some new wtc/911 footage

[morkinva]

quicktime format

 

[ntdz]

It seems like it gets more shocking every time you see it...how sad...

 

[halik]

tfl

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Doesn't work for me. It DLs, says it's done but won't play.

 

[poMONKey]

Thanks for that link... in the beginning of the video, its eerie how in the background you can hear "This old man", obviously from a children's cd playing. Perfect sound track to a perfect crime. The other amazing thing is how the woman video taping this insane act says that the second plane that hit the north tower was a military plane... which is the crux of this catastrophe, and has been brought up again and again by people that witnessed this, to studies done on the video tapes that caught the action. The "evidence" on tapes that I've seen is unavoidable... that second plane was definitely NOT a commercial jet liner... the markings and the shape. Too many slip ups that are slowly getting through... ant they are HUGE in scope. Pearl Harbour was just an ice-breaker... the Gulf of Tonkin ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 ) was merely a test. Hitler did it with the Reichstag ( http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm ) and Bush did it with 9/11, but way better.

As you might tell, I happen to take to the theory that we did this... I'm very afraid, but theres too much evidence to think otherwise. I thought this the day after 9/11 and have been proven right again and again ever since. I've done too much research and watched hours and hours of video/movies... its happened before and, unfortunately, it will probably happen again. This country is under the control of total money worshiping, war mongering freaks that think they know a better way to play out this planet.

do the math and the research... its right under your nose


Some Sources:

Loose Change: 9/11 ( google video )
9/11 Mysteries
9/11 - Press for Truth

 

[Termagant]

So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.

 

[poMONKey]

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street" anyday.

read this, as its far from a "lady on the street" - http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=105783#105783

 

[blackangst1]

/groan

 

[Bitek]

Doesn't play right for me, but given the responses, it doesn't look like I'm missing anything..


What I don't get about these 9/11 conspiracy theories is how on one hand they think the gov't under GWB would be capable of orchastrating such a convincing attack and deception, and OTOH we have GWB and WMDs/Iraq.

Stupid is as stupid does

 

[poMONKey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
/groan

is that a groan cuz we were lied to, or is that a "oh, these lefty, conspirasy theorists" groan?

it sucks to think about this kind of thing happening anywhere, let alone your back yard... but give it some time and do some research... I certainly dont believe everything I read, or "see" for that matter ( being a graphic artist, I know what is capable in the "retouched photo/video" department ), and neither should anyone. I just happen to believe that history shows that our very government has done things, like pearl harbour, that are not to be believed.

read and look....

 

[poMONKey]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Doesn't play right for me, but given the responses, it doesn't look like I'm missing anything..


What I don't get about these 9/11 conspiracy theories is how on one hand they think the gov't under GWB would be capable of orchastrating such a convincing attack and deception, and OTOH we have GWB and WMDs/Iraq.

Stupid is as stupid does

GWB had NOTHING to do with anything... hes a F-ing idiot, figure head... thats all. theres a lot of smart a$$ people that are REALLY in charge. its their job...

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: poMONKey

Originally posted by: Hafen
Doesn't play right for me, but given the responses, it doesn't look like I'm missing anything..


What I don't get about these 9/11 conspiracy theories is how on one hand they think the gov't under GWB would be capable of orchastrating such a convincing attack and deception, and OTOH we have GWB and WMDs/Iraq.

Stupid is as stupid does

GWB had NOTHING to do with anything... hes a F-ing idiot, figure head... thats all. theres a lot of smart a$$ people that are REALLY in charge. its their job...

I see, so they tricked him as well as the entire world on live multi-network TV?

I would agree to an extent that GWB is an idiot ( as well as much of his cabinet, so they are duped too I guess) who is a stooge for others, I just think when it gets down to it, there are too many idiots in the world and organizing such a conspiracy would quickly involve one of them and they would F the whole thing up.

KISS, keep it simple stupid, this works because the more complicated something is, the more it is likely to fail.

 

[poMONKey]

Hafen, I didnt say GWB didnt know and condone this... he merely had nothing to do with the planning of it ( although his brothers were in charge of security for the WTC towers... hmmm )... they all knew, please... and they all went along with it.

simple...

 

[poMONKey]

look, we all ( normal-ish citizens ) live in "our world"... the politicians and government officials live in another world, totally their own, and detached from the one we live in... period. its obvious... everything is relative. "their" mission is to do for themselves and what "they" believe in. so why is it so crazy to think that "they" did this becasue "they" thought nothing more or better? if we can get to the moon, if we can create nuclear weapons, if "they" can run this F-ed up world the ways its run for centuries now.... then why couldnt a few "good men & women" think of a way to rid NYC of a white elephant ( the WTC towers... urban renewal ) and at the same time irradicate some other problems plagueing this country ( like Enron... building 7, that "they" demolished, housed all the records of Enron's tromp to stardom, not that they didnt figure that one out eventually, and among the governments highest offices, like the CIA ), or get into a war against a country ( iraq ) that had nothing to do with 9/11?

if you think that reading the newspaper and watching the evening news ( good gad, even if its NPR or BBC ) gives you the insight into what's really going on in this world... then I feel grossly sorry for your, and my kids. there are other resources out there that have no less importance or merit than fox or abc... use them.

 

[Genx87]

That 767 is painted in United Colors. That link is silly in trying to gaugesize differences to justify their paranoia.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.

/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.

 

[poMONKey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That 767 is painted in United Colors. That link is silly in trying to gaugesize differences to justify their paranoia.

and size diff doesnt matter? a 767 is one size and has one set of dimentions... a tanker has one size and one set of dimensions... I dont see the problem. a plane can be painted any color and with any emblem. no?

 

[alchemize]

whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: poMONKey

Originally posted by: Genx87
That 767 is painted in United Colors. That link is silly in trying to gaugesize differences to justify their paranoia.

and size diff doesnt matter? a 767 is one size and has one set of dimentions... a tanker has one size and one set of dimensions... I dont see the problem. a plane can be painted any color and with any emblem. no?

And you think some internet genius looking at blown up pictures can accurately scale the size?

Give me a break. I love the x-files but I think some people took Fox Mulder way too seriously in the 90s.

Edit: I read some of that thread. One of the conclusions and let me paraphrase this a bit.

It was a KC-767 being remote piloted with shourded missile canopy tipped with a flash flame missle to shock and awe effect for the pyschological effect.
I guess the theory goes, the 100,000 pounds of fuel wasnt enough, the military had to add missiles to the thing.

Seriously, stop and listen to yourselves for a second.

 

[poMONKey]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.

/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.

the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: poMONKey

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Termagant
So what's the evidence that plane wasn't commercial???

A military "pod" under the 2nd aircraft, which happens to be exactly where the fuselage mounted main undercarriage bulge is, as confirmed by numerous aviation experts as well as experts of lense and pixel effects in optical recordings?

Refuted without even following the link. Or is there some other "evidence" now?

I'll take my own eyes and knowledge of aviation, as well as that of countless experts, over the ideas of "some lady" on the street anyday.

/Agree. Will also add that that tower would have had to fall differently then it actually did if it was just a fighter jet. What where the towers built to withstand? Can't remember the size plane.

the towers were built to withstand multiple jet liner ( with full fuel tanks ) impacts... with the fire from burning jet fuel included in that calculation. the towers could withstand hurricane force winds... much greater than an impact from one plane. and buildings have burned for many hours more ( the WTC buildings burned for about an hour and a half, and "experts" say that most of the jet fuel burned off within a few minutes of impact ) without totally collapsing ( in about 9 seconds... free-fall speed ). the empire state building was hit full on by an airforce bomber years ago with less damage than one WTC building....

Wrong, it was built to withstand a 707 strike.
707 is much smaller than a 767.

I believe the bomber that hit the empire state building was either a B-24 or B26. Both of which are very small and travel much slower than a 767.

you may have a case if it was a B52 flying at full speed. Of course forgetting the two buildings were built differently and in completely different era's.

Edit: It was a B-25 that hit the empire state building.

Dimensions of the B-25

Length 52 ft
Winspan 67 ft
Loaded Weight 31,000 pounds
Max Speed 275mph

Dimensions of the 767-200
Length 159 ft
Winspan 156 ft
Loaded Weight 310,000 pounds
Max Speed 540mph

Somebody should know their physics and can calculate the differences in force both planes bring to the impact zone to show what a foolish comparison this is.

 

[poMONKey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: poMONKey

Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!

I'm not "dissing your bent", I think you are a complete tin-foil moron! :thumbsup:

As far as your schooling, after reading your grammar, spelling, and logic - I'm guessing that's still quite a work in progress for you...not going well I see.

Rock on dude!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: poMONKey

Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!

You are an absolute fool

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: poMONKey

Originally posted by: alchemize
whack a mole, whack a mole, they keep popping up!

I thought you were dissing the bent Im taking, but then I read your sig.... and Im still not sure what you're saying...

if its a "look hard enough and you'll find it" thing, then oh well... dis me for looking past the BS and the rhetoric of fear that has ensued since 9/11... if otherwise... rock on!

Please explain in full detail who exactly was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and why they did it. I would love to hear this...