The truth and other lies...

[meesbaker]

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.

[JeMaCheHi]

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

[Shard]

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.

[JeMaCheHi]

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.

[Shard]

"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.

[meesbaker]

@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.

[Shard]

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.

[JeMaCheHi]

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.

[meesbaker]

@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.

[JeMaCheHi]

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  .

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)

[meesbaker]

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.

[Covarr]

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.

[StickySock]

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.

[meesbaker]

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.

[LeonhartGR]

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."

[JeMaCheHi]

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.

[StickySock]

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. 

/sarcasm

[Kaldarasha]

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."

[meesbaker]

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.

[Kaldarasha]

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...

[JeMaCheHi]

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.