Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: Kaldarasha on 2014-11-14 12:35:34
-
Actually I didn't want start this discussion, but Dan has written this:
This isn't a political thread, but the reason people believe 2 planes brought the towers down is because they did. Not only is it totally plausible, but all available facts support it. It's actually completely crazy to think otherwise. A fully loaded jet airliner traveling at that speed, impacting a tower designed in that way (with a VERY weak glass-aluminimum shell, for starters), combined with the office combustibles, WILL destroy a tower in the manner it DID. It isn't up for debate or discussion. That's what history will record forever, and it's what the vast number of scientists and structural engineers conclude.
So in order to his rightful request to open a new thread instead to bloating unnecessary the reunion threat with it here we go.
Regarding the structural engineers:
When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
http://www.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
This doesn't mean that the towers are understandable, but it says that the structure was well enough to compensate this accident. So this means that a critical hit could have bring down parts of the towers but not the whole two (three) buildings, which, against any probability, collapsed accidentally same way as a professional demolished building. No matter who says the truth either the politicians lay or all the demolition experts do and their job and all their talks about static is fake, because any building will be collapse this way. I mean 3 of 3 buildings have collapsed this way, how big is the possibility that this happens for only one building? Buildings, which are also designed to be airplane proof? They did also take the fuel in account, which is the base of the official explanation.
How could they have found the passports of the hijacker if the fire was so hot that it has melt steel? This alone is ridicules and this isn't in any way 'totally plausible'. If crazy means that I don't believe their poor explanations all there laughable experiments to negate the hard facts, which are shown as theory, well then I guess I'm super crazy.
Real life propaganda depends on being able to hide the truth. That's the other reason why 9/11 is not a conspiracy. It would be impossible to hide the truth.
Hitler has done it before very well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire). The shockmoment is only important to force people to let them do even an unwanted reaction. And if the truth about a thing finally comes out, then call it conspiracy theory and place some more conspiracy theory by yourself and no normal citizen on these world is able to tell you what is a lie and what not. This is a simple propaganda mechanism. The advanced propaganda of this lies in the detail, because the word 'conspiracy' is negative and let people automatically think about stupid looking people which has no idea what they talking about.
How good this works shows the new age word anti-Semitism. Nobody knows what Semites are nor do they knew about the history of the Jews (me too), but if a person is called an anti-Semite, after he talked the truth about something unpleasant regarding the Jews, he will be social brand marked as a person who tortures helpless little Jews and the unpleasant thing what he has discovered will go under in the media.
Also you only need to pay a lot of money to a presumably repeated person (doctor, engineer, etc) and they say what ever you want and the people will believe it, because he has to know about it and it is official. After all, why should he and the official investigation committee lie? But if a other actually repeated person say that this can't be happened that way (often with more detailed explanation) and it's not an official person, people usually mistrust him and say this is only conspiracy theory. But what is his motivation to tell you an untrue story?
So it isn't needed to hide the truth, you only need to create many versions of it and destroy the reputation of the people who do not agree with the official statement.
I have read in a book from 1996 (from Jan van Helsing*) that there are plans to nuke one of three major cities (New York, LA, I'm honestly not sure about the cities) in America to motivate the people for an military intervention in the Iraq. Well gladly the nuke was left out, but still the Iraq had paid the price.
*There are a few books out from him. I had read two from him, but the third I could put my hands on is different the way of writing and let him look like an complete idiot on peyote. So my guess is that some other have abused his pseudonymous or he really has taken these mushrooms. ;)
Anyway, it is hard to tell what is true or not, these days. Look at the different news about the Ukraine in west and east. Both tell the truth, but from different positions. We do see Russia as aggressor and Russia see the NATO as aggressor which has hurt standing agreement several times.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/19/359239/nato-broke-standing-agreement-with-russia/
When I see an important event I often look at what the results can be: A weak East and Middle Europe and a heavy armed Mideast doesn't look so healthy, especially not if in the same book, I had read, locates the World War III in Europe between the irreligious west and the religious Mideast. (I really hope that guy has taken to much drugs and nothing like this will happen ... :-\)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqjQD6HwAE
-
-Raises hand- Is a strawberry an instrument? You're covered in them. WAI DID THE INTERWEBS TURN FROM AWESOME SAUCE TO POLITICAL BOOSHI
-
I'm watching this thread. If I see even a single personal attack in here from this post on, it's getting closed immediately, and the poster responsible is getting +40 moderation level. Just letting you know in advance. ~Covarr
-
It's crazy that there are seriously still people who believe that planes hit the towers. If that happened, why was there a need to fake media broadcasts with 3D model planes added to them?
There's a handful of media broadcasts that look SO ridiculous they are obvious fakes. There is no impact at all, the planes don't take any damage or even get slower. They just melt into the tower like it was made of sugar. It looks so pathetic I can't believe people buy this.
A plane made of lightweight Aluminium cutting through tons of steel, yeah right.
-
I'm watching this thread. If I see even a single personal attack in here from this post on, it's getting closed immediately, and the poster responsible is getting +40 moderation level. Just letting you know in advance. ~Covarr
Felt like I should quote you just to help reinforce this.
That being said, I 100% agree with Kaldarasha. All the evidence I have seen points to there being a lot more than some planes hitting some buildings. Everything about the US government reeks of corruption, and with the declassification of Operation Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods, even if you don't think 9/11 was an "inside job", you have to admit that it isn't outside of the realm of possibility.
-
What most "regular people" (I can't think of another term for them - these are the people who think a plane can level a skyscraper 8x its area per floor) don't understand is physics.
Physics Lesson 1) Watch any video of the planes hitting the towers. See that initial bright fireball immediately after the plane hits? That's airplane fuel. 2 seconds after the impact, ALL THE FUEL IS ALREADY GONE!!!! The only things burning in the towers after the hit were carpets and paper, burning at just a few hundred degrees Fahrenheit. Steel and concrete weaken at several THOUSAND degrees. A paper/carpet fire isn't going to level a skyscraper.
Physics Lesson 2) Buildings don't collapse by themselves for no reason. Building 7 got hit by nothing, was never on fire, and just fell down on its own? Suuuuuure.
Physics Lesson 3) Objects fall at an accelerating rate. Even if the impact compromised the structure of the tower, there would be resistance on the lower floors to slow down the rate of collapse, and possibly even stop it completely with a good portion of the tower remaining. The collapse of both buildings equaled the rate of gravitational acceleration that an object in no-resistance freefall would experience (you can view any of the footage and verify this yourself).
Physics Lesson 4) Gravity pulls things down, not up. In any footage (again, don't take my word for it, look at it), you can easily see pieces of the collapsing towers moving at upward angles as they're being ejected from the building.
There is actually quite a large amount of engineers that have come forward against the government story that giant soda cans with wings and burning paper took down 2 steel/concrete skyscrapers, and that wind and dust leveled another nearby building. Likely, many of the engineers who agree with the story were told to do so. The FBI and CIA are well known for being able to keep citizens afraid of coming forward. It also doesn't help that the new homeland security acts allow the government to take away your rights as they please without any legal process.
-
.
-
REMOVED
I, for one, think bombs played a large part. Planes were a coverup obviously, because REMOVED there's no way planes can bring down such large buildings. REMOVED The truth about 9/11 may never be discovered (most likely because there will always be people disagreeing and there will never be a consensus), and as such, whatever anyone says about it is an opinion and a belief, not a fact. You may be right, you may be wrong, I may be right or I may be wrong, but that still states both of our points as our respective opinions and none are fact. REMOVED
Highly edited. There's no reason to try to bait someone into this discussion that clearly stated they didn't want to be a part of it. This is all that's left of your post with the baiting removed. For shame.
-
Wow actually by now people have quite some progress with this topic and can stop calling everything a pure speculation.
1st of all, the second airplane hit never happened, at least no boeing hit wtc2, that is a fact. For the first one there is no proof but for the second one there definately is, lets start with the cnn broadcast of the second hit:
http://youtu.be/kct2DgQQN5w
Gimme a break isn't this laughable? Well I won't bother discussing how silly the plane just melts in the tower and disappears but look at the left wing at around 8 seconds. It it behind the building in the background so the plane is edited into the video.
Scary, is it not? CNN doing a broadcast of edited material? Why would they do this? The rest of the video is very well synchronised with other views on the scene just a plane was put into it. But why? There are 2 possibilities: There was no plane at all or there was something else hitting the tower.
Looking at the broadcast of nbc we can definately say that option 2 is the case, look for yourself.
http://youtu.be/5wF74zTLjNg
This is the footage that nbc cast live when the second hit happened. At around 1:50 you can see an object flying towards the tower. Whatever that is is the reason why the cnn footage was edited to me it looks like a missile or some small jet or something but definately it is no boeing.
Most people never saw this because later at the day when nbc broadcast a replay of this footage it is edited and looks totally different and at least as ridiculous as the cnn video. The whole background with the hudson river is just blue and totally missing and an airplane suddenly comes from the side although the live footage I just showed you has no airplane in it at all. There is this small missile thing coming from the south and suddenly it explodes but no planes.
Now that you are aware of this, how much are you believing the first airplane? Actually in a talk show I learned that only about 20% of the people who were interviewed that day right when it happened said that they saw an airplane, they only saw it later on tv.
And amongst the witnesses who were broadcast are cool guys like this:
http://m.youtube.com/?gl=DE&hl=de#/watch?v=aldyfSFjOFc
That is an actor. Even if the similarity to the crisis actor ffom LAX does not convince you, just hear what he says. “Then the building collapsed, mostly due to structional failure as the fire was too intense“, cmon who talks like that? If you listen to the whole interview of this harley guy you will hear him say “ground zero“.
He calls it ground zero just like a few minutes after the impact? Lier :)
Anyway I have more and that will give you nightmares :D
http://m.youtube.com/?gl=DE&hl=de#/watch?v=0Yl0K6kC4B4
There is a backwards driving police car in this live broadcast. Someone was doing a huge effort for this pointless video edit, the guys who faked all the footage obviously allowed themselves some fun. The background of the video is playing in real time while the layer with the police car is playing backwards. Lol
-
This entire society is a farce. A fabrication to pull the wool over your eyes long enough for you not to question anything.
A few great questions nobody is asking.
How does jet fuel burn structural steel when it burns at a lower temperature than steels boiling point?
Why haven't we made any significant energy breakthroughs in over a century (combustion engine the pinnacle of engineering; yeah right)?
Why isn't everything we use made out of hemp: cars (Henry Ford did this), plastics, papers etc. so that everything is biodegradable and generally more durable?
Why is every disease told to be incurable and only treatable?
Why is gmo food not questioned even when studies show mice becoming sterile after 3 or 4 generations?
Why is the idea of alien life so absurd even when you consider the relative age of the universe (14 billion) vs the relative age of our planet (4 billion) in which life as evolved?
Why is randomness not clearly defined by science yet used as a basis for physical theories?
Why are 172 trillion dollars missing from the US treasury since 1912 (the year the FED opened)?
Why were James Clerk Maxwell's theories edited shortly after his death without public knowledge(reference his 1st edition "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" for clear proof of this)?
Why do we believe in the big bang even though it fundamentally breaks the law of physics which states that every reaction must have an equal and opposite reaction(if everything expanded rapidly what contracted as consequence)?
The answer is pretty clear in one form or another. This is not a fairy tale land where everyone plays nice and tells the truth. Nobody will ever know exactly what happened exactly to those towers. But the official story is farce. There were witnesses in the basement who clearly recall an explosion. There were huge plumes of smoke which could only be caused by thermite. There are pictures of the tower beams showing clearly that they had been cut at a 45 degree angle. Buildings that are hit from the top do not collapse from the bottom. And a number of other FACTS which cannot be denied, only deluded. And yeah by the way buildings don't just fall for no reason and get left out completely of the official report (building 7 anyone). Nobody ever refutes this evidence only ignores it. Look into Project Paperclip if you really wanna know why we use social manipulation so similarly the way Nazi Germany did.
Unfortunately the human impulse for social and subjective identity are so powerful that they impede our better judgement. Why? Because we do not want to be marginalized. We do not want to sacrifice our careers and our quality of life, our friends, family, belief structures and institutions just because the Truth says they are wrong. So we believe what we want and we are rewarded for believing lies and punished for telling the truth. So if 90% of the population believes the official story, believing anything else inconveniences us in a profound way. A way we may not be ready to deal with. A way some may never deal with.
In the end it is comfort over freedom for most if not all of us.
-
The reasons for 9/11 were simple.
1. Gold
2. War
There were probably over 100 billion dollars in form of treasures underneath the towers. Only about 200 million was found, see here: http://youtu.be/F5eHk9xYEJg
Also thanks to wikileaks there is tons of pager data recorded that mentions the airplanes hitting the towers before 9/11. It was all prepared.
Another reason why they did it was to justify whatever they wanna do. War on Iraq, NSA spying the whole world...
-
200 million is pocket change. My guess for 9/11 had much more to do with the military industrial complex than anything else. Those guys run the government.
-
i couldn't see the last tow videos you posted for some reason, But i want you to know the points you made are invalid in them. I am the type of person who would, and does use a vernacular like that (hell i use words like vernacular!)
I was once in an accident and when interviewed rather than say i smelled gas, i said i smelled fuel, rather than say i was worried about a fire, i said i was worried something may ignite.
Just because someone speaks different than most people, doesn't make them an actor.
-
Whether or not some extension of the military industrial complex enabled 9/11 in some way, I'm sure they were pretty stoked about going to war. War is incredibly profitable for some
-
1st of all, the second airplane hit never happened, at least no boeing hit wtc2, that is a fact. For the first one there is no proof but for the second one there definately is, lets start with the cnn broadcast of the second hit:
http://youtu.be/kct2DgQQN5w
Gimme a break isn't this laughable? Well I won't bother discussing how silly the plane just melts in the tower and disappears but look at the left wing at around 8 seconds. It it behind the building in the background so the plane is edited into the video.
Have you ever been to New York? The building the wing "goes through" is in FRONT of the twin towers, it's just a lot shorter. The plane flew over it and the wing, from the camera's perspective, was behind the top of the building.
A plane hit the second building. There are civilian videos littering youtube with different angles showing exactly the same thing. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson recorded the impact. You can't fake that.
Part 2: I'm a scientist, so here we go...
Why is the idea of alien life so absurd even when you consider the relative age of the universe (14 billion) vs the relative age of our planet (4 billion) in which life as evolved?
I don't know where you're getting this, maybe it's regional? Most cosmologists, physicists, and biologists fully expect life to have evolved in many different planes. It's not at all absurd, and I don't think anyone questions it. People question the claimed visits of ET life because it's not very likely to have happened.
Why is randomness not clearly defined by science yet used as a basis for physical theories?
It is defined, and the scientific theories that explain random phenomena don't do so deterministically, they do so statistically (they allow you to predict the chance of something happening, and you can test that).
Why do we believe in the big bang even though it fundamentally breaks the law of physics which states that every reaction must have an equal and opposite reaction(if everything expanded rapidly what contracted as consequence)?
The law you mentioned is part of Newtonian mechanics, and it only applies to large objects that have mass. The Big Bang relies on the geometry of space and on quantum mechanics. Newton's laws have nothing to do with the universe's inflation. No laws were broken.
-
@Shard
You are not serious are you? Try a slow motion:
http://youtu.be/LSDfbm8OhCg
If you seriously believe that this is a true video you probably believe anything that's on tv. Everything about this is wrong and ridiculous. Do you seriously believe the plane's wing can suddenly be behind that building while the body is clearly in front? If the plane approached the tower from the angle you say it could never hit the tower the way it did.
Also stop at 0:26. If you really believe the wing can go behind the red building how did it go behind the tower structure at 0:27?? I hope you see it now ..
Also what is this black striped plane supposed to be? A boeing does not look like that. And then the impact...Try physics, if an obiect hits something there is a force going back against that body like when you hit the wall with your fist.
But there is no impact at all. The plane remains in perfect condition being half stuck in the buttertower which also does not take any damage at all. It does not even get slower. It is the most ridiculous video on the net and even most people who deny the theory that there were no planes at all still agree that this is a fake plane.
You really don't get very far calling this a true video.
-
Oh gosh... I have watched a video by a guy from the association of independent mechanics that prove how the building was only possible to have fallen by explosives. It's been so long time ago and I usually keep an archive but don't seem to find that video now.
-
The red/brown building with the arch on it is 18 stories tall, and is 7 or 8 blocks SOUTH (towards the camera) of the trade center. The red tower the wing goes behind is on the SAME BLOCK as the building with that arch, just slightly taller. It's not behind the trade center. It's FAR in front of it. It's an office/shopping/apartment tower on the corner of Battery and Washington. You're misinterpreting what you're seeing as a perspective illusion. See my next post for a visual aid.
As for physics, did you know the WTC building was HOLLOW? It's an office building, most of it is occupied by air. Do you really think an airplane going 600MPH was going to bounce off a bunch of windows?
The only parts of the plane that aren't made of aluminum foil are the engines. The steel and concrete lattice of the building pushes back SOME of the impact debris, which you can see in the video. The rest of the plane went into the building, as is expected, then was crushed and torn apart, because that's what happens when a giant soda can hits a lattice of steel and concrete at nearly the speed of sound. In some views of the impact, you can even see small remainders of the plane jetting out the other side.
That "striped plane" is a Boeing 767, like this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/G-BNWA_British_Airways_B767-300_planform.jpg). They are commonly used passenger jets. Some of them have a colored stripe on the fuselage and on the engines.
Overview of lower manhattan:
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/Shard_Fenix/wtc1_zps8d1061af.png)
Map of the locations of the next 3 images
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/Shard_Fenix/wtcmap_zps667348ca.png)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/Shard_Fenix/wtc3_zps607176cd.png)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/Shard_Fenix/wtc4_zps80c4c96c.png)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d134/Shard_Fenix/wtc5_zps602f1bdf.png)
-
I don't mean to start a strawberriesstorm, but I think this topic should be closed and the subject dropped. REMOVED.
I decided to drop the topic after I realized A personal attack. +40 moderation level. I don't like wasting time arguing.
REMOVED
-Vgr
-
@Shard
Did you even watch the slomo at 0:26-0:27 where the wing disappears again behind a wtc structure that is far in the background? The red building is the first thing that works but as arguing is near impossible with someone without a 3 dimensional imagination lets just skip the red building and talk about 0:26-0:27.
-
@Dan - Putting this here so everyone can see
He didn't post in this thread because he didn't want everyone to see. He was actively trying to avoid any involvement in this thread (thus why he hasn't posted here), and you've already been told not to bring him into it.
I really don't give a strawberry milkshake what he may have said on IRC. The fact remains he said it there, and not here, and carrying it over is creating additional drama for the sake of drama. STOP. ~Covarr
-
You mean the first video you linked? http://youtu.be/LSDfbm8OhCg
The wing doesn't disappear at 26-27.
As for Covarr's giant red text, I agree that we should avoid drama, but this is an issue that not enough people talk about, and many of the people who do talk about it are either misinformed or are uneducated about it. One conspiracy theorist starts saying things like "it's not a plane it's a missile," then a thousand people believe him without actually thinking simple things like: missiles look nothing like planes, or that there are over 50 known video angles of the second hit all showing the same plane taking the same flight path. To believe the second plane was a missile, you have to believe that 50+ civilian videos were all doctored by the government and that the 10000+ eyewitnesses in NYC who saw it with their own eyes are all lying.
The government story is about as full of crap as you can get, but most of the conspiracy theories out there aren't much better. From a scientist, here's the most likely and simplest explanation:
CEOs of weapons and energy companies wanted an excuse to go to war in a country that has tons of oil. The defense department "lost track" of a few trillions worth of money, so they conveniently destroyed the only existing records of them at the pentagon to cover it up, knowing that everyone would believe a plane hit the pentagon, even though it's located in the center of a few dozen miles of restricted airspace. The thousands of people who died that day were collateral damage, apparently worth the several trillion dollars they've all been making since.
The "homeland security" laws are just bonus points for people with power so they can keep it. There's no conspiracy here. It's a bunch of rich powerful people doing what suits them best. It's just a happy accident that they all make money from the same kinds of things.
People are disgusting.
-
If you wanted to avoid drama, this thread should have never existed, 9/11 and the conspiracies surrounding it breeds drama like nothing else on earth.
-
@Shard
Are you trolling me? :D Well first of all, you can believe what you like and it is not a problem to me. For me the cnn is a clear 3d model I can tell what an animated plane looks like and I assume most people would agree.
Anyways, of course I was talking about the slow motion again why suddenly the first video ?
You didn't find the absolutely incorrect relation between the size of the plane and its position in the room with the wing disappearing funny so I just give you the next position in the video where the cgi rendering has a mistake.
Here is the video again:
http://youtu.be/LSDfbm8OhCg
At 0:26 the top of the left wing is behind some background building, examine 0:25-0:28. It is the same mistake happening with the red building. Comparing the size of the red building and the plane you should already be able to tell that the plane must be far in the foreground. If you say that the plane must be behind the building that is just one more clue for poor rendering. The plane would have to be much smaller.
Anyways, at 0:26 the building that the wing disappears behind is clearly in the background. Also I suggest you do some research, there's a lot more wrong with the cnn broadcast. Also the angle and view should be impossible, I saw someone reconstructing in on google earth and there wasn't even a clear sight. The cnn is a cgi joke.
-
If you wanted to avoid drama, this thread should have never existed, 9/11 and the conspiracies surrounding it breeds drama like nothing else on earth.
Without humanity we wouldn't have any drama. But we are here so the thread do exist too.
Conspiracies do ever exist. The oldest known was in the civilization of the Sumer: the Brotherhood of the Snake (I only say Metal Gear... :wink:).
Anyway debating how the 9/11 has happened is meaningless. The vast majority knows it is a lie, what should shock more is that this is an often used method (for the USA has nearly any entry into the war its seed in a civil drama) to manipulate people for a short moment. And believe me, if you are involved in this, if you are a victim of it, then you will act the same way as the Americans did, even with all the knowledge you have. The emotional shock will make you unresponsive for logical decisions.
That's why even an obvious lie can be look like the truth.
Was Hitler a mad man? Who knows. All what we knew are from books, which are produced by the same institutions, which has told us that the buildings only perfectly collapsed because of the planes. I knew that our German history isn't the entire truth. There should be existing a book for politicians which has more information and say that Poland was aggressive against Germany before (it is said that they killed Germans in there villages along the borderline). They truly believed that England will be on there side in a case of a war, because of a hidden contract with England.
“Polen will den Krieg mit Deutschland, und Deutschland wird ihn nicht vermeiden können, selbst wenn es das wollte“.
Marschall und Generalinspekteur der polnischen Armee, Rydz-Smnigly
"Poland wants the war with Germany, and Germany will no be in the position to avoid it, even if they want it."
Marshal and Inspector General of the Poland Army, Rydz-Smnigly
http://www.eigentum-ost.de/?p=891
Of course this doesn't look so well as the fairy tale of the Blitzkrieg, it also will not look so well in the books that Japan has surrendered two days before Hiroshima. (Btw. the nation of Wutai is inspired by Japan the same as Shin-Ra represents the evil west)
Also how Goldman Sachs has ruined the Greek lately and has initiated a economic crisis wasn't shown in the majority in the media.
This lesson two of propaganda: Tell the truth about what has happened, but it is not needed to tell the whole truth.
People act as if propaganda has died together with the III Reich.
@ meesbaker maybe they had to hide something differently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsmc_rS2jOo
One last thing: keep it civil here, I can be wrong with what I have said and I will except this if someone proofs me that I'm wrong. I do not take any information for 100% true from whatever side it will come.
-
@Kaldarasha
Yeah, that's very well possible. There are many possibilities but the cnn footage is definately a lie just like the clarke or the fox chopper broadcast where the nose comes out lol.
What do you think about the police car :D I mean it isn't important but another hint that all media broadcasts were in the hand of the conspiracy. Maybe someone having fun?? I mean how does a backward playing police car come into a news cast? :D
I mean this isn't like a technical mistake someone really made quite an effort to cut that car in just the car layer playing backwards :O It's not someone riding backwards like hell fast there is a car cut in which is playing backwards, the sirenes spin the wrong direction.
Why would anyone do this? Probably having fun while no planes had to be smacked into broadcasts?
http://youtu.be/0Yl0K6kC4B4
-
.
-
Sure xD
-
Can we please close this thread? PLEASE?
-
Yeah it's getting to the point where people are just ignoring facts and ignoring evidence. This isn't going to go anywhere useful.
-
Yeah it's getting to the point where people are just ignoring facts and ignoring evidence. This isn't going to go anywhere useful.
True, I was bringing evidence to you and you ignored it. You ignored that the nbc chopper 4 I linked in my first post here shows no plane. You ignored that the cnn video I linked multiple times is full of rendering errors. You think just because you made up an absurd explanation how the wing could get behind the red building you have facts?
I examined the video further and found many more glitches with the wing inside the smoke. The most obvious one is at 0:23. The right wing is behind the fassade of the tower! You may have to play/stop 0:22-0:23 two or three times to see it and you will eventually see how the white boarder of the wtc is completely in front of the airplane's wing. Have fun ignoring that and closing the thread.
http://youtu.be/LSDfbm8OhCg
-
Can we please close this thread? PLEASE?
I look how this unfolds, but, except of dispute between meesbaker and Shard, I don't understand your demand for closing it.
Yeah it's getting to the point where people are just ignoring facts and ignoring evidence. This isn't going to go anywhere useful.
That's the problem with media these days, it is hard to prove with it facts and evidences, because we are able to manipulate it.
Honestly I haven't read all the comments and have only clicked at the video link, and my first was that the airplane do look very constructed, but the video looks so bad that I can't tell if it is or not. The impact does look OK for me, we have thanks to Hollywood a fairly wrong imagination of how a crash do look.
But this is a good example of placing some other theories out, to let people look stupid.
This is an officially used video by the media, but no media does talk about what you can see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge_f4OEsV9I
I knew that this film exist from a book from 1994.
I would more like to here other 'theories', instead of debating 'if or if not' without come to a point. Elsewhere we should really close this... :|
-
True, I was bringing evidence to you and you ignored it.
50 videos showing the same plane crashing into the same building in the same way IS NOT evidence that nothing happened. You're taking one video, saying (wrongly) that it's fake, ignoring 50 other videos of the same event, and ignoring 10,000 eyewitnesses who were there. Who's ignoring evidence?
You showed me a video, said wrongly that something special was in it, and cited it as evidence of something unconnected even if it were there. That's like saying "Look at the Mona Lisa. You can clearly see she Jesus behind her. Therefore aliens exist."
You know what? Let's say the video's fake. Let's say it's a 3d plane shopped into the video on top of a missile or whatever you think it actually was (I mean, you think its simultaneously a 3d model and a real military plane at the same time. I'm humoring you at this point). If someone were going to fake a video, why would they make a mistake like that? It takes MORE WORK to hide the wing (which isn't hidden, but I'll go along with your horrible pattern recognition) than to let it sit in the frame. Why would someone take a video, fake it perfectly, then ADD IN a mistake like that? You have to assume so many nonsensical things to believe what you actually believe.
People like you are the reason nothing gets done about anything. You're too busy making up imaginary problems in a fake reality so you can apply nonsolutions to them instead of actually helping people in the real world. The terrorists won that day, and you're not helping.
-
@Shard
They made a mistake because they had to rush. Now I'll give you the point that you said that I am basing a lot on a single clip that's true :)
But that's just because you said it wasn't fake. I thought it was a clear fake and then I planned to go on with other videos(you still haven't commented the nbc chopper, why even argue if you can't explain that?) but you really take that shaded low res 3d model for reality so it gets longer than I wanted it to.
Why the mistake happens is actually not important but at 0:23 the wtc building is in front of the right wing of the plane so it must be a 3D plane. Doesn't happen with a real one.
Now on your question, what if I spoke the truth and the plane was 3D rendered and faked? Well this means that any other video of that impact is likely be faked as well. Imagine there was a real boeing flying into the tower. Then all videos that have the explosion should cover that, right? So if a video has the explosion/smoke etc. perfectly synchronized with all other videos it MUST also show the real plane right?
Unless you say the whole thing is animated but that is really hard to do. At least in a few hours. So it is more likely that the original of a video that shows no plane during the impact instead of a fake one probably didn't have any plane at all. Or something smaller like a missile that is hidden behind it.
The reason I came up with that last idea is just because all videos that look very fake are very well synchronized. And that is very hard to do in a few hours. No one has the time to create some 3D simulation that covers all plane perspectives from any point precisely. So I assumed that there must be some guideline which also minimalizes the effort of drawing the plane.
Again on the nbc live footage. I linked it in my first post, probably you better do the research yourself. It is the nbc chopper 4, searching this will give you numerous results. None of those show a plane, though. How? Why? The only thing that can hardly be recognized is a very small object flying towards the tower. Some say it is faked and didn't appear in the live shot. Others say it is a small missile or so but it is sure no boeing.
So that fits quite nicely does it not?
-
i reley dont wan to say this, but i have to now.
I'd been hoping to stay out of this thread, but I can't ignore this one.
The most obvious one is at 0:23. The right wing is behind the fassade of the tower!
In CGI land, Z-sort errors:
1. only happen with 2D assets or post-processing effects
2. happen with the entire 2D asset.
3. Are related to shortcuts made for the sake of running things in real-time, and would never happen in anything pre-rendered.
So why does it look the way it does? Because the wing is the same color as that part of the building, the video simply is not as high resolution as it needs to be, and the scaling algorithm used to blow the footage up has made a mistake. I've seen things like this all the time, and they're pretty much always scaling errors.
Among other things, we know the building really did explode, and all non-plane footage is clearly real. Of all the errors that could have been introduced adding a CGI plane, Z-sort errors are not among them unless they cause the plane to be in front of something it should be behind, not the other way around.
Just to be clear here, I am not intending to debate any other point in this thread except for the plane supposedly being behind something it should be in front of. This is a scaling error, not a z-sort error, and isn't really evidence of anything.
Also, here's the second crash from 43 angles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM). Do with this as you will.
-
Can we please close this thread? PLEASE?
The thread stays as long as it doesn't devolve into personal attacks. At which time it will be closed and everyone involved will get warnings. I don't want to prevent free speech and everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs.
-
Just wanna say, I can guarantee the planes really did exist, and really did hit the twin towers. I saw it with my own eyes, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain wrong and/or crazy.
-
Possible that it is a resolution glitch. Still I find the plane to look very constructed and unreal actually ;)
Well, whatever you believe I think it is always good to question your version and research again. I'm currently doing the same. I'm still sure that the cnn vid is fake but that may have multiple reasons.
Anyway I'm outta here. Whatever course this will have I just have more fun getting back to modding than making up weird conspiracy lol :D
The thing is I just can not deny what my eyes tell me and I always found all those planes to look rendered, hence I can't buy the governmental version and go searching for evidence. Have fun guys ^^
-
@Shard
They made a mistake because they had to rush.
If you had bothered to actually read my post, you would have picked up on the fact that it takes more time and effort to put that mistake in the video than it takes not to have the mistake in there at all. If they were in a rush or lazy, that "mistake" wouldn't be there. Of course, this is going along with your delusion (or perhaps misperception) that the wing is ever behind either tower. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you actually see it disappear because there's a lot of grey-on-grey, or maybe your monitor's color fidelity is poor. I promise you, I've watched those few seconds about 20 times, and it's very clear the wing is always visible.
It's nearly impossible to fake an image of the world, mostly because you have to match the quality and the lighting of the original (both of which are pretty hard to do). Faking a video is even harder. Faking 50 videos is even harder, especially when 50 different random people own the originals. Which seems more likely to you:
1) The government found, confiscated and doctored 50+ different videos from private citizens and organizations before they uploaded any to youtube, doctored them to put a 3d plane in the video, added mistakes to the video on purpose by accident, gave the videos back to the original owners (because multiple people upload their versions to youtube), and made 100 people on the flight disappear, all within five minutes of the event (because many of those clips were broadcast live), then within the next year they convinced every new yorker on the street to lie about what they saw and 100% of them complied, or...
2) A plane hit the building.
The government has spouted enough retarded BS about the issue, you've got plenty to work from without having to make this garbage up. When you say things like "Hey, I know thousands of people saw it and a plane actually disappeared and the people on it actually disappeared and there are dozens of videos showing the same thing, but this ONE CLIP looks kinda sorta fake so I'm going to ignore everything else" you're only lowering your own credibility. It's the same reason nobody takes creationists seriously.
-
i didn't care about what cause the towers to fall and even now i still don't care about what cause them to fall. the only thing i care about to this day is the mental and physical damage this event caused to the people, not buildings or the planes, just the people who there or was learning of this incident and still dealing with the aftermath to this very day.
-
.
-
Oh how people make the twin tower thing such a big deal..in other countries they get worse attacks like day by day..
Ditto. But it's actually mechanic with which they have reached there goal, which is pervert.
A lot more people has died after 9/11 and a lot more will die because of it. These day has given terror a face. A face to fear. And what can you do with fear?
“You can control the hearts of men
with a little fear. Why waste good
money on the mindless masses?”
Any idea, who has said this?
-
Oh how people make the twin tower thing such a big deal..in other countries they get worse attacks like day by day..
Please name me any country that has ~3000 deaths due to international terrorism on a day by day basis.....
America has accounted for almost 8% of the world's fatalities due to international terrorism for the past 50 years. We're a target and have every reason to treat it with caution.
Not everyone is affected by these incidents, but all it takes is one family member or friend to be involved and it becomes a big deal to everyone they know.
-
.
-
It's crazy that there are seriously still people who believe that planes hit the towers.
I know I'm late here; and I already said this, but I just need to reiterate. It's not so crazy, I saw it myself. Not via video, but by going "holy shit a plane just flew into that building, what the fuck.... holy shit it happened again, the fuck is going on" Planes hit the tower, I can assure you of this. If you don't believe me, at least believe Covarr who can vouch for me that I saw it.
-
Please name me any country that has ~3000 deaths due to international terrorism on a day by day basis.....
America has accounted for almost 8% of the world's fatalities due to international terrorism for the past 50 years. We're a target and have every reason to treat it with caution.
Not everyone is affected by these incidents, but all it takes is one family member or friend to be involved and it becomes a big deal to everyone they know.
Maybe that's their own fault? I mean, I live in Europe, we got terrorism, yes. But in my country hardly any. Let alone enough to reach a decent amount of families, and we also have a way smaller population. That's because (I think) our country has a neutral attitude towards certain stuff that's not their business (like supposedly WMD's). If our army is on foreign affairs, it's always a help mission, never a fight mission. Even if UN requires us to "fight" alongside some countries like the USA, we're only cleaning up the mess (putting bandages on the survivors of both camps).
If they really were eager to help then where are the armies in North Korea and a lot of African countries? Oh wait, there's no oil there, only in Syria (ok ok that's Africa, but its a really tiny part).
But all that is not taking into accounts half of the "terrorism" over there is probably staged by the government itself. A thought I share with a decent amount of people (even some Americans) is that the USA is hardly a first world country. It's more like the screamy kid from the waaay too rich parents which allow everything and everyone had to sit by and just nod occasional so they don't take in a fit. No offense on any of you here of course, only the American government in general. I mean, I still like Hollywood movies and cheeseburgers and stuff. :P
-
It's not even the government as a whole, it's the individuals who control it (congressman, senators, presidents, chiefs of staff, etc). The actual people who work in government organizations are just doing their jobs; their only other choice is to be fired or arrested.
-
Gotham all over!
-
meesbaker's posts are really embarassing to read. But I understand him, I was like him for the R=A theory in FF8. LOL, totally different topic but the mechanism behind is the same: you never thought about it, then someone on the internet tells you about it using the right words and attitude, and you just fall in that trap because of some weird psychological reasons.
BTW, this is a video of 43 different angles of the 2nd hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM
-
Fear is what's left in the end out of it... either used by the government nor terrorists! I don't believe the government is completely innocent as far as this particular attack is concerned though. You can't just enter a country and hit 2 huge commercial buildings in such way. Also in no way you can deal such topics with a sense of humor... I'm feeling deeply mournful about this tragedy!
-
Actually I said I'd leave it as it is but there is little more to say:
@Leonhart: Sorry if I talked to easily about this. Some video fakery is just so bad that I must laugh but I do not think the incident is actually any funny. Sorry, i'll try with some more respect.
@Goth: I can understand if you find my posts stupid but do not think I made no research. I was studying many videos and articles from the other side, people like you who try to debunk any kind of weird conspiracy theory and the moment somebody shows me a photograph or a video where one can clearly identify a boeing passenger flight I'm gonna buy their story. Without a doubt.
Unfortunately this is not possible. I know every single video about the impact, none of the ones included in your 43angles compilation was new to me and none proves the presence of a boeing plane. Just some terrible resolution private videos and the only ones with a little quality show some entirely black monstrum without any kind of similarity to a boeing. If you look at the footage where the plane flies by the crane and you stop right before it hits you get a quite good and large image of the plane. Never ever is this a passenger flight. Not even form and shape match it, plus it is completely black without any windows, logos etc. Like all those videos are. It is either edited or at least no usual airliner.
The only footage in this video that looks authentic is the one I posted myself earlier and that is the nbc newscast from chopper 4. This one also does not show a plane anywhere. That small thing approaching the towers is much too small and also does not have any shape like a plane. On your compilation you can blame the resolution but this video exists in much better quality on the net. Search it, view it and you see everything but no plane. This thing is at best about 30-40 feet in size.
-
As Mark Twain said in a chance: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.". There's a lot of evidence that the buildings could not be demolished with just an impact, and less at that height. It's also imposible that the core melted as a lot of engineers have informed, it was designed to support brutal temps.
Also, you guys should see the collapse moment, and see how they fell, in such a controlled way. The most plausible theory is that they where demolished from the inside and, as meesbaker says, there's a chance that those planes never existed. Some researches state that they were holograms from how they impacted. Also, there is a moment you can see a suspicious "flash", like an explosion. And this is not the first nor the last time the government sacrifices his own people for an obscure and selfish cause. Look at Irak, Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan... and well... the whole world.
I do not intend to offend anyone, but this is my opinion after many sleepless nights reading and researching on the subject
-
meesbaker says, there's a chance that those planes never existed.
Well, meesbaker can say anything he wants, but he's wrong, and there are 2 pages of people explaining why he's wrong. There is a 0% chance the planes weren't there. If there were no planes, you have the following problems:
1) 50+ videos (maybe 30 if you take away the views from too far away where the object is 2 pixels wide) show the same "plane" hitting the same spot on the same flight path. The chance that 30 videos from individual citizens, weather cameras, and news choppers are all faked is exactly zero, especially considering many of them were broadcast within minutes of the event (and some live).
2) No other manmade object can fly like that without leaving a trail, so it's clearly not a ballistic object or a guided missile. It's too fast to be a helicopter. You'd have to prove that the government (or whomever) has an device that can fly without visible exhaust in that path and cause that initial explosion.
3) Three planes (one of which crashed in the middle of nowhere) with registered humans on them disappeared that day. One crash was found, and two were recorded as hitting the twin towers. You'd have to explain the disappearance of a few hundred people.
As you said, it's really easy to fool people. Show meesbaker a clip that looks slightly suspicious TO HIM (but apparently not to anybody else) and he suddenly blinds himself to ALL of the other evidence.
As I've said before: There are unknowns, and there is government conspiratorial knowledge/activity involved, but whether or not a plane was there is not at all debatable. A plane hit the building (both of them). If you think otherwise, you are ignoring literally all of the evidence. If you want to know the truth, ignoring all the evidence is not the correct pathway to take.
-
As I've said before: There are unknowns, and there is government conspiratorial knowledge/activity involved, but whether or not a plane was there is not at all debatable. A plane hit the building (both of them). If you think otherwise, you are ignoring literally all of the evidence. If you want to know the truth, ignoring all the evidence is not the correct pathway to take.
I've misspoken again... :-\ What I meant about planes not being real is just a theory, an hypothesis. We have no way to know the truth for now. As I stated before, they could be holograms. Or they could be the real ones. But what's for sure and that's what I meant in my previous post, is that the towers didn't collapsed because of a plane impact, just because it's physically impossible. Look for the building technical drawings and the materials' specs and you'll notice it. It was a clearly autoattack to legitimate the invasion, because if they can't find a pretext, the create it, and they have no limits. It happened that day in New York, it happened in 1963 in dallas, and it happened in a wide variety of chances (I do not want to extend myself to WWII and the post years...).
BTW, another flight, with real people too, has faded away from earth too. A certain flight from Malaysia. And, from what I know, anyone found anything at all from it.
-
"Disappeared" is the wrong word to use for the 9/11 flights. Thousands of people saw those planes as they crashed, and/or the debris in the case of the one that went down in Pennsylvania.
The Malaysia flight is different. It probably landed in the ocean, where nobody could have seen it. Oceans are very hard to search.
You're totally right in that the collapses were set up. That's what people should have been investigating (unfortunately, you can't anymore, because Juliani is a criminal and destroyed/removed all the evidence before the 9/11 Commission could get to most of it). The only thing left to figure out is who was responsible.
-
@Shard
I really wonder what you are thinking!?
Spending a page explaining that the government lies about 9/11 which I spend little time talking about on this topic as you and others did the job explaining that the detonation was surely not just heated fuels, we even discussed the motives, and still you post dramatic nonsense like “terrorists won that day“ -.-
Realizing the government is miles away from telling you what happened how can you still be so blind to be believing them? Military reasons, political reasons, financial reasons THAT is 9/11, nothing more. Oil, NSA, TSA, Patriot Act, all of this crap. Even the most weird conspiracy theory no matter how stupid has more proof and sense than the ridiculous hoax the govs were spreading. And you still believe terrorists are to blame, do you still not get the reasons for 9/11? And how much the administration, in a perverted way, actually benefitted from the events?
And one more thing on the planes: The problems you mention do not exist at all. The newscast footages that were brought live is what I kept mentioning in every single post I made and kept telling you to investigate and comment on which of course you never did hoping to lie about them once I'm out. All you did was pathetically defending the Hazarkhani video which is surely the worst video editing in history.
I think I directed you to nbc chopper 4 about 300 times without any success and still you believe you know what an argument is.
The only interesting footage of those “30 proves“(which is a compilation video of how NOT to fake records) is the newscast footages as faking 30 or 400 low res strawberries videos is a work of an hour. And those live videos unlike you say do not show planes. Fox chopper has the alleged “plane's“ nose flying out of the building, nbc chopper shows an object that can hardly be recognized and if it is not edited, is still considerably smaller than an airliner and the disparities in contrast, lighting and sharpness between the plane layer and the actual video on the cnn Hazarkhani footage or the naudet video of the first impact is most laughable.
Also saying that the trajectory path of the “planes“ on all those videos of wtc2 impact from different angles were properly synchronized is a pure lie that shows a lack of research. Sticking only to nbc for instance, one must ask why the evening news report that was also spread in other countries(I was never able to see the actual live footage in my country on 9/11 ) is so bad compared to the live footage. It is contained in the 43 angles video posted on the previous page and shows the buildings from the exact same angle and position as the live cast. Except the whole background is removed to make it seem different, instead of the hudson river etc. there is blue nonsense and some terribly rendered black jet approaching the towers on a different path than the small moving object that can be seen during the live broadcast.
Why would you do this? Chosing a bad quality shot that strangely has no surrounding whatsoever and a n incoherent plane path instead of the good quality live shot which is also contained in the 43 angles video on the last page and which can easily be found searching nbc chopper 4?
I tell you why, as this live video was not clear. The lie about airplanes had to be spread rapidly so rather take bad rendering than a serious footage that requires discussion. Even today people like you make it so easy as you can not tell the difference between an actual filmed plane and a terribly bad job of editing.
On fox news chopper you get a very wide view of ny before the impact on the wtc2 where the plane MUST be visible. But it ain't there, it appears out of nowhere, melts into the steel tower without physics and its nose flies out of the other side.
The thousands of eyewitnesses you mention are the next lie. You just think it is clear they all saw,the boeing as there must have been so many people present but if you do your research you find out it is wrong. There is no official statement whatsoever as no witness ever had to make a proper report on a lawcourt. You have no idea what people were actually seeing and hearing.
What I have found out is that only a minority of witnesses that were asked by reporters actually identified an airliner. Most people said that they saw a small plane or maybe a missile or a jet. People who were seeing AND hearing a plane during the impact and identifying a passenger flight when it hit are almost not existent. Mentioning some witnesses who do so with proper proof may be a good idea before having “thousands of witnesses“ on one's side that surely nobody questions. Are they like the harley guy I linked who called the place “ground zero“ few minutes after the impact??
San Francisco airport had no single relative of the alleged passengers arrive when the 9/11 hoax was published on the news. I even read that passenger lists documented by the airlines have incoherent numbers and certain names appear multiple times on different planes. I do not have evidence at hand but the fact that nobody was waiting at airports for their family can easily be researched. United airlines even gave an official statement:
“We informed the families of the passengers that their relative must have died on the plane.“
Sure, calling hundreds of people whose number they can not have “Please do not arrive on our airport as your relative didn't make it“.
Very credible....there were no people as there were no airliners and fake passenger lists.
And what about wtc6 and wtc7? They were eradicated, how? If it was terrorists with stolen airliners what destroyed those buildings? There is not even debris in wtc6 but the whole interior is completely gone. Who has the ability to plan a controlled destruction of all wtc buildings and have any research or comission lead nowhere? Terrorists packing the whole towers with explosives/thermite for months?
No. Only the government could do that. And they did.
Edited an unclear formulation.
-
Now I know you're trolling. This was my biggest clue:
The thousands of eyewitnesses you mention are the next lie. You just think it is clear as there must have been so many people present but if you do your research you find out it is wrong. There is no official statement whatsoever as no witness ever had to make a proper report on a lawcourt. You have no idea what people were actually seeing and hearing.
You really think that NOBODY was on the streets of New York at 10:00 AM? Are you fucking serious? You think the biggest city in the western hemisphere was empty, on a weekday, during daytime?
You're the part of the population that makes me hope a plague will wipe us all out. The world doesn't need people like you in it.
-
You're the part of the population that makes me hope a plague will wipe us all out. The world doesn't need people like you in it.
Well well welll, my dear friends, let's gonna relax, we're just debating and everyone can think whatever he wants. It is absurd to fight for something that are just assumptions, both on one side as on the other. So please calm down and keep talking as friends, anyone here wants to see you both insulting each other.
-
@Shard
You misunderstood me, I was even referring to what eyewitnesses said. I only say that not all of them report seeing a boeing that hit the towers. Just because there were thousands of people does not automatically mean that they all support what you say but you always refer to them as though they did. I wanted to write “You just think it's clear they all saw the boeing as there were so many people present but...“
As I have written many people who were around were not identifying an airliner but spoke about seeing a small plane or jet or even a missile. Many people also reported seeing no plane at all.
http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_4.shtml
(of course this tiny bit proves nothing but you never gave proof for the eyewitnesses who support your points at all)
You say that the presence of the passenger flights is proven by the presence of thousands of witnesses. You say no boeing being there would cause trouble because of witnesses. However, there is no official proof that thousands of statements are reporting this. There were many people but you can not know what they all saw and heared but still refer to them as though you do. The presence of an object that is considerably smaller than a passenger flight is absolutely possible and maybe even no plane at all. At least there was surely no airliner flying around.
And as I said before I wonder what your version is. What do you believe is what happened? You know the towers had to be brought down with powerful explosives but still think terrorists did it with airplanes at the same time? It makes no sense at all.
-
And as I said before I wonder what your version is. What do you believe is what happened? You know the towers had to be brought down with powerful explosives but still think terrorists did it with airplanes at the same time? It makes no sense at all.
From what I've read in Shard's posts, he'd never said that it was a terrorist did anything, he said that planes were real. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ok he said it ;D.
Anyway I think that the most interesting part of this is WHO did it and WHY, more than how it was o where the planes colided (may be that ones were holographic images and the real ones were thrown into ocean... who knows, maybe they were real as Shard says)
-
People like you are the reason nothing gets done about anything. You're too busy making up imaginary problems in a fake reality so you can apply nonsolutions to them instead of actually helping people in the real world. The terrorists won that day, and you're not helping.
I do not see anyway why believing that it was the government with help of planes means you are helping people while denying the planes makes you a bad person. We are just having different opinions that is all. And I seriously do not know what Shard's position is as he explains in his first post that the steel tower could not collapse according to the official version and said multiple times that he expects the government to be involved.
There are only 3 footages that were broadcast live on nbc, fox and cnn. All of those have terrible mistakes in them like the nose coming out on fox. Thus I dont believe in planes, that simple. All amateur footage was published much later than the official stuff.
-
Well we've also got someone in this thread (Huell) who personally saw the planes crash. I simply don't see how you can flat out discount that.
I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the planes were crashed by terrorists or the government, or whether there were bombs in the buildings to assist the planes, or any of that. I do not have enough information to speak reliably on these subjects. However, between Huell in this thread, and other people I personally know who saw it, the idea of no planes just doesn't make sense to me.
-
I find discussions such as this very interesting, because the ramifications of each outcome (whether the attack was from terrorists or just a cover up) are so large. For over ten years I just accepted the fact that terrorists flew planes into the twin towers and dismissed all other conspiracies as crazy anti-american propaganda. But over the last few years I have had my share of doubts and they are as follows:
1. I'm no expert in demolition, physics, or architecture, but the way the trade centers collapse does not look right to me. In my mind I picture that if a plane struck the building and was strong enough to actually destroy a side of the building and the fires were hot enough to weaken the beams on the other side, wouldn't the building lean toward its weaker side when it collapsed? What I am asking is, wouldn't the "top" portion of the building fall a bit to the side of the base instead of coming straight down?
2. The planes in those videos show no effect of the tower on the plane. Knowing basic physics (newton's third law force pairs), the plane exerted as much force on the building as the building did on the plane. Knowing how fragile planes are and that even a very slightly rough landing can rip the tails of planes, I would expect that when the plane strikes the building for the plane to accelerate (in the opposite direction of motion) and crumple on impact. Instead, it remains intact as it enters and shows little or no acceleration (in the opposite direction of motion). This leads me to believe the videos are either fake or that the "planes" weren't really planes.
3. There's no doubt in my mind that something struck the buildings, as people report seeing something hit them (most of them say it was a quiet, small plane or a missile). But I do recall many crazy conspiracy theorists saying that they were JASSMs. Is there any weight to this argument? I remember watching some (old) live footage and the people calling in were saying they thought it sounded like a missile and such.
4. The plane entry holes were drastically different in shape from the ones that hit the WTCs to the one that hit the pentagon. It could be something simple but I find it odd.
5. Our (america's) government stood a lot to gain by this incident regardless of whether they did it or not. They gained immense power over the people (patriot act, TSA, etc.), had justifications to invade countries that had nothing to do with it (Iraq), and probably other ways to benefit than I know of.
6. The investigation was undeniably and intentionally botched. One of the most significant investigations of the last 40 years of american history or more and it was handled so poorly that you almost have to try to be doing a bad job to do it so poorly.
If I had to go with my gut feeling, I would say that the government (or better put, the people in charge of it) stood to gain something from taking out the WTC and also used it to further other agendas as well with a many birds with one stone type of mentality. Unless someone can say where I'm wrong (it probably isn't hard to do since I'm not right all that often) I think that JASSMs or something similar struck the towers, were aided by bombs within the buildings, and covered up with botched investigations and labeling skeptics as crazy theorists.
-
That's my version, too and for the same reasons. On the witnesses, the part where people claim seeing a quiet, small plane is pretty hard to argue with for someone trying to defend the presence of passenger flights on 9/11. How likely is it that only a single person mistakes a roaring coloss like a boeing which is flying unusually close to him at high speed for something that is smaller than it is? The opposite would make sense but not this.
@Covarr I do not want to offend anyone but I generally stopped giving too much on this. No matter what people argue about suddenly all arguments are invalid because someone saw everything with his own eyes and more exact than any official report. Especially on 9/11, how many people were at the wtc during the impact? A few thousands? I must have met every single one of them.
Again not calling anyone a liar but it is no prove to me either if someone appears and saw everything, that always happens.
-
I usually endorse Squall's philosophy!
Squall: "Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views."
-
I usually endorse Squall's philosophy!
Squall: "Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views."
But life it's not so easy and of course, it's much more dark and sinister. We're not talking about a battlefield, we are talking about the social elite of the world, a few bigwigs that doesn't care to cause the death of thousands of kids in some forgotten country in Africa just for increase it's patrimony in a few more million bucks. That is BAD, that is WRONG. Those how have the power to stop the war and hunger won't do anything because they get big profit of that. They are the ones who should be dead. I could say a lot of examples, and in the most of them, US government and millionaires would have much to do with it, but won't do it, because I don't want to offtopic this thread.
-
But life it's not so easy and of course, it's much more dark and sinister. We're not talking about a battlefield, we are talking about the social elite of the world, a few bigwigs that doesn't care to cause the death of thousands of kids in some forgotten country in Africa just for increase it's patrimony in a few more million bucks. That is BAD, that is WRONG. Those how have the power to stop the war and hunger won't do anything because they get big profit of that. They are the ones who should be dead. I could say a lot of examples, and in the most of them, US government and millionaires would have much to do with it, but won't do it, because I don't want to offtopic this thread.
Oh but the world has limited resources right? That means it is good that those thousands of kids were dealt with, otherwise there would greater harm to everyone else. It's for the greater good right? I mean, we as a species can't reach our population limit lest it crash and many more people die. So then it makes sense to profit while doing the world a service by reducing the population. Humanely of course. 8)
/sarcasm
-
But life it's not so easy and of course, it's much more dark and sinister. We're not talking about a battlefield, we are talking about the social elite of the world, a few bigwigs that doesn't care to cause the death of thousands of kids in some forgotten country in Africa just for increase it's patrimony in a few more million bucks. That is BAD, that is WRONG. Those how have the power to stop the war and hunger won't do anything because they get big profit of that. They are the ones who should be dead. I could say a lot of examples, and in the most of them, US government and millionaires would have much to do with it, but won't do it, because I don't want to offtopic this thread.
This might sound yet wrong to you, but how would the world look like if these kids wouldn't die?
In the '60 came up a question 'What do happen with the world if the population of the world grow with the same tendency as now?'.
The solution was a biological weapon researched under the codename MK Naomi (yes that's why the nurse in MGS is called Naomi), better known as HIV or AIDS. In Biology in school we had lessons about how insecticide do work, and I thought 'Jesus, HIV do work in a similar way'. It does not matter if HIV is created by man or not, fact is without it the world has been collapsed years ago, because of overpopulating. I don't wont say it is fine. I have a HIV case in my near family. But some times everyone should step a few meters (or inches) a way from the picture and see at the whole construction to get a understanding what is going on in the world.
In other words: I don't like the 'solution', but there has to be one. There is surely a better way, but sadly the people who had the power to decide over it, have chosen to retain their power. :'(
And to be honest life is that easy: It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us.
Moral is unnatural being, it's a product of the ideology we life in. Why should be the Islam be wrong and the Catholics right? Why is believe in nothing else as the hard facts of science better as any religion? People do act out of the same motivations in whole world, but the plenty ideas of moral does given it different directions. Peace is an illusion as long we do not share the same moral (have you seen the film 'Hero' or played MGS3?).
I personally like the idea of The Boss: "... But the Earth itself has no boundaries. No East, No West, No Cold War. And the irony of it is, the United States and the Soviet Union are spending billions on their space programs and the missile race only to arrive at the same conclusion. In the 21st century everyone will be able to see that we are all just inhabitants of a little celestial body called Earth. A world without communism and capitalism... that is the world I wanted to see. But reality continued to betray me."
-
About 0.4% of the world's population is supposed to be infected with HIV. I don't think this prevented the world from being overrun. ;)
-
Yes and there are also people which are immune to it. But who says that it is the only biological weapon? And I guess there are plenty of other possibilities to let people die. But it is an example of how pervert mankind can be...
-
The solution was a biological weapon researched under the codename MK Naomi (yes that's why the nurse in MGS is called Naomi), better known as HIV or AIDS.
I know AIDS is a synthetic virus. As well as Ebola. They give profit to one of the biggest mafias in the world, the WHO. But that's not the topic, and don't think they were created for world population control, but as a racial bioweapon.
In other words: I don't like the 'solution', but there has to be one. There is surely a better way, but sadly the people who had the power to decide over it, have chosen to retain their power. :'(
The solution, then, is to exterminate the people?(but not any kind of people ah, only the POOR people) Yeah, like rats.
Anyway, what I said has nothing to do with overpopulation, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about this energetic war, where USA invades every country he wants under the propaganda of "potential terrorism" or "alleged possession of nuclear weapons", just because they "suffered" an attack. Well, not always, sometimes they also invades countries because they are "defenders of freedom", and they remove dictatorial regimes. Hmmm... I wonder where were they at the end of WWII, when Franco ruled in Spain and Stalin wanted to remove him. Oh, I forgot, they was interested in Franco because he was a fascist and Spain had a communist history. For me, it smells like double standards.
Sorry Kaldarasha, but I cannot agree with you, life is not that easy, we're like sheeps in a pen, we do know nothing because they fool us everytime, everywhere. Our society is corrupted to the core, that's for sure, and those who are supposed to fight for our interests, act against us and laugh at our faces.