentury.com/Katrina1.htm
Stolen generation too: http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=1123
What's next? Bali bombings was perpetrated by the Australian government?
KnightersRevenge said:
OK, my bad. I suppose I should have Googled that fact as the last time I'd really discussed this was before 06 when it was revealed this FDR had been recovered. It still seems ludicrous to me that none of the other FDR's have been found. How often in aviation history have investigators failed to find the FDR after a crash? I've seen them dredge them up off the bottom of oceans after they stopped transmitting their location. Are we supposed to believe the one at the Pentagon was incinerated? If not, where is it?
Interesting that on both 911myths and debunking911 pages concerning this flight, neither seem to address the evidence that debris was found up to 8 miles from the crash site. Is there any official explanation for this or speculation on other debunking sites as to how it could have happened?
More interesting conjecture on the possible shooting down from the same site:
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_shoot_down.html
If the flight was shot down, why lie about it?
tigertim said:
Jenning's testimony says he heard and saw evidence of explosions and an evacuation before either tower had collapsed.
This site (yes it's a TM site, sorry about that) makes a very strong case as to why the official NIST report about Jennings and Hess is implausible. Worth a read if you're interested. Especially compelling is Hess' appearance on TV when NIST claim he was still trapped inside WTC7.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080918031403456
Baloo said:
ID proponents have a vested interest in believing their theory and of their faith impairing the ability to accept contrary theories, TM'ers don't. I'll ask again, do you see the validity of that point?
ID has no credible experts supporting its theory, 9/11 TM has thousands (unless you guys have found some).
ID has no solid evidence which fits its hypothesis. 9/11 TM theory has plenty.
ID insists their theory, including the existence of a supernatural being, is true. 9/11 TM theory only insists that some facts need further investigation.
ID insists their theory is true. 9/11 TM theory only insists that the situation requires further investigation. It makes no claims at all about the definitive truth of the matter.
ID theory relies on the existence of God. 9/11 TM theory does not.
It's a poor analogy whichever way you look at it. If you were to restrict the analogy to those 9/11 conspiracists who insist they know exactly what happened then I'd agree but this does not include the vast majority of people who don't accept the official 9/11 narrative.
My responses to your posts are an honest representation of my opinion. If they're so predictable you'd think perhaps you might be able to answer a few more of my questions rather than cherry picking one throw away line and harping on about it.
Destroying evidence is as good a pointer to a cover up as you can get. It may not prove anything but it should raise a few red flags.
KnightersRevenge said:
The fact you're incredulous to the point that you can't accept expert opinion and reasoned argument as anything more than "breathless hysteria-mongering" says it all.
Can you show me a photo of flight 175 in flight that clearly shows its windows and livery? What about one of flight 93 approaching the Pentagon? Compare this still frame image we have from 1996 video footage taken on a primitive home VHS camera to the images available from 9/11. Does that make sense to you?
So if his wad an act by the US government (and clearly an elaborate one!) why would they use a fighter plane? If they are going to say it was a passenger plane surely they would have mocked one up or used a real one?
Couldn't be bothered? Just hope no-one notices?
And I still don't understand the theory as to why they would ave blown up tower 7 but then said there was no loss of life there (when theorists say Jennings stepped over bodies...he didn't see). Why be proud in saying x amount dies in the twin towers but lie about tower 7? What am I missing?
Couldn't be bothered? Just hope no-one notices?
And I still don't understand the theory as to why they would ave blown up tower 7 but then said there was no loss of life there (when theorists say Jennings stepped over bodies...he didn't see). Why be proud in saying x amount dies in the twin towers but lie about tower 7? What am I missing?
Stanley Prainmanath, 81stfloor "I saw the plane coming towards me fast and faster and I could see the big U on it" he says of the 2nd plane.
Coincidentally there's a 911 doco on foxtel. I guess Stanley is a stooge too.
Ted Olson solicitor general speaks of his wife calling him from flight 77. She died. Along with 58 other passengers. But how can this be? Because this plane didn't exist according to the theorists. A belief based on simply a lack of footage.
How do theorists explain the deaths of these people? They never existed? Honestly, it's simply offensive to the victims and their families.
Coincidentally there's a 911 doco on foxtel. I guess Stanley is a stooge too.
Ted Olson solicitor general speaks of his wife calling him from flight 77. She died. Along with 58 other passengers. But how can this be? Because this plane didn't exist according to the theorists. A belief based on simply a lack of footage.
How do theorists explain the deaths of these people? They never existed? Honestly, it's simply offensive to the victims and their families.
Yeah, I've been reading a fair bit more on UAL175 and I've changed my mind. There's enough evidence to accept it is in fact that plane or one closely resembling it.
Stanley's testimony is interesting though. He says there was very small fires only on his floor, as does Brain Clark who survived on the 84th floor. This supports photographic evidence that much of the jet fuel was expelled outside the building. Eyewitness testimony saying jetfuel was ankle deep at ground level also corroborates this testimony. NYFD transcripts do too.
Stanley's testimony is interesting though. He says there was very small fires only on his floor, as does Brain Clark who survived on the 84th floor. This supports photographic evidence that much of the jet fuel was expelled outside the building. Eyewitness testimony saying jetfuel was ankle deep at ground level also corroborates this testimony. NYFD transcripts do too.
Disco08 said:
"A county worker was routinely cutting weeds two doors down from the Keene home, when out of no where the blade on his weed eater came loose. The momentum of the blade carried it over the first two houses and through the exterior wall of the Keene home. The blade then went through two more interior walls before it ended up at the foot of the baby’s crib." Ref: http://www.growingyourbaby.com/2010/10/09/out-of-control-lawn-mower-blade-lands-inches-from-baby/
While not strictly relevant if a simple lawnmower blade can travel a few hundred metres and maintain sufficient momentum to cut through the walls of house why shouldn't it be possible that aircraft wreckage would fly orders of magnitude further?
Disco08 said:
The expert opinion is that there is no conspiracy. Can you quote one trusted periodical or investigative journalist of note? So far it is only crackpot conpiracist websites versus published official reports and live accounts. The argument isn't reasoned it is predicated on a foundation of immense cover up and conspiracy theories. There may be a set of data that can be organised into a cogent conspiracy theory but it isn't the best fit by any stretch.
Disco08 said:
Yes it is your bad. But it's about your 3rd bad and that was just from some quick googling while watching the tennis at 1.00am. There are quite reasonable if unfortunate explanations for most of the phenomena. Where you see cover-up I also see cover-up. I just interpret it as the most incompetent American president in living memory proving that he is indeed incompetent and then covering his tracks, or more likely having his tracks covered by those who were really running the show lest they get dragged down too. You seem to want me to accept that he was in fact a mastermind. So were the first 56 years of bumbling and addiction a clever ruse also?
So shoot me for trying to argue my opinion from what I know of the events rather than cutting and pasting someone else's. If correcting the odd mistake is so disagreeable to you perhaps internet discussion forums aren't the best way to spend your time.
I don't want you to accept he's anything like a mastermind. If he was, there's be nothing left to suggest a cover up at all, as opposed to the mountain of coincidences and oddities that we see.
Scholars for 9/11 truth. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Pilots for 9/11 truth. Firefighters for 9/11 truth. All crackpots?
While we're talking crackpots, are you really going to tell me debris from a plane that created a huge crater because of its steep angle of impact travelled 8 miles?
I don't want you to accept he's anything like a mastermind. If he was, there's be nothing left to suggest a cover up at all, as opposed to the mountain of coincidences and oddities that we see.
Scholars for 9/11 truth. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Pilots for 9/11 truth. Firefighters for 9/11 truth. All crackpots?
While we're talking crackpots, are you really going to tell me debris from a plane that created a huge crater because of its steep angle of impact travelled 8 miles?
Disco08 said:
If being corrected is so disagreeable perhaps check your information before posting on internet forums. Noam Chomsky for conspiracy baloney. Actual investigators who saw the debris and wrote the reports for conspiracy baloney. Engineers for conspiracy baloney.
On the debris I am only positing that isn't outside them realms of possibility. Given the dubious nature of much you have posted I suppose I check the sources.
tigertim said:
Human remains, clothing, seats, engine parts, plastic, paper, etc. Typical airline crash debris.
http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp
KnightersRevenge said:
It is clearly outside the realm of possibility.
I've posted a lot on this thread. Care to list a few examples of what constitutes "the dubious nature of much you have posted"? Or are you just being deliberately antagonistic?
I also asked you a simple question. Are all the scholars, architects, engineers, pilots and firefighters who have put there names and reputations behind the call for 9/11 truth crackpots IYO? That's what you sad right?
tigertim said:
Flight 93 fragmented violently upon impact. Most of the aircraft wreckage was found near the impact crater.[79] Investigators found some very light debris including paper and nylon scattered up to eight miles (13 km) from the impact point in New Baltimore, Pennsylvania.[80] Other tiny aircraft fragments were found 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away at Indian Lake, Pennsylvania.[81] All human remains were found within a 70-acre (28 ha) area surrounding the impact point.[81]
From Wikipedia.
