If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

a reply to: skyeagle409

No you don't have videos of AA11 and UA175 striking the towers, you have videos of SOMETHING striking the towers.

The photos or videos of what struck the north tower are sparse and don't show much. They do not prove in any way that it was AA11, and while you might believe every word from American Airlines, I do not.

As for the aircraft that struck the south tower, it was not UA175. Because the government quickly invoked secrecy on the few parts recovered, including the fairly recent find of some flap assembly pieces found at the Burlington Coat Factory, there is no way to prove exactly from which aircraft they came. That government secrecy is the dead giveaway that they have something to hide, at least for those of us able to connect the dots. They have something to hide, because if made public, the cat would be out of the bag. Further, analysis of the photos of that aircraft show fairings that are not present on airliners.

So this is another claim of yours that demonstrates the misinformed quality of your posts.

a reply to: Salander

No you don't have videos of AA11 and UA175 striking the towers, you have videos of SOMETHING striking the towers.

The photos or videos of what struck the north tower are sparse and don't show much. They do not prove in any way that it was AA11, and while you might believe every word from American Airlines, I do not.

I do, because even the engine manufacturer, Rolls Royce, can confirm that their engines were lost at ground zero as well. Now, let's take a look.



Now, we can take a look here.

American 11 Strikes WTC 1

Photo: American 11 Wreckage

Photo: American 11 Fuselage Wreckage

Photo: Life Vest from American 11

Photo: Landing Gear and Tire From American 11

Jet Debris Near 9/11 Site Is Identified as Wing Part

Plane wreckage found last week behind a building in Lower Manhattan and apparently deposited there in the Sept. 11 attacks is part of a wing flap — not part of the landing gear — from a jumbo jet of the same model as those that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Police Department’s chief spokesman said on Monday.

cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...

As for the aircraft that struck the south tower, it was not UA175. Because the government quickly invoked secrecy on the few parts recovered, including the fairly recent find of some flap assembly pieces found at the Burlington Coat Factory, there is no way to prove exactly from which aircraft they came.

All it takes is to identify the location where the part was found since we know the headings each airliner was flying at the time of mipact.

Picture Depicting Flight Paths of American 11 and United 175

In addition, the part found near ground zero more recently was not the landing gear, it was from part of the wing of a B-767. Now, let's take a look at United 175.

Photo: United 175

Photo: United 175 Fuselage Wreckage

Photo: Engine From United 175

And we have videos of United 175 as it slams into WTC 2.





And you made this false claim that I will post once again.

Salander wrote:

No you don't have videos of AA11 and UA175 striking the towers...

However, your claim was proven false because there are in fact, a number of videos available. Let's take another look at the WTC Towers.

Photo: WTC Towers in Sunlight

That government secrecy is the dead giveaway that they have something to hide, at least for those of us able to connect the dots. They have something to hide, because if made public, the cat would be out of the bag. Further, analysis of the photos of that aircraft show fairings that are not present on airliners.

That is false. The fact that you failed to do your homework in regard to B-767 wreckage at ground zero is another prime example of how the Truth Movement has made a mockery of itself over the years.

BTW, radar tracked American 11 and United 175 to New York City.

Tracking American 11

Tracking United 175

Sky, you really are something. Your own videos show evidence of fowl play but your to blind to see it. I think you need glasses.

And the above post is correct, you CANNOT tell what is flying into the North tower, there is NO positive ID of what the object is, Period... That is a fact you cannot dispute. However I am sure you will try..

a reply to: wildb

Sky, you really are something. Your own videos show evidence of fowl play but your to blind to see it. I think you need glasses.

Fowl play on the part of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who have admitted they were responsible.

And the above post is correct, you CANNOT tell what is flying into the North tower, there is NO positive ID of what the object is, Period...

That is false. As a pilot of over 45 years, I know what to look for and I can see the wings and tail of American 11 and I know that the sound in the video is that of the type of engine used by American 11.

The fact that wreckage from American 11 was recovered makes your claim rather lame. I also noticed that you ignored the photos of American 11 wreckage and radar data information.

Photo: American 11 Landing Gear Wheel

Photo: American 11 Landing Gear Wheel

Photo: Seat Belt From American 11

Photo: American 11 Wreckage

No missiles, nukes, space beams weapons, nor military aircraft were responsible for the destruction of the WTC Towers. Those claims are false and has done much to make a mockery of the Truth Movement.

That is false. As a pilot of over 45 years, I know what to look for and I can see the wings and tail of American 11 and I know that the sound in the video is that of the type of engine used by American 11.

So you have super human eye site now? and you were there when it happened so you heard it? if not your statement is worthless.

No missile nor military aircraft crashed into the WTC Towers. Those claims are false and has done much to make a mockery of the Truth Movement.

I never said that did I... but where is your proof..

The fact that wreckage from American 11 was recovered makes you claim rather lame. I also noticed that you ignored the photos of American 11 wreckage and radar data information.

No I did not ignore them, I have seen them before, that is not proof of anything...

As for the radar tracts , they are a big part of the big picture, you would know that if you knew what happened in Cleveland, but you don't.. I would ask you but I am still waiting for you to answer my first question, but you will not because you don't know the answer..

a reply to: Salander

Um, no. The investigations started on the morning of 9/11. There were a couple dozen city, state, federal agencies involved. Now, what YOU are complaining about is the 9/11 Commission, which was created November 2002.....less than 14 months later, not quite the 2 years you think.

Again, some proper research undertaken will clear up the many fallacies you seem to believe in about that day.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Um, no. The investigations started on the morning of 9/11.

Um, no. there was no investigation started on the morning of 911, if anything there was a cover up starting on the morning of 911.

a reply to: wildb

So you have super human eye site now? and you were there when it happened so you heard it? if not your statement is worthless.

That doesn't fly because I have facts and evidence that back up what I say.

BTW, didn't you even bother to do any homework to determine that both of your videos were debunked with facts and evidence? For an example, in the first video, a person says that no windows were seen, but let's take a look here.

Do you see passneger windows on the fuselage section of United 175?

Photo: Windows on the Fuselage
Wreckage of United 175

Why yes indeed, passenger window are clearly evident on the fuselage wreckage of United 175. See how easy it was to debunk your video.

Now, let's take a look at your second video. It depicts a B-767 striking WTC 2, which makes it very easy to debunk your second video because in 2001, the military had no such aircraft.

Secondly, as someone who has modified large and small, including helicopters, I knew that none of the 9/11 aircraft were modified to fly under remote control because only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built and all are accountable and neither the B-767 nor the B-757 were fly-by-wire aircraft and could not have been modified to in such a manner without leaving paper trails from Washington State to Washington DC.

The government could not have acquired any B-767 or B-757 that cannot be tracked either and in fact, even the engine manufacturer's records can be used to track each of their engine as well, in addition to time-sensitive line replacement items for each of those aircraft and the FDR data and the conversion formulas which apply ONLY to the 9/11 airliners and no other aircraft.

As you can see, truther claims have been debunked by facts and evidence with no problem.

No I did not ignore them,..

You can't tell such a tale and not expect me to not notice. The wreckage of American 11 and United 175 are there for all to see and you missed the boat.

As for the radar tracts , they are a big part of the big picture,...

Why of course radar data is a part of the big picture considering that the 9/11 airliners were tracked from their airports of embarkations to their crash sites, and we can also use ACARS and ATC communication tapes to track and verify the airliners as well.

... you would know that if you knew what happened in Cleveland, but you don't.

Of course I do and I know that truthers confused the airframe of United 93, which was a B-757, with the airframe of Delta 1989, which was a B-767.

Check it out.

Rumor One: Cleveland Mayor Mike White told reporters that United 93 haD landed safely at Hopkins on 9/11

Evidence Against: Former Mayor White hardly ever talks to the media now, so Free Times contacted his former press secretary Della Homenik.

"It has always been my understanding that United flight 93 diverted from its intended flight plan while it was in Cleveland air space," Homenik writes in an e-mail. "I never heard a single report, from any source, either on September 11 or in its aftermath, that flight 93 landed in Cleveland."

A review of WEWS Cleveland Channel 5's live coverage of White's comments that day show that he never suggested that the grounded plane parked at the end of a Hopkins runway was United 93.
Later, we would learn that this 767 was Delta flight 1989. It had originated from the same Boston airport as United 93, but was cleared by inspectors after landing at Hopkins. It had not been hijacked, and there was no bomb.

www.911myths.com...

Rumor Two: United 93 deboarded at NASA Glenn Research Center and its passengers were taken away in an unmarked shuttle.

Evidence For: Newspaper articles published after 9/11 suggest there were two planes, not one, that were forced to land in Cleveland. One was Delta 1989. The other is often referred to as "Flight X" but is assumed by many to be United 93.
Bloggers claims that eyewitnesses saw civilians being loaded onto military bus ses at NASA Glenn. They were whisked away to some undisclosed location, never to be seen again.

Now, for the rest of the story

So what about the so-called Flight X?

"A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. (Also known as "the vomit comet," KC-135's are used to simulate weightlessness.

The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

As you can see, truthers had confused Delta 1989 as United 93, and scientist from a KC-135 as passengers from United 93. BTW, United 93 was tracked by radar to its crash site near Shanksville, and nowhere else. I might also add that over 90% of the wreckage from United 93 had been recovered and its passengers and crew have been positively identified from recovered human remains and personal items.

a reply to: wildb

I never said that did I... but where is your proof..

I already posted proof in the form of wreckage and radar tracking information. Read my previous post. In addition, ACARS did not depict any of the 9/11 airliners landing anywhere and the reason is, they crashed.

No I did not ignore them, I have seen them before, that is not proof of anything...

Of course they are, a fact that you cannot deny with a straight face. Did you really think anyone could have planted engines, fuselage wreckage and landing gear wheels without anyone noticing?!

It's time for you to get serious for a change.

a reply to: Informer1958

...if anything there was a cover up starting on the morning of 911.

What cover-up?

According to intelligence warnings issued to the United States from countries around the world just prior to 9/11, which includes intelligence warnings from Russia and even from the Taliban in Afghanistan, their intelligence warnings had indicated that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would use hijacked airliners as weapons in their attack on America.

In addition, warnings were issued to the United States from the Philippines as far back as 1995. In other words, 9/11 had nothing to do with a false flag operation.

a reply to: skyeagle409

What cover-up?

According to intelligence warnings issued to the United States from countries around the world just prior to 9/11, which includes intelligence warnings from Russia and even from the Taliban in Afghanistan, their intelligence warnings had indicated that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would use hijacked airliners as weapons in their attack on America.

The silence of 14 months from our government after 911 proves there was a cover up. There was no investigation until the Jersey girls forced the government to form a 911 Commission.

Even if there were warnings they were ignored by the Bush administration, more reason for them to cover up their part of just ignoring the information that was giving to them.

So yes there was a cover up from the start. If you believe other wise, then you are in denial.

a reply to: Informer1958

The silence of 14 months from our government after 911 proves there was a cover up. There was no investigation until the Jersey girls forced the government to form a 911 Commission.

It had more to do with damage control. For example, how to explain to the American people why numerous warnings issued from around world that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in the final stages of carrying out their attack on the United States by using hijacked airliners and why those warnings were ignored.

It had nothing to do with a government false flag operation.

Why of course radar data is a part of the big picture considering that the 9/11 airliners were tracked from their airports of embarkations to their crash sites, and we can also use ACARS and ATC communication tapes to track and verify the airliners as well.

True.. www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

That doesn't fly because I have facts and evidence that back up what I say

That does not change the fact you cannot see what it is, but perhaps you can explain the flash..


www.serendipity.li...

Rumor One: Cleveland Mayor Mike White told reporters that United 93 haD landed safely at Hopkins on 9/11

www.thepowerhour.com...

. I might also add that over 90% of the wreckage from United 93 had been recovered and its passengers and crew have been positively identified from recovered human remains and personal items.

This crash....




So Sky, I'm not going to argue weather planes, the real flights or drowns or tankers hit the towers. It does not matter, the OS is a lie, in part or in full.

The buildings did not collapse, they disintegrated , how it was done is anyone's guess..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Pretty simple. If you believe the official explanation then move on with life secure in this truth. If not keep working to piece together what really happened and if the work is good enough then maybe it becomes the new truth.

The truth is very simple; fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC buildings. Experts in the field of structures, architectural, demolition implosions and firefighting, have concluded that fact. Question is; why have truthers clouded the facts with disinformation over the years?

Secondly, there was no 9/11 false flag operation. There was no way the government could have carried out such an attack and not get caught, especially in a country full of investigative reporters looking for a sensational story and where such an operation would have left papers trails across the country and around the world.

Maybe the truth is a mixture of the two. I will say the government is not exactly known as a beacon for truth and openness and any questions and accusations is because of their own actions.

That's correct, but how long did it take before the Watergate scandal was revealed? What would be the short-term and long-term consequences if it was revealed the government killed almost 3000 people as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?

Looking at the facts, the Taliban in Afghanistan was among those warning the United States of an impending terrorist attack and remember, had the Taliban turned over OBL, there would not have been a war in Afghanistan.

Iraq violated 16 UN resolutions after the Gulf War, so there was no reason for the government to carry out a 9/11 false flag operation as an excuse to invade either of those countries. Eventually, WMD was found in Iraq and tons of nuclear-related material was removed from Iraq.

The cost of those two wars have cost the United States thousands killed and wounded and the burden of trillions of dollars over the next three decades. In addition, the military suffered financially from those two wars and in some cases, some units were so strapped for cash that they didn't even have money to buy safety gloves and other units suffered cutbacks of breakfast items in Afghanistan.

Killing almost 3000 innocent people and causing billions of dollars in property damage on its own soil is not a valid excuse for the United States to get into such a dismal situation, which exposes the absolute absurdity of the Truth Moverment.

To put it simply, the Truth Movement is highly disrespectful to the 9/11 victims and their families.

That's your truth. Others and quite honestly I can see the point question how on earth a fire started so high up brought down three buildings, and many other questions. They question, again how the fire was so powerful to knock down three buildings left one passport at the scene, many strange things and if you do a deep dive great. Quite honestly didn't even know about building 7 till I saw someone mention it 18 months ago. It was interesting, a third building not hit, take damage from another on its top floors and blows out from the bottom. And so on. Are there logical explanations for all these? Maybe. Are they questions worth asking? Sure. I understand some information or reports on build 7 haven't been released/ complete? This and a ton of interesting points I have seen made. If so goes back to the government doing it to itself. Is this proof of a false flag no. But when you look at something like operation northwoods it proves it has been discussed and circulated. Can't say I find people who look at all of this and say false flag anymore unbelivable than people who say it happened as we have been told. Let's not kid ourselves here, our government lies a lot. They have proven they are liars and this sticks out even when they tell the truth.

a reply to: Informer1958 So now you accuse the thousands of FBI agents, ATF agents, NTSB agents, NYPD officers etc....who dropped everything that day and started investigating.....you are saying they are all liars. Nice

I have. I have shown there were no demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which is evident by the fact no demo explosions are seen nor heard on video and that seismic monitors did not detect demo explosions.

Edit to add, Can't forget this one, Sky you may be right about a few things but I think you are as someone said in denial .

a reply to: wildb

Apparently, the first video is not working. In regard to the second video, he is referring to a B-767, which was Delta 1989, not United 93, which was a B-757, which simply means it is a blunder on your part.

It is evident that you were unaware that your third video was debunked by the fact that passengers and crew from United 93 was recovered from the crash site near Shanksville, where over 90% of the wreckage was recovered.

The author of that video thinks that because he didn't see plane wreckage, he says that no plane crash near Shanksville, but let's take a closer look here first and tell us, why you do not see intact wreckage at the crash site of Caspian Flt 1701.

Crash Site of Caspian Flt 1708

Now, tell us why you do not see intact plane wreckage from the crash site of a Belview Alrlines B-737

Crash Site of Belview Airlines B-737

Now, tell us why you do not see intact plane wreckage at the crash site of PSA 1771

Crash Site of PSA 1771

When aircraft strike the ground at high velocities, there is not much in the way in intact wreckage. BTW, your video is false as well and has been debunked by facts and evidence.

Here are examples why your video doesn't measure up.

Photo 1: United 93 Wreckage at Shanksville

Photo 2: United 93 Wreckage at Shanksville

Photo 3: Black Box of United 93 Found

Photo 4: United Airlines Confirms the Loss of United 93

Text: United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:
United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.


Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected.At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site."It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified.

911research.wtc7.net...


Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families

The families of college student Toshiya Kuge of Tokyo and computer specialist Waleska Martinez of Jersey City, N.J., already have claimed some of their remains. Miller said Martinez's family took possession of her remains within weeks of the crash -- she was one of the first victims identified -- and Kuge's did the same before Thanksgiving. Miller identified the last of the bodies Dec. 19. He is still doing DNA tests on additional tissue samples.

old.post-gazette.com...

May I suggest that you start doing your homework before you post bogus and misleading videos and references?

Now, let's here it from the coroner in reference to United 93 and listen how he slams truthers for distorting his comments and the facts related to United 93.



Now, the clincher.

a reply to: wildb

Were you aware that all three of your videos have been debunked. BTW,. the sound effects of your second video was added and you fell for it.

None of your videos depicted demo explosions. Case in point. Here is the undoctored video of what you posted and notice that you don't hear demo explosions, which were added to your hoaxed video.

Let's do a review on your hoaxed video and listen to the added sound effects.



Now, let's listen to the original video notice that the sound effects added in your video are not evident in the original video.



In other words, you slapped me with another hoaxed video and I will keep that in my records for future reference.

Now, let's take a look here.

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

www.911myths....uote..._abuse.html

It was the sound of floors collapsing upon one another. Now, let's take a look at your second video.



There are no demo explosions heard as WTC 1 collapsed which means your video is flawed.

Now, in reference to your first video of WTC 2, let's take a close look at its collapse.



No demo explosions are heard as WTC 2 collapsed, which debunks your first video.

a reply to: skyeagle409

It had more to do with damage control.

Damage control is a cover up. Ben Laden had nothing to do with 911, the fact is he was not wanted on the FBI 10 most wanted for 911. Stop spreading disinformation.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Yes, that is what I am saying, you need to do some research on the topic and stop parroting mainstream propaganda.